It is Almost Tomorrow! Grab your jetpack!

[supernova]

I think I'll wait and see, rather than take the advice of such a "credible" source! Quite frankly, I don't care if it makes money or not -if someone enjoys it, they enjoy it. Disney is going to make plenty of money this year ...don't you worry!

Opinions different from yours do not necessarily discredit their credibility as a source. If that were the case, I'm sure he would discredit you as a source, too. To each their own.

 

[supernova]

I think the ONLY people who were exicted about this one were the diehard Disney fans. People here keep posting about how great the film was. I doubt this kind of fervor is going on at other sites. Similar to how Disney boards were in awe of "Saving Mr. Banks", and the rest of the world didn't at all care about the back story of how Walt Disney bought the rights to one of his random films (*yawn*).

 

[GAN]

If that were the case, I'm sure he would discredit you as a source, too. To each their own.

Let me know when he does.

Similar to how Disney boards were in awe of "Saving Mr. Banks", and the rest of the world didn't at all care about the back story of how Walt Disney bought the rights to one of his random films (*yawn*).

That film did about 130M with a 35M budget ...not bad in my math. Looks like someone cared. If Tomorrowland posts similar results, I'm sure they'll be pleased. I understand that some people don't care for the political message they feel exists -personally that didn't even blip my radar. To me it was a film about hope and making an effort to make the world a better place ...left, right, or down the middle. Why be so defensive to think that it was about some political backstory(which the article clearly made a point of)? I feel bad for people who spend their entire life looking to debate others with a differing viewpoint.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

I think I'll wait and see, rather than take the advice of such a "credible" source! Quite frankly, I don't care if it makes money or not -if someone enjoys it, they enjoy it. Disney is going to make plenty of money this year ...don't you worry!

No reflection on the OP, thanks for sharing, but that is a ridiculous article!! It states some silly untruths, makes guestimates on what the movie cost, and jumps the gun on its status. Historic flop? Not quite yet. (Although it is not going to do well.) While I like that site for news at times, this article is over the top because the author has a really huge political axe to grind. Several axes and a bunch of knives actually.

Some untrue, ridiculous, or simply over-the-top quotes:

"...and as the quality of movies have diminished into products no one wants to see twice, home video is a dying market." Talk about ridiculously false!!
" it stars George Clooney, a movie actor, not a movie star" Yeah, sure, nobody knows George Clooney.
"made to feel guilty by hypocritical millionaire liars like Bird and Clooney"

In fact it is hard to even call this an article. More of a political hate-rant. I think this guy got a "doesn't play well with others" on his elementary school report card.

 

[supernova]

Let me know when he does.



That film did about 130M with a 35M budget ...not bad in my math. Looks like someone cared. If Tomorrowland posts similar results, I'm sure they'll be pleased. I understand that some people don't care for the political message they feel exists -personally that didn't even blip my radar. To me it was a film about hope and making an effort to make the world a better place ...left, right, or down the middle. Why be so defensive to think that it was about some political backstory(which the article clearly made a point of)? I feel bad for people who spend their entire life looking to debate others with a differing viewpoint.

Yes. People with opinions different than ourselves are very scary. They should be eliminated to maintain one like-minded world. A hundred and thirty million in today's world of inflated tickets is hardly a blockbuster. It did well because, again, mindless Disney drones went to the theaters. At least they helped Disney cover the cost of the production. I guess they were safe making a movie with zero special effects to keep the production costs down. Otherwise they would have been back at "Tomorrowland". Of course, with the "genius" behind the humdrum "The Incredibles", I wouldn't expect much less from "Tomorrowland". Perhaps a reviewer from Forbes would be more credible in your eyes?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...s-not-an-indictment-of-hollywood-originality/

 

[supernova]

It is almost time for Brad Bird's Tomorrowland! I am going to a 7:00pm Thursday IMAX showing. Can't wait. Looks fantastic! It looks great and "one of our own" loved it and gave it a 4.5 out of 5 stars: [URL='http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2015/05/17/review-tomorrowland-perfectly-channels-walt-disneys-philosophy/. A']http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2015/05/17/review-tomorrowland-perfectly-channels-walt-disneys-philosophy/. A[/URL] number of reviewers love it, a number say it is fantastic but flawed.

