Disney: Currently the biggest, most powerful, smartest and (??)most safe(??) movie company in the world.

[YM!]

5 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

So Pixar doesn't count. Okay.

 

What about Zootopia? Moana? 

Nope because apparently brand names don't count despite Blumhouse being one.

[AniNate]

It's not like Warner or Universal or Fox are shining examples of original filmmaking, either. 

[alisson23]

Just now, filmlover said:

 

It was a irony, there's nothing original in that movie. I was really shocked after I watched it because I don't believe it had good reviews from professional critics.

 

[YM!]

Just now, alisson23 said:

It was a irony, there's nothing original in that movie. I was really shocked after I watched it because I don't believe it had good reviews from professional critics.

 

Jurassic World is your example. @Tele Came Back knows.

[alisson23]

3 minutes ago, YourMother said:

Nope because apparently brand names don't count despite Blumhouse being one.

Okay, I forgot that, still, there are many others movies.

[YM!]

To be honest, although I like Lucasfilm/Marvel/WDAS/Pixar, Disney's live action slate has become nothing but cash grab remakes, if they were to remake a less beloved animated movie like Atlantis/Brother Bear/Treasure Planet, I'd be okay with that since there's a good chance it can improve. Disney used to bring use stuff more original live action films like Pirates, Flubber, National Treasure, etc. Remakes should be use to redo bad/mediocre/flawed films. Although Pixar is breaking free from their sequel state (Pixar said after TS4, their next 5 films will be original), and WDAS only doing 2 sequels seems to be a good sign, The only non Lucasfilm/Marvel films like @That One Valerian said before, I'm anticipating are Wrinkle In Time, Incredibles 2, Coco, and Wreck It Ralph 2.

Edited May 2, 2017 by YourMother

[WrathOfHan]

12 minutes ago, alisson23 said:

The end... Simple but "original", bold at least. 

 

That shit wasn't original.

Spoiler

The scene plays out almost exactly like acclaimed science-fiction film Gravity's ending but with a sad ending.

 

[That One Girl]

15 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

It's not like Warner or Universal or Fox are shining examples of original filmmaking, either. 

 

Yeah, but it's also not like their entire slate is sequel/franchise based.  This year alone, Warner has King Arthur, Everything Everything, The House, Dunkirk, It, Geostorm, and Bastards.  Universal has Girls Trip, American Made, Half to Death, Snowman, and Thank You for Your Service.  And Fox has Snatched, Mountain Between Us, Murder on the Orient Express, The Greatest Showman, and The Post.

Edited May 2, 2017 by That One Valerian

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

The studio with the greatest IP slate in the history of the medium exploits it. Shocking.

[AniNate]

1 minute ago, That One Valerian said:

 

Yeah, but it's also not like their entire slate is sequel/franchise based.  This year alone, Warner has King Arthur, Everything Everything, The House, Dunkirk, It, Geostorm, and Bastards.  Universal has Girls Trip, American Made, Half to Death, Snowman, and Thank You for Your Service.  And Fox has Snatched, Captain Underpants, Mountain Between Us, Murder on the Orient Express, The Greatest Showman, and The Post.

 

Not exactly the most convincing counterargument. They're still by-and-large based on existing properties (and true stories if they're pining for an Oscar). 

 

And when people complain about Disney not doing enough original films I don't think throwaway comedies and disaster movies are what they have in mind

[YM!]

2 minutes ago, That One Valerian said:

 

Yeah, but it's also not like their entire slate is sequel/franchise based.  This year alone, Warner has King Arthur, Everything Everything, The House, Dunkirk, It, Geostorm, and Bastards.  Universal has Girls Trip, American Made, Half to Death, Snowman, and Thank You for Your Service.  And Fox has Snatched, Captain Underpants, Mountain Between Us, Murder on the Orient Express, The Greatest Showman, and The Post.

IT, Underpants, and maybe King Arthur count as Adaptations/Remakes/Brands. However I'd like to see Disney revitalize Touchstone, for comedies, dramas, sci-fi, and action films. If Disney did what they're doing now and 5-7 Touchstone films a year, they could have over 50% of the market share.

[That One Girl]

Just now, YourMother said:

IT, Underpants, and maybe King Arthur count as Adaptations/Remakes/Brands. However I'd like to see Disney revitalize Touchstone, for comedies, dramas, sci-fi, and action films. If Disney did what they're doing now and 5-7 Touchstone films a year, they could have over 50% of the market share.

 

I removed Underpants, but I think I'd keep IT since it seems to be a retelling of the story (plus it's not sequel nor franchise based), and King Arthur also fits under retelling of a story.

[YM!]

Just now, That One Valerian said:

 

I removed Underpants, but I think I'd keep IT since it seems to be a retelling of the story (plus it's not sequel nor franchise based), and King Arthur also fits under retelling of a story.

IT is still a remake/sequel though. King Arthur could fit in. Even WB isn't immune outside of New Line and comedies, the only time they do an original film is when Affleck or Nolan has something.

[That One Girl]

Also, to me, there's a difference between unoriginal but has an interesting route to take for the story, and unoriginal but has nowhere to go for the story.  For example, I'm excited for a majority of the franchise fare from WB (namely their MonsterVerse, Blade Runner, Lego, Tomb Raider, Ocean's 8, etc.) because I think they could go somewhere neat with the material. 

[YM!]

Just now, That One Valerian said:

Also, to me, there's a difference between unoriginal but has an interesting route to take for the story, and unoriginal but has nowhere to go for the story.  For example, I'm excited for a majority of the franchise fare from WB (namely their MonsterVerse, Blade Runner, Lego, Tomb Raider, Ocean's 8, etc.) because I think they could go somewhere neat with the material. 

Same here, even some of Disney's franchises/brands can do something creative (like Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm SW solo films, Pixar and WDAS), but cut out those films their slate is awful.

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

 

Not exactly the most convincing counterargument. They're still by-and-large based on existing properties (and true stories if they're pining for an Oscar). 

 

But those studio have branch dedicated in buying original stuff worldwide to distribute them (and producing some of them)

 

Universal via the Focus Feature arm has Monster Calls, Nocturnal Animal, Zookeeper wife and yet to be released this year:

The Book of Henry	Focus Features	6/16/17
The Beguiled (2017)	Focus Features	6/23/17
Atomic Blonde	Focus Features	7/28/17
Victoria and Abdul	Focus Features	9/22/17
Darkest Hour	Focus Features	11/24/17

 

 

Fox via fox searchlight had playing this year, Jackie, Gifted, United Kingdom, Table 19, Wilson and yet to be released:

My Cousin Rachel	Fox Searchlight	6/9/17
Patti Cake$	Fox Searchlight	7/7/17
Step (2017)	Fox Searchlight	8/4/17
Battle of the Sexes	Fox Searchlight	9/22/17
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri	Fox Searchlight	10/13/17
Goodbye Christopher Robin	Fox Searchlight	11/10/17
The Shape of Water	Fox Searchlight	12/8/17

 

And there is also a bigger and more important point arguably than franchise or not, creative control/final cut, Warner Brothers doing a "franchise" movie like Blade Runner 2049 or an big name historical event like Dunkirk or a book like Ready Player One but letting the director do what they want have final cut.  It would not even surprise me if in some case the studio will see the movie for the first time and know what it is really about when they see a rough cut, not that different than the final we will see is way different than having the toys department reading the script and making change, the product placement deciding shot composition so we see the brand of the car (a perfectly clean one even during destruction) correctly and longingly like on a Marvel movie.

 

And making a Guy Ritchie version of Arthur is arguably being nuts.

 

 

[aabattery]

I'm pretty much wait and see on most of Disney's stuff. I think they've done pretty well on their live-action remakes; both Cinderella and The Jungle Book we're improvements on their animated counterparts IMO.

 

A lotta people are shitting on their upcoming stuff, but they've got some good creative teams on them. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by aabattery

[alisson23]

20 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

That shit wasn't original.

  Hide contents

The scene plays out almost exactly like acclaimed science-fiction film acclaimed science-fiction film Gravity's ending but with a sad ending.

 

Life was a tribute to acclaimed science-fiction film Gravity and Alien. Still, a original tribute, IMO.

Even so, there are others original movies I have said.

[YM!]

1 minute ago, aabattery said:

I'm pretty much wait and see on most of Disney's stuff. I think they've done pretty well on their live-action remakes; both Cinderella and The Jungle Book we're improvements on their animated counterparts IMO.

 

A lotta people are shitting on their upcoming stuff, but they've got some good creative teams on them. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. 

Still the only remakes I'd consider seeing would be TLK, Mulan, and Guy Richie Aladdin. 

[aabattery]

1 minute ago, YourMother said:

Still the only remakes I'd consider seeing would be TLK, Mulan, and Guy Richie Aladdin. 

 

... So all their currently titled remakes?