'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film

[TP2000]

What I can say is that Disney needs to rein in budgets, that is a long time complaint discussed here in the forums. Should a movie like this cost $150-180M, no. So they have to rein in the costs of production across the board.

Via threads like this one, and the Lightyear thread last summer, plus looking at the cherry picked statistical financials from Pixar and Disney Animation over the last 18 months, I believe the responsible way forward is to merge the Pixar studio in Emeryville with the Disney Animation studio in Burbank.

You could still brand individual films as either "Pixar" or "Disney", with Pixar being contemporary non-musical stories while Disney is fictional stories that are often musicals or dependent on songs.

But to have two separate, expensive, sprawling studio campuses 400 miles apart pumping out the same mega-budget animated films that consistently underperform at the box office? Not sustainable. It seems to me to be an easy choice to merge them. Sell the Emeryville campus to condo developers and move on with the 21st century.

It's not 1995 any more, the Emeryville campus makes no sense in the 2020's and 2030's.

And as I said streaming isn't going away so they really do need to figure out how to keep costs low while still pumping out quality content.

I liken streaming new movies to that crypto-currency thing. No matter how many times the Smart Set tries to explain it to me, I just can't wrap my pea-sized brain around how crypto-currency works nor how streaming big budget movies for 8 bucks a month makes anyone any money.

Streaming and crypto both seem like hazy pyramid schemes to me. And streaming seems to drain corporate coffers quickly and gets the legacy studios nowhere with audiences.

I mean, at least with Amway you got some good glass cleaner. But streaming new big-budget content? I don't get how it makes anyone any money long-term.

 

[TP2000]

After it's second weekend, the epitaphs for Strange World are now being written in the press...

"Walt Disney Animation Studios’ Strange World crashed nearly 60% in its second weekend, earning an estimated $4.9 million. It did so while screening in more theaters – 4,174 – than any other film in North American theaters, drawing just $1,178 per screen.

The dismal second weekend follows a disastrous Thanksgiving holiday launch, in which the film failed to reach its already tepid box office projections and ended up with a ‘B’ from the market research film Cinemascore, which is unheard of for a Disney film."

Also, we aren't the only ones who are talking about the lack of marketing for this film. It's really a real thing.

"While much has been made about the lack of marketing for the film, there are indications that the studio knew months in advance that the film wasn’t testing well. The limited marketing was likely an internal decision so as to not throw good money after bad. And while former Disney CEO Bob Chapek will likely get much of the blame for the film’s failure, Disney Animation head Jennifer Lee had started developing the film while Bob Iger was still running the company the first time around."

Disney's 'Strange World' Plummets 60% In Its Second Weekend

Disney's latest feature was unable to recover at the box office in its sophomore frame.

www.cartoonbrew.com

 

[Disney Irish]

Via threads like this one, and the Lightyear thread last summer, plus looking at the cherry picked statistical financials from Pixar and Disney Animation over the last 18 months, I believe the responsible way forward is to merge the Pixar studio in Emeryville with the Disney Animation studio in Burbank.

You could still brand individual films as either "Pixar" or "Disney", with Pixar being contemporary non-musical stories while Disney is fictional stories that are often musicals or dependent on songs.

But to have two separate, expensive, sprawling studio campuses 400 miles apart pumping out the same mega-budget animated films that consistently underperform at the box office? Not sustainable. It seems to me to be an easy choice to merge them. Sell the Emeryville campus to condo developers and move on with the 21st century.

It's not 1995 any more, the Emeryville campus makes no sense in the 2020's and 2030's.

I know you think the two studios should merge, you've been saying the same thing for almost 3 years now. But I personally don't see the need, but appreciate your opinion.

I liken streaming new movies to that crypto-currency thing. No matter how many times the Smart Set tries to explain it to me, I just can't wrap my pea-sized brain around how crypto-currency works nor how streaming big budget movies for 8 bucks a month makes anyone any money.

Streaming and crypto both seem like hazy pyramid schemes to me. And streaming seems to drain corporate coffers quickly and gets the legacy studios nowhere with audiences.

I mean, at least with Amway you got some good glass cleaner. But streaming new big-budget content? I don't get how it makes anyone any money long-term.

