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

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, grey ghost said:

 

 

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

 

You need to put all the revenue back to the date of the expense of the transaction with a wanted ROI (say 10%) to see how good it really is (I cannot imagine Marvel doing better than it did, so it must be a nice amount)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discounted_cash_flow

 

(for example if you 3 billion in 2020 on something you paid 1 billion in 2009, you made 10.5% annual ROI and did beat the 10% return annual value you gave your money by 0.5%)

 

That is just to say that once you consider all the cost, an Arrival is not a small profit versus many giant budget, giant acquisition franchise rights or point given to those who own it. What paramount is left with after a Transformer is not necessarily much bigger (once Bay, in some case Spielberg, Hasbro, etc... got their share) than the profit on a Hidden Figures (but they had a near zero risk in the case of the Transformer).

 

 

[grey ghost]

I wouldn't call MCU and the recent Star Wars films "soulless". They've made me laugh, cry and cheer and on many occasions.

 

A soulless movie is dull and fails to be compelling or entertaining on any level.

 

MCU and SW are crowd pleasers that often have an accompanying message about sacrifice, friendship, honor, justice, rebellion, etc.

 

I'm not sure what you guys expect from these movies. 

 

It seems like anything short of E.T. or Back to the Future is a pointless or empty gimmick.

 

 

 

 

[JB33]

1 minute ago, grey ghost said:

I wouldn't call MCU and the recent Star Wars films "soulless". They've made me laugh, cry and cheer and on many occasions.

 

A soulless movie is dull and fails to be compelling or entertaining on any level.

 

MCU and SW are crowd pleasers that often have an accompanying message about sacrifice, friendship, honor, justice, rebellion, etc.

 

I'm not sure what you guys expect from these movies. 

 

It seems like anything short of E.T. or Back to the Future is a pointless or empty gimmick.

 

 

 

 

 

Soulless is the new buzz word for the hipster, anti-Disney crowd. Success breeds contempt. You see it in any aspect of life and usually certain narratives will form along the way that people will latch on to.

[Barnack]

35 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

I wouldn't call MCU and the recent Star Wars films "soulless". They've made me laugh, cry and cheer and on many occasions.

 

So much craft went on on most Force Awaken frame, has if a big amount of the people involved dreamed a part of their life to do a star wars movie and got the chance, lazy/souless do not apply to Disney (playing safe sometime would apply, but they work a lot on that output, they will redo the movie if needed), specially not on the Animation they are closer to "Magic" than "soulless".

 

The output would not work as well and resonate decade after the release if it was soulless or bad, they are certainly good at doing what they are doing and there is best in the world artisan loving what they and the material involved in those production.

 

But then went from distributing Tarantino movies, to bully theaters to play Star Wars in special screen they had previously signed a contract to play The Hateful Eight on. The market force pushed them, a natural response to success and reaction to failure, yadada, all true, it is just sad that one of the best force to create and/or distribute a movie is not currently doing it for stuff you like (and the complete other way around for Star wars/Marvel fan obviously), it is jealousy that they are not putting resource and the best people doing the McDonagh brothers output, the next Mel Gibson, instead of superheroes stuff.

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Barnack

[Chewy]

it's almost like the studios gotta react to the market changing and audiences only going to theaters for events and WOM breakouts 

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, Chewy said:

it's almost like the studios gotta react to the market changing and audiences only going to theaters for events and WOM breakouts 

 

I think almost everyone understand that part and that thought was expressed in like 33% of the message in this thread.

 

No one is asking why is Disney doing this ?

[Chewy]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

 

I think almost everyone understand that part and that thought was expressed in like 33% of the message in this thread.

 

No one is asking why is Disney doing this ?

 

ok.

[rukaio101]

1 hour ago, alisson23 said:

What an arrogant post. Disappointing. 

[mod edit] Very disappointing.

 

Also, reading through your posts on this thread, I really wouldn't start throwing stones when it comes the whole 'arrogant' thing.

 

Quote

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

 

No, you're just claiming that because they're 'brands' that somehow makes them lesser. Ignoring the fact that they're still 'new', they're still 'original' and they're still doing everything you apparently want Disney to do. Your logic for opposing them makes zero sense. 

 

Quote

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

If I made a movie that was just me defecating on the screen for 2 hours, that would be something 'new'*. Would you praise Disney for releasing that? 

 

Besides which, 'New' is a very subjective term. I've not seen Tomorrowland, but I bet I could find dozens of old sci-fi pulp stories/comics/films/whatever that it borrowed ideas and concepts from. How does that make it any less 'new' and 'original' than a movie that outright shares the title of said stories/comics/films?

 

 

 

*Mostly new. There's probably some indie film out there with the same premise.

 

Quote

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??

Well, I'm not a math scientist but have you considered that maybe, juuuuust maybe, the successful originals get turned into fucking franchises? Because Disney knows how to please audiences? Because the audiences want more of what they like? And that they have zero need to make an 'original movie' according to your strict definitions because they're already doing great both financially, critically and among audiences with what they already have? Because it's almost as if being 'totally original' isn't the be-all-end-all of making great movies?

 

 

[Warmaster506]

Other studios make good films too.  

[Barnack]

18 minutes ago, rukaio101 said:

Well, I'm not a math scientist but have you considered that maybe, juuuuust maybe, the successful originals get turned into fucking franchises?

