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

[a2k]

Biz wise there is nothing to complain. They are doing what they are supposed to.

As personal tastes go, apart from WSDA I am not a big fan of what Disney is churning out.

SW was good but over-rated imo, ditto for MCU and the live-action series (Cinderalla, TJB, etc)

But Zootopia, Big Hero 6, Tangled, Frozen I loved.

 

EDIT: Really really rooting for POTC to get back on track.

Edited May 2, 2017 by a2knet

[grey ghost]

Not every studio has to specialize in art for art sake.

 

Remember when a huge segment of the population wished there were Marvel movies or decent Star Wars movie?

 

Disney specializes in above average fanboy films that make the general audience happy and nothing is wrong with it.

[grey ghost]

If it's so easy to do what Disney then why don't other studios do it?

 

Because they are starving artists who hate money?

 

Fucking communist hippies.

[Plain Old Tele]

From a personal perspective, I think it's a shame that Disney -- the company with arguably the greatest clout and least financial risk -- has chosen a path that excludes almost any original live-action effort. I understand why they do it financially, I just think the film world overall is lessened by their choices. 

[JonathanLB]

Well considering they're making the best movies of the year every year, yeah, they're doing a lot right. The Marvel movies haven't missed once so far, every single one of them has been good to great, and Star Wars maintains it's A+ quality as usual. Disney is owning because they deserve it. Make great movies and you're going to see great results with the right marketing.

[Plain Old Tele]

IMO, Disney hasn't made the best movie of the year since... well, 2000 is as far back as I go with my detailed ratings. You might be able to convince me 2008 was an exception. Maybe.

[JonathanLB]

And that's fine, but as a Star Wars fan, they're going to have the best movie of the year every year as long as they maintain the quality so far. There hasn't ever been any competition for best movie of the year any year a SW movie has come out, and certainly not the last two years, either. 

[Plain Old Tele]

Just now, JonathanLB said:

And that's fine, but as a Star Wars fan, they're going to have the best movie of the year every year as long as they maintain the quality so far. There hasn't ever been any competition for best movie of the year any year a SW movie has come out, and certainly not the last two years, either. 

 

But why should being a SW fan be the determining factor?  (I'm a big SW fan too, btw.)

[Mulder]

Disney does great blockbusters and thoughtful animation. Can't really complain. Sure would it be cool if Disney did Arrivals and Moonlights? Yeah. But they don't need to do that because other studios are doing them. But that's just my P.O.V.

[grey ghost]

I for one, welcome our fanboy overlords.

 

No but seriously, if the general audience loves fanboy movies and sharing the fanbom with their friends and family then do we really need a mega-corporation like Disney to focus on indie films?

 

If you think about it, four quadrant fanboy franchises and Disney is a match made in heaven.

 

Let the other big studios innovate during their struggle to remain relevant and prosperous.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by grey ghost

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, JonathanLB said:

And that's fine, but as a Star Wars fan, they're going to have the best movie of the year every year as long as they maintain the quality so far.

 

There is an honesty and clarity personnal bias (to the point to already call in advance the movie you will call the best in 2020 a year that 15 000+ movies will be made, as long as it is an ok movie they don't mess up, and I don't doubt that it will be true that it will be your best experience in theater) that is refreshing, I'm sure that many has but will lie to themselve saying that they think it was the best movie for is craftmanship and qualities, not fandom.

 

But that is not best movie or at least a bit of a strange definition of best movie.

 

Quote

do we really need a mega-corporation like Disney to focus on indie films?

 

We do not need anything it is just movies, the Disney brand is perfect for family movie and no want one ask them to hurt them by ever selling a movie not good for a 7 year old like all their movie are right now with the Disney logo.

 

You could want them to finance and distribute a Miramax output like in the past, zero effort letting the creative control to a Weinstein, as for why whishing they would do it is simply whishing every studio would to have more well funded with enough shooting days an playing in theater near you movie for adults.

[bladels]

So because Pixar and WDAS brands are so strong, their movies aren't counted as original anymore?

Disney released 2 really really good original movies last year - Zootopia & Moana 

[Firepower]

People forget that movie industry is a business and studio's main goal is to make money, so they don't care if their choices are safe. It's all about profit. People put Pixar on the table because they make original properties, but the only reason they do is because it. makes. a lot of money. Pixar itself is a brand. If their movies had flopped, Disney would have shutted them down. Disney killed their original movies like Tomorrowland because they all flopped. Any trend exists as long as it's profitable.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Firepower

[AniNate]

2 hours ago, Tele Came Back said:

From a personal perspective, I think it's a shame that Disney -- the company with arguably the greatest clout and least financial risk -- has chosen a path that excludes almost any original live-action effort. I understand why they do it financially, I just think the film world overall is lessened by their choices. 

 

 

If by "original live action efforts" you're including the shitty sub-Disney Channel quality family comedies that filled out much of their slate through the 90s and 00s, I'm very much glad they don't do those anymore.