Sorry but to liken streaming to a pyramid scheme is really a "Get off my lawn" tin foil hat opinion. I get you don't understand the economics of it, but that doesn't mean it can't work out. So take off the tin foil hat, allow the kids to play on the lawn, and just accept that streaming just like other forms of direct-to-consumer models have in the past will work out. Studios will figure out the economics and in the end we as the consumers will have more choice in how we consume our content which is a good thing.

 

[TwilightZone]

"While much has been made about the lack of marketing for the film, there are indications that the studio knew months in advance that the film wasn’t testing well. The limited marketing was likely an internal decision so as to not throw good money after bad.

I guess it was too expensive to redo? Another reason why they need to work on their budgets.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Just FYI, y'all...

Cut and paste from Excel automatically makes a table here.

 

[MisterPenguin]

It was advertised. But you have to admit it wasn't advertised until a week or so before its release, and the advertising was sparsely placed and not very good.

Advertising started a year ago. From the top of this thread..

Now titled Strange World. Here is the first piece of concept art!

Strange World was the preview trailer for Thor 4 for me.

 

[TP2000]

I know you think the two studios should merge, you've been saying the same thing for almost 3 years now. But I personally don't see the need, but appreciate your opinion.

Has it really been three years?!? Are you sure? I thought it was only a year or so ago that I came up with that opinion.

I mean, I've made some rather savvy (or just lucky) and well timed career and financial decisions in my life, especially recently. But I doubt that I'm that smart. Three years?

Sorry but to liken streaming to a pyramid scheme is really a "Get off my lawn" tin foil hat opinion. I get you don't understand the economics of it, but that doesn't mean it can't work out.

I love streaming personally. I can see that it works. But I don't think it works under the current strategy of spending $150 to $200 Million to make a movie, only to have it make $100 Million or less in theaters before you send it to streaming for 8 or 12 bucks a month. This isn't exclusive to Disney, I don't see how it works long-term for Paramount or Universal or Netflix.

Something's gotta give. My hunch is that the days of catered lunches, low six figure manager jobs, and armies of Burbank cubicle drones who can march around taking Comp Days when they don't get pandered to enough will soon be over.

This current business plan that Burbank and Emeryville are using is not sustainable. I await the fallout...

 

[TP2000]

Advertising started a year ago. From the top of this thread..

Got it. But if you can't admit that Strange World had weak, or almost non-existent, marketing... Then perhaps the multiple Disney fans in this thread who said they'd never heard of it might sway you? No? And if my trip to the Encinitas Target where I found not a single Strange World anything in the toy aisles or children's departments is simply cherry picked data fresh from the foothills below Mount Rainier in July ....

How about the repeated and wide-ranging commentary from industry media that this $180 Million Disney tentpole film had barely any marketing? Would that maybe sway you to admit that maybe, perhaps, the marketing for Strange World was weak and barely noticeable to almost all Americans?

Did Disney intentionally botch the marketing strategy for its new film with a gay lead? - LGBTQ Nation

Many have accused Disney of an intentionally lackluster marketing campaign that caused the film's poor performance at the box office.

www.lgbtqnation.com

Disney Fans Criticize The Lack Of Marketing For Strange World - Looper

Fans of Disney have taken to social media to discuss the poor opening of "Strange World" in theaters, as well as the apparent lack of marketing for the movie.

www.looper.com

Why Strange World Bombed At The Box Office (& What It Means For Disney)

Disney+ could be the new home for animation.

screenrant.com

Strange Marketing For Disney's "Strange World" + More News

Folks are wondering if Disney might have intentionally bungled its marketing strategy for its new film with a gay lead, Strange World.

therandyreport.com

'They've been barely advertising it until last week': Disney Faces Backlash For Negligible Marketing for 'Strange World' - First Disney Animated Movie With LGBTQ Lead - FandomWire

Disney recently released a new animated film, Strange World and fans are confused. State that they did not see much advertising for the movie.

fandomwire.com

Obviously I am a very powerful person who can control the Internet, depose Michael Eisner, and elevate Bob Iger to his rightful place on the throne, while also ghost writing all of Al Lutz's pieces for 20 years. I'm a busy guy! But surely my comments here in this thread the last three weeks didn't create the narrative that Strange World's marketing was weak and barely visible? Or did my comments here actually do that?

Be careful how you answer that! I might send you out in to oblivion with Mr. Eisner.

