Weekend Thread: weekend #s (Actuals) Dumbo $45.99M, Us $33.23M, CM $20.66M

[The Panda]

3 minutes ago, Rumpot said:

This is a 200B public company.  That's based on their strong IP.  Expecting them to break from their formula and stop leveraging what's market proven is silly.  ESPN can also replace monday night football with Monday night pingpong to keep things fresh.  Activision can make the next call of duty a role-playing game.  Why do you think iPhones are the same each year?

 

This isn't some small studio that is going to take chances to make a name for itself.  It is going to aim to achieve predictable revenue and earnings

Nobody is saying Disney should stop making their franchise films.

 

It’s a criticism of them buying out Fox and only focusing on their franchise films.

 

You’re also comparing Sports and Technology to an art form.  That’s not a good comp.

[Johnny Tran]

12 minutes ago, Thanos Legion said:

Not only sequels and remakes. But it is pretty telling imo that the really successful original films are making like 1/3 the really successful franchise films.

But it cost money to make money. Huge tentpoles spend hundreds of millions to get people in the theater. Original movies don't have the same hype behind it.

[Rumpot]

5 minutes ago, The Panda said:

Nobody is saying Disney should stop making their franchise films.

 

It’s a criticism of them buying out Fox and only focusing on their franchise films.

 

You’re also comparing Sports and Technology to an art form.  That’s not a good comp.

I get where you're coming from and I absolutely appreciate the art like everyone here.  But profits drive it and if I'm one thing it's pro-cinema.  I am very worried that without a largely by the numbers profit driver like Disney theaters are nearing the end.  

 

I otherwise don't hate on or shill for any specific company (or at least if I do it's not conscious)

Edited March 29, 2019 by Rumpot

[terrestrial]

https://deadline.com/2019/03/fatal-motherless-brooklyn-fire-offers-hard-lessons-for-film-productions-1202584954/

 

the report about that deadly fire from a year back is out, I am a bit shocked about how its possible they do not need to inform the firefighters bforehnd about changes and so on

So its insane!

 

 

[TalismanRing]

12 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

Amen.  And even if I went with people wanting sequels and comics (which I do agree that they do), remakes have NOT had the type of universal great runs that lots of the sequels and comics have had...for every Beauty and the Beast, there's a Pete's Dragon.  And let's not forget how awful the remakes of King Arthur and Robin Hood do.  

 

People do NOT want remakes upon remakes of material once they have their beloved version - they want Hollywood to move on and give them something different. 

B&B was almost a play by play remake with one new song but not filmed, acted, sung or paced nearly as well as the original

 

Pete's Dragon was vastly different than the animated film - which people complained about.   Where's the shlocky but entertaining animated movie with songs and child abuse?  Who wants this lyrical, lovely heart warming film about loss, childhood, wonder, family and friendships with a great dragon?   

 

PD had better reviews.  Which movie made immensely more money?
 

[TalismanRing]

15 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

https://deadline.com/2019/03/fatal-motherless-brooklyn-fire-offers-hard-lessons-for-film-productions-1202584954/

 

the report about that deadly fire from a year back is out, I am a bit shocked about how its possible they do not need to inform the firefighters bforehnd about changes and so on

So its insane!

 

 

Horrifying negligence

[Nova]

Not that anyone cares about my two cents but I think for any studio it's about finding a balance. A studio definitely wants to capitalize on their IPs because if they don't then those IPs may end becoming forgotten. At the same time, you don't want to solely rely on IPs and already established franchises because once you have run those into the ground then what next? The reason why studios like Disney, Fox, Warner Bros, Sony etc became as huge as they are (especially Disney) is because of the original content that they created. The problem is when these studios solely rely on these properties to keep the money flowing. I mean for example, Fox had a great franchise in Alien and the last film they put out was a turd in The Predator. Or think about how good Independence Day was only for it to be ruined by the sequel. These were original IPs that in a way got ruined by the studio that made them. Continuing to recycle your content is a double edge sword. Disney has fallen victim to that as well since their live action remakes have been hit or miss. 

