DVDizzy Forum

PatrickvD wrote:

Sotiris wrote: Well, according to Sceen Crush, Disney removed this trailer and "revealed that it played last year at the D23 Expo".

Which explains why it only said 'coming soon'.

Also why Jon Cryer is still the voice of the lead character, even though he reportedly dropped out.

According to Stitch Kingdom, Dane Cook will be replacing Jon Cryer as the voice of Dusty Crophopper.

Sotiris wrote:According to Stitch Kingdom, Dane Cook will be replacing Jon Cryer as the voice of Dusty Crophopper.

Okay, that's it. Pass.

Usually I admit that I'd probably going to end up seeing a movie but for this one I think I will pass.

PatrickvD wrote:Okay, that's it. Pass.

I'm not at all familiar with his work. Is he really that bad? By the way, Disney has re-uploaded the teaser trailer with Cook's voice.

Sotiris wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:Okay, that's it. Pass.

I'm not at all familiar with his work. Is he really that bad? By the way, Disney has re-uploaded the teaser with Cook's voice.

I think he'll be just fine for the part, although I'm not a fan of him for the most part. He was funny when he first started out, then he got big and became kind of obnoxious.

I still can't believe this is getting a theatrical release. The whole world is going to assume it's a Pixar production, and unless the film turns out to be an unexpected masterpiece, that's going to be a significant "brand withdrawal" (to use Bob Iger's term) for Disney, Pixar, and the Cars franchise. I'm really surprised Lasseter is seemingly approving of this.

AwallaceUNC wrote:I still can't believe this is getting a theatrical release. The whole world is going to assume it's a Pixar production, and unless the film turns out to be an unexpected masterpiece, that's going to be a significant "brand withdrawal" (to use Bob Iger's term) for Disney, Pixar, and the Cars franchise. I'm really surprised Lasseter is seemingly approving of this.

I'm pretty sure he had a gun to his head at every screening of this film.

I don't know, Lasseter's a total Cars geek, I assume he's just as geeky about this. I think he probably genuinely enjoys it. But I agree, I think the Pixar brand will definitely take a hit from this. I think we'll continue to see a sort of blending of Disney and Pixar in terms of public perception in the future.

AwallaceUNC wrote:I still can't believe this is getting a theatrical release. The whole world is going to assume it's a Pixar production, and unless the film turns out to be an unexpected masterpiece, that's going to be a significant "brand withdrawal" (to use Bob Iger's term) for Disney, Pixar, and the Cars franchise.

I fully agree. While I wouldn't mind it being a DTV film series because it can't do any damage as the Cars franchise already sucks and no one cares about it, I think that going theatrical is a big mistake in any given scenario.

• If Planes is critically panned, it will hurt Pixar's image as both press and audience will perceive it as a Pixar film.

• If it is critically praised, it would be a big embarrassment for Pixar to have the studio that produced the infamous "cheapquels" make a better film than their own Cars and Cars 2.

• If it flops at the box office, it would also hurt Pixar's image as many will erroneously perceive it as a Pixar film and proclaim the death of Pixar's box office reign.

• If it turns out to be a big financial success, that could be detrimental to both Pixar and WDAS. Planes had a very small budget and its animation was outsourced to India. Disney could possibly pressure Pixar and WDAS to lower their films' budget or outsource some of the animation since this method had been proven successful and cost-effective in the case of Planes.

• It will directly compete with DreamWorks' similarly-themed Turbo. DreamWorks desperately needs a success after the financial failure of Rise of the Guardians. Another box office disappointment will result in even more layoffs and instability at the studio which will be detrimental to the animation industry as a whole.

In short, nothing good can come out of a theatrical release for Planes.

PatrickvD wrote:I'm pretty sure he had a gun to his head at every screening of this film.

According to this reliable insider, it was Lasseter who had been pushing for a theatrical release.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't think Disney has forced anything on Lasseter. DisneyToon Studios is under Lasseter's jurisdiction who oversees all of its product. He attends story meetings, gives notes and greenlights projects. Considering his powerful position within the company and that the Cars franchise is his pet project, I highly doubt Disney could force this project onto the studio if he wasn't 100% on board.

Perfect post Sotiris. I agree 100%. Especially your point about Dreamworks - I hadn't thought of that before. As much as I usually prefer Disney and Pixar films, I'd hate to see Dreamworks fall farther than they have already.

It's lovely that we can put a negative spin on it should the movie becomes a critical and financial success. Really, it being a success would only help the Disney brand name, who cares if Pixar get embarrassed (which I doubt they will). Admittedly, I have no idea about the chances of the management pushing for lower budgets should the film be a financial success.


Regarding Dreamworks, if their film can't beat a film intended to be DTV that has markedly lower production values, it's their own fault and would mean that Turbo was not likely to be a success anyway.

qindarka, that's a horribly negative view on the animation industry. While you're right that Turbo was probably never going to be a massive hit, don't you feel sympathetic for Dreamworks and the hundreds (yes, hundreds) of people that lost their jobs two weeks ago?

And how can you have no idea about the chances of pushing for lower budgets? It's not something you need to have much knowledge about - it just makes sense. If something can make the same amount of money without spending as much on it, then of course they will not be as willing to spend the larger amount.

SWillie! wrote:qindarka, that's a horribly negative view on the animation industry. While you're right that Turbo was probably never going to be a massive hit, don't you feel sympathetic for Dreamworks and the hundreds (yes, hundreds) of people that lost their jobs two weeks ago?

