Thursday, March 08, 2012

This Won't be Good ...

... for Uncle Walt's place. Or the Golden Circle in Emeryville.

'The Lorax' Poised to Beat Up 'John Carter' at the Box Office

“The Lorax,” a $70 million animated feature in its second week of release, is going to wallop Disney’s $250 million-plus “John Carter” at the box office this weekend.

And no one will be surprised. ...

Usually, studios underplay box office expectations, or at least provide conservative estimates. In “John Carter’s” case, the studio says it “aspires” to an opening in the $30 million range. ...

The trailers haven’t exactly resonated; critics have been tough on it, too. Metacritic gives “John Carter” a 53. Movie Review Intelligence gives it a 47.2. And Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 49.

“It feels very much like, ‘Been there, done that,’” a rival studio executive told TheWrap. ...

"Been there."

A sour irony if one of the high fliers from Pixar gets taken down by the lower budget animated feature from Mac Guff, wouldn't you say? Only goes to show that just because you're the Big Cheese in one venue, it doesn't necessarily translate to other areas of show biz.

Oh well. At least Brad did okay with the Tom Cruise picture ...

(The L.A. Times draws much the same conclusion as The Wrap: "JC" won't have a happy time of it this weekend. Let's pray these soothsayers are wrong.)

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

This isn't a "Pixar" picture, it's a DISNEY picture, as this article explains:


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/17/111017fa_fact_friend?currentPage=all

Anonymous said...

I remember attending the Screenwriting Expo that had Pixar featured. Andrew Stainton gave a great keynote speech, but had an interesting observation of how Hollywood is flawed in how it makes movies and how Pixar was immune to that system. Funny now that he's in it, he didn't figure out a way to making our crappy system better.

Anonymous said...

Is he David Stainton's brother? They sort of look the same.

Steve Hulett said...

^ No.

Steve Hulett said...

This isn't a "Pixar" picture, it's a DISNEY picture,

Don't even know what that means, anon.

Pixar was purchased by Disney years ago. Pixar was staffed by ex-Disney artists (Bird, Ranft, Lasseter) and cross-pollination has gone on for decades, to the point where trying to draw a bright line between "Pixar" and "Disney" is pointless.

And Andrew Stanton is a talent born and bred at Pixar, but is now a Disney director.

Besides which, "Disney" stopped being Disney when Roy and Walt died. And that was forty-plus years ago.

Even Steve Jobs is dead.

Anonymous said...

Brad Bird wasn't at Pixar until well after the company was well established. And most of the folks who established the company were most certainly NOT former Disney employees. Lasseter worked at Disney pretty briefly when you think about it, although Ranft was a Disney employee throughout his entire employment at Pixar--even before Disney bought Pixar. That's about it. The rest, like Ed Catmull, Alvy Ray Smith, William Reeves, Loren Carpenter, and Thomas Porter were scientists from a diverse background. And the rest of the creative core from Toy Story on, like Pete Docter, Jeff Pidgeon, Andrew Stanton, Ralph Eggleston and Bob Pauly still there were fresh out of film school, with varying degrees of experience in the industry--although none at Disney.

Floyd Norman said...

Walt and Roy are gone. Roy Edward is gone. Steve Jobs departed last year.

Fasten your seat belts, Disney geeks. It's gonna be an E ticket ride.

Anonymous said...

I fully expect Disney to announce a sequel to John Carter nonetheless. Just like it did with that underwhelming Muppet movie. Spin it, Disney!

Anonymous said...

You old fucks are depressing.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it will be as good as that epic Prince of Persia was.

Floyd Norman said...

...and young fucks aren't?

meh! said...

no. young fcks are pathetic.

d.

Anonymous said...

"I fully expect Disney to announce a sequel to John Carter nonetheless. Just like it did with that underwhelming Muppet movie. Spin it, Disney!"

We get it. Your daddy molested you with a Kermit puppet. You poor soul.

Anonymous said...

jester says: Ha! he just torch your freakin ass, good one! young ones ARE pathetic...... but then again I'm 18 years old and how come I'm not offended by this? But ether or way, always respect adults. Remember children, learn the number one rule
old ones know how to defend themselves!
=D YEAH!

Anonymous said...

