How to Train Your Dragon was dreamworks my friend.gamernerdtg2 said:
Hidalgo was by disney? That is news to me.
What is it with these Disney blockbusters?
- Thread starter bartholen_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hidalgo was by disney? That is news to me.
Tron Legacy actually came out during the winter, rather than the summer. They released it just before Christmas, which is probably one of the reasons it didn't make as much as they wanted it to. The film was good though, even though it has some glaring faults. As for the other films, I've got no clue. Disney was always more of an animation powerhouse than the kind of summer blockbuster factory that it seems to want to be at the moment, and honestly I wish they'd put more money where their roots are.
I listed the sequel in my opening, so Book of Secrets was encompassed by the statement. I did not know it was getting a third installment, so thank you for bringing this to my attention.Dirty Hipsters said:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-report-lone-ranger-581303
Yeah, the Lone Ranger is doing HORRIBLY at the box office.
I think Disney is really trying to recreate the Pirate magic that earned them loads and loads of cash, without really understanding what made the Pirates films really work... Ok, what made the first Pirate film really work.
Yeah, the Lone Ranger is doing HORRIBLY at the box office.
I think Disney is really trying to recreate the Pirate magic that earned them loads and loads of cash, without really understanding what made the Pirates films really work... Ok, what made the first Pirate film really work.
I do think that Disney have just been AWFUL with these big, flashy blockbusters especially as of late. The PotC movies made money, but were really just boring from the 2nd one onward, Tron 2 was a disappointment, Prince of Persia went nowhere, and then John Carter became a legendary flop and it looks like The Lone Ranger is going the same way. The PotC films at least made money, so I can see why Disney still has them, but the others have been forgettable. I just don't know what's with them mismanaging these big films. The AV Club actually has an interesting review on the Director's Commentary for John Carter in which the director, Andrew Stanton, wasted money on the STUPIDEST shit. I dunno, but quite frankly this has gotten ridiculous and I can see them just dropping the blockbuster scene and letting Marvel pick up the slack for them.
I think you're right. They're trying to make lightning strike thirty or forty times.ItouKaiji said:
The funny thing to my mind is... All of the movies the OP mentions are decent movies. Well, okay... I haven't seen The Lone Ranger, and I'm willing to take the majority of critics at their word and presume I should keep it that way. But Prince of Persia, Tron Legacy, Hidalgo, John Carter- sure, they all have their flaws, but I'd still argue the least of them (which to my taste would probably be Legacy) still has moments of greatness, a striking and unique visual style, and remains a mostly cohesive experience.
For comparison, PoTC: On Stranger Tides is such a godawful shambles of a film that I went home and wrote five and a half pages of rant about the various depths, breadths and heights of its stupidity. (Don't get me started- please.) Yet that movie made over a billion dollars in worldwide box office, which tends to mean that people told their friends and families to go see it and/or went to see it themselves more than once.
(And Identity Thief made five times its budget...! *twitch* *twitch*... But I digress.)
Clearly, I am not an effective predictor of box office performance, and should perhaps disqualify myself from the conversation if we're talking about successful movies as opposed to the more subjective notion of good movies. Though it appears that, somewhat surprisingly, all of the above made back at least their budgets once worldwide gross was taken into account.
Now, four of the movies- Lone Ranger very much included- were dependent on franchises that perhaps did not possess quite the mass appeal they might have seemed to in the pitch meeting. If you didn't know PoP from its long legacy of games, you were stuck with a movie taking place in the Middle East with all characters playing the part of Middle Easterners (not exactly Middle America's cup of tea); if you did know the games, you were left wondering if it would fail like so many video game-based movies before it. Tron came out in 1982. John Carter is Tarzan's much, much, much less well-known brother. Hidalgo is a cowboy movie largely without cowboys, a race movie without a series of up and down races to raise tension. And my only exposure to The Lone Ranger was a Saturday morning cartoon I do not remember with an excess of fondness.
Aside from the ride, the Pirates franchise has some pretty well-known actors. Bloom was flying high after LotR, Depp had been carrying quirky roles forever, and Knightley was gaining notice for Bend it Like Beckham. It was a genre that hadn't been over-represented lately but was easy to understand and immerse within. It had strong action set-pieces, both a younger and an older leading man to draw in moviegoers, and a script that wasn't entirely witless. It had, in short, a variety of legs to stand on.
By comparison, what were any of those other five movies relying on? Yeah, some good actors, certainly. But in crowded movie seasons (Tron and Prince), audiences had other options; in March, Hidalgo and Carter were both pretty easy to simply overlook.
It seems like Disney can bring together the budgets, screenwriters, directors, and actors to make a movie that ought to be a breakaway smash. But unusually, it may be that they actually could stand to do more market research, barring another multi-tiered win like the Pirates series. It seems like they never asked who would want to see a Lone Ranger movie, or what they'd want to see in it if they did. They just assumed it would be Pirates with trains rather than boats.
