Kevin Feige: A Producer Unlike Any Other

By Brandon T. McClure

The general public is normally ignorant to the roles of a producer, but one producer has become a superstar in the eyes of the masses: Kevin Feige. Generally producers stay behind the scenes and guide movies to the finish line. Kevin Feige, however, tends to be front and center and has not only become the face of the massive franchise that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe but also it’s cheerleader.

The 46 year old Marvel Studios president has now received a major promotion. From now on, he will be operating as the Chief Creative Officer of Marvel Entertainment as well as performing his duties as Marvel Studios president. This means he will be in full creative control of the Marvel brand and products like Television productions and comic books. More so, Marvel Television and Marvel Family Entertainment (Marvels animation department) will be put under the control of Marvel Studios.

People like Jeph Loeb, who has operated as Marvel Television Executive Vice President and Joe Quesada, the former Chief Creative Officer of Marvel Entertainment, are expected to step down by the end of the year. This also means that Marvel Entertainment CEO, Isaac Perlmutter will no longer creatively control the products distributed by his company. Once again, Disney has lessened his role in the company.

Since 2005, Isaac “Ike” Perlmutter has been the CEO of Marvel Entertainment and saw the company escape bankruptcy in the late 90s. Lately, the waters of his legacy has been muddied by continued strife between him and Kevin Feige. Back in 2015, Disney restructured Marvel Studios to operate as a subsection of Disney studios, since Kevin Feige was reportedly frustrated with the Marvel Entertainment CEO. At the time, trades were reporting that directors, Joss Whedon and Edgar Wright were having creative issues with Avengers: Age of Ultron and Ant-Man respectively due to Perlmutter’s meddling in the creative process of those films. Acts that led to both directors leaving the studios. Recently Feige has come out to confirm that the reason why it took so long to make a film based on characters like Black Panther, Captain Marvel and Black Widow, was due to Ike’s upbringing in merchandise from the 80s & 90s. He felt that they wouldn’t make money if they marketed to other demographics. It’s worth noting that two of those characters headlined $1 billion grossers.

Kevin Feige has been working on Marvel films since The X-Men back in 2000. He was primarily responsible for the creation of Marvel Studios after growing frustrated with how outside studios were treating the characters he loved. He has led the Marvel Studios franchise to be one of the most successful in recent memory so it comes as no surprise that Disney would want to strengthen his role within the company with this new promotion.

What makes Kevin Feige so unique is his attention to story. By all accounts, he allows directors and writers to create their own movies but he keeps track of the overall story and makes sure each film falls into place, similar to a comic book. Normally this approach would be difficult for creators but somehow he manages to create a good and collaborative working environment that has, for the most part, worked for 23 consecutive films. These days, audiences have grown used to his showmanship as he announces new films and actors during San Diego Comic Con and forget that he’s the exception and not the rule.

They other president over at Disney, Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy, is sometimes expected to be as involved with Star Wars as Feige is to Marvel. But kennedy comes from a different time. She came up in the 80s and 90s, when producers let creators make the type of film they set out to make, an approach she more or less continues with Star Wars. Whereas Feige takes a strong creative hand with his films. Not every producer can be expected to do what he does, and even fewer of them can be expected to do it well. 

You wonder if with all this restructuring that Marvel is interested in pushing Ike Perlmutter out of his position of CEO of Marvel Entertainment due to his past medling within the creative products of his company. Kevin Feige no longer needs to answer to Ike, but instead answers to Alan Horn, Chairman of Walt Disney Studios. So after all this, what does that mean for Ike and his future at Marvel? Disney likes to keep people around if they show they have a good working relationship, no doubt why Feige was given a Star Wars film to produce as well. With his role in the company expanding everyday, it’s easy to assume that Kevin Feige might be running Marvel Entertainment someday.

Follow Brandon T. McClure on social media @BTMcClure and on his podcast, Fake Nerd Podcast

Sounds Like a Personal Problem

By Brandon T. McClure

What is “Cinema”?

