Episode IV:A NEW MOUSE | DISNEY | IT IS DONE

[aabattery]

12 minutes ago, eddyxx said:

So on the subject of less films being made each year....don't we complain every year how the blockbusters are cannibalizing each other and need to spread out...buy now we think there aren't enough films being made??? Huh?

 

It's more about the films that aren't blockbusters.

[Porthos]

8 minutes ago, eddyxx said:

So on the subject of less films being made each year....don't we complain every year how the blockbusters are cannibalizing each other and need to spread out...buy now we think there aren't enough films being made??? Huh?

The complaint is that there are a lot of blockbusters and small budget flicks, but less and less of the mid-range films.  

 

To be a bit more simplistic (and prob inaccurate), there's lots of 150m+ budget films and lots of sub 50m budget films but not a lot of the mid-range films that are remembered fondly by a lot of folks.  That is, films destined to earn 150m to 250m domestically if things go as planned.  The so-called adult films that aren't comic book films or Oscar bait films.

 

One school of thought is that the creative energy to create these mid-level flicks is going into cable/streaming TV series instead.  Another school of thought is that this is all cyclical and mid-range budget films might make a comeback.   Then there's the school of thought that, to pick a genre, the rom-com was an artifact of its time (much like the western) and simply doesn't work in this current culture.  Same goes for the other genres that might make up mid-range budget films.

 

But no one really actually knows why what's going on is going on. The blind describing the elephant, and all that. In truth its probably elements of all of the above. Which is kinda an unsatisfactory answer, but life often is full of those.

 

[AniNate]

People like to think of studios as big monolithic entities whose only interests lie in how much money they can make. Every decision is met with the most cynical interpretation possible, regardless of how inconsistent it is with previous opinions. 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by tribefan695

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, eddyxx said:

So on the subject of less films being made each year....don't we complain every year how the blockbusters are cannibalizing each other and need to spread out...buy now we think there aren't enough films being made??? Huh?

I do not think anyone think there is not enough films being made:

 

http://www.imdb.com/search/title?release_date=2016-01-01,2016-12-30&runtime=50,400&title_type=feature

 

Most Popular Feature Films Released 2016-01-01 to 2016-12-30 With Running Time of 50-400 Minutes

1 to 50 of 6,537 titles

 

There is more than enough movie made, I imagine IMDB Does not have all of them but it is easily more than 100 movies made every weeks.

 

We are talking about the numbers of movies with enough budget and knowhow of those studios and there distribution's ability to actually matter that seem to going down significantly in the recent year's with many studio announcing that strategy, not the numbers of movies in generals (that tend to go up):

 

For example in a article from 2014:

 

In 2003, 455 films were released. 275 of those were independent, 180 were studio films. Last year 677 films were released. So you’re not imagining things, there are a lot of movies that open every weekend. 549 of those were independent, 128 were studio films. So, a 100% increase in independent films, and a 28% drop in studio films, and yet, ten years ago: Studio market share 69%, last year 76%. You’ve got fewer studio movies now taking up a bigger piece of the pie and you’ve got twice as many independent films scrambling for a smaller piece of the pie. That’s hard. That’s really hard. When I was coming up, making an independent film and trying to reach an audience I thought was like, trying to hit a thrown baseball. This is like trying to hit a thrown baseball – but with another thrown baseball.

 

Movie that are so small that they are not seen are not that different than not existing.

 

A Paramount year in 1997 looked like this:

The Relic: $40 million budget, $34 million domestic gross
The Beautician and the Beast: $16 million budget, $11 million domestic gross
Private Parts: $20 million budget, $41 million domestic gross
The Saint: $68 million budget, $118 million worldwide gross
Night Falls on Manhattan: $22 million budget*, $9 million domestic gross
Face/Off: $80 million budget, $245 million worldwide gross
Kiss Me, Guido: $740K budget, $1.9 million domestic gross
Good Burger: $9 million budget, $23.7 million domestic gross
In & Out: $35 million budget, $64 million domestic gross
Kiss the Girls: $27 million budget, $61 million domestic gross
FairyTale: A True Story: n/a budget, $14 million domestic gross
The Rainmaker: $40 million budget, $46 million domestic gross
The Education of Little Tree: n/a budget, $323K gross

 

19 movies diverse in budget, 100 million today was 65 million back then, so a movie like The Saint was a 100m movie, face/off was an almost 150m movie, In & Out and Kiss the girls were getting 40-50m budget in today money.

