Strange World | Walt Disney Animation Studios | Comes to Disney+ on December 23rd

[tonytr87]

Makes me wonder if Disney isn't marketing it because they're just waiting for the streaming release. Pretty crazy how much money they're willing to waste in the hopes that at SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE they'll make a profit off of streaming. 

[Verrows]

42 minutes ago, tonytr87 said:

Makes me wonder if Disney isn't marketing it because they're just waiting for the streaming release. Pretty crazy how much money they're willing to waste in the hopes that at SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE they'll make a profit off of streaming. 

These studios bet BIG on streaming and are probably having a really hard time accepting they messed up. I don't know about you guys but a lot of people I know are sick of streaming. Too much quantity, too little quality. It was better when movies felt like a big deal and had that prestige aura. Disney completely devalued the brand of their animation which hurts it both in theatres and on streaming. People will watch them on streaming, which we've already seen, but they don't feel special. People watch them and move on. Maybe a Disney doesn't care idk.

[TwoMisfits]

48 minutes ago, tonytr87 said:

Makes me wonder if Disney isn't marketing it because they're just waiting for the streaming release. Pretty crazy how much money they're willing to waste in the hopes that at SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE they'll make a profit off of streaming. 

 

Almost certain this will now be a D+ release on Dec 25...

[Eric Loves Rey]

https://letterboxd.com/nextbestpicture/film/strange-world-2022/

 

Embargo (I'm assuming review?) lifts 11/15.

[poweranimals]

2 hours ago, Eric Killmonger said:

https://letterboxd.com/nextbestpicture/film/strange-world-2022/

 

Embargo (I'm assuming review?) lifts 11/15.

Before or after tickets go on sale?

[ThomasNicole]

Reviews embargo lifts on November 21

[DAJK]

I’m almost sick of this movie by now, and that’s because it seems to have become tik tok’s new crusade, about how Disney is deliberately trying to keep people from seeing the movie. I just hate those types of arguments lol, and I think the movie looks good!

[Morieris]

On 11/9/2022 at 2:03 PM, tonytr87 said:

Makes me wonder if Disney isn't marketing it because they're just waiting for the streaming release. Pretty crazy how much money they're willing to waste in the hopes that at SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE they'll make a profit off of streaming. 

 

tbh....yeah. I think after they didn't get the immediate success they wanted with Encanto (note I said IMMEDIATE, because it DID come later), or Lightyear, they have less interest in theatrical for animated movies.

 

 

[Verrows]

2 hours ago, Morieris said:

 

tbh....yeah. I think after they didn't get the immediate success they wanted with Encanto (note I said IMMEDIATE, because it DID come later), or Lightyear, they have less interest in theatrical for animated movies.

 

 

Which is so frustrating because the lack of immediate success is of their very own making. They devalued the experience of seeing their animated films in theatres.

 

They can get that sense of prestige back but they have to stop emphasizing Disney+ right away. The subscribers will still be there after a healthy run at the box office. Most aren't going anywhere, at least until they raise prices to a Netflix level.

[El Squibbonator]

On 11/9/2022 at 1:03 PM, CaptNathanBrittles said:

Has there ever been a mainline Disney (non-Pixar/Marvel/Lucasfilm) sci-fi movie that didn't bomb? THE BLACK HOLE, TRON, ATLANTIS, TREASURE PLANET, JOHN CARTER, TOMORROWLAND, A WRINKLE IN TIME...

There have actually been more than you might think. Off the top of my head, the ones I can name are Lilo and Stitch, Escape To Witch Mountain, The Absent-Minded Professor and its remake Flubber, The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes, the Honey, I Shrunk the Kids movies, and, if you count 19th-century sci-fi, 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea. I might also mention Big Hero 6, though since it's loosely based on a Marvel comic I'm not sure how much it counts. Finally, I suppose if Tron counts as sci-fi, Wreck-it Ralph ought to as well. 

 

Notably, most of the above are comedies, or at least have strong comedy elements. Disney's reluctance to embrace "serious" science-fiction, outside of its Marvel and Star Wars subsidiaries, is actually kind of surprising when one considers that Walt Disney himself was pretty big on bringing science to the masses. Not only did he dedicate a whole section of Disneyland-- Tomorrowland-- to the future of technology, but he also hosted the documentary Man in Space with Wernher von Braun, which got millions of Americans excited about space travel. 

 

But even compared to Atlantis and Treasure Planet, Strange World is getting very little promotion. I was 9 years old when Treasure Planet came out, and I remember seeing ads for it everywhere-- on TV, in magazines, in stores, you name it. There were Happy Meal toys at McDonald's. Disney was promoting the hell out of that movie, it's just that not many people cared. With Strange World, on the other hand, we aren't getting that. It's like they're trying to bury it on purpose, like they have no faith in it. 

 

One rather disturbing theory I saw on Reddit was that Bob Chapek is trying to sabotage the movie's release because he personally disapproves of its gay main character. Given that his tenure has already seen the cancellation of Nimona, The Owl House, and Everyone's Talking About Jamie, as well as Lightyear being similarly underpromoted, it seems as plausible to me as anything else .