 

[_caleb]

while also ghost writing all of Al Lutz's pieces for 20 years

Oh, boy. You had to mention Micechatgate.

 

[TP2000]

Oh, boy. You had to mention Micechatgate.

How could I not? And wasn't it great?!?

At one point in August, 2019, I was laughing so hard I literally fell off the sofa. I was on the actual floor. Laughing.

A few folks here know the real entire story. But even then, it only gets funnier.

 

[Disney Irish]

Has it really been three years?!? Are you sure? I thought it was only a year or so ago that I came up with that opinion.

I mean, I've made some rather savvy (or just lucky) and well timed career and financial decisions in my life, especially recently. But I doubt that I'm that smart. Three years?

I won't go back and find every post you made on it, but it sure seems like since the beginning of the whole sending Pixar films to D+ almost 3 years ago you've had this stance that Pixar and WDAS should merge into Burbank.

I love streaming personally. I can see that it works. But I don't think it works under the current strategy of spending $150 to $200 Million to make a movie, only to have it make $100 Million or less in theaters before you send it to streaming for 8 or 12 bucks a month. This isn't exclusive to Disney, I don't see how it works long-term for Paramount or Universal or Netflix.

Something's gotta give. My hunch is that the days of catered lunches, low six figure manager jobs, and armies of Burbank cubicle drones who can march around taking Comp Days when they don't get pandered to enough will soon be over.

This current business plan that Burbank and Emeryville are using is not sustainable. I await the fallout...

As I've said costs have to come down, that is plain and simple. No one here is arguing that point. I pretty sure we all agree universally across this site that Disney's costs need to come down. Iger has said the same thing, so Disney is well aware of it needing to reign in costs.

But streaming is not ALL big budget productions. Sure they make big splashy clickbate headlines about a big budget production hitting streaming. But the vast majority of content on streaming services aren't big budget, or have had their budgets covered through other means.

So your hyperbolic stance that its a pyramid scheme is again coming across as a "get off my lawn" tin foil hat opinion. Because its anything but a pyramid scheme. As its really just the next evolution of media delivery from what cable providers were doing previously.

 

[TP2000]

So your hyperbolic stance that its a pyramid scheme is again coming across as a "get off my lawn" tin foil hat opinion. Because its anything but a pyramid scheme. As its really just the next evolution of media delivery from what cable providers were doing previously.

It seems to me that Burbank should have put its massive and comprehensive catalog of film and TV from the 20th century on Disney+ "for free!", or 8 bucks a month. Everything from Dumbo to Mickey Mouse Club to Herbie Goes Bananas to Disneyland After Dark. Plus geeky stuff for fans like the EPCOT Center Grand Opening Special, or Fantasia 2000.

Then, on top of that massive vault catalog for 8 bucks, they could have offered newer/bigger films for an upcharge of $15 or so for a 48 hour streaming window; stuff like Toy Story or Lion King or Frozen or Star Wars. And when new stuff like Lightyear or Luca end their 45 60 day run in theaters, they offer it on Disney+ for at least $25 for the first few months, which is still less than a family of four in Boise would spend going to the theater.

At least that way you're making some real money and not weakening your flagship brands in the marketplace.

But then, what do I know?

FYI, it will take 14 Million years for the creeping San Andreas Fault to move Burbank the 400 miles north all the way to the San Francisco Bay. Bob Iger should cut out the middle man and move Pixar's campus in Emeryville south to Burbank now.

 

[Disney Irish]

It seems to me that Burbank should have put its massive and comprehensive catalog of film and TV from the 20th century on Disney+ "for free!", or 8 bucks a month. Everything from Dumbo to Mickey Mouse Club to Herbie Goes Bananas to Disneyland After Dark. Plus geeky stuff for fans like the EPCOT Center Grand Opening Special, or Fantasia 2000.

As you probably know, or maybe you don't, in the US a majority of 20th Century content goes on Hulu. Outside the US all that content goes into D+ under the Star+ banner. Once Disney takes full control of Hulu in 2024 the expected move is for Disney to merge Hulu and D+ to have one uniform experience around the globe.

As for Disney Vault content, Disney is already releasing older content monthly. For example the old Zorro series just came out of the vault and recently made its way to D+ for the first time. They are slow dripping it instead of opening the flood gates as a way to keep content fresh.

