The Great and Powerful Oz question.

[bubbles1812]

Lone Ranger: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1210819/

Disney hopes LR will be a new franchise to rival Pirates of the Caribbean. With Johnny Depp's role as popular as his Jack Sparrow.
I say Lone Ranger is a new John Carter.

I think it will depend on how they market LR. John Carter was going to be a bit of a hard sell to begin with since it wasn't a well known property, but then they botched the marketing campaign so badly, I think they only ones who were even a little surprised was Disney (and even they knew it wasn't tracking well). Hopefully, someone at Disney will have learned their lesson from that debacle and put together a better marketing campaign. (You know, one that actually reveals a little of what the film is actually about rather than showing quick actions shots that make absolutely no sense). And while I don't think Depp's Tonto character will be near as popular as Sparrow (The way that character was portrayed/grew in popularity really was like catching lightening in a bottle), the world as a whole loves Depp, especially when he's in weird make-up, with the exception of Dark Shadows.
Though that wasn't Disney. So at least LR has that going for them. Armie Hammer certainly isn't going to be the selling point, that is for sure.

 

[unkadug]

I think it will depend on how they market LR. John Carter was going to be a bit of a hard sell to begin with since it wasn't a well known property, but then they botched the marketing campaign so badly, I think they only ones who were even a little surprised was Disney (and even they knew it wasn't tracking well). Hopefully, someone at Disney will have learned their lesson from that debacle and put together a better marketing campaign. (You know, one that actually reveals a little of what the film is actually about rather than showing quick actions shots that make absolutely no sense). And while I don't think Depp's Tonto character will be near as popular as Sparrow (The way that character was portrayed/grew in popularity really was like catching lightening in a bottle), the world as a whole loves Depp, especially when he's in weird make-up, with the exception of Dark Shadows.
Though that wasn't Disney. So at least LR has that going for them. Armie Hammer certainly isn't going to be the selling point, that is for sure.

And Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice and Wonderland and Sweeney Todd and...

 

[Bairstow]

"Weird make-up", huh?

 

[bubbles1812]

And Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice and Wonderland and Sweeney Todd and...

Alice in Wonderland made over a billion dollars. That isn't a flop in my book. Maybe some didn't like his performance but it sure didn't hurt the box office receipts. Sorry, I probably didn't make my meaning clear. I was just more speaking to the "flops" that Depp has had while in weird makeup. Chocolate Factory made nearly 500 million. Sweeney Todd was not as successful (50 million budget, made 150 million) but was not considered a flop. Dark Shadows did make back it's budget but took in a lot less than a typical Burton film, especially a Burton with Johnny Depp. And it's been considered a flop. But Depp is consistently one of the most popular movie stars in the world since the advent of Pirates, especially when he does his weirder characters. And I'm placing Tonto in that category. That's all I was trying to say. So that is an advantage for LR

 

[bubbles1812]

"Weird make-up", huh?

LOL. Yes, I do classify anything where part of the costume has Depp wearing a bird on his head as weird make up

 

[unkadug]

Alice in Wonderland made over a billion dollars. That isn't a flop in my book. Maybe some didn't like his performance but it sure didn't hurt the box office receipts. Sorry, I probably didn't make my meaning clear. I was just more speaking to the "flops" that Depp has had while in weird makeup. Chocolate Factory made nearly 500 million. Sweeney Todd was not as successful (50 million budget, made 150 million) but was not considered a flop. Dark Shadows did make back it's budget but took in a lot less than a typical Burton film, especially a Burton with Johnny Depp. And it's been considered a flop. But Depp is consistently one of the most popular movie stars in the world since the advent of Pirates, especially when he does his weirder characters. And I'm placing Tonto in that category. That's all I was trying to say. So that is an advantage for LR

That's all I was saying.

 

[bubbles1812]

That's all I was saying.

I understand that but my point was his most successful movies seem to be when he's doing a weird character, going all the way back to Edward Scissorhands, ect. Some didn't like his performance then either but again, it seems to be what works for him, and also what works for the world at large when it comes to going to his films. I wasn't really speaking to how his performance was liked, just again, what his successes have been.

 

[Magenta Panther]

somewhere over the rainbow...I have to confess the original Wizard of Oz movie captured my heart when I was a child and I have always loved it!

Same here. I watched it again a few weeks ago - hadn't seen it in years - and I loved it all over again. It holds up incredibly well. Even the special effects are still quite good - especially the cyclone. It's extremely convincing. Actually looks more real than any CG-powered storm I've ever seen.

