Disney May Lose $140 Million on 'Tomorrowland'

[7series]

I haven't seen it and probably won't. With all the comments about having no discernible plot and all the global warming/climate change hoax preaching I'm just not going to waste my time.

 

[lugnut33]

So what will Disney cut out of the Orlando budget to help cover the costs? Cheaper batter for the Mickey Waffles?

 

[ScienceDad]

all the global warming/climate change hoax preaching I'm just not going to waste my time.

What? Climate change hoax preaching? I haven't heard this. With Disney installing those 48,000 solar panels I find it hard to believe they are supporting climate change conspiracy theorists. Do you have a source?

 

[skier_pete]

We saw the movie opening night and really liked it a lot. I think Disney fans would have a bias to it, because the message of the movie is a little hokey, but it's the message that Walt based his company and especially theme parks on...that when talented individuals come together for the right reasons, anything is possible. In the end, I thought the last act of the movie didn't really work very well, but it was much better than John Carter or Lone Ranger (both of which weren't terrible but were just OK).

The true shame of movies like this failing (and whether or not this one deserved to fail is not part of this argument) is that the more often a big budget original concept movie tanks then less and less will be get original action-adventure movies being produced. I enjoy the Marvel movies, but if every movie is a super-hero movie or a sequel forever and ever then movies will just feel like more of the same. I would hope behind the scenes that people that run these studios consider that you have to FEED the pipeline of sequels by having some original ideas in there somewhere. The greatest popcorn movies are often the originals (Star Wars , Raiders of the Lost Ark, Back to The Future, The Matrix) and there's a real danger to only producing sequels.

(That said the movie that felt the most original/fresh this summer so far was a sequel: Mad Max: Fury Road)

 

[BagOLaughs]

I watched it and wasn't very impressed. The main thing that bothered me was the girl... no blooming way was she 16!!! That actress had to be at least 23! That was so off putting.

And the acting was pretty meh to. Its a shame, i had high hopes.

 

[ScienceDad]

You are right! The actress who played "Casey" is 25 according to IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1429380/?ref_=tt_cl_t3

Wait, Hugh Laurie is in this? I have to see it now. Been a fan of his since the 80's!

 

[ImDMous]

I'm glad studios don't just stick to sequels and stupid remakes that no one asked for. I've really enjoyed Tomorrowland, Jupiter Ascending and John Carter. I go to the movies to be entertained for a few hours and all of these did that.

 

[wareagle57]

I thought the movie was great. Yes, like many have said the ending could have been better and was a bit of a letdown. But I got a very Lost-esque feeling watching this movie. Lots of mystery and wonder, a great ride, but not quite as good of an explanation as you were hoping for. But not bad enough to cheapen the experience either.

Also I think it does a great job tapping into that childlike wonder we all once felt, and makes you think about how you saw the world then, what you thought was possible, what you could have done if you hadn't given up, and what you could still do now if you start believing again. Just my 2 cents. Obviously many don't agree with me and that's ok. I'm glad I got something out of it, and I wish it wasn't going to forever be remembered in the same category as John Carter.

 

[skier_pete]

The main thing that bothered me was the girl... no blooming way was she 16!!! That actress had to be at least 23! That was so off putting.

Actually she's 26! I agree she wasn't particularly convincing as a high school student. It didn't factor into the plot AT ALL, so I don't know why they didn't just make her a college student and say she was 19 or something, that would've been more believable. That said, it didn't really bother me. Anna Kendrick is 30 and was playing a college student in PP2.

 

[Planogirl]

I don't think that the problem was the actors even if their performances weren't great. George Clooney certainly has been a box office draw and the actress is good even if she looks too old? Most of the criticism I read is that plot line and execution.

 

[rteetz]

I don't think that the problem was the actors even if their performances weren't great. George Clooney certainly has been a box office draw and the actress is good even if she looks too old? Most of the criticism I read is that plot line and execution.

Disney also did a terrible job marketing the film. If you weren't a disney fan just intrigued by the title you likely werent intrigued by any trailers. It seems they let the animated movie market themselves but their live action movies just don't get marketed very well.

 

[7series]

What? Climate change hoax preaching? I haven't heard this. With Disney installing those 48,000 solar panels I find it hard to believe they are supporting climate change conspiracy theorists. Do you have a source?

You took that backwards. It is the people you refer to as "conspiracy theorists" who have been correct all along and the science, from computer models proven to have been manipulated, to NASA satellite evidence of the huge growth of arctic and antarctic ice, to the fact that temperatures stopped rising over a decade ago (as expected by anyone familiar with the sun's regular, predictable cycle), overwhelmingly supports this. Those desperately trying to continue the hoax are now referring to the lack of warming as a "hiatus" in the hope that warming will return. It will. Once the sun's natural cooling cycle ends and it swings back to warming. The movie preaches the lie that we are killing our planet. We couldn't affect the earth's climate if we wanted to. That being said, I am not turning this discussion of the movie into a debate on this and will respond no further on this subject. And yes, commendably, Disney is utilizing solar, as we do at our house.

 

[ScienceDad]

You took that backwards. It is the people you refer to as "conspiracy theorists" who have been correct all along...

You have made this a political discussion which is against board rules.
There are plenty of other venues to spread your propaganda, this is not the place.
As you may notice by my username I know a thing or two on this subject but I will not engage with you in this forum.

 

[Jdbsfw]

You have made this a political discussion which is against board rules.
There are plenty of other venues to spread your propaganda, this is not the place.
As you may notice by my username I know a thing or two on this subject but I will not engage with you in this forum.

You asked for a source, you wanted a response. He gave you one and now you're pulling the "against the rules card".....Take your ball and go home much?????

 

[Jdbsfw]

I stand corrected about George Clooney being a bankable star, BoxOfficeMojo has him rated 73 all time......

 

[ScienceDad]

You asked for a source, you wanted a response. He gave you one and now you're pulling the "against the rules card".....Take your ball and go home much?????

Read my original post. I asked for a source that the movie was about "climate change hoax preaching". I didn't ask for an emotionally fueled tirade on this very political and divisive subject.

 

[Jdbsfw]

Read my original post. I asked for a source that the movie was about "climate change hoax preaching". I didn't ask for an emotionally fueled tirade on this very political and divisive subject.

Your original point now makes sense to me per your response as these things can get lost in translation, you wanted a source that the movie is propaganda not a source related to the climate change issue itself, fair enough

 

[ScienceDad]

Your original point now makes sense to me per your response as these things can get lost in translation, you wanted a source that the movie is propaganda not a source related to the climate change issue itself, fair enough

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I want to keep this on topic and my question was meant in relation to the movie only, not about climate change in general.

 

[Josh Hendy]

All debate aside about actual supposed truth or untruth of global warming, people are tired of the hysterical fear-mongering. A few years ago, Al Gore's documentary was on my kids' high school teachers' "must play" list. They had to watch the film over and over in different classes, until most of them had seen it so many times they were laughing out loud at it.

One of the kids' teachers was literally hysterical about AGW ... she told the kids, "Great Britain is going to be swallowed up by the sea." And she was constantly expressing sympathy for the kids, because by the time they were adults, their lives would be ruined by rising sea levels. The kids didn't have to wait til they were in their 20s to figure out that this lady was a few ice cubes short of a glacier.

Moral of the story - movies with a big global warming angle like "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Waterworld" just look silly after a while. Brad Bird may be guilty of climbing on a sinking bandwagon 'way too late ...

 

[Whatsthegoodword]

Ok - so Tomorrowland has a Global Warming message? Yes or no?