DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:36 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 254 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:10 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:57 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: Puerto Rico
Super Aurora wrote:
pap64 wrote:
Disney just seems to be painfully unlucky when it comes to sci-fi movies. No matter if its animated or live-action, Disney just can't catch a break with sci-fi, ironically since Disney himself pushed the idea of space, technology and such hard enough that we got Tomorrowland out of it.

The only movie that seemed to do really, really well was Wall-E.



Tron/Tron legacy didn't do well?


The first Tron from what I read did pretty good considering it made the money back, and did went on to become a cult classic and inspired some clown to make a movie about toys ( :P ). Tron Legacy seemed to have done as well, even if the 3D showing wasn't as big as Disney hoped it would be.

So make that three exceptions to the rule: Tron, Wall-E and Tron Legacy :p

_________________
ImageImageImageImage

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:16 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:26 am
Posts: 1113
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Saw it, it was decent. It wasn't great or anything, but it wasn't as bad as what critics say. However, it was also disappointing.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:27 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:34 am
Posts: 2222
Just came home from seeing it. I liked it, and feel it was at least a solid "B" on a rating scale. However, I have very mixed feelings about it and in general.

While I liked it, it was also, in my humble opinion, the most violent and proactive "Disney" film ever made to date. I realize that the original books were even more so (I'm a Burroughs fan, I'm well aware) but I'm sad that the Walt Disney Pictures I grew up with and knew is basically dead.

No more "family" entertainment, now all we get is big action blockbusters and tween/ teen dramas and comedies. It's now "Corporate Disney Pictures."

Again, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this film and "Prince of Persia" and the various "Pirates" films, but I kind of wish another studio had made them. I miss "Walt" Disney Pictures... :(

_________________
____________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.

-Walt Disney


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:44 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:57 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: Puerto Rico
No offense, I haven't seen the film either, but I find that statement silly...

First off, tween comedies/dramas existed even in Disney's days. There is a reason Annette Funicello was so popular in the 60s. And before anyone says anything, I get that Annette was more wholesome than Miley, but still she was rather sexy in her own right.

Second, big blockbusters also existed on Disney's day. 10,000 Leagues under the Sea was Disney's equivalent of today's Pirates:, big, epic and violent. The reason why you think your Disney is "dead" is because YOUR IDEAL IMAGE OF DISNEY has changed into something you don't agree with.

So really, Disney isn't dead, it is still doing what it set out to do years ago, just evolving along with the needs and wants of the modern audience. Is that a corporate way of thinking? Yes, but I find it funny whenever Disney fans always paint classic Disney as being fully innocent and not in any way, shape or form caring about money. :p

_________________
ImageImageImageImage

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:05 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:34 am
Posts: 2222
pap64 wrote:
No offense, I haven't seen the film either, but I find that statement silly...

First off, tween comedies/dramas existed even in Disney's days. There is a reason Annette Funicello was so popular in the 60s. And before anyone says anything, I get that Annette was more wholesome than Miley, but still she was rather sexy in her own right.

Second, big blockbusters also existed on Disney's day. 10,000 Leagues under the Sea was Disney's equivalent of today's Pirates:, big, epic and violent. The reason why you think your Disney is "dead" is because YOUR IDEAL IMAGE OF DISNEY has changed into something you don't agree with.

So really, Disney isn't dead, it is still doing what it set out to do years ago, just evolving along with the needs and wants of the modern audience. Is that a corporate way of thinking? Yes, but I find it funny whenever Disney fans always paint classic Disney as being fully innocent and not in any way, shape or form caring about money. :p


Agree to disagree. I could go into a long explanation of why my points are right and your points are wrong, but what good would that do really? Probably not much. I'm happy you feel that modern Disney is very much the same Disney from Walt's day. I don't. Many agree with me, many agree with you, so let's just leave it at that.

I liked the film, I just wish another studio had made it. Fair enough?

_________________
____________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.

-Walt Disney


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:51 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:52 pm
Posts: 1685
Location: United Kingdom
I don't really understand the idealistic image that people have of Disney. It's a company. It's a movie studio. It makes films of all different shapes and sizes. I don't see people moaning about Warner Bros. or MGM or Fox.

The only crime that John Carter has committed is that of not being very good.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:55 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:05 pm
Posts: 5421
Location: Wichita, Kansas
I wish that all of the naysayers here would go see the movie before bad-mouthing it.

The history of how this film even got made is one that most people aren't even aware of. The initial books, and their are ten of them, were written in the early 1900's and were written in the language of the day which is very hard to understand today, so the books make a very good read.

The original screenplay was written in the late 70's and presented to various studios, none of which was interested except Warner Brothers. They picked it up and were going to originally make it an animated adventure. But back then, even the best special effects were lagging far behind, and Warners didn't want to do a live action film and be compared with "Star Wars".

"A Princess of Mars" sat on the shelves for almost 25 years before being rescued by Andrew Dalton, who was familiar with the plight of this movie. He saw a lot of promise that if done correctly could forge a new franchise in Disney catalog of films.

Doing some re-writing and a couple years of testing for CGI versus animated effects, Dalton came up with a workable script, and though it takes a lot of liberties with the John Carter books, such a the timeline of the stories, he presented a script to Disney that they could back.

"A Princess of Mars" slowly became "John Carter" and this past weekend we were treated to, in my opinion, one of the best movies to come out of Disney in a long time. Where this movie fails is the Disney publicity department didn't know how to promote this film. So they just did their usual thing of releasing a couple of teaser trailers, and then three full-length trailers and hope that word of mouth would spread about this movie.

Critics have been unkind toward "John Carter" because they aren't quite sure what that saw on the screen. So rather than be original with their critique of the movie they just reverted back to their opinions of most of the 'bad' Disney films of the past years.

I have seen both the IMAX 3-D and regular theater 3-D and later today I am going to see the 2-D presentation, because I loved this movie, and it is one of those films that you want to watch over again, the minute the credits begin to roll. I cannot wait for this film to come to Blu-ray, it will be at the top of my 'must-have' list until then.

Friday's box office reports were not very good, around $9 million just for one day, which means if it does that each of the three days it might be considered a 'bomb' for Disney studios. I hope not. I hope word of mouth about how really good this film is will get around and we will see it blossom at the box office. The film cries for a sequel at the end, and I hope that Disney doesn't give up on this and does make a second "John Carter of Mars" movie. I would love to see it.

_________________
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:16 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:26 am
Posts: 1113
Location: Las Vegas, NV
I knew it was going to be a Green Lantern-like bomb. When I saw it, there was almost nobody in the theatre.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:35 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:05 pm
Posts: 5421
Location: Wichita, Kansas
Probably because there isn't a slot machine at every seat!

The IMAX 3-D presentation I saw at Midnight Thursday night was sold out. and all of the matinee showings of the 3-D version at the Warren Theaters were sold out for Saturday, and the two early shows today are sold out.

Since we are in the Heartland, and I love it here, I think we are a better judge of the success of a movie, sometimes. The "John Carter" thing is still a big puzzle right now.

_________________
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:10 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:20 pm
Posts: 935
Green Lantern was almost unanimous in that it sucked. John Carter is getting mixed reviews so it's hardly fair to compare the two.

Sadly, the film is not going to be a "blockbuster" and will perform under budget. Even if word of mouth spreads and meets Tron Legacy's numbers, it will still arrive at way under cost in the US. The films opening weekend came in just under Prince of Persia. Most people I talk to have no real interest in seeing this, aside from just going to see the newest sci fi action movie of the moment.

(from box office mojo)
Image

Sucks, cause I personally loved John Carter, but when the studio releasing the movie has no faith in it, it doesn't have much hope. I wonder how much longer things can stay the way they are at Disney marketing before they bring in some people who know what the hell they're doing.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:39 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:39 pm
Posts: 3904
Location: ont. canada
I quite liked it and the place I saw it in last night was packed... at 10:30 PM!

-Skyler

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:58 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:23 pm
Posts: 888
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Box Office Report: 'John Carter' Earns Weak $30.6 Mil Domestically, $101.2 Mil Globally
The good news for Disney was that John Carter received a B+ CinemaScore and was up 25 percent on Saturday, reflecting positive buzz.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/b ... rax-298377

Foreign Box Office: 'John Carter' Dominates Overseas, Bagging $40 Million More Than Its Domestic Gross
Disney’s John Carter premiered worldwide on the weekend, and dominated the foreign portion of its theatrical run by grossing $70.6 million in its debut at about 8,300 screens in 51 overseas territories.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/f ... ney-298388

_________________
Favorite Disney-movies: Snow White, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Tangled, Frozen, Pirates, Enchanted, Prince of Persia, Tron, Oz The Great and Powerful


Last edited by Prince Edward on Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:47 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:27 pm
Posts: 2012
Andrew Dalton? I think you mean Andrew Stanton, dvdjunkie. :)

_________________
"If your life had a face, I would punch it." - Kim Pine, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:47 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:57 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: Puerto Rico
yamiiguy wrote:
I don't really understand the idealistic image that people have of Disney. It's a company. It's a movie studio. It makes films of all different shapes and sizes. I don't see people moaning about Warner Bros. or MGM or Fox.


Going horribly off topic for a bit, but here's the reason why...

One thing Disney does really, really well is sell an image, an image of quality, nostalgia and magic. Growing up, we absorb that idealistic concept and begin to see Disney as that; an idealistic image. When we grow up and see how much they have changed we reject that realistic image because it isn't what we grow up in. In reality, the image was always the same, just that the things we were introduced are different.

Like I said earlier, Disney always had young stars, epic movies and a wide range of efforts. Disney was always about making profit, was always about making movies that fit a certain target audience. The difference is that we grow up with a different concept of what those things are, so when we are introduced to the epic, new stuff we are like "OH NO THIS ISN'T THE DISNEY I GROW UP WITH I HATE THIS!". It's called nostalgic goggles: they make everything in the past seem better than it really was and makes the present look worse than it really is.

