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

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, Goffe said:

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'.

 

Avengers and Star Wars are maybe an exception (specially because of Merchandising), but the profit margin (even absolute) on a mid budget success and a large budget success are not necessarily that different, the big difference is that the large budget are much safer investment.

 

Sony made more profit from the 168 million at the box office Superbad (88 million net profit) than the 769 million at the box office movie 2012 (62.8 million net profit, Emmerich is the one making the big money with is share of the 120m participation bonus not the studio), 2012 was a much much safer investment thought.

 

When you look at what the Avengers made, you need to consider that they paid 4 billion upfront for it.

[AniNate]

11 minutes ago, Goffe said:

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.

 

But those movies will keep getting made, even if not necessarily by Disney. Why is it so essential to the future of cinema that Disney be the one making cerebral sci-fi films?

 

Heck, the way everyone gets so uppity around here about their huge budgets, you'd probably still be attacking them for irresponsible use of funds.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by tribefan695

[Goffe]

1 minute ago, tribefan695 said:

 

But those movies will keep getting made, even if not necessarily by Disney.

Will they? That's my point. Disney extreme success is pushing other studios to follow the same formula, and that's, by far, the worst thing about all of this.

[AniNate]

4 minutes ago, Goffe said:

Will they? That's my point. Disney extreme success is pushing other studios to follow the same formula, and that's, by far, the worst thing about all of this.

 

Yes, they will. Film buffs have been paranoid about this for at least the past decade but as long as new talents like Villeneuve keep rising up and pitching new ideas they'll keep finding producers who believe in them.

 

And if A Wrinkle in Time's a hit for Disney it's certainly not going to hurt the willingness they do have to take risks.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by tribefan695

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, YourMother said:

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

 

 

Touchstone was really an extreme case of just being purely a label

 

From a 2006 letter to the SEC:

 

Moreover, Touchstone is not a separate and distinct business operation but a brand used in the marketing and distribution of live-action films that are generally geared toward a more adult audience (e.g. PG-13 rated) than those released under the Disney-brand. Touchstone-branded films are produced and released using the same infrastructure support and the same operating assets (e.g. production facilities, distribution network, etc.) as the Company’s other film brands (e.g. Walt Disney Pictures and Miramax Films). The only significant assets that relate exclusively to Touchstone are capitalized film costs. These costs are accounted for in accordance with SOP 00-2, Accounting by Producers or Distributors of Films (SOP 00-2) on a title by title basis and evaluated for indicators of impairment quarterly. Impairments are determined as the excess of a film’s carrying cost over its fair value based on future estimated cash flows.

 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1001039/000100103907000090/filename1.htm

 

Marvel Studio is probably still more than that.

[ChipDerby]

I think if/when Marvel gets the rights back to Fantastic Four/Spider-Man/X-Men, they'll be big enough to become their own studio. And Disney will eventually not be able to just keep acquiring properties. That's not how a business is run. At some point you want to sell off assets to make more money.

[Barnack]

7 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

 

But those movies will keep getting made, even if not necessarily by Disney. Why is it so essential to the future of cinema that Disney be the one making cerebral sci-fi films?

 

Heck, the way everyone gets so uppity around here about their huge budgets, you'd probably still be attacking them for irresponsible use of funds.

 

So essential ? Attack ?

 

Nothing essential here, it is just movies, the worst case scenario we watch the ten of thousand of good one we have yet to see that already exist at home.

 

Disney don't have to make them or get involved into the making, funding and world distribution infrastructure for them like they were doing until very recently (via say Miramax) would be great and would not use much of a brain power and impact they current franchise slate at all. Audience would only gain, and loose nothing. Obviously that is not an advise for them, just a purely greedy on my part wish.

[AniNate]

Disney's film division could probably survive simply off of WDA and Pixar. Even if they do occasionally have a flop like The Good Dinosaur the slack would easily be picked up by the franchise movies both studios appear to have incorporated into their business strategies now.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by tribefan695

[Goffe]

Is it condemnable what Disney is doing? Of course not. Does that exempt their souless, same-y, uber safe movies from criticism? Heck no. 

