• TwoHardCore@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    I’m not sure how big the budgets were 20ish years ago, but these 2 for me:

    • the Royal Tenenbaums
    • Sideways

    Both are very well reviewed by the public/reviewers and I cannot fathom why.

    • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      I personally love the royal tenebaums but the first watch i was like you. Wes Anderson is weird. Its like first you need permission to like it because its so different but once youre granted that permission and can suspend disbelief the world opens up to you.

    • justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io
      0·
      3 months ago

      Simple:

      He and his crew had 2 years of prep for Lotr, storyboards, finding locations, making props and sets, etc.

      New Line Cinemas forced him to do that same prep in 6 months for the Hobbit. Allegedly they didn’t even fully finish the script and had to cut in Del Toro scenes.

      • MidsizedSedan@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        I think it was Prime’s Theater where I learnt that for the Smaug fight scene for movie 2, they planed the set the night before, painted the next morning, filmed, and the paint was still wet when the sets were taken down.

      • Stovetop@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        The forced trilogy structure also really hurt it. When the Hobbit film adaptation was initially announced (at the time just two movies, even), I thought that it didn’t make any sense to adapt a book shorter than any of the individual LotR installments into multiple movies. When they revealed it would be a trilogy, I knew it was some studio decision to milk it for money and didn’t have high hopes.

        There is actually a fan edit floating around online somewhere called “The Hobbit: Extended Edition” which, contrary to what the name might imply, cuts down the trilogy into a single movie of comparable length to the LotR Extended films. Still not perfect, but a huge improvement in quality just from cutting out all of the extra garbage that didn’t need to be there.

        • Jack_Burton@lemmy.ca
          0·
          3 months ago

          There are a few different edits, but my fave is the M4 Book Edit. It only follows what was covered in the book and cuts out all the additions like the Kili/Tauriel love story (and Tauriel is cut out completely along with Azog until the end), the Dol Guldur stuff, and Gandalf’s escapades outside the party. It cuts the trilogy down to 4hr18min. Aside from a few unavoidably janky transitions, it’s great.

          I absolutely adore it for 2 reasons: One, I really dislike the trilogy as a whole, but that’s because of the bloat, which M4 gets rid of. Two, the older I get the harder it is to go through LOTR as often as I like. I usually do an LOTR rewatch once a year, and tried to add in the Hobbit, but usually stopped after the first. It’s just too much time for not enough payoff. With the M4 edit, I’ll get stoned and watch it 5 or 6 times a year.

          For as much flack as Jackson gets the for The Hobbit movies, he did a phenomenal job where it counts. There really is a wonderful, true-to-source Hobbit adventure scattered throughout the 8hr52min bloat that is the trilogy.

          For funsies, if you like the other bits there’s another fan edit called Durin’s Folk and the Hill of Sorcery that’s 1hr8min that covers Gandalf’s adventure after he fucks off from the party at Mirkwood.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.clubEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        I would disagree. The prequels told a story that deserved to be told and was mostly internally consistent. The tone was different from the original trilogy, but they are still decent, if flawed, works.

        The sequels are fanboy level writing.

  • Almacca@aussie.zoneEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    ‘Live action’ remakes of animated classics, or any remake of an already good film.

    Remake the ones that had potential. but failed in the execution.

    • ssillyssadass@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      Live action remakes are the end point of capitalism in media. Take something that people liked made money, and do it again with the same formula but a fresh coat of paint. No need to hire writers or spend time making a good story, just use the last one. No risks were ever taken.

    • Maestro@fedia.io
      0·
      3 months ago

      All those Disney live action remakes are sooo bad. People just don’t have the expressiveness of cartoon characters. The Lion King was the worst. The characters were animated and still wooden

      • ChexMax@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        I think Christopher Robin and maleficent were good. As long as they’re telling a new story it’s fun to see the old characters. When it’s just the exact same plot but a little darker and live action over animation it’s so dumb. Our CGI just ain’t good enough to justify that.

        They’re remaking Moana already, and still a new movie, relative.

        • MagicShel@lemmy.zipEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          Moana is all about the musical performances. I love the whole movie but what is on the screen just kinda punctuates and gives context to the music for me. Frozen is the same way. And they’re thinking they are going to remake all that music and have it be just as good?

          It would be like trying to remake The Blues Brothers with Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham just because the original is 40 years old.

      • Wugmeister@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        The Cinderella one slapped. But that was the first one, and it was successful because it was made with care and thoughtful intention. Disney has been chasing that sucess ever since

        • Beesbeesbees@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          Ever after will be the #1 live action Cinderella for me. That said I didn’t mind the first one they came out with.

    • selkiesidhe@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      3 months ago

      It’s how Disney retains the trademark on the product. Like, Snow White, for instance. If the trademark was coming up, they’d rather crap out a bad movie then let the IP go to public domain.

  • papertowels@mander.xyz
    0·
    3 months ago

    Cowboys and aliens.

    Man pitched this fever dream of an idea in 97, was laughed out of the room.

    Folks only agreed to make it in 2006 after seeing it was based on a best selling comic book.