 

[Magenta Panther]

You really threw a book away? Seriously?

I hope you were just being dramatic. You could have donated that to the Salvation Army or Goodwill if you didn't want it anymore. Heck, just leave it on a bus and let someone find it.

Never, ever throw any book away. It's so wasteful and deprives someone else of the chance to read it.

If someone must read that book or any other, I'm sure they'll find what they're looking for in the local library. For free.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I would be shocked if Disney didn't come to an agreement if they ever move forward with Oz attractions for DL ... if they can buy Avatar rights, then they certainly can do so for a real classic.

I'm glad you think so. I hope Disney thinks so too. Oz has such potential as an attraction. And since Disney does have a history with Oz (if a somewhat checkered one), then putting Oz into WDW or DL wouldn't be as jarring or ill-fitting as Avatar or Marvel. So it would be fantastic if Disney did strike a deal with Turner, which, after all, hasn't done much with the film beyond merchandising the heck out of it. So much more could be done, and, being a Disneyphile, I'd rather that Disney make an attraction out of Oz than Universal or some other park.

As an aside, Walt Disney and L. Frank Baum had rather a lot in common. Like Walt, Baum got involved with motion pictures in their infancy, and even talked about opening a theme park based on his Oz books! (This was probably inspired by Baum's visits to the World's Fair of 1893, much as Kansas City's Electric Park helped inspire Walt to eventually build Disneyland). And Baum and Walt became great American success stories by creating worlds of fantasy. So their similar affinities make the melding of Oz and Disney even more seamless in my view.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I think it will depend on how they market LR. John Carter was going to be a bit of a hard sell to begin with since it wasn't a well known property, but then they botched the marketing campaign so badly . . .

I saw John Carter in the theatre, it wasn't all that bad, but the flying vehicles the aliens (Barsooms?) had looked completely unbelievable, there isn't any gravity on Mars, and arm bands went out a long time ago. You can't think to yourself in 2011 that this sort of adventure could happen. The best part of the film, for me at least, was the beginning when he was in the Arizona territory, this looked real. The rest of the film I couldn't take seriously.

The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise looked real (apart from the supernatural stuff), and this allowed the audience to enter that world. Supernatural stuff is (from some people's POV) still unexplained, and thus still technically plausible is done well. Dark shadows, which was just a silly comedy IMHO, didn't look plausible/real.

Alice was in Wonderland, which is supernatural and by definition a sort of an unreal place, so the believability was there. After all, maybe it was all a dream, so you don't worry about the physical impossibility of the stuff.

They were going to have the Lone Ranger killing werewolves with his silver bullets (why else to have silver bullets?), but this supernatural aspect got chopped as the budget swelled. Nonetheless, you've got Depp as Tonto, which I think pretty much everybody is at least interested in seeing his take on the character, plus they built a train for the film just for the reality aspect.

And you've got guns.

It seems that almost every boy from seven on up has been/is obsessed with firearms. Adults like films with firearms as well, and when you add the mystique of the Old West, the film will be a must-see for the general male audience. I think that in general female audience members like period pieces, and if there is a love interest or interesting story, they will head to the theatre in droves as well.

Spaghetti westerns rotated around the idea that back in the Old West a law man's worth, and survival, was dependent on how quick his draw was, how good his aim was, and the small extent he could out talk his opponents.

I predict that the film will make about $500 million in profits worldwide (out of a total gross more than a billion), and about a billion, or two, in merchandising. The only question is what Disney is going to do with all the money, maybe they can buy a silver mine.

 

[bubbles1812]

I saw John Carter in the theatre, it wasn't all that bad, but the flying vehicles the aliens (Barsooms?) had looked completely unbelievable, there isn't any gravity on Mars, and arm bands went out a long time ago. You can't think to yourself in 2011 that this sort of adventure could happen. The best part of the film, for me at least, was the beginning when he was in the Arizona territory, this looked real. The rest of the film I couldn't take seriously.

The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise looked real (apart from the supernatural stuff), and this allowed the audience to enter that world. Supernatural stuff is (from some people's POV) still unexplained, and thus still technically plausible is done well. Dark shadows, which was just a silly comedy IMHO, didn't look plausible/real.

Alice was in Wonderland, which is supernatural and by definition a sort of an unreal place, so the believability was there. After all, maybe it was all a dream, so you don't worry about the physical impossibility of the stuff.

