#oz reboot with a live studio audience.

[ozimagines]

^Whyyyyy does this workkkkkk????😂😂😂

[twentiethcenturymoviesandtv]

Why Do Reboots and Remakes?

So, today’s going to get a tad topical.

It’s not news that movies follow trends.  They have done so since the invention of film.  The era of the westerns, the spy films, the cop movies, the action flicks, they have all had their runs and resurgences, each influenced by the audience’s responses to the current trend in Hollywood. Sometimes the trends are specific, sometimes quite broad, but no matter what, the movie industry knows how to exploit what the audiences come out to see, even long after the audience is tired of it.

But let’s say that you want to make money off something that’s already been made.  How do you do that?  

The answer to that is pretty simple, and we’ve seen a lot of it over the years.  Studios have been rebranding, remarketing, and adding new gimmicks to old films for some time, whether it’s Disney’s re-releases, 3-D theater runs, IMAX, or special editions.  That’s not even mentioning the video rentals, VHS tapes, and eventually DVD and Blu-Ray copies of films that have been released.

But recently, the attempts to cash in on previously-successful films have become, if not subtle, less blatant.  They’re no longer giving us the same film with minor changes added, no, they’re giving us something a little different.

Movie studios have found a new way to earn new cash from old ideas: taking a pre-existing film (or franchise, or television series), and telling the story again, usually making a handful of changes along the way.

In other words: a remake (or reboot).

Now, remakes aren’t exactly new to the film game.  Since the inclusion of sound, moviemakers originally sought to take previously silent movies and update them into the sound format with remakes such as The Wizard of Oz, Ben Hur, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Moby Dick and Phantom of the Opera.  In the years that followed, the moviemaking process grew more advanced, and filmmakers began to look at older (usually sound) films and find ways to remake them.  What followed were films such as Scarface, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Fly, The Thing, Little Shop of Horrors, The Mummy, Assault on Precinct 13 and more, all of which are considered superior to their original version.  

On the other hand, reboots like Planet of the Apes, The Mummy, Ghostbusters, The Karate Kid, Psycho, Guess Who, Halloween, and A Nightmare On Elm Street are disliked, and we currently live in an age where there tends to be a lot of outcry against remakes and reboots in general.  And yet they keep being made.

This leads to a question.

What did the former films get right that the latter ones didn’t? What’s the secret to a good reimagining?

To answer that question, first we have to identify the difference between a remake and a reboot.

Both remakes and reboots are adaptations of previous film or television source material, so in that, they are very similar, but there are important distinctions to be made between them.  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is a reboot, but The Fly is a remake.  So what’s the difference between them?

Let’s start with the easy one.

A remake of a film is a movie that takes the source material and, well, makes it again.  Remakes will usually be extremely similar to the original, with the same story and characters.  Usually secondary elements will be changed, but not to the point where the story is totally different as a result.  For example, the remake of Little Shop of Horrors keeps the character names and plot from the original 1960 black and white film, expanding on them, while clearly being a remake of that film.

On the other hand, a reboot is something a little broader.

A reboot is more typically done with a franchise.  These usually involve the same universe rather than the same stories, and typically involve reimagined versions of characters. A reboot wipes a universe’s slate clean, used most frequently in comic books as a way to reintroduce characters to new audiences in a way that won’t be confusing.  It’s a way to start over and try something new, such as the many incarnations of superheroes in film.  However, unlike a remake, a reboot typically ends up being targeted towards much at the older fans as the newer ones, full of mythology gags and references to familiar lore, such as Mad Max: Fury Road or Kong: Skull Island.

Both of these methods have had both good and bad individual reception.  Some remakes and reboots are done really well, as previously mentioned, but plenty of others are considerably disliked, accused of being cheap attempts to cash in on nostalgia without what made the originals special.  Some people claim there aren’t enough changes made in remakes, others claim there are too many, a few groups say some things shouldn’t be rebooted, and others declare that they just shouldn’t be done like that.  So, which is right?  Are reboots and remakes good ideas, or not?