The dictionary definition of cinema is “the production of movies as an art or industry.” The entertainment industry is changing everyday. New innovations are made, new ways to consume are created, and popular genres rise and crash. It is no secret to reveal that superhero films, or films based on comic book characters and stories, are all the rage right now. Regardless of making tons of money at the box office, these films aren’t beloved by all.

While recent comments by famed filmmaker Martin Scorcesse have caused an uproar, he is not the first person to voice his displeasure.  Plenty of celebrities from Jason Statham to Jennifer Anniston have spoken out against Marvel movies in particular. Though they aren’t attacking the filmmakers attached to the films, they seem to be attacking how they have shaped modern cinema as a whole.

Martin Scorcesse recently revealed his opinion of superhero films, describing that he felt they were more like theme parks. He admits that they’re fun, but they’re not “cinema”. Scorsese had trouble finding a studio for his latest film “The Irishman” until he went to Netflix. He claimed that no major studio wanted the film due to it being a high budget original film. The esteemed filmmaker is a champion of the theatre experience so having to go to a streaming service to make his latest film must have been a little frustrating for him.

Similarly Jennifer Anniston has come out to say that the kinds of roles she would be up for are diminishing. She too had to turn to a streaming service to continue her career. It’s easy to paint a target on studios making too many Superhero films, but the truth is, studios aren’t interested in making the mid level budget films anymore. Just look at Disney’s dissolve of FOX2000 for proof of that. Studios want big budget films, event cinema every week so they can get big returns. (Or in the case of Gemini Man, big losses). IP driven, big budget, content has been the name of the game for the studios since the great recession. The kind of films that Scorsesse and Anniston would be attracted to, aren’t the kind of films studios see as sure things.

On the other side of that coin, it’s unfair for these celebrities to go after these films, since hundreds of people put in hundreds of hours of work in them. Films like these can offer a sense of job security to actors and crewman, they can lift up new talent that wouldn’t have found a way into the industry otherwise. Jason Statham has lambasted the actors of these films for phoning it in, but one need not look any further than Robert Downey Jr. to see otherwise. His turn as Iron Man has become just as iconic as Christopher Reeve’s Superman or Sean Connery’s James Bond. Bradley Cooper has put more heart and soul into a talking Racoon than was needed. All films are art, all art is hard work.

No one can debate how great Martin Scorcesse is. Filmmakers like him have created films that define generations. To hear something like this come from him, or Francis Ford Copolla, or any one like them, can strike a blow to fans of superhero films and the kinds of films that Scorcesse would consider “cinema”. It begins to sound more and more like these celebrities are lamenting the change in the times, and taking it out on what they think is the problem. superhero films, gangster movies, dramas, science fiction films, comedies, these are all cinema, they are all art. Truthfully, it sounds more likely that they are frustrated that their own films or their own careers aren't doing as well as they would have in the past. It's unfortunate when art doesn't get the credit it is due, but discrediting someone else's art is no way to build up your own. If the problem with another person's art is that it is stealing the attention of your own art then that sounds like a personal problem.

MoviePass is Dead. Long Live MoviePass?

By Brandon T. McClure

In what is quite possibly the most spectacular “plane crash” in the history of the entertainment industry, MoviePass is shutting down.

On September 13th, the services parent company, Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc., announced they will be shutting down the once-popular app, effective September 14th. The service, at one time, boasted to reach 3 million followers, until it began to hemorrhage money quicker then they could make it. The company tried to finance movies (you can pre-order 10 Minutes Gone starring Bruce Willis on Amazon now), and offer a new way for people to see movies, at an affordable rate. The idea was honestly sound, but the execution left much to be desired.

MoviePass’s troubled history started around the time that Avengers: Infinity War was released in theatres. Anticipating the high volume of repeat movie-goers for the popular film, MoviePass stopped users from seeing a movie more than once and created surge pricing requiring viewers to pay more for a movie than the normal $10 a month. While MoviePass didn’t admit it, subscribers suspected this was due to the fact that the business model was not sustainable.

