These are trying times for filmmakers who want to make something that isn’t based a comic book or cereal box, but we didn’t realize that things were so bad that even the most successful, mainstream fare is being scrutinized by the big studios.
After a disastrous 2009 for Disney which saw “Old Dogs,” “G-Force,” “Surrogates” and “Confessions Of A Shopaholic” tank at the box office, new studio president Rich Ross has laid down the law. There will only be two kinds of films made at Disney: mid-budget films with broad appeal young, up-and-coming stars (think “Freaky Friday” with Lindsay Lohan) or big budget CGI/Pixar/Marvel films that will spawn licensed goods. As one producer on the Disney lot says, “Everything in the middle is toast.”
And apparently, also “toast” is basic common sense too. “The Proposal,” the other surprise Sandra Bullock hit this year, cost $40 million to make and took in a mind-boggling $315 million worldwide (very similar numbers to “The Hangover”). A sequel would seem a natural right? Not so, says Disney. Because they can’t make lunch boxes or turn the film into a ride that means it’s a no go. Some of the gems we can look forward to from Disney? “Jungle Cruise” (based on the ride), “Tron” (which will sell lots of geek crap) and the Muppet movie (duh) among others.
But to get the full grasp of Hollywood’s warped logic that now seems to be driving things, one only has to look over to Universal’s decision to greenlight another “Riddick” film with Vin Diesel. By all accounts, “The Chronicles Of Riddick” was a failure. It grossed a mere $116 million worldwide on a budget of about $105 million – not a great profit margin. So why bother with another one? Apparently, the video games are still garnering enough interest and sales to make another film worthwhile.
We’re sure stockholders are very pleased that the studios are widening their revenue streams, but for the rest of us, the cinematic landscape just got a little bleaker.
Thank God they are not doing Proposal 2. I could barely sit through Proposal 1(no pun intended).Actually i have only seen half of the movie and it would not be wrong to say that baring the nearly nude tango of Miss Bullock .there was nothing worth while.
Ross is painting Disney into a corner. The failure to maintain a diversified line of product in development is always a big mistake. Always. When the winds of public taste suddenly shift (and they always do), Disney will have exactly zip in the development pipeline with which to react. That will stick them 12-18 months behind their more prepared competitors. (And issuing blanket edicts about what you will or won't buy is just plain stupid. Ask Jeff Zucker how that works out.)
Penny wise, pound foolish.
I don't know if I would miss the loss of "Old Dogs 2"…
Disney is just being honest. They will continue to make crappy cash films like they have always done. It's not like it is a loss in the film community since they didn't make real films anyway. But I have to admit, hearing it said out loud is a bit jarring (all official and everything), and some kind of
farewell is in order to the loss of the pretense maybe?
I don't think this is a good idea for Disney – they're not always going to be able to rely on these lunch box movies, and saying so out loud?? Where's the discretion?
But then again, Disney does NOT make good films outside of the Pixar variety. So is this a real change?
Just because Chronicles of Riddick kinda of bombed doesn't mean some of us didn't enjoy the MOVIE! Because I sure as hell enjoy it and I'm glad they are finally going to make another one!