'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film

[_caleb]

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."

Not having seen the movie yet, I don't have enough info to judge the writing and directing. I see what you mean from the trailer, though. I guess we'll see.

And I agree with the artwork and marketing being on point!

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Before and after the tone shift in the marketing. I really want to see the first movie. I don't care about the second movie.

 

[_caleb]

View attachment 678556View attachment 678557

Before and after the tone shift in the marketing. I really want to see the first movie. I don't care about the second movie.

I'd be interested to see where you find each of these. It may be a shift in marketing, but Disney is known to maintain multiple marketing initiatives (and strategies) for any given film.

Looking at these side-by-side sort of makes it seem like pulp fiction/comics only influenced the marketing and not the film itself. Maybe a case of an EXCELLENT marketing team trying to polish a weaker product.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

What is an example of this AAA content that was placed on Disney+ and forgoing a big box office?

 

[TalkingHead]

"Tangled isn't an adventure movie because it has singing in it" is an interesting take.

So you think Tangled is more adventure than a musical. Not either/or. But never once heard it characterized as an adventure story first and foremost.

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.

Strange could mean many things — in pulp/exotic connotations, it could be the jungle, colonial lands, Asia, Mars, Pandora, whatever. It’s vague but please keep telling us otherwise.

 

[BuddyThomas]

So you think Tangled is more adventure than a musical. Not either/or. But never once heard it characterized as an adventure story first and foremost.

Strange could mean many things — in pulp/exotic connotations, it could be the jungle, colonial lands, Asia, Mars, Pandora, whatever. It’s vague but please keep telling us otherwise.

Now you’re arguing about the title of a movie that you have not even seen yet. Wonderful.

 

[_caleb]

What is an example of this AAA content that was placed on Disney+ and forgoing a big box office?

There are several recent examples: Turning Red, Luca, Soul, Pinocchio, Obi-Wan Kenobi (shifted to development as a series on D+ rather than as a feature-length film).

To be clear, it's not like the D+ vs. theatrical decision is made on the fly. Kareem Daniel has spoken about leveraging release flexibility quite a bit on investor calls and in interviews. Theater attendance has been declining for a while now. The pandemic limited Disney's options, and originally they needed to launch Disney+ with strong new content. But as theaters have reopened, some audiences aren't coming back. And in addition to the traditional film studios, Disney is facing increasing competition from Netflix and Amazon.

We're in a new era, where the line between marketing and films is increasingly blurred, some IP are leveraged to reach/develop/foster long-term relationships with new fandoms.

 

[TP2000]

View attachment 678556View attachment 678557

Before and after the tone shift in the marketing. I really want to see the first movie. I don't care about the second movie.

The second one also has fewer characters in it; what happened to the other three people that were in the first poster? The second poster focuses on the dog and the amorphous blob (that looks like the mascot for the Olympics in a second-tier country).

Did they get bad feedback on whoever those three other characters (that look like women) were in the first poster? And decided to play up the men and the lovable dog n' blob?

Honestly, do movie posters still mean much to potential audiences? Who even sees them now in a situation or location that would sway a ticket purchase?

 

[Phroobar]

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.

The low budget, indie, cheap sequels all used to go to DVD. Now all the b-movies go to streaming. Only big tent poles or large marketable movies go to theaters. Everything else is streamed or even worst ends up on Tubi.

 

[Phroobar]

The second one also has fewer characters in it; what happened to the other three people that were in the first poster? The second poster focuses on the dog and the amorphous blob (that looks like the mascot for the Olympics in a second-tier country).

Did they get bad feedback on whoever those three other characters (that look like women) were in the first poster? And decided to play up the men and the lovable dog n' blob?

Honestly, do movie posters still mean much to potential audiences? Who even sees them now in a situation or location that would sway a ticket purchase?

Movie posters are mostly for collectors or streaming cover art.

 

[TP2000]

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."

I just went and watched the trailer on YouTube. Yikes.

That's 2 minutes and 12 seconds of my life that I'm never getting back.

If Strange World is what Walt Disney Animation is producing, I'm asking myself yet again why are there two separate animation studios 400 miles apart producing stuff with the same look/feel? What's the point of Pixar in Emeryville if Disney in Burbank is going to produce animation that looks and feels like a Pixar production? (And a bad one at that)

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I just went and watched the trailer on YouTube. Yikes.

That's 2 minutes and 12 seconds of my life that I'm never getting back.

If Strange World is what Walt Disney Animation is producing, I'm asking myself yet again why are there two separate animation studios 400 miles apart producing stuff with the same look/feel? What's the point of Pixar in Emeryville if Disney in Burbank is going to produce animation that looks and feels like a Pixar production? (And a bad one at that)

Because John Lasseter was a handsy drunk at the worst moment in human history for someone to be a handsy drunk and the company still hasn't come to terms with it. I have hope that Favreau might save live action but animation is in dire straits and Jennifer Lee ain't saving us.

