Block-Busted

...anyone?

Sorry for the late reply, but I will try to answer as much as I can. It is true that there are lots of disaster/fantasy epics that failed at the box office (especially the former), but even then, sci-fi/fantasy/superhero films are more likely to be successful at the box office then a regular crime drama. As a matter of fact, the only $1 billion-grossing film that could be counted as a crime drama is Joker and that film is based on a popular DC villain. It is true that The Wolf of Wall Street did well considering its rating and its runtime, but there are these things to consider: 1. It wasn't THAT successful - There's no doubt that this is the highest-grossing film directed by Martin Scorsese, but the film had a budget of $100 million and grossed $392 million, and I wouldn't exactly call THAT a huge success. 2. It wasn't necessarily that disturbing(?) - Okay, I admit that I haven't seen the film myself, but I decided to mention this because of that borderline-NC-17 thing you've mentioned. For one thing, I think MPA (or MPAA) is made out of @$$-backwarded dum@$$es who thinks that graphic sex is a lot more harmful than graphic violence. I mean, it could be true that those sex scenes in The Wolf of Wall Street are really that raunchy, but I still have a hard time processing how Outlaw King got away with R-rating considering the disembowelment scene. In fact, I don't think Outlaw King would've been able to recoup that $120 million budget if it got a wide release in cinemas because of that. While it didn't exactly generate controversies, it was criticized for being too brutal by some. 3. It's a picaresque/black comedy film - For what is worth, a lot of people who saw the film said that the film is surprisingly hilarious, and I think this is what really sets it apart from The Irishman. When your film is more comedic like The Wolf of Wall Street or that mixed with superhero epic like Avengers: Endgame, that 3 hours of runtime is going to feel much shorter and in fact, when it comes to Avengers: Endgame, some people actually complained that the film felt too short despite its 3 hours of runtime. The Irishman, on the other hand, was about 30 minutes longer and people were telling that it's incredibly slow-paced. This obviously didn't become a problem with Netflix because you could always pause the film if you need some break, but in cinemas, you're probably going to need an intermission for a film like that to be successful, and in fact, I have this sneaky suspicion that Scorsese's refusal to add intermission might've also been part of the reasons why Paramount backed out. And I see that you've mentioned something about Gone with the Wind. While you're correct that a lot of films were not successful even during that time, I have doubts that the film would've been this successful if it came out today - mostly because when the film came out in 1939, there was no television (at least not that much), no home media, no VOD, no streaming services, no tablets, and so on, meaning that the only way to see films back in 1939 was to go to cinemas directly. I apologize for misreading your point about Silence. Still, Scorsese's film flopping at the box office is not unheard of since the similar thing happened to Hugo back in 2011. I know that this one didn't open in a lot of cinemas, but still. I mean, you're probably right that Bright and 6 Underground were going to suck no matter what, but I still think it was a much safer bet for those ones to be released on Netflix instead in cinemas since they would have more chance of becoming successful. As for Artemis Fowl, you're probably not wrong about the whole thing about A Wrinkle in Time and I even suspect that Disney was having a bit of a trauma related to that. Combine that with the whole virus outbreak and the poor trailer reaction, I think those were enough to break Disney's back. I see that you've mentioned X-Men: Dark Phoenix, Terminator: Dark Fate, and Mortal Engines as examples of wide release films that flopped at the box office and while you're not exactly wrong about this, 2 of those films are part of major film series, so putting them into streaming services all of a sudden would not make much business sense either (especially considering that a film that went straight to streaming services almost never gets released on home media). As for Mortal Engines, okay, you might have a point on that one, but I still think Peter Jackson wouldn't have wanted the film to go straight to streamings and having seen the film, I can see why. The film obviously had a lot of issues, but visuals were not among them.

Assuming that this virus outbreak doesn't push them all the way to 2021, these are probably some of the most anticipated animated films of 2020. Here are some of the images from Soul: ...and here are images from Connected: Here are trailers:

While what you're saying isn't wrong, per say, films like Titanic and The Lord of the Rings trilogy are either disaster or fantasy epic, something that are more likely to draw general audience to big screens than a crime drama will. And it's true that The Wolf of Wall Street did well, but it didn't do THAT well considering its $100 million budget. As for Gone with the Wind, that was from 1939, meaning that the whole cinema going was probably a lot more different back then. And Silence didn't receive well? I mean, when compared to other Scorsese's films that might be the case, but 83% on RottenTomatoes with 7.5/10 average and 79/100 on Metacritic are still pretty impressive. Besides, Scorsese has made films that have received worse reviews than Silence. Case in point, Shutter Island. And it's true that a lot of streaming films get strong reviews, but often times, they don't have blockbuster-sized budgets. Those 7 films are only notable big-budget films that are going straight to streaming services as of now and all of them but 1 have at least 1 issue or more. Bright, Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle, and 6 Underground aren't exactly getting good reviews, Artemis Fowl has a trailer that is getting ravaged by fans on YouTube, The Irishman is far too long, and Outlaw King gained quite a bit of infamy for that disembowelment scene. I have a feeling that streaming services will become a place for big-budget films with a massive runtime and/or plethora of NC-17-level of scenes. I should also mention that there were no straight-to-streaming films when John Carter and The Lone Ranger came out.