 

That is often by design (you can sell your movie project to the studio/studio think only about projects if sequels are possible), trying to turn Hidden Figure, La la land or Black Swan into a franchise it would not work that well.

 

Quote

And that they have zero need to make an 'original movie'

 

That is certainly true at the moment, could change soon. (, even then they probably still need it animation wise to keep Pixar aura alive), is anyone suggested that they needed to make them ?

 

Quote

Because it's almost as if being 'totally original' isn't the be-all-end-all of making great movies?

 

That is for sure, from Empire Strike Back, Godfather 1-2, I don't think anyone suggested that totally original was something that mattered (who care if the movie is an adaptation of a mostly unknown book like Guardian of the Galaxy it is just the think that inspired the filmmaker), I think that a vaster array of more precise expression would necessary for a subject like that, when a formula/genre movie like The Nice Guys is an original and something has fresh has Cloud Atlas is not, the distinction is certainly not what the person talking mean.

 

Not using a frequently recently used formula is probably closer to what people mean by that, not that it is wrong to have well made proven concept movie, but if one day only those get nice production budget I'm not sure it would be for the better.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Barnack

[drdungbeetle]

Disney may look invulnerable in FILM terms, but its loss of CABLE money still puts the company overall at risk.

[franfar]

I think a lot of people here conflate the word original with good

[drdungbeetle]

Just now, franfar said:

I think a lot of people here conflate the word original with good

Good does not inherently equal innovative. Caddyshack did not rewrite the rules of cinema but I'd take it over about any 2010s comedy.

[franfar]

1 hour ago, Chewy said:

it's almost like the studios gotta react to the market changing and audiences only going to theaters for events and WOM breakouts 

 

Such a filthy capitalist

[KeepItU25071906]

just a couple minds:

 

1) Sometimes Disney make good cartoons (like Moana), sometimes Disney make masterpiece (like Zootopia);

 

2) MCU - very, VERY, VERY overhyped and reassessed franchise. But Iron Man-1 and Winter Soldier ...  my reverence for creators, awesome work.

 

3) I don't like new Star Wars. 

 

4) I hate Jungle Book and other similar piece of shit. For me it's not a movies- just unashamed attempt of "making money"

 

5) Disney сan't work with original stuff. "John Carter",  "Tomorrowland" and others bomb cause it's a shitty movies.

 

 

 

[alisson23]

23 minutes ago, rukaio101 said:

[mod edit] Very disappointing.

 

Also, reading through your posts on this thread, I really wouldn't start throwing stones when it comes the whole 'arrogant' thing.

 

No, you're just claiming that because they're 'brands' that somehow makes them lesser. Ignoring the fact that they're still 'new', they're still 'original' and they're still doing everything you apparently want Disney to do. Your logic for opposing them makes zero sense. 

 

If I made a movie that was just me defecating on the screen for 2 hours, that would be something 'new'*. Would you praise Disney for releasing that? 

 

Besides which, 'New' is a very subjective term. I've not seen Tomorrowland, but I bet I could find dozens of old sci-fi pulp stories/comics/films/whatever that it borrowed ideas and concepts from. How does that make it any less 'new' and 'original' than a movie that outright shares the title of said stories/comics/films?

 

 

 

*Mostly new. There's probably some indie film out there with the same premise.

 

Well, I'm not a math scientist but have you considered that maybe, juuuuust maybe, the successful originals get turned into fucking franchises? Because Disney knows how to please audiences? Because the audiences want more of what they like? And that they have zero need to make an 'original movie' according to your strict definitions because they're already doing great both financially, critically and among audiences with what they already have? Because it's almost as if being 'totally original' isn't the be-all-end-all of making great movies?

 

I'm not going to answer a post as disrespectful as this. Shame on you.

[alisson23]

9 minutes ago, franfar said:

I think a lot of people here conflate the word original with good

You should quote the people which said that. No need to shades in a discussion forum. 

[MovieMan89]

I don't see any problems with the MCU, Pixar, and WDAS films. Just because they're brands doesn't mean there's not a lot of new and fresh ideas that can be done and have been done with those films. My only issue lies in the live action remakes of the animated classics, because a lot of them have been far too similar to the animated ones, except not as well suited to live action. If they're going to churn them out like this, make them more like Alice and Maleficent. Didn't care much for either, but at least they brought something new and different to the table from the animated ones. Now that Jungle Book and BATB have been some of the biggest box office hits ever, it does feel like Disney wants to just milk these dry with minimal creativity involved. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by MovieMan89

[Barnack]

Just now, alisson23 said:

You should quote the people which said that. No need to shades in a discussion forum. 

 

Well everyone that took time to say that it is not because it is not original that it cannot be good, did assume that maybe it was not clear for someone (I think everyone did that useless "warning"/comment, if you all agree and I think we do)

[AniNate]

As far as future releases where no one really has a clue how good the movie's going to be, I think what cinephiles really want more of are auteur-driven movies; whether they're original or not. Blade Runner 2 probably would've sounded like an absolutely stupid idea if it didn't involve someone like Denis Villeneuve (or Ridley Scott); but as it is people are really excited for it. I'm definitely more interested in A Wrinkle in Time with Ava Duvernay as opposed to a yes-man visual effects supervisor.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by tribefan695