Topic: Is anyone interested in this movie?
Kathryn !TGirlYJKXM started this discussion 14 years ago #20,159
It is a Pixar film if that means anything.(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later[^] [v] #328,013
fuck offAnonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #328,044
I'm sure it will be better than Tangled; the last attempt to subvert the classic princess trope. Even though Pixar will make a better film, I can't help wonder if little girls actually like this sassy, badass tomboy princess thing the way it's presented now. It's all so tongue in cheek as if strong female protagonists don't exist in animation. Hello, Mulan!
Mulan made over $120 million domestic with a budget of $90 million and extremely positive reviews. Tangled had a budget of $260 Mil and total domestic gross of $200 Mil with mixed reviews. These CG animated film budgets are getting way out of hand and much of the creative spark seems to be gone. So I might see it. Just not really excited or expecting much.
Mulan made over $120 million domestic with a budget of $90 million and extremely positive reviews. Tangled had a budget of $260 Mil and total domestic gross of $200 Mil with mixed reviews. These CG animated film budgets are getting way out of hand and much of the creative spark seems to be gone. So I might see it. Just not really excited or expecting much.
Kathryn !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 23 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #328,046
@previous (C)
I've been wanting to re-watch Mulan for sometime now. I thought Tangled mostly got positive reviews.
Kind of unrelated, but what is the estimated amount of young girls who watch My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic?
I've been wanting to re-watch Mulan for sometime now. I thought Tangled mostly got positive reviews.
Kind of unrelated, but what is the estimated amount of young girls who watch My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 27 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #328,048
disney should return to its roots with the classic animation style instead of all of this carbon copy 3d animation stuff. it had its run and peaked at toy story 3 but its time to try something different.
Kathryn !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #328,050
@previous (D)
Why do I get the feeling that Disney might try rebooting some of their classic animated movies in CG?
Why do I get the feeling that Disney might try rebooting some of their classic animated movies in CG?
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #328,052
@previous (Kathryn !TGirlYJKXM)
in the same way george lucas made new editions of the first three star wars films?
in the same way george lucas made new editions of the first three star wars films?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 47 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #328,065
it looks kind of nice
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 27 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #328,072
@328,046 (Kathryn !TGirlYJKXM)
Watch it now. Mulan is great story of an empowered female without trying too hard. I don't follow TV numbers that closely. It's probably 2:1 against bronies.
@328,048 (D)
That is so reasonable that they will never do it. An animated feature using traditional methods can be made for a small fraction of these CG affairs. Aladdin was made for something like 30 million and grossed over 200 million domestic. Even Winnie the Pooh (which was mortally hamstrung by Harry Potter opening the same week) was made for 30 and grossed 33 including foreign sales. CG just doesn't make good financial sense most of the time. The Japs get this. I don't know why American executives don't.
Watch it now. Mulan is great story of an empowered female without trying too hard. I don't follow TV numbers that closely. It's probably 2:1 against bronies.
@328,048 (D)
That is so reasonable that they will never do it. An animated feature using traditional methods can be made for a small fraction of these CG affairs. Aladdin was made for something like 30 million and grossed over 200 million domestic. Even Winnie the Pooh (which was mortally hamstrung by Harry Potter opening the same week) was made for 30 and grossed 33 including foreign sales. CG just doesn't make good financial sense most of the time. The Japs get this. I don't know why American executives don't.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #328,074
@previous (C)
even if it was in a faux 2d setting using 3d graphics it would still make bank, but i dunno
even if it was in a faux 2d setting using 3d graphics it would still make bank, but i dunno
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #328,075
@previous (D)
I'm not sure how much money that would save. There are a lot of animation styles out there not being explored. You're right that 3D and CG aren't necessary to turn a profit.
I'm not sure how much money that would save. There are a lot of animation styles out there not being explored. You're right that 3D and CG aren't necessary to turn a profit.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #328,109
nope
elmo joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #328,137
it looks pretty interesting
I probably won't watch it though
I probably won't watch it though
realdw !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #328,185
they made a temple run expansion thing for it