And there-in lies the problem. When it's one of our own, of course they're going to toot Disney's horn.

It is at 67% Fresh on the Tomatometer.

Dropped to 49% fresh.

 

[GAN]

Yes. People with opinions different than ourselves are very scary. They should be eliminated to maintain one like-minded world. A hundred and thirty million in today's world of inflated tickets is hardly a blockbuster. It did well because, again, mindless Disney drones went to the theaters. At least they helped Disney cover the cost of the production. I guess they were safe making a movie with zero special effects to keep the production costs down. Otherwise they would have been back at "Tomorrowland". Of course, with the "genius" behind the humdrum "The Incredibles", I wouldn't expect much less from "Tomorrowland". Perhaps a reviewer from Forbes would be more credible in your eyes?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...s-not-an-indictment-of-hollywood-originality/

Yes -I think that is more credible.

I still enjoyed the film. Just because a review says it is a bust doesn't mean some people aren't going to enjoy it. Like was pointed out -Disney can afford to swing and miss ...especially if it's a film that they feel the fan base would like to see.

Just be thankful that I'm not a movie reviewer I guess....

PS -I never claimed Mr Banks was a blockbuster ...just for the record.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

Yes. People with opinions different than ourselves are very scary. They should be eliminated to maintain one like-minded world. A hundred and thirty million in today's world of inflated tickets is hardly a blockbuster. It did well because, again, mindless Disney drones went to the theaters. At least they helped Disney cover the cost of the production. I guess they were safe making a movie with zero special effects to keep the production costs down. Otherwise they would have been back at "Tomorrowland". Of course, with the "genius" behind the humdrum "The Incredibles", I wouldn't expect much less from "Tomorrowland". Perhaps a reviewer from Forbes would be more credible in your eyes?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/05/26/disneys-tomorrowland-failure-is-not-an-indictment-of-hollywood-originality/

It isn't differing opinions that are a problem, it is arrogance, vitriol, and rudeness. It is when the writer gets ridiculously bombastic and downright mean that they lose credibility. And I lean toward his political position!

Humdrum Incredibles!? You may be the only person on earth that thinks that. Gave me a good laugh. Most movie critics feel Tomorrowland is his first miss.

And thanks for the insult calling me a mindless Disney drone. Saving Mr. Banks was actually a quality film that got an 80% on the Tomatometer and had a lot more than Disney fans attending.

And there-in lies the problem. When it's one of our own, of course they're going to toot Disney's horn.

Dropped to 49% fresh.

Sure did drop like a rock. It will definitely remain a splat. I was originally intrigued because of the Disney connection but that is not why I like the movie. I love the message and think it is a good movie. Not perfect but worth watching. I went in expecting, because of the reviews, a bad third act. I actually liked it. It was a thinking person's movie. People wanted some amazing battle and super ah-ha moment at the end. I thought it had a great twist. It got there quick, but that's ok.

Why must everybody pick apart movies to such detail anymore? It think people listen too much to the hundreds of critics. Why can't they just enjoy the ride? I took a 25, 11, and 8 year old on Tuesday. They all loved it. The two younger ones are science fans. All three loved the positive ending and want a pin. I love the message. It was such a fantastic ending.

Oh, and Maleficent was great fun, too!

 

[supernova]

Yes -I think that is more credible.

I still enjoyed the film. Just because a review says it is a bust doesn't mean some people aren't going to enjoy it. Like was pointed out -Disney can afford to swing and miss ...especially if it's a film that they feel the fan base would like to see.