They were going to have the Lone Ranger killing werewolves with his silver bullets (why else to have silver bullets?), but this supernatural aspect got chopped as the budget swelled. Nonetheless, you've got Depp as Tonto, which I think pretty much everybody is at least interested in seeing his take on the character, plus they built a train for the film just for the reality aspect.

And you've got guns.

It seems that almost every boy from seven on up has been/is obsessed with firearms. Adults like films with firearms as well, and when you add the mystique of the Old West, the film will be a must-see for the general male audience. Spaghetti westerns rotated around the idea that back in the Old West a law man's worth, and survival, was dependent on how quick his draw was, how good his aim was, and the small extent he could out talk his opponents.

I predict that the film will make about $500 million in profits worldwide, and about a billion, or two, in merchandising. The only question is what Disney is going to do with all the money, maybe they can buy a silver mine.

You make interesting points. And I do think the film has a chance of being a success but I'm not sure it will be a "must see" for the general male audience. Yes, boys like firearms and what little boy hasn't played cowboys and indians at some point in their life, but the Western film genre hasn't done really well for a long time. Traditional type Westerns just aren't that popular. I think you might be overestimating the "mystique" of the Old West, at least at this time. I haven't seen any demands by the general population in recent years for a western the way there has been for other genres of film.

Maybe Disney will get lucky in that...they can revive the Western genre the way Pirates revived the pirate genre. The Lone Ranger is luckily a fairly well known property. Many people have heard of it even if they haven't watched it. I think again, it just will come down to the marketing. Even with Depp and an established property, it's not going to be the easiest sell they've ever done. Which is why, again, I hope Disney's marketing department learned their lesson from John Carter.

Note: I loved hearing about what you thought of John Carter. I like alien films, I like action films, I like romance but nothing whatsoever appealed to me when I saw the trailers for JC...and I still haven't seen it and probably won't. Again, just absolutely nothing about the way Disney marketed the thing drew me in. Plus, I think Taylor Kitsch is about as talented as a sack of hammers so that didn't help. Hollywood needs to stop trying to make him happen.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I haven't seen any demands by the general population in recent years for a western the way there has been for other genres of film.

Maybe Disney will get lucky in that...they can revive the Western genre the way Pirates revived the pirate genre.

The Pirate genre was a lot more dead than the western genre before Captain Jack Sparrow arrived on the scene. Hollywood hadn't made a big budget pirate film in decades before Pirates of the Caribbean came out.

True Grit (2010) was a critical success and grossed $251 million worldwide on a budget of $38 million. The CG-animated film Rango, a sort of western, made a lot of money too, and was a critical success as it won the academy award.

Hollywood used to make a ton of westerns as the genre was popular with a lot of western television shows on television, now we've got a big western coming out with less frequency, every 3 years or so, but they are still there and some still make money. There have been some recent flops, such as Brad Pitt's Jesse James film and the 3:10 to Yuma. But if the movies are well made, they have the potential to make a lot of money for the studios.

Given True Grit's surprising success, I think that the western gentre isn't dead, but that it can be used effectively if you have a good story. I haven't yet seen the 3:10 to Yuma, not even sure what it was about, but with the Lone Ranger, a lot of the marketing has already be done as moviegoers have a good idea that the film is going to be about.

Plus, Brad Pitt wasn't selling any "Jesse James" dolls, but Lone Ranger will no doubt have a whole line of profitable products from action figures, to lunch boxes, to water guns to even cowboy hats. Disney made a smart decision to make the film as marketability helps some slightly profitable films turn a much larger profit.

 

[Bairstow]

The Pirate genre was a lot more dead than the western genre before Captain Jack Sparrow arrived on the scene. Hollywood hadn't made a big budget pirate film in decades before Pirates of the Caribbean came out.

You're forgetting Cutthroat Island, which was a $100 million dollar bomb just 8 years before the first Jack Sparrow movie.

True Grit (2010) was a critical success and grossed $251 million worldwide on a budget of $38 million. The CG-animated film Rango, a sort of western, made a lot of money too, and was a critical success as it won the academy award.

Hollywood used to make a ton of westerns as the genre was popular with a lot of western television shows on television, now we've got a big western coming out with less frequency, every 3 years or so, but they are still there and some still make money. There have been some recent flops, such as Brad Pitt's Jesse James film and the 3:10 to Yuma. But if the movies are well made, they have the potential to make a lot of money for the studios.

Given True Grit's surprising success, I think that the western gentre isn't dead, but that it can be used effectively if you have a good story. I haven't yet seen the 3:10 to Yuma, not even sure what it was about, but with the Lone Ranger, a lot of the marketing has already be done as moviegoers have a good idea that the film is going to be about.