Really? From what I've read, Paramount dropped the film and Netflix picked it up because the budget was keep climbing. Either way, I don't blame Paramount on this since they probably didn't think that a crime drama with such a large budget and long runtime would do well at the box office, especially after the box office failure of Scorsese's previous film Silence.

True, but think about The Irishman. There's a good chance that studios were unwilling to fund that film because of what Scorsese was going for (a 209-minute-long crime drama with the budget of $159 million). I wouldn't be surprised if studios were iffy about financing Outlaw King as well because of what David Mackenzie was planning with it.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's a problem. Most of the times, films with the budget of $100 million or higher would be too costly to be sent straight to VOD or streaming (like most of the comic book films, Pixar/Disney animated films, or Nolan films) considering that a lot of things would be working against them (like piracy), but if the studio loses faith in their films significantly (like what's seemed to have happened to Artemis Fowl), that could become a better option. And it's true that "other issues" depends on people's tastes on films, but I figured that most people would not be willing to sit through a 209-minute-long crime drama, especially after people who've seen it were warning others that the film could get really boring for some.

It seems to be more of new January/February kind of thing - and somebody on another website said this first. As for why, I feel like this has become the place for directors whose portfolio(s) aren't that impressive, especially when their films are going to cost around $100 million or more.

It could be a coincidence, but here are films with the budget of $90 million or higher that pretty much went straight to streaming services: -Bright ($90 million) -Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle (approx. $100 million) -Triple Frontier ($115 million) -Outlaw King ($120 million) -Artemis Fowl ($125 million) -6 Underground ($150 million) -The Irishman ($159 million) A lot of these films didn't exactly do well with critics. Bright has 28% on RottenTomaotes, Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle has 53%, and 6 Underground has 36% while Artemis Fowl has a trailer that is getting a lot of outrage from fans. Then we have films like The Irishman, which is just far too long, and Outlaw King, which gained an infamy for its disembowelment scene. The only exception to this situation seems to be Triple Frontier, which has 72% on RottenTomatoes, and doesn't seem to have anything particularly disturbing as far as I'm concerned - at least not on the level of Outlaw King. Any thoughts on this?

I'm going to say this out loud - THIS could well be the Citizen Kane of our time:

I can't see the scene. What is it supposed to be?

CGI Animation: If somebody tells me that Coco DID cost $225 million to make (the minimum budget estimation for this is $175 million), I would immediately believe that individual. Hand-drawn animation: I know that CGI is involved in this film, but still, I find Treasure Planet a visually astounding hand-drawn animated film - and this is coming from someone who haven't even seen it yet! Stop motion animation: Need I say more about Kubo and the Two Strings? Okay, guys. Time for you guys to post your favorite animation scene.

There are only 2 songs with the title Remember Me that truly matter. This song: ...and this song: Enough said.

This was my idea: -Pixar = Pokemon -Disney = The Legend of Zelda -DreamWorks = Dragon Ball -Sony Pictures Animation = Yokai Watch Do you agree with this? Why or why not? And if you don't agree, which animation studios do you think should work on those series?

With the IMAX release of Onward, I think it's about time to rank Top 20 animated IMAX releases based on how well they fit with IMAX. Here's my ranking: 20. Onward 19. The Incredibles (re-release) 18. How to Train Your Dragon 17. Ralph Breaks the Internet 16. The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part 15. How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World 14. Toy Story 3 13. Beowulf 12. Zootopia 11. Incredibles 2 10. Cars 2 9. The LEGO Batman Movie 8. The Lion King (re-release) 7. Finding Dory 6. Frozen 2 5. How to Train Your Dragon 2 4. Toy Story 4 3. The Adventures of Tintin 2. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse 1. Coco If you don't see some of the films that you've liked, that's because I haven't seen it yet. What are your Top 20 animated IMAX releases?

Oh, and by the way, Tom Holland and Octavia Spencer were in Dolittle earlier this year. Needless to say, their careers were redeemed.

Yeah, I tried to avoid spoilers as much as I could in my review. Needless to say, this is going to be the best animated film of 2020 until Soul comes out.