Just be thankful that I'm not a movie reviewer I guess....

PS -I never claimed Mr Banks was a blockbuster ...just for the record.

Of course you didn't. But to your point, Disney recouped their investment and then some. So while it didn't do gangbusters, at least they didn't take a bath. I was happier seeing it at home because allowed me to fast forward past the dreadfully mundane stuff about her childhood. I knew the basic premise so I didn't need the Sunday evening PBS storyline thrown in there.

 

[Manny24]

Disney took a chance with tomorrowland. There's no doubt about that, what critics don't understand is the true power of Disney. Like any business the ultimate goal is to put out a product that is profitable and well received. With that being said only great companies can take a leap of faith just to reach a percentage of a market and give that percentage of the people something that will bring them closer to the brand. Tomorrowland accomplished that. For us die-hard fans this movie means more than Clooney and a night out, it means experiencing the power of the imagination through story telling of disney. Tomorrowland would have never been what the movie portraied but in our minds and the minds of believers maybe it did. Tomorrowland was meant to be a world for the brightest, a world to make our dreams come true, a world in which a crazy ideas could be turned into reality, in which we could explore and develop the unimaginable. What we forget is that that place does exists and it has touched all of us in a way or another, through the power of imagineering we get to enjoy that place, the world of Disney. The critics will never understand, haters will never understand, financial reports and box office numbers will never be able to explain the true success of this film. That success can only be measured by the ever growing love we have for Disney and its constant persuit to tell a great story we can share for generations to come with all our loved ones.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

Disney took a chance with tomorrowland. There's no doubt about that, what critics don't understand is the true power of Disney. Like any business the ultimate goal is to put out a product that is profitable and well received. With that being said only great companies can take a leap of faith just to reach a percentage of a market and give that percentage of the people something that will bring them closer to the brand. Tomorrowland accomplished that. For us die-hard fans this movie means more than Clooney and a night out, it means experiencing the power of the imagination through story telling of disney. Tomorrowland would have never been what the movie portraied but in our minds and the minds of believers maybe it did. Tomorrowland was meant to be a world for the brightest, a world to make our dreams come true, a world in which a crazy ideas could be turned into reality, in which we could explore and develop the unimaginable. What we forget is that that place does exists and it has touched all of us in a way or another, through the power of imagineering we get to enjoy that place, the world of Disney. The critics will never understand, haters will never understand, financial reports and box office numbers will never be able to explain the true success of this film. That success can only be measured by the ever growing love we have for Disney and its constant persuit to tell a great story we can share for generations to come with all our loved ones.

Manny, I am not sure what to say. This may be the best post I have ever read. Bravo! Bravo!

I couldn't help think while I watched the movie how much Walt Disney would have loved the movie and it's message. There is no doubt that, had there been a Plus Ultra, Disney would have been a part.

I hope, for the reasons you state, that the movie will grow in popularity over time as some other movies have that initially failed at the box office.

 

[supernova]

Disney took a chance with tomorrowland. There's no doubt about that, what critics don't understand is the true power of Disney. Like any business the ultimate goal is to put out a product that is profitable and well received. With that being said only great companies can take a leap of faith just to reach a percentage of a market and give that percentage of the people something that will bring them closer to the brand. Tomorrowland accomplished that. For us die-hard fans this movie means more than Clooney and a night out, it means experiencing the power of the imagination through story telling of disney. Tomorrowland would have never been what the movie portraied but in our minds and the minds of believers maybe it did. Tomorrowland was meant to be a world for the brightest, a world to make our dreams come true, a world in which a crazy ideas could be turned into reality, in which we could explore and develop the unimaginable. What we forget is that that place does exists and it has touched all of us in a way or another, through the power of imagineering we get to enjoy that place, the world of Disney. The critics will never understand, haters will never understand, financial reports and box office numbers will never be able to explain the true success of this film. That success can only be measured by the ever growing love we have for Disney and its constant persuit to tell a great story we can share for generations to come with all our loved ones.

