Lady and the Tramp (2019) (1 Viewer)

[Mike Frezon]

Davy Crockett was in the military...much to the consternation of the military! He served alongside Andrew Jackson. Got himself into a few scrapes here and there...

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Daaaavyyy, Daaaavvvyyy Crockett, King o’ The wild frontier!

 

[cinemiracle]

Davy Crockett was in the military...much to the consternation of the military! He served alongside Andrew Jackson. Got himself into a few scrapes here and there...

And look how Crockett eventually ended up- trying to stop the Mexican army from rightfully claiming their right to their land which was not part of America. Apparently he survived the fall of the Alamo and was then executed by the Mexican army.I don't regard Crockett as a hero. I am sure such actions would still be regarded as treason to-day.

 

[Johnny Angell]

And look how Crockett eventually ended up- trying to stop the Mexican army from rightfully claiming their right to their land which was not part of America. Apparently he survived the fall of the Alamo and was then executed by the Mexican army.I don't regard Crockett as a hero. I am sure such actions would still be regarded as treason to-day.

Oh my, we’ve wandered far.

 

[Mike Frezon]

And look how Crockett eventually ended up- trying to stop the Mexican army from rightfully claiming their right to their land which was not part of America. Apparently he survived the fall of the Alamo and was then executed by the Mexican army.I don't regard Crockett as a hero. I am sure such actions would still be regarded as treason to-day.

I'm sure you had a reason for posting your opinion as to whether or not Davy Crockett was a hero or not. But, for the life of me, I'll not understand why.

Heck, I'm still trying to figure out why you brought up something about Mulan being Disney's only war film (in this thread).

If you've got some bone to pick with Disney's view of the military, go start an appropriate thread in an appropriate forum.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to engage in a bit of trolling. If so, cut it out.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Oh my, we’ve wandered far.

Too far!

 

[benbess]

The original Lady and the Tramp was in a 1955 way a celebration of diversity, the American melting pot, or however you'd like to put it. The 2019 version continues with a new take that I enjoyed on the diversity of American culture.

 

[SamT]

This was a very nice movie. I can't undestand why they didn't release it theatrically. It was good and strong enough to be released theatrically sometime in december.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Because it is being used to drive subscriptions to Disney+. It’s on there precisely because it’s good enough for a theatrical release, not because it’s being dumped into the bargain bin.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Exactly. Bob Iger has said that Disney+ is the future of the company. If that's the case, having good exclusives is an important way to get customers hooked. Disney's library content is extraordinary and they know it, and they will get lots of people who subscribe to see the evergreen classics. But they've also been selling those on every video format imaginable for the last 30 years or so and they know how many copies they've sold over the years, so they don't have any of those titles exclusively. I don't need to subscribe to Disney+ to watch The Little Mermaid because, even though it's there, I have three copies of that movie on my shelves. But I don't have the new Lady and the Tramp, so if I want to watch that, I have to subscribe. They are willing to forgo the money they would get from a theatrical release in order to get people to sign up for Disney+, because they view the successful launch and maitencne of Disney+ as an essential thing for the company.

 

[SamT]

Do you mean that in the future they can make more money by releasing movies on subscription based streaming than theatrical release? These are all too strange to me and I don't understand it fully.

If that happens, then the box-office means nothing. If Avatar 9 is released on streaming it doesn't need to be good because it makes the same amount of money no matter what. I feel that there will be a decline in movie quality if everything becomes subscription based.

 

[Malcolm R]

Netflix has already been doing this for years. Perhaps they don't yet have the cachet of "the new Disney film," but they're working with more and more famous filmmakers. The only reason any of their films get any kind of theatrical release is to qualify for awards consideration. They don't care about box office.

You can see this with the recent Scorsese film, The Irishman. Netflix reportedly spent nearly $200 million on the film, but had no interest in any sort of traditional theatrical release since they were not willing to meet the terms of the major theater chains for a 90-day theatrical window. Netflix is more interested in getting people to subscribe to their service.

 

[SamT]

At one point, there will be no more people to subscribe. If we reach a max, then what happens? I think in theory we get more bad movies because they wouldn't care.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I don't think Disney views production of Lady and the Tramp as any different because it was going to Disney+ than they would have if it had received a theatrical release. Certainly Martin Scorsese didn't make The Irishman any differently for Netflix than he would have for a traditional studio.

Disney is simply adapting to the way the industry is evolving. I love going to the theater, but it's undeniable that more and more people are willing to wait until they can stream something at home included in the price of a subscription they already pay for rather than going to the theater and paying more to view the same content. This doesn't mean the theatrical business is dead, and people who think it is are not looking at the facts, but it's different today than it was a few years ago. Disney is dominating in theaters with their huge event films while also positioning themselves for continued success as more and more people switch to streaming.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Do you mean that in the future they can make more money by releasing movies on subscription based streaming than theatrical release? These are all too strange to me and I don't understand it fully.

If that happens, then the box-office means nothing.

Yes, that in a nutshell is the future we’re heading towards.

Theatrical releases are dying. The mid-budget movie has basically evolved into prestige television. Audiences are becoming increasingly reluctant to spend hard earned money and valuable time on individual viewings of films set at someone else’s schedule. The only things that seem immune currently are giant spectacles that play well bigger than smaller, and films with continuing storylines where audiences feel that they must see it right away or someone else will spoil it for them. And that’s about it. As I’ve noted in other threads, I think Disney is well aware the current model isn’t sustainable long term. If you’re a theater owner, you can’t survive having only a half dozen or so weekends a year where your business is profitable. You have to pay rent year round, you have to pay employees year round. And right now, most theaters are mostly empty most of the time. Theaters are already doing things like replacing traditional seats with recliners which severely reduce capacity (a theater that held 300 regular seats can hold maybe 100 recliners at most), focusing not on expanding their business but rather trying to keep as many customers as they can in the mass exodus.

From a consumer point of view, going to the movies is no longer the bang for the buck it once was. Thanks to changes in technology, the theater is only the beginning of a movie’s life, not the only chance you get to see something. So let’s look at Lady And The Tramp. An average family of four would probably end up paying close to $100 to see the movie while enjoying a snack. If they chose to see it at a premium auditorium or needed a babysitter for a kid left at home or decided to go out for family dinner, that cost easily doubled or triples. All to see one thing once. Meanwhile, Disney+ costs $70 a year. So, for less than one family visit to the theaters, you could have this service for a year. For many families, Disney+ is by far the better deal.

Malcolm mentioned “The Irishman,” a nearly four hour film that cost nearly $200 million to make. Had it gotten a traditional wide theatrical release, a studio would have spent at least that much marketing it. And since films need to gross about 2.5x times their cost to break even, that means The Irishman would have needed to have grossed about $1 billion to break even in theaters. Oh, and since audiences are now conditioned to see movies right away or not at all, it needs to make that billion in a week or two. And it’s simply not that kind of film.

Under the Netflix model, the movie doesn’t have to face that kind of pressure. Not everyone has to see it and not everyone has to like it. It only has to be one small piece of the puzzle for why members continue to keep their subscriptions active.

If Netflix (or any other subscription service) starts making lots of movies that people don’t enjoy, they’ll lose subscribers and be forced to close up shop. Not everything will be wonderful - that’s just life - but the incentive to make quality programming is there.

 

[Sam Favate]

Saw this today with the kids. I thought it was pretty good. I'm not sure it would have done anything theatrically, but it's a nice charming version of the movie we all know. The dog animation is sometimes off -- their mouths don't often match their words - but that's a bit nit-picky. The production is really nice. Glad we saw it.