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

[Johnny Tran]

9 hours ago, Harpospoke said:

If the studios are making less of them, that's how we know.    Studios like making money.  If there is a market there, they are certainly not going to ignore it.

"Studios like money"  is not the same as "studios want to diversify their portfolio".  Disney can make as much money or more producing say a PG-13 Wolverine so why take a risk on a Logan?  FOX was willing to do that.  That's one example. There are countless more. 

[The Futurist]

Not sure what people complain about, Dinsey creates with  their films more jobs than all the A24 in the world.

[Cookson]

Just imagine if Disney went after WB.

[Barnack]

6 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Not sure what people complain about, Dinsey creates with  their films more jobs than all the A24 in the world.

That some weird comparable and I would like to see your number that the 8 movie Disney made created more jobs than the thousands of movies made by all the A24 in the world (you could be right)

 

The comparison is Disney vs (Disney + Fox) jobs, not Disney vs A24 of the world (what do they have to do with any of this ?)

 

7 minutes ago, Cookson said:

Just imagine if Disney went after WB.

Considering Fox went at the hole Time Warner in 2014, I am not so sure how bigger/different the situation would be, if they went after just WB I think that would have been smaller than this 52B deal no ?

[expensiveho]

24 minutes ago, Johnny Tran said:

"Studios like money"  is not the same as "studios want to diversify their portfolio".  Disney can make as much money or more producing say a PG-13 Wolverine so why take a risk on a Logan?  FOX was willing to do that.  That's one example. There are countless more. 

You're talking like they had other choice. You know what happened when Fox thought they could make money on a PG-13 Wolverine? Origins happened. They produced 2 low-budget R-rated movies (compare the budgets to Apocalypse or Dark Phoenix) and suddenly they're the saviours of the industry (when in reality they were as successful because Fox didn't interfere with them, everyone knows that, even the current revisionists) 

[Barnack]

6 minutes ago, expensiveho said:

and suddenly they're the saviours of the industry (when in reality they were as successful because Fox didn't interfere with them, everyone knows that, even the current revisionists) 

I am not sure what exactly people mean by not interfering and how they would know how much studio notes and interference went on, those movies were in pre-development hell for a long time and wen through many iteration and script re-write and studios interference even before they got greenlight and who know how much after. Not making the Darren Aronofsky version was a big interference I would think, waiting many year's/rewrite until they like the script is quite different then putting money in an account and seeing the movie at the same time as the press in a pre-screening.

 

And the PG-13 movie did make money I think:

 

Rank	Title (click to view)	Studio	Adjusted Gross	Unadjusted Gross	Release
1	Logan	Fox	$228,324,900	$226,277,068	3/3/17
2	X-Men Origins: Wolverine	Fox	$215,329,200	$179,883,157	5/1/09
3	The Wolverine	Fox	$150,880,400	$132,556,852	7/26/13

 

 

The Wolverine made over 400m worldwide !

 

But yes you are right, not having an obvious other way to make money than take those risk is usually when they happen, rarely because you had a choice with a safer way to make money. And that is largely the points of what people "fear" here, a lack of need to take those chance because a safe hitting average of proven concept to repeat is available.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Barnack

[NamakFiskKa]

Just glance over pre 2012 Disney and this year to compare how much actual risk they take (read: they don't)

[NamakFiskKa]

They were straight up predatory to small theater chain and gods know how much demanding they will be now with this much clout

[grey ghost]

31 minutes ago, NamakFiskKa said:

Just glance over pre 2012 Disney and this year to compare how much actual risk they take (read: they don't)

Would you lend me 500 m dollars to make John Carter, Lone Ranger and Tomorrowland?

 

Or you can lend me that money to make Thor Ragnarok, CoCo and The Last Jedi.

 

Also if I lose the money you file for bankruptcy but if the movies make a profit you get a huge cut.

 

Which will it be? 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by grey ghost

[HenryjRhetorics]

ESPN and Fox Sports

X Men meet Avengers

 

ahmm... What else? 

 

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

Would you lend me 500 m dollars to make John Carter, Lone Ranger and Tomorrowland?

