Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[Disney Irish]

24 months is an exaggeration.

I don't know why it's a controversial notion to use spoiler tags in a forum thread that is about box office performance and not a general discussion of movies. There's a reason most discussions of shows on this website note that spoilers will be present in threads that are about a specific show.

Anything considered a spoiler should really be irrelevant here. I can say that Wish likely did poorly because it's a paint by numbers film that strings together a bunch of Disney animated tropes and has underwhelming songs. There's no need to bring up specific plot points unless one feels they impacted the box office, and it's easy to mark those as spoilers.

It depends on the pay window though on when a particular movie makes it to a specific service, so 24 months is not an exaggeration.

 

[Disney Irish]

I guess now I am weighing in, but I see no need to post spoilers even for very old films. Many people are lucky enough to watch Psycho for the first time without knowing the plot, even this many decades after it was first released, and that’s because most commentators over the years have resisted the urge to share the film’s surprises.

That is you, but that cannot be the rule for everyone here. People are going to talk about the plot points of movies in a movie forum, its just the nature of the discussion.

If you guys don't want to specifically talk about plot points that you consider spoilers that is up to you. But you cannot expect the same of others, sorry.

 

[LittleBuford]

That is you, but that cannot be the rule for everyone here. People are going to talk about the plot points of movies in a movie forum, its just the nature of the discussion.

If you guys don't want to specifically talk about plot points that you consider spoilers that is up to you. But you cannot expect the same of others, sorry.

I was responding to the suggestion that spoilers were fair game, and almost unavoidable, after a certain window. That just isn’t true, as the Psycho example proves.

I’m not telling others what they should and shouldn’t post. That’s between them and the moderators.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

That is you, but that cannot be the rule for everyone here. People are going to talk about the plot points of movies in a movie forum, its just the nature of the discussion.

If you guys don't want to specifically talk about plot points that you consider spoilers that is up to you. But you cannot expect the same of others, sorry.

You're right, expecting common sense or common courtesy from others is a losing proposition.

 

[BuddyThomas]

You're right, expecting common sense or common courtesy from others is a losing proposition.

I still maintain that what I posted was not any sort of spoiler and that’s the last thing I’m going to say on the matter.

 

[Disney Irish]

You're right, expecting common sense or common courtesy from others is a losing proposition.

Common sense and courtesy here should go both ways though. It should be common sense that spoilers tags aren't going to be used for forever.

I agree that some time frame should be used on using a spoiler tag, but since there is no official rule on this site its up to the discretion of the poster. And I think around 1 month after release is a good time frame, with some exception in my opinion.

As far as not putting plot points at all in this thread, well that is something that isn't just me so please address that with all posters who do it. And of course there is always the option of using the Ignore feature if you feel someone does that too much.

Anyways lets move on from this as its not productive anymore.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I still maintain that what I posted was not any sort of spoiler and that’s the last thing I’m going to say on the matter.

Again, I was not trying to criticize or judge any specific post. I don't think I even read those ones in detail as the movie is of no interest to me.

Since the subject was raised I am merely suggesting that people consider what they post and be considerate of others when it comes to bringing up specific plot details of movies.

 

[TP2000]

This is a bit ironic, as there’s a whole segment of the voice acting community that exists because some of those voice actors do a reasonable facsimile of more famous actors, who aren’t used because to pay them would be prohibitively expensive.

But who could blame Tom Hanks' brother from making a few extra bucks off of his brother's Pixar fame? I mean, if Tom had just stopped acting after Bosom Buddies, his brother would have had to get a real job.

 

[TP2000]

But @TP2000 is right, a lot of traditional animation artists lost their jobs to digital. A lot of effects artists doing model work an stop motion... lost work to cgi. You can argue it just replaced one job with a different one. But can't the same be said with AI? The tech costs money and needs developers. Personally I don't see it as the downfall of voice work because I don't see it as a replacement of most voice talent. Sure some will be impacted, but that unfortunately part of life and has always been a part of Hollywood.

Thank you for getting it.