And how can you have no idea about the chances of pushing for lower budgets? It's not something you need to have much knowledge about - it just makes sense. If something can make the same amount of money without spending as much on it, then of course they will not be as willing to spend the larger amount.

I think quindarka has a point because people are making big assumptions and blowing them up to mega proportions.That could really be a bad thing and can make people go jumping to big conclusions without really thinking through it.

SWillie! wrote:And how can you have no idea about the chances of pushing for lower budgets? It's not something you need to have much knowledge about - it just makes sense. If something can make the same amount of money without spending as much on it, then of course they will not be as willing to spend the larger amount.

Exactly. Neither Pixar nor WDAS have anything to gain from the possible success of Planes.

I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill from assumptions that may or may not come true.Heck,maybe Turbo and Planes might have an even following.

SWillie! wrote:qindarka, that's a horribly negative view on the animation industry. While you're right that Turbo was probably never going to be a massive hit, don't you feel sympathetic for Dreamworks and the hundreds (yes, hundreds) of people that lost their jobs two weeks ago?

And how can you have no idea about the chances of pushing for lower budgets? It's not something you need to have much knowledge about - it just makes sense. If something can make the same amount of money without spending as much on it, then of course they will not be as willing to spend the larger amount.

I didn't say anything bad about Turbo. If it appeals to the audience enough, it will beat Planes handily and if somehow a lot of people prefer to go watch a movie intended to be DTV instead, it means that Turbo was never going to do well in any case. And really, if Dreamworks is in a situation where they release hit after hit yet have to commit to massive layoffs after one flop (a flop which grossed double its budget), they are going to have to take a look at their own business model.

And yes, I was conceding that Sotiris might have had a point about management pushing WDAS and Pixar to reduce their budgets. I was saying I had no idea because a) I don't want it to happen and b) It hasn't happened yet. The negative view isn't automatically correct no matter how much we know or pretend to know about the industry. Anyway, it seems that looking at the budgets of not only their animated films but also their live-action ones, Disney has no problem with throwing silly money to produce their films.

Was just finding it ridiculous how a hypothetical situation in which the film is a critical and financial success could be painted so negatively. If people really regard it very highly, it will no doubt rub off on Pixar and WDAS as well, to their benefit.

Of course, all this is just speculation. I don't actually expect Planes to be that successful. Neither do I think it will be nearly as bad as a lot of people are expecting.

jazzflower92 wrote:Heck,maybe Turbo and Planes might have an even following.

And that would be great for those two films. But, as Sotiris and I have been discussing - if Planes does succeed financially, it would make the money-crunchers at Disney take a second look at the enormous budgets of films like Tangled or Frozen, since the same result can be had for less.

It's not that we don't want Planes to be good, or to succeed, it's that we don't want it to negatively affect the other animation units within the company. And while it's of course only speculation that it would, it's speculation based on pretty sound logic.

qindarka wrote:Anyway, it seems that looking at the budgets of not only their animated films but also their live-action ones, Disney has no problem with throwing silly money to produce their films.

This is a good point. It's very possible that budgets could be ignored for the sake of trying to find a massive hit.

qindarka wrote:Was just finding it ridiculous how a hypothetical situation in which the film is a critical and financial success could be painted so negatively.

As I said, nobody wants it to fail. It's just that there are inarguably possible negative outcomes if it does do well, which is not usually the case for a film.

SWillie! wrote:

jazzflower92 wrote:Heck,maybe Turbo and Planes might have an even following.

And that would be great for those two films. But, as Sotiris and I have been discussing - if Planes does succeed financially, it would make the money-crunchers at Disney take a second look at the enormous budgets of films like Tangled or Frozen, since the same result can be had for less.

It's not that we don't want Planes to be good, or to succeed, it's that we don't want it to negatively affect the other animation units within the company. And while it's of course only speculation that it would, it's speculation based on pretty sound logic.

Well, if we are looking at precedent, Blue Sky Studios and Illumination Studios both produce films with a significantly lower budget and achieve comparable financial success. Yet the budgets for Pixar and WDAS films are still massive. So perhaps that situation isn't as likely as we might think.

SWillie! wrote:

qindarka wrote:Anyway, it seems that looking at the budgets of not only their animated films but also their live-action ones, Disney has no problem with throwing silly money to produce their films.

This is a good point. It's very possible that budgets could be ignored for the sake of trying to find a massive hit.

Looks like it. And remember that this is a year after they lost god knows how much on John Carter (250 million production budget).

Upcoming films which I can find the budget for:
Oz The Great and Powerful - 200 million
Iron Man 3 - 200 million
The Lone Ranger - 250 million

SWillie! wrote: As I said, nobody wants it to fail. It's just that there are inarguably possible negative outcomes if it does do well, which is not usually the case for a film.

Other than the possibility of WDAS and Pixar being forced to reduce their budgets, which is far from a given, what other negatives are there? Pixar being embarrassed? They have 7 Academy Awards, they won't give a damn. And we could always spin the success of any film into a negative if we try hard enough.

Look, I understand why people are down on Planes, it reeks of a cynical money-making endeavor and I don't really disagree. Yet the reason we are down on it is due to fears that it will be of low quality and I can certainly understand it harming Pixar and WDAS if it fails. But if it succeeds (critically and financially), I really don't see what's the big problem.

Edit: Sorry double post.