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

[Spidey Freak]

4 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

$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.  

 

Er... it is. After the success of Pirates and Alice, they were betting on his (then) star power to kickstart a new franchise. Also, whitewashing a lead/co-lead role with a big star steps on whatever other creative risks are being taken. Disney is not getting credit for TLR.

[robertman2]

GOTG might as well have been original. Coco, Inside Out, Moana, Zootopia are all original.

[Hatebox]

Spending 225m on TLR is more stupidity than bravery anyway. There's nothing impressive about out of control budgets.

[TalismanRing]

2 hours 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...

 

They did several last year - did you go see any of them?

 

725 movies were released last year into US theaters.  There is no shortage of variety.  Of course, domestically over 500 of those didn't make $2m and over 600 of them didn't make $20m.  

 

Movie studios are funny in that think they're running a business and when they have a choice often choose to make and release the films they think will make the most money.

 

Sony's film studio just took a $1b write down after losing $700m+ last year

 

If Paramount had more franchises and brands that brought in money they probably wouldn't have made the choice to release Arrival, Allied & Silence instead of say Rogue One (which had about the same budget as those films combined but made just a  wee bit more profit).  After all they're the same studio that gifted us The Return Of Xander XXX, Monster Trucks, Office Party and Ghost In The Shell. 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by TalismanRing

[alisson23]

7 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.

GO wasn't released here still. Well, nothing is 100% original. But there are movies try something.

[TalismanRing]

15 minutes ago, Spidey Freak said:

 

Er... it is. After the success of Pirates and Alice, they were betting on his (then) star power to kickstart a new franchise. Also, whitewashing a lead/co-lead role with a big star steps on whatever other creative risks are being taken. Disney is not getting credit for TLR.

 

It's not about creative credit.  Financially it was a big risk - one they didn't want to take and took active steps NOT to take when they pulled the plug. They thought the movie was wildly too expensive for the genre it was in and if it wasn't for the pre-existing relationships and trying to appease them they never would have green-lit it.  They got it cut down, and even then it was too large, but no matter Verbinksi blew it back up again during filming.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by TalismanRing

[MrGlass2]

2 hours ago, iJackSparrow said:

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.

 

And Disney owns Pixar. But they bought all these franchises/studios, they didn't create them.

Soon it will almost be a monopoly problem.

[ZattMurdock]

18 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

 

And Disney owns Pixar. But they bought all these franchises/studios, they didn't create them.

Soon it will almost be a monopoly problem.

As long as it's as amazing as it is, I have nothing against that. It's an US problem, and hardly the most worrisome one.

[Walt Disney]

This topic is so strange. Disney is perfecting the art of the blockbuster. They are making movies that the majority of people want to see. Box Office is merely a popularity contest; it says nothing about movie quality. On a box office site, I would think what Disney is doing would be admired.

 

Disney is not the only movie studio. There are lots of studios that make a variety of movies. Just because Disney isnt making the types of movies that you like does not mean that another studio isnt either. So dont watch Disney movies and go watch what you like. But the idea that Disney must make movies that fit your narrow criteria of "original" is ridiculous. Disney makes movies that the majority of people will pay to see in the movie theater. They are winning the game of box office. 

 

Lastly, the idea that animation cant be original is one that I do not agree with. Zootopia was very original and recent. You basically need to ignore the facts and hate animation to argue Disney doesnt sprinkle in a few "original" films with their other offerings.

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Walt Disney

[AniNate]

Animation has always been Disney's claim to fame. As long as that division is healthy that's all that matters as far as their artistic integrity is concerned.

[Barnack]

Couple of points:

 

1) Sony studio removed an accounting extra value they gave to Columbian that they had since they bought for a bigger amount than is market value back in the days, because studio movie collection, not linked to last year result in particular.

 

2) There is little bit of strawmen going on imo, the statement is now Disney make or distribute less than 12 movie a year in total, all giant franchise usually already establish and that it is a bit sad to have nothing else

 - The statement is not that it is wrong to the Jungle Book or SW 8, but to do nothing else so no need to defend those movies, it is not advanced that they are bad, no need to point out that all studios do some of them it is not advanced that is bad to do franchise movies.

 

- Pointing out to Disney tv movies instead of the Kill Bill and others much better stuff they were releasing via Miramax.

 

3) Yes there was 700 release if you were in a big cities, a lot of wide release too, the number of release is already kind of too big, certainly big enough in numbers, the numbers of original (or more importantly director movie) movie that get 80+days of shoot, rehersal time, a real score, something like Gone Girl level of production is getting rarer and a modern Disney  funded Miramax would be nice to have more of those. There is more and more movies, but less and less studio movie.

 

4) Movie being a purely for profit business, street creed, ego being in the star system, etc... play a big part of movie financing (probably much less in Disney that finance much by themselve than elsewhere) but it is an industry in general that is one of the less just for profit out there (versus say roads building or chair making).

 

5) It is certainly true that a franchise title may as well be original and be an original movie, like pointed out Pixar is a brand in itself and it did Inside out, Disney Animation is a brand too, Zootopia, Star Wars/Marvel could too, they did on Guardian of the Galaxy and maybe Lord&Miller star wars will be a Lord&Miller movie, maybe Thor 3 will be a giant Waititi comedy and that awesome.

 

6) Disney will probably need to, they will not be able to release in 2025 a slate of movies that are live actions wise star wars, marvel, jones, live action remake of classic, pirates, they will need very soon to launch new one (or buy new one) or they could get in really big trouble.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Barnack

[AniNate]

Why do people care about the ratio of indie films to studio films? Shouldn't it be a good thing that the industry isn't limited to the big players anymore?

[Barnack]

9 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

Why do people care about the ratio of indie films to studio films? Shouldn't it be a good thing that the industry isn't limited to the big players anymore?

 

Indie vs studio is obviously not relevant, it is well funded and produced, nice production time and playing in a convenient location near me that are and that usually need a studio to get involved.

 

Competition is certainly good, but the studio output goes down and down every year (movies side)

[Goffe]

9 hours ago, Mulder said:

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.

Not for long if Disney continues to dominate the market and the likes of Arrival keep returning so little.

[AniNate]

5 minutes ago, Goffe said:

Not for long if Disney continues to dominate the market and the likes of Arrival keep returning so little.

 

$200 million box office on a $50 million budget? Yeah, so little...

[Goffe]

5 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

 

$200 million box office on a $50 million budget? Yeah, so little...

Yes. Do you think investors and people who run studios look what The Avenegers has made and say 'yeah investing 50m on Arrival was super smart' or 'the little profit was worthy it'.

 

I wish they didn't think this way, but it is what it is.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Goffe

[ChipDerby]

Currently, the thread title is correct. But that's only been so for a few years. In a few years, it will change again. Always does. Marvel will probably break off on their own. Other animation studios are making more and more money. Their spot on the top will last for a while, but not as long as it seems.

[YM!]

6 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:

Marvel will probably break off on their own.

It kind of is already. It's like the new Touchstone.

[The Futurist]

Just now, YourMother said:

It kind of is already. It's like the new Touchstone.

 

Not sure if serious.

 

 

[YM!]

Just now, The Futurist said:

 

Not sure if serious.

 

 

I think that's what @ChipMunky meant. As in a separate studio.