Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
October 14, 2015
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Ben Gruchow: These six examples are all ultimately best answerable on a case-by-case basis, but Alice in Wonderland: Tim Burton as a brand. Maleficent: Angelina Jolie. Without her, I'm confident this would have bombed. Cinderella was clearly a straight-ahead retelling of the story, classically filmed, without any kind of twist. All of them were ultimately safe, corporatized films, just like a live-action Disney movie will be: I don't think anyone over the age of 14 thought any of the three were going to be amazing, but you know you're getting a certain baseline of competency and quality.
Timing was also a big factor: Alice in Wonderland, Maleficent, and Cinderella were all released at least a month away from the last big film that shared the same audience. In Alice's case, it was several months. There's also a big difference between the first of these and the second and third in terms of earnings.
Apart from that: Pan opened in the shadow of The Martian (which pulled in more family audiences more than I expected), and we've already seen that audiences are paying a surprising amount of attention to reviews this year. The closest thing to a brand reference you can get with Jack the Giant Slayer is Jack and the Beanstalk, which was (I'd argue) not an exciting enough brand. Mirror Mirror looked as silly and inconsequential as it was, and it also got crushed by The Hunger Games like everything else in late March.
So I guess the lesson is: um, be Disney. Be Disney if you're going to do a fairy tale, be Disney if you're going to do a fairy tale with a wrinkle, and especially be Disney if you're going to release a fairy tale outside of summer.
Edwin Davies: To build on what Ben said, and as I alluded to in my answer to the previous question, Disney has had a monopoly on these kinds of stories (and on these specific characters) for generations. Even though the likes of Cinderella, Alice In Wonderland and Snow White all existed prior to Disney and have been realized in lots of different versions over the years, the Disney animated ones have been the definitive ones, and as such all Disney-sanctioned updates like Alice and Cinderella have a ring of authenticity to them that Pan and Mirror, Mirror lack.
It's also worth noting that the more successful versions of these films often (though not always) offer something new. Burton's Alice in Wonderland was a sequel to the original and promised a new story with familiar characters; Snow White and the Huntsman took the Snow White story and pushed it into the high fantasy genre in an interesting way; Maleficent told the Sleeping Beauty story from a different perspective. Pan, despite being a prequel, just looked like a rehash of a story we've all seen before, but with some of the names changed.
Ryan Kyle: I think the simple answer is "Disney-quality." Alice, Maleficent, and Cinderella all looked good and were made by the most trusted film brand out there. Pan, Jack the Giant Slayer, and Mirror Mirror all seemed like extravagant wastes of talent and VFX and were produced by studios other than Disney. Also, the aforementioned factor of timing also played a big role in all of these successes. Alice in Wonderland rode the 3D wave post-Avatar to an extraordinary level (one that Oz: The Great and Powerful rode to a lesser, but still impressive, effect - and was made by Disney). WB already was bit in this genre by Red Riding Hood a few years back and that was made for $35 million, so it's surprising they went back to the same well, but with such an explosive budget.
David Mumpower: We mention Disney quality as an explanation, and I do agree that's a true on a situational basis. If Disney could make anything work, however, John Carter and The Lone Ranger wouldn't have bombed. Their skill set does seem to be fairy tales, but I refuse to believe that nobody else is capable of succeeding in the same sandbox. The fact that so many of these fail is an indictment on the studio system greelight and filmmaking processes.
Pan's a tremendous example of a story that is timeless turned into a movie that looks like hot garbage in the desert sun. It's not the concept that fails in these instances but rather the execution. Yes, Disney deserves credit for getting a lot right, but that statement seems to provide absolution for the studios that fail. We should expect more rather than tolerate these sorts of inexcusable disappointments.
Kim Hollis: If you were heading up a movie production, would you rather be in charge of a completely original concept or an adaptation from a well-known property?
Ben Gruchow: It depends on how many times I'd headed up a movie production before. If this is my first time, I'd probably go for an adaptation. It'd be better exposure, and it would provide a good opportunity to do stylistic exploration and experimentation with a story that's already locked down and established. The more times it's away from my first, I'd probably want to do more original work.
Edwin Davies: I'd probably want to be behind an original production because there would be fewer preconceptions. If you're working with a pre-established set of characters - especially ones that are iconic like Peter Pan - then everyone involved is going to have a lot of ideas about what that character is meant to be and what their story should look like. With original concepts, that baggage is gone, and there is less risk of being shot down before the film is even completed due to making changes that people don't like.
Ryan Kyle: This is a very tough question as there are many variables. Is the original concept audience-friendly? How big is the budget? Is the well-known property going to be a sequel or a reboot?
Assuming the original concept has a correlating double-digit budget to its amount of potential appeal, I'd prefer doing something new. The new concept can prove to become a well-known property and there aren't preconceived expectations on what the film should be like due to an established canon. If it is a $100 million+ project though, I'd definitely choose an adaptation to play it a bit safer.
David Mumpower: What I like about the question is that there's no right or wrong answer. A director like Christopher Nolan can make his bones through original concepts, while Brad Bird did just fine with his first live action adaptation, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. I see the situation as fairly simple to evaluate.
Taking a known property guarantees you a certain amount of box office, and you need that revenue to guarantee that you'll keep working in the industry. You also probably cap your upside since you won't have a lot of original ideas to add to a known theme. If you're risk-averse, this is the choice.
Conversely, a new story guarantees you nothing. If you create a dud, the studio will bury it, and you'll never be heard from again in this industry. Conversely, if you pull off a Safety Not Guaranteed using your own ideas, you'll be directing billion dollar movies and Star Wars sequels before you know it. There's exponentially more risk but also more reward. I believe in myself and my ideas, so I'd avoid known properties. That's not a more conservative, calculating professional should do, though.