Weekly Box Office and Film Discussion Thread

[Drtooth]

Planes did okay and the movie promotion helped to fan home video sales. The sequel makes complete financial sense. However, I believe that it's being is a blight on the Disney legacy of quality animated films. I caught the first film while actually on a plane going from Houston to San Francisco. Here's my brief 1-star review: A charmless made-for-tots movie with an impressive animation budget.

I think Disney should have shelved this one for the sake of appearance after Frozen beat the pants off of all the offerings from Pixar and Dreamworks last year and even edged out the runaway train that was Despicable Me 2.

My complaint with Planes is thus: It was barely a modest win if anything, and they're forcing the franchise down the throats like it was a win. The franchise was mainly a DTV boy's answer to the girl's Tinkerbell films. It's theatrical stay was no more than a last minute run that was going to make its money on home video anyway. The brand was made to sell toys, and the sequel was made the second they started the first one. They want this brand to happen at all costs to sell die cast planes. But not only is it an affront to Disney movie quality, but it's a blight on the merchandising as well. I mean, I'm 70-80 percent happy with Disney, but it should not be a franchise built on talking vehicles while other franchises are neglected. I'm glad we've got slightly more Muppet merchandise this go around, but it still pales in comparison to the unholy 2 kiosks full of Planes stuff no one actually wants.

The sequel looks like a glorified episode of Rescue Heroes. Only without anything that made Rescue Heroes even remotely entertaining.

But it's clearly getting a theatrical release only due to Pixar's Good Dinosaur being delayed.

 

[jvcarroll]

My complaint with Planes is thus: It was barely a modest win if anything, and they're forcing the franchise down the throats like it was a win. The franchise was mainly a DTV boy's answer to the girl's Tinkerbell films. It's theatrical stay was no more than a last minute run that was going to make its money on home video anyway. The brand was made to sell toys, and the sequel was made the second they started the first one. They want this brand to happen at all costs to sell die cast planes. But not only is it an affront to Disney movie quality, but it's a blight on the merchandising as well. I mean, I'm 70-80 percent happy with Disney, but it should not be a franchise built on talking vehicles while other franchises are neglected. I'm glad we've got slightly more Muppet merchandise this go around, but it still pales in comparison to the unholy 2 kiosks full of Planes stuff no one actually wants.

The sequel looks like a glorified episode of Rescue Heroes. Only without anything that made Rescue Heroes even remotely entertaining.

But it's clearly getting a theatrical release only due to Pixar's Good Dinosaur being delayed.

That's not a complaint against Disney as much as it about consumer spending.

FACT: Die Cast Vehicles will always outsell Muppets. Disney is just making sure kids are buying their die cast vehicles.

Planes was terrible, but it has an audience and a lucrative product line. This sequel was being filmed long before the first film came out. I'd rather focus on the good stuff that's coming and turn a blind eye to this one blip on the radar. It will vanish before it has a chance to diminish Disney's reputation. I don't really blame them for making money. Maybe this is the area where they can be cynical so that the Muppets are allowed more freedom. I don't know if that's the case, but I'm choosing to look at it that way.

As for the Pixar offering, well that had nothing to do with Planes. I'm glad they yanked it from release in order to make "The Good Dinosaur" a quality picture. I'm really pulling for that film since it's not a sequel.

 

[Drtooth]

FACT: Die Cast Vehicles will always outsell Muppets. Disney is just making sure kids are buying their die cast vehicles.

Planes was terrible, but it has an audience and a lucrative product line. This sequel was being filmed long before the first film came out. I'd rather focus on the good stuff that's coming and turn a blind eye to this one blip on the radar. It will vanish before it has a chance to diminish Disney's reputation. I don't really blame them for making money. Maybe this is the area where they can be cynical so that the Muppets are allowed more freedom. I don't know if that's the case, but I'm choosing to look at it that way.

I'll give Cars this. It was a successful film that sold out it's entire product line within weeks. I don't doubt for a moment that it's worthy of being one of Disney's big brands. But I just don't feel that with Planes. I don't see kids carrying around Dusty plush toys or wearing that Luchadore plane. They made the film cheap enough for it to make its money on home video, and they clearly had a plan of action for it for the money. But the film did so so, and every time I see an animated movie from a big brand doing so so, I never see that film ever mentioned again, let alone a sequel. Dreamworks films like Megamind and Monsters Vs. Aliens (though it did get a cartoon series) do so so, but because they don't hit that foreign audience, they get tossed aside. If it were any other Disney movie that did so so, it would disappear within a year. That's the thing that bugs me.