[cannastop]

39 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:

I think if/when Marvel gets the rights back to Fantastic Four/Spider-Man/X-Men, they'll be big enough to become their own studio. And Disney will eventually not be able to just keep acquiring properties. That's not how a business is run. At some point you want to sell off assets to make more money.

Why would Disney want to sell Marvel off in that case?

[ChipDerby]

Just now, cannastop said:

Why would Disney want to sell Marvel off in that case?

 

(the rain is cash)

[alisson23]

3 hours ago, Walt Disney said:

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.

 

I give my support to these movies whenever I can. Even Tomorrowland I watched in cinema. No, I did not watch these disney movies last year, I didn't realize they were released here. Several?? Disney had 3 movies this past year. These films had limited release and a nonexistent marketing here. Disney didn't mind giving a decent release to them. I don't know if Disney repeated the "strategy" of domestic release here or if it got sloppy here after those films flopped domestically. 

 

Where did you get that animations can not be original ?? I did not say that. I said about brands. Like Marvel, Pixar and WDAS are big brands. Brands need some "originality", something new to keep itself. For example, WDAS needs to do original things like Zootopia and Moana because they will not make a sequel to the "failed" movies it had before Frozen. DISNEY does not merit by the originality of the BRANDS. For me, saying that Disney is original because it releases Pixar or WDAS movies is the same as saying that Universal has "originality" because it releases an original movie of Legendary or Illumination.

[rukaio101]

Honestly, I don't give two shits about whether or not Disney's line-up is 'original', I care about whether or not the films they are making are actually good. Being 'original' (or at least original by the definition we seem to be going by in this thread (unrelated to any previous brands)) is a highly overrated trait that often does not necessary mean quality. If I made a film about Hiccuping Sailors made of Broccoli, it would be original but, farce aside, the film would probably be rather shite. Sure sometimes we get an original film that is great, like Get Out, but let's also not forget we get dozens of shittier original films that are immediately (and deservedly) swept under the rug.

 

Of course, this is all according to that strictly narrow definition of 'original'. Because if you really think about it, all those 'original' movies take huuuuge inspiration from previous existing films. Get Out? Stepford Wives with black people. The Shallows? Basically Jaws. The Original Star Wars? Flash Gordon, mixed with Hidden Fortress and a bit of Dambusters towards the end. Not that any of those movies are lesser for those associations, mind, but if we're playing 'originality purity' they're not exactly squeaky clean. One of the things I was taught as a writer is that there is basically nothing truly original under the sun. Everything has been done in some form or another. It only comes down to how you execute it. And that's true whether it's adaptation or 'original'.

 

Of course, this whole thread has been created under the misapprehension that adaptation is somehow 'lazier' or 'lesser'. With all due respect? Fuck. That. Good adaptation is hard, regardless of the quality of the source material. You're taking a product written and designed to work for a specific medium, designed to take advantage of that medium's quirks and features, and then trying to transfer it to a whole new medium with its own different styles and methods, while still trying to capture what made the original source material work. That is hard. As is creating a well-received brand and/or audience pleasing entertainment. Don't dismiss Disney's accomplishments with their brands, just because people tend to look down on them.

 

So yeah. Disney do Disney. I don't give two shits whether their movies fall under your definition of 'original', I care whether or not they're good. And thus far, they mostly are. So I'm happy.

 

(Also, this entire thread is based under the assumption that movies like Inside Out and Zootopia aren't original because they're made by known animation studios. Which, to be honest, is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. By that definition, no movie released by a major studio can be original because that studio is already known as a 'brand'.) 

[The Futurist]

Disney is such a dishonorable company.

 

They make great movies people want to watch and enjoy tremendously.

 

How dare they ?

