Moive News & Updates

[Another Voice]

Several items that were previously just rumors have been confirmed over the weekend.

First, the ‘Team Atlantis’ animated television series has been cancelled about three weeks after it was announced. Production on some of the episodes had already started, but all work will now be scrapped. The feature film ‘Atlantis’ is now closing in theaters with the lowest domestic box office gross of any Disney animated film in the Eisner era. Rumors are circulating about the exact amount of ‘Atlantis’ merchandise that remains unsold (it’s supposed to be tremendous) and of new talks between Disney and Hasbro about the future of the Disney license.

On the other end, ‘Shrek’ has now passed ‘Toy Story 2’ to earn the second highest box office take for an animated film (it’s now 17th among all movies). At over $255 million dollars, it doesn’t look like it will overtake ‘The Lion King’, but ‘Shrek’ is considered a tremendous success for Dreamworks. And yes, a sequel is in negotiations right now.

And speaking of sequels, Disney has also greenlighted ‘Dumbo 2’ as part of their TV animation sequel series. It is now virtually certain that all of the former direct-to-video sequels will be given a full theatrical release (Mr. Eisner is rumored to still be screaming mad over the “missed revenue” from ‘Lady and the Tramp 2’). So look for ‘Cinderella 2’, ‘Sleeping Beauty 2’ ‘The Jungle Book 2’, ‘Peter Pan 2’, ‘The Seven Dwarves Adventure’, ‘Dumbo 2’ and ‘Lady and the Tramp 3’ in your neighborhood multiplex soon. Beyond next year’s ‘Treasure Planet’, we may not see a true theatrical Disney animated feature until 2004 or 2005.

Lastly, rumors are spreading that the budget for Disney’s big summer movie for next year, ‘Reign of Fire’, is quickly approaching the budget for ‘Pearl Harbor’. The new moive is about fire-breathing dragons that lay waste to the modern world and a special U.S. Army squad that lands in England to combat them (I am NOT making this one up). It’s currently filming in the British Isle with extensive sets and special effects work. Given the failure of all of this year’s big budget action-adventure movies, Team Disney Burbank is beginning to get a bit anxious about this one, and there are rumors of script changes to shave money.

Ah, the glitter that is Hollywood….

 

[YoHo]

I would be really afraid of this Disney Dragons epic. Personally, as a SciFi nut it sounds intriguing, BUT, anyone with a small portion of a brain and an Entertainment Weekly Sub knows that Lord of the Rings comes out this December, and even if it lays an egg as big as EP1 with its core Demo, it WILL be huge and any Dragon slaying Fantasy that comes out after it will likely Tank.

If Disney really thinks in can ride the fantasy Wave with this, then they are too stupid to deserve saving and certainly my fears for the company just Increased.

Think about it, the Dungeons& Dragons movie, a movie about a game that I would say the Vast majority of Tolkien fans are at the very least highly aware of if not intametly familiar with. Tanked, even with its core Demo. And It came out before LOTR, when the drooling Tolkienites were all dressed up with nowhere to go.


Oh trust me, this is a dumb Idea. If LOTRs is even halfway decent, there's at least a chance it will still be in Theaters when this Disney movie opens. I see nothing but bad coming from this.

 

[johare]

I wish there was a way that Shrek could still overtake Lion King. On it's initial release, didn't they pull Lion King from the theaters and re-release it a couple weeks later with an updated advertising campaign? I read somewhere that they did this and that Dreamworks was considering something similar for Shrek.

Can a film be a domestic disappointment yet not be considered a failure because of strong international commercial results?

I guess you would only call it a 'domestic failure' then.

can a film be a considered a failure even though it is a technical production success

Yes, if not enough people go to see it, it's a failure.

Anyway, ‘Reign of Fire’ sounds interesting and if they market it properly (ie, more as an action film instead of a fantasy film) it might have a chance of doing well.

 

[Another Voice]

The sell-out in Japan was for a special stadium screening of the film’s premier and was quite huge. I’ve heard the regular box office is moderate – neither good nor bad. Same situation in Europe, not a hit but not a flop either. For a movie with a normal budget, it would not be a big problem. But the budget on ‘Pearl’ wasn’t normal.