CEO Mitch Lowe went on the popular YouTube channel, ScreenJunkies, to inform people that there was nothing to worry about. He explained this model had been thought through and theatre chains will “play ball” and offer discounted ticket prices to MoviePass in order to save some money. The message was clear: MoviePass knows what they’re doing.

After it was made very clear that the fastest-growing company in the United States didn’t know what they were doing, they began to lose subscribers. They implemented a new tiered subscription service with higher pricing and with certain movies blocked out. For example, many MoviePass subscribers, couldn’t go to see Mission: Impossible - Fallout.

Around this time, one of the major theatre chains in the world, AMC, decided to launch its own service. An extension of their current Stubs program: AMC Stubs A-List. For $20 a month you could see 3 movies a week in any format. Not quite as good as MoviePass’s initial unlimited plan for $10 a month, but it worked. Now, that service has almost 900,000 subscribers, after being around for about a year. Other theatre chains, such as Cinemark and Regal have similar services for patrons.

Reports began to surface that MoviePass was still charging people for subscriptions that had been canceled and that they had filed for bankruptcy. In July of 2019, MoviePass “temporarily” shut down, claiming that they were just looking for a way to become profitable. Apparently, that did not happen.

            However, for all the problems that MoviePass caused, it did shock the system. Movie ticket prices are quite high these days and most middle class movie goers cannot afford to go more than once a month. This is why the big tentpole films do better then the independent films. If you’re going to spend $20-$40 when going to the movies, you want to guarantee you’ll have a good time.

            MoviePass proved that audiences want a more affordable way to watch movies. Even though movie theatre attendance keeps lowering, while the subscription service was active, movie theatre attendances rose, and, most movies that wouldn’t otherwise have done well, did. It’s clear now that audiences didn’t have a lack of interest in seeing medium to small level films, they just lacked the means to do so. The mistake that MoviePass made was lowering the price and then expecting theatre chains to fall in line after the fact. While theatre chains are seeing success with their own subscription services, a combined service that allows audiences to see any movie they want, at any theatre they want for a lower price, could be what the theatres need to save their industry.

Disney Having Trouble Fitting Fox In

By Brandon T. McClure

It’s only been a couple of months since the final contract was signed, giving away 20th Century Fox to be absorbed by Disney, and the effects are still being felt.

What’s happening right now is probably more like growing pains honestly. Fox and Disney were two very different companies, Disney is always concerned with supporting “The Brand” and Fox was willing to take more risks. If a recent article from Variety is to be believed then things were more dire at the major Hollywood staple.

Fox has had a rough year so far. Most of the films they’ve put out have either lost them money or downright flopped. The films that Disney took over didn’t fare any better. Dark Phoenix, Stuber, and The Art of Racing in the Rain have all seen major losses. This caused Disney to report an earning loss at the quarter 3 investment meeting.

At this call, Bob Iger blamed the loss on the recently inherited 20th Century Fox film slate, specifically Dark Phoenix. According to Variety, Disney didn’t put to much into marketing the final X-Men film since most of Fox’s film slate weren’t being churned out at the level of quality that the studio was used to seeing. It seems that when Fox decided to sell, the environment at the historic film studio changed.

Bob Iger also blamed high marketing costs for upcoming Fox films such as Ford v. Ferrari and Spies in Disguise. Disney has scrapped much of Fox's pre production slate, with Iger tasking Disney to take the Fox slate “in a new direction, with an all-new development slate that will focus on a select group of properties." Films like Lumberjanes have been cancelled and will have to find a new home if the popular comic is going to find a way to the big screen.