 

[alisson23]

34 minutes ago, rukaio101 said:

Honestly, I don't give two shits about whether or not Disney's line-up is 'original', I care about whether or not the films they are making are actually good. Being 'original' (or at least original by the definition we seem to be going by in this thread (unrelated to any previous brands)) is a highly overrated trait that often does not necessary mean quality. If I made a film about Hiccuping Sailors made of Broccoli, it would be original but, farce aside, the film would probably be rather shite. Sure sometimes we get an original film that is great, like Get Out, but let's also not forget we get dozens of shittier original films that are immediately (and deservedly) swept under the rug.

 

Of course, this is all according to that strictly narrow definition of 'original'. Because if you really think about it, all those 'original' movies take huuuuge inspiration from previous existing films. Get Out? Stepford Wives with black people. The Shallows? Basically Jaws. The Original Star Wars? Flash Gordon, mixed with Hidden Fortress and a bit of Dambusters towards the end. Not that any of those movies are lesser for those associations, mind, but if we're playing 'originality purity' they're not exactly squeaky clean. One of the things I was taught as a writer is that there is basically nothing truly original under the sun. Everything has been done in some form or another. It only comes down to how you execute it. And that's true whether it's adaptation or 'original'.

 

Of course, this whole thread has been created under the misapprehension that adaptation is somehow 'lazier' or 'lesser'. With all due respect? Fuck. That. Good adaptation is hard, regardless of the quality of the source material. You're taking a product written and designed to work for a specific medium, designed to take advantage of that medium's quirks and features, and then trying to transfer it to a whole new medium with its own different styles and methods, while still trying to capture what made the original source material work. That is hard. As is creating a well-received brand and/or audience pleasing entertainment. Don't dismiss Disney's accomplishments with their brands, just because people tend to look down on them.

 

So yeah. Disney do Disney. I don't give two shits whether their movies fall under your definition of 'original', I care whether or not they're good. And thus far, they mostly are. So I'm happy.

 

(Also, this entire thread is based under the assumption that movies like Inside Out and Zootopia aren't original because they're made by known animation studios. Which, to be honest, is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. By that definition, no movie released by a major studio can be original because that studio is already known as a 'brand'.) 

What an arrogant post. Disappointing. 

 

Nobody said that animations are not original. Read the post above yours. I think you're misinterpreting things 

 

Tomorrowland was a bad movie, but at least they tried something new. 

I want to see Disney to put so much "effort" they put into their franchises to make a good original movie. Why do they are sucessfull with franchise movies, but aren't with original movies ?? Do they don't know how to pleasure audience??

[retakutsy]

35 minutes ago, alisson23 said:

For me, saying that Disney is original because it releases Pixar or WDAS movies is the same as saying that Universal has "originality" because it releases an original movie of Legendary or Illumination.

 But WDAS is Disney. It was there before the live-action movies....

[AniNate]

I may not like much of Illumination's movies much but that doesn't change the fact that Hop, Sing and SLOP are technically "original".

[alisson23]

3 minutes ago, retakutsy said:

 But WDAS is Disney. It was there before the live-action movies....

"Brands need some "originality", something new to keep itself. For example, WDAS needs to do original things like Zootopia and Moana because they will not make a sequel to the "failed" movies it had before Frozen."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/frozen-2-plot-release-date-songs-plus-everything-else-need/

[alisson23]

5 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

I may not like much of Illumination's movies much but that doesn't change the fact that Hop, Sing and SLOP are technically "original".

The point is the merit is for Illumination, not Universal.

[grey ghost]

2 hours ago, Barnack said:

 

Avengers and Star Wars are maybe an exception (specially because of Merchandising), but the profit margin (even absolute) on a mid budget success and a large budget success are not necessarily that different, the big difference is that the large budget are much safer investment.

 

Sony made more profit from the 168 million at the box office Superbad (88 million net profit) than the 769 million at the box office movie 2012 (62.8 million net profit, Emmerich is the one making the big money with is share of the 120m participation bonus not the studio), 2012 was a much much safer investment thought.

 

When you look at what the Avengers made, you need to consider that they paid 4 billion upfront for it.

 

 

 

They paid 4 billion and the movies will probably end up making over 20 billion by 2021 not including ancillary and merchandise revenue.