 

Or you can lend me that money to make Thor Ragnarok, CoCo and The Last Jedi.

 

Also if I lose the money you file for bankruptcy but if the movies make a profit you get a huge cut.

 

Which will it be? 

 

Obviously the second if I want to make money (and not being a rich Mécène that would be the case) and that is mostly the point.

 

No one is saying that it is illogical or bad business decision they are making. 

[grey ghost]

10 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Obviously the second if I want to make money (and not being a rich Mécène that would be the case) and that is mostly the point.

 

No one is saying that it is illogical or bad business decision they are making. 

People are saying they should be risky for the sake of being risky.

 

Which is ridiculous.

 

Typically when you take risk in business there's a bigger potential payoff.

 

Lone Ranger, John Carter and Tomorrowland while risky never had the potential payoff of MCU or Star Wars.

[Harpospoke]

9 hours ago, ChipMunky said:

A lot of people had an issue with WB trying to buy AT&T. But AT&T also doesn't make movies, thus it wasn't a heated discussion here.

Nothing is a heated discussion here other than Disney.    Fox?   Nope.    Comcast?   Nope.

 

Those two might as well not be involved at all.    Only the "Disney" word got the "heated discussion".   What a coincidence.

9 hours ago, Barnack said:

 I am not sure what you are suggesting I am saying or projecting on what I am saying.

 

My statement:

A movie that can sell toys, merchandise, pijamas, sequels, etc... is a better one for a studio even if the audience like an other movie as much, even if they like an other movie significantly more. Creating a bias for studios toward project that can have sequels vs those who cannot, toward project that can sell merchandise vs those who cannot, do you disagree with this ?

I totally agree with that.   Like I said, the audience decides how the studios act.   You outlined pretty well some of the audience behavior that drives studio behavior.   The public tells the studios what kinds of movies they want and the studios make them.   As you mentioned, the audience even wants sequels for some movies and not for others.

9 hours ago, Barnack said:

The last turtle movie did 82 million with better reviews than the first one, there is 340+m people in the domestic market, suggesting that a good movie like Whiplash could bring 3% of the population in with that kind of giant marketing campaign is not that crazy, I am still saying that giant majority of the population would have had no interest in it. 

 

But I was more saying that if you would have picked a random 1,000 people among movie goers to see both movie it is not certain that the 2014 Turtles movies would have been the favorite and it is not the reason it made more money.

Not 100% sure what you said.  (I apologize)

 

Are you claiming Whiplash could have made as much as a Turtles movie if they had just marketed it more?   I can't buy into that if that's what you are saying.

7 hours ago, grey ghost said:

GotG were D-list characters and far less popular than the FF so you can see where this is going once Kevin Feige gets a hold of them 

IF he gets a hold of them.   I again wonder about that rumor I heard about his contract being up next year.   Disney might want to put some effort into signing him up while they are doing this other stuff.

 

Imagine if Feige goes away and Murdoch comes in as some kind of senior exec at Disney.    That smells like a disaster to me.  (my turn to talk "doom")

1 hour ago, Johnny Tran said:

"Studios like money"  is not the same as "studios want to diversify their portfolio".  Disney can make as much money or more producing say a PG-13 Wolverine so why take a risk on a Logan?  FOX was willing to do that.  That's one example. There are countless more. 

If you lower the budget to 58 million that's not a big risk.   There is a reason why they lowered the budget that much.   They weren't taking any big "risk".   Spending 150 million on an R rated DP movie....now THAT'S risk.

 

Which doesn't even get into how odd it is to suggest that studios should be in the business of "taking risks".    They might do that on occasion to feel out what the audience wants, but it's hardly their normal business operation.   Fox was not willing to do anything like that for 15 years with X-men movies....including TWO Wolverine movies. 

 

 I suppose we are now going to forget that Ryan Reynolds had to fight Fox for a decade to get that movie made?   It was only after RR showed Fox there was an audience for it that they finally gave in with that small budget.   Now that will be revised to "Fox takes risks" I guess.