Just you watch... 20 or 30 years from now the kids that grow up watching these new Disney efforts they are going to look back and say "Man, today's Disney sucks. What happened to quality TV shows like Hannah Montana and great films like Pirates of the Caribbean? Disney has changed". Again, nostalgic goggles at work.

But going back on topic, it's unfortunate that the movie isn't doing well critically or commercially. Hopefully it will pick up in the later weeks.

_________________
ImageImageImageImage

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:24 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:31 am
Posts: 2681
Location: Ephrata, PA
Hopefully good worth of mouth keeps this film going at the box office. I thought it was a great sci fi action movie and would love to see more of them.

_________________
http://maerj.dvdaf.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:15 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:22 am
Posts: 908
Location: Buffalo
Maybe it's time Disney reboots their marketing department. What's happening now is nothing new.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:20 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:47 pm
Posts: 2260
Did you guys see where Andrew Stanton basically calls people who didn't like the movie jaded on twitter?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:24 am 
Offline
Gold Collection
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:08 pm
Posts: 164
Location: Somewhere
Kyle wrote:
Did you guys see where Andrew Stanton basically calls people who didn't like the movie jaded on twitter?


Yeah, there are far more graceful ways to deal with failure, then again, this was his big shot, so it's understandable if he's a little bitter.

What is with Disney and their inabbility to create a new franchise? Tron, Sorcerer's Apprentice, Prince of Persia, now John Carter, I mean c'mon, Johnny Depp can't keep making the Pirates movies forever.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:02 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:28 am
Posts: 2491
Dream Huntress wrote:
Kyle wrote:
Did you guys see where Andrew Stanton basically calls people who didn't like the movie jaded on twitter?


Yeah, there are far more graceful ways to deal with failure, then again, this was his big shot, so it's understandable if he's a little bitter.


Agreed, but there are far worse ways as well. Stanton's always been very outspoken, so it doesn't surprise me. Nor do I think less of him for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:35 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:33 am
Posts: 4427
Location: TX
Dream Huntress wrote:
What is with Disney and their inabbility to create a new franchise? Tron, Sorcerer's Apprentice, Prince of Persia, now John Carter, I mean c'mon, Johnny Depp can't keep making the Pirates movies forever.


Aren't they still planning to continue on with Tron and Sorcerer's Apprentice? That was the latest word I'd heard on the subjects. I wouldn't mind seeing more of both. Sorcerer's Apprentice did seem like such an obvious attempt to jump on the Potter and Potter-wannabes bandwagon (despite that most if not all Potter wannabes have failed), but I still found it pretty enjoyable for something so contrived.

I realize they were not Blockbusters or Pirates-level successes, but Pirates-level is asking a lot. Of course, I think the big problem with trying to start a new franchise is that it is so obvious now. Pirates of the Caribbean's first film was like the first Star Wars. It was just a good movie all by itself, even if no sequels followed. These other films they are making, you can tell from the get-go they are made for the purpose of being a franchise, and that's an instant turn-off for a lot of people, I think. Not really talking about John Carter here, which I haven't had the chance to go see yet, but stuff like Sorcerer's Apprentice and all those other movies, like Percy Jackson, Golden Compass, Series of Unfortunate Events, Vampire's Assistant, and all sorts of even less notable ones. Some of these I actually enjoyed, but it's kind of a turn off to go into a film expecting to not be fully satisfied until you've seen the whole as yet unmade saga, which really might never get made (and almost never does).

Stuff like John Carter and Prince of Persia though, which is clearly more in the Pirates vein than the Potter vein, going into them I am not immediately thinking of franchise material (probably because I am not very familiar with the source material), but reading here I can see that everyone else immediately knew they were a franchise attempt. I suppose, in truth, these days all movies hope to be a franchise unless they are dramas, in which they just hope to win Oscars.

Anyway, myself, like I said, I haven't seen John Carter. I would say the reason people didn't rush out to see it is that this is an age of big, sci-fi/action blockbusters, so it just seems to the eyes of people who are unfamiliar with the source material to be just one more of many. The trailers for the film were rather unremarkable. The only reason I am interested personally is because it is a Disney film and because I know the tiniest bit about the source material (not really any of the stories, which I've never read, but I knew OF the John Carter stories). If this film were released in a time when people were hungry for some new sci-fi/action adventure stuff, it would probably have a better chance, if the trailers did more to set it apart from the other action/effects extravaganzas being released all the time.

As for Prince of Persia, I saw that one in theaters and I really loved it. I knew nothing about the source material at the time, but someone told me it was a video game. I haven't purchased it yet, but I look forward to doing so.

_________________
<a href="http://moonlightmotelcomic.com/"><img alt="Check out my published content!" src="http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/010/b/8/moonlight_motel_banner_ad_by_slave2moonlight-d4lxrtt.png" border="0"></a>


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 254 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bruno_wbt, Kraken Guard and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group