It would stand to reason that Disney is more interested in cultivating Fox’s popular IP’s than moving forward with new properties that are untested. While Disney hasn’t said what the plan is, they did mention that properties like Planet of the Apes and Alien are a priority for them. Iger seems interested in continuing the Deadpool franchise but is unsure of how at this point. Even though films like Alien and Deadpool doesn't fit within the Disney brand on paper, Iger seems determined to make them fit. Perhaps a more traditional Alien film is on the horizon since Ridley Scott seems more interested in experimenting with the franchise he started even though the new films haven’t struck a chord with audiences

If there will be any changes to Fox Searchlight, is also unclear but the recently acquired independent label is still due to put out some hotly anticipated films such as Ready or Not. While 20th Century Fox may have had a rough year for the most part, the studio was always willing to experiment more than it’s new owner. Films like Logan or Deadpool or even Kingsman: The Secret Service would never have been made under Disney. One wonders if Mathew Vaughns Kingsman 3 will have to find a new studio.

Iger told investors, “It will probably take a solid year, maybe two years, before we can have an impact on the films in production. We’re all confident we’re going to turn around the results of Fox live-action." It’s still early days but it looks like Disney is more concerned with building their library and gaining new assets then using Fox as an avenue to take more risks with the types of films they put out. Whether Fox was a sinking ship saved by Disney or not, these two companies don’t mesh well on paper, and it’ll be a long and, certainly, interesting road to see how they grow together.

Hulu: Disney’s Latest Acquisition

By Brandon T. McClure

It seems that Disney’s expansion is far from done. Last month it was announced that Hulu had bought back the 9.5% share that AT&T acquired with its purchase of Time Warner for $1.43 billion. AT&T’s goal was to use that money to help pay off the debt it had acquired. This acquisition left Comcast with, roughly, 33% and Disney with 66%. With Comcast, the last hold out for Disney, the industry was left wondering how Comcast would respond, if at all.

This week, we have received our answer. Effective immediately, Disney will assume “full operational control” of Hulu because Disney and Comcast had reached a deal. While there is still more to be hammered out, Comcast will retain its 33% ownership but will have to sell as early as January 2024. This is to allow NBC/Universal to keep its programming on the service.

Back when Disney acquired 20th Century Fox, Disney inherited it’s 30% share of the streaming service, giving Disney a total of  60% of Hulu. Disney seemed excited to have a controlling interest in the service and was looking to grow it in a way it had been unable to before. Among other things, the major goal for Disney seemed to be to get Hulu into international markets. As time went on, Disney informed audiences that Hulu would be the home for less family friendly fair. So far, Disney has announced a few Marvel specific shows to go alongside The Runaways such as The Offenders and the untitled Ghost Rider series. Disney also hinted that Hulu could be bundled in with a subscription to Disney+, which is due out later this year.

It’s not hard to see that over the last couple of years, Disney has become more ambitious with its business practices and continues to make waves within the entertainment industry. Starting with Disney+, continuing with the acquisition of 20th Century Fox and, now, taking total control of Hulu. With WarnerMedia and NBC/Universal launching streaming services of their own, it’s not hard to see where this whole thing started.

NBC/Universal’s decision seems to be based on their streaming service coming out sometime in 2020. No concrete information about that service has been announced as of yet, but they are looking for it to be the home of most, if not all, of their content. When the five years are up, Disney has guaranteed Comcast’s stake in Hulu, will be valued at, at least, $27.5 billion. By contract, NBC/Universal is guaranteed to hold onto this 33% stake until 2024, after which they could either be told to sell or decide to sell on their own.

NBC/Universal CEO, Steve Burke, called the Hulu deal with Disney “a perfect outcome for us.” He added that the extension of the Hulu content-licensing agreement “will generate significant cash flow for us, while giving us maximum flexibility to program and distribute to our own direct-to-consumer platform, as we build that business. Significantly, this transaction also affirms the value of our stake, provides a path to liquidity and ensures our continued equity participation in Hulu’s success.”