57 minutes ago, expensiveho said:

You're talking like they had other choice. You know what happened when Fox thought they could make money on a PG-13 Wolverine? Origins happened. They produced 2 low-budget R-rated movies (compare the budgets to Apocalypse or Dark Phoenix) and suddenly they're the saviours of the industry (when in reality they were as successful because Fox didn't interfere with them, everyone knows that, even the current revisionists) 

Yeah the revisionist history is already starting with Fox.   By the time the studio changes hands, Fox will probably be the greatest studio of all time.

[Barnack]

6 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

People are saying they should be risky for the sake of being risky.

 

Which is ridiculous.

 

Typically when you take risk in business there's a bigger potential payoff.

 

Lone Ranger, John Carter and Tomorrowland while risky never had the potential payoff of MCU or Star Wars.

How many people are saying that, I get the they will need to take some risk to come up with the next avatar, marvel, Jones, star wars, etc... some day, but in the short term, continuing to take a near 0 risk seem Disney best options.

 

I do not remember that many people talking about Disney that should take risk if they do not need to, it make too much sense to continue what they are doing and that is the "fear" people have, that they will migrate that very successful model to Fox (non specialty) studio and start doing the same here, exploit those franchise really well, be very successful with them and stop doing the rest.

 

And you really well pointing what is the issue with the current market place, larger risk like Titanic, Avatar or the first star wars, movies with a large proportion of people predicting a failure were leading to the biggest payoff, now I am not sure it still feel like that, is seem the movie that had the less risk year of the year and arguably of all time, The Last Jedi, will have one of the biggest payoff, with others of the least risk ever taken in the history of this business Fast 8, DM 3, Beauty and the beast, etc....

[Barnack]

10 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

Are you claiming Whiplash could have made as much as a Turtles movie if they had just marketed it more?   I can't buy into that if that's what you are saying.

7 hours ago, grey ghost said:

I am mostly saying if every adult would have seen Whiplash and every adult would have seen the 2014 ninja turtle and you would have pooled people on which they preferred I am not sure Ninja Turtle win, same for Whiplash vs Fantastic 4, that the reason those movie made more money is not necessarily because it is what people prefer (it is a business that you pay before knowing if you like a movie or not). Less sure, but not impossible that yes with a 60m domestic marketing+ same amount of theater + a franchise connection used it could have done close to those.

[Hades]

Lol this deal is so over the top and cartoony. The DOJ will kill it with so much fire and shit on it. 

[Johnny Tran]

22 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

People are saying they should be risky for the sake of being risky.

 

Which is ridiculous.

 

Typically when you take risk in business there's a bigger potential payoff.

 

Lone Ranger, John Carter and Tomorrowland while risky never had the potential payoff of MCU or Star Wars.

Nobody is saying they should take risks for the fuck of it so why are you suggesting that's been said?  We are discussing creativity.  Logan was creative, it was different,  it made a lot of money and it was praised for being unlike many of the CBMs we had seen the past couple years.  

 

Disney can make a good Wolverine movie and make a ton of money.  That's not in question.  Would they have made Logan though?  Probably not.  That's the entire point when we are discussing "risks".   

[mredman]

1 hour ago, Hades said:

Lol this deal is so over the top and cartoony. The DOJ will kill it with so much fire and shit on it. 

what is DOJ ?

[Lordmandeep]

1 hour ago, Hades said:

Lol this deal is so over the top and cartoony. The DOJ will kill it with so much fire and shit on it. 

Government has more pressing issues 

[RRA]

1 hour ago, Johnny Tran said:

Nobody is saying they should take risks for the fuck of it so why are you suggesting that's been said?  We are discussing creativity.  Logan was creative, it was different,  it made a lot of money and it was praised for being unlike many of the CBMs we had seen the past couple years.  

 

Disney can make a good Wolverine movie and make a ton of money.  That's not in question.  Would they have made Logan though?  Probably not.  That's the entire point when we are discussing "risks".   

It’s a good thing Disney-owned Marvel never made movies based off Ant-Man and GOTG and upcoming Black Panther then.