 

[BuddyThomas]

I just went and watched the trailer on YouTube. Yikes.

That's 2 minutes and 12 seconds of my life that I'm never getting back.

If Strange World is what Walt Disney Animation is producing, I'm asking myself yet again why are there two separate animation studios 400 miles apart producing stuff with the same look/feel? What's the point of Pixar in Emeryville if Disney in Burbank is going to produce animation that looks and feels like a Pixar production? (And a bad one at that)

Oh my God.

 

[Phroobar]

They should just get rid of both animation studios and reopen Blue Sky.

 

[_caleb]

The low budget, indie, cheap sequels all used to go to DVD. Now all the b-movies go to streaming. Only big tent poles or large marketable movies go to theaters. Everything else is streamed or even worst ends up on Tubi.

This used to be true, but it doesn't really seem to work this way anymore. It costs a lot of money to release a film in theaters, and people just don't go to theaters like they used to.

If Strange World is what Walt Disney Animation is producing, I'm asking myself yet again why are there two separate animation studios 400 miles apart producing stuff with the same look/feel? What's the point of Pixar in Emeryville if Disney in Burbank is going to produce animation that looks and feels like a Pixar production? (And a bad one at that)

Multiple subsidiary studios with multiple creative teams working on related IP projects is pretty common in the video game industry. It helps manage volume (gotta release a new Call of Duty game every year!) and creates internal competition (and, as we've seen, unhealthy work conditions for employees).

 

[Phroobar]

This used to be true, but it doesn't really seem to work this way anymore. It costs a lot of money to release a film in theaters, and people just don't go to theaters like they used to.

Multiple subsidiary studios with multiple creative teams working on related IP projects is pretty common in the video game industry. It helps manage volume (gotta release a new Call of Duty game every year!) and creates internal competition (and, as we've seen, unhealthy work conditions for employees).

I don't think that is true. People do go to the theater. Look how much Top Gun and No Way Home made. They will show up for something exciting or to have a night out.

 

[TP2000]

It costs a lot of money to release a film in theaters, and people just don't go to theaters like they used to.

I would argue that people don't go to theaters like they used to to see mediocre stuff.

There are now too many other media options for Americans in their own home to get them to leave the house to see mediocrity. And the stuff in their home is usually cheaper. This is good for the American consumer.

To get Americans out to the theaters in huge numbers requires a movie that they really want to see. This still happens, to great financial acclaim and success. Top Gun Maverick was a mega hit Billion dollar machine last summer.

And merely big hits still happen while mediocrity flounders in the same multiplex.

Released December, 2021
West Side Story = $38 Million (production budget of $100 Million)
Spiderman = $804 Million (production budget of $175 Million)

Released June, 2022
Lightyear = $118 Million (production budget of $200 Million. Why?!?)
Minions = $370 Million (production budget of $80 Million)

Back before DVD's and 70 inch HD screens, and now 4K streaming and laser TV's, you could convince American consumers to buy a ticket to a mediocre film. But now there are too many competitors for entertainment dollars.

But make a movie that Americans really love?!? They'll still flock to theaters over and over again.

 

[BuddyThomas]

I don't think that is true. People do go to the theater. Look how much Top Gun and No Way Home made. They will show up for something exciting or to have a night out.

Very true. We go to at least a movie a week and the theatres are never empty. The only time we had an entire theatre for ourselves without one single other audience member was when we saw Cats right before the pandemic, and there was a very good reason that theatre was empty. We’ve had big crowds recently at Till, Bros, Ticket to Paradise, Barbarian, Pearl, Armageddon Time, Don’t Worry Darling, and Terrifier 2. When we saw the insipid Top Gun sequel, it was sold out.

 

[MisterPenguin]

They should just get rid of both animation studios and reopen Blue Sky.

The vote bots just emailed this to me:

 

[BuddyThomas]

But make a movie that Americans really love?!? They'll still flock to theaters over and over again.

I can’t believe this whole dialogue from you is repeating itself yet again.

You don’t like Lightyear. You’re not going to see Lightyear. You trash Lightyear.

You don’t like Bros. You’re not going to going to see Bros. You trash Bros.

You don’t like Strange World. You’re not going to see Strange World. You trash Strange World.
What DO you like???

Since you like splashing budget information all over this board, maybe you like a movie that had a $250,000 budget and has grossed more than 11 Million so far. Of course, it is the most disgusting movie I have seen in my entire life, so there’s that.

How ‘Terrifier 2,’ an Obscure, Micro-Budget Horror Film, Became This Year’s Unlikeliest Box Office Success

Have you heard of the movie that’s so disturbingly stomach-churning, so horrifyingly gruesome, it’s allegedly causing some audience members to vomit, faint and even need to get carried …

variety.com