Then, on top of that massive vault catalog for 8 bucks, they could have offered newer/bigger films for an upcharge of $15 or so for a 48 hour streaming window; stuff like Toy Story or Lion King or Frozen or Star Wars. And when new stuff like Lightyear or Luca end their 45 60 day run in theaters, they offer it on Disney+ for at least $25 for the first few months, which is still less than a family of four in Boise would spend going to the theater.

At least that way you're making some real money and not weakening your flagship brands in the marketplace.

But then, what do I know?

Hmm, Disney tried that with Premier Access with new releases, remember? And everyone complained about it because "I already pay for my subscription why should I pay more", "Disney is nickel and diming me" or some other excuse, while still paying for it anyways. I would have no issue to Iger bringing it back for new run movies. For older releases though, nah, this isn't a old content video rental store. You do that and you certainly will have more complaints of "Disney is nickel and diming me" again.

FYI, it will take 14 Million years for the creeping San Andreas Fault to move Burbank the 400 miles north all the way to the San Francisco Bay. Bob Iger should cut out the middle man and move Pixar's campus in Emeryville south to Burbank now.

 

[_caleb]

How could I not? And wasn't it great?!?

At one point in August, 2019, I was laughing so hard I literally fell off the sofa. I was on the actual floor. Laughing.

A few folks here know the real entire story. But even then, it only gets funnier.

It was indeed a welcome bit of intrigue ahead of the pandemic.

Some day, someone should pull that thread again.

 

[ppete1975]

Went to see it after not caring to, since the trailers were trash. I didnt even know what it was. But went because it was Disney.

LOVED IT, was shocked how enjoyable it was and how into it i got. Sad that poor marketing is going to lead alot of people not to see this.

 

[TP2000]

Hmm, Disney tried that with Premier Access with new releases, remember? And everyone complained about it because "I already pay for my subscription why should I pay more", "Disney is nickel and diming me" or some other excuse, while still paying for it anyways.

That sounds like the same complaint Disney fans make about Annual Pass prices. And yet they still pay.

Every other streaming service offers premier, first-run movie content at a premium. I had to pay Amazon Prime extra for the privilege of watching Ford Vs. Ferrari last month, and I only had 48 hours access to it. And that movie is three years old! (And wasn't as good as I had hoped.)

Disney should do the same with their mega-budget films like Lightyear, Strange World, etc.

 

[TwilightZone]

That sounds like the same complaint Disney fans make about Annual Pass prices. And yet they still pay.

Every other streaming service offers premier, first-run movie content at a premium. I had to pay Amazon Prime extra for the privilege of watching Ford Vs. Ferrari last month, and I only had 48 hours access to it. And that movie is three years old! (And wasn't as good as I had hoped.)

Disney should do the same with their mega-budget films like Lightyear, Strange World, etc.

I think a balance could work. First 3 months (let's just say that), you pay for fresh big - budget movies at a small price (let's say 15 dollars, maybe more, maybe less), then the rest of the year it becomes free.

 

[MisterPenguin]

That sounds like the same complaint Disney fans make about Annual Pass prices. And yet they still pay.

Every other streaming service offers premier, first-run movie content at a premium. I had to pay Amazon Prime extra for the privilege of watching Ford Vs. Ferrari last month, and I only had 48 hours access to it. And that movie is three years old! (And wasn't as good as I had hoped.)

Disney should do the same with their mega-budget films like Lightyear, Strange World, etc.

You should put your name in the hat for the next CEO.

 

[TP2000]

You should put your name in the hat for the next CEO.

I should! But I'm busy.

And retired. The real kind of retired, where I don't go back to the office a year after I leave.

 

[TP2000]

The actress who starred in Strange World as the mom blamed streaming yesterday for the movie's box office failure.

I'm not so sure it's all that easy, because streaming doesn't explain Top Gun: Maverick, or Thor 4, or Wakanda Forever, or Spiderman, or Jurassic World, or Doctor Strange, or Minions Rise of Gru, or Elvis, etc., etc.

But for the record, the stars of Strange World are blaming streaming. Yup, that's it.

Strange World's Gabrielle Union responds to Disney movie's box office failure

"I think people get comfortable watching things at home."

www.digitalspy.com