Disney has agreed to pay Comcast for its Hulu content for the next five years. Which means that Hulu will still be able to carry content made and distributed by NBC/Universal for film and television until 2024. NBC channels will be on Hulu Live at a higher rate than before. And NBC/Universal will also be able to run the same content on its own streaming service when it launches next year. For their part, Comcast (NBC/Universal’s parent company) will begin to distribute Hulu on its Xfinity X1 platform. Comcast plans to integrate the two platforms by the end of 2019 or early 2020, so that Xfinity X1 will be available to customers who have a Hulu subscription.

Who can guess where Disney goes from here, but we at least know that within five years, Hulu will be an exclusive home to Disney products and nothing else. Disney has come a long way from the studio that only made animated kids films. If they keep pushing the industry into new directions, they could single handedly change how audiences consume media within the next ten years.

Follow Brandon at @BTMcClure or on the Fake Nerd podcasts

The Success and Failure of Shared Franchises

By Brandon T. McClure 

Last week Marvel Studios released Avengers: Endgame, the culmination of an unprecedented 22 movie arc that paid off with the largest opening weekend box office gross of all time. By the end of the film’s first five days, it had grossed $1.2 billion worldwide and, as of the end of April, is the tenth highest-grossing film ever. This franchise has seen unparalleled success, in no small part due to how the films have touched audiences around the world.

Arguably, Marvel is at the peak of its popularity. It remains to be seen what the next few years are going to look like, but, it’s clear that this time is one for the history books. When films succeed, studios try to capitalize on that success by trying to recreate it. Superhero films are often referred to as the westerns of this generation since when the westerns were doing well, every studio was putting one out.

There have been a number of attempts to create another shared cinematic franchise from Sony, Universal Studios, Fox and Warner Bros, but they tend to miss a key equation in the Marvel formula. Just after the release of The Avengers, there were talks of studios developing various shared franchises. For example, Sony was developing a “Robin Hood shared universe” which would have focused on developing movies based on each of Robin Hood's Merry Men.

“Shared Universe” is a buzz term in the industry that means a franchise that is made up of different film franchises that crossover together. For example, if Sony had gone through with Robin Hood, then they would have developed a film based on Little John and a film on Robin Hood. After the two “origin” films, they would meet together and fight the Sheriff of Nottingham. In short, a larger franchise that is made up of smaller “shared” franchise.

Universal Studios tried twice to launch a shared franchise of monster films (called “The Dark Universe,”) once with Dracula: Untold, and then again with Tom Cruise The Mummy. Both of these films failed to resonate with critics and audiences and were scrapped. Guillermo Del Toro talked about how he was approached by Universal to kick start this, but they couldn’t see eye to eye. That project ended up turning into The Shape of Water for Fox Searchlight. Now, Universal is poised to try again with next years’ The Invisible Man from Blumhouse. Third time's a charm, right?

The biggest competition for Marvel comes with Warner Bros. attempts. Since the end of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, they have been pursuing a comic book franchise with a lineup of films based on DC Comics. This started with Man of Steel and continues today. While financially successful, the films failed to connect with audiences like the Marvel films did. Ever since the release of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, Warner Bros. was in some form of restructuring. After Justice League failed to perform at the box office, Warner Bros. decided to refocus on creative-driven projects like Aquaman and Shazam; something that seems to have worked in their favor.

Sony and Fox both attempted to recreate the Marvel formula with their own Marvel properties, but they ended up disastrous for each company. Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was supposed to launch a large amount of villain centered spin-offs, but the failure of that film and the now famous, “Sony Leaks” ended up forcing the company to make a deal with Disney to share the character of Spider-Man. Sony is still going forward with something they’re calling “Sony’s Universe of Marvel Characters” which seems to be focused on Spider-Man villains such as Venom and Morbius: The Living Vampire, which is currently filming with Jared Leto as the lead. This franchise is unconnected to the one that Marvel Studios/Disney puts out.

The common denominator for all the failed shared franchises seems to be studio mandate. James Dyer of the Empire Podcast said in his discussion of The Mummy that “audiences know that films are made for money. But they don’t like being reminded of it.” He was speaking of the idea that The Mummy was a clear attempt by the studio to launch, what they hoped to be, a billion-dollar franchise. James Gunn, director of the Guardians of the Galaxy films chimed in on the influx of shared universes by saying that you need to lay the groundwork before you start building these franchises. If you don’t, then they’ll collapse.