That's all fine and good. But it doesn't mean jack if only six people see it.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

There are two different kinds of failures. Failures no one sees, it doesn't matter what it cost to make, the movie is a bomb. Or movies like Tomorrowland, that don't make a lot of money but are seen by more than 8 people. $173M worldwide and will make more than it's budget. Barely. And not counting marketing. That is the problem. $190M is a huge amount. It could have been made for less. San Andreas had epic special effects and sets and only cost $100M. Cinderella was fantastic and cost only $95M. Had Tomorrowland been made for only $95M and the marketing which didn't work pared down. This wouldn't be an epic failure, it just be an average movie that only breaks even or makes a small profit.

 

[whiporee]

But it wasn't a good movie. It had a good premise and some good acting (except for Clooney, who I think has decided to corner the grumpy-but-good-looking-old-man market), but that last third was nonsense.

It never developed Clooney's character to see what exactly he had done to get banished (or leave). it never explained the governor's plot, or the reasoning behind it -- they had their own dimension, who cares about ours? What happened to all the people in TL to begin with -- why did it seem to be falling into a state of disrepair? And, truth be told, Samuel L Jackson's character's evil plot was much the same thing in Kingsmen, albeit more graphically.

There were little touches I thought were cool -- the plastered smile of the animations, the way they made Tomorrowland look like Tomorrowland. But the thing wasn't coherent, and I think that's the reason for the big drop off. They made people want to see it, but once people started talking, it just turned into a real mess.

 

[BrianL]

I can accept that you didn't like the movie, but some of your questions were answered by the film.

It never developed Clooney's character to see what exactly he had done to get banished (or leave).

He helped to create the machine that predicted the future, and once it reached a 100% certainty that humanity would destroy itself, the Governor decided that they would cut themselves off from Earth. Clooney's character challenged this notion and was banished.

it never explained the governor's plot, or the reasoning behind it -- they had their own dimension, who cares about ours?

The Governor never had much of a "plot" and in some ways isn't really a villain. He just decided that instead of trying to help save the Earth, that he would just let it destroy itself and stay in Tomorrowland. It was a practical decision based on his 100% faith in his technological creations.

What happened to all the people in TL to begin with -- why did it seem to be falling into a state of disrepair?

I'm not sure where all the people who were there went but I assume they were just in hiding somewhere. The reason TL fell into disrepair is because they basically stopped recruiting fresh minds per the Governor's order. They became complacent, just as humanity did on Earth.

While I did enjoy the film, it really was a different kind of movie. It has no true villain, and Governor Nix is kind of a weak character, who is fortunately not in it that much. It is hard to predicate a movie without a strong antagonist though. Otherwise though, I enjoyed Clooney, Casey and Athena and had a good time with a light-hearted and optimistic movie.

 

[dwaters]

I agree with everything you said. It was very confusing and there was no real conflict until the end. Things weren't explained to the audience very well.
It was hard to tell if it was a kid's movie or not.

But it wasn't a good movie. It had a good premise and some good acting (except for Clooney, who I think has decided to corner the grumpy-but-good-looking-old-man market), but that last third was nonsense.

It never developed Clooney's character to see what exactly he had done to get banished (or leave). it never explained the governor's plot, or the reasoning behind it -- they had their own dimension, who cares about ours? What happened to all the people in TL to begin with -- why did it seem to be falling into a state of disrepair? And, truth be told, Samuel L Jackson's character's evil plot was much the same thing in Kingsmen, albeit more graphically.

There were little touches I thought were cool -- the plastered smile of the animations, the way they made Tomorrowland look like Tomorrowland. But the thing wasn't coherent, and I think that's the reason for the big drop off. They made people want to see it, but once people started talking, it just turned into a real mess.

