Sandra Bullock had a banner year in oh-nine with The Blind Side and The Proposal. The latter only cost $40million to make, and raked in an impressive $315million worldwide. That’s no Avatar, but still with results like that, there is going to be a sequel in the works right?
Well that’s how it works isn’t it? Apparently not how Disney rolls lately.
The studio behind the original hit has told the producers that it’s not interested in making a follow-up to one of its biggest 2009 hits. It’s all part of Disney’s new edict to make, essentially, only two kinds of films: The $150 million-plus blockbuster with lots of CGI and merchandising (i.e., anything that was once a ride at Disneyland or already a Disney title; anything old or new from Pixar; or a major character at Marvel Studios, for which it paid $4 billion last year) or the $30 million project with young, cheap, on-the-cusp movie stars. (Think Freaky Friday, a Disney-associated title which the studio is talking about making yet again, just seven years after the Lindsay Lohan remake.) “Everything in the middle,” says one producer on the Disney lot, “is toast.”
I like this approach for a couple reasons.
First, it means that films with a good showing wont be forced into unneccessary sequels unless they see serious return on investment. They are not concerning themselves with just boxoffice for cash, they want to be able to sell merchandise. Well as much as Bullock made for an appealing hardass executive with a hidden creamy center, she wouldn’t do well on a lunchbox, or toy. So they are letting it exist on its own as a complete project and looking forward.
So instead of just beating the dead horse trying to bleed the boxoffice of another round like Miss Congeniality 2, or Legally Blonde Even Blonderest, they are satisfied with telling stories that have an end, that stand on their own. Films that don’t cost a lot to make that could potentially have a big return at the boxoffice.
Of course this doesn’t rule out sequels, as it seems they are more than willing to mine and market the crap out of anything that can earn them the duckets. Cars might be widely considered the least favourite of Pixar’s stellar lineup, but even after 4 years since the film was released they are STILL able to sell toys based on the franchise. So of course they are getting a sequel. To sell more toys.
So we will continue to get the same magic from Pixar and Disney, with less dead horse beatings, and more toys. All things we already see from Disney, with some nice stand alone complete stories in the middle.
This all seems like a very sensible plan for the House of Mouse, after spending almost $10billion acquiring Pixar and Marvel in the last decade.
I’m reading this very, very differently. They’re fine with sequels within a certain context, but they’re not fine with making films that aren’t geared toward a big blockbuster audience… or a tween audience.
I don’t see room in what they said for another movie like The Proposal — seems to me they’re more looking toward tween audiences, with safe-bet reboots from movies in the past. This is sort of the approach Disney has taken to for many years now, it just looks like they’re axing anything that’s *not* in that plan.
Personally, I think any sort of absolute, where you’re not going to make a movie because it doesn’t fit in a very, very small box, is a *bad* business plan. Focusing on those small boxes may not be a bad business plan, but eliminating anything outside of it eliminates opportunities for studios to make a lot of dough — especially when other studios are proving you can make “Big Blockbusters” without the $150 million price tag (District 9 is a great example, Kickass is almost certain to make $100+ million with a $40 mil price tag, etc.). With today’s special effects becoming more and more accessible — and with so many states throwing money at the industry to produce films there (Massachusetts pays 1/4 of the entire film’s budget — even 1/4 of Tom Cruise’s $20+ million paycheck in a recent movie filmed here) — any studio that goes this route is going to lose some really good opportunities.
DJS… Last I check 15 to 25 years from now is from this point on…What character, and is that character worth a 150 million dollar movie?
The answer to that my friend is a good many Marvel properties, especially because those rights you talk about will eventually revert to Marvel and therefore Disney.
If you don’t think they’ll be making or rebooting Hulk, Thor, et al in 20 years…well then you haven’t been paying attention…the studios are ready to redo them now, becuase they know tey only have the rights for so long…
Lastly Ryan hit the nail on the head with states desperate for production offering large credits, which will entice even larger budgets since they are only paying 75 cents on the dollar, and GD California about to start TAXING the crap out of everything…
Sounds like they got their shit together (was this ever a question?)
I don’t understand why they’re doing a Cars sequel… they should’ve done The Incredibles 2.
But the question is… does every movie needs a sequel? What Disney is doing is nothing new, I mean, its not written in stone that every movie needs a sequel.
They are doing new stuff. Thats what the article says. Either they will make blockbusters and sequels they can market and merchandise on, or they will make lower budget stand alone films that have more potential for return on investment.
