And nothing of value was lost

>Watching the Nostalgia Critic
>In the year of our lord 2000 + 019

Attached: bfa1c1935871c26a4fc6ec7558b455b0.png (512x512, 329K)

The whole “Disney buys critics” thing can be disproved by four words:
A Wrinkle in Time.

Or, alternatively, six words: The Nutcracker and the Four Realms

>Boomer has fake-out death scene
>BUT WHAT ABOUT BOOMER?
youtu.be/DrtS4P_72zE

Or five words: Alice through the Looking-Glass

Seriously, I think they wouldn't want to go from a billion first movie to 300M in the second

Why did you greentext this?

The next "Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius", folks.

But good luck being anywhere near that level of quality.

I don't think I've ever seen a big budget animated movie with so little pre-release hype surrounding it. And it's not even due to lack of marketing. Paramount has record level ad spending attached to this. People just don't care.

Wrinkle In Time was objectively a bad movie though. I don't mean "objectively" like people throw around for Captain Marvel where the movie doesn't cut it and feels lame and stale, but I mean objectively as in everybody was asleep at the wheel on all levels of production from the treatment to the final cut.
Seriously. Try watching it. No amount of pretty shots or powerhouse editing can cover up what a godawful mess it was in the production design, costume design, writing, basic plot, direction, and acting. The Camera team obviously tried their best to work with the shot list, but when the storyboards are that terrible there's nothing you can really do. The editing team did a serviceable job, but again the material they were given to edit was complete crap.
There's no way that Disney could buy off enough critics to spin that. The movie was bad, plain and simple, and even the most leftist zealot out there couldn't say that it was a "powerful" or "important" film while retaining the most basic of their integrity.

On the other hand, Alice and Nutcracker didn't get advertised and weren't meant to be great hits. It would be stupid for Disney to spend money buying off shills for movies it doesn't want to succeed.

Honestly I didn't even know this movie existed until a few days ago, when I saw a TV spot playing on the telly in my workplace's break room.

>not watching the Nostalgia Critic
Don't worry, my son. Nostalgia Man will save your soul. He will save all your souls.

Attached: Nostalgiaman.jpg (1366x768, 292K)

But that movie was great?

>On the other hand, Alice and Nutcracker didn't get advertised and weren't meant to be great hits.
Alice in Wonderland was a billion dollar grossing movie. I strongly doubt they planned for the next one to bomb by a full 70%

Uh, that’s exactly what I said.

twitter.com/ericdsnider/status/1106275408960323584?s=21

This movie is beyond dead

>no director
Oh shit. Hahaha never seen anything like this before.

What a shitshow.

>WHEN I SEE THE MOVIE TONIGHT I WILL LOOK FOR A DIRECTOR CREDIT! MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ISN'T ONE, NOT EVEN ALAN SMITHEE! BUT I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN IT!
>NOT EVEN ALAN SMITHEE
Jesus

So it was just cobbled together by some editor? I might have to see this train wreck.

I'm so fucking sick of talking animal cartoons

Technically after Burn Hollywood Burn nobody's legally allowed to use the Alan Smithee pseudonym on a Hollywood picture.

The movie about a guy making a bad movie who invokes the name Alan Smithee was so bad the director tried to call it an Alan Smithee film, and subsequently ensured nobody could use the name again.

it's pure recycled CGI, someone probably was deleting unused and old SFM models and thought "what if I throw all this shit together and get my friends to voice act?"

It's not a legal thing that prevents people from using the name.
It was meant as an innocuous pseudonym that didn't draw attention to itself; the intention was for the pseudonym to be used on films that members of the Director's Guild of America wished to disown. The pseudonym has since been disowned by the DGA after "An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn" brought attention to its usage.

Nowadays, other pseudonyms are utilized. Most recently (according to Wikipedia), the 2016 film "Exposed" was directed by Gee Malik Linton and was credited to Declan Dale:
>The original story was a surreal bi-lingual drama, reminiscent of Pan's Labyrinth and Irreversible, that focused on child sexual abuse, violence against women, mass incarceration, and police violence committed under the pretense of the state's authority. However, the executives at Lionsgate Premiere thought they had been sold a Keanu Reeves cop-thriller. To increase the film's potential box office, during the editing process Lionsgate changed the story's focus to center on Reeves' character, and changed the film into a crime thriller.

The worst part about it was that it was the second time Disney tried to adapt it, and that was shit too.

>Paramount has record level ad spending attached to this.
Really? I've seen nothing for this

Yeah, give me a source

The next "Barnyard", you mean. Only difference between those two and Wonder Park was having writer and comedic actor Steve Oedekerk on both of those.

Apparently according to IMDB this costs about 100 million.

Sherlock Gnomes cost about half that, and that bombed.

This is REALLY gonna bomb

>director was #metoo'd over a year ago

Jeezus, the state of Nickelodeon.

What's gonna become of the tv series?

WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED

Looks like shit. Imagine if all 2D aimation was only characters moving around in photos backgrounds. This is what modern CGI want to achieve.

Why make this thread? Can we just take a break from arguing about movies for a bit?