 

[supernova]

That film did about 130M with a 35M budget ...not bad in my math. Looks like someone cared. If Tomorrowland posts similar results, I'm sure they'll be pleased. I understand that some people don't care for the political message they feel exists -personally that didn't even blip my radar. To me it was a film about hope and making an effort to make the world a better place ...left, right, or down the middle. Why be so defensive to think that it was about some political backstory(which the article clearly made a point of)? I feel bad for people who spend their entire life looking to debate others with a differing viewpoint.

There are two different kinds of failures. Failures no one sees, it doesn't matter what it cost to make, the movie is a bomb. Or movies like Tomorrowland, that don't make a lot of money but are seen by more than 8 people. $173M worldwide and will make more than it's budget. Barely. And not counting marketing. That is the problem. $190M is a huge amount. It could have been made for less. San Andreas had epic special effects and sets and only cost $100M. Cinderella was fantastic and cost only $95M. Had Tomorrowland been made for only $95M and the marketing which didn't work pared down. This wouldn't be an epic failure, it just be an average movie that only breaks even or makes a small profit.

Since my original sources were called into question about the legitimacy of the sources, here are a few others. Yes, Disney recouped their production costs on the film. But what was overlooked is the outrageous cost of advertising the studio spent on the movie. In my original post, I referenced the Lone Ranger. Found an article that also made this point.
One interesting article posted the following:
The financial perils of modern moviemaking
If "Tomorrowland" eventually loses $140 million, it would set a new low for Disney's box-office losses. Disney took a $136 million loss on the animated feature "Mars Needs Moms," which cost $175 million to produce and market. "John Carter" had a combined production and marketing budget of $307 million, but it failed to break even with a global box-office gross of $284 million. "The Lone Ranger," which had an estimated production and marketing budget of $375 million, caused an estimated loss of $114 million.

All four films share a common problem — they were all nine-figure bets on untested IPs. Tomorrowland is just a section of Disney's Magic Kingdom theme park and "Mars Needs Moms" was based on a kids' storybook, while John Carter and the Lone Ranger were dusty old characters relatively unknown to younger audiences.

Spending over $100 million to make those films was much riskier than allocating a comparable amount for guaranteed blockbusters such as Marvel, Pixar, or "Star Wars" films. That's probably why Disney recently pulled the plug on "Tron 3."

To wrap up, here are some fun reads for those who are OK with removing their rose colored glasses for a bit:

http://time.com/3915927/disney-tomorrowland-flop-loss/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-could-lose-140-million-801244
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Disney-May-Lose-Staggering-Amount-Money-Tomorrowland-71943.html
http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/a-b...ey-could-lose-140-million-on-tomorrowland-174

 

[GAN]

I don't understand what the problem is. Are you saying you think they should only produce films that they know are guaranteed money? Show me a movie studio that will use that as their standard. I can't think of a successful business that wouldn't take risks, or develop an idea that they thought was right for their target audience -even if it was a financial risk. Disney is carrying a big stick and they're going to swing it ...they could care less if they miss. They are the home run derby champion right now. Why is that so complicated?

And by the way -the film isn't going to lose 140M.

 

[supernova]

I don't understand what the problem is. Are you saying you think they should only produce films that they know are guaranteed money? Show me a movie studio that will use that as their standard. I can't think of a successful business that wouldn't take risks, or develop an idea that they thought was right for their target audience -even if it was a financial risk. Disney is carrying a big stick and they're going to swing it ...they could care less if they miss. They are the home run derby champion right now. Why is that so complicated?

And by the way -the film isn't going to lose 140M.

No, you're probably right. Industry insiders and analysts are incorrect. They'll probably only lose $139M. It's just that we only took into account the break-even point of production cost, not the insane money they apparently pumped into promotion. At least they aren't going to take a bath in merchandise like they did with Tron 2. I still chuckle every time I visit the Disney Character Connection store at the Orlando Premium Outlet and see all of the Lone Ranger toys on the clearance shelves. Oops.