Originally Posted By mawnck Get the torches and pitchforks. Looks like we got us some business in Burbank to take care of. <a href="http://variety.com/2013/film/news/lily-james-to-star-in-disneys-cinderella-1200428618/" target="_blank">http://variety.com/2013/film/n...0428618/</a>
Originally Posted By FerretAfros While I'm glad that the Studio is getting back into the business of making films after several very dry years, I can't say that I'm looking forward to this in any way. Why must they keep retelling the same stories over and over? And while we're sort of on the topic, is the Malefacent movie with Angeline Jolie still on?
Originally Posted By leemac Maleficent has finished principal photography so it is just CGI, editing etc. The Studio have moved it to a July 2014 release now. Oz proved that Alice's release in March was a fluke.
Originally Posted By dagobert Both movies, Maleficient and Cinderella, sound boring. It is about time that Disney makes some adult oriented movies under the Touchstone banner again.
Originally Posted By leemac <<It is about time that Disney makes some adult oriented movies under the Touchstone banner again.>> Not under Iger's watch - he isn't a fan of the Studios business at all and he definitely isn't interested in releasing stuff under the Touchstone banner. Every movie needs to be a tentpole that feeds other business units.
Originally Posted By dagobert Luckily he is gone in two years. Hopefully the next Disney CEO will have a different point of view about the Studios. The next CEO should be someone with a movie background. I really wonder why Alan Horn took over the Disney Studios under the current business way. I mean he was COO at Warner Bros and now he is running the downscaled Disney Studios.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Every movie needs to be a tentpole that feeds other business units.<< That's great in theory, but when they've been turning out a string of stinkers, they really need to reevaluate that strategy. It's been Iger's goal from the beginning, and has led to questionable-at-best success for the Company. The other arms of the company definitely need more content, so they are relegated to selling the existing product; having the Studio dip back into films that it's already made (and is famous for) doesn't do much to help the others out. Combine it with a market that doesn't really care for what they're making, and it's a pretty crummy strategy. 2015 can't get here soon enough.
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>2015 can't get here soon enough.<<< But the problem remains the same. Very expensive movies with heavy marketing will need a ton of money to break even.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Old news we've been discussing this at the Box Office Forums for months <a href="http://forums.boxoffice.com/index.php?/topic/7340-cinderella-disney-march-2015-live-action-tentpole-branagh-to-direct-watson-out/?hl=cinderella" target="_blank">http://forums.boxoffice.com/in...nderella</a>
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "It is about time that Disney makes some adult oriented movies under the Touchstone banner again." Why must they do this? Aren't there plenty of other companies that do this? Who absolutely needs a Disney produced adult movie? What's the difference whether Disney does it or not?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>But the problem remains the same. Very expensive movies with heavy marketing will need a ton of money to break even.<< Why can't that strategy change under a new head of the company? Iger's approach is almost the exact opposite of Eisner's (make a ton of movies with various levels of expectations, and some are bound to hit it big), so I like to hope that whoever is next can make a similar change. Expecting every single film to be a home run is just silly, and has failed on almost every attempt. >>Who absolutely needs a Disney produced adult movie? What's the difference whether Disney does it or not?<< The difference is that Disney would make the money off of it, which they need. By diversifying their studio outreach, they would be able to tap into different markets. It seems that Disney currently aims squarely as the family and tween demographic, which only has so much money to spend on their entertainment. By broadening their horizons, they expand their potential viewership, bringing in customers who would likely never go see a Disney-branded film.
Originally Posted By dagobert That's true, I can consume movies of other studios and most of the time I do so. Disney does not get much money from me. Disney already made more adult oriented movies. These movies must not be branded Disney. That's why they established Touchstone and many movies under Eisner made a ton of money. Currently it seems the studios is losing more money than they are making.
Originally Posted By leemac << It seems that Disney currently aims squarely as the family and tween demographic, which only has so much money to spend on their entertainment. By broadening their horizons, they expand their potential viewership, bringing in customers who would likely never go see a Disney-branded film.>> Production and distribution costs are high barriers to entry for the movie business but there are still plenty of folks throwing cash at the Hollywood system. The problem is that Hollywood is usually clueless when it comes to spotting a trend so they jump on it once it goes skyhigh and then oversaturate the market. I'm still shocked that the market for CGI family product hasn't reached saturation point yet - although it will happen at some point. Pixar is already seeing higher development costs and lower box office returns and it seems like Monsters University could continue that trend - tracking has been weak hence the recent ramp up in marketing activity. MDE's view was that when you have a high cost base like you have when you operate a studio then you might as well make features to defray those costs. Granted releasing nearly 30 movies a year isn't ideal (which they did at their peak with Disney, Touchstone, Hollywood and Miramax) but also releasing 5 $250m+ budget movies a year doesn't help to spread your fixed overheads.
Originally Posted By SoThisIsLove With Kenneth Branagh at the helm and Cate Blanchett adding exquisite restraint as the evil stepmother, why, this could be quite promising, indeed. I've been Kenneth's fan since the magnificent "Much Ado About Nothing." This movie just may see profitability after all.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA This also in the Variety story < Studio also is developing a live action version of “Beauty and the Beast,” with “Trance”-scribe Joe Ahearne writing the script> Groan...
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 The live action Peter Pan from about ten years ago which I think was released through Universal wasn't a bad film. If Disney wants to go back and make Cinderella fine. What I don't care for is making Cinderella some fierce warrior who has to protect her kingdom, like in Alice in Wonderland.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: It would seem that's exactly the reason they're remaking some of the classic fairytales these days--for the benefit of those who never accepted the original versions by done by Disney. Some people prefer their princesses to become Amazon types who take on more masculine qualities than the princesses. That's what they did with Snow White in Snow White and the Huntsman. But for many of us, we prefer the more appealing feminine types with softer personalities. As long as we still have the original versions of the princesses, these re-makes of 'wanna-be' princesses can do whatever they want. They will fade over time while the originals will remain timeless...
Originally Posted By JeffG I guess my cynicism about this stuff is way too weak. My reaction to reading this story was to think that the idea of a Kenneth Branagh directed adaptation of Cinderella with that cast is something I'd really like to see. I also look forward to hearing what Patrick Doyle (who usually scores Branagh's films) will do with the music for this one. -Jeff
