My point is that Disney shouldn't spend $135 million on anything. As AV pointed out, Disney isn't good at that type of project.
Disney doesn't make anything, creators make things. Disney talked to a respected, successful creator who said "I can do that for $135 million." Disney said "we'd rather get someone who can slap something together for under $70 million."
I believe even you've made the point "it's not the money spent, it's what you spend it on." In this case, they had a choice between $135 million for a project envisioned and spearheaded by a guy who has spent his life creating these projects from some end or other, and $70 million for a project envisioned by accountants and spearheaded by God-knows-who, that they hope will deliver the results they weren't able to get from the $200 million Pearl Harbor.
Where in the blue moon do you get me bashing something I haven't seen?
Read the quote again. I never said you bashed anything you hadn't seen, I said you compared the quality of two things you hadn't seen, and arrived at a conclusion. Arriving at a qualitative conclusion before one sees the product concerned is the root issue, not whether one chooses to ***** or to brownnose based on that speculative data.
many people consider the similar concept in Pearl Harbor as being a failure.
I don't consider the projects to be equivalent just because the price tags are in the same arena and they're both based on something that really happened. Bruckheimer and Bay blew stuff up, Howard develops characters.
Don't just come around every once and awhile looking for a fight and cussing at me. If my post drives you to the point of doing that, try emailing or PMing me first to make sure you got my take right. If you did and still feel the necessary to call me half-assed, well, that's fine.
As it turns out, I require no prior approval from you to post. And your implication here is wrong, I did not call you "half-assed," I called your specualtion that a $70 million Alamo was inherently superior to a $135 million Alamo a "wild-assed guess." I stand by my assessment of your speculation, and I don't really care anymore if you can't or won't discern between my addressing your posted points and addressing you, personally.
I'm not asking for Disney to put out crap as you apparently took my post. I cited the Rookie, the Others, Princess Diaries, and Sixth Sense as the type of movies Disney should concentrate on rather than huge budgeted blockbusters.
In the context of this thread, you've derided the thought of $135 million on a movie and advocated $70 million as better. Of course, you don't know whether the $70 million Alamo will be a character-driven Princess Diaries or a blow-'em-up Pearl Harbor wannabe. As far as can be determined by your posts, you chose the cheaper route because it was cheaper, without knowing what creators would be involved or what direction the film would take.
Disney should put everything they have into their $70 million movies and their $135 million movies. Your posts have indicated only that the cheaper was inherently better than the more expensive, and that's a crock. Disney is as capable of hiring people to make a bad $70 million movie as people to make a bad $135 million movie.
I'll take 5 Princess Diaries in place of one huge 100 million plus film.
Just because the price tag is the same, you can't assume a movie is going to have the quality of Princess Diaries.
Disney turned away an established, respected creator at $135 million in favor of an unknown quantity at $70 million. I say the respected creator would be likely to do well with the $135 million project. You seem to disagree, apparently purely on the basis of "$135 million" being a bigger number than "$70 million."
I would advise going with the life-long creator with the artistic vision, whether that meant $70 million or $135 million.
You appear to advise going with the budget target, without ever considering the creators who will actually contribute more than a PO approval to the project. I don't think expected price tag is a good indicator of the success or failure of a movie.
That's my point. That's all my point is!
-WFH
PS: Chad, here's a little lesson on "personal." If I say "your conclusion is... your own wild-assed guess," that means I'm talking about the statement you posted: fair game. Now, if you say "You didn't even take the time to understand my point," or claim that I "come around every once and awhile looking for a fight," then you are speculating about me personally; my thoughts and motives: personal shot.
See the difference?
Your choice which direction we go from here. You know I'm willing to get dirty if that's the way you want it. Personally, I think there's plenty to talk about without going that route, but I know you've disagreed with me on that in these kinds of situations, before.