Cmdr_Crimson
Well-Known Member
It's Disney's attempt at "what would these characters would do in a war" cliche
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News 'The Nutcracker and the Four Realms' preview now playing at Walt Disney Presents
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Mouse Trap
Well-Known Member
Bombing at the box office. But this was much expected within the industry.
Alice a
Well-Known Member
those hacks?! Disney clearly ignored their influence because they knew they could do better!
SARCASM
They're hoping the live action girl-power fantasy movies can do as well as the animated versions (Moana) or their live-action remakes (Cinderella, BatB). They're hoping for a female Harry Potter. They're hoping the popular IP (whether it's from a book or a ballet) can kickstart a franchise. A Hunger Games situation.
They just keep forgetting to bring us engaging characters and a plot that makes sense. Many of the childrens' books these are based on are children's books for a reason. They forget to adapt the story to resonate with all ages and thus limit their audience to pre-teens.
Cmdr_Crimson
Well-Known Member
All Disney needs to do with this is just get Andy Serkis to be their Goullum.....Dah! I mean....Gurgi....All they have to do is Distribute it through the Touchstone Picture side of the Company to do this...
Last edited:
Alice a
Well-Known Member
11-year old me was freaking over the moon when I found out that the Black Cauldron was a movie (although why the heck they didn't start with The Book of Three is a head-scratcher) and then very sad.
Same goes for twenty-something me and the disappointing Americanization of The Dark Is Rising movie. Ditto for a Wrinkle in Time. People love this stuff for a reason. Why screw with it?
I mean, remember when Warner Bros. wanted to set the Harry Potter movies in the US and Rowling had to put her foot down? What is wrong with making a faithful adaptation? Worked out pretty well for the aforementioned Potter series and the Lord of the Rings. The (way too many) Hobbit movies sucked - despite great casting -because they strayed too far from the source material.
rant over (sorry!)
Same goes for twenty-something me and the disappointing Americanization of The Dark Is Rising movie. Ditto for a Wrinkle in Time. People love this stuff for a reason. Why screw with it?
I mean, remember when Warner Bros. wanted to set the Harry Potter movies in the US and Rowling had to put her foot down? What is wrong with making a faithful adaptation? Worked out pretty well for the aforementioned Potter series and the Lord of the Rings. The (way too many) Hobbit movies sucked - despite great casting -because they strayed too far from the source material.
rant over (sorry!)
jt04
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't call it a flop. It should make the investment back between the theatrical run and digital run. Then it will be a holiday standard on Disney streaming services for decades.
That it did not do well with critics only means more risk aversion for Hollywood. That is the worst of it.
Phineas
Well-Known Member
Is anyone honestly surprised by this movie flopping? You’d think they’d have learned after Through the Looking Glass and A Wrinkle in Time bombed.
This CGI nightmare art style paired with paper-thin plotlines they seem to enjoy so much just isn’t lending itself to decent entertainment. Thankfully, Mary Poppins Returns looks promising, and appears to have an actual soul behind it.
This CGI nightmare art style paired with paper-thin plotlines they seem to enjoy so much just isn’t lending itself to decent entertainment. Thankfully, Mary Poppins Returns looks promising, and appears to have an actual soul behind it.
Being overly optimistic isn't the same as reality.
After opening in almost all the markets it will open in, N&4R only made about $60 million world wide. With a CinemaScore of a B+ (not a good score since the scorers are people who chose to go see the movie and thus is selecting out those for whom this movie isn't their thing), that means the expectation is that it will make, at most, 3 times that amount in the end, so, about $180 million.
That $180 million is split between theaters and production company, and so, Disney will get $90.
Disney spent about $125 million to produce the movie and about another $60 million to advertise it. So, after it's theatrical run, this will be a $100 million dollar loss for Disney Studio (the majority of movies that Disney Studios make are at a net loss at the end of their theatrical run).
$100 million is a lot to make up in the digital after market. It's a Box Office flop, financially.
It has a RT Thumbs Up of 35. Combined critical score of 44. And between IMDB and RT, a user score of 55. Of those who saw it, just slightly less than half would "recommend it" (as per PostTrack). It's a flop.
Most importantly, tho, is that I hated it. The more I think about its plot, the angrier I get.
IMO, YMMV.
jt04
Well-Known Member
I have heard good reviews and will definitely be seeing it. Then I will be better able to evaluate its long term value. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Your hearing is quite selective, then, if all you're hearing is good reviews since the majority of people who've seen the movie weren't happy with it.
jt04
Well-Known Member
I'm a contrarian as you know. Always suspicious of consensus.
So if the consensus was how wonderful everything is in the Disney parks, you'd start posting about how awful things are?
And how is that anything different than the definition of a troll?
jt04
Well-Known Member
The consensus isn't always wrong. I call it as I see it but lean toward favoring the narrow road. No trolls there.
That still sounds like you're skewing what you really believe in response to the opinions of others. Which is still trolling. Or lying. Either categorization is appropriate.
jt04
Well-Known Member
i thought I was being very straightforward. We likely won't agree. So no point in continuing.
i was banned from this magical place once for actually trolling before I knew that was even a violation. That was over 15 years ago. I understand the rules. Steve and the mom do not hesitate warning me.
I will return to this thread after seeing the movie. Thanks.
Mouse Trap
Well-Known Member
I'm going to challenge your numbers...
Disney has a far more favorable deal with theaters than 50/50. That 50/50 number is a thing of the past especially for Disney. Rumor has it on Star Wars films Disney gets close to 75% of the take.
Let's say for this film Disney is getting 65% which is a stretch, but possible. Disney has known for a while this was going to bomb and no one in Burbank lost any sleep over these numbers, so I don't think they spent 60M in marketing as rumored. I think that number is closer to 40M .
Even with my numbers and insight they're looking at least a 50M loss. Disney knew this one was DOA and a 50M loss isn't shattering, but nonetheless disappointing. Could've been 50M put towards polishing up the parks.
Yes, I've read Disney is able to force a larger cut for blockbusters, like Star Wars movies, but that implies it doesn't get a larger cut for all movies.
Also, I've read that in the international market, production companies get less than 50%. Since I was dealing with wordlwide totals, I was just using 50% as a rounding average.