Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
I’ll help. He hasn’t seen it.
Cue hot air.
I’m thinking if it had been released closer to Christmas, more people would go see it regardless of reviews.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Surprise, surprise! The Nutcracker movie stinks.
- Thread starter RobbinsDad
- Start date
I’ll help. He hasn’t seen it.
Cue hot air.
I’m thinking if it had been released closer to Christmas, more people would go see it regardless of reviews.
prberk
Well-Known Member
Haven't seen it, but I can say from a marketing standpoint (which is part of the decision to buy a ticket in the first place), it does look overdone (like someone said, "CGI'd to death"). I remember when I first saw "The Matrix," and although everyone else seemed to gawk over the "special effects," I instead thought of how they took me out of the story. They were overdone. "Special effects" should enhance the believability of the story, and never should they overcome the story. The same is true of costuming and other visuals. That is what seems to happen to all of these CGI-heavy and overwrought "live-action" stories these days. Again, haven't seen this yet, but the trailers head strongly that direction and leave me cold -- unlike the story itself.
As for Disney live-action itself, they have had some successes in recent years, but they are generally the ones that are more low-key and ones that simply let the story -- and heart -- drive the film (just like Walt himself so strongly insisted was the formula so many years ago -- not that they had to be low-key but that they had to have heart and a strong story). One that comes to mind is "McFarland, USA." That was a fantastic movie.
And as for adapting other material all the time in their animated classics, don't forget that "The Lion King" was an original story, as was "Brother Bear" (which was better than people give it credit for).
But overall, I just wish that they would realize that CGI, costuming, and "special effects" are like salt: a little bit goes a long way to enhance the product, but too much ruins the product.
As for Disney live-action itself, they have had some successes in recent years, but they are generally the ones that are more low-key and ones that simply let the story -- and heart -- drive the film (just like Walt himself so strongly insisted was the formula so many years ago -- not that they had to be low-key but that they had to have heart and a strong story). One that comes to mind is "McFarland, USA." That was a fantastic movie.
And as for adapting other material all the time in their animated classics, don't forget that "The Lion King" was an original story, as was "Brother Bear" (which was better than people give it credit for).
But overall, I just wish that they would realize that CGI, costuming, and "special effects" are like salt: a little bit goes a long way to enhance the product, but too much ruins the product.
Again for the hard of hearing, this has nothing to do about whether or not I'll like the movie. America didn't (20 mil opening weekend on a 100+ mil budget). Critics didn't (35% RT). Another Disney live action flop.
Well your thread title completely wrong. Saying it "stinks" is a comment on how good or bad the movie is. But if you had put Nutcracker dissapoints at box office then maybe people would be more inclined to agree ...
Just my 50 pence
You sure kept that going for a long time if your squabble was with semantics.
ElvisMickey
Well-Known Member
I went to go see this last night (thankfully part of my AMC Stubs membership and not out of pocket) and for someone who found some good things in movies like Alice Through The Looking Glass, Tomorrowland, etc., I was hoping that I would with this as well. Unfortunately, this movie was probably the worst film I've seen all year...ho-hum plot, boring/annoying characters and surprisingly, very little of the actual Nutcracker music. I'm really not sure what Disney was thinking with this one.
Well, that's true. In the past 20 years the Disney Studio movie that lost the most money was John Carter at a net loss of $318 million at the end of its theatrical run. Tomorrowland didn't break that record, it only came in second at a net loss of $165 million.
ppete1975
Well-Known Member
That's partly because Disney spends too much to make a movie.. outside of paying Clooney (I doubt tim McGraw cost much) that movie really shouldn't have cost as much as it did to make. And I would have loved more of a Disneyland movie, especially after the "time capsule" they promoted. But like all movies if its not related to an Ip, another movie or gets tons of great press (either reviews of must see/academy award.. or all your friends saying its great) most movies wont do great it seems (my opinion).
I watched free solo last weekend.. probably wont make a ton of money.. but it was an amazing movie.
BTW my friend made the best star wars joke... he said.. I didn't know there was a new star wars movie set between empire and return.. its called FREE SOLO. At least I laughed...
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
The movie is sitting at 5.5/10 on IMDB and 42% for a RT audience score.
It "stinks".
Tick Tock
Well-Known Member
Off topic, but kinda not.
After seeing Venom a few weeks ago, a movie which I almost skipped altogether due to horrible critic ratings, I've finally learned to quit trusting the RT fresh or rotten score. I'm not saying the movie was flawless by any means, or up anywhere near Infinity War's standards in quality...but darn it was a fun ride. Nothing close to the stink-fest the critics falsely led me to believe I was walking into.
Not saying the same for Nutcracker, as I haven't seen it yet. But I certainly take you all, and audiences' word-of-mouth much heavier than any critic's review.
After seeing Venom a few weeks ago, a movie which I almost skipped altogether due to horrible critic ratings, I've finally learned to quit trusting the RT fresh or rotten score. I'm not saying the movie was flawless by any means, or up anywhere near Infinity War's standards in quality...but darn it was a fun ride. Nothing close to the stink-fest the critics falsely led me to believe I was walking into.
Not saying the same for Nutcracker, as I haven't seen it yet. But I certainly take you all, and audiences' word-of-mouth much heavier than any critic's review.
ppete1975
Well-Known Member
I totally agree, my only issue with nutcracker is it just doesn't seem like my kind of movie from the previews so ill prob skip it. For context I'm a 43 year old male. I am giddy about ralph breaks the internet, mary poppins, creed and aquaman though (scared about aquaman though but hopeful).
Indy_UK
Well-Known Member
Disney are long term going to have to pull their finger out and decide what they're going to do about their live action films.
Star Wars and Marvel are their own thing. Eventually they will run out of Animated classics to remake so they'll need to come up with something, otherwise they'll fall into another stretch of bad live action movies like national treasure
Star Wars and Marvel are their own thing. Eventually they will run out of Animated classics to remake so they'll need to come up with something, otherwise they'll fall into another stretch of bad live action movies like national treasure
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
Maybe reboot The Apple Dumpling Gang.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
What they will do once all the classics have been redone is just start over again. I would bet that we see them shift to live action pixar movies first. Then enough time will have passed that they can just start over again.
Nemo14
Well-Known Member
Princess Leia
Well-Known Member
Current international box office is a little under $100 million.
So after theater-sharing, production and marketing, it's only $141 million in the hole. Just $282 million more to break even.
