-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney could lose $140mil on Tomorrowland movie
- Thread starter GhostHost1000
- Start date
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
The slate is so chocked full of tent pole films, few can afford to see them all.
I myself have chosen Ultron in regular 3D, Mad Max in regular 3D, and Jurassic World in IMAX 3D. I would like to see Tomorrowland, but will wait until it's free one cable.
And I think I will see Spy at the cheap theater (Artegon) at matinee prices.
I myself have chosen Ultron in regular 3D, Mad Max in regular 3D, and Jurassic World in IMAX 3D. I would like to see Tomorrowland, but will wait until it's free one cable.
And I think I will see Spy at the cheap theater (Artegon) at matinee prices.
Last edited:
MarkTwain
Well-Known Member
That was true of John Carter and the Lone Ranger as well. I agree with @Master Yoda; Disney seems to have no clue as to how to build awareness of original live-action movies, unless it's a sequel/remake in an existing franchise where only a few images are necessary.
This is frustrating as well. Delivering these kinds of press releases so early in the movie's run really does send a message to audiences of "It's already a failure, don't bother showing up." Many movies even today take several weeks to find their legs.
I had contemplated seeing the movie but haven't yet due to a busy few weeks, but this kind of gives me the message that it's not a movie worth seeing. Not even Disney has faith in it anymore.
bethymouse
Well-Known Member
It's a shame. It looked like it had potential.
Straight to DVD.
Straight to DVD.
prberk
Well-Known Member
Tomorrowland is well worth seeing on the big screen. The detail is fantastic.
prberk
Well-Known Member
See it anyway. Well worth seeing in the theatre.
Exactly!!! I know this is incredibly far-fetched, but it's almost like they want certain directors (Bird and Stanton) to have had a failure in order to keep them in-house. Almost like, if their movies aren't going to make money hand over fist, let's take a loss and knock these Pixar guys back down to earth.
Had Carter or Tomorrowland been huge successes, they likely would never have been able to retain their services. Now, they know they most likely have them for as many pictures as they want them. AND now they can control them.
Losing $100,000,000 on a picture isn't much when you consider both directors could easily have 2-3 (or even more) $600 million successes for Pixar. On top of that, it's hard for me to believe these two films were really as big of disasters as they report (after video sales, etc).
I know it's crazy, but it really does seem like there are some weird politics going on behind the scenes. G-d forbid Pete Docter ever tries to spread his wings.
216bruce
Well-Known Member
Disney Pictures Marketing meeting: "OK, guys, we have a new film coming out that is based on the books that inspired Star Wars and just about every comic book and sci-fi work of the past century. The best thing is it has PRINCESS in it. Easy to sell...We'll call it....wait for it...."John Carter".
Years later...same group (minus 'Bob', who came up with the name "John Carter"): "OK, guys, we have a new film coming out that ties the founder and namesake of our company and his theme park with historical figures, secret ways to other dimensions and realities and delivers an important message while trying to inspire folks. How do we sell this?"
"Ummmm, who's in it?"
"George Clooney"
"Easy...make sure he has stubble, is grumpy and show him fighting" "Throw in a kid with a jetpack flying around." "Girls riding in an invisible truck in a cornfield."
"You guys are great....solid continuity here. I'm feeling a hit here. Hey, we're making this just to humor Brad Bird anyway, kinda like we did with Stanton and 'Carter'. "
Years later...same group (minus 'Bob', who came up with the name "John Carter"): "OK, guys, we have a new film coming out that ties the founder and namesake of our company and his theme park with historical figures, secret ways to other dimensions and realities and delivers an important message while trying to inspire folks. How do we sell this?"
"Ummmm, who's in it?"
"George Clooney"
"Easy...make sure he has stubble, is grumpy and show him fighting" "Throw in a kid with a jetpack flying around." "Girls riding in an invisible truck in a cornfield."
