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

[a2k]

8 minutes ago, alisson23 said:

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.

 

I propose that the new word should be 'Disney'. 

"Gurrrl you are so disney you don't know. Why don't you take some risks to enrich yourself"

 

[TalismanRing]

14 minutes ago, alisson23 said:

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.

 

WB gets points for the cluster fuck that is a cheap looking disaster movie (Geostorm)  that they made 3 years ago and have tried to bury but Disney gets nothing for Coco since it's Pixar.  Made in China I guess also doesn't count since it's from a series of documentaries. 

 

OK

 

Disney doesn't want to make low brow comedies starring Man Boys.  Just maybe that might be a matter of taste rather than aversion to risk or lack of trying.  When Alan Horn ran WB (during it's LOTR, Nolan Batman Trilogy, Harry Potter hey dey) he HATED Hangover - thought it was tasteless - and didn't even want to release it.  That stance was part of the reason WB let him go, for being old and out of touch, and he now runs Disney.

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by TalismanRing

[a2k]

I would say a movie like GOTG is a big risk. I remember thinking, like many other people, it would be one of the lowest grossing MCU CBMs. MCU now seems like a well oiled machine but it was a big risk when it was conceived. B-Tier SH like IM become an A-Tier SH and that was a big risk. 

 

As regards to live-action movies like TJB and BATB, it is risky to mess with beloved properties (eg; Ghostbusters). Had Ghostbusters worked for Sony it would not have seemed like a risk but only now we realize that there is an inherent risk in projects we consider safe. Ditto for TLK.

[alisson23]

34 minutes ago, peludo said:

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.

Great post. I agree with you but I think Disney should to do the 2 things. They have enough money to do both, original movies and explore its franchises. I like many unoriginal movies they do, but come on, let's give a chance for new things too.

 

9 minutes ago, baumer said:

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

No problem.

Nice!

 

[grey ghost]

35 minutes ago, alisson23 said:

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.

 

I think the term you're looking for is "too safe".

 

 

[ZattMurdock]

Disney owns Marvel and Star Wars. Oh, and Indiana Jones. Everyone else is lagging behind. So lazy is definitely not the word I'd say it's appropriate for this conversation.

[alisson23]

37 minutes ago, a2knet said:

 

I propose that the new word should be 'Disney'. 

"Gurrrl you are so disney you don't know. Why don't you take some risks to enrich yourself"

 

a2net, you are so Disney. Give us an original contribution like @grey ghost gave, please.

[grey ghost]

I think the saying is, "one man's trash is another man's treasure".

 

You guys are complaining about Disney focusing on "disposable" entertainment like Star Wars 9, Black Panther and Infinity War.

 

I've been dreaming about these movies since the early 80's and watching them with my family is on my bucket list. So for some of us seeing these "franchises" done and done well is not a shallow experience in the least. 

 

I loved watching Jungle Book with my daughters. It was a priceless experience. Does it matter to me that it wasn't based on a completely new idea? Nope, the fact that it explored pre-existing material only added to the experience imo.

 

Nostalgia allows us to share our most powerful and amazing memories of films/books/tv and discover their extended timeline with our children and grand children.

 

It's actually a pretty cool gift when you think about it. Maybe we shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by grey ghost

[peludo]

3 minutes ago, alisson23 said:

Great post. I agree with you but I think Disney should to do the 2 things. They have enough money to do both, original movies and explore its franchises. I like many unoriginal movies they do, but come on, let's give a chance for new things too.

 

No problem.

Nice!

 

Sure. I have no problem with that. I will not say I do not see the films they do. I adore (most) of Pixar, I love Star Wars (although I think the new films are far from the original) and I enjoy some Marvel films. I would prefer another model, but I will continue consuming Disney.

[alisson23]

6 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

I think the saying is, "one man's trash is another man's treasure".

 

You guys are complaining about Disney focusing on "disposable" entertainment like Star Wars 9, Black Panther and Infinity War.

 

I've been dreaming about these movies since the early 80's and watching them with my family is on my bucket list. So for some us seeing these "franchises" done and done well is not a shallow experience in the least. 

 

I loved watching Jungle Book with my daughters. It was a priceless experience. Does it matter to me that it wasn't based on a completely new idea? Nope, the fact that it explored pre-existing material only added to the experience imo.

 

Nostalgia allows us to share our most powerful and amazing memories of films/books/tv and discover their extended timeline with our children and grand children.

 

It's actually a pretty cool gift when you think about it. Maybe we shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

 

 

 

 

I think you didn't understand the point of this topic still.

There's no problem for living doing nostalgic movies, but why not to do "original" things TOO? To give a small chance for new ideas like Get out, A cure for wellness, Arrival... not only focus on brands...

[The Futurist]

9 hours 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.

 

And it ain't nothing new at all.

 

 

[The Futurist]

8 hours ago, WrathOfHan said:

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.

[The Futurist]

5 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. 

 

Come back to me when you will have done movies like Tomorrow Land, Prince of Persia, John Carter and Lone Ranger.

[Spidey Freak]

55 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Come back to me when you will have done movies like Tomorrow Land, Prince of Persia, John Carter and Lone Ranger.

 

In studio exec perspective, whitewashing falls (or fortunately now, used to fall) squarely in the middle of playing it safe.

[Hatebox]

It's hard to feel strongly about Disney now one way or another, just as it's hard to feel strongly about any large holding company.

[XO21]

There are tons of indie and original movies out there even if Disney released them they'd flop in any case...see Tomorrowland, John Carter

[TalismanRing]

20 minutes ago, Spidey Freak said:

 

In studio exec perspective, whitewashing falls (or fortunately now, used to fall) squarely in the middle of playing it safe.

 

$225m for a period Western based on a TV series from the 1950s who's main fan base were in their 70s and 80s isn't any kind of playing it safe even with Depp in the lead.  This movies started out at Columbia Pictures in 2002 and was planned to be made for $70m with Tonto re-imagined as a love interest (not gay).  Disney pulled the plug on it once because of the budget and only came back to it when it was cut 20% and then it ballooned again when filming.  Even though it was brought to them by Bruckheimer it was probably only made because of Disney's relationships with Verbinksi and Depp and trying to appease them and wnating to work with them on other projects.  Similarly they gave Stanton too much rope on John Carter  and let Brad Bird do whatever he wanted with Tomorrowland.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by TalismanRing

[Jessie]

1 hour ago, alisson23 said:

I think you didn't understand the point of this topic still.

There's no problem for living doing nostalgic movies, but why not to do "original" things TOO? To give a small chance for new ideas like Get out, A cure for wellness, Arrival... not only focus on brands...

 

Get out was hardly original. It was basically You're Next but better recieved because it was made my black people.

[Hatebox]

2 minutes ago, Jessie said:

 

Get out was hardly original. It was basically You're Next but better recieved because it was made my black people.

 

[The Futurist]

Originality is in the eye of the beholder IMO.