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

[YM!]

1 minute ago, aabattery said:

 

... So all their currently titled remakes?

Dumbo, Mary Poppins, Jungle Book 2, Nutcracker, Little Mermaid, Cruella, Winnie The Pooh, Pinocchio, etc. don't count.

[aabattery]

1 minute ago, YourMother said:

Dumbo, Mary Poppins, Jungle Book 2, Nutcracker, Little Mermaid, Cruella, Winnie The Pooh, Pinocchio, etc. don't count.

 

I'll give you Dumbo (even then it has Danny DeVito so don't sleep on it) but the rest are either sequels or aren't in production, no? Admittedly I haven't paid to much attention to most of those.

[UrosepsisFace]

The worst part about Disney's success? The other studios are taking the same approach. Last year, the two most franchise-heavy, least-original studios made the most money. Can you really blame these studios, though? When Disney, Warner, Universal, or Fox try something original and spend a lot on the budget, you get the biggest-flops-in-history list. The top IP companies, Disney and Warner made the most money by far. 

 

Also, Zootopia (even though it might have been stolen) and Inside Out were two of the freshest movies in the last several years, imo. Makes up for carbon-copy B&tB which I still enjoyed, Episode 7 remake of Episode 4, and the recycling Marvel movie told with different costumes. 

 

In the end, blame the audiences. They're willing to give a new idea a chance if it's free and easily accessible at home, but they want to bet on the sure-thing/seen-it-already/RT-fresh at the box office, and they trust the Disney brand which is almost always fresh on RT. A studio should represent its audience. Mass appeal laziness for all and for the have-nots, they're just as lazy as many are just trying to ape Disney's success. If this is not to your liking, support what you find is creative and if movies are bankrupt; read a book or explore foreign movies! A few things I've enjoyed: The OA on Netflix, A Monster Calls, Korea's Train to Busan, or Korea's Handmaiden. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by UrosepsisFace

[That One Girl]

Just now, aabattery said:

 

I'll give you Dumbo (even then it has Danny DeVito so don't sleep on it) but the rest are either sequels or aren't in production, no? Admittedly I haven't paid to much attention to most of those.

 

Poppins has been in production for a while now and I think Cruella is in pre.

[alisson23]

6 minutes ago, YourMother said:

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.

I agree. It looks Disney doesn't want to has risks anymore. Every movie is from a brand or a remake now. I miss the times of Torrowland (bad movie, but bold move) and John Carter. Yeah, Disney wanted a franchise with those movies, but at least they tried something risk. Okay, I not saying Disney need spends 200m in a only original movie, but they need to do something out of brands. Some original, small movies...

[aabattery]

Just now, That One Valerian said:

 

Poppins has been in production for a while now and I think Cruella is in pre.

 

I was under the impression it was more of a sequel than a remake.

[GiantCALBears]

This is more of a speakeasy topic guys... 

[filmlover]

10 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

I'll give you Dumbo (even then it has Danny DeVito so don't sleep on it) but the rest are either sequels or aren't in production, no? Admittedly I haven't paid to much attention to most of those.

The Nutcracker is already filming (but that doesn't have a date yet).

 

Edit: actually filming has already concluded. I'm guessing Disney will move Mulan (which still doesn't have a cast) to March 2019 and will put Nutcracker on that November 2018 date.

Edited May 2, 2017 by filmlover

[That One Girl]

2 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

I was under the impression it was more of a sequel than a remake.

 

I suppose, but it's been more than 50 years since the first one so you might as well call it a remake at that point.

[YM!]

However it's not doom and gloom just yet. I could see Black Panther and Wrinkle in their top 5 domestic, even though they are adaptations both are very risky.

[Kvikk Lunsj]

People do not like original ideas they like franchises. They like to know what they are gong to get when they go to the movies.

[TalismanRing]

4 minutes ago, alisson23 said:

I agree. It looks Disney doesn't want to has risks anymore. Every movie is from a brand or a remake now. I miss the times of Torrowland (bad movie, but bold move) and John Carter. Yeah, Disney wanted a franchise with those movies, but at least they tried something risk. Okay, I not saying Disney need spends 200m in a only original movie, but they need to do something out of brands. Some original, small movies...

 

If they'd been successful (instead of costing Disney hundreds of millions of $s) they'd be having sequels now which you would then decry.  So what's your point?    John Carter based on 100 year old books isn't any more fresh or innovative than Marvel basing movies on 50 -75 yr old year old comic characters.

 

Some other "original "works brought up here:

 

The Handmaiden - it's a Korean version of a British novel, Fingersmith, that already had a British mini series.