If anything, Planes should have been a TV series. Premise wise, it seems stronger as a preschool cartoon than a Cars Expanded Universe deal. I can't stress enough Dreamworks' Turbo works far better as that Netflix cartoon (and how). Still, Disney has stronger boy's brands than Planes with Cars, Jake and the Pirates, and Marvel (three concurrent cartoon series all in the same sort of continuity). On the one hand, it does make sense they want Planes to make money, but on the other hand, it feels like they desperately want to make it a thing. Like Hasbro and Littlest Pet Shop.

As for the Pixar offering, well that had nothing to do with Planes. I'm glad they yanked it from release in order to make "The Good Dinosaur" a quality picture. I'm really pulling for that film since it's not a sequel.

I'm actually quite worried about Brave-like background drama ruining the picture. I do indeed want to see it, but sometimes when a film is delayed it gets better, but other times it gets worried over and becomes less than it could have been.

 

[jvcarroll]

I'll give Cars this. It was a successful film that sold out it's entire product line within weeks. I don't doubt for a moment that it's worthy of being one of Disney's big brands. But I just don't feel that with Planes. I don't see kids carrying around Dusty plush toys or wearing that Luchadore plane. They made the film cheap enough for it to make its money on home video, and they clearly had a plan of action for it for the money. But the film did so so, and every time I see an animated movie from a big brand doing so so, I never see that film ever mentioned again, let alone a sequel. Dreamworks films like Megamind and Monsters Vs. Aliens (though it did get a cartoon series) do so so, but because they don't hit that foreign audience, they get tossed aside. If it were any other Disney movie that did so so, it would disappear within a year. That's the thing that bugs me.

If anything, Planes should have been a TV series. Premise wise, it seems stronger as a preschool cartoon than a Cars Expanded Universe deal. I can't stress enough Dreamworks' Turbo works far better as that Netflix cartoon (and how). Still, Disney has stronger boy's brands than Planes with Cars, Jake and the Pirates, and Marvel (three concurrent cartoon series all in the same sort of continuity). On the one hand, it does make sense they want Planes to make money, but on the other hand, it feels like they desperately want to make it a thing. Like Hasbro and Littlest Pet Shop.



I'm actually quite worried about Brave-like background drama ruining the picture. I do indeed want to see it, but sometimes when a film is delayed it gets better, but other times it gets worried over and becomes less than it could have been.

I'll say it again. FACT: Die Cast Vehicles (be they cars or planes) will always outsell Muppets. Disney is just making sure kids are buying their die cast vehicles.

I can't really fault them for trying to turn a buck. I just wish they tried to make these Planes films better.

 

[mr3urious]

The Lego Movie continues to be number 1 for the 3rd week in a row!

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2014&wknd=08&p=.htm

 

[Drtooth]

I can't really fault them for trying to turn a buck. I just wish they tried to make these Planes films better.

Neither can I, but there's a difference between making money off of a smash hit (I expect to see tons of Frozen merchandise forever, and the film critically and commercially deserves it), and trying to make a thing a thing with no takers. Cars is a strong franchise, Planes is only trying to piggy back on it. I've seen Disney trow stronger franchises, just as toyetic, if not more to the side.

Now if they did Trains first, I'd see that being a huge success. Lotsa kids love trains.

The Lego Movie continues to be number 1 for the 3rd week in a row!

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2014&wknd=08&p=.htm

Case in point. Lego has always been a strong brand, if not entirely with some problem periods. It didn't need to make a movie to sell toys, but I'll tell you this. While Lego stores I've been to weren't exactly empty every time I went, they've become cacophonously crowded ever since the film premiered. It's holding very strong, they've planned a sequel in 3 years, the merchandise specifically pertaining to the film is briskly disappearing from store shelves. But above all, they made a good movie. They thought of the film first and the franchise second. Planes was the franchise first and the film second. There's nothing wrong with making money, but more money is always made when the project is quality.