"You guys are great....solid continuity here. I'm feeling a hit here. Hey, we're making this just to humor Brad Bird anyway, kinda like we did with Stanton and 'Carter'. "
RandomPrincess
Keep Moving Forward
I blows my mind that they spent $150 mil advertising this film! They really didn't spend the money in the right way did they.
prberk
Well-Known Member
I do think that the jail lobby scene switching immediately to the field was cool and intriguing. I think they got a little bit of the "teasing" right in that respect. It got people's attention. And it did not hurt that it had George Clooney. And I also hate other trailers that give away the entire movie.
But I have to say, from talking to folks including some teenagers who are among the target audience, it did ultimately hurt it that they never went beyond the teaser trailer. They were intrigued, but did not have anything else to go on. So, when the moderate reviews came in, they were "meh" about whether or not to see it. They would go if invited or if they had extra money, but it wasn't at the top of their list. And the ones who went really enjoyed it. They came out saying it was good, even really cool, but not at all what they expected. And most had no expectations except to see what in the world happened with the girl in the field.
I think they made two mistakes, one more critical than the other, in retrospect (and, yes, I do understand the problem of being a Monday-morning quarterback and analyzing in retrospect, but feel people can learn from mistakes):
- Not giving us a little more story in the previews (after the teaser, which was perfect itself).
- (The most important): They left out too much of the backstory. Keeping in a good bit more of the backstory and sentimental ties to both Frank's background and the Walt Disney connections (including the World's Fair stuff AND the modern-day reference to the theme park land that was in a preview). They would help build sentiment, not just from references to Walt Disney and the familiar place in pop culture, but in understanding the story. That sentiment and backstory was critical to understanding what drove those people to dream, and ultimately some to drop out and become bitter. It was the seed to the conflict, so cutting it made it harder to feel for the characters. They cut too much of it. It would have been better to leave that in, and if they had to cut something, cut part of the fighting at the end, or tighten action scenes. The story was more important.
Last edited:
216bruce
Well-Known Member
I think they 'expensed' a lot of lunches on the advertising tab.
216bruce
Well-Known Member
If they'd have used the "Plus Ultra cartoon/intro" video in the movie or even somehow in a trailer/preview it would have been better than what they did. Apart from women who have the hots for George Clooney, using him didn't do much at all. Don't get me wrong- I enjoy the guy and think he's a solid actor. But, the jetpack thing/flyaround, wheatfield/invisible truck, Clooney fighting. That was, in three phrases, the ad campaign. It was an incoherent statement and really wasn't anything special or unique at all. Folks couldn't 'connect the dots' and it didn't grab them at all to even try it out. The buzz that the campaign for the film at 2013's D23 Expo was amazing...old box of stuff labeled '1952', what does it mean?, an app that ties Walt Disney to the box, some mystery organization on a website and a FB page called "plus Ultra". Why didn't they continue down these paths instead ?
This movie was one of the top most anticipated films of the year, is extremely well-crafted and very original. Somehow, Disney couldn't sell it. Just like 'John Carter' and 'Rocketeer' from a long time ago. They can only sell what already has an audience and can't generate a coherent statement that addresses 'why I should see this movie'. They'll somehow figure out a way to sell "Star Wars'....oh yeah, play five seconds of the opening theme....
weak.
IMHO, The Martian nailed how you do a trailer for a new property.
I had somehow never heard of this book and after watching this trailer once, I began impatiently counting the days until I can see it. In just 3 minutes I knew the heroes, the villains and just enough of the story to make me know that I have to see this film.
I had somehow never heard of this book and after watching this trailer once, I began impatiently counting the days until I can see it. In just 3 minutes I knew the heroes, the villains and just enough of the story to make me know that I have to see this film.
KeeKee
Well-Known Member
I have a real beef with Disney about what they did to John Carter. Unforgivable to take a 100-year old property that was and is so beloved and bungle the marketing so badly and then tie the material up another couple of years before releasing the rights back to ERB. John Carter has become one of my favorite films of all time, and the chance of a sequel with the same cast is now gone. Bad, bad, bad Disney.