 

2014 Paramount:

Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones: $5 million budget, $90.9 million worldwide gross
Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit: $60 million budget, $135.5 million worldwide gross
Noah: $125 million budget, $362 million worldwide gross
Transformers: Age of Extinction: $210 million budget, $1.08 billion worldwide gross
Hercules: $100 million budget, $242 million worldwide gross
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: $125 million budget, $474 million worldwide gross
Men, Women, and Children: $16 million budget, $705K domestic gross
Interstellar: $165 million budget, $593 million worldwide gross (and counting)
Top Five: $6 million budget, n/a gross
Selma: $20 million budget, n/a gross
The Gambler: n/a budget, n/a gross

 

Only 11 movies and only 7 above 20 million vs 17 in 2014 that was above 20m adjusted.

 

And that is a common trend, Disney is just one that went from the most to the least in that regard.

 

 

[Harpospoke]

6 hours ago, Barnack said:

I will read the rest, but studio movies went from over 200 to around 135-140 (just 114 in 2013), less than 100 if we remove the studio subsidiaries and we certainly noticed it. It is all over the place in the 2010, if you google the disparition of the mid budget movies you will get thousands of results:

 

http://flavorwire.com/492985/how-the-death-of-mid-budget-cinema-left-a-generation-of-iconic-filmmakers-mia

http://www.indiewire.com/2014/12/daily-reads-the-disappearance-of-mid-budget-movies-the-most-exciting-working-cinematographers-and-more-125294/

http://www.newser.com/story/199954/how-hollywood-killed-the-mid-budget-movie.html

https://www.gq.com/story/the-day-the-movies-died-mark-harris

https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2015/04/the-callow-way-the-death-of-the-mid-budget-film/

https://stephenfollows.com/disappearing-mid-budget-drama-movies/

 

With some more positive uptick but still talking about how it got rare in the 2000s:

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/mid-budget-movies/260443/the-quiet-return-of-the-mid-budget-movie

 

People saw the disparation of the 100m comedy/rom-com that happened and how the mid budgets drama (the 50 to 120m one), the type of movies Denzel/Russel Crow were doing not so long ago pretty much disappeared, watching something like Deepwater horizon in theater felt almost strange to see that type of movie getting that production design.

So now the mid-budget movie will be held up as some holy relic I guess?    According to the graph in one of those articles, the budgets for all drama movies has remained stable over the past 10 years.

 

The best example of how the marketplace controls this was found in this quote:

"While the studios have – generally - been occupied with their own gambles, it’s one-time smaller companies that have spotted the gap and duly moved in."

 

If the studios don't provide something the public wants....some one else will.   And it will pay off if the public really wants it.   Which will of course prompt other smaller studios to follow suit.   That's how this works.

 

But it all depends on what the public wants.   The real complaint here is that the public is not supporting the movies some people think they "should".

 

But even so....there are so many of these movies being made.  I'm not sure how anyone can watch 100 or more of them in a single year.

6 hours ago, Barnack said:

The decline of the number studio movies will continue (and having "5" of them instead of 6 will be a step toward that, with the merger being to the studio that reduced the most is output of them all), the numbers of very small movies will maybe augment (netflix, amazon) without nice theatrical distribution and the gab between the 2 will continue to get larger (adaptive ticket price will maybe make this larger, International being more and more important), maiking the industry even more and more event/franchise heavy.

Your issue is with the public.    If the public is getting less willing to go to the movies and it's only the "event" films that get them to make the trip that is not the fault of the studios.   And not just the public in the US.    If people in China and Europe aren't interested in supporting mid-budget movies then there will be less of them.   That's not  a Disney thing.

 

Sounds like the theaters have to fix that one.    They are trying of course.   Some of the theaters that offer good food and booze are filling a need.

6 hours ago, Barnack said:

Come-on now, I feel there is some link with people having no issue or even loving it being Marvel-Star wars fans, but is Marvel haters a real thing ? The percentage of the population that care even just a little bit one way or the other about that SH feud must be pretty small and we are talking about a 60-70b transaction here of an nearly 100 year's old studio, with the next 50-100 year's in mind of a 80b a year economy sector, not sure what it mean for the next 5 year's about 4 or 5 movies have much weight for anyone that care about movies.

The number of people who care about this deal is also very small.....just like Marvel haters.   You really only see them on message boards like this and Youtube comments.