Since the invention of the cotton gin 200-and-however many years ago, history has been filled with human jobs and skills that have been eliminated and replaced with technology.

I find it fascinating how many folks think that new technology will be kept outside the great moral Gates of Hollywood, and that A.I. won't replace human jobs in Hollywood that it is clearly capable of replacing today or a few years from now. And apparently in this thread, the sacred voice over actor is the hill to die on.

As a fun movie once said, You can't stop the beat. A.I. is coming, and best to get ready for that.

 

[TP2000]

At the end of the day, being angry that it will happen does not mean people should rip TP2000 apart for bringing it up.

Ah, let 'em have their fun.

When they find out a year or two from now the voiceover for the Farmers Insurance commercial or the voiceover for the animated starfish in a Saturday morning cartoon is being done by A.I. they can yell at their TV screen.... "TP2000 is responsible for this!!! I can't stand that guy!!!"

Best for them to have someone to blame for A.I., and it's just nice to know that I'm needed.

 

[TP2000]

And its not just voice actors, if you go back to the 2023 Strike thread, he suggests replacing all actors (his target at the time was Rachel Zegler) with AI.

I did? I thought all actors should be fired? I don't remember that. Although, I suppose technically, you could eventually make a movie with nothing but A.I. actors and actresses if you really wanted to.

I do remember in that strike thread there was talk of studios wanting to pay people a nominal fee, like 100 bucks, to get scanned into their database so they could use their likeness as background extras via A.I.

And I thought that kind of sounded like fun. Imagine how cool that would be for tourists at Universal Studios to get a free ticket or something to be scanned as an extra for use in future movies? That would beat trying to get picked to push the stewardess into the water tank at the Airport '75 Stunt Show by a mile!

 

[TP2000]

Looking for something else in the past and I rediscovered this post... After now having seen it, I would have to guess that the NC-17 was actually for a birthing sequence that went a bridge too far in the original cut.

That scene was exactly the scene described in the article I read about that movie. And it's what made me cringe and think "Thank God I'm happy just watching The Crown and The Gilded Age and I don't have to go see movies like that!"

 

[TP2000]

I can’t speak for others, but my objection to AI isn’t about people losing their jobs (unfortunate as that would be); it’s about the loss in quality that would inevitably result from ditching actual voice actors.

What if the technology becomes so good that you can't tell whether the talking squirrel is voiced by a human or A.I.?

They used to get humans to physically paint using airbrushes over each frame of a movie for a special effect. Now a computer does that with work automatically. Many would argue that the computer does it better than a human with an airbrush, and the computer certainly does it faster and cheaper than the human ever could.

Should we return to the lower quality and higher costs of airbrushing because we'd have to hire humans back to do that?

It seems the future of A.I. in Hollywood, especially animation, is exactly the same scenario as all other tech advances.

 

[Disney Irish]

I did? I thought all actors should be fired? I don't remember that. Although, I suppose technically, you could eventually make a movie with nothing but A.I. actors and actresses if you really wanted to.

I do remember in that strike thread there was talk of studios wanting to pay people a nominal fee, like 100 bucks, to get scanned into their database so they could use their likeness as background extras via A.I.

And I thought that kind of sounded like fun. Imagine how cool that would be for tourists at Universal Studios to get a free ticket or something to be scanned as an extra for use in future movies? That would beat trying to get picked to push the stewardess into the water tank at the Airport '75 Stunt Show by a mile!

Yes you did, here's an example with regards to replacing Rachel Zegler and even Margot Robbie with AI -

Insufferable is just one of the words I can think of to describe this young lady.

This kind of bratty nonsense is why movie studio executives are investing in AI, not just to replace background actors with AI generated fakes, but to also replace title role characters with AI generated fakes. Who knew Rachel Zegler existed 5 years ago? (Heck, I didn't even know she existed two weeks ago). So why in the year 2030 when the technology is more advanced could you not program an actress to act in a movie for you? Replace it with a fake human, and once the technology is visually good enough, who would know or care if it was Rachel Zegler or not if the movie is good?