There are a lot of movies that are considered a domestic flop, but are still considered a success because of international box office. ‘Waterworld’ took in only about $80 million in the US, but close to $200 million from overseas markets. Even ‘102 Dalmatians’ did a very disappointing $67 million here, but did about $120 million overseas. Generally, action films and movies with big-name stars do very well overseas. ‘Pearl’ was hampered by the lack of a big name star and by it’s love story.

Technical Oscars mean nothing to a film’s legacy. The nominations for editing, sound, etc. are given to 1) the year’s likely Best Picture winner just to pad out total number of nominations the film gets, 2) to the highest grossing picture of the year just to reward it for making a lot of money, and 3) whatever film gets the technical geeks all hot and bothered that year. Unfortunately, ‘Pearl’ doesn’t fit into any of the categories. Special effects this year will probably go to ‘Planet of the Apes’, ‘Lord of the Rings’ and ‘Jurassic Park 3’. ‘Pearl’ might scrap by with a nomination for something like Sound Effects Editing (that group loves explosions) and Best Original Song (the Academy hates that new rock-and-roll stuff, but they can tap their canes along with Trisha Yearwood). The movie is considered too much of a box office and artist failure to get anything else.

The release dates for ‘Treasure Planet’ and ‘Lilo and Stitch’ are suddenly up in the air. I had heard that ‘Lilo’ was basically finished, but now I hear it’s being pushed back. The problem with ‘Treasure’ is that it’s ‘Atlantis’ all over again – an action/adventure plot with a weak central hero surrounded by a gaggle of comic minor characters. Plus, from Dreamworks it looks like ‘Spirit’ (a traditional animated movie about horses) is ready for summer and ‘Tusker’ (computer animated) will be ready for Holiday. Given what happened this summer, Disney is flat out terrified that 2002 will be exactly the same. And the management and morale vacuum in Burbank right now isn’t helping. Everyone knows that the next person to say anything is the next person to receive a phone call from Michael Eisner and a chance to produce Broadway shows. No one will make a decision until the very last second, and only when they have figured out a way of shifting the blame.

As for ‘Lord of the Rings’, if the entire trilogy is like the bits I’ve seen – it will be a massive hit. I have no idea if traditional fantasy works with today’s public, but it could easily catch on just like ‘Stars Wars’ did when science fiction was a dead genre. LOTR seems like an epic that Hollywood hasn’t produced in decades but that the public is yearning for (witness the success of ‘Gladiator’ and even the hope for ‘Pearl Harbor’). This movie is the 8000 pound gorilla in Hollywood right now.

Lastly, on ‘Reign of Fire’ – rent the movie ‘Aliens’, replace the outer space creatures with medieval dragons, crank up the Vietnam metaphors a couple of notches, add a dash of “we must learn to love the planet” dialogue and imagine Matthew McConaughey playing Signory Weaver. Now you’ve seen the movie and saved yourself $8.50.

 

[gary]

It sounds like one of the biggest things that "Reign of Fire" has to worry about is budget cuts. Even if the movie isn't a critical success, if it delivers to the core Sci-Fi/Fantasy demographic, and to kids who like to see monsters and explosions, it'll do okay. But... I recall the godawful 'Godzilla' that came out... it was really bad, but for all the wrong reasons. I don't think that anyone really expected a Godzilla movie to be one of the great theatrical films of our time... but it started to get expensive, and doing the monster special effects were expensive, and monster scenes were cut, and we got a movie full of Godzilla's butt and tail while he ran away around a corner. But they forgot that PEOPLE WENT TO THE MOVIE TO WATCH THE MONSTER DESTROY THE CITY!!! So word got out, and nobody went... certainly not for a second time.

If they do Reign of Fire, even if they don't create a great 'film', they need to remember to give the people what they expect. Jurassic Park promised great dinosaurs and delivered. It was a hit. Godzilla promised a city-destroying monster and didn't deliver. It bombed. Reign of Fire needs to remember the lesson.