Edited November 14, 2022 by El Squibbonator

[Spidey Freak]

Lilo & Stitch would have literally stayed the same film if Stitch had been a fantasy creature escaped from some fantasy realm (I actually think it would have been even more successful if that had been the case).

 

Having to include Wreck-It Ralph as "successful sci-fi animation" only goes to show the state of sci-fi animation was always dire. I really liked Treasure Planet, Atlantis and even Meet the Robinsons even though but it did seem that all of them were better concepts for television shows to explore their respective worlds properly.

[JWR]

If this, Elemental, and Wish all bomb consecutively, I think it bodes extremely poorly for Disney animation under Bob Chapek. 

[TestPattern]

I swear it wasn't until last month that I knew this movie existed and I assumed it was a simul-release on D+.

 

[El Squibbonator]

6 hours ago, Spidey Freak said:

Having to include Wreck-It Ralph as "successful sci-fi animation" only goes to show the state of sci-fi animation was always dire. I really liked Treasure Planet, Atlantis and even Meet the Robinsons even though but it did seem that all of them were better concepts for television shows to explore their respective worlds properly.

I know the guy who asked the question asked me to leave out other studios, but Pixar has WALL-E and Dreamworks has Home and arguably Monsters Vs. Aliens as well. And while it's kind of in an odd position regarding the whole sci-fi-vs-fantasy thing, and was made before Disney bought the franchise, it would be remiss of me not to mention Star Wars: The Clone Wars. But that's still not very many. 

 

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the reason we get so few animated science-fiction movies is because in the early years of animation, sci-fi wasn't a genre any of the big animation studios (Disney, Warner Bros., Fliescher, etc.) considered worth their time. For better or worse, the works of these studios informed the public of what animation was "good for", and that evidently did not include science-fiction. Bob Clampett tried to pitch an animated adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' A Princess Of Mars to Warner Bros. in 1936, but it didn't work; maybe if it had, animated science-fiction movies would be more of a "thing". 

 

As I mentioned before, Walt Disney himself was big on promoting science. But he seemed to hold science-fiction-- or at least "futuristic" science fiction, the sort that comes to mind when most people hear the phrase-- in rather low regard. Here's the "Mars And Beyond" documentary Disney hosted; there's an entire segment basically mocking the pulp sci-fi that was popular at the time. I get the impression from it that those were not the kind of movies Walt wanted to be making. And when one considers that, for so much of its later history, Disney labored under the question of "what would Walt have done", can you really blame them for not wanting to venture into the sci-fi genre?

 

Another point to consider is that many of Disney's sci-fi movies-- animated or otherwise-- failed because they were pitched at an audience predisposed to ignore them. By the 1970s, Disney had acquired a reputation, not wholly unwarranted, mind you, for being saccharine and childish. In other words, kid's stuff. But movies like Tron, The Black Hole, Atlantis, Treasure Planet, and John Carter were meant to expand Disney's demographic to older thrill-seekers, especially teenage boys. While it seems as if Disney can do anything (a statement that seems a lot more ominous now than it did a few years ago), males ages 12-20 are the white whale the company has always failed to catch. Your average teenage boy wouldn't watch a Disney movie even if you paid him, and I know that because I was a teenage boy once and that's how we think. 

 

Disney seems to have had two major attempts to attract this audience, neither of which truly succeeded. Both coincided with times that the company was in poor financial straits. The first was in the late 1970s and early 1980s, with movies like The Black Hole, Tron, and The Watcher In The Woods.  The second was in the early 2000s. It gave us Atlantis and Treasure Planet, as well as the abortive "Disney Heroes" toy-line (intended to be the male counterpart of the Disney Princesses). There was Pirates of the Caribbean, admittedly, but that was based on a famous Disneyland ride, so it didn't really count. The persistent failure to attract the teen male audience was a factor in Disney acquiring Marvel, Lucasfilm, and eventually Fox; all companies with a history of appealing to that demographic. 

 

So where do we go from here? Will Disney ever make a successful "in-house" sci-fi movie aimed at this audience? The bottom line is, I don't know. Bob Chapek certainly doesn't seem interested in it, so I wouldn't bet on it happening anytime in the next few years. But beyond that, who knows? 

[JustLurking]

18 minutes ago, El Squibbonator said:

Your average teenage boy wouldn't watch a Disney movie even if you paid him, and I know that because I was a teenage boy once and that's how we think. 

 

 

TIL I skipped puberty and went straight from kid to adult or something

[El Squibbonator]

I didn't say they were all like that. But I know I was, and most of my friends were too. And I think that speaks to why these movies rarely do well. 

[ThomasNicole]

Yeah this will bomb hard 

 

 

 

 

[TwoMisfits]

44 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

Yeah this will bomb hard 

 

 

 

 

 

I almost want to say over/under Ron's Gone Wrong, but too much ticket inflation and general Disney animated fans...I think.  So, it's gotta at least do double digits for the 3 day with that nice holiday...

 

But it's getting a woeful set for Thanksgiving, now officially single screened for both my locals...

[El Squibbonator]

Like I said, they seem to be intentionally sabotaging it. At least Atlantis and Treasure Planet got plenty of promotion while they were in theaters, not that it helped. 

[Eric Loves Rey]

It’ll be hilarious when Inside Out 2 makes sub-200. Maybe even sub-150