A Spirited Perfect Ten

[RSoxNo1]

At no time in our history have so many comic films been made and planned. Take a look at what Marvel and DC have planned just starting with this year and moving out for the next five years (and that's ignoring how many films have been around the last decade).

Some have been great, some good, some OK, some lousy, some awful (not gonna debate the merits of one film or another) ... the market is pretty much at the saturation point (hell, DC decided to back off the date it wanted for Batman vs. Superman next spring because Captain America Infinity War was opening and they didn't want two blockbuster comic films going head to head). The question really is how much is too much. Even among fans, there can be a sugar high. Do I really need a third actor playing Spidey in a decade or is that a sign there's been too much product?

I remember seeing Superman in 1978. One movie. A great one. Didn't need to be part of a 123 film saga and I wasn't overloaded on comic films because they weren't coming out roughly one every eight weeks!

Really this is a function of Hollywood no longer being able to write an original concept any more. Less than 10% of movies that make over $100 million are completely original. They are either based on a Franchise, a book, a comic book, or something else. It's why when something like Inside Out comes out we go crazy for it because finally a quality original product is here to entertain us.

 

[jt04]

Really this is a function of Hollywood no longer being able to write an original concept any more. Less than 10% of movies that make over $100 million are completely original. They are either based on a Franchise, a book, a comic book, or something else. It's why when something like Inside Out comes out we go crazy for it because finally a quality original product is here to entertain us.

It is a cultural problem. Progressive boomers are out of creative ideas. Like a rock band still trying to produce a number 1 song decades after the last one. Hollywood is just the symptom of the problem. We should be blaming ourselves. Well not me. Never even seen a Simpsons episode or anything like it.

~doh~

 

[Goofyernmost]

Really this is a function of Hollywood no longer being able to write an original concept any more. Less than 10% of movies that make over $100 million are completely original. They are either based on a Franchise, a book, a comic book, or something else. It's why when something like Inside Out comes out we go crazy for it because finally a quality original product is here to entertain us.

So what your saying is that in spite of the fact that the public is eating it up and paying Billions to see these movies it is a bad thing to be doing? Why spend money on creating things and risking public approval when known "winners" are available. What would be sensible about that? It's the public that isn't demanding anything other then comic book characters. It is the public that is spending big bucks to see them recreated on the big screen. It's not Hollywood, Hollywood would do what ever is required by the public.

Right now Hollywood is fortunate enough to be operating in an era where the joys, once reserved for anyone under 12, or at the very least, puberty are still stuck in a childlike time warp that doesn't allow them to do anything but try and relive an earlier time. If it doesn't have a super hero or blood and guts, it just isn't anything that they want to be part of. This is a reflection of society, not what Hollywood is feeding us. They are feeding us what we demand. Why we demand it, is anybodies guess, but, there it is. And we wonder why insane people are shooting up movie theaters when being mean and violent are worshiped in our world.

 

[GeneralZod]

when you are ready to debate the merits let us know...
superman 2 was superior to superman because-ZOD

Thanks!

 

[Travel Junkie]

Really this is a function of Hollywood no longer being able to write an original concept any more. Less than 10% of movies that make over $100 million are completely original. They are either based on a Franchise, a book, a comic book, or something else. It's why when something like Inside Out comes out we go crazy for it because finally a quality original product is here to entertain us.

There is plenty of wonderful original content out there, although granted much of it has moved to the small screen. The problem is the public at large doesn’t want original content. They may say they are tired of sequels and superhero movies, but when (warning film snobbery ahead) low brow entertainment like Fast and Furious make the money it does, Hollywood is going the path of least resistance. Something like Inside Out is the exception rather than the rule. If you are a Hollywood exec and looking at the ratings for Mr. Robot vs the Bachelor, what type of entertainment are going to push out?

Every year during Oscar time there is this argument among people regarding the elite Hollywood snobs that are out of touch with the average movie goer. The films that win the awards like Birdman vs the blockbuster movies the people flock to see. Trust me, most creatives in Hollywood wish they could make nothing other than films like Birdman, but they are stuck making Fast and Furious types because they make money.

 

[Wikkler]

Really this is a function of Hollywood no longer being able to write an original concept any more. Less than 10% of movies that make over $100 million are completely original. They are either based on a Franchise, a book, a comic book, or something else. It's why when something like Inside Out comes out we go crazy for it because finally a quality original product is here to entertain us.

List of movies released in the last 20 years that have made over $200 million domestically and did not feature pre-existing characters or plot.