 

For me, I have no issue with Disney doing live action movies for some of their original projects. But do we really need a live action BATB, Dumbo, Aladdin, The Lion King and Mulan all within a 2-3 year period? It just feels like Disney sees it work and then suddenly wants to oversaturate the market with their remakes as opposed to creating projects that made them the Disney they are today. Disney didn't become Disney because all they did was remake things from a small selection of original content. Disney became Disney because they created so many amazing original characters. I don't see how it is wrong for people to be upset that they feel like Disney is straying away from what made them Disney in the first place.  I feel the same way about Sony and their Ghostbusters sequels/remakes (and I have stated as such in that thread). Wanting a balance between fresh/original content and utilizing IPs isn’t wrong. Right now it feels like there is no balance and it’s just IP after IP after IP....not just with Disney but with a lot of studios. Disney is at the forefront though because they’re def doing it more than other studios or at least it feels that way. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Nova

[Celedhring]

7 minutes ago, Nova said:

Not that anyone cares about my two cents but I think for any studio it's about finding a balance. A studio definitely wants to capitalize on their IPs because if they don't then those IPs may end becoming forgotten. At the same time, you don't want to solely rely on IPs and already established franchises because once you have run those into the ground then what next? The reason why studios like Disney, Fox, Warner Bros, Sony etc became as huge as they are (especially Disney) is because of the original content that they created. The problem is when these studios solely rely on these properties to keep the money flowing. I mean for example, Fox had a great franchise in Alien and the last film they put out was a turd in The Predator. Or think about how good Independence Day was only for it to be ruined by the sequel. 

 

For me, I have no issue with Disney doing live action movies for some of their original projects. But do we really need a live action BATB, Dumbo, Aladdin, The Lion King and Mulan all within a 2-3 year period? It just feels like Disney say it work and then suddenly wants to oversaturate the market with their remakes as opposed to creating projects that made them the Disney they are today. Disney didn't become Disney because all they did was remake things from a small selection of original content. Disney became Disney because they created so many amazing original characters. I don't see how it is wrong for people to be upset that they feel like Disney is straying away from what made them Disney in the first place.  I feel the same way about Sony and their Ghostbusters sequels/remakes (and I have stated as such in that thread). 

 

I think you're being slightly unfair. Yes, they are cynically double and triple dipping on remakes, but current Disney has produced some remarkable original animated films too (Frozen, Zootopia) that have no doubt garnered enough appreciation to get their own remakes in due time.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Celedhring

[MCKillswitch123]

On one hand, I think that it's good for Disney sets their model based on giving consumers products that they enjoy AND are guaranteed to make them money, as they are a business after all. At the end of the day, right now, Hollywood's unoriginality is more of a cinephile circle's issue as the current GA doesn't really care at all. I mean, if that weren't the case, why is Climax doing great in limited and why would it never do anywhere near Captain Marvel numbers if it went wide?

 

On the other hand, Disney's business model, nevermind being super shady (buying out competition is what's called "unfair competition" and sets you on track for monopolization, and you NEVER wanna allow monopolies to exist.... otherwise the bullies in your high school will look like flies compared to the ones that big companies become), has the case that, by being the #1 in the box office, it leads by example, and basically sets the example that trying original tentpoles is useless cause they will bomb, so might as well stick to remaking movies that don't need to be remade, and franchise money makers are the GOAT. In another words, moviegoers literally just like the same things being fed to them over and over and over again. Give them 20 more years, and we'll already have seen 20 Batman reboots, 70 Star Wars anthologies, 100 Avengers sequels and 10000 Harry Potter remakes. Little do they realize that by THAT point, then yes, people will tire of seeing the same thing and cinema will go down the drain for good. That's why it is important to make originals: to refreshen things up and create franchises that can last eternities on their own. It's fine to make sequels and remakes and reboots and all of that, but if you run these things so far down the ground that they burn in Earth's core, where do you go after? Originality has to be valued. Plain and simple. And if you have no originality in your plans, well, then you have no future.

Edited March 29, 2019 by MCKillswitch123

[Nova]

5 minutes ago, Celedhring said:

 

I think you're being slightly unfair. Yes, they are cynically double and triple dipping on remakes, but current Disney has produced some remarkable original animated films too (Frozen, Zootopia) that have no doubt garnered enough appreciation to get their own remakes in due time.

I’m not. I’ve given credit to Disney for making original content recently in the Dumbo thread (and used that as my argument for why they don’t even need to be doing these remakes)and in the comment you’ve quoted, I’ve talked about Disney making many great original characters. But right now Disney is focusing a lot on these remakes. Hence why my comment was geared more towards them. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Nova

[YM!]