If the Barbie movie didn't exist in 2023 but instead was released in the Summer of 2033, you wouldn't need Margot Robbie to play her. You could just program an actress out of thin air to be Barbie. Lots of money saved there.

 

[TP2000]

Yes you did, here's an example with regards to replacing Rachel Zegler and even Margot Robbie with AI -

That quote is exactly what I remember my opinion being, and that opinion is not "TP2000 wants to fire actors and replace them with bots because he's very mean!"

It seems that A.I. will be able to replace human actors in the future. It's a technology that is evolving quickly, and I've read several articles that say that's exactly what may happen with the technology in Hollywood. The technology is already there in basics, and as it refines and evolves you'd be able to recreate a Margot Robbie or a Rachel Zegler on the screen and no one would know the difference.

I imagine A.I. replacements for human voices and characters will start small; in Saturday morning cartoons and TV commercials and background roles. But it won't stop there.

Will movie studios in the 2030's still want to pay Rachel Zegler the big bucks? There's a question she probably doesn't want to have to answer.

 

[BuddyThomas]

That quote is exactly what I remember my opinion being, and that opinion is not "TP2000 wants to fire actors and replace them with bots because he's very mean!"

It seems that A.I. will be able to replace human actors in the future. It's a technology that is evolving quickly, and I've read several articles that say that's exactly what may happen with the technology in Hollywood. The technology is already there in basics, and as it refines and evolves you'd be able to recreate a Margot Robbie or a Rachel Zegler on the screen and no one would know the difference.

I imagine A.I. replacements for human voices and characters will start small; in Saturday morning cartoons and TV commercials and background roles. But it won't stop there.

Will movie studios in the 2030's still want to pay Rachel Zegler the big bucks? There's a question she probably doesn't want to have to answer.

Sweetie, Rachel is playing Juliet in Romeo and Juliet on Broadway this fall. She is a bankable and talented star whether you like it or not.

 

[TP2000]

Sweetie, Rachel is playing Juliet in Romeo and Juliet on Broadway this fall. She is a bankable and talented star whether you like it or not.

Got it. And I'm sure she'll do well in that movie.

But it would be folly to pretend that a decade from now A.I. can't replace actresses entirely on screen.

It would be the same as claiming in 1980 that your typist sitting at her Selectric could never be replaced by a computer.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Got it. And I'm sure she'll do well in that movie.

But it would be folly to pretend that a decade from now A.I. can't replace actresses entirely on screen.

It would be the same as claiming in 1980 that your typist sitting at her Selectric could never be replaced by a computer.

It’s not a movie. It’s Broadway as previously stated but you just go ahead on your deplorable campaign to get creative talent replaced with AI.

 

[TP2000]

It’s not a movie. It’s Broadway as previously stated but you just go ahead on your deplorable campaign to get creative talent replaced with AI.

Oh, Broadway plays. Did you know I once went to a Broadway play in NY? Phantom Of The Opera around 1988-ish. It was fun.

But back OT, the first time you notice or are told about an A.I. voiceover of some talking frog or something, please don't forget to yell "Curse you TP2000!!" at the screen. And yell it loud, so I can hear you.

 

[Disney Irish]

Got it. And I'm sure she'll do well in that movie.

But it would be folly to pretend that a decade from now A.I. can't replace actresses entirely on screen.

It would be the same as claiming in 1980 that your typist sitting at her Selectric could never be replaced by a computer.

As someone who uses AI daily I have no fear of the technology. But I do think its usage should be limited, as I've said now numerous times. I think it has its place in society, but replacing human actors with AI generated ones is not it. I think there are specific use cases where it can be used in entertainment, as I mentioned, like to revive an actor that died provided the estate gets compensated for its use. But beyond that it should be limited in how its used. To me there is no benefit to replacing actors, and AI should be used to benefit humanity not replace it. And I'm sure its a sentiment that I'm not alone in, especially since there are Bills currently working its way through various state legislatures and even congress on limiting AI's use.