That's a real shame because suburban Ohio only had nice things to say about you!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film
- Thread starter NateD1226
- Start date
Basil of Baker Street
Well-Known Member
One thing we can all agree on. The parks will be the one to get stuck with the bill.
TwilightZone
Well-Known Member
You guys don't get how BIG anime and manga have become. Manga is outselling american superhero comics by a LARGE margin. The young people (and millennials) eat it up!
TwilightZone
Well-Known Member
I wonder how Disney animation historians would classify this era. Post revival? Chapeak era?
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Is this the "official" way these eras recognized? I feel like the Golden era just took a break during the war time era. I think they should have the Golden Era pick back up with Cinderella through Sleeping Beauty.
TwilightZone
Well-Known Member
It's an image I found on google, but I think it was made to be very generalized on how fans officially define the eras.
Interestingly, Disney has their own Disney era charts but none of them really match what I see fans use.
TwilightZone
Well-Known Member
yep. If Atlantis could be shelved for being a bomb, so can Strange World and Lightyear and whatever other movies were once considered for rides and flopped.
KeithVH
Well-Known Member
I wonder if box revenue is the right way to lense the quality of the movie. Otherwise, by the same logic, I can think of several well-loved Disney animated films that would deserve being lumped into the same bucket as Strange World.
One example would be Sleeping Beauty. Budget of $6M. Initial release revenue of $5.3M. Which contributed to Disney's first annual loss in 10years and layoffs in Animation. And that's just one of several movies that didn't make their money back (at the time).
Yes, I know it's the only real quantitative measure we have but I feel too many variables are at play to draw comparison conclusions of the entertainment quality of the film.
One example would be Sleeping Beauty. Budget of $6M. Initial release revenue of $5.3M. Which contributed to Disney's first annual loss in 10years and layoffs in Animation. And that's just one of several movies that didn't make their money back (at the time).
Yes, I know it's the only real quantitative measure we have but I feel too many variables are at play to draw comparison conclusions of the entertainment quality of the film.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I was just kidding. A Strange World ride would never work in the Motorboat Cruise area/ Fantasyland
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Its a debate we've been having in this part of the forum for awhile now. Does Box Office really reflect the true quality/longevity of modern films? And I think in the post-streaming world the answer is no. While it can be a barometer its no longer the gauge in my opinion that should be used. Its why some of us monitor things like the Nielsen ratings to see how things perform on streaming.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
TwilightZone
Well-Known Member
Interestingly I did find this one that's more updated
Apparently we are in the new era? Talk about lazy naming, though I guess its hard to come up with more adjectives.
KeithVH
Well-Known Member
Doesn't necessarily translate to potential ticket sales though, at least IMHO. I don't think the American movie-going public is ANYWHERE near ready to watch what passes for these types of entertainment. Miyazaki's work doesn't count. I'm talking as far back as Roujin Z or Akira let alone newer stuff (so focused on Oppai). Even a bunch of the gender-fluid Sailor princess stuff probably wouldn't fly, and that stuff is considered tame nowadays. Especially to get to a respectable $400M+ box office.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Art and culture are all subjective, of course. And the art one person enjoys may seem grotesque to someone else. There are also endless examples of movies that did only modestly, or outright badly, at the box office to then go on to become beloved cult classics decades later. But that's not a business plan, it's lucky happenstance.
There's no movie in America that gets greenlit with a $180 Million budget with the following executive sales pitch...
"We'll make sure this movie bombs and pulls in only $50 Million in ticket sales globally, before we send it to Disney+ for free. Also, we'll spend money to develop toys and clothing for it, but then won't have Target or WalMart put them on the shelves. We also won't market it until the last second, so most people don't even know it exists. And can we please have a coveted Thanksgiving weekend release date for it? Thanks!"
If that was actually the business plan for Strange World, the company's executives are guilty of gross negligence.
It obviously wasn't the business plan, or how Strange World got approved with a $180 Million budget. The real story here with Strange World is not its artistic merits, but how it failed so spectacularly. I would also love to know the story behind its nearly complete lack of marketing. At Thanksgiving! It's all baffling and just weird.
TwilightZone
Well-Known Member
My theory is Chappie fired all the good advertisers. Note that Encanto was also marketed super poorly, for a princess movie its pretty dang confusing. It only started to get good marketing after it had released on D+ and heads found out how popular the Bruno song was.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
Encanto isn't a princess movie.
TwilightZone
Well-Known Member
Mirabel will most likely be lumped in with the other princesses. I am counting it : P
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
I would say the Revival era ended with Moana. Encanto has been the only film since then that wasn't almost instantly forgettable.
Hey, there we are. The Forgettable Era.
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
So the Revival era would be
The Princess & the Frog (2009)
Tangled (2010)
Winnie the Pooh (2011)
Wreck-it Ralph (2012)
Frozen (2013)
Big Hero 6 (2014)
Zootopia (2016)
Moana (2016)
I don't count Bolt with these. It's more along the lines of Chicken little and Robinsons.