Plus, Brad Pitt wasn't selling any "Jesse James" dolls, but Lone Ranger will no doubt have a whole line of profitable products from action figures, to lunch boxes, to water guns to even cowboy hats. Disney made a smart decision to make the film as marketability helps some slightly profitable films turn a much larger profit.

True enough, but not to spoil anything, the Lone Ranger is going to be something of a "weird" western, more like Jonah Hex than Open Range.
The traditional western audience may not turn out for it.
Disney's been legitimately concerned about this. http://lezgetreal.com/2011/08/disney-shelves-hammerdepp-lone-ranger-movie/

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

The traditional western audience may not turn out for it.

Lone Ranger is was written to have broad audience appeal and will likely be a major tentpole for Disney in 2013. I'm not sure that there is a traditional western audience that turns out for the big westerns, movies like True Grit made a lot of money on general audience interest. Had they done the CGI-werewolves, maybe it would have had a different feel from other westerns, but they had a major script re-write due to budget constraints.

Can't wait to see the trailer, I think Disney has a big hit on their hands . . .

 

[bubbles1812]

The Pirate genre was a lot more dead than the western genre before Captain Jack Sparrow arrived on the scene. Hollywood hadn't made a big budget pirate film in decades before Pirates of the Caribbean came out.

True Grit (2010) was a critical success and grossed $251 million worldwide on a budget of $38 million. The CG-animated film Rango, a sort of western, made a lot of money too, and was a critical success as it won the academy award.

Hollywood used to make a ton of westerns as the genre was popular with a lot of western television shows on television, now we've got a big western coming out with less frequency, every 3 years or so, but they are still there and some still make money. There have been some recent flops, such as Brad Pitt's Jesse James film and the 3:10 to Yuma. But if the movies are well made, they have the potential to make a lot of money for the studios.

Given True Grit's surprising success, I think that the western gentre isn't dead, but that it can be used effectively if you have a good story. I haven't yet seen the 3:10 to Yuma, not even sure what it was about, but with the Lone Ranger, a lot of the marketing has already be done as moviegoers have a good idea that the film is going to be about.

Plus, Brad Pitt wasn't selling any "Jesse James" dolls, but Lone Ranger will no doubt have a whole line of profitable products from action figures, to lunch boxes, to water guns to even cowboy hats. Disney made a smart decision to make the film as marketability helps some slightly profitable films turn a much larger profit.

I wasn't arguing that it's dead. Sorry if I gave you that impression. But it isn't popular. I feel like True Grit (which I actually really really liked) and Rango (which I thought was weird but liked anyways...ironic that it was another Depp film) are more the exceptions than the rule. I'm not sure I agree with you about moviegoers knowing what the film will be about...I think the majority of people on here do, and people of I guess the "older generation" will but many in their early 30s, 20s, kids, won't. The majority of people don't even know it is in development (though that goes for all films, not just LR)... you would be surprised the amount of people who just go to the movie theater without any plan of what they are going to see.

Now that doesn't mean I think it's going to be a failure. I just think the marketing department still has a bit of its work cut out for it going forward. It's still a many year old property in a genre that may not be dead but isn't certainly on of the more popular ones out there. Good reviews (well made movies as you said) would greatly help, so I do hope it will be a good film.

 

[JohnLocke]

And Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice and Wonderland and Sweeney Todd and...

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn't belong.... Seriously though, Sweeney Todd's an awesome movie, possibly the best musical adaptation of the past 10 years, and is way under rated. I'll give you Charlie and Alice for not being great, but both were successful financially and didn't exactly have huge drop offs after opening weekends.

 

[J03Y]

I loathe the original movie. Liked the play Wicked. Would be discouraged if if this made a bigger presence in the parks.

WHY?

answering your question, i hope not... the movie looks bad...

 

[fosse76]

I saw John Carter in the theatre, it wasn't all that bad, but the flying vehicles the aliens (Barsooms?) had looked completely unbelievable, there isn't any gravity on Mars, and arm bands went out a long time ago.

Sorry, I couldn't let this one go. Mars most definitely has gravity. It's not as strong as Earth's, and his ability to jump as high may or may not be scientifically accurate, but there is gravity. That said, I too didn't think that John Carter was all that bad.

 

[koryadams]

My opinion, stick with true Disney characters....as I look the other way as they add Avatar land. I just don't think that would be a good addition. I still haven't seen disney characters come in to the parks like I wish they would. But what can you do...