drotto

On 12/18/2023 at 4:43 PM, Bosco685 said:

Just saw that.

 

Beat me too it. Just saw this.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/entertainment/jonathan-majors-trial-verdict/index.html

So crisis meeting tonight at Disney, and how many scripts and projects will be u deriving a complete overhaul tomorrow?

On 12/13/2023 at 11:08 AM, Bosco685 said:

Another show name change

 

So they have not figured out what the show even is yet.  Good to know. 

On 12/12/2023 at 10:29 AM, Chip Cataldo said:

...but how is the content of the text messages that were released "gossip?" That's a factual thing, and if someone wants to call Majors a scumbag in this forum after reading those then they certainly can. It's part of the discussion of this movie as it's part of the process that could oust him as Kang and change the plotted course of upcoming Marvel movies. I wouldn't call that stuff "gossip." 

We are deliberating the new evidence just as the jury is. 😉 

On 12/12/2023 at 9:41 AM, Mr Sneeze said:

Hard to imagine any big budgets going ahead for comicbook movies. 

Force them to get creative, and maybe worry about character and story over spectacle again.  Look back to Deadpool, I know it is a few years old at that point, but the budget was $58M. Look at Joker, and a small budget, especially by comic movie standards. Each did just as well or better then their big budgets siblings. Plus, the path to profit was comparatively low.

Please, somebody show me where the money is being spent on these films?  It sure is not on the screen. Go watch Godzilla Minus One. The reported budget is $15M, and the director claims it is lower than that. It looks way better then anything the MCU has put out the last 3 years.  That entire budget for the movie was significantly less then one episode of She Hulk. Let that sink in.

On 12/9/2023 at 4:06 AM, Bosco685 said:

Looking forward to it.  Also curious the effects on the stories that Ortega is pushing for the character to be closer to her roots in presentation.  Specifically, no love triangles, and caring how anyone perceives her.  My guess is she was brought up on Christina Ricci's version, and wants to be more like that.

On 12/8/2023 at 2:53 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

Innocent till proven guilty, but wow that has Stockholm syndrome written all over it. 

On 12/5/2023 at 5:29 AM, Bosco685 said:

Wow!

  Hide contents

 

Thought that decapitated character looked familiar.

On 12/6/2023 at 10:01 AM, CAHokie said:

 

Hi percentage of voters voted yes but a low turnout most likely due to many eligible not being too active in the industry. 

Or a sad commentary on the industry.  The rank and file either feel powerless, and despite the "win" they really do do get much out of it. Meaning in a gig oriented industry, lower level people still will not make a livable wage, no matter the changes. Or, like you said, the majority of the members are really not active anymore.  Yet another indication,  it is an industry that favors the lucky elites and most memebers have been pushed into other vacations.

Really not convinced this is the historic win that SAG has been claiming.

On 12/3/2023 at 7:01 PM, Bosco685 said:

That envelope should be filled with cobwebs. That is clearly more money than the movie made.

On 11/28/2023 at 6:52 PM, Bosco685 said:

Disney Execs Talk Quality Over Quantity

 

He conveniently leaves out hiring the best most talented people for a given project. 

On 11/28/2023 at 9:40 AM, Bosco685 said:

It was. And he made it clear it was tied to Disney+ to fill the pipelines. Still writing off those expenses.

It was based on the pipedream that streaming was an endless source of easy cash as long as you had enough content to keep people engaged.  As we have now seen streaming is a money pit, not a revenue driver.

The Fox deal could turn out to be the thing that actually sinks Disney.  I do not think Disney will ever go away, but it has gone from from a giant, to a possible takeover candidate because of that deal. 

Plus, what has Disney actually done with those IP's?  Are they ignoring properties that could actually get them out of this current hole?

On 11/27/2023 at 10:57 PM, paperheart said:

wouldn't Wish this on anyone other than DIS

Disney appears to be floundering, and certain branches of the media are desperately trying to find reasons, but are failing talk about, or unwilling to admit the real reasons.  They are not creating interesting, original, well crafted stories, and have lost sight of who their audience historically is. 

On 11/27/2023 at 6:41 AM, Bosco685 said:

 

Not to worry. When Disney releases The Marvels on Disney Plus, it will announce within the week it brought in millions of new subscribers to the service.

Are those the same 4 million subs they got only because of the $1.99 special monthly subscription the last few weeks.  The same quarter where the subscriptions went up, but the revenue per subscriber went down?

Oh, yeah also forgot the same service that never gives out actual numbers.

On 11/26/2023 at 6:24 PM, Bosco685 said:

The Marvels dropped out of the Top 5

Wish also only hit 3rd in it's opening weekend. Apparently that also includes $500,000 from the previous weekend when a limited early release was done. Really bad months, no really bad year for Disney films.

Watched it last night with my wife, both felt it was good not great.  Did spark some conversation on did the writer intend some of the messaging that came across in the final product or not.  Especially, when the Barbie land matriarchy, does not really come across looking that good either.  But that did keep the movie from coming across as heavy handed as some were claiming.  I have to admit that both Robbie and Gosling were perfectly cast.