    That comic book was written by the person who initially pitched the idea in 97. He practically paid comic book stores to carry and give away the comic book so it’d be a “best seller”.

    Movie execs got hoodwinked lol

  • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    I’m gonna go in a different direction than everyone else here.

    Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl

    is a big budget movie that had absolutely no business getting made, because:

    1. Pirate movies have always been box office poison. Less than a decade earlier, Cutthroat Island made the Guinness Book of Records as the biggest box office bomb of all time, the latest in a series of pirate-themed failures. The only vaguely pirate-themed movies that had ever had anything you’d call success was Muppet Treasure Island and Goonies, and you could argue that Goonies wasn’t really a pirate movie, it had some pirate theming in it. In 2002, Disney’s Treasure Planet, basically Treasure Island IN SPAAACE had proven a box office flop. Treasure Planet is a well-written, well-made, well-advertised, well-reviewed pirate movie that failed at the box office. What idiot would bankroll another pirate film?

    2. It was a movie based on an old ride at Disney World. It was their fourth attempt at this, they made a TV movie based on Tower of Terror in 1997 that they’re apparently not proud of, 2000s Mission To Mars was a “commercial disappointment” and 2002’s The Country Bears was a critical and commercial flop. Yeah the year before they made Pirates of the Caribbean, Disney made a G-rated pastiche of the Blues Brothers out of The Country Bear Jamboree. They decided to do that and nobody stopped them. No movie based on a theme park attraction had ever made its money back.

    The public’s reaction to the announcement was “They’re making a movie based on WHAT?” This wasn’t going to work. This movie had no business being made.

    The film achieved massive critical and commercial success as the 141st highest grossing movie of all time taking $654.3 million against it’s $140 million budget and spawning four sequels.

    • tomenzgg@midwest.socialEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Treasure Planet is a well-written

      Ehhh…; don’t get me wrong: I still absolutely love it. But I absolutely get why it flopped, too.

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      Everything you said was why it made so much. No one saw it coming and it was entertaining. I still think the first two are solid. After that it fell off. But the third is decent just because of Jack Sparrow’s father being Keith Richards.

      You can bag on all you want but it’s movie. The main objective is to entertain. And it does that on many levels. It’s not necessarily cinema but most of these movies are not considered high class cinema. They are blockbusters whose main objective is to make money while entertaining.

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        Oh I thoroughly enjoyed the film. I went to the theater to see it 8 times, with 5 different girls.

        It turned out fantastic. But it had absolutely no business being made. And that was the assignment of this thread.

      • tomenzgg@midwest.socialEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        The first one, in terms of cinematic story telling, is actually incredibly good (I don’t know how much that contributed to things); if you’re interesting, this video essay points out a bunch of stuff I hadn’t noticed, the first time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhdBNVY55oM.

        Also, entirely agreed about the first two.

    • Psythik@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      I loved that Tower of Terror movie. Knowing the lore made the ride so much better once I finally got to experience it.

  • TehBamski@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Mortal Engines

    It seemed like a prime IP to get its time on the big screen, being that it’s got a lot to build off of. But the sheer number of characters that were introduced throughout the movie and the ‘all of this and more awaits,’ really had me overwhelmed with having any continued interest in the “main characters” as the movie entered its third act. There were more issues, but that was the one that really sealed its fate imo.

  • Denjin@lemmings.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    Waterworld. At the time the most expensive movie ever made and the most spectacular flop of all time.

      • Flocklesscrow@lemmy.zip
        0·
        3 months ago

        John Carter suffered from an awful title.

        “Princess of Mars,” would have resonated better with marketing. And is actually one of the book titles.

        • AngryRobot@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          I agree, but Dianey was desperate to create a new franchise. It was their response to Iron Man and the anticipated success of the MCU.

      • Denjin@lemmings.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        I did some digging and apparently Waterworld somehow broke even. I remember a lot of the hype around the film at the time was wanting to see if it was really as bad as people said it was.

      • MagicShel@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        Neither of those movies were really all that terrible. I enjoyed John Carter. But clearly they didn’t connect with audiences.

        • beejboytyson@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          It’s the name and the power concept, all around bland and forgettable. Feel like that movie was a passion project of a book fan.

          • jacksilver@lemmy.world
            0·
            3 months ago

            Yeah, I was upset they didnt continue John Carter, it was just a fun zany scifi movie. I think it was the advertising that killed it, but if they had stuck with it I think it could have done well.

      • Babalugats@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        I must be on my own. I know John Carter flopped phenomenally, but I really liked it. Thought it was a great movie. Was very annoyed when I found out that there may never be a 2nd. Even if there was, at this stage it is very unlikely to be the same cast. IIRC, a lot of the blame was on Disney marketing. But IDK about these things.

        • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          Don’t worry brother, I still go back and watch waterworld. I like oceanscapes and post apocalyptic settings. Esthetic can be enough for me.

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Loveble Sidekick: The Untold Story of My Rise to Fortune

    starring

    Lovable Sidekick - as Himself
    Scarlett Johansson - as Lola

    It had no business being made, so it wasn’t.