 

Just interesting to me that some of the same names who are notoriously anti-Marvel appear to be against this deal...just a coincidence, eh?

6 hours ago, Barnack said:

If it was not the studio that reduced the most is output of movies over the year that would buy, maybe some of the worries would be different (or not there) that is true, but it is not hating or not Disney, it is simply the factual cutted 75% of is production in the last 15 year's.

As you pointed out, this is happening no matter what Disney does.   This is a trend in the marketplace and the studios are reacting to it.   If the public is not supporting a certain kind of movie, then that type of movie will stop being made.   This is not about Disney....they are only reacting to the marketplace....not driving it.

2 hours ago, Porthos said:

The complaint is that there are a lot of blockbusters and small budget flicks, but less and less of the mid-range films.  

 

To be a bit more simplistic (and prob inaccurate), there's lots of 150m+ budget films and lots of sub 50m budget films but not a lot of the mid-range films that are remembered fondly by a lot of folks.  That is, films destined to earn 150m to 250m domestically if things go as planned.  The so-called adult films that aren't comic book films or Oscar bait films.

 

One school of thought is that the creative energy to create these mid-level flicks is going into cable/streaming TV series instead.  Another school of thought is that this is all cyclical and mid-range budget films might make a comeback.   Then there's the school of thought that, to pick a genre, the rom-com was an artifact of its time (much like the western) and simply doesn't work in this current culture.  Same goes for the other genres that might make up mid-range budget films.

 

But no one really actually knows why what's going on is going on. The blind describing the elephant, and all that. In truth its probably elements of all of the above. Which is kinda an unsatisfactory answer, but life often is full of those.

 

I've definitely heard that one more than once.   Even some actors are heading to TV because they feel the best writing is happening there.   It's a great time to be a writer really.    Even some Youtube channels need writers.

[The Futurist]

3 hours ago, tribefan695 said:

People like to think of studios as big monolithic entities whose only interests lie in how much money they can make. Every decision is met with the most cynical interpretation possible, regardless of how inconsistent it is with previous opinions. 

 

 

That would imply audiences are stupid and cannot reconize quality or sincerity and the big suits manipulate the masses and lure them into theaters only for profit.

Too simple, too easy, too basic.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Would be nice if we can get the Fox intro for Star Wars movies again. 

[Porthos]

2 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

Would be nice if we can get the Fox intro for Star Wars movies again. 

I think I'll hand the mic to Pablo Hidalgo on this one:

 

(Screenshotted because Pablo has set his tweets to auto-delete and that one's about to fall off the edge)

 

=====

 

Maaaaaaaybe if Lucasfilm had dissolved as a production company under Disney.  But as it is, there's about a 0.001 percent chance of it happening now, IMO.  Best I can see is the Fox Fanfare returning to the Disney digital releases for the films that used to have it and now apparently don't. 

 

I get why folks would want it.  I miss it too.  I'd like to see it back.  But.  Well.  I wouldn't hold my breath. 

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, Harpospoke said:

So now the mid-budget movie will be held up as some holy relic I guess?    According to the graph in one of those articles, the budgets for all drama movies has remained stable over the past 10 years.

 

Change mid-budget for non low budget, and no why bring some hyperbole and strawmen all the time about holy relic, imagine Disney announce they stop doing Marvel movies for the next 10 year's, if someone express that he would want for that not to happen would you assume that the person think they are relic or important or anything ? Or just that he like them and would want more of them instead of less ?

 

Some people like Fincher type of production and people like them still having ok schedule (not the 120 days of the pass but still healthy 65-80 days) to do a solid movie.

 

1 hour ago, Harpospoke said:

Your issue is with the public.    If the public is getting less willing to go to the movies and it's only the "event" films that get them to make the trip that is not the fault of the studios. 

Issue is with the public, with the disparition of the Dvd market and the pressure to reduce the movies values of piracy and low cost streaming and also with the studio offers, there is a retro-activity from the audience and the producer also, who said I had an issue with Disney ? I have an issue if everything copy there model (or literally become them), Disney certainly is reacting to the marketplace, they did not kill the big 2D movie, they continued longer than most in it, the audience picked 3D, they pushed hard the diverse 50+ slate of movie has a business model and it didn't work for them. No one is saying that what is currently decided by people make bad business sense, they know that much better than us.