**We get it. Your daddy molested you with a Kermit puppet.**

Ha. Expect that from a muppet worshipper. Bet you sleep with a Miss Piggy doll.

Anyway, I'm glad I'm not a Disney stockholder, that's all. The good news is, after two loser movies in a row, maybe the deadwood will get cleared out and the Mouse House will get a fresh start. Again.

Anonymous said...

"Wah, the Disney's have been dead for years, Disney isnt what it used to be..."

Get over it. At least us young fucks are optimistic and positive and working hard to make awesome, believable, meaningful animated films, and not dwelling on the past.

Besides, some of my favorite Disney films are from the 90's, long after Walt died.

Anonymous said...

No you young guys are more naive and clueless.

Anonymous said...

"At least us young fucks are optimistic and positive and working hard to make awesome, believable, meaningful animated films"

Then you're going to have to try harder than "Tangled".

Anonymous said...

"Ha. Expect that from a muppet worshipper. Bet you sleep with a Miss Piggy doll."

If that were true then I would at least be straight, but seriously I don't care for the Muppets.

But you have this hard on for them - bringing them up in every topic. You really need some help.

Anonymous said...

"You old fucks are depressing."

It's true. But that doesn't mean we can't get excited about new things going on. Animation has a bigger platform than it ever has, and I'm continually surprised at all the cool animation being done all over the place.

Just tell me a good story. I'll pay.

Anonymous said...

All of us middle age fucks are just useless...

Anonymous said...

Then you're going to have to try harder than Tangled

Obvious flame-baiting there. Name one CG film with better animation than Tangled. Go on. We're waiting.

By the way, I'm not the "young fuck" from above. I'm a proud middle aged fuck as well

Anonymous said...

*crickets*

diablo said...

Bugs Life. Monsters Inc. How to Train Your Dragon. Ratatoille.Incredibles. Chicken Little. Those have better animation than Tangled, which is a fading memory at this point....

d.

Anonymous said...

LOL. Go back and watch those films. Other than How To Train Your Dragon, those films all show signs of age.

Im dead serious. Put them in your DVD player now. You'll find timing and spacing issues, bad deformations, over acting, etc etc. Im not saying Tangled is perfect, but its definitely in a different category. Ratatouille is the only one you could honestly argue a case for.

And Im saying this as one of their competitors.

diablo said...

You're only counting the misses on those films and disregarding the hits. Tangled was completely forgettable. Disney can and should do better han that.

pffft said...

there's no overacting in Tangled? interesting.....Tangled will never show signs of aging in a few years? hmmm....slapstick is not an old form of humour?

Anonymous said...

Tangled was completely forgettable

You're talking story. Im talking animation.

And I know its my opinion, and maybe it's because Glen Keane was the supervisor on that film, but I dont think when you weigh films by their animation quality alone, that any film; Incredibles, Ratatouille, Panda, Dragons, are as well animated as Tangled was. Thats all Im saying.

/opinion

diablo said...

And what I'm saying is that there are scenes from all those movies, that I can RECALL as beng ones where the ANIMATION was great, while Tangled, I cant recall a single scene where I was impressed by the animation.
NOT talking story here. Im still talking animation. Keep the strawman out of this!
And while you reffer to Glen Keane, well I can easily reffer to Nick Raniery for other films, so what?!?
Im talking acting choices too. Your trivial objections don't really address acting choices,except for over acting that you mentioned. In some cases,I actually preffer over acting, because it is memorable. I'll agree there's a fine line between over acting and hammy/cheesy! Jack Nicholson, Daniel Day Lewis and Pacino walk that fine line all the time. But they get memorable perfomances after all. I can't recall an acting choice by someone like Meryl Streep ( a great actress, yes) but I can definetly recall Lewis or Nicholson!

Personally,I find entertainment value more important than subtlety, which has become a trend in animation these days. also an opinion.

d.

Anonymous said...

Tangled, I cant recall a single scene where I was impressed by the animation.

Stares blankly in disbelief.

Bobby Pontillas said...

I'm not sure why different generations here would feel the need to sh*t on one another. But the talent that's at Disney now, we ARE optimistic, working hard to make our mark and push forward. All with complete reverence for the generations of artists that came before us.

Site Meter