13 minutes ago, Nova said:

Not that anyone cares about my two cents but I think for any studio it's about finding a balance. A studio definitely wants to capitalize on their IPs because if they don't then those IPs may end becoming forgotten. At the same time, you don't want to solely rely on IPs and already established franchises because once you have run those into the ground then what next? The reason why studios like Disney, Fox, Warner Bros, Sony etc became as huge as they are (especially Disney) is because of the original content that they created. The problem is when these studios solely rely on these properties to keep the money flowing. I mean for example, Fox had a great franchise in Alien and the last film they put out was a turd in The Predator. Or think about how good Independence Day was only for it to be ruined by the sequel. 

 

For me, I have no issue with Disney doing live action movies for some of their original projects. But do we really need a live action BATB, Dumbo, Aladdin, The Lion King and Mulan all within a 2-3 year period? It just feels like Disney say it work and then suddenly wants to oversaturate the market with their remakes as opposed to creating projects that made them the Disney they are today. Disney didn't become Disney because all they did was remake things from a small selection of original content. Disney became Disney because they created so many amazing original characters. I don't see how it is wrong for people to be upset that they feel like Disney is straying away from what made them Disney in the first place.  I feel the same way about Sony and their Ghostbusters sequels/remakes (and I have stated as such in that thread). 

^This. 

 

Again, I love most of Disney’s movies (barring the remakes but even then TJB, Cinderella, PD and CR were good to great), however what happens when they run out of stuff to remake cause after Stitch, nothing has potential until like 2030 when they do Frozen or Moana (there’s more but I don’t want to yell and further derail). I’m not saying they should stop remaking everything and I’m not chastising the people who love them. I’d just like more original content as that’s what made them big. 

 

I don’t care for how they treat theaters and the power that they have growing to rapid proportions but at the same time know they’re a necessary evil for theaters. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by YourMother the Edgelord

[cax16]

14 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

B&B was almost a play by play remake with one new song but not filmed, acted, sung or paced nearly as well as the original

 

Pete's Dragon was vastly different than the animated film - which people complained about.   Where's the shlocky but entertaining animated movie with songs and child abuse?  Who wants this lyrical, lovely heart warming film about loss, childhood, wonder, family and friendships with a great dragon?   

 

PD had better reviews.  Which movie made immensely more money?
 

PD was amazing.

[James]

I friend just texted me about seeing US at a late night screenening here in Romania. He said it was so bad people started leaving halfway through. I have no idea what the movie it's about but now I am curious to watch it.

[YM!]

28 minutes ago, Nova said:

I mean for example, Fox had a great franchise in Alien and the last film they put out was a turd in The Predator. Or think about how good Independence Day was only for it to be ruined by the sequel. These were original IPs that in a way got ruined by the studio that made them. Continuing to recycle your content is a double edge sword.

Another good example is Ice Age. I mean it used to be a giant and then bad sequels (I mean 2-5 have had negative reception but nonetheless) ruined it.

[RichWS]

Some of you should sign lifetime contracts playing characters at Disney theme parks. If you hear any guests badmouthing The Brand, you can threaten them with litigation like Scientology.

[Matthew]

WTF STOP THIS DISCUSSION HERE. PLEASE GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THIS WEEKEND. MODS ANY HELP... 😔😔😔😔😔

[Pinacolada]

Deadline gonna Deadline. I think Dumbo should be able to break $50m...

[Eric Atreides]

https://www.boxofficepro.com/long-range-tracking-aladdin/

 

Aladdin: 85/235 (70-95 3-Day range/85-115 4-Day)

[dudalb]

30 minutes ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

^This. 

 

Again, I love most of Disney’s movies (barring the remakes but even then TJB, Cinderella, PD and CR were good to great), however what happens when they run out of stuff to remake cause after Stitch, nothing has potential until like 2030 when they do Frozen or Moana (there’s more but I don’t want to yell and further derail). I’m not saying they should stop remaking everything and I’m not chastising the people who love them. I’d just like more original content as that’s what made them big. 

 

I don’t care for how they treat theaters and the power that they have growing to rapid proportions but at the same time know they’re a necessary evil for theaters. 

I repeat my comment about how ironic it is that a studio founded by Walt Disney ,who built his career on taking risks, has become so risk averse.

I can understand a studio that is in trouble not wanting to take risks, but when a company does as well as Disney does it can afford to take a risk once in a while...and to keep a company like Fox 2000 open.

[That One Girl]

3 minutes ago, CoolEric258 said:

https://www.boxofficepro.com/long-range-tracking-aladdin/

 

Aladdin: 85/235 (70-95 3-Day range/85-115 4-Day)

 

Under 250M.  Perfect. Perfecttttt