Feels like Sherlock Holmes but he talks to animals.
Dolittle(2020)
-
-
Good to know Donny can do more than just Tony Stark nowadays.
-
1. Why are they remaking a movie that was a huge flop and is not fondly remembered?
2. Is it going to be a musical? They don't seem to be advertising a musical.
3. That cover of What a Wonderful World is awful and completely tonally wrong and depressing for what looks to be a fun lighthearted thing.
4. From the producer of Alive in WOnderland and Maleficent. Explains a lot but… that's just the producer? Is it a complete no-name directing? Was that the best resume they could throw on there besides Downey's?
The director has been around for a couple decades, but nothing major under his belt and he's mostly done horror thrillers up till now. Why was he picked for this?
-
1. Why are they remaking a movie that was a huge flop and is not fondly remembered?
Well, aren't those the movies we should be remaking, to give them a second chance?
But yeah, nothing about this movie looks particularly good. And What A Wonderful World, while a great song, is grotesquely overused.
[And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon] -
Well, aren't those the movies we should be remaking, to give them a second chance?
Absolutely. But… why this one? It's not really a case where it was a great idea hamstrung by a poor script or effects, it's just... eh?
-
Absolutely. But… why this one? It's not really a case where it was a great idea hamstrung by a poor script or effects, it's just... eh?
What do you mean by flop? Both of the most recent Dr. Doolittle films that went to theatre made money. The second one, not as much as the first, but still enough to double its budget. Plus, it's not like the 90s film was an original story. This is no different than any studio adapting any given IP 15 years after last doing so. It looks like this one is also a true adaptation of one of the books, unlike the ones from the 90s.
edit: Looks like its being made by a different studio than the 98 one or the one from 67
Check out my podcast for conversations about Greatness in anime, sports, music, and whatever else we can think of.
-
What do you mean by flop? Both of the most recent Dr. Doolittle films that went to theatre made money. The second one, not as much as the first, but still enough to double its budget. Plus, it's not like the 90s film was an original story. This is no different than any studio adapting any given IP 15 years after last doing so. It looks like this one is also a true adaptation of one of the books, unlike the ones from the 90s.
edit: Looks like its being made by a different studio than the 98 one or the one from 67
Wait, they made one in the 90's? Oooh yeah, the Eddie Murphy movies.
I'm talking about the original 67's flop. I had completely forgotten the Eddie one ever existed. Right alongside his Nutty Professor remake.
The original 67 film was a huuuuuuuuge box office bomb. It didn't get even half its budget back and even its soundtrack was a failure and was found in discount bins for decades..
-
Wait, they made one in the 90's? Oooh yeah, the Eddie Murphy movies.
I'm talking about the original 67's flop. I had completely forgotten the Eddie one ever existed. Right alongside his Nutty Professor remake.
The original 67 film was a huuuuuuuuge box office bomb. It didn't get even half its budget back and even its soundtrack was a failure and was found in discount bins for decades..
Ah, that makes more sense. The 90s one resonates with me from my childhood, but it would make sense that it wouldn't come to mind if you weren't a