'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film

[BuddyThomas]

Yeah nope, it’s worse than those. Sounds like it could be Strange World, Stranger World, or Strange Worlds. It’s a vague colorless title that promises blandness instead of pulp adventure. It’s a bad title.

LOL. Just wait until it opens.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Yup! Talking about the box office performance data and statistical success of a movie.

Talking about it before it opens.

 

[Phroobar]

Releasing a movie straight to Disney+ is the equivalent of releasing a movie straight to DVD.

 

[Prince-1]

Releasing a movie straight to Disney+ is the equivalent of releasing a movie straight to DVD.

Not when your already stated goal is to increase subscribers to D+. Disney could care less about leaving money on the box office table if they are seeing an increase in people paying for D+.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Releasing a film on Disney+ isn’t missing an opportunity to make money, it’s keeping subscribers. I’m not sure why some here seem to think box office= good films (that Disney is confident in) and D+ for poor films that won’t make money.

B movies switched from theaters to others distribution avenues years ago. First it was TV movies and then it was direct-to-video movies. For some time now studios have sold off movies to streaming services when there isn’t confidence. Netflix in particular isn’t shy about focusing on quantity over quality. Award consideration is part of it, but dedicated streamers also give their prestige content theatrical releases. They’re not huge releases but some are still beyond the required limited release for award consideration. Even with Disney, projects like Enchanted 2 were planned and killed years ago due to their limited box office (and merchandise) potential was considered too low.

 

[_caleb]

B movies switched from theaters to others distribution avenues years ago. First it was TV movies and then it was direct-to-video movies. For some time now studios have sold off movies to streaming services when there isn’t confidence. Netflix in particular isn’t shy about focusing on quantity over quality. Award consideration is part of it, but dedicated streamers also give their prestige content theatrical releases. They’re not huge releases but some are still beyond the required limited release for award consideration. Even with Disney, projects like Enchanted 2 were planned and killed years ago due to their limited box office (and merchandise) potential was considered too low.

Yes. But things have changed. Disney has learned to leverage what used to be the B movie contingency. Their direct-to-consumer strategy is make lower-cost films and series that go deeper with smaller, but more devoted audiences to intentionally make what used to be called “sleeper hits”—essentially leveraging one of the few upsides of “straight to DVD” movies to buff D+ subscriptions.

In this model, theatrical releases aren’t treated as the “big leagues.” but as a more public/crowded outlet where Disney releases content that will try to connect with multiple audiences (including potential audiences). Theater releases are leveraged to drive D+ subscriptions and fish for new fandoms to serve (and sell to). We’re on our way to having theatrical releases treated as loss leaders.

 

[TalkingHead]

I get what you’re saying now. You want it to be more descriptive. “Exploring A Strange World” or “Searcher Clade and the Strange World” or something. That’s not “how it works” that’s how you want it to work.

But since this is a one-off, standalone film and NOT a serial or anthology, riffing on the classic strange/weird/fantastic titles by putting it in the singular works for me.

Also, Disney has a lot of experience with titles that sell (or hurt) family films. Remember the rationale behind “Tangled” rather than “Rapunzel?” Or “Frozen” rather than “The Snow Queen?” And you mentioned the box-office bomb John Carter (which was adapted from A Princess of Mars). With multiple trailers and social media, maybe simpler titles work better?

John Carter would seem to be evidence that bland titles aren’t a good match with pulp. Raiders of the Lost Ark. Not a series title. Colorful, adventurous, pulpy, identifies the tone and characterization w “raiders”. Tangled and Frozen were also musicals (cf. Wicked), not adventures (if that’s even what this is). Simply pointing out the title Strange World is indifferent, doesn’t give any hint of tone or flavor, so if it underperforms at the box office, there’s going to be handwringing about the way the movie was packaged and sold, and that extends to the title.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Releasing a movie straight to Disney+ is the equivalent of releasing a movie straight to DVD.

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.

 

[_caleb]

John Carter would seem to be evidence that bland titles aren’t a good match with pulp. Raiders of the Lost Ark. Not a series title. Colorful, adventurous, pulpy, identifies the tone and characterization w “raiders”. Tangled and Frozen were also musicals (cf. Wicked), not adventures (if that’s even what this is).

John Carter was a bad title for a bad movie. The equivalent for Strange World would be "Searcher Clade," which they didn't go with (hopefully having learned a lesson).

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

Simply pointing out the title Strange World is indifferent, doesn’t give any hint of tone or flavor, so if it underperforms at the box office, there’s going to be handwringing about the way the movie was packaged and sold, and that extends to the title.

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.

You could argue that Disney hasn't been aggressive enough with the marketing, but the real answer to that argument most of the time is, "If you haven't seen a lot of marketing about the movie, it's because you are not the target audience." But alas, so many here assume they are the target because they spend a lot on Disney.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

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.

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."

 

[_caleb]

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.

This is what I was going to say, except for this bit:

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.

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.

 

[_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.