Making ten $30Million films that earn them a $50million dollar profit each is better than hoping a $150m film earns them $100m – which is riskier.
At least the $150m film might have marketing angles and they could profit off of toy lines and merch as well.
“Everything in the middle,” says one producer on the Disney lot, “is toast.”
This is almost verbatim the quote from an article in The Economist a month or two ago that described the effect the internet has had on mainstream media. Basically the article stated that the end of the tail (i.e., Disney’s $30 million projects) and beginning of the tail (i.e., the blockbusters) will be fine, but anything in between will suffer. I guess The Economist was spot on, at least with regard to this studio. Glad I don’t make my living in Hollywood, best of luck to you all.
Awesome for me.
Horrible fucking idea for them, wow, do they have families to feed? huh.
Well! Im not complaining. Like, at all.
Can I gag now?
First off, Proposal is a bad example because that rom-com didn’t have an opening for a possible sequel. Second, this is not a good idea. It’s actually terrible. It’s horrible. How can you, much less anyone in their right mind, see this as a good thing?
Yeah sure. The Disney-Pixar bond will not be broken anytime soon. That’s safe. No problem there. The Marvel deal. What character, and is that character worth a 150 million dollar movie? Park Rides. Aside from Pirates, which one worked as a film?
But what bothers me is that they are cutting off middle of the road pix that have no pre-existing name value. Thus, we won’t see any more films like The Proposal, (what does it really mean, closing down Touchtone?)
Call me a huge skeptic.
That a film didn’t have an opening for a sequel is inconsequential to considering making one. As a rule, if a film makes serious bank, they will find a way to sequel to try and make more money on it.
The Proposal is a prime example of the type of film they are interested in making.
A film they can make with a relatively low budget, that stands on its own and brings in money, then is left alone.
Thats how I see this as a good thing.
The Proposal had Bullock plucked out of near obscurity (she hasn’t hit big in a while before this) and Reynolds right on his rise while he was still affordable to put out a good romcom for very little money.
The film delivered an enjoyable movie to the masses, while still generously lining their pockets on the return. That is a Win-Win, and something I would want to see Disney do more of.
Agreed Rodney, and it’s why directors like Kevin Smith can have a solid Hollywood career without a “hit”.
It also gives more opportunity to the young (er) talent in Hollywood, since Disney can gamble a “small” 30m film with fresh talent, and develop their own stable a la Old Hollywood.
As for the first commenter’s worry about new comic book movies, well, there are PLENTY that haven’t hit the screen yet, and also they really only need 10-12 total characters, since they can do an Iron Man trilogy, Capt America, Avengers, Hulk, Thor, Wolverine, X-Men, Daredevil, Blade, Fantastic Four, The Punisher, Ghost Rider, Moon Knight, and X Men spinoffs is REALLY all they need.
Remember in the new Hollywood, they can remake/reboot these in 15-25 year cycles.
This is why George Lucas should let someone else “reboot” Star Wars from either the Past,
“Old Republic” or Future “New Jedi Order”.
Boba, they are not talking about Marvel related films 15 to 25 years from now, they are talking about from this point on. And once again, someone puts words in my mouth that I never said.
I repeat. At this moment, Disney has no films in development in regards to Marvel characters that will have a 150 budget. Boba, with the exception of Moon Knight, all the characters you mention are under distribution from other studios or whose rights are with other studios.
I also repeat: cutting out a segment of the movie going populace is a mistake. Not every 30 million produced film should require Tween actors who Disney merchs out like crazy.
As for you Rodney:
“The Proposal had Bullock plucked out of near obscurity (she hasn’t hit big in a while before this) and Reynolds right on his rise while he was still affordable to put out a good romcom for very little money.”
I am not arguing how well Proposal did or did not do.
I am not badmouthing anything about the casting. (Why make your lame comment? That’s a mystery) I said nothing to contradict what your quip says. The above article you quote clearly states that even though Proposal made money, and the producers considered ways to do a sequel, Disney said no. So your comments puzzle me. They are not looking for Proposal 2.
They are looking for two kinds of pictures. It’s clearly stated. One is a big budget breaker, the other, a modest budget Tween/Teen picture.
This is not a win-win. This is a huge gamble. They are cutting out that Proposal audience. They clearly said it, did they not?
They clearly said no sequel, did they not?
I don’t see how this is “cutting out the Proposal audience” when they clearly state that they will not sequel it, but look for projects that are less of a risk hoping it will have results like it.
The “proposal audience” is the people who would be willing to see a standalone film with rising talent that they spent relatively little money on.