New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Daron Aldridge: By adding The Lone Ranger to that unholy trinity of financial disaster, are we sure it wasn't originally titled “The Lone Ranger from Mars”?

With regards to "original" (meaning non-acquired) titles, you also have to throw National Treasure in the mix alongside Pirates of the Caribbean. It's admittedly not the multi-billion dollar enterprise of Jack Sparrow but it was a great foundation for a franchise that spawned only one sequel before Nicolas Cage decided to make a crap-ton of terrible movies instead of another National Treasure film. Was it entirely Cage’s decision? Probably not but he’s as good of a scapegoat as anyone. Maybe he can be blamed for The Lone Ranger, too.

Also, not all their acquired properties are sure things. Look at The Chronicles of Narnia. The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe did incredible business domestically ($291 million versus $180 million budget) but the follow up Prince Caspian failed to duplicate with its $225 million budget and only $141 million North American gross. Hmmmm…A $225 million misfire…sounds familiar. It did hit $400+ million box office but that was thanks to the rest of the world. (Incidentally, Disney DID have a Prince Caspian attraction at its Hollywood Studios park up until last year, when it was replaced by a Pirates of the Caribbean: Legend of Jack Sparrow experience.) Caspian the film’s performance resulted in Disney walking away from the series and Fox picking it up with Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which also grossed less domestically but matched the global take of Prince Caspian. Unfortunately, the reports that I read this morning don't spell similar international success for The Lone Ranger. It has only earned $23 million so far overseas from more than two dozen countries.

Sorry for that tangent to Narnia, but I think that Disney has had enough misfires of both the in-house and acquired property variety that they are content with using their deep pockets to use the "throw everything against that wall and see what sticks" mentality. Unfortunately, there are only so many pieces of $200 million spaghetti that you can fling before someone has to wise up and start shopping for cheaper noodles.

Bruce Hall: I think part of what I'm hearing here is a general consensus that the success of acquired properties like Marvel helps give Disney the latitude to swing for the fence with things like Pirates AND John Carter. It's often said that major studios are too risk averse, but one of the reasons why is the amount of money involved. There will probably be more misses than hits, but if picking up properties like Star Wars helps stimulate variety over there, who am I to complain?

Kim Hollis: While I agree that their "sure thing" franchises give Disney an opportunity to take some chances on some different franchises, I really believe they've got to start being more discerning with the projects they greenlight. I think in both the case of John Carter and The Lone Ranger, you had some person or persons who were so attached to the source material that they had a hard time letting go and saying at some point, "Okay, this is just a bad idea." It's fine to be enthusiastic about a book or TV show you loved once, but smart people should be able to do the calculations and figure out when an investment is a bad one. That comment doesn't just apply to Disney, by the way.

Continued:       1       2       3