Gary

 

[YoHo]

Titanic made it, because Leonardo is dreamy and James Cameron Sold His soul.




(I hate James Cameron for many stupid reasons. )

 

[johare]

I have no idea why Titanic made it and Pearl Harbor did not

Titanic was cast better and had a much better storyline. Plus there is a lot of romance, intrigue and mystery behind the true story of the Titanic. The story of Pearl Harbor doesn't seem to have any of that going for it. The fact that it was a pretty bad movie (except for some decent special effects) certainly didn't help Pearl Harbor much either. So, it seems pretty obvious to me...almost as obvious as why Shrek made it and Atlantis did not.

 

[All Aboard]

For one thing, Titanic raked in the bucks as it became a measuring stick for teenage girls. "How may times have you seen it?" Almost like Star Wars was to me and my buddies back in '77.

Johare, why do you wish Shrek could beat Lion King? It's not a sports team, it's a movie.

 

[johare]

why do you wish Shrek could beat Lion King? It's not a sports team, it's a movie.

Because I think it's a better movie and deserves to be #1. I don't quite get the 'sports team' comment. If someone likes one movie better than another, they would like to see it become the number 1 movie. If someone lies a sports team better than another one, they would like to see that team be the number 1 team. What's the difference?

 

[johare]

Titanic, a better story?

Yes, absolutely...both the true, historical version and the movie version are far more interesting than Pearl Harbor. I think the public has pretty much proven that they agree with this too, though some would like to blame luck, timing, economy, etc....anything but Disney.

 

[All Aboard]

The difference is, I don't ever recall anyone (other someone involved in the production of, or financial outcome of) a movie "rooting" for it, I guess. I really enjoyed The Green Mile, it was a wonderful story. I didn't really care what movies it passed in the "standings". I like Pepsi better than Coke, couldn't care less that Coke outsells Pepsi.

I thought that you must have some underlying reason why you specifically wanted to see one film end better in domestic gross than another. I was really asking to see what your motive was. In other words, sending Eisner some kind of message or something. That's all.

 

[YoHo]

Well, Every true Star Wars fan wanted Titanic to shrival up and Die, You should have seen the Vitoral. (sp?)

I learned four letter words I'd never even conceived of when Titanic shattered the Star Wars record.

The Irony being that nobody minded when ET. took #1.


When you look back on it, it doesn't make any sense.



And I'm not going to even begin to comment on the Shrek had a better plot then Lion King thing.


As for Titanic being a better historical story, I'm not sure what you mean by that, They are facts not stories. I'm not convinced that Titanic the Movie had a significantly better story, oh it was marginally better, but not significantly.

 

[JustBob]

I think PH would have been MUCH better if we'd gotten to know what it was like for the guys on board ship BEFORE the bombs started falling - we got a thirty second glimpse of that morning and that was it. For goodness sake, you hardly got the feeling that there WERE men spending every waking moment on board those ships.

 

[Another Voice]

If I knew why ‘Titanic’ worked, I’d be running Hollywood, not working for it.

I am not a fan of the script for ‘Titanic’, but I do think it’s better than the one for ‘Pearl Harbor’ for two reasons. First, the love story on the boat worked better than the one in Hawaii because women could identify with the heroine’s plight from ‘Titanic’ but not the one from ‘Pearl’. I don’t think there is a young woman who hasn’t felt pressured by her family into “being a nice girl” and who hasn’t yearned to run away with the bad boy (this was ‘Titanic’ story). Familiarity with the heroine’s plight leads to an emotional attachment to the characters in the film. In ‘Pearl’, the heroine’s big dilemma was a choice between two Hollywood hunks whose only noticeably difference was the amount of chest hair they had. Yes, it’s a choice most women would like to suffer through, but one that few have any kind of experience with. The heroine in ‘Titanic’ was familiar to the audience, the one in ‘Pearl’ wasn’t and that prevented any kind of emotional involvement with the story.

The second reason was where the director put the audience during the big “pay-off” scenes. One of the things the James Cameron is really, really good at is putting the audience INSIDE the movie. In ‘Titanic’, the characters were used as tour guides during the sinking sequence. You knew who these people were, why they were there, and what was at risk. Cameron put you, the audience, on the Titanic WITH the characters and let you experience the disaster with them. When someone died, you knew who that person was – and that adds to the emotional impact. (P.S. If you ever get a chance to see ‘Aliens’ on a big screen with a full audience, do yourself a favor and go see a fantastic example about how this all works).

With ‘Pearl’, Michael Bay staged the attack as a spectacle. There were a lot of explosions and some shots that made me go “gee, what great CGI”, but I no idea which ship was which, any clue to the Japanese strategy or what was really happening. I saw a ship roll over and, I presume, a lot of men die – but I had no idea who they were so there was a distance there. I was a spectator to the events and the whole sequence came off like watching a fireworks display. You ohh, you awe – and as soon as it’s over you rush to Splash Mountain before the line gets long again. When the guys finally made it in the air, things improved a little, but I was already wondering if the line at the popcorn stand had grown too long.

This is all very basic stuff, just Screenwriting 101. And I know the writer of ‘Pearl Harbor’ has done much better: Compare the main battle sequence in his ‘Braveheart’ to the attack in ‘Pearl’ and you’ll see which is the better film. I think it all boils down to that ‘Pearl’ was made by people who were lazy because they thought that marketing and the Disney brand name would cause their film to be a big hit.

As for technology, it’s only remembered as it improves the filmmaking. ‘Blade Runner’ didn’t use any new techniques, but it is remembered for its film noir atmosphere and story (watch the latest Director’s cut for the real movie, not the studio butcher job that was released). People remember ‘Tron’ (okay, barely remember) because it had a certain sense of wonder to it. But no one remembers ‘The Last Starfighter’ even though it had much better effects. Movies are all about emotion – and technology only counts if it helps create that emotional content.


P.S. As for historical accuracy, ‘Titanic’ wins hands down. Everything that you see in the movie except for the interaction between the two main, fictional, characters is as accurate as possible, even down to the exact words that the historical figures spoke, as in “Iceberg right ahead!”.

 

[johare]

gcurling,

I do enjoy seeing quality and effort rewarded which is one of the reasons I would like to see Shrek become the number one animated movie. I don't thing there is anything wrong with 'rooting' for a movie to be number one. I'm sure some people really enjoy seeing their favorite artist/band have a number one hit.

However, I also want Shrek to beat Lion King just to give Eisner and Disney a much needed kick in the pants. About 75% of me wants Shrek to become #1...the other 25% wants Lion King to be #2...if that makes sense?!?

 

[Planogirl]

I wanted to add that I don't think that it was just teenage girls that got into Titanic. There were many women of all ages that I knew that went on and on about the film, and truly seemed to live and breath the story for quite a while. I did my best to not see it since I don't normally like romantic movies but after I finally caved this one brought a tear to my eye. The elderly man next to me kept wiping his eyes. I'm not real sure why to this day. Would Pearl Harbor do that? No.

I also thought that the scenes in the ship were great. Many people have been fascinated with the Titanic and what happened to it for a very long time. The lore and image of this ship has been romanticized and become legendary. People would naturally flock to see what Cameron's take on this is. Pearl Harbor was of course a bigger event but certainly not romantic in any sense.

Incidently , I am a Star Wars fanatic. I hated that Titanic passed it by but I'm still hopeful that Lucas has something great in him that can regain the top spot. Something far better than the Phantom Menace is needed for sure.

Just another viewpoint.

 

[johare]

Actually when adjusted for inflation, Star Wars is still ahead of Titanic. Here's the top 5 with their actual and adjusted totals.


1 Gone With the Wind* 1939 $198.60 $1,001.69
2 Star Wars* 1977 $461.00 $865.91
3 The Sound of Music 1965 $158.70 $694.99
4 E.T.* 1982 $399.80 $654.36
5 Titanic 1997 $600.80 $639.83