Latest Entertainment News Headlines

A blow for original movies: Disney could lose $140 million on Tomorrowland

06.10.2015

Disney is about to absorb it's first major financial bomb since the release of THE LONE RANGER two years ago. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Brad Bird's TOMORROWLAND is poised to cost the House of Mouse somewhere around $140 million after it completes it's theatrical run. Despite weak reviews and a less than $50 million opening weekend in theaters, Disney had hopes for the international release of the film. But, when TOMORROWLAND opened in China, it made less than $20 million.

TOMORROWLAND seemed like a sure thing with Brad Bird in the director's chair but with a $180 million budget and another $150 million spent on marketing, TOMORROWLAND was a risky endeavor in that it was an original idea and not a franchise based on an existing book or comic. While Disney is clearly going to make up for the loss thanks to AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON, Pixar's INSIDE OUT, ANT-MAN, and STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS, the idea of another non-sequel bombing for the studio should worry some.

Analyst Eric Handler of MKM Partners had this to say about the film.

“There’s a reason you’re seeing more sequels, prequels and known properties because you never know how films like TOMORROWLAND or JUPITER ASCENDING are going to turn out."

Because of how large Disney is, they are able to take risks on original concepts, but how many other studios can take that same chance? We all have complained about the glut of sequels, reboots, and adaptations of TV shows that are becoming movies but all of that is because there is market research on how well those properties are received by audiences. I enjoyed JOHN CARTER, THE LONE RANGER, and TOMORROWLAND for what they were, but most audiences are not going to take that risk, especially with how pricey it is to go to the movies. Hopefully an original movie comes along that blows audiences away and reverses this trend. But, for now, get used to superheroes and reboots for the forseeable future.

TOMORROWLAND is now playing.

CLICK IMAGE TO OPEN GALLERY & SEE MORE PICS...

RECOMMENDED MOVIE NEWS

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

+1
8:46PM on 06/11/2015

Fail honorably

Better to fail at something original than a crappy remake
Better to fail at something original than a crappy remake
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:31PM on 06/11/2015
Pocket change now for Disney, they still have Marvel & Star Wars & now Indiana Jones. Pixar seems to be back on track as well. Disney will be fine in the long run, I have no remorse for Tomorrowland bombing, it looked boring, Well maybe a little sad for Brad Bird but he will recover.
Pocket change now for Disney, they still have Marvel & Star Wars & now Indiana Jones. Pixar seems to be back on track as well. Disney will be fine in the long run, I have no remorse for Tomorrowland bombing, it looked boring, Well maybe a little sad for Brad Bird but he will recover.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:56PM on 06/11/2015

Original? What's so Original?

What was so original for a film that was based on one of their theme park rides? Add to that, that being a Disney Film, even if this was an 'original' story, they couldn't go anywhere near as dark as they would have had to to make the story count. Oh sure, nice visuals and all, but was as dramatic as watching paint dry. Its too bad, because it wasted many good performances in a paint by numbers hit the marks type of film. The answer is NOT this is the death of ' original' films...it should be
What was so original for a film that was based on one of their theme park rides? Add to that, that being a Disney Film, even if this was an 'original' story, they couldn't go anywhere near as dark as they would have had to to make the story count. Oh sure, nice visuals and all, but was as dramatic as watching paint dry. Its too bad, because it wasted many good performances in a paint by numbers hit the marks type of film. The answer is NOT this is the death of ' original' films...it should be let original films get made in the first place'. If you want any similar themed SF to be made to films, there's tons of authors out there worthy. I'd personally start with Allen Steele. I don't blame this on Brad Bird and company; they did the best they could with what Disney wanted from them. Namely: a two hour informercial for one of their park rides.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:51PM on 06/11/2015
I don't really see the problem. This might be a blow for $180 million dollar original movies and movies with a $300 million+ production and advertising budget, but spending that kind of money on an original property was always kind of stupid anyway. I haven't seen the movie, but nothing I saw indicated the movie couldn't have been made for a budget half what it was.