Beguiled - Remake of the Eastwood movie

My Cousin Rachel - Remake of the DeHavilland/Burton film based on the DuMurier gothic novel

Murder on the Orient Express -  Remake of a book already made into a  movie and a mini series

The Greatest Showman - based on the Broadway Musical

King Arthur  - a centuries old legend made into multiple films, tv series, an animated movie and even a musical that was then made into a movie

 

It isn't the amount of franchise or brand material that Disney produces that bothers some people - it's monumental success of it.     Zootopia and Moana aren't less original work because they're part of  WDAS.  Their tent poles aren't any more unoriginal on avg than the tent pole from WB or Universal.  The difference is they no longer have Touchstone and Miramax and have concentrated mainly on releasing tent poles.

 

Though last year they released  Queen Katwe, Light Between The Oceans & The Finest Hours - in addition to a mid budgeted re-make or Pete's Dragon (that was a unique non remakish remake).  Except for Pete's Dragon the others didn't make money.  That kind of response often lessens the enthusiasm of a studio to make that kind of film. 

 

 

[alisson23]

10 minutes ago, Dexter of Suburbia said:

People do not like original ideas they like franchises. They like to know what they are gong to get when they go to the movies.

Sad but true. But this isn't a reason for not release a non brand/original movie. Warner and Uni have brands/franchises, for example. But they release new small movies every year.

[alisson23]

9 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

If they'd been successful (instead of costing Disney hundreds of millions of $s) they'd be having sequels now which you would then decry.  So what's your point?    John Carter based on 100 year old books isn't any more fresh or innovative than Marvel basing movies on 50 -75 yr old year old comic characters.

 

Some other "original "works brought up here:

 

The Handmaiden - it's a Korean version of a British novel, Fingersmith, that already had a British mini series.

Beguiled - Remake of the Eastwood movie

My Cousin Rachel - Remake of the DeHavilland/Burton film based on the DuMurier gothic novel

Murder on the Orient Express -  Remake of a book already made into a  movie and a mini series

The Greatest Showman - based on the Broadway Musical

King Arthur  - a centuries old legend made into multiple films, tv series, an animated movie and even a musical that was then made into a movie

 

It isn't the amount of franchise or brand material that Disney produces that bothers some people - it's monumental success of it.     Zootopia and Moana aren't less original work because they're part of  WDAS.  Their tent poles aren't any more unoriginal on avg than the tent pole from WB or Universal.  The difference is they no longer have Touchstone and Miramax and have concentrated mainly on releasing tent poles.

 

Though last year they released  Queen Katwe, Light Between The Oceans & The Finest Hours - in addition to a mid budgeted re-make or Pete's Dragon (that was a unique non remakish remake).  Except for Pete's Dragon the others didn't make money.  That kind of response often lessens the enthusiasm of a studio to make that kind of film. 

 

 

????

So do you think they are right stoping with original movies because they flopped? They don't need to do a original movie with 200m.

This year we had some "original" movies like Get out, A cure for wellness, Going to Style, A dog's purpuse (ok, is a adaptation, but not a remake), Fist Fight... From Disney? No.

[Barnack]

19 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

Light Between The Oceans

 

Would not surprise me if that was purely because they were contractually forced too on that old Dreamworks deal (it was the last movie of that deal) and they did a strange wide first weekend release with that type of movie.

[TalismanRing]

2 minutes ago, alisson23 said:

????

So do you think they are right stoping with original movies because they flopped? They don't need to do a original movie with 200m.

This year we had some "original" movies like Get out, A cure for wellness, Going to Style, A dog's purpuse (ok, is a adaptation, but not a remake), Fist Fight... From Disney? No.

 

 

Of those movies only Get Out was critically well received.  Fist Fight and A Cure For Wellness were also financial bombs.  Going In Style is a remake. 

 

I'm not sure how any of that proves those studios aren't "lazier" than Disney.
 

[Eevin]

Last year, Disney released The Finest Hours, The Light Between Oceans, and Queen of Katwe- all smaller, original live-action films that got decent to great reviews. 

They made $52m, $25m and $10m worldwide respectively. I agree that we need more original content in film, but I don't blame Disney for one second. They've tried and repeatedly failed.

If audiences don't go to see these types of films, Hollywood isn't going to make them. 

And saying that a movie isn't original just because it's animated is wrong and stupid. Inside Out and Zootopia's successes have been two of the most encouraging things in box office the past few years.

@alisson23 I feel your pain. I do. But it's not Disney that's changing. It's the audience's tastes.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Eevin

[TalismanRing]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

 

Would not surprise me if that was purely because they were contractually forced too on that old Dreamworks deal (it was the last movie of that deal) and they did a strange wide first weekend release with that type of movie.

 

That was part of the Dreamwork deal like BFG - and performances like they had at the B.O. are part of the reason there's no longer a Dreamworks deal and why they passed on Ghost In The Shell.

[WrathOfHan]

The successes of La La Land, Get Out, Split, and Hidden Figures show that audiences will go for original ideas, but they must be well made and have good marketing and strong buzz.

[JB33]

Can't really fault them because the public wants all these movies. I guess this is Disney's role in the industry: provide the audience with the big, quality movies based on the most popular properties in the world. I don't think Disney is losing any sleep over this either.