The answer isn’t black and white, and lies in something more complicated than the execution.  It’s in the conception.

Our big question today is simple: Why reboots and remakes?  Today, we’re going to answer that question by dividing it into two parts: Why are reboots and remakes done, and why should reboots and remakes be done?

Let’s start with the first one.

Why are reboots and remakes done?

Typically, unfortunately, they’re often done for a very simple reason: to make money.

People will pay for nostalgia.  Franchises as long lived as Transformers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and The Terminator will attest to that.  Every remake, no matter what, piques the interest of those who enjoyed what is being remade.  Some are optimistic, some are pessimistic, but one way or another, the film is getting attention, and that’s what companies want more than anything.

Take the 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters, for example.  Same concept, similar universe, but different characters.  Without even looking at the film in terms of quality, the fact is, it caused quite a stir, from both supporters and opponents.  The film got a lot of attention, and as a result, people went to see it.

Whether a remake or reboot is good or bad, fans of the original will go to see it, either hoping to enjoy it or hoping to hate it.  And why?

Because of that connection with the original.  Movie companies count on that more than anything else when it comes to remakes.

Now, is that a problem?

Honestly, no.  Companies look at what people want all of the time in order to find out what the audiences want, and nostalgia is an easy thing to make money off of.  The problem is the leap of logic that they take after that, which often looks something like this:

People will pay to see stuff they know -> It doesn’t have to be good for people to come and see it -> We don’t have to put in that much effort.

The problem with movies based solely on making money is this: If your goal is only to make money, you won’t care nearly so much about the actual quality or faithfulness of the product you are trying to recreate.  As a result, there are lots of remakes that exist simply because they were relying on the fact that ‘people know this’.

The worst thing is, it’s working.

There are plenty of bad remakes and reboots that make a lot of money despite their lack of quality, simply because people are curious.  This, in turn, tells Hollywood that it doesn’t matter whether or not their content is good, because they will still be considered ‘successful’, and they keep doing it.  Reboots and remakes are a safe, easy cash grab, and the movie business has known it for years.  

On the other hand, it’s not all bad.

There are plenty of recent reboots that have severely bombed at the box office, from the 2016 remake of Ben Hur, to Ghostbusters, to the new Mummy film.  Turns out that, while Hollywood measures success by money, audiences measure success by, well, quality.  With more and more of these half-hearted remakes coming to the screen, more and more people are starting to complain about the lack of originality in the movie industry.  With more people wanting something new, there’s a possibility that Hollywood will listen, and the trends will change again.

So, that’s why reboots and remakes are usually made.  At least, that’s how they’re made now.  Now for the other question:

Why should we make reboots and remakes?

See, re-making or re-booting pre-existing films, television and franchises is not inherently a bad idea.  In fact, it can be a very good idea.  There are examples of both that have been as good, and some even better than their original counterparts.  So, what did these films do, that the newer ones can’t seem to manage?

In my opinion, what they did was very simple:

They were based on ideas for story, not ideas for increased profit.

The aforementioned films weren’t all blockbusters, and they weren’t meant to be.  The purpose of those films wasn’t to make money, it was to tell a story.

The Fly doesn’t remake the original film by simply updating the special effects, it tells the story in a different way, emphasizing the horrors of losing your humanity rather than the simple horror of a monster. The change of styles can also be said of The Thing or Moby Dick.  The 1999 remake of The Mummy was not a re-telling of the original story, but used the original concept as a jump-off point to turn a horror story into a comedy-adventure.  Little Shop of Horrors went from a goofy horror-comedy to a heartfelt musical (if still a horror comedy) about the dangers of giving up your soul for material gain.

What do all of these have in common?

They changed something.

Every one of these films is a totally different entity than the film it was based on.  They were not ‘safe’ retreads of familiar stories, these remakes took pre-existing films and made them their own, unique versions.  More specifically, these movies were made because the people who created them had an idea; a way to do it differently.

See, reboots and remakes work best when they are being done because there is something new to explore.  When they are being created for the express purpose of trying something new because someone thinks it can work, then there’s a genuine chance for that film to be remembered, both as a remake and a movie in its own right.

Trying something new does not automatically guarantee that it’s going to be a success, either in the box office or in the heart of the fans, but the odds of being fondly remembered are in the favor of a remake that did something creative and different.

In the end, film, no matter how much money it makes, is a form of art.  It’s expression, a way to tell a story.  Remakes and reboots are done best when done by people with something to add, something to explore that audiences haven’t already seen.  People go to see remakes in order to see what’s different, what’s new? What hasn’t been done already?

Sure, some changes work, and some don’t, but the important thing is, things are being changed out of a desire to take a story in a different direction.  When someone remakes a movie with the genuine idea to turn it into something different, to recreate it with their own vision, a thought that they can do something new or better, that’s when remakes become good ideas.

So, why make reboots and remakes?

To take a story and make it your own.  Not to replace, but to reimagine, to take away nothing from the original, but rather to use it as a starting point for creativity, for expanding a pre-existing story with ideas of your own.

In short?

Make movies for ideas, not profit.

Thank you guys so much for reading!  Don’t forget to leave an ask in the ask box, I’d like to hear your thoughts and opinions.  I hope to see you all in the next article!

[un-enfant-immature]

HBO Max launches today, here’s what you need to know

HBO Max, the HBO -plus-other-stuff streaming service from WarnerMedia, is finally here.

At $14.99 per month, the service — initially available to subscribers in the United States — is more expensive than competing offerings like Netflix and Disney+. But from another angle, it’s still a pretty sweet deal, since you’re getting HBO, plus a whole bunch of extra content, for the exact same price as an HBO subscription. (WarnerMedia couldn’t go lower than $15 per month without undercutting HBO pricing and violating its agreements with cable providers.)

So if it’s the same price as HBO and includes most of the same content, why launch a new service at all? As executives at WarnerMedia and its corporate parent AT&T have made clear, they’re hoping compete with players like Netflix. That means building a broader audience than HBO — though they’re also trying to leverage HBO’s reputation for prestige TV and its early success with streaming — and expanding globally. It will also probably involve introducing cheaper, ad-supported plans in the future.

The big question is whether WarnerMedia has successfully translated these corporate imperatives into a compelling offering for consumers. There’s certainly a rich library of content — WarnerMedia says HBO Max is launching with 10,000 hours of movies and TV, including existing shows like “Friends,” “The Big Bang Theory,” the new version of “Doctor Who,” “Rick and Morty,” “The Boondocks,” “The Bachelor,” “Sesame Street,” “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air,” “Batwoman,” “Nancy Drew,” “Katy Keene,” “Doom Patrol,” “The O.C.,” “Pretty Little Liars” and “Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown.”

The lineup includes newer movies like “Crazy Rich Asians,” “A Star is Born,” “Aquaman” and “Joker,” as well as classics like “Casablanca,” “The Wizard of Oz,” “The Matrix,” “The Goonies,” “When Harry Met Sally,” “The Lord of the Rings,” “Citizen Kane,” and “Gremlins.” HBO Max will also offer titles from the Criterion Collection and the full library of Studio Ghibli films.

And if you’re a superhero fan, it’s got every DC film from the last decade, including “Wonder Woman,” “Justice League” (plus director Zack Snyder’s cut of the film, scheduled for release next year) and every Batman and Superman movie from the last 40 years.

When it comes to original content, things get a little bit sparser, particularly when you distinguish between HBO originals and HBO Max originals (though regular subscribers may not care about the difference). On the Max side, originals available at launch include a kids reality TV series called “Craftopia,” a new set of “Looney Tunes” cartoons, “The Not Too Late Show With Elmo,” another reality show called “Legendary,” a romantic comedy anthology series starring Anna Kendrick called “Love Life” and a music industry documentary called “On the Record.”

Image Credits: WarnerMedia

There’s more original programming scheduled for later this year, including a “Friends” reunion special (they’re waiting on a time when it’s safe to shoot in-person), new seasons of “Doom Patrol” and “Search Party,” and “Raised by Wolves,” a new science fiction series executive produced and directed by Ridley Scott.

Of course,this launch is happening as the COVID-19 pandemic has created new challenges for many streaming services. Viewership and subscriptions are up (at least for services designed to be watched in the living room)— no surprise, with movie theaters closed, people stuck at home and professional sports on hold — to the point that many streamers have had to reduce their quality in some regions.

At the same time, the pandemic has largely shut down film and TV production around the world, with no clear date for when it can resume. That means the release date for many HBO Max originals — not just the “Friends” reunion but also new “Adventure Time” specials, reboots of “Gossip Girl” and “Grease,” a “Dune” series spinning off from the big-screen adaptation due out later this year, a new “Green Lantern” series and more — remain uncertain.

So how do you get the app? Subscribers to HBO’s standalone streaming service HBO Now should be able to update their app to HBO Max today. The app is currently available for a range of devices including Android phones and tablets, Android TV, Apple TV, Chromebooks, Chromecasts, iPhones, iPads, PlayStation 4, Samsung TV and Xbox One — but not yet for Roku of Fire TV.

WarnerMedia says the service should also be available to HBO subscribers through partners like AT&T, Cox, DirecTV, Hulu, Optimum, Spectrum, Verizon Fios and YouTube TV at no additional cost — there’s a whole section on the HBO Max website about how to sign up.

And if you aren’t already a subscriber, you can sign up for a free seven-day rial on the HBO Max website.

The streaming wars to come

[lovatodaily]

Demi Lovato on Voicing Smurfette in ‘Smurfs: The Lost Village’

With Smurfs: The Lost Village opening April 7th, Sony Pictures Animation recently held a long lead press day where I got to talk with Demi Lovato about voicing Smurfette, in addition to seeing some footage from the upcoming animated film.

If you’re not familiar with Smurfs: The Lost Village, unlike the last installments, this one is fully computer-animated and is a fresh take on the franchise. Director Kelly Asbury recently said that the new film is “a radically different take on the Smurfs and their imaginary world, and much closer to the tone and style that creator Peyo initially envisioned.” When asked what his inspiration was for the film, Asbury replied:

“Many things inspired the type of movie we wanted to make. Everyone involved agreed that the story should be a high-adventure journey, so classic movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Goonies came to mind. The richness in color was influenced by the great French Impressionists painters. The Forbidden Forest where the Smurfs venture was envisioned as equal parts Oz, Pandora and Wonderland, filled with dangerous and magical creatures like Smurf-eating Flowers or Boxing and Kissing Plants, to name a few.”

Smurfs: The Lost Village also features the voices of Mandy Patinkin as Papa Smurf, Rainn Wilson as Gargamel, Joe Manganiello as Hefty, Danny Pudi as Brainy Smurf and Jack McBrayer as Clumsy Smurf.

During my exclusive interview with Demi Lovato, she talked about how she got involved in the project, what it was like going into the recording booth to act instead of sing, how much of herself was she able to put into Smurfette, what she remembers about being on Prison Break years ago, the status of her memoir, future projects, and a lot more.

COLLIDER: Hey, how are you doing?

DEMI LOVATO: I’m great, how are you?

I’m good. Good luck with today.

Image via Sony Pictures Animation

LOVATO: Oh, thank you!

Jumping on in since I know I have limited time, you’ve obviously spent a great deal of time in the recording booth. I’m curious what it was like going in to spend hours there when you’re not singing a thing.

LOVATO: It was a different experience for me, and I loved it. It was fun to be apart of an animated film that is still iconic and I loved it, it was really cool.

Can you could talk a little bit about the way it was for you in the booth and how much of yourself were you able to sort of put into the character?

LOVATO: I was able to put a lot of myself into the character. She’s a strong female lead, and I’d like to consider a strong woman, so being able to put that into the character was easy and comfortable.

I’ve spoken to a lot of people that have worked on a lot of animated movies and they talk about how the story and the script has changed, it changes often during development. I’m curious from when you were pitched the movie to what audiences are going to see on screen, how much changed along the way.

LOVATO: Not a lot changed at all, actually. I think a few lines changed but it was very consistent.

Can you talk about which family member was most excited when you told them you were going to be Smurfette?

LOVATO: I think my mom was definitely the most excited. She grew up watching them and was really excited when I told her I was going to be apart of it.

Image via Sony Pictures Animation

How did you get involved with the project. Was it something that they went to your agents? How did it happen?

LOVATO: It was kind of came to me with an offer and I couldn’t say no.

If only it was always that easy.

LOVATO: Yeah, exactly.

This is the first time that other female Smurfs are going to be shown in any sort of way, so could you kind of talk about that aspect of the story?

LOVATO: I don’t want to give anything away, so I can’t really say much, to be honest. But it is cool to be apart of a film where it explains why Smurfette is the only girl Smurf.

How long ago did you actually start recording for this? And was it something that you’ve done dozens of sessions for or has there just been a few?

LOVATO: I’ve only done a few sessions. They weren’t hours long so it was definitely a lot of work – or not too much work, and I put in the work. I’ve been doing this for a couple months now.

So it hasn’t been for years?

Image via Sony Pictures Animation

LOVATO: No.

Years and years ago, you were on Prison Break, so I’m curious what you remember from being on Prison Break, and are you one of these people looking forward to the reboot?

LOVATO: I didn’t know there was a reboot. That’s so exciting.

They’re doing some new episodes with the original cast, I shouldn’t say reboot.

LOVATO: Oh, that’s awesome, I didn’t know that. I remember being definitely really intimidated, it was my first big guest role on a TV show for primetime TV, but I was very excited and it was a cool experience.

You’ve played all around the world, you’ve been all around the world, do you have any favorite cities?

LOVATO: I don’t have specific favorite cities only because if I choose favorites then people would get mad. I would say maybe Rio de Janeiro is really fun to play, of course playing your hometown show in Dallas is really fun, playing in LA and New York is really fun. All over the world is really fun as well, like London, the Philippines, Indonesia, places like that.

I put on Twitter that I was going to be talking to you and the two big questions that kept coming back, and that’s why I’m going to ask you these, are a lot of people asked if you’re working on a memoir or when they’ll be able to read a memoir.

Image via Sony Pictures Animation

LOVATO: I am working on a memoir, actually. I don’t know when it’ll be released and kind of, I’m still working on it, but I am working on getting little sessions with the writer who’s helping me write it.

I’m sure fans will be excited for that. The other thing a lot of people asked was, are you interested in going back, or are you going to be acting in any other movies?

LOVATO: I won’t be doing live action in the upcoming future, but I would love to hopefully do live action at some point for sure.

Another thing was, how long do you think about what you’re going to tweet before you tweet it?

LOVATO: Like, a minimum of .2 seconds.

So you’re one of those people that doesn’t give it the debate.

LOVATO: No, and it gets me in trouble sometimes.

I can join you in that getting in trouble part. You forget. But getting back into Smurfs, what would surprise people the most about the recording process and the behind the scenes of the movie?

LOVATO: I don’t know, I guess what surprised me is how easy it is and how comfortable I was recording. That was pretty cool.

Sometimes with voice acting on an animated movie you’re by yourself, and other times they combine you with other people, did you actually get to record with anyone else at any point?

Image via Sony Pictures Animation

LOVATO: No, it was all solo recording.

Were you a little disappointed about that or was it still cool?

LOVATO: No, it was still cool, but I would love to have recorded with other actors and actresses in the film. I think that would’ve been really cool.

Of course, are you contributing to the soundtrack at all? Or is it something you wanted to contribute to?

LOVATO: I wanted to keep my acting separate from my music so it’s not something that I contributed to in this movie.

Talk a little bit about collaborating with the filmmakers. How is it when you guys are recording? Are they giving you constant one-liners, are they saying, “Hey, what about this”?

LOVATO: Kind of that, giving me direction on certain lines and trying new things was exciting, you know?

Image via Sony Pictures Animation

You were at Sony today. What’s it like for you, are you one of these people that, when you’re at the studio, you sort of get excited because, you know, this is where all the magic happens? Do you still have that sort of inner geek, if you will?

LOVATO: Yeah, I think it’s cool to witness where all the magic happens, and like I said I’m excited to be apart of the film, it’s so cool to see it all come together and come to life.

I’m curious what other things you can tease that you have coming up in the upcoming future.

LOVATO: Other things I have coming up? I am obviously doing the Smurfs movie, but I’m working on new music.

I’m sure everyone who’ll be reading this later will be very excited.

LOVATO: Oh, cool. Thank you so much.

SOURCE

[ladystylestores]

HBO Max launches today, here’s what you need to know – TechCrunch

HBO Max, the HBO -plus-other-stuff streaming service from WarnerMedia, is finally here.

At $14.99 per month, the service — initially available to subscribers in the United States — is more expensive than competing offerings like Netflix and Disney+. But from another angle, it’s still a pretty sweet deal, since you’re getting HBO, plus a whole bunch of extra content, for the exact same price as an HBO subscription. (WarnerMedia couldn’t go lower than $15 per month without undercutting HBO pricing and violating its agreements with cable providers.)

So if it’s the same price as HBO and includes most of the same content, why launch a new service at all? As executives at WarnerMedia and its corporate parent AT&T have made clear, they’re hoping compete with players like Netflix. That means building a broader audience than HBO — though they’re also trying to leverage HBO’s reputation for prestige TV and its early success with streaming — and expanding globally. It will also probably involve introducing cheaper, ad-supported plans in the future.

The big question is whether WarnerMedia has successfully translated these corporate imperatives into a compelling offering for consumers. There’s certainly a rich library of content — WarnerMedia says HBO Max is launching with 10,000 hours of movies and TV, including existing shows like “Friends,” “The Big Bang Theory,” the new version of “Doctor Who,” “Rick and Morty,” “The Boondocks,” “The Bachelor,” “Sesame Street,” “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air,” “Batwoman,” “Nancy Drew,” “Katy Keene,” “Doom Patrol,” “The O.C.,” “Pretty Little Liars” and “Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown.”

The lineup includes newer movies like “Crazy Rich Asians,” “A Star is Born,” “Aquaman” and “Joker,” as well as classics like “Casablanca,” “The Wizard of Oz,” “The Matrix,” “The Goonies,” “When Harry Met Sally,” “The Lord of the Rings,” “Citizen Kane,” and “Gremlins.” HBO Max will also offer titles from the Criterion Collection and the full library of Studio Ghibli films.

And if you’re a superhero fan, it’s got every DC film from the last decade, including “Wonder Woman,” “Justice League” (plus director Zack Snyder’s cut of the film, scheduled for release next year) and every Batman and Superman movie from the last 40 years.

When it comes to original content, things get a little bit sparser, particularly when you distinguish between HBO originals and HBO Max originals (though regular subscribers may not care about the difference). On the Max side, originals available at launch include a kids reality TV series called “Craftopia,” a new set of “Looney Tunes” cartoons, “The Not Too Late Show With Elmo,” another reality show called “Legendary,” a romantic comedy anthology series starring Anna Kendrick called “Love Life” and a music industry documentary called “On the Record.”

Image Credits: WarnerMedia

There’s more original programming scheduled for later this year, including a “Friends” reunion special (they’re waiting on a time when it’s safe to shoot in-person), new seasons of “Doom Patrol” and “Search Party,” and “Raised by Wolves,” a new science fiction series executive produced and directed by Ridley Scott.

Of course,this launch is happening as the COVID-19 pandemic has created new challenges for many streaming services. Viewership and subscriptions are up (at least for services designed to be watched in the living room)— no surprise, with movie theaters closed, people stuck at home and professional sports on hold — to the point that many streamers have had to reduce their quality in some regions.

At the same time, the pandemic has largely shut down film and TV production around the world, with no clear date for when it can resume. That means the release date for many HBO Max originals — not just the “Friends” reunion but also new “Adventure Time” specials, reboots of “Gossip Girl” and “Grease,” a “Dune” series spinning off from the big-screen adaptation due out later this year, a new “Green Lantern” series and more — remain uncertain.

So how do you get the app? Subscribers to HBO’s standalone streaming service HBO Now should be able to update their app to HBO Max today. The app is currently available for a range of devices including Android phones and tablets, Android TV, Apple TV, Chromebooks, Chromecasts, iPhones, iPads, PlayStation 4, Samsung TV and Xbox One — but not yet for Roku.

WarnerMedia says the service should also be available to HBO subscribers through partners like AT&T, Cox, DirecTV, Hulu, Optimum, Spectrum, Verizon Fios and YouTube TV at no additional cost — there’s a whole section on the HBO Max website about how to sign up.

And if you aren’t already a subscriber, you can sign up for a free seven-day rial on the HBO Max website.

Source link

قالب وردپرس

from World Wide News https://ift.tt/36AirTO

[feytale]

What is going on at Walt Disney Pictures? (Nothing good)

Summary: Sean Bailey was a writer producer for ABC Studios that somehow made his way from producing Tron Legacy to becoming the President of Walt Disney Pictures (the division of Disney that does all the live action stuff). When you look at the numbers, Sean Bailey has NEVER made a successful film while at Disney that wasn’t a Disney Remake or Re Imagining. His whole formula for a successful film is getting an A List Actor, throwing the budget at the CGI department, and finding a writer who frankly isn’t very good. For remakes this works fine. You have the story already laid out and proven. For newer films like John Carter of Mars or Nutcracker and the Four Realms, it’s shown to be his downfall. How a man who makes flop after flop yet continues to run a a division of Disney is honestly baffling. Continue reading if you want to hear me talk more in depth about why its troubling. 

Let's talk about Disney's live action original films because I think there's a problem that needs to be addressed. What’s the problem? Unless the movie is an established Disney property, the movie is ALWAYS a flop. Now there's no list that proved my point, so I had to go out and do some research and as I guessed... I was right. Now let's rewind for a second.

For those of you who don't know, Disney has Six Major Studios that each have their own president: Marvel Studios has Kevin Feige, Lucasfilm has Kathleen Kennedy, Disney tv has Gary Marsh, Pixar has Pete Doctor, Disney Animation has Edwin Catmull and Walt Disney Pictures (Live Action) has Sean Bailey. Now all of those men and women have put in their years before they got to where they are... except Sean Bailey.

Now let me list off some important facts: Marvel Studios made over 4 billion dollars in 2018 alone. Star Wars Episode 7, 8 and 9 will be the highest grossing trilogy of all time with an estimated gross of nearly 4.5 billion dollars. Pixar continues to break records with Incredibles 2 and Wreck it Ralph 2. Disney Animation has the highest grossing animated movie of all time with Frozen and has won multiple best animation awards. Disney Tv has the most watched kids show in history with Andi Mack. And Disney Pictures has... flopped with EVERY SINGLE NON DISNEY PROPERTY MOVIE FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS.

Now let's go back to 2005 when Disney released the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (I know right? I didn't know Disney made that either). First movie made 745m on a budget of 180m. Great... until Prince Caspian made 419m on a 225m budget. Then the Dawn Treader came out and made 415m on a 155m budget. Some of you might not think thats a big deal, but you have to remember that studios make that total gross. Nearly half of it goes to the theaters and around 50m goes to advertising, so when you look at something like 419m on a 225m budget, its more likely disney made around 200m, meaning they lost money. So... Narnia Franchise is dead. Where to next?

The Pirates of the Caribbean was a powerhouse trilogy followed by two hilariously poorly performing sequels that sparked the series to be remade. Not to point fingers but I’m looking at you Johnny Depp. Another franchise dead and waiting to be rebooted. What next? Well, Disney tried to make new franchises (Spoiler... it didn't work)

Bedtime Stories starring Adam Sandler. Flop. Race to Witch Mountain. Flop. Prince of Persia. The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Tron Legacy. John Carter of Mars. Oz the Great and Powerful. The Lone Ranger. Tomorrowland. Alice Through the Looking Glass. The BFG. A Wrinkle in Time. The Nutcracker and the Four Realms. Flop flop flop flop flop flooooooooop! 

Now, there have been successful films but none of them were franchise starters. Beauty and the Beast? Solo film. Pete's Dragon? Solo. Jungle Book solo* (Rumor is they're making a sequel so...) Maleficent* (Also eventually making a sequel).

So what gives? Why is Disney Pictures utterly incapable of creating their own quality films? Once you exclude Pirates of the Caribbean, they have failed ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the time in creating a franchise or successful film. Now what happens when you can't create a franchise? You go back to remaking classics. Without the Disney remakes or re imagines, Disney Pictures would be a dead studio.

Look at the next few years of Disney: Mary Poppins, Dumbo, Aladdin, Lion King, Mulan, Maleficent 2, Jungle Book 2, Jungle Cruise, Artemis Fowl. You have a series of remakes of classics and then Disney STILL trying to start a franchise with Artemis Fowl... which is of course going to flop because it looks like every other generic movie they’ve made except just like Nutcracker and Wrinkle in Time, Artemis Fowl doesn’t have an A list actor to save it. 

Let's look at the head of Disney Pictures: Sean Bailey. A nobody film maker who went from working on tv shows to somehow suddenly becoming the president of Walt Disney Pictures. I mean look at his wikipedia page and imdb page. There's nothing there. This dude is running one of Disney's biggest studios and he doesn't even have any information on him. It's honestly baffling how he went from being a nobody to the president of Disney Pictures. There's no reasoning for it. He produced a few films and then somehow became Disney Pictures president.

How could someone like Sean Bailey rise to such a powerful position? Well, it turns out it was his idea to do live-action films of old classics... or so that's the story. You see there's something I also noticed (I want it to be one hundred percent known the following is just assumptions from myself). Sean Bailey wasn't alone. Joe Roth was doing the whole "buy the rights and make the movies" decades before Sean was doing it. And so I looked deeper into it. Joe Roth has had over 3 production companies each with the same goal of buying rights and making movies. He was largely unsuccessful until he was finally brought on by Sean Bailey to make Alice in Wonderland.

Alice in Wonderland was their idea and had it bombed, they'ed likely have been fired. But Alice in Wonderland was an explosive success and so the formula was born. Get an A-List actor. Throw the entire budget at the CGI division. Forget about story telling and the audiences will come... It worked for most of their films and so the duo of Joe and Sean went onto create more and more films following this idea. Oz? Maleficent? Snow White and the Huntsman? Alice 2? All them. The two of them figured out a formula, sold it to Disney, and somehow got lucky enough to be the big dogs off the backs of better men. But they've run out of ideas and all their original films are flops so... back to remaking Disney films.

Once Artemis Fowl flops, which it will, don't expect to ever see another movie from Disney Pictures that isn't based on their properties. The man in charge Sean Bailey can't hire a good writer to save his life and falls back on "ooh cgi so pretty" every single time. He's a joke so bad even Goofy would disapprove and as long as he is in charge, we will NEVER get a good film from a new and original IP. 

~M.B. Torres