The movie, when it was known as 1950, had the potential to be dark, mysterious, and interesting. The movie known as
I don't really see the problem. This might be a blow for $180 million dollar original movies and movies with a $300 million+ production and advertising budget, but spending that kind of money on an original property was always kind of stupid anyway. I haven't seen the movie, but nothing I saw indicated the movie couldn't have been made for a budget half what it was.

The movie, when it was known as 1950, had the potential to be dark, mysterious, and interesting. The movie known as Tomorowland, looked like some bland Wizard of Oz rip off.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:28PM on 06/11/2015
It was an original film with bad writing. It always boils down to the writing, because the script IS the movie. The film is just a bunch of work on actors and effects that go by the script. Tomorrowland had great ideas, great moral, but the fact that Tomorrowland was practically a ghost town for 95% the time, just turned me off. It makes me feel like Tomorrowland is a bad place now.
It was an original film with bad writing. It always boils down to the writing, because the script IS the movie. The film is just a bunch of work on actors and effects that go by the script. Tomorrowland had great ideas, great moral, but the fact that Tomorrowland was practically a ghost town for 95% the time, just turned me off. It makes me feel like Tomorrowland is a bad place now.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:22AM on 06/11/2015
That is a shame. I saw Tommowland in the theater with my wife and son and we all really enjoyed it. I thought it was creative and fun.
That is a shame. I saw Tommowland in the theater with my wife and son and we all really enjoyed it. I thought it was creative and fun.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:51AM on 06/11/2015
Too bad for Disney, you make a shitty movie you should expect shitty results. Their first mistake was adapting something written by Damon Lindelof. And I understand the issue with studios taking chances on original stories/movies and them not performing well and in turn taking a loss. But if you're going to go the route of making an original movie, it might be better to stick to the old adage that "less is more". Keep the story simple and the action scenes exciting. Don't worry about world
Too bad for Disney, you make a shitty movie you should expect shitty results. Their first mistake was adapting something written by Damon Lindelof. And I understand the issue with studios taking chances on original stories/movies and them not performing well and in turn taking a loss. But if you're going to go the route of making an original movie, it might be better to stick to the old adage that "less is more". Keep the story simple and the action scenes exciting. Don't worry about world building for a future franchise, don't worry about laying out themes and ideas on a philosophical level to be explored in one movie (or worse to be explored in multiple movies).

The best example to always use for building a franchise is Star Wars. Look at what they did with Ep. IV, they told a self-contained story. They were able to provide a back story to the main characters, build a pretty expansive world that didn't need to be explained too thoroughly throughout the movie. It had a beginning, middle, and end. When the film ended, there was an ending. There wasn't an expectation to see more of it. If Lucasfilm never released future movies, that movie on it's own would still hold weight. All storylines and threads were wrapped up by the end. Once they got into Empire Strikes Back is when the world was fleshed out a little more, the backstories were given a little more weight, they were even able to take the biggest gamble of all at the time and leave the movie ending on a cliffhanger.

That's studios problem, is they see an original piece of work and immediately think of turning it into a franchise. They don't focus on just making that original script into 1 great movie first and THEN following up with sequels.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:47AM on 06/11/2015

Lame excuse.

Even sequels, prequels, and known properties where once original ideas that became hits including their own Pirates of the Caribbean films that took a risk with a then unpopular in the mainstream Depp. Truth is you spent 150 million on advertising and that is the whole reason I did not want to see it, it looked flat out uninspiring. Then word of mouth was not helpful in the least with most saying it was okay or not very good. Without the awhhh factor that gets butts in the seats now days by
Even sequels, prequels, and known properties where once original ideas that became hits including their own Pirates of the Caribbean films that took a risk with a then unpopular in the mainstream Depp. Truth is you spent 150 million on advertising and that is the whole reason I did not want to see it, it looked flat out uninspiring. Then word of mouth was not helpful in the least with most saying it was okay or not very good. Without the awhhh factor that gets butts in the seats now days by showing us something new, unless it is a brand you trust, being just okay is not enough for today's prices and quick DVD releases to spend theater dollar on. Tell better stories and they will come in droves.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+1
1:49AM on 06/11/2015
If it's good people will watch it, regardless of if it's "original" or not. Frankly, Tomorrowland wasn't (imo anyway).The trailers were underwhelming too. Seriously, where did the advertising money go to?
If it's good people will watch it, regardless of if it's "original" or not. Frankly, Tomorrowland wasn't (imo anyway).The trailers were underwhelming too. Seriously, where did the advertising money go to?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
3:20AM on 06/11/2015
into George Clooney's wallet, perhaps? His salary for this movie must be sky high.
into George Clooney's wallet, perhaps? His salary for this movie must be sky high.
12:01AM on 06/11/2015
Did he just compare Tomorrow Land to Jupiter Ascending? There goes any chance of me watching Tomorrow Land.

Did he just compare Tomorrow Land to Jupiter Ascending? There goes any chance of me watching Tomorrow Land.

Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:12PM on 06/10/2015
The reason is not because it's an original movie, it's because it's based on a Disney attraction. Look, Pirates of The Caribbean was okay, but Country Bears? Haunted Mansion? Disney, wat r u doin? Stahp!
The reason is not because it's an original movie, it's because it's based on a Disney attraction. Look, Pirates of The Caribbean was okay, but Country Bears? Haunted Mansion? Disney, wat r u doin? Stahp!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+1
11:09PM on 06/10/2015

Original or not, it was a crappy movie.

As was the Lone Ranger. While John Carter obviously deserved a sequel, loss of money or not. The main thing Disney should take away from this is not that original idea = loss of money, but instead that higher budget's don't always equal high grosses. For both Lone Ranger and Tomorrowland, I have no idea where the money went, cuz it doesn't look like it's on the screen. The Lone Ranger's budget never should have even crossed above 70 million. It's a goddamn Western, I don't care who's in it. The
As was the Lone Ranger. While John Carter obviously deserved a sequel, loss of money or not. The main thing Disney should take away from this is not that original idea = loss of money, but instead that higher budget's don't always equal high grosses. For both Lone Ranger and Tomorrowland, I have no idea where the money went, cuz it doesn't look like it's on the screen. The Lone Ranger's budget never should have even crossed above 70 million. It's a goddamn Western, I don't care who's in it. The other factor here is story. The script for Tomorrowland should've caused major concerns before any more money was spent to begin with. Don't produce a movie with major problems in the development phase and then go and tack on a ginormous budget that it doesn't even need nor can justify.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
11:01PM on 06/10/2015
I think this is more a sign that Disney will never hire a successful Pixar director to headline their live action tent poles!

Honestly, this flick could have been amazing. .. but it needed more of its title! The movie showed maybe 20 minutes of Tomorrowland and the rest was on earth... this is one that they should reboot with new writers. .. it can be done right, it just wasnt this time!
I think this is more a sign that Disney will never hire a successful Pixar director to headline their live action tent poles!

Honestly, this flick could have been amazing. .. but it needed more of its title! The movie showed maybe 20 minutes of Tomorrowland and the rest was on earth... this is one that they should reboot with new writers. .. it can be done right, it just wasnt this time!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+1
11:01PM on 06/10/2015
I think this is more a sign that Disney will never hire a successful Pixar director to headline their live action tent poles!

Honestly, this flick could have been amazing. .. but it needed more of its title! The movie showed maybe 20 minutes of Tomorrowland and the rest was on earth... this is one that they should reboot with new writers. .. it can be done right, it just wasnt this time!
I think this is more a sign that Disney will never hire a successful Pixar director to headline their live action tent poles!

Honestly, this flick could have been amazing. .. but it needed more of its title! The movie showed maybe 20 minutes of Tomorrowland and the rest was on earth... this is one that they should reboot with new writers. .. it can be done right, it just wasnt this time!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:58PM on 06/10/2015
No. Originality isn't the cause of this failure. I'd blame it on the movie itself. I haven't seen it yet. I only watched the trailer and even that did not convince me to go watch it. It's not enticing enough.
No. Originality isn't the cause of this failure. I'd blame it on the movie itself. I haven't seen it yet. I only watched the trailer and even that did not convince me to go watch it. It's not enticing enough.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:20PM on 06/10/2015
I think in this case the secretive development and lack of reveal about the actual plot of the movie backfired on them. But then again, had they know what the movie is all about from the get go there might not be that much audience coaxed into buying tickets to it anyway.
I think in this case the secretive development and lack of reveal about the actual plot of the movie backfired on them. But then again, had they know what the movie is all about from the get go there might not be that much audience coaxed into buying tickets to it anyway.
1:41AM on 06/11/2015
I think the movie could have performed even worse than this had George Clooney not in this movie.
I think the movie could have performed even worse than this had George Clooney not in this movie.
9:49PM on 06/10/2015

Uh, sorry pal but...

Lone Ranger and John Carter were not "original properties" and their respective failure should be used to show that rebooting isn't a sure path to success.
Lone Ranger and John Carter were not "original properties" and their respective failure should be used to show that rebooting isn't a sure path to success.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:26PM on 06/10/2015

Thats what you get disney

for canning tron. Suit's you right.
for canning tron. Suit's you right.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:21PM on 06/10/2015

Preachy liberal BS = box office kryptonite.

see: Elysium and Promised Land (or don't. Nobody else did)
see: Elysium and Promised Land (or don't. Nobody else did)
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:10PM on 06/10/2015
Seriously.
Seriously.
11:16PM on 06/10/2015
I get you including Elysium, but Promised Land seems out-of-place for not being a big-budget summer tentpole movie.
I get you including Elysium, but Promised Land seems out-of-place for not being a big-budget summer tentpole movie.
12:08AM on 06/11/2015
You are just mad at Matt Damon (I am as well) because Promised Land was a great film that you are using out of context. Elysium was garbage but hopefully he redeems himself with The Martian.
You are just mad at Matt Damon (I am as well) because Promised Land was a great film that you are using out of context. Elysium was garbage but hopefully he redeems himself with The Martian.
8:04PM on 06/10/2015

Has nothing to do with originality...

I have seen similar articles since the day this movie came out. It has absolutely nothing to do with being an original movie. It has to do with being a terrible movie. No one goes to a sequel of a bad movie, they go to sequels of good movies because we know the first was good and hope the next is good as well. Word of mouth quickly spread that this movie wasnt much good. Thats what killed it. Not originality, but because it was terrible
I have seen similar articles since the day this movie came out. It has absolutely nothing to do with being an original movie. It has to do with being a terrible movie. No one goes to a sequel of a bad movie, they go to sequels of good movies because we know the first was good and hope the next is good as well. Word of mouth quickly spread that this movie wasnt much good. Thats what killed it. Not originality, but because it was terrible
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+2
7:57PM on 06/10/2015

What a bunch of crap.....

The movie lost money because of word-of-mouth and mediocre trailers. I would have seen it just because of Bird and the hope that it might be entertaining, then I found out EVERY review talked about the preachy political BS they shoved into the movie and I decided I had better things to do with my money.

Don't stop making original films, stop making message movies with messages nobody wants to hear. Either that or smile and take the loss if it's that important to them to push their
The movie lost money because of word-of-mouth and mediocre trailers. I would have seen it just because of Bird and the hope that it might be entertaining, then I found out EVERY review talked about the preachy political BS they shoved into the movie and I decided I had better things to do with my money.

Don't stop making original films, stop making message movies with messages nobody wants to hear. Either that or smile and take the loss if it's that important to them to push their ideology over profit.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:54PM on 06/10/2015
I liked Tomorrowland, and thought it was better than most gave credit for. However, they spent way too much on a film that didn't have a specific market. Young boys don't want to see a film with a girl lead, and girls aren't into this futuristic sci-fi type style. It's too kid-friendly for adults, but to realistic for children to stay interested. Sad to say, but you can't really spend $190M one something like this, without a specific audience that it will appeal to.
I liked Tomorrowland, and thought it was better than most gave credit for. However, they spent way too much on a film that didn't have a specific market. Young boys don't want to see a film with a girl lead, and girls aren't into this futuristic sci-fi type style. It's too kid-friendly for adults, but to realistic for children to stay interested. Sad to say, but you can't really spend $190M one something like this, without a specific audience that it will appeal to.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+2
7:40PM on 06/10/2015

It's the budgets that are killing them

KcMsterpce is spot on in their below comment. One of Disney's biggest problems is that they display a continual lack of concern over the bloated budgets of their films. Tomorrowland cost $180 M to make, Hellboy 2 cost $80 M. Only $80 and it was loaded with CGI. However, the difference was that they mixed it with practical effects when possible. Pirates 3 cost $300 M that's literally 10 times what District 9 cost and that film was loaded with aliens, weaponry and a freaking floating city that
KcMsterpce is spot on in their below comment. One of Disney's biggest problems is that they display a continual lack of concern over the bloated budgets of their films. Tomorrowland cost $180 M to make, Hellboy 2 cost $80 M. Only $80 and it was loaded with CGI. However, the difference was that they mixed it with practical effects when possible. Pirates 3 cost $300 M that's literally 10 times what District 9 cost and that film was loaded with aliens, weaponry and a freaking floating city that all looked near life like in it's perfection. Money studios biggest financial enemy isn't public taste, it's their own financial indiscretion.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:21PM on 06/10/2015

You can always take risks. Reduce the f'n budget!

I don't give a flying fuck about Disney's "failures" since they have so much they could lose without a big hit on their finances. Seriously.
I think movie makers should think about how to dial down their overblown budgets. That would help.
I don't give a flying fuck about Disney's "failures" since they have so much they could lose without a big hit on their finances. Seriously.
I think movie makers should think about how to dial down their overblown budgets. That would help.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
7:21PM on 06/10/2015

HA.

“There’s a reason you’re seeing more sequels, prequels and known properties because you never know how films like TOMORROWLAND or JUPITER ASCENDING are going to turn out."

No, we all knew EXACTLY how Jupiter Ascending was going to turn out...
“There’s a reason you’re seeing more sequels, prequels and known properties because you never know how films like TOMORROWLAND or JUPITER ASCENDING are going to turn out."

No, we all knew EXACTLY how Jupiter Ascending was going to turn out...
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:12PM on 06/10/2015
Boo hoo, Disney. Two Marvel films, a Pixar flick and fucking Star Wars will come out this year. Something tells me they're not quite at the "cut the movie channels out of their DirecTV" strategy just yet. Let me know if Mickey needs help taking that coffee can of loose change to CoinStar for gas next week. And make Tron Goddamn Three already.
Boo hoo, Disney. Two Marvel films, a Pixar flick and fucking Star Wars will come out this year. Something tells me they're not quite at the "cut the movie channels out of their DirecTV" strategy just yet. Let me know if Mickey needs help taking that coffee can of loose change to CoinStar for gas next week. And make Tron Goddamn Three already.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+2
7:01PM on 06/10/2015
If going to see a movie didn't cost more than what some people make in an hour, people may be more willing to come out for movies they're on the fence about. Increasing ticket prices has basically made it a luxury to go to the movies. When I was a kid my older sister would treat my siblings and I to the movies and we'd even eat there. That's four tickets and four meals. She was fresh out of high school, working full time and going to school full time but she still took the time and money to
If going to see a movie didn't cost more than what some people make in an hour, people may be more willing to come out for movies they're on the fence about. Increasing ticket prices has basically made it a luxury to go to the movies. When I was a kid my older sister would treat my siblings and I to the movies and we'd even eat there. That's four tickets and four meals. She was fresh out of high school, working full time and going to school full time but she still took the time and money to take us out. I can't imagine doing the same with a post high school job these days. Heck, It'd be hard doing the same with a post bachelor's degree job. This would be a great movie to take your little brother or sister to see, but now it's become a luxury to go to the movies. What's worse is that it isn't just a matter of not going to the movies as often. The quality of movies goes down. If people don't go to the movies as often, studios are going to rely on the same actors, plot points, and cliche's that made money before, regardless of whether people actually liked it or if it was a good movie.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:00PM on 06/10/2015

A blow to original movies?

Or a blow to movies starring George Clooney?
Or a blow to movies starring George Clooney?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:49PM on 06/10/2015
Not sure why but the film makers seem to really be blaming the audience for not going to this movie. The truth is it was just not that good a film, it was preachy and the plot had many holes in it along with the star not being onscreen for much of it.
A teen being the only one who can save a fantastic futuristic city as long as she believes in herself is pretty cliche. It's the plot of almost every Young Adult novel series out there.
Not sure why but the film makers seem to really be blaming the audience for not going to this movie. The truth is it was just not that good a film, it was preachy and the plot had many holes in it along with the star not being onscreen for much of it.
A teen being the only one who can save a fantastic futuristic city as long as she believes in herself is pretty cliche. It's the plot of almost every Young Adult novel series out there.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+2
6:38PM on 06/10/2015
Honestly, I don't think it has anything to do with so called "original content". I think it has something to do with the way they have been marketing these films. I'd say spend less money on the budget and spend more on a research team to market these films better. Clooney alone should have been enough to draw a decent crowd but I didn't see much of him in any of the ads. Idk. There's a common thread here with John Carter, Lone Ranger, and now Tomorrowland. All of those films were essentially
Honestly, I don't think it has anything to do with so called "original content". I think it has something to do with the way they have been marketing these films. I'd say spend less money on the budget and spend more on a research team to market these films better. Clooney alone should have been enough to draw a decent crowd but I didn't see much of him in any of the ads. Idk. There's a common thread here with John Carter, Lone Ranger, and now Tomorrowland. All of those films were essentially obscure and all had main stars who hadn't really established a lengthy or decent career yet. They themselves in essence were obscure. Idk. I feel it really just comes down to marketing. But you know... That's just like my opinion man.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:26PM on 06/10/2015

These aren't good movies though...

You can't blame originality for movies like this, lone ranger, john carter etc... on losing so much money.

These movie suck, word of mouth gets out that the movies are bad and so people go and see better films.

Also, we have the internet and reviews to tell us if something is worth it these days. Nobody goes blindly into movies anymore.

It doesn't mean remakes/sequels are doing well either. That Poltergeist movie was pure shit. Lots of remakes have been horrible lately. A lot of movies
You can't blame originality for movies like this, lone ranger, john carter etc... on losing so much money.

These movie suck, word of mouth gets out that the movies are bad and so people go and see better films.

Also, we have the internet and reviews to tell us if something is worth it these days. Nobody goes blindly into movies anymore.

It doesn't mean remakes/sequels are doing well either. That Poltergeist movie was pure shit. Lots of remakes have been horrible lately. A lot of movies based on books have been bad as well (Enders Game, Maze Runner)
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:17PM on 06/10/2015
Perhaps giving us an idea or clue as to what the plot was would've helped? It's ok, they'll make up for it in a couple years with a new "original" idea based on the tea cups ride, so fear not everybody Disney will be ok!
Perhaps giving us an idea or clue as to what the plot was would've helped? It's ok, they'll make up for it in a couple years with a new "original" idea based on the tea cups ride, so fear not everybody Disney will be ok!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:17PM on 06/10/2015

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!

Give us original films worth a damn(District 9, Gravity) and we show the fuck up. Give us Tomorrow Land (which by original you mean based off of an existing property, and this time not even a comic/book/etc, nope, we got a friggin theme park turned movie) and it's gonna flop.
Give us original films worth a damn(District 9, Gravity) and we show the fuck up. Give us Tomorrow Land (which by original you mean based off of an existing property, and this time not even a comic/book/etc, nope, we got a friggin theme park turned movie) and it's gonna flop.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+1
6:10PM on 06/10/2015

You want more original Hollywood work? Than stop throwing money away at every Marvel superhero film!

We need a Marvel superhero film to bomb at the box office. Otherwise this is all we'll ever see for at least the next 10 years!
Why should Hollywood make something new when everyone here pays more than once to see the latest Marvel superhero film that will "eventually" tie in with the Avengers series. Everyone complains about Hollywood lacking in original work, but the same people complaining are the ones who continue to pay high prices to see the newest and yet same old Marvel superhero films.
We need a Marvel superhero film to bomb at the box office. Otherwise this is all we'll ever see for at least the next 10 years!
Why should Hollywood make something new when everyone here pays more than once to see the latest Marvel superhero film that will "eventually" tie in with the Avengers series. Everyone complains about Hollywood lacking in original work, but the same people complaining are the ones who continue to pay high prices to see the newest and yet same old Marvel superhero films.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:24PM on 06/10/2015
At the very least Marvel is telling stories of charecters who have never been on screen before, breaking new ground all the time, and dabbling in a variety of genere's. Shure we have two Avengers but no one has ever seen a Dr. Strange film or have any idea what one could be. Them and DC I have no proublem with supporting because these are great chrarecters who deserve thier time in the sun.

That being said I'm not thrilled about the remaking and rehashing of perfectly decent franchises
At the very least Marvel is telling stories of charecters who have never been on screen before, breaking new ground all the time, and dabbling in a variety of genere's. Shure we have two Avengers but no one has ever seen a Dr. Strange film or have any idea what one could be. Them and DC I have no proublem with supporting because these are great chrarecters who deserve thier time in the sun.

That being said I'm not thrilled about the remaking and rehashing of perfectly decent franchises left well enough alone. I refuse to see most remakes or unecessary sequels with an exception every once in a while (Fury Road).
8:33PM on 06/10/2015
As a comic book fan who was a kid during the 70s and 80s, and kept wishing during the 90s that we could get a decent superhero film (Superman 1 and 2 and The Crow being exceptions), I will take all the superhero movies I can get. You kids don't know how great you have it nowdays. I can't even imagine how cool it would have been to have the Avengers films as a kid. These are truly the golden years of superheroes in film.
As a comic book fan who was a kid during the 70s and 80s, and kept wishing during the 90s that we could get a decent superhero film (Superman 1 and 2 and The Crow being exceptions), I will take all the superhero movies I can get. You kids don't know how great you have it nowdays. I can't even imagine how cool it would have been to have the Avengers films as a kid. These are truly the golden years of superheroes in film.
1:52AM on 06/11/2015
@fanboy71 I TOTALLY AGREE!!! I've been saying this for the past few years! I'm tired of hearing people complain about seeing comic book properties turned into movies. Talk about a communal lack of gratitude. "Oh boo hoo another comic book property is turned into a film"...yeesh, go cry about it. I was also one of those kids who was starved for films like this during the 80's and as long as they keep the quality, which Marvel has been doing, I'll be in line for everyone of them. And to everyone
@fanboy71 I TOTALLY AGREE!!! I've been saying this for the past few years! I'm tired of hearing people complain about seeing comic book properties turned into movies. Talk about a communal lack of gratitude. "Oh boo hoo another comic book property is turned into a film"...yeesh, go cry about it. I was also one of those kids who was starved for films like this during the 80's and as long as they keep the quality, which Marvel has been doing, I'll be in line for everyone of them. And to everyone else there are still original films/material out there you just need to get your head out of the marketing department's ass and look for it...the way its always been.
6:14AM on 06/11/2015
*Then
*Then
4:56PM on 06/11/2015
@martinphipps enough with the grammar nazi bullshit, don't be a dick!
@martinphipps enough with the grammar nazi bullshit, don't be a dick!
6:03PM on 06/10/2015
Maybe make good original movies dipshits.
Maybe make good original movies dipshits.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
5:52PM on 06/10/2015

Hey Disney, don't f**king blame it bombed because it's an original concept! Give more focus on story/characters and less on visuals and casting!

How can Disney say it's original works when their prior bombs were John Carter and The Lone Ranger? These box office bombs we not original works! The idea of making original films are not the problem. A lot of people in Hollywood have completely forgotten how to tell a story. Their focus is more on Visual Effects and having a great cast to go with a less than interesting script.
Always happy to see Disney suffer a money loss (except for The Lone Ranger), cause the company is not going away.
How can Disney say it's original works when their prior bombs were John Carter and The Lone Ranger? These box office bombs we not original works! The idea of making original films are not the problem. A lot of people in Hollywood have completely forgotten how to tell a story. Their focus is more on Visual Effects and having a great cast to go with a less than interesting script.
Always happy to see Disney suffer a money loss (except for The Lone Ranger), cause the company is not going away. However, this should not be noted as what happens when you make something original. I would've love to see Tomorrowland, but it's suppose to be disappointing as far as it's story goes. I want originality back in Hollywood, but I do want it to be good too. The problem is not the risk of making an original film, it's that the stories and execution are not the greatest. Tomorrowland and Jupiter Ascending were driven more by their visuals and casting rather than their story and characters.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:46PM on 06/10/2015
It's not that original movies don't work, but why does every film have to be a 9-figure blockbuster? Jaws is a great example. The original summer movie. A good director and script can make a movie feel big, no flashy effects. Less original sci-fi movies I can understand, but why loop in original films altogether?
It's not that original movies don't work, but why does every film have to be a 9-figure blockbuster? Jaws is a great example. The original summer movie. A good director and script can make a movie feel big, no flashy effects. Less original sci-fi movies I can understand, but why loop in original films altogether?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+2
5:45PM on 06/10/2015
Such a boring and dull movie. The marketing and promotion for the film were awful. And stop saying this was an original movie. It's based on a ride at theme park.
Such a boring and dull movie. The marketing and promotion for the film were awful. And stop saying this was an original movie. It's based on a ride at theme park.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
5:25PM on 06/10/2015
Everyone below me had perfect comments. One more thing to add is that the teaser was actually pretty great, and Disney should've left it at that. Even with further trailers, they should have kept that "wonder" component. Without it, this just looked like generic futuristic action crap.
Everyone below me had perfect comments. One more thing to add is that the teaser was actually pretty great, and Disney should've left it at that. Even with further trailers, they should have kept that "wonder" component. Without it, this just looked like generic futuristic action crap.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+3
5:14PM on 06/10/2015
Not surprised. Even the trailer looked awful!!
Not surprised. Even the trailer looked awful!!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:11PM on 06/10/2015
If they are so afraid to make original movies, go ahead and make Tron 3. It's the third movie of a franchise and a very well known property.
If they are so afraid to make original movies, go ahead and make Tron 3. It's the third movie of a franchise and a very well known property.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:19PM on 06/10/2015
LOL @ Tron fans.... 30 years between films feels about right
LOL @ Tron fans.... 30 years between films feels about right
5:10PM on 06/10/2015
I wouldn't classify a movie based on a theme park as an "original" film
I wouldn't classify a movie based on a theme park as an "original" film
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
View All Comments

Latest Entertainment News Headlines


Top
Loading...

Featured Youtube Videos

Views and Counting