On 11/19/2023 at 11:12 AM, EastEnd1 said:

I'm not implying that this movie hasn't disappointed, but just a heads up that most movies aren't profitable based on just the studio's take from box office (generally 50% of the gross).  They usually become profitable after all the secondary revenue streams... downloads, streaming subscription and licensing fees, international rights, broadcast rights, etc. factor in.  You can also layer in more indirect streams like video game licenses, toy licensing deals, character theme park licenses, and so on.  The studios have methodologies for allocating these streams back to the original properties (and btw, those production costs are spread out across the various revenue streams, not just assigned against theatrical box office).  It's not uncommon at all for a box office disappointment to become a profitable movie overall.  Having said that, I'm sure Disney projected a much higher box office for Marvels, which also detrimentally affects all those secondary revenue streams.  Certainly financial forecasts for this film will be missed, and Disney Finance will be hyper-analyzing the results.  But whether they'll actually book a loss at this point is difficult to say.

Yes, but many of these streams have been greatly reduced or even eliminated with Dinsey now putting everything onto a proprietary streaming service. Being purchased by D+ is money shifting pockets, not being made. DVD/Blu-ray is tiny now, this film is not being sold to places like Netflix or HBO, like it would be in the past, ABC is another arm of Disney so does not really count, and with D+, VOD is not a thing with this film. Also toys and merchandising seems to be miniscule compared to past MCU properties. Ms Marvel has already bombed as a character in video games with the last Avenger game, where she was the central character, posting millions in loses.

I know film finances are murky at best, and usually downright fraudulent, but the last few films will be very hard pressed to ever make their budgets and marketing back.

On 11/22/2023 at 11:49 AM, Bosco685 said:

 

Is this movie going to be under $200M world wide? How does the MCU move forward after this and Quantumania?

On 11/15/2023 at 6:06 PM, jaybuck43 said:

The first major announcements that Disney screwed up was when they fired Chapick, brought back iger, realized streaming was a bad bet, started trying to license to Netflix again, and fired a ton of people.  Cutting their films is maybe 8th on the list?

Iger never really left.  He was kept on in an advisory position, was still on the board, and never even vacated his office. Most of the issues happening now started under Iger and Chapick inherited them.  The Marvels was greenlit under Iger.  Disney + was Iger's baby.  The awful overpayment for FOX was all Iger.

A big potion of the mess Iger must now deal with is his own fualt.

On 11/13/2023 at 6:06 PM, Bosco685 said:

‘The Marvels’ Meltdown: Disney MCU Posts Lowest B.O. Opening Ever At $47M — What Went Wrong

 

Yes, the female demagraphic that Disney was aiming for and hoping would show up stayed home.

On 11/13/2023 at 4:48 PM, Microchip said:

This won't last 5 minutes.   

 

It's already been done. Many many times.  When was rhe last time a big crowd of battles scene was not heavily CGI characters.

On 11/13/2023 at 10:48 AM, paqart said:

Disappointing, but true. In an effort to find entertainment without the type of odious messaging that fills modern entertainment products, I have stepped back through the decades, trying to find something I can enjoy. You are right that messaging is always present, but the type of messaging that dominates does change over time. The current focus is more flagrant today, but can be found as far back as Father Knows Best in the 1950's, or even earlier in films. In less disguised form, modern themes can be found in Barney Miller from the mid-1970's, M*A*S*H, That Girl!, the Mary Tyler Moore Show, and many others. 

The first TV series I have been able to find that seems mostly neutral, in direct reverse chronological order from today, is Perry Mason. The actors themselves would have fit in with today's crowd, but the scripts are not filled with the characteristics that make me stop the playback and look for something else. Films have more variety in messages, making it easier to find something that appeals, even in more modern films. In any given year, there are usually a few films that lack the ideological poison de jour. However, to find a large number of American films that would look foreign by contemporary standards, you'd have to go back to the early 1950's or 1940's.

Ironically, the early 1930's and 1920's start looking more "modern" by today's standards. A biography of producer Irving Thalberg does a good job explaining why. It's because the people in the business of making films have always been a similar type with few exceptions. They have always wanted to make the kind of movie we see today, though I doubt they wanted it built into their bylaws. The new rule that to be eligible for nomination in the Academy Awards, you must have a certain diverse set of characters, would likely have been rejected by even the most libertine producer in the 1930's.

Speaking for myself, that rule would inspire me to do the opposite, and not have a diverse cast until the rule was rescinded. The cast should be whatever the script demands, and the script should contain what the story requires. A sign of bad writing is the inclusion of unnecessary or distracting story elements. The Oscar rule ensures that movies are full of such distractions, and consequently, poor writing. One of the few situations I can think of where the rule is a natural fit for the story, is a movie about how dumb the rule is. Another would be a film centered on a situation where demographics tend to mix, like a heist at the DMV or a big city restaurant. Changing the race of mythological Norse characters is strange and distracting unless the casting and script are perfect. Anything short of that is an unnecessary and unwanted distraction.

But the messaging years ago seemed to lack the in your face or even abrasive qualities that it has take on in more recent times.  Almost a here is what I think, but if we disagree we can talk about it, and maybe still be friends. Also, creators would let the viewers judge for themselves. Now the creators attack and tend to get very combative when challenged.  It really feeds the worst on both sides of the issues.

On 11/13/2023 at 9:50 AM, namisgr said:

So you've finally caught on that American filmed entertainment has been providing messages rather than purely telling stories since at least back to World War II.  

Never questioned it. There is definitely a time and a place for it also. But there is also a time and place for movies to be mostly devoid of those things, and just be escapism.

On 11/13/2023 at 8:40 AM, Bosco685 said:

Oh, I get your point. For the longest time she was one of the paid cheerleaders.

Now...

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

It gives credence to the idea that certain critics (I am not singling her out her, it just came across as very transparent after this video), are either getting paid off, or so afraid to lose access that they can't be too harsh.  I know this has been mentioned on the RT thread.