Audiences identify with creator-driven products. It’s why Marvel did so well. Before 2012, The Avengers was a pipe dream for Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige. He focused on one film at a time, in the hopes to someday make a film that crossed over the characters like Iron Man with Captain America. There was no studio mandate to make a billion-dollar franchise by including other characters, nor loose threads to be picked up in future films. The Mummy and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 both include plot threads that were meant to set up future spin-off films.

The Conjuring has done so well because they didn’t plan on creating spin-offs. They just focused on making one good film. Aquaman made $1 billion because it felt like a James Wan film. Conversely, Justice League did poorly because it felt like a studio mandated film and not a film with a singular voice.

Marvel is not the only template to create a franchise like this, but, the key ingredient that everyone else was missing was a creator's voice. Going into the next year, it looks like Warner Bros. has found the missing ingredient and we can only hope that Universal has, as well. Success with properties like these doesn’t come from inherent crossover appeal. It comes from developing properties that people want to see crossover. It’s a small difference but it’s an important one. The Mummy was built to have crossover appeal with characters like Dracula, but Iron Man was built to develop a property that audiences would want to see crossover

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is successful, where all other attempts have failed. It’s a creator-driven franchise, and not a studio driven one. The key to that same success isn’t to copy it. It’s to let the creators drive the content, not the studios.

The DOJ Makes a Move On the Academy

By Brandon T. McClure 

Director Steven Spielberg made headlines recently when it was announced that he would approach the board of governors for a change in the rules for which films could qualify for the Best Picture category at the Academy Awards. Currently the rule is that any film that plays for one week in a theatre in Los Angeles and New York can be considered for Best Picture.

Netflix has also been trying to change the rules but for something more in their favor; a campaign they have seemingly abandoned for the time being since they have, instead, been playing a few of their movies in theatres for limited engagements. Netflix has never hidden the fact that they feel the theatre system is outdated and should be replaced with a direct to consumer only market. Something many filmmakers such as Spielberg disagree with. Spielberg’s goal is to help the theatre industry succeed.

When Spielberg was questioned about why he was going to approach the board for a rule change, he responded: “I don’t believe that films that are just given token qualifications, in a couple of theaters for less than a week, should qualify for the Academy Award nominations. Fewer and fewer filmmakers are going to… raise money, or to compete at Sundance and possibly get one of the specialty labels to release their films theatrically. And more of them are going to let the SVOD [Streaming Video On-Demand] businesses finance their films, maybe with the promise of a slight, one-week theatrical window to qualify for awards…” Netflix creates an uneven playing field in general as they are capable of spending more money on For Your Consideration campaigns then most other studios, including the smaller “specialty labels”.

Apple recently announced Apple TV+ with Steven Spielberg as a key speaker at the event. This event alone has sparked a massive debate among audiences, critics and filmmakers and even The Justice Department. The Justice Department has warned the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences that any potential rule change that limits the eligibility of Netflix and other streaming services could raise “antitrust concerns and violate competition law”. If this sounds familiar, this is the same laws that many were arguing that the Disney/Fox merger violated.

The chief of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, Makan Delrahim, wrote a letter to Dawn Hudson, the CEO of the Academy saying “if the Academy adopts a new rule to exclude certain types of films, such as films distributed via online streaming services, from eligibility for the Oscars, and that exclusion tends to diminish the excluded films’ sales, that rule could therefore violate section 1.” Letters written by the government are often hard to understand but the intent here seems clear, if the academy rules in a way that makes it so streaming services couldn’t qualify, then the DOJ will feel the need to step in. Almost like they forgot the Golden Globes and the Emmy’s exist.