• 1996 - Twister - $241,721,524 domestically
• 1996 - Independence Day - $306,169,268 domestically
• 1998 - Armageddon - $201,578,182 domestically
• 1998 - Saving Private Ryan - $216,540,909 domestically [Although it is set in WWII, the majority of characters are fictional]
• 1999 - The Sixth Sense - $293,506,292 domestically
• 2000 - Cast Away - $233,632,142 domestically
• 2001 - Monsters, Inc. - $255,873,250 domestically
• 2002 - My Big Fat Greek Wedding - $241,438,208 domestically
• 2002 - Signs - $227,966,634 domestically
• 2003 - Bruce Almighty - $242,829,261 domestically
• 2003 - Finding Nemo - $339,714,978 domestically
• 2004 - The Incredibles - $261,441,092 domestically
• 2005 - Wedding Crashers - $209,255,921 domestically
• 2006 - Cars - $244,082,982 domestically
• 2007 - Ratatouille - $206,445,654 domestically
• 2008 - Kung Fu Panda - $215,434,591 domestically
• 2008 - WALL-E - $223,808,164 domestically
• 2008 - Hancock - $227,946,274 domestically
• 2009 - Up - $293,004,164 domestically
• 2009 - The Hangover - $277,322,503 domestically
• 2009 - Avatar - $760,507,625 domestically
• 2010 - Despicable Me - $251,513,985 domestically
• 2010 - Inception - $292,576,195 domestically
• 2012 - Brave - $237,283,207 domestically
• 2012 - Ted - $218,815,487 domestically
• 2013 - Gravity - $274,092,705 domestically
• 2014 - The LEGO Movie - $257,760,962 domestically
• 2015 - Inside Out - $320,335,000 domestically (estimate)

There's no shortage, but it isn't a majority, either. People exaggerate the book adaptations and sequels and reboots, but remember some of the most remembered movies were adaptations (Jaws, Jurassic Park, Shrek, etc...)

 

[gmajew]

List of movies released in the last 20 years that have made over $200 million domestically and did not feature pre-existing characters or plot.

• 1996 - Twister - $241,721,524 domestically
• 1996 - Independence Day - $306,169,268 domestically
• 1998 - Armageddon - $201,578,182 domestically
• 1998 - Saving Private Ryan - $216,540,909 domestically [Although it is set in WWII, the majority of characters are fictional]
• 1999 - The Sixth Sense - $293,506,292 domestically
• 2000 - Cast Away - $233,632,142 domestically
• 2001 - Monsters, Inc. - $255,873,250 domestically
• 2002 - My Big Fat Greek Wedding - $241,438,208 domestically
• 2002 - Signs - $227,966,634 domestically
• 2003 - Bruce Almighty - $242,829,261 domestically
• 2003 - Finding Nemo - $339,714,978 domestically
• 2004 - The Incredibles - $261,441,092 domestically
• 2005 - Wedding Crashers - $209,255,921 domestically
• 2006 - Cars - $244,082,982 domestically
• 2007 - Ratatouille - $206,445,654 domestically
• 2008 - Kung Fu Panda - $215,434,591 domestically
• 2008 - WALL-E - $223,808,164 domestically
• 2008 - Hancock - $227,946,274 domestically
• 2009 - Up - $293,004,164 domestically
• 2009 - The Hangover - $277,322,503 domestically
• 2009 - Avatar - $760,507,625 domestically
• 2010 - Despicable Me - $251,513,985 domestically
• 2010 - Inception - $292,576,195 domestically
• 2012 - Brave - $237,283,207 domestically
• 2012 - Ted - $218,815,487 domestically
• 2013 - Gravity - $274,092,705 domestically
• 2014 - The LEGO Movie - $257,760,962 domestically
• 2015 - Inside Out - $320,335,000 domestically (estimate)

There's no shortage, but it isn't a majority, either. People exaggerate the book adaptations and sequels and reboots, but remember some of the most remembered movies were adaptations (Jaws, Jurassic Park, Shrek, etc...)

Wow really would have thought it be a lot more.

 

[PhotoDave219]

The Disney owned Marvel movies have become like the Disney owned Pixar movies. Both studios are cranking out products that kill at the box office. The same can't be said about any other movie studio right now.

You're absolutely right that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has brought Disney Fanbois into the fold, I will readily admit that. However, if the original Avengers wasn't under the Disney umbrella I still would have bought it. What the Disney umbrella has done for me is allowed me to buy the other interconnected movies on Blu Ray using their Movie Club.