 

1 hour ago, Harpospoke said:

But even so....there are so many of these movies being made.  I'm not sure how anyone can watch 100 or more of them in a single year.

Quote

There is not 100 or more mid budget (say 40 to 120m) drama made in a single year, in 2017 looking at all the movie budget off 2017 there is around 27 of them of all style, it went down quite a bit (some year was 70) and movie should not be made to appeal and people watching all of them arguably, a small percentage would appeal to a person if they do not appeal to mass lower denominator.

 

[The Panda]

Movie's dialing back on production and cutting mid-budget films has less to do with merging studios and everything to do with a changing demand from consumers.  If consumers won't spend enough on mid-budget movies for them to be profitable, why should a studio make them?

 

People are going to the theaters less now, and using streaming services more.  Changing times requires changing strategies.

[dignam]

I have a feeling Disney informed cameron about this potenital deal long ago, and asked him to delay his Avatar movies, that would explain a lot.

 

 

[YM!]

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/906543-breaking-disney-buys-20th-century-fox-and-20th-century-fox-television

[YM!]

2 minutes ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/906543-breaking-disney-buys-20th-century-fox-and-20th-century-fox-television

Combining with Disney are 21st Century Fox’s critically acclaimed film production businesses, including Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures and Fox 2000, which together offer diverse and compelling storytelling businesses and are the homes of Avatar, X-Men, Fantastic Four and Deadpool, as well as The Grand Budapest Hotel, Hidden Figures, Gone Girl, The Shape of Water and The Martian—and its storied television creative units, Twentieth Century Fox Television, FX Productions and Fox21, which have brought The Americans, This Is Us, Modern Family, The Simpsons and so many more hit TV series to viewers across the globe. Disney will also acquire FX Networks, National Geographic Partners, Fox Sports Regional Networks, Fox Networks Group International, Star India and Fox’s interests in Hulu, Sky plc, Tata Sky and Endemol Shine Group.
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/906543-breaking-disney-buys-20th-century-fox-and-20th-century-fox-television#fZ8k58A51qD7WQLx.99

 

 

 

No mention of the fate of Blue Sky but it seems Searchlight is staying. Highly possible it is just press release talk.

[xequalsy]

$52.4 Billion !!

 

Reading through the rest of the press release now, but that number! Man. I know rumours were at $60B, but I honestly didn't think this deal would happen for that much money in stock.

[filmlover]

So this is really happening. Wow. I'm both optimistic and nervous.

[YM!]

1 minute ago, filmlover said:

So this is really happening. Wow. I'm both optimistic and nervous.

Yeah. I’m just hoping Searchlight and other fare from Fox non superhero wise survives. 

 

Pretty sure Blue Sky is getting sold or folded into DisneyToon.

[Darth Lehnsherr]

Still can't believe this is happening honestly. Buying smaller studios like Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm is one thing but buying a MAJOR studio? 

 

It's impact both good and bad will be felt by nearly everyone in the industry.

[filmlover]

For those curious, these are the final Fox films made before the Disney deal that won't be touched by the deal.

 

12/15: Ferdinand

12/20: The Greatest Showman

12/22: The Post

1/26: Maze Runner: The Death Cure

3/2: Red Sparrow

3/16: Love, Simon

4/13: New Mutants

6/1: Deadpool 2

7/20: Alita: Battle Angel

8/3: The Predator

9/14: The Darkest Minds

9/28: The Kid Who Would Be King

11/2: X-Men: Dark Phoenix

11/16: Widows

12/25: Bohemian Rhapsody

1/11/2019: Ad Astra

1/18/2019: Spies in Disguise

[YM!]

1 minute ago, filmlover said:

For those curious, these are the final Fox films made before the Disney deal that won't be touched by the deal.

 

12/15: Ferdinand

12/20: The Greatest Showman

12/22: The Post

1/26: Maze Runner: The Death Cure

3/2: Red Sparrow

3/16: Love, Simon

4/13: New Mutants

6/1: Deadpool 2

7/20: Alita: Battle Angel

8/3: The Predator

9/14: The Darkest Minds

9/28: The Kid Who Would Be King

11/2: X-Men: Dark Phoenix

11/16: Widows

12/25: Bohemian Rhapsody

1/11/2019: Ad Astra

1/18/2019: Spies in Disguise

But no Gambit 

[filmlover]

Just now, YourMother the Edgelord said:

But no Gambit 

Poor Channing.