 

[jvcarroll]

Neither can I, but there's a difference between making money off of a smash hit (I expect to see tons of Frozen merchandise forever, and the film critically and commercially deserves it), and trying to make a thing a thing with no takers. Cars is a strong franchise, Planes is only trying to piggy back on it. I've seen Disney trow stronger franchises, just as toyetic, if not more to the side.

Now if they did Trains first, I'd see that being a huge success. Lotsa kids love trains.



Case in point. Lego has always been a strong brand, if not entirely with some problem periods. It didn't need to make a movie to sell toys, but I'll tell you this. While Lego stores I've been to weren't exactly empty every time I went, they've become cacophonously crowded ever since the film premiered. It's holding very strong, they've planned a sequel in 3 years, the merchandise specifically pertaining to the film is briskly disappearing from store shelves. But above all, they made a good movie. They thought of the film first and the franchise second. Planes was the franchise first and the film second. There's nothing wrong with making money, but more money is always made when the project is quality.

I think the choice of planes could be about keeping John Lasseter happy. But honestly, that's the project they developed and you kind of have to "dance with the one that brought you." The good thing is that I believe Planes will barely be a footnote in the history of Disney and sell a lot of product along the way. These pictures are really for just for the toddlers that like airplanes and dump trucks and fire engines. It's a shame that there's not a mature offering to balance it this year. But again, I can't really fault Disney for being a company that makes money off a financially successful series even if it isn't a runaway hit.

 

[Drtooth]

I get what your getting at. My main complaint is this.

Cars was an organic success because the want to make a movie about talking cars came before the merchandising. It was a concept that was toyetic naturally (much like Toy Story), but it was a film first. It became a runaway success for genuine kid appeal and a sequel was natural. It was going to happen with or without Pixar. If you notice, all of the films Pixar sequelled (minus Toy Story 2) were films Disney was threatening to make without them had they left if it wasn't for the buyout.

Planes is the opposite. It's trying to be Cars, but thinking backwards. The Toys, the franchise, the kid appeal, then the movie. The series was planned as a trilogy from the start (which would make it one more film than Cars in less than the time it took for the second Cars film). Overall, I get the feeling this wasn't meant to be so much a Cars expanded universe as they just wanted a boy's equivalent to the Tinkerbell DTV series. They just took the Cars expanded universe route because it was easier to branch out into an established product than to create something else.

Other than that, I just get the impression that Disney wants the franchise more than the consumer.

 

[jvcarroll]

I get what your getting at. My main complaint is this.

Cars was an organic success because the want to make a movie about talking cars came before the merchandising. It was a concept that was toyetic naturally (much like Toy Story), but it was a film first. It became a runaway success for genuine kid appeal and a sequel was natural. It was going to happen with or without Pixar. If you notice, all of the films Pixar sequelled (minus Toy Story 2) were films Disney was threatening to make without them had they left if it wasn't for the buyout.

Planes is the opposite. It's trying to be Cars, but thinking backwards. The Toys, the franchise, the kid appeal, then the movie. The series was planned as a trilogy from the start (which would make it one more film than Cars in less than the time it took for the second Cars film). Overall, I get the feeling this wasn't meant to be so much a Cars expanded universe as they just wanted a boy's equivalent to the Tinkerbell DTV series. They just took the Cars expanded universe route because it was easier to branch out into an established product than to create something else.

Other than that, I just get the impression that Disney wants the franchise more than the consumer.

I get it. I just don't fault something for being what it is. At least they didn't take an existing property and mess it up like Little Mermaid 16 1/2.

 

[Drtooth]

The more I think about it... Planes would work better as a TV series. More characters to make toys of, for one thing.

All I can think of is how much of a boon it was to Turbo. Now Turbo was a decent movie for what it was. For all the grief I gave it, when I finally let the curiosity get the better of me, I enjoyed it. Even though I still think the concept was pretty idiotic, and it had the biggest abuse of the "you can do anything" Aesop I've ever seen, that is. But then the cartoon comes out on Netflix, and I was pleasantly surprised. Sharper writing, character development, and just a complete improvement of the source material. Even the other snails got character building story lines, fleshing them out to multidimentional personalities instead of just a bunch of other collectible figures with celebrity voice actors. They're building up dramatic tension far superior than what the film ever did.