Originally Posted By leemac $140m write-down - it has tanked everywhere: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-could-lose-140-million-801244">http://www.hollywoodreporter.c...n-801244</a> I appreciate everything is subjective but boy I can't understand anyone liking this one. Better than the truly awful John Carter and Lone Ranger but not a lot going for it. Here comes more franchises and sequels......
Originally Posted By oc_dean Let me ask you Leemac, what does "write down" mean? Does it mean Disney claims it against taxes? As for the movie ... This is so sad. Did they intend on making sequels of this? I could even picture a tv show just revolving around the Plus Ultra society. But I have a feeling Disney is going to do a "Tron:3" to 'Tomorrowland'. In favor of more known IPs, sequels, prequels, and reboots. I'm actually over it with one too many reboots. Toby Mcquire barely wrapped as Spiderman, and that was rebooted faster than I could do a 360. Here's come more Jurrasic films. (I'm over it) .. Fantastic 4 - original cast was fine .. already here it is, AGAIN. And the list goes on. Except for a publication here or there, I see any positive reception for 'Tomorrowland' going into 'cult' status. Some theorize the film has some direct or indirect impact on whether Tomorrowland gets a renovation at some point in the future. I hope it had ZERO to do with it. Reasons behind a films success or lack of is like a different 'animal' to the factors that go into a successful theme park entity .. whether it be a ride or a land.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I would like to see a Tomorrowland 2 that explained and expanded on the ending.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "I can't understand anyone liking this one." Different people have different tastes? Maybe they are looking for different things in movies than you are?
Originally Posted By leemac <<Let me ask you Leemac, what does "write down" mean? Does it mean Disney claims it against taxes?>> Movies are assets that can be amortised over their lives (i.e. beyond first run into home entertainment and TV etc). Recognising a write-down takes the asset on the balance sheet down to a lower value or nothing as they can't justify the carrying value. That charge hits the income statement. Those charges are usually tax deductible.
Originally Posted By leemac <<But I have a feeling Disney is going to do a "Tron:3" to 'Tomorrowland'. In favor of more known IPs, sequels, prequels, and reboots. I'm actually over it with one too many reboots. Toby Mcquire barely wrapped as Spiderman, and that was rebooted faster than I could do a 360. Here's come more Jurrasic films. (I'm over it) .. Fantastic 4 - original cast was fine .. already here it is, AGAIN. And the list goes on.>> Franchises sell. Disney will be mining MARVEL and Star Wars until the public tire of them. They will at some point but there is no evidence that is soon. Age of Ultron has now taken $1.35bn - just a massive take. Furious 7 is at $1.5bn. No WB are pushing the DC brands harder too. In recent years Disney has been reluctant to launch new live-action franchises and when they have they have invariably failed. The roadside is littered with kill like Oz, The Lone Ranger and John Carter. Massive movies that didn't connect. They were hoping for more Alice but that is like lightning in a bottle. You don't get those movies very often. Now the live action slate is filled with reboots of animated properties like The Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast. The days of Disney as a major force in original live action are long gone. Eisner's mantra of singles and doubles doesn't exist anymore.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Different people have different tastes? Maybe they are looking for different things in movies than you are?>> And usually I get that - just once in a while something comes up that makes me think "seriously, some people liked that?!?!?" - it was the same with The Lone Ranger. I couldn't see anything appealing in that mess at all. Different strokes 'n' all that I know.
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>Now the live action slate is filled with reboots of animated properties like The Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast. The days of Disney as a major force in original live action are long gone. Eisner's mantra of singles and doubles doesn't exist anymore.<<< The other studios aren't so much better when it comes to original movies. The calendar is full of prequels, sequels and franchises. Maybe the market changed. Going to the movies got really expensive and so I'm much more selective. Usually we pick the blockbusters, because they look so much better on a big screen and we know what we get. Original movies are for the Video on Demand portals. I pay a couple of Euros and if I didn't like it, not much is lost.
Originally Posted By leemac <<The other studios aren't so much better when it comes to original movies. The calendar is full of prequels, sequels and franchises. Maybe the market changed.>. Those strategies try to minimise risk. When a tentpole is $200m plus $150m in marketing/distribution it means it needs to gross $700m+ in first run internationally (except China where the margin is very thin) to breakeven. That's inside the Top 75 movies of all time. A select club. So instead of trying to rein in costs they simply reboot and regurgitate. It is far easier to sell an extension to an existing franchise. Jurassic World looks like doing $125m this week in the US.