For comparison, PoTC: On Stranger Tides is such a godawful shambles of a film that I went home and wrote five and a half pages of rant about the various depths, breadths and heights of its stupidity. (Don't get me started- please.) Yet that movie made over a billion dollars in worldwide box office, which tends to mean that people told their friends and families to go see it and/or went to see it themselves more than once.
(And Identity Thief made five times its budget...! *twitch* *twitch*... But I digress.)
Clearly, I am not an effective predictor of box office performance, and should perhaps disqualify myself from the conversation if we're talking about successful movies as opposed to the more subjective notion of good movies. Though it appears that, somewhat surprisingly, all of the above made back at least their budgets once worldwide gross was taken into account.
Now, four of the movies- Lone Ranger very much included- were dependent on franchises that perhaps did not possess quite the mass appeal they might have seemed to in the pitch meeting. If you didn't know PoP from its long legacy of games, you were stuck with a movie taking place in the Middle East with all characters playing the part of Middle Easterners (not exactly Middle America's cup of tea); if you did know the games, you were left wondering if it would fail like so many video game-based movies before it. Tron came out in 1982. John Carter is Tarzan's much, much, much less well-known brother. Hidalgo is a cowboy movie largely without cowboys, a race movie without a series of up and down races to raise tension. And my only exposure to The Lone Ranger was a Saturday morning cartoon I do not remember with an excess of fondness.
Aside from the ride, the Pirates franchise has some pretty well-known actors. Bloom was flying high after LotR, Depp had been carrying quirky roles forever, and Knightley was gaining notice for Bend it Like Beckham. It was a genre that hadn't been over-represented lately but was easy to understand and immerse within. It had strong action set-pieces, both a younger and an older leading man to draw in moviegoers, and a script that wasn't entirely witless. It had, in short, a variety of legs to stand on.
By comparison, what were any of those other five movies relying on? Yeah, some good actors, certainly. But in crowded movie seasons (Tron and Prince), audiences had other options; in March, Hidalgo and Carter were both pretty easy to simply overlook.
It seems like Disney can bring together the budgets, screenwriters, directors, and actors to make a movie that ought to be a breakaway smash. But unusually, it may be that they actually could stand to do more market research, barring another multi-tiered win like the Pirates series. It seems like they never asked who would want to see a Lone Ranger movie, or what they'd want to see in it if they did. They just assumed it would be Pirates with trains rather than boats.
That's what they do today. They used to know how to make a good story, but I think that they didn't really change with the times. After the mid/late 90's they "fell off". (Meaning that the themes they try to use from their earlier years don't translate well today for some reason..)Fox12 said:
"Once Upon A Time" is a probably the best thing that Disney has going for it at this point, but they're going back and redefining the characters.
I agree that Walt was a visionary, and that they had some great story tellers during the Disney Renaissance, but afterward they lost it. It's not just that they didn't change with the times, it's also the fact that they keep trying to market this idea of dreams, and wishes, and hope, and none of it feels sincere. The Lion King was great, and the central theme really seemed to be "shit happens, how are you going to deal with it?" Modern Disney just wants to perpetuate a lot of ideas they don't really seem to believe themselves, and hope the kids eat it up. Kids aren't stupid though, they know something is insincere, even if they can't put their finger on it yet. Disney fired most of their great animators, and keep jumping from one gimmick to another, hoping that some new form of technology will save them. That's what happened with pixar, except people don't realize pixar succeeded because they told great stories, and not because kids are into the CG films these days. They tried to jump on the 3D bandwagon as well, but in the end that never took off, and they had to discontinue their 3d tv network.gamernerdtg2 said:
What happened is merely a shift in what people are invested in. During the 90's Disney was the company everyone was trying to be, with many studios trying to copy the success that Disney had received with their animated features. As time went on, and the Disney Renaissance came to an end, Disney found themselves playing follow the leader in the role of the follower instead of the leader. That's the sole reason Pirates of the Caribbean was made in the first place and the company found short success with that franchise. These other movies are just attempts to continue to cash in on the trend. It's also why Frozen looks like a frozen sack of turd.
I have no problem with a film being a visual experience. To that end, TRON: Legacy was pretty damn good, and Avatar cops way too much shit.
And that reminds me, I gotta get around to seeing John Carter...!
And that reminds me, I gotta get around to seeing John Carter...!
Dude THAT (underlined and bolded statement) is what I have been trying to articulate for the last 10 years but I couldn't find the words. FAKE is right. It's been bothering me so much that I can't even play Kingdom Hearts, nor do I want to go to Disney World. Firing people who know what they're doing and who can generate money seems to be the rave amongst the corporate controllers these days.Fox12 said:
John Carter was actually a great movie. I expected it to be completely terrible and was shocked. I'm not sure what the problem was. I haven't seen it in a while but it was good.Starik20X6 said: