Yep, already downloaded it. Disney Movies Anywhere will go away and merge with Movies Anywhere for those that have that.It looks like Movies Anywhere is live.
Well, why does Hollywood (not just Disney) get on the sequel train? An original movie has maybe a 50/50 chance of being a hit, regardless of how good it is. A sequel/franchise movie is successful about 80% of the time. As others have pointed out, in recent years when Disney tried something new (Tomorrowland, John Carter, BFG) it often flopped. The re-dos of live action movies are like 5-for-6. (Only the Alice sequel tanked.) It why we are getting so many more. It's why Disney bought Star Wars. It's the norm now. Now, animation is a little different than live action, as there is a much higher rate of success with new ideas - but then you get Good Dinosaur making $125 million while Finding Dory makes $486 million.
That said, new franchises can't start without original ideas, so I really think the SHOULD devote at least 1 or 2 releases a year to new concepts. (Even if "new" is like Pirates.)
Well, the other option is you try new stuff with a lower budget - like all the Blumhouse horror movies, the first ones always have very low budgets. Disney doesn't seem to be able to do anything with a low budget. Even animation, Dreamworks spends a lot less on their films than Disney does (not saying they are the same quality as Disney but you could alternate with a full blown/high-end one and a lower budget one that takes more of a chance on an original concept.)
I really agree with this. If you have an interesting idea and maybe pull in an old actor who people remember but hasn't been working lately (ie Ethan Hawke for The Purge) you've spent around $5 million and make over $100 million domestically.
I'd love to see Disney make a movie about kids/teenagers in the vein of older kid adventure movies. I feel like they could do this without spending more than a few million.
Well, the other option is you try new stuff with a lower budget - like all the Blumhouse horror movies, the first ones always have very low budgets. Disney doesn't seem to be able to do anything with a low budget. Even animation, Dreamworks spends a lot less on their films than Disney does (not saying they are the same quality as Disney but you could alternate with a full blown/high-end one and a lower budget one that takes more of a chance on an original concept.)
I really agree with this. If you have an interesting idea and maybe pull in an old actor who people remember but hasn't been working lately (ie Ethan Hawke for The Purge) you've spent around $5 million and make over $100 million domestically.
I'd love to see Disney make a movie about kids/teenagers in the vein of older kid adventure movies. I feel like they could do this without spending more than a few million.
I've always thought studios should look at more mid-budget movies. I think the reason they don't is that a $20 million movie that makes $150 million is still not as good as a $250 million movie that makes $1.4 BILLION.
It was sort of a shame the way back in the nineties there were all these indie studios, and then the big studios bought the indie studios up, and when they weren't making enough money, the shut them down. (I'm talking about studios like Miramax.)
The fact is, a company like Disney isn't going to do "little" anymore. You have to look to places like Hulu and Netflix for this kind of stuff.
And let's not wish that Disney tries to mimic Stranger Things and IT lead to a whole bunch of terrible "80s inspired kids in peril" stuff. I mean Stranger Things was amazing, but so lightning in a bottle. Disney trying to do this would be absolutely terrible.
I figured as much. I won't lie, it was really neat to see it sitting there on the tracks. Can't wait for our summer trip.They are still testing and will be for a while.
Something like the Goonies or even something like Stranger Things would be really cool
Heck, I'd even take a movie version of Kingdom Keepers
It's weird that more studios don't go the Blumhouse route.
With Stranger Things and IT being hot right now, you'd think they would want to capitalize on the trend. Pump out a movie like Goonies, don't be afraid to scare children a little.
EDIT: @TheMaxRebo beat me by less than a minute
I've always thought studios should look at more mid-budget movies. I think the reason they don't is that a $20 million movie that makes $150 million is still not as good as a $250 million movie that makes $1.4 BILLION.
It was sort of a shame the way back in the nineties there were all these indie studios, and then the big studios bought the indie studios up, and when they weren't making enough money, the shut them down. (I'm talking about studios like Miramax.)
The fact is, a company like Disney isn't going to do "little" anymore. You have to look to places like Hulu and Netflix for this kind of stuff.
And let's not wish that Disney tries to mimic Stranger Things and IT lead to a whole bunch of terrible "80s inspired kids in peril" stuff. I mean Stranger Things was amazing, but so lightning in a bottle. Disney trying to do this would be absolutely terrible.
Speaking of that, do you watch the new Mickey shorts? I love them and they use lots of elements from the old Mickey cartoons and the parks. Their latest episode involved Mickey and Minnie going on the Big Thunder Mountain train (though not really, you'd have to watch) and seeing the old Nature's Wonderland and it even used a scene from the DL railroad Grand Canyon.
I've always thought studios should look at more mid-budget movies. I think the reason they don't is that a $20 million movie that makes $150 million is still not as good as a $250 million movie that makes $1.4 BILLION.
It was sort of a shame the way back in the nineties there were all these indie studios, and then the big studios bought the indie studios up, and when they weren't making enough money, the shut them down. (I'm talking about studios like Miramax.)
The fact is, a company like Disney isn't going to do "little" anymore. You have to look to places like Hulu and Netflix for this kind of stuff.
And let's not wish that Disney tries to mimic Stranger Things and IT lead to a whole bunch of terrible "80s inspired kids in peril" stuff. I mean Stranger Things was amazing, but so lightning in a bottle. Disney trying to do this would be absolutely terrible.
I sort of like the Tiki Room one
I thought it was odd that some are regularly priced $24.95 and some are regularly priced $24.99 ... like, why bother having a 4 cent difference between them?
When we were there in September this promotion was going on too in many of the stores for a variety of t-shirts...we may have gotten a few t-shirts this way
Anyways the pricing was like that as well. My guess is normally when they decide not to have this promotion those t-shirts included in the promotion may or may not be away from each other in the store thus the pricing difference. With these above shirts (the tiki room, HM, JC, etc) I'm guessing they were following the pricing structure as the other shirts they do in the promotion even though yes it is odd to place like-style shirts with a small price difference such that they did.
yeah, I get that they are combining different groups of t-shirts together for the promotion ... guess I just find it odd that it is still all Disney controlled why have any shirts at all, on all of property, be 4 cents different ... like have everything end in _.95 or _.99
but I guess I shouldn't be surprised
It's been quite some time, so my memory of this may be questionable. But, back when I worked for Mickey, I asked a follow Cast Member who worked in retail about this 4 cent difference. I was told it was a method used to track the age of the merchandise. If something doesn't sell, it the price gets changed (+/- 4 cents). When space is needed for new items, the old stuff gets sent to the outlets. Instead of scanning SKU codes, they can just grab everything based on the last number of the price.
Like I said, I'm not guaranteeing that information is correct. It's just what I remember.
I've always thought studios should look at more mid-budget movies. I think the reason they don't is that a $20 million movie that makes $150 million is still not as good as a $250 million movie that makes $1.4 BILLION.