If anybody is interested in what the back story is on this film read John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood by Micharl D. Sellers. Amazon has it: http://www.amazon.com/John-Carter-H...4030438&sr=8-1&keywords=The+gods+of+Hollywood
If anybody is interested in what the back story is on this film read John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood by Micharl D. Sellers. Amazon has it: http://www.amazon.com/John-Carter-H...4030438&sr=8-1&keywords=The+gods+of+Hollywood
prberk
Well-Known Member
This sounds simple, but it is true.
They need to look back sometimes at Walt himself and how and why he promoted his latest projects, almost all of which were new projects (not sequels): He loved them usually, and it showed. When some needed a little more explanation, he got more out front and explained it to people in different ways. He used his own direct appearances on television, where his enthusiasm always showed; but he also did special days at Disneyland and other promotions. But the common thread was that his own enthusiasm for the project led the way and told him how to handle it intuitively. Disney still has a number of people who "get it" among creative leadership. Perhaps the marketing folks need to work more directly with them and worry less about "which franchise is this?" If these people are out front promoting the product that they believe in wholeheartedly, the enthusiasm will help and become somewhat infectious (like Walt's), and the marketing approach will become self-evident in talking to them.
Even directors. Brad Bird could have been out front on shows, as well as George Klooney, and his enthusiasm would have shown. Remember Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, and even Alfred Hitchcock? Sometimes the directors can make a difference in the marketing, too.
All new "franchises" (including "Frozen") were new at one time. And someone believed in them.
They need to look back sometimes at Walt himself and how and why he promoted his latest projects, almost all of which were new projects (not sequels): He loved them usually, and it showed. When some needed a little more explanation, he got more out front and explained it to people in different ways. He used his own direct appearances on television, where his enthusiasm always showed; but he also did special days at Disneyland and other promotions. But the common thread was that his own enthusiasm for the project led the way and told him how to handle it intuitively. Disney still has a number of people who "get it" among creative leadership. Perhaps the marketing folks need to work more directly with them and worry less about "which franchise is this?" If these people are out front promoting the product that they believe in wholeheartedly, the enthusiasm will help and become somewhat infectious (like Walt's), and the marketing approach will become self-evident in talking to them.
Even directors. Brad Bird could have been out front on shows, as well as George Klooney, and his enthusiasm would have shown. Remember Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, and even Alfred Hitchcock? Sometimes the directors can make a difference in the marketing, too.
All new "franchises" (including "Frozen") were new at one time. And someone believed in them.
Last edited:
flynnibus
Premium Member
Even there they flub it.. like Cinderella basically showing every reveal from the film in the trailer.
I wish I had tens of millions I could just keep failing with over and over...
I look at something like Jurassic World.. the budget on the marketing must be astronomical... its every where, all the time. But at least it showed me bits that made me want to consider seeing the film.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
Which I can't figure out, because they nailed it with Pirates.
MarkTwain
Well-Known Member
Even then, only sort of. The original POTC's teaser trailer comes across as bizarre and confusing as anything released for Tomorrowland:
Perhaps as a result, Curse of the Black Pearl went on to open to a modest $46.6 million, only a bit more than the $42 million Tomorrowland made its over its opening holiday weekend (granted inflation plays a bit of difference). However, Pirates developed a strong word of mouth and maintained an impressive box office throughout its run, so that by the end of its run it had amassed a very impressive $654 million.
The sequels opened to much larger figures, because by then the word of mouth had spread and a fanbase had been established.
If Curse of the Black Pearl had opened to similar numbers today, the Iger Co. likely would have publicly declared it a flop by its third week, stopping the film in its tracks.
But yes, marketing plays a big difference as well.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
That's tells me it's not a marketing problem. It's just that Tomorrowland sucks and Pirates didn't.
I would not say that it sucks, but Pirates was without question better. TomorrowLand needed a good marketing campaign and a strong opening weekend as the final product came off as a resounding meh.
I am really hoping for some kind of directors cut as TomorrowLand looks to have all the pieces to make a good film, they just kind of blew it on the assembly.