Originally Posted By FerretAfros Dalmatians! I agree with ukfan about T:L. It has its issues, but it had a lot of really well done elements, and had a fantastic mythology full of archetypes and allegories. It certainly stands up to repeat viewings very well, and you actuall catch a lot more information the more you watch it. And let it be said that I think the original is just plain tedious and lackluster, other than some great-at-the-time special effects
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Just thinking out loud here: does anybody else think that The Lone Ranger's performance might have an impact on the planned Bruckheimer-Verbinski-Depp collaboration for POTC5? Personally, I'm hoping it gets canned, since POTC4 was pretty dreadful, but knowing Iger and his love of franchises, I don't see that happening. More likely, they'll just be stalked by accountants the whole time.
Originally Posted By u k fan I also wondered if POTC5 might sail off into the horizon now... Ferret, did you watch Tron: Uprising? It also continued the Tron mythology and added some backstory to what happened between the two movies. Rumours are that it's been cancelled after 1 season though
Originally Posted By leemac <<Rumours are that it's been cancelled after 1 season though >> It has definitely gone - too expensive to make and no audience on XD. Boys were too busy watching Phineas and Ferb marathons instead....
Originally Posted By u k fan It's a shame as they really messed its scheduling in the US and it wasn't much better in the UK. I figured it was gone although it's never been confirmed officially. I'd like them to do a wrap up though just to finish the story, perhaps a TV movie? Tucking a show away at midnight on a Sunday is never going to get a great audience on XD!!!
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<The last Disney branded movie that was really good was The Muppets. At least I liked that movie a lot. I don't know if it was very successful, but I guess so, since the Muppets are getting a second movie. I also liked John Carter and Tron Legacy, but both were financial failures. But I still hope for a third Tron movie.>> Loved the Muppets and JC. TL just bored me. I am interested to see how Saving Mr. Banks, I mean they couldn't have spent 100 million on that could they?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Let's be fair the first Tron was pretty weak in the story department, why would anyone expect T:L to be any different?!!!> Because it's possible to make movies with good scripts? Or was that a rhetorical question...
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>I am interested to see how Saving Mr. Banks, I mean they couldn't have spent 100 million on that could they?<< I wouldn't be surprised if they did. From the what I know about it (relatively little), I would expect it to cost Disney around $100M to make. I haven't heard any sort of official numbers, but it could easily be above that. Never underestimate Disney's ability to spend money left, right, and center
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Here's something to ponder: Prince of Persia-Desert setting John Carter-Mars but desert like setting Lone Ranger-Haven't seen, but will likely have a desert setting. The past ten years Disney has put more bombs in the desert than the US Government.
Originally Posted By leemac >>I am interested to see how Saving Mr. Banks, I mean they couldn't have spent 100 million on that could they?<< BBC Films is the lead financier and producer on the movie. Disney were brought in to help get over rights issues. They have an invested stake in the movie and will distribute it in most key markets but it isn't a Disney movie per se.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'm no financial expert, but one of the golden rules is diversify. By putting all of their movie eggs in one basket with movies that must become mega hits to turn any sort of profit, Disney is going to take it on the chin when a movie flops. Mixing it up with a few low budget comedies and an assortment of smaller films just makes sense to me. But again, I'm not a financial expert. I just know that I didn't waste a couple hundred million dollars this weekend. If I had, maybe I'd be CEO material.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Mixing it up with a few low budget comedies and an assortment of smaller films just makes sense to me. But again, I'm not a financial expert.> Yeah, but it makes all kinds of sense. That's what they did in the Eisner era, with all those Touchstone comedies, and then the annual fully animated "canon" film and occasional would-be-blockbuster (some of which actually were). The Touchstones didn't have to make a mint because they didn't cost a mint, and once in a while one just caught on and did better than expected at the box office and made some real coin. Say what you will about Eisner's stewardship of the parks at the end of his tenure (or post-Wells), but as a studio chief he ran rings around Iger. <I just know that I didn't waste a couple hundred million dollars this weekend. If I had, maybe I'd be CEO material.> LOL!
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Thing is it's not just Disney, it's all of Hollywood that spends wildly. Gatsby cost over 100 million. That might make a profit. Star Trek cost 200 million. The Hangover 3 and Fast 6 cost about 110 million and 160 million. World War Z cost 200 million. Man of Steel 225 million. White House Down 150 million. And then coming up you have Pacific Rim which cost at least 200 million. And RIPD aka Hollywood's attempt to continue to try to make Ryan Reynolds a star is said to have cost anywhere from 150-200 million.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Mixing it up with a few low budget comedies and an assortment of smaller films just makes sense to me. But again, I'm not a financial expert.>> Studios have high fixed costs - it takes a lot of money to maintain a studio - Eisner's logic was that the more movies you made the lower your overhead on a per-movie basis. Studio headcount is currently the lowest it has been in a generation but you still have to maintain all of that expensive technical labor. There is also the cost of maintaining producing relationships like Bruckheimer and DreamWorks (although the latter is also a co-financing relationship). There is a middle ground that isn't 28 movies a year but also isn't 7.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Thing is it's not just Disney, it's all of Hollywood that spends wildly.>> But only Disney has a limited slate based on tentpoles and animated features. Every other studio has a mixed slate - sure some like Sony are spending wildly leaving them nursing their wounds on stuff like After Earth and White House Down but also seeing upside on stuff like This Is The End.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 True. And another tidbit about LR. Disney actually shut down production because the budget was getting too high when it was "only 215 million"
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And RIPD aka Hollywood's attempt to continue to try to make Ryan Reynolds a star is said to have cost anywhere from 150-200 million.<< It looks basically like a reworking of Men in Black, doesn't it?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>There is a middle ground that isn't 28 movies a year but also isn't 7.<< Yep. With the low budget comedies, it gives the studio a safer place to give TV stars a chance at the big screen, and an opportunity for newer directors, writers, etc. to do a little on the job learning and experimenting. And like Dabob said, every so often one of those movies clicks and brings in some surprise income. (This is also why they should think about relaunching the "ABC Tuesday Movie of the Week" on TV. It's a safe proving ground.)
Originally Posted By leemac >>And RIPD aka Hollywood's attempt to continue to try to make Ryan Reynolds a star is said to have cost anywhere from 150-200 million.<< I suspect Uni's profits on Fast 6 will be wiped out by RIPD - it looks awful. Early reviews of Pacific Rim haven't been stellar either. Can't see WB/Legendary turning around the poor tracking for it to open big enough to make money.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<It looks basically like a reworking of Men in Black, doesn't it?>> Yes but I'm getting a MIB 2 vibe from it.