Originally Posted By dagobert And the rebooting and extension continues. WB is making new movies in the Harry Potter franchise. There are rumourse that Sony is doing a new Bad Boys movie. Ghostbusters gets a reboot and recently Mad Max was rebooted.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Thank you very much Leemac .. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain all that. Especially about what a "write down". Much, much appreciation >>Age of Ultron has now taken $1.35bn - just a massive take<< First moment I took a look at Box Office Mojo's site ... my jaw dropped ... then, in some way .. I wasn't surprised. The Marvel universe seems like a gold mine for Disney. As for Lone Ranger ... after I saw it .. I honestly didn't get why it bombed. I didn't grow up with the 50s tv show .. obviously .. as I hadn't been born yet. So I had no expectations, no preconceived ideas what it should or should not have been - and I actually enjoyed it. I can pick apart a plot/script if it's lousy .. just as good as anyone else can. I didn't see why Lone Ranger got ignored. I saw the flaws in Oz. John Carter ... it was like a comedy. In the vein of the Buck Rogers shorts of the 1930s. Maybe that wasn't Disney's intentions, but it came across as 'camp' to me. And 'Tomorrowland's flaws were pretty evident to me. As you said, Disney will probably shy away from original live action films from this point forward .. so I'm glad Disney is not the only studio in Hollywood, as I love new content, whenever it comes along, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that search. If I may take another minute or two of your time ... I remember when the term "Sequel" was new. THEN along came PREQUELS as The New Thing. Now ... REBOOTS is 'The New Black' or I should say 'The New Hollywood thing to do'. Like it's a fashion. I don't know how that's resonating to people 40+ years of age. I sat through the first trilogy of Jurassic films .. I surprised myself when I rolled my eyes to the Jurrasic World trailer. Is it just me, or have other people felt, perhaps this is being rebooted just a little too soon? Some how ;-) ... I'll be 'twisting my arm' to see Mr. "I'll be back". If not for the umpteenth change with how the future turns out, with more shoot outs, and griddy depressing futures .. but for the 'character connection' with Arnie. Anyway .. if not with Disney: Long live New & Original material with other studios.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>As for Lone Ranger ... after I saw it .. I honestly didn't get why it bombed.<< It was too much of everything for me. Too much CGI, too much Johnny Depp being wacky (again), and making an iconic hero essentially the second banana, and kind of a bumbling oaf, too. It was one of the few movies that I just couldn't muster the patience to watch all the way through.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And the rebooting and extension continues. << Finally, The Million Dollar Duck and The Boatniks will get the budget and care they originally deserved! ; )
Originally Posted By oc_dean Talk about wabbit season .. duck season.... Since it's Reboot season ... Anyone for a Howard the Duck reboot? ;-)
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Too much CGI,<< Being a western set in the open desert .. I didn't notice a lot of CGI going on. >> too much Johnny Depp being wacky (again), and making an iconic hero essentially the second banana, and kind of a bumbling oaf, too.<< I suppose if I watched reruns of the tv show ... I'd be more in tune with what you're saying K2oony. So, being something completely new to me - aside from the Wiliam Tell overture ... I had no expectation what it should have been.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Being a western set in the open desert .. I didn't notice a lot of CGI going on. << Flying trains, slow motion fly-throughs at various moments, that set of thing. >>I had no expectation what it should have been. << I guess that would help. But for me, it would be like Robin being the lead in a Batman movie, and Batman being a klutz. (Hey, that's not bad, now that I think of it. I should totally sell that idea to someone in Hollywood! ; )
Originally Posted By basil fan Whew! Took me a while to wade through all those comments, but I didn't want to read 'em until I'd seen the movie. I liked it some, but didn't love it. I think a second viewing might improve it in my eyes, but I'm not paying that kind of money. Loved the scene in the comic book shop, though I cringed at the damage dome to priceless rarities. Loved the attack on the house scene. Loved being in Tomorrowland, but it got precious little screen time. Loved the pretty-boy robots. Loved the 2 guys trying to get back through that door from the beach. Love Hugh Laurie. I did a take when he came on the screen, followed shortly after by the lament, "He's a bad guy?" Disliked the first scene with the humorous narration -- too confusing. SERIOUSLY disliked poor Mr. Laurie's diatribe on the evils of society, especially from a character whose solution was to bail out. I'd've edited it down to 2 lines, tops. Got my Tomorrowland pin, and the next time I'm on It's a Small World, it BETTER do something! Just sayin'. The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/etc/brisco.html">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...sco.html</a>
Originally Posted By basil fan Oh, and I think John Carter is truly awesome. Can't understand what people don't like about it. Never saw Lone Ranger. Looks too...horrible. The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/etc/brisco.html">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...sco.html</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Jurassic World looks like doing $125m this week in the US.> It did a little better than that.