These movies are well done popcorn movies, and while you whine about not wanting to have to deal with seeing the previous 10 movies, you still wind up watching them. My recollection is that you also really enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man, which to me are among the strongest because they work as both a stand alone film and as part of a bigger story arch. For me, the only movie that really felt like it was part of the larger story arch was Age of Ultron, and that really only had 20 minutes of additional backstory thrown in. It was put in Age of Ultron because there wasn't enough for a separate movie.


Part of me is curious, but then again the reviews are beyond awful. I know Sandler gets much deserved criticism, but this didn't feel like a typical Sandler movie based on the previews. I'm sure it'll be on TV in 6 months and I'll see it then.

I'll wait for the Oscar screener fairy to deliver my copy of Pixels

 

[Captain Neo]

550m is hardly a flop. Plus you know, it's King Kong. Still the most iconic American movie monster, no matter the incarnation

550m is peanuts to what the Jurassic Park franchise has brought in (Jurassic World alone has made over double so far). There was ZERO reason to green light this crap over a full fledged Jurassic Park expansion.

 

[Captain Neo]

You can take West's word if you want, but he's demonstrably incorrect.

The King Kong and creatures in the ride will look 100% identical to what they looked like in the 2005 movie and thats not even getting to the fact that the facade and everything looks the same. What is Universal smoking?

 

[SirLink]

The King Kong and creatures in the ride will look 100% identical to what they looked like in the 2005 movie and thats not even getting to the fact that the facade and everything looks the same. What is Universal smoking?

Your not an insider so why oh why are you trying to "fake it"?

 

[ChrisFL]

550m is peanuts to what the Jurassic Park franchise has brought in (Jurassic World alone has made over double so far). There was ZERO reason to green light this crap over a full fledged Jurassic Park expansion.

There's 3 reasons to disagree:
1. King Kong was a legendary attraction for both Universal parks
2. Although the closing of Kong at USF was sad, the burning down of the one in Hollywood made people upset enough for them to create a new attraction and bring Peter Jackson on board and from what I've heard its been very popular over there.
3. As others mentioned, no one really knew that Jurassic World would be this popular, especially after the other JP sequels didn't do as well.

 

[Mike S]

There's 3 reasons to disagree:
1. King Kong was a legendary attraction for both Universal parks
2. Although the closing of Kong at USF was sad, the burning down of the one in Hollywood made people upset enough for them to create a new attraction and bring Peter Jackson on board and from what I've heard its been very popular over there.
3. As others mentioned, no one really knew that Jurassic World would be this popular, especially after the other JP sequels didn't do as well.

Let's not forget that King Kong transcends the one movie from 2005. King Kong climbing on top of the Empire State Building is arguably one of the most well known images in pop culture. Just go to any NYC gift shop.

 

[Cesar R M]

It's more he's a master of self-promotion. The myth around mo-cap is that everything the actor does is perfectly translated to the computer models. The reality is 90% of what we see is the work of talented animators who take the basic performance and tweak and push it so that it 'feels' the same and has that human connection - without them, you're deep into uncanny valley territory and the performance would seem weak and tepid.

Serkis probably *thinks* it's a 1:1 with no work between him and the computer, he calls it 'digital makeup', which is beyond insulting, but it's the animators who should get most of the credit really.

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/motion-c...mators-do-nothing-says-andy-serkis-98868.html

Before you go further.. let me stop you for a moment.

If the job was just 100% of the animators.. anyone would have been selected to be the actor.
This needs to be a "symbiotic" relationship between the "face" actor, and the techs translating into the cgi character.

As for that article...wow.. I never imagined he had such ego.

At least he seemed to get the hint and started to give the animators more props. (in the linked news)

 

[Cesar R M]

I guess if they wanted to shut Uber out, they would have to get an injunction banning them from the whole property (since it's not clear otherwise how they'd enforce who guests could make arrangements with to collect them from hotels). And of course, by doing that, they might discourage people who otherwise would have made the trip over from Uni, etc.

Indulging the Mears monopoly might have made sense when WDW was *the* destination and didn't need (or want to encourage) traffic to other Orlando destinations, but the truth is they need Universal's customers as much as Universal needs Disney's. Uber is a worldwide phenomenon, understood and expected by WDW's global visitors - they cut that off at their own peril.

(While I'm here: although I don't agree with monopolies, I do have some sympathy for Mears' drivers simply because they have built their livelihoods around an industry that is getting turned upside down. I can't imagine making a living as a taxi driver is that easy in Orlando, and I'm sure Mears high fares don't all end up in the drivers pocket).

