Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Hai_Karate

  • Rank
    Cobra Soldier

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah, I can't remember its rating but depending on that, it'll most likely either debut on Disney+ like Artemis Fowl (which is a real shame that flick misses theatres completely) or on Hulu.
  2. Well...it ain't looking good for Black Widow's May 1st release date. I was just informed that Disney has cancelled plans to have the Black Widow standees installed in theatres next week. I think it's still wait and see mode, but Disney is obviously prepping for a release date postponement.
  3. Black Widow is far enough out that it would take things really going south for it to be delayed. And if that happens, we'll all have much bigger concerns to occupy our attention. It wasn't just New Mutants, but Antlers and Mulan (!) that have been postponed, so it's all about writing off this month and at least early April as lost business-wise. It's a wait and see strategy. Onward's disappointing opening was the big signal to Disney to hold off for the time being. In other words, don't freak yet. As for New Mutants, it has apparently been finished for some time...at least, the director's version of it. Word is the reason it was delayed was because 20th Century Fox wasn't happy with the finished product. Certain Fox execs were notorious for meddling with projects (see Fantastic Four and other Fox tentpole flicks over the past decade). It sounds like Disney higher-ups watched the director's finished film and thought it was good enough. I suspect they just want it off their plate...there's a real desire to clear the decks at old 20th Century Fox and move forward with 20th Century Studios. Between Disney, Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Searchlight, they have enough going on without also having to worry over whether or not old Fox projects are "just right."
  4. You maybe need to take a look at Disney's blossoming trend of "diversity" in all facets of their operations. For Disney it's not about being diverse for diversity's sake (or "PC," as some of the brainwashed parrots of conservative news call it), it's about hiring the right person for the job (whether that be executives or film directors or writers or animators) regardless of gender/race/creed. On the pop culture front, what Disney has been trying to do is more accurately represent modern reality in their films. In the real world, we all (including kids) see plenty of colorful faces, strong women who aren't just caricatures/objects, same-sex couples with and without kids and gender-fluidity. That's just how it is regardless of how anyone feels about it, so Disney isn't shying away from it. They're taking plenty of heat for it too, make no mistake, but they believe it's high time someone began to normalize seeing modern reality in films, etc instead of just portraying an outmoded view our society that no longer exists. In other words, it ain't the '50s anymore and Disney is apparently more than okay with that. Their efforts may not be moving fast enough for some folks, but they are definitely moving way too fast for others, so it's a balancing act; and I applaud them for moving with the times instead of against them.
  5. So much ignorant speculation and weirdness...it doesn't take a genius to suss out what's going on here, just common sense, but that wouldn't fit certain angry pop-culture nerd-boy agendas. EDIT: That came across as an attack on all speculation and fan comments and I apologize for that. I'm just tired of the Disney hate and the lame spin constantly being espoused by a vocal minority of fan-boys who are blindly following and repeating hate rhetoric instead of thinking for themselves. People forget Sony Corp (and not just Sony Pictures) was on the ropes a few short years ago and Disney actually did them a solid with the original Spidey deal. Disney isn't evil, but they are a smart business. Here's what happened with this whole thing: Sony approached Marvel Studios about making all Spidey-verse movies (Venom, Spider-woman, etc) moving forward & bringing it all into the MCU. Marvel Studios said, "Sounds great, but we're insanely busy and that involves a lot of work, which will cost you." I mean, if you're doing work, shouldn't you get paid for it? So, negotiations began but they never really broke down as reported. More like they were tabled due to other..."events." You see, even further behind the scenes, both Amazon and Apple (and a possible third-party) are in various stages of eyeing Sony for obvious reasons. Both want to get into the entertainment biz in a "total package" way and would love Sony Pic's ready-made distribution channels and back catalog. There are some indications that both want Sony itself and not just Sony Picture Division because it would also give them electronics manufacturing and a game platform. Anyway, that all makes sense. And maybe you all noticed that Bob Iger left Apple's Board of Directors recently... Now, the thing is, if someone were to buy Sony Pictures or Sony Corp itself, the film rights to Spidey and all related characters revert back to Marvel Studios/Disney. So, long story short, this is a quick deal just to keep the MCU's plans with Spidey humming along while that other stuff works itself out. Regardless of who gets Sony, the industry feeling is that someone WILL get them and sooner rather than later, so Marvel/Disney are playing the waiting game.
  6. Well, never say never--and as stupid as the movies you want sound, GOTG proved Marvel can pull "sounds stupid" off, so I'm game--but I'll also take as many of those established flicks (particularly Ant-man+Wasp) as they want to make. As for Hulk, until Universal gives up/loses/whatever the distribution rights to stand-alone Hulk movies, that ain't gonna happen. Besides, I think Hulk works best when teamed up with another hero/other heroes anyway. All that said, Ruffalo has one more movie on his contract...let the speculation begin!
