Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Strange World should have gone straight to Disney+, given the obvious lack of confidence for the title, with Disenchanted being the Thanksgiving theatrical release (like the original was 15 years ago).
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film
- Thread starter NateD1226
- Start date
Strange World should have gone straight to Disney+, given the obvious lack of confidence for the title, with Disenchanted being the Thanksgiving theatrical release (like the original was 15 years ago).
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I get what you’re saying now. You want it to be more descriptive. “Exploring A Strange World” or “Searcher Clade and the Strange World” or something. That’s not “how it works” that’s how you want it to work.
But since this is a one-off, standalone film and NOT a serial or anthology, riffing on the classic strange/weird/fantastic titles by putting it in the singular works for me.
Also, Disney has a lot of experience with titles that sell (or hurt) family films. Remember the rationale behind “Tangled” rather than “Rapunzel?” Or “Frozen” rather than “The Snow Queen?” And you mentioned the box-office bomb John Carter (which was adapted from A Princess of Mars). With multiple trailers and social media, maybe simpler titles work better?
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
I didn’t realize that, interesting.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
I thought it was a movie too, then saw 6 different release dates and realized it was a mini series.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
Another example of Disney struggling with their advertising, I’m a huge Disney fan, a huge D+ fan, a huge Tim Allen fan, and a huge Christmas fan… and yet I had no idea this wasn’t just a straight to video movie.
This is great news, it’s just pathetic I had to learn about it here rather than directly from Disney.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Their advertising seems to have become nonexistent, at least in anything I’m seeing. Even Wakanda Forever, most of the ads I have seen have been for other things (Sprite, Target) and not the movie itself. I’m not sure I’ve seen anything for Strange World.
There was a TV ad for Strange World in the latest episode of Star Girl.
BuddyThomas
Well-Known Member
LOL. Just wait until it opens.
BuddyThomas
Well-Known Member
Talking about it before it opens.Yup! Talking about the box office performance data and statistical success of a movie.
Prince-1
Well-Known Member
Not when your already stated goal is to increase subscribers to D+. Disney could care less about leaving money on the box office table if they are seeing an increase in people paying for D+.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
B movies switched from theaters to others distribution avenues years ago. First it was TV movies and then it was direct-to-video movies. For some time now studios have sold off movies to streaming services when there isn’t confidence. Netflix in particular isn’t shy about focusing on quantity over quality. Award consideration is part of it, but dedicated streamers also give their prestige content theatrical releases. They’re not huge releases but some are still beyond the required limited release for award consideration. Even with Disney, projects like Enchanted 2 were planned and killed years ago due to their limited box office (and merchandise) potential was considered too low.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Yes. But things have changed. Disney has learned to leverage what used to be the B movie contingency. Their direct-to-consumer strategy is make lower-cost films and series that go deeper with smaller, but more devoted audiences to intentionally make what used to be called “sleeper hits”—essentially leveraging one of the few upsides of “straight to DVD” movies to buff D+ subscriptions.
In this model, theatrical releases aren’t treated as the “big leagues.” but as a more public/crowded outlet where Disney releases content that will try to connect with multiple audiences (including potential audiences). Theater releases are leveraged to drive D+ subscriptions and fish for new fandoms to serve (and sell to). We’re on our way to having theatrical releases treated as loss leaders.
TalkingHead
Well-Known Member
John Carter would seem to be evidence that bland titles aren’t a good match with pulp. Raiders of the Lost Ark. Not a series title. Colorful, adventurous, pulpy, identifies the tone and characterization w “raiders”. Tangled and Frozen were also musicals (cf. Wicked), not adventures (if that’s even what this is). Simply pointing out the title Strange World is indifferent, doesn’t give any hint of tone or flavor, so if it underperforms at the box office, there’s going to be handwringing about the way the movie was packaged and sold, and that extends to the title.
People don't pay monthly to own that DVD so that they can watch it whenever they want, along with several thousand other DVDs that are now at their disposal.
People paid cable companies big bucks for a continuous dump of content. Streamers are the new cable and need a continuous flow of new content. And that's what people pay for.
Releasing to theaters *first* depends on if it can bring in a significant amount of revenue in theaters. If not, then it becomes exclusive to the streamer, and people have to buy into a subscription to see it.
That's what Chapek means when he keeps saying on quarterly calls that they're leaving their options open with regard to theatrical releases rather than forcing all content into the same box.
Just imagine how bad it would've been if Artemis Fowl went to the theaters first.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
John Carter was a bad title for a bad movie. The equivalent for Strange World would be "Searcher Clade," which they didn't go with (hopefully having learned a lesson).
"Tangled isn't an adventure movie because it has singing in it" is an interesting take.
What do you think the word "strange" means? And combined with the word "world," what does that evoke? And when delivered with the other trappings of pulp sci-fantasy, I think it's pretty spot on for tone and feel.
You could argue that Disney hasn't been aggressive enough with the marketing, but the real answer to that argument most of the time is, "If you haven't seen a lot of marketing about the movie, it's because you are not the target audience." But alas, so many here assume they are the target because they spend a lot on Disney.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
This is how I felt about the movie until the full trailer dropped. I though the initial artwork and the teasers were spot-on. They were very Old Hollywood, Raiders of the Lost Ark meets Planet of the Apes meets Star Trek: TOS. Then when the full trailer came out I was completely disappointed. The characters opened their mouths and the whole vibe collapsed. The show is written and directed like a late-90s Saturday cartoon. The dialogue felt like "Recess."
_caleb
Well-Known Member
This is what I was going to say, except for this bit:
I don't think the decision to release in theaters is ONLY about making significant revenue anymore. Their investment in streaming brings growing incentive for them to release AAA content on D+ even if it could have made loads of money at the box office.