There interesting part of normal taxis vs UBer.. seems to be the disparity on quality (at least in my country).
Where normal taxis cheat constantly in their rates, have awful cabs, they use annoying music..etc.. vs the trained personnel at Uber with high quality cars..etc..etc..

Also, in the case of orlando. Is there a real difference in prices between Uber and Mears?
I honestly shudder at how expensive the taxis were at Disney.
I mean.. from AKL to Artegnon was like 55 USD. at a giant rate of 1.4 USD per.. minute or something.

 

[Cesar R M]

So what your saying is that in spite of the fact that the public is eating it up and paying Billions to see these movies it is a bad thing to be doing? Why spend money on creating things and risking public approval when known "winners" are available. What would be sensible about that? It's the public that isn't demanding anything other then comic book characters. It is the public that is spending big bucks to see them recreated on the big screen. It's not Hollywood, Hollywood would do what ever is required by the public.

Right now Hollywood is fortunate enough to be operating in an era where the joys, once reserved for anyone under 12, or at the very least, puberty are still stuck in a childlike time warp that doesn't allow them to do anything but try and relive an earlier time. If it doesn't have a super hero or blood and guts, it just isn't anything that they want to be part of. This is a reflection of society, not what Hollywood is feeding us. They are feeding us what we demand. Why we demand it, is anybodies guess, but, there it is. And we wonder why insane people are shooting up movie theaters when being mean and violent are worshiped in our world.

I really recommend that you see the movie Idiocracy. It will instantly answer your question of why making special movies is a NEED in the Art form.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I really recommend that you see the movie Idiocracy. It will instantly answer your question of why making special movies is a NEED in the Art form.

Never said that there wasn't a long range need. What I'm saying is that Hollywood is pumping out what is the demand of today. It's all well and good to say that they should present art when it isn't our money that will be lost. They are in business to make money not become artists, at least not at the moment. People are not willing to pay for art, they want what is interesting to them. However, just like anything else this stuff is cyclical and will eventually change direction, we just have to ride it out. In the meantime, they are not receiving any of my money. A fact that I'm sure is keeping them up nights after a long day of counting their profits.

 

[BrerJon]

Also, in the case of orlando. Is there a real difference in prices between Uber and Mears?
I honestly shudder at how expensive the taxis were at Disney.

Yeah Ubers are quite a bit cheaper in Orlando, but the drivers get paid a lot less than Mears drivers do from what I've heard.

 

[burgess]

List of movies released in the last 20 years that have made over $200 million domestically and did not feature pre-existing characters or plot.

• 1996 - Twister - $241,721,524 domestically
• 1996 - Independence Day - $306,169,268 domestically
• 1998 - Armageddon - $201,578,182 domestically
• 1998 - Saving Private Ryan - $216,540,909 domestically [Although it is set in WWII, the majority of characters are fictional]
• 1999 - The Sixth Sense - $293,506,292 domestically
• 2000 - Cast Away - $233,632,142 domestically
• 2001 - Monsters, Inc. - $255,873,250 domestically
• 2002 - My Big Fat Greek Wedding - $241,438,208 domestically
• 2002 - Signs - $227,966,634 domestically
• 2003 - Bruce Almighty - $242,829,261 domestically
• 2003 - Finding Nemo - $339,714,978 domestically
• 2004 - The Incredibles - $261,441,092 domestically
• 2005 - Wedding Crashers - $209,255,921 domestically
• 2006 - Cars - $244,082,982 domestically
• 2007 - Ratatouille - $206,445,654 domestically
• 2008 - Kung Fu Panda - $215,434,591 domestically
• 2008 - WALL-E - $223,808,164 domestically
• 2008 - Hancock - $227,946,274 domestically
• 2009 - Up - $293,004,164 domestically
• 2009 - The Hangover - $277,322,503 domestically
• 2009 - Avatar - $760,507,625 domestically
• 2010 - Despicable Me - $251,513,985 domestically
• 2010 - Inception - $292,576,195 domestically
• 2012 - Brave - $237,283,207 domestically
• 2012 - Ted - $218,815,487 domestically
• 2013 - Gravity - $274,092,705 domestically
• 2014 - The LEGO Movie - $257,760,962 domestically
• 2015 - Inside Out - $320,335,000 domestically (estimate)

There's no shortage, but it isn't a majority, either. People exaggerate the book adaptations and sequels and reboots, but remember some of the most remembered movies were adaptations (Jaws, Jurassic Park, Shrek, etc...)

I love that the list of original concepts includes a movie based on Lego toys.

 

[stevehousse]

I don't understand the hubbub about the Uni Kong ride?!? It's an original story baseD on the look of the 2005 film.