  7. Good points, but people need to remember that while Marvel Studios knew about the tweets beforehand, Disney did not. Disney expects Marvel Studios (and Lucasfilm and Pixar) to perform due diligence on all hires themselves. Contrary to popular belief, Disney can't micromanage all aspects of each division and subsidiary. Regardless of all that, as we've seen on this thread, this is a no-win situation for Disney. Fire Gunn and get accused of "kowtowing" to the right and overreacting to ancient mistakes; keep him or rehire him and get told they're working with a man capable of disgusting behavior or possible pedophilia. They're held to a higher standard than other studios/companies and they hold themselves to a higher standard. In the end, as I said earlier, a thorough investigation was conducted, the results of which convinced Disney that Gunn wasn't a degenerate sex-fiend and they could rehire him.
  8. First, let's leave politics and the stupidity it causes out of this. Second, this actually isn't a complicated matter. Disney has a history of firing/forcing out people who do things that don't jive with Disney's standards/beliefs. More than a decade ago they forced the Weinsteins out of Miramax when Harvey W's crimes came to their attention, and they tried to get someone, anyone, to press charges against him. And last year, they forced John Lasseter out for his abusive transgressions. There are countless other, much lower-profile, examples of this. One additional thing to understand about Disney is that they abide by a sort of holy tenet that childhood is sacred. It's a very real belief within the organization. If you want to work for them, there's one line you don't get near and that's anything to do with harming children. So, in Gunn's case, it didn't matter how Disney found out about those tweets and it hadn't anything to do with right vs left, he would've been fired regardless. Now, all that said, there's another aspect to Disney in that they're known for investigation and for giving second chances. They investigated Weinstein, found the rumors of abuse to have merit and actively tried to get someone to press charges. They investigated Lasseter and gave him the opportunity to stay, provided he took a sabbatical to seek help. Unfortunately, he didn't abide by the terms. And, finally, they fired Gunn because you don't joke about pedophilia and work for Disney, but Marvel Studios and a group within Disney itself conducted an investigation which found no evidence of anything beyond poor taste in humor over a decade ago, and they were able to convince the people at the top--and Iger himself--that Gunn isn't a pedophile or the idiot he once was and he deserved a second chance. Gunn's own actions in the matter helped him tremendously as well. That's it folks. No conspiracy, no politics and nothing out of the ordinary.
  9. Toy collecting snobbery!? lol Man, anything that isn't an overpriced "collectible" statue is a kid's toys.
  10. Marvel Studios has already gone on record stating Deadpool movies would remain rated-R under Disney. I'm pretty sure they'll have to tone the character down when/if he appears in X-men or other MCU flicks though as they're meant to be more kid-friendly, which makes sense.
  11. Expect Disney+ to be very family friendly and essentially capped at PG/soft PG13. Marvel Studios movies will be on there, but don't expect more violent fare such as the current DD, Punisher, etc. or R-rated content such as the Deadpool flicks. That said, Disney already owns 30% of Hulu, and will own 60% after the Fox acquisition goes through, so I suspect they'll use them for more "adult-oriented" stuff like the current Netflix Marvel shows. BTW, streaming rights for Star Wars flicks are currently held by someone else so, unless Disney buys back those rights, it'll be awhile before they play on Disney+. IIRC, the deal ends in like 2020/21 or thereabouts.
  12. From what I hear, the Disney streaming service will be very family oriented and essentially capped at PG/soft PG-13 rated content, which makes sense. So, if these shows were to move to Disney's service, they'd be toned down considerably. Here's the thing though, Disney currently owns 30% of Hulu and will own 60% after the Fox acquisition goes through, making it entirely possible Disney will use Hulu for more "adult" (read, violent) content. My hunch is we'll see shows of this type end up there. It feels like Disney is done with Netflix, seeing them more as a major competitor now and less as a partner.
  13. Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about, "Pole." Disney lets each division and studio operate with a huge amount of autonomy. Marvel Studios takes care of Marvel Studios business, including hiring and all that goes with it, like background checks. The autonomy they operate with was earned, but it's also given out of necessity; despite what people want to believe, Disney is just too damn busy with their own operations to micro-manage Marvel Studios, Pixar and Lucasfilm. To suggest they all knew about the tweets years ago is pure ignorant speculation. Marvel Studios may have, but Disney didn't. The real reason for the firing is a simple one: Disney's core value, the ideal everything revolves around and something ingrained into their corporate culture, is that childhood is sacred, special and magical. If there is one line you definitely can't cross with them, it's that. Disney couldn't care less about the conservo-twats who dug the tweets up or what supposed pressure they brought to bear. The truth is, Disney would've fired Gunn once they became aware of the tweets, regardless of the way they were discovered/brought to their attention. As I said, those tweets crossed an uncrossable line with Disney. You're apparently also ignorant of Disney's history of cutting ties with profitable people who exhibit unsavory character flaws. For example, once accusations came to light and an investigation was made, they fired John Lasseter--Pixar guru and animation genius who turned Disney animation around--because he had become an abusive drunk. That's a huge loss for Disney there. You just know Dreamworks or Illumination would love to snap him up asap. Or maybe you didn't know that they forced the Weinsteins out of Miramax and then sold it off completely because they heard about Harvey W's atrocious reputation, but couldn't find anyone to step forward and press charges. They believed what they heard though, and cut ties rather than associate with a horrible person, no matter how much money he brought in. Also, Gunn was an unknown when he was hired BY MARVEL STUDIOS (and not Disney). It was actually a huge gamble to hire him as the director of a big budget flick about an obscure group of comic characters the general movie-going public knew nothing of, let alone cared about. He hadn't done anything to suggest he was capable of helming such a project. He wasn't sought after. He wasn't admired or in demand. To assert Disney knew beforehand and turned a blind eye because of the money he'd bring in is just astoundingly stupid, lacking in both facts and common sense, and full of shat.
