Do you think Disney needs to make change after so many flops?

[choptop]

Right and $400 million for a blockbuster is chump change (or should be.) And yes, times have changed that much. Go look up the average cost of movie tickets now compared to the 90s. Or inflation in general.

A 100 million is still a 100 million. Point is wen a block buster wins you win big but wen you lose you lose a lot how many blockbusters would be a success if they spend lesson marketing?

[80sbaby]

A 100 million is still a 100 million. Point is wen a block buster wins you win big but wen you lose you lose a lot how many blockbusters would be a success if they spend lesson marketing?

Your first sentence is meaningless. They are never going to spend less than $100 million on a blockbuster because they simply can't. The cost to make them is just high. Smaller studios aren't trying to make a blockbuster and so can limit the budget (also because they kind of don't have a choice.)

[choptop]

Your first sentence is meaningless. They are never going to spend less than $100 million on a blockbuster because they simply can't. The cost to make them is just high. Smaller studios aren't trying to make a blockbuster and so can limit the budget (also because they kind of don't have a choice.)

I didn't say less then 100 million making the movie I'm saying leas on marketing.

[Mister Mets]

It's obvious Disney needs to make changes, and almost certain that they've already had these internal conversations, and are likely to keep doing so.

One obvious problem is the crunch time for VFX houses, which leads to subpar work, doesn't save money and likely comes with major labor violations.

There's already getting to be a consensus view that some of the shift to Disney+ has damaged the theatrical brand for the MCU and Disney animated films. They crashed the landing of the new Star Wars trilogy and the Indiana Jones relaunch in ways that hurt the reputations of the series.

[ChrisIII]

Regarding the Bond stuff:

-Bond does die but the Craig films are their own self-contained story/seperate continuity from the Bond films 1962-2002. Sure, there's Judi Dench as M but she's kind of played differently, and there are new versions of Q, SPECTRE and Moneypenny that are unconnected to the previous versions. Granted, some version of previous Bond missions could've happened but modernized (See, the Goldeneye WII/"Reloaded" game).

-Granted, Bond continuity was always kind of weird anyway (Roger Moore and Lois Maxwell suddenly becoming the much younger Timothy Dalton and Caroline Bliss in Living Daylights somehow, but keeping the same M, Q, Defense minister and supporting Russian general character, although retired), but there's many details that pretty much make this a 'diffferent' Bond.

-Likewise Never Say Never Again is it's own thing too, even separate from 60's Bond continuity for the most part, unless Bond had two very similar missions involving SPECTRE, Domino and Largo somehow.

So presumably, the next Bond films will feature another continuity reboot, unless they have the now possibly 90 year old Bond from the originals somehow return(!)

-The Craig films, like the Dalton books, were an attempt to go back to "Fleming's Bond" after the excess of Brosnan's era, hence his Bond being somewhat more emotional and physically vulnerable at times (He gets tortured and winds up near death a lot more than in the films). Fleming also nearly killed off Bond twice. In the original novel continuity "From Russia With Love" he actually does get stabbed by Klebb's shoe and spends a long time in the hospital-"Dr.No" is actually meant to get him back on his feet (There's a little bit of this in the movie adaptation, where M mentions Bond suffered an injury on a previous mission because his gun jammed; although the Klebb fight happens in the next movie so in move continuity it wasn't that).

[80sbaby]

I didn't say less then 100 million making the movie I'm saying leas on marketing.

Even that isn't realistic for a tent pole film. Radio, TV and even Internet spots/ads cost. Flying the stars all over the world to promote the film also costs.

[choptop]

Even that isn't realistic for a tent pole film. Radio, TV and even Internet spots/ads cost. Flying the stars all over the world to promote the film also costs.

But if the movie still flops I'm not saying no marketing just less.

[achilles]

Disney needs to recall the words of Spielberg, who said of the $20 million Raiders Of The Lost Ark that if he'd had more money, he'd have made a much more pretentious movie. Meaning that instead of just spending money, he'd had to get creative with what money he did have, and make it count. Take a look at what seems to be the best reviewed movie of the year, weirdly "Godzilla Minus One", with a reported budget of just $15 million. Now I have no idea how that's even possible, but it was so reported. Regardless, it seems likely to be far below $100 million.

More money doesn't necessarily equal a better movie, and in many cases, can mean the opposite. Disney's reason for those budgets, (that they basically start a movie without a clue as to where they want it to go, which also leads to those FX problems as ILM and their contractors need to constantly revise their FX to match constantly changing scripts, with the movies often being written as they go), lends nothing to any quality that I have been able to detect.

[Android 17]

I still can’t believe that Indiana Jones sequel flopped so hard. People dump on The Marvels, but I think that was Disney’s biggest disappointment of the year.

[ChrisIII]

Disney needs to recall the words of Spielberg, who said of the $20 million Raiders Of The Lost Ark that if he'd had more money, he'd have made a much more pretentious movie. Meaning that instead of just spending money, he'd had to get creative with what money he did have, and make it count. Take a look at what seems to be the best reviewed movie of the year, weirdly "Godzilla Minus One", with a reported budget of just $15 million. Now I have no idea how that's even possible, but it was so reported. Regardless, it seems likely to be far below $100 million.

More money doesn't necessarily equal a better movie, and in many cases, can mean the opposite. Disney's reason for those budgets, (that they basically start a movie without a clue as to where they want it to go, which also leads to those FX problems as ILM and their contractors need to constantly revise their FX to match constantly changing scripts, with the movies often being written as they go), lends nothing to any quality that I have been able to detect.

Many Japanese filmmakers can be quite creative with a limited budget. Ghibli films often have much smaller budgets than Disney films but can rival them in animation quality.

The Lupin III CG movie was only made for $11 million yet at least rivaled Dreamworks quality IMO (Which typically budgets at 75 to 100 million).

[Slowpokeking]

I still can’t believe that Indiana Jones sequel flopped so hard. People dump on The Marvels, but I think that was Disney’s biggest disappointment of the year.

The franchise is too old, the movie's plot wasn't amazing among the series.
The critics didn't rate it too well.
Budget too high.
Ppl aren't pleased with Indy getting old and not liked, the "twilight" wasn't set well, Helena's character wasn't bright enough to attract audience.

[Godzilla2099]

Of course Disney should focus more on quality vs quantity but if we're talking specific damage control, they should also really consider rethinking these projects. I think they'll cause a large amount of damage to their brand based on what I read so far:

Captain America Brave New World: Although I'd have preferred a Winter Soldier Cap (I thought Brubaker's Run was one of the best Capt Sagas) Overall, I thought Cap/Winter Soldier was ok. Action scenes were solid (especially the beginning) and I liked the interaction with Cap/Soldier, but wasn't a big fan of the story. That social justice ending was so cringe. Not sure what Disney plans on doing with this. Every test screening/preview I read the audience strongly disliked it.

Star Wars Rey Movie: Disney really wants to double down on this? I thought nothing could be worse than the Sequel Trilogy but I shutter to think what somebody like Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy will do

Snow White: Holy Hell I have so much to say about this but it'd be a long post. All I'll say is that when I saw the interviews and promos I honest to goodness thought these were some far-right sites making fun of Disney. They seriously made South Park's Pandaverse look less satirical

I'm more of a Star Wars Fan but if I had to choose which project to completely kill, I genuinely believe axing Snow White would be more respectful to Walt Disney's Legacy.

[Zauriel]

Disney needs to recall the words of Spielberg, who said of the $20 million Raiders Of The Lost Ark that if he'd had more money, he'd have made a much more pretentious movie. Meaning that instead of just spending money, he'd had to get creative with what money he did have, and make it count. Take a look at what seems to be the best reviewed movie of the year, weirdly "Godzilla Minus One", with a reported budget of just $15 million. Now I have no idea how that's even possible, but it was so reported. Regardless, it seems likely to be far below $100 million.

More money doesn't necessarily equal a better movie, and in many cases, can mean the opposite. Disney's reason for those budgets, (that they basically start a movie without a clue as to where they want it to go, which also leads to those FX problems as ILM and their contractors need to constantly revise their FX to match constantly changing scripts, with the movies often being written as they go), lends nothing to any quality that I have been able to detect.

That is true. I agree. Disney spent too much money on John Carter and Lone Ranger, both films have flopped quite disastrously.

[Username taken]

It's obvious Disney needs to make changes, and almost certain that they've already had these internal conversations, and are likely to keep doing so.

One obvious problem is the crunch time for VFX houses, which leads to subpar work, doesn't save money and likely comes with major labor violations.

There's already getting to be a consensus view that some of the shift to Disney+ has damaged the theatrical brand for the MCU and Disney animated films. They crashed the landing of the new Star Wars trilogy and the Indiana Jones relaunch in ways that hurt the reputations of the series.

Exactly.

Disney has dumped ALL their Star Wars stuff on Disney+ for 4 straight years. It's going to be very difficult to get people back into theaters to see them when the audience has been conditioned to wait for D+.

They did the same with their animation and they're now struggling in theaters.

[Slowpokeking]

Exactly.

Disney has dumped ALL their Star Wars stuff on Disney+ for 4 straight years. It's going to be very difficult to get people back into theaters to see them when the audience has been conditioned to wait for D+.

They did the same with their animation and they're now struggling in theaters.

That's because ST's reception and ST era got little to expand.