 

Yes, they are mostly franchise driven now, just like everyone else. But I'm not sure what people really want when they say they want more originality from them. Even today they're not completely averse to taking risks (original Pixars like Coco should count and I think A Wrinkle in Time counts as a risk even if it's not technically original)

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by tribefan695

[peludo]

This can be an endless debate. I obviously understand why Disney is making what they are making. This is business and they are here to earn as much money as they can, even more after the enormous investments they did acquiring LucasFilms, Pixar, Marvel,... But even if they make 1 or 2 original films per year, my feeling (and I guess of many others) is that they have become mainly a franchises/sequels/reboots/remakes factory, exploiting the ideas they have bought or the ideas they already had X years ago. Nothing wrong with that, absolutely legitimate, but I would prefer another thing. Probably, I am too idealistic, but they have lost the magic they had. Of course, this is strictly my opinion.

[baumer]

Lazy? Hardly. You dont have to like their movies but that doesnt make them lazy.

[TalismanRing]

1	The LEGO Batman Movie	WB	$174,691,628	4,088	$174,691,628	100.0%	2/10/17
2	Kong: Skull Island	WB	$165,487,121	3,846	$165,487,121	100.0%	3/10/17
3	Going in Style (2017)	WB (NL)	$37,346,914	3,076	$37,346,914	100.0%	4/7/17
4	Fist Fight	WB (NL)	$32,187,017	3,185	$32,187,017	100.0%	2/17/17
5	CHiPs	WB	$18,360,013	2,464	$18,360,013	100.0%	3/24/17

 

 

That is what Warner's has released so far this year.   Fist Fight is the only original property.... Fist Fight

 

These are the scheduled future releases for this year - filled with Franchises (Lego & DCEU), remakes & sequels (It, King Arthur, Annabelle, Blade Runner, Chicken Soup For The Soul).  One YA Book adaptation (Everything) , two comedies (House, Bastards) , one film about an historical event (Dunkirk) courtesy of give him a blank check Nolan and a much delayed disaster movie (Geostorm) they'd probably rather not be on the hook for  - the last two being WB's only original tent poles.
 

Chicken Soup for the Soul	Warner Bros.	2017
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword	Warner Bros.	5/12/17
Everything, Everything	Warner Bros.	5/19/17
Wonder Woman	Warner Bros.	6/2/17
The House	Warner Bros. (New Line)	6/30/17
Dunkirk	Warner Bros.	7/21/17
Annabelle: Creation	Warner Bros. (New Line)	8/11/17
It	Warner Bros. (New Line)	9/8/17
Ninjago	Warner Bros.	9/22/17
Blade Runner 2049	Warner Bros.	10/6/17
Geostorm	Warner Bros.	10/20/17
Justice League	Warner Bros.	11/17/17
Bastards (2017)	Warner Bros.	12/22/17

 

So much innovative quality.  That 18 releases is also down considerably from their previous schedules.

[alisson23]

19 minutes ago, baumer said:

Lazy? Hardly. You dont have to like their movies but that doesnt make them lazy.

English is not my first language. The most appropriate word in Portuguese has no English translation. I believe that the adjective "lazy" serves to define "a company that wants to enrich (more), but does not take big risks". (Read first post) If you have any word that define this better in English, you can tell me. Also, I put a (???) for us to discuss here. It would be great to see arguments.

Edited May 2, 2017 by alisson23

[baumer]

Sorry @alisson23. I wasnt criticizing you. I think its a great thread with great discussion. Ill contribute more later.

[alisson23]

6 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

1	The LEGO Batman Movie	WB	$174,691,628	4,088	$174,691,628	100.0%	2/10/17
2	Kong: Skull Island	WB	$165,487,121	3,846	$165,487,121	100.0%	3/10/17
3	Going in Style (2017)	WB (NL)	$37,346,914	3,076	$37,346,914	100.0%	4/7/17
4	Fist Fight	WB (NL)	$32,187,017	3,185	$32,187,017	100.0%	2/17/17
5	CHiPs	WB	$18,360,013	2,464	$18,360,013	100.0%	3/24/17

 

 

That is what Warner's has released so far this year.   Fist Fight is the only original property.... Fist Fight

 

These are the scheduled future releases for this year - filled with Franchises (Lego & DCEU), remakes & sequels (It, King Arthur, Annabelle, Blade Runner, Chicken Soup For The Soul).  One YA Book adaptation (Everything) , two comedies (House, Bastards) , one film about an historical event (Dunkirk) courtesy of give him a blank check Nolan and a much delayed disaster movie (Geostorm) they'd probably rather not be on the hook for  - the last two being WB's only original...

2 ORIGINAL comedies. Geostorm is "original" too, I guess. Dunkirk has Nolan, and...?? What's the problem?

At least Warner is trying.

I don't see Disney trying/giving its contribution.