The Justice Department is concerned that traditional media outlets tend to try and limit competition from streaming services, even those that have grown significantly in recent years like Netflix and Amazon Prime. These were the same concerns that were brought up when AT&T and TimeWarner were merging. Limiting how content gets to consumers has been a hot topic in recent years.

Spielberg’s concerns over the eligibility of movies on streaming platforms have triggered intense debate in the industry. Netflix attempted to counter Spielberg’s argument by saying they are only trying to offer more accessible media, but they miss the point of what he was saying. In Steven Spielberg’s eyes, a TV movie shouldn’t be up for a cinematic award, no matter the quality of the film. Spielberg told ITV News last year that Netflix and other streaming platforms have boosted the quality of television, but “once you commit to a television format, you’re a TV movie. … If it’s a good show—they deserve an Emmy, but not an Oscar.”

Streaming has changed the game in ways that we’re just beginning to see, but the academy’s first job is to preserve the theatre going experience and if services like Netflix want to qualify, then they should be a part of that conversation. Regardless of where you fall in this debate that will rage on for years to come, it is clear that the Academy needs a rule change. For example, instead of a one-week window, perhaps a four-week window in more than two cities, or use Amazon’s approach as a template and limit when that film debuts on a streamer. Time will tell what that decision will be.

The Missing Link to Laika Films

By Brandon T. McClure

Outside of few exceptions, stop motion animation has gone out of favor with the general movie-going audience. Hollywood studios rarely want to invest the time and money on projects that won’t yield a high reward. But there’s one studio that is trying to bring the magic and beauty of the art form: Laika. This studio is probably best known for putting out Coraline, since that’s the film that did the best due to a number of factors.

As of mid april 2019, Laika has released five stop motion animated films, and they keep progressively doing worse at the box office. All five of Laika’s films do well critically, with the lowest rotten tomatoes score being Boxtrolls with 76%, and the rest ranging between 88%-96%. Missing Link will be the first outright bomb for the studio. The question becomes, is there an audience for this kind of animation anymore?

As mentioned before, Coraline is their most successful financially with $124.6 million globally, but that’s probably do to how the film was marketed. In the time since it’s release, Disney/Touchstone’s A Nightmare Before Christmas has become a cult classic, playing at many venues every year to celebrate, both, the halloween and Christmas seasons. When Coraline was being released, it was marketed as “from the director of A Nightmare Before Christmas”.

Most people, by this time have forgotten that Tim Burton had not directed the film he’s, arguably, best known for. Henry Selick was the director, but between Coraline’s Burtonesque aesthetic and the fact it came hot off the heels of Avatar’s game changing 3D (Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland had found great success for a similar reason), the film became a hit.

Laika developed a bit of goth esthetic that they would keep throughout their next three films, most critics have described it as “Hot Topic Goth”.The momentum of Coraline did help but the other films proved harder to market. The type of films they were making, didn’t look like they would appeal to a wider audience. Laika created new techniques with stop motion, they used CG to enhance environments but never characters, they even created the first ever fully 3D printed model for Kubo and the Two Strings. But why should the general audience care when all they see is something that looks a little worse than a pixar movie?

With that point, it should be noted that Laika’s stop motion is very good, but it’s polished, it’s not as rough as a film that Wes Anderson would make. When you see a film like Isle of Dogs  and Fantastic Mr. Fox, you know they’re stop motion, they have a rough texture to them. When Kubo and the Two Strings was coming out, most thought it was a computer animated film, and it’s hard to get audiences to care about a film specifically for it’s art form.

Missing Link is a massive departure for the company, it’s unlike any film the company has made. The art form is there but the tone is completely different. With this film, it looked like they were hoping to attract a wider audience by making a film with a larger appeal then a film like ParaNorman. Critics see it as another triumph, currently sitting at a nice 89% on rotten tomatoes but it failed to even meet it’s projected $40 million opening and has so far only made $20 million total.

When a film bombs for a studio like Laika, it’s difficult to bounce back from it. Pixar might not be here today if, say, Finding Nemo bombed at the box office. Some restructuring will have to be done if the studio is to continue. The films have quality, or so the critics think. Stop motion is unlike every other animated form, and it’s not cheap. With any luck, Laika will find the financial success it deserves so they can keep making quality films, It’s hard for any studio to keep making films on critical reception alone.

Disney+ Will Make All Your Streams Come True

By Brandon T. McClure

Last year, Disney announced plans to launch a new Streaming service called Disney Plus or Disney+. Details at the time were sparse but things started to trickle out into the news circuit. Disney had announced plans for new programming, based on Star Wars, Monsters Inc., High School Musical and Marvel as well as making a promise that the service will be “cheaper than Netflix”.

Thursday April 11th was dubbed “Disney Investor Day 2019” by the company and they took the opportunity to drop a lot of new information for the service, including price and the release date. At the end of the very impressive presentation, Kevin Mayer, the direct to consumer chairman, announced that the service will drop on November 12, 2019 and debut at $6.99 a month.

They opened with a presentation of how the service will look on the landing page. Consumers will be able to personalize their experience by specifically choosing what brand they want to search under, either Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm or National Geographic. Disney will include the entire back catalogue of the company, as well as its newly acquired properties from 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight.

Probably the major content selling point for the service is all the new content that will be included. Disney brought out many producers and creators to talk about new content being developed strictly for the service, including Kathleen Kennedy, president of Lucasfilm, and Jon Favroue, creator of The Mandalorian. The Mandalorian will be the first ever Star Wars live action series and will be available when the series launches in November.

Marvel Studios president, Kevin Feige took the stage to talk about the Marvel products launching on the service. Marvel is looking to have quite the year, with Captain Marvel having recently made $1 billion and Avengers: Endgame out in just a few weeks. Only a handful of the Marvel films will be available at the time of the launch but shortly after will be series’ like Falcon and Winter Soldier, a series based on the two Captain America: The Winter Soldier characters and WandaVision, a series based on the two Avengers: Age of Ultron characters. Both of the series will star the actors who played them in the feature films and the shows will have lasting impacts on the franchise, unlike the shows that Marvel Television has put out in the past.

National Geographic and Disney Channel were on hand to talk about their sections of the expansive service, including announcements of The World According to Jeff Goldblum and The Phineas and Ferb Movie respectively.

Disney+ will also be a home for films that might not find a home in a theatrical market. At CinemaCon this year, Disney made another impressive display when they showed their entire 2019 theatrical release slate, needless to say it was very crowded. With the acquision of Fox, Disney now is in a position to compete with itself in some weeks. Disney has found very little success in live action films, not already based on a beloved property like an animated classic or a Marvel comic, so Disney+ is positioning itself to house the other films. Along with Lady and the Tramp, a reimagining of the animated classic available at launch, there will also be Noelle, a new Christmas classic starring Anna Kendrick, and Timmy Failure, based on the popular book.

So much was announced for the new streaming service, that it would be difficult to give them all the space needed to talk about them. Everything from new information on High School Musical: The Musical – The Series to the untitled Cassian Andor Star Wars show and the announcement that Disney+ will be the exclusive home of the first 30 seasons of The Simpsons (which makes you wonder what Fox Entertainment’s role in this new economy is).

The $6.99 price point will make the service very alluring to audiences, and Disney has no shortage of fans. The price point puts it under Netflix’s standard $10.99 plan and only $1 above CBS All Access’ ad supported plan. The service has something for all, people looking to watch Ducktales to people looking to watch old episodes of Lizzie McGuire. Disney’s new streaming service will be successful no matter what, and speculating on the long term ramifications of a major motion picture studio launching an exclusive service like this will have to wait for another time. With so much content being available at launch (over 75,000 episodes and 500 movies by the end of the year), plus the ability to have offline play, this service will quickly be a major player in the streaming market.

Follow Brandon at @BTMcClure or on the Fake Nerd Podcast and Mythellaneous on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcasting app.