I'm here to deliver the good news about one of this decade's first animated films - this film totally delivers. Pixar has made another successful entry in their filmography as the film features just about everything that you expect from a Pixar film - and done well. I normally don't talk about animation in Pixar film since that that would be too obvious, but I'll make exceptions in this case as some people thought that they looked like they're from DreamWorks films. I can assure you, they're not. Sure, character designs here look more cartoony than what you expect from a Pixar film, but once you see the film, they definitely feel like they belong in a Pixar film. And cartoony designs aside, characters are actually designed pretty well, urban fantasy settings are quite creative, and a pretty good world-building. Of course, the most important part of this film is the story, in which Ian and Barley Lightfoot are trying to revive their deceased dad for a day and goes on to a quest to complete the spell after only his lower half comes back. Some would say that this sounds like a typical adventure film, and technically you would be right, but the film's third act is going to change your perspective on the film, and quite honestly, I found this to be very effective, especially since this film is set in the world where fairy tale creatures have went through their own version of Industrial Revolution and hasn't been using magic for years. As for voice acting... again, do I need to talk about this? Voice acting is another thing that Pixar gets it right almost all the time. Literally everyone they brought in for voice casts were pitch-perfect in this film, from Tom Holland, Chris Pratt, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Octavia Spencer, and so on and so forth. Right now, the film sits at 86% on RottenTomatoes with 7.12/10 average and 61/100 on Metacritic, which makes it the first Pixar film to land right at the 80s range on RottenTomatoes. I think this might have something to do with its potentially big Achilles' heel - relatability, or a possible lack there of. Dan Scanlon, who directed this film, lost his father when he was too young to remember him, and decided to make a film based on that, hence the plot of this film involving Lightfoots' deceased father. Reportedly, he wanted this film to "help" people who experienced a similar tragedy as he did, and in that regard, he succeeded. Unfortunately, that might not be a story that everyone can relate to since, honestly, I feel like there are still a lot of people who didn't lose one of their parents when they were too young to remember. The reason why Coco resonated so well is because that film is about honoring ancestors who are no longer with us, and something like that would work with just about everyone since this is one of those things that applies to everyone. This film's theme, on the other hand, is centered around a dead parent whom you don't really know about, so a theme like that might not resonate well with everyone (though, chances are, I'm talking completely out of my anus right now). Should you still see this film, though? Oh, absolutely. Even if the film's central theme might not work well, the film overall still delivers outstanding animations, solid story, terrific voice actings, and so forth. Pixar films are obviously meant to be seen at the big screen, so you guys really should go see this if you have time and money. If you're scared to go to cinemas because of that virus outbreak, wait for home media or Disney+ release. Don't pirate this film, guys. People at Pixar deserve every cent they get for continuously making one great animated film after another. And if any of you guys were wondering, no, there isn't any end credit sequence in this film sadly. My overall grade: A

Okay, so 3 people picked the former while 1 person picked the latter. Anyone would like to explain why you picked one over the other?

Okay, I don't know if this poll belongs here, but I decided to just post it here since I don't know where this should go. In any case, imagine if Mamoru Hosoda actually directs a feature-length animated Digimon film and Pixar makes a feature-length animated Pokemon film. Which film would you choose to watch and why?

Out of all major animation studios with large-enough portfolio, Illumination is a really unusual case. Normally, these studios have their remarkable achievements and their infamous misfires like these cases: Pixar: -Highest: Toy Story tetralogy, Inside Out -Lowest: Cars 2 Disney: -Highest: (Too many to count) -Lowest: Chicken Little Ghibli: -Highest: Spirited Away -Lowest: Tales from Earthsea DreamWorks: -Highest: How to Train Your Dragon trilogy -Lowest: Shark Tale Blue Sky: -Highest: The Peanuts Movie -Lowest: Ice Age: Collision Course Sony Pictures Animation: -Highest: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse -Lowest: The Emoji Movie This is not the case with Illumination. This studio's low point is arguably not as infamous as other studios' low points, but their high points aren't as remarkable. Compared to other studios, Illumination is just... there. Has anyone else noticed this? P.S. I didn't count Hop since that's a live-action film - mostly.

I'm talking about animation studios as Disney I mentioned in this context is Walt Disney Animation Studios. Well, Moana changed all that for me.

I know that I just created a thread in which I bragged about how outstanding Toy Story 4 animation was and how Pixar is probably THE best when it comes to animation alone, but Disney is not far behind either. Say what you will about Frozen 2, but that film really got the animation right. And that, I think, displays the core difference between Pixar and Disney. Pixar seems to want just about everything look very close to live-action, especially when it comes to background animation while Disney seems to treat animation like characters themselves, as if animations have feelings of their own. So, here's my question - between Pixar and Disney, which studio do you think handles animation better and why?

1. Yup. Brad Bird's Pixar films have animation style that are clearly inspired by old cartoons, and they all work beautifully. 2. A Bug's Life animation isn't even all that bad considering when it came out. It's certainly aging better than Antz, I can tell you that. 3. Pixar has tackled environmental message before with WALL-E, but yeah, the entire Love, Death & Robots series would probably make every single SparkShorts look like The Sesame Street by comparison.

Yeah, I don't think Pixar will even think about making something like The Witness since that's a kid-friendly studio. And I'm fully aware that Pixar has SparkShorts project that allows its animators to make short films about more mature subjects, but even then, something like THAT would probably be a major taboo for them. P.S. You want a cartoon-style animation from Pixar? Look no further than The Incredibles and its somewhat weaker, but still impressive sequel, Incredibles 2.