  14. Ok, long read ahead. Sorry in advance. I don't get the "OMG DISNEY MONOPOLY!!!" reactions to this. First of all, 20th Century Fox (the studio) will still be around as a subsidiary. Disney has been really great at letting each studio be it's own studio. There's a reason Pixar is still the preeminent animation studio (with Disney Animation nipping at its heels) and Marvel Studios has basically written new rules and set a new standard for blockbuster flicks. Besides, one of the reasons Disney grabbed them is because they need a studio to produce the occasional R-rated film and "prestige" pics (via Searchlight), which is something they've been missing since they got rid of Miramax. Fox gives them that. Plus, we'll most likely get to see the Fox searchlights and fanfare in front of Star Wars flicks again. :) But the truth is, this acquisition (not a "merger") was more about increasing brands and brand footprints, gaining control of Hulu and a million other things (including getting Sky plc for it's massive share of the Euro market) than it was about "controlling the industry" or simply getting certain film rights to Marvel characters and the original Star Wars trilogy. Disney's just making the moves it needs to make. This is a rapidly changing business and sitting still will get you either acquired or just plain left behind. Fox Corp say this and realized they better sell while the selling's good. Second, take a good look at the entertainment biz and tell me what you see? You will no doubt notice that there are now 5 (6 if you still include 20th Century Fox) major studios, all of them owned by a conglomerate of mass media enterprises. Competition is fierce and there's plenty of it. We've moved into the age of oligarchies (which is just as bad, and can be even worse than a monopoly) in all sectors. Take a gander down the frozen food aisle or cleaning aisle or...#$##, any aisle, and you'll discover that for every sector, there are 2 or 3 major players who own damn-near all of it. I don't like it, but I'll happily take Disney owning more of it than these other entities. Not one of them has such a track record of sustained excellence over the past decade. From Wikipedia, but it's accurate: Studio parent (conglomerate) Major film studio unit Date founded Arthouse/indie Genre movie/B movie Animation Other divisions and brands US/CA market share (2017)[6] NBCUniversal (Comcast) Universal Pictures 1912 Focus Features Gramercy Pictures Working Title Films Big Idea Bullwinkle Studios(50%) DreamWorks Animation Illumination Entertainment Illumination Mac Guff Universal Animation Studios Amblin Partners (minority)[7] Focus World High Top Releasing Awesomeness Films (51%) NBCU Ent. Japan Hulu Documentary Films (30%)[8] 14.98%3 Viacom (National Amusements) Paramount Pictures 1912 Paramount Players[9] Paramount Famous Productions Insurge Pictures MTV Animation Nickelodeon Animation Studio Paramount Animation BET Films Comedy Central Films CMT Films MTV Films Nickelodeon Movies VH1 Films Viacom 18 Motion Pictures(49%) 4.82%6 Sony Pictures (Sony) Columbia Pictures 1918 Sony Pictures Classics Destination Films Screen Gems Affirm Films Stage 6 Films TriStar Pictures[10] Sony Pictures Animation Sony Pictures Imageworks Funimation Films (95%) Sony Pictures Releasing TriStar Productions[11] Left Bank Pictures SPWA[12] Triumph Films 9.87%5 WarnerMedia (AT&T) Warner Bros. Pictures 1923 CNN Films New Line Cinema DC Films Cartoon Network Studios Hanna-Barbera Warner Bros. Animation Warner Animation Group Williams Street Adult Swim Films Castle Rock Flagship (49%)[13] HBO Films Cinemax Films Turner Entertainment Hulu Documentary Films (10%)[14] 18.50%2 Walt Disney Studios (The Walt Disney Company) Walt Disney Pictures 1923 Disneynature VICE Films (20%) Lucasfilm Marvel Studios The Muppets Studio A&E IndieFilms (50%) Marvel Animation Pixar Animation Studios Walt Disney Animation Studios Lucasfilm Animation Touchstone Pictures ESPN Films (80%) Miravista Films WDSMP Hulu Documentary Films(30%)[14] 21.82%1 Fox Entertainment Group (21st Century Fox) 20th Century Fox 1935 Fox Searchlight Pictures Regency Enterprises Fox 2000 Pictures National Geographic Films (73%) Blue Sky Studios 20th Century Fox Animation Fox 2000 Pictures Fox Star Studios Kudos Film and Television(50%) New Regency (20%) Zero Day Fox Hulu Documentary Films (30%)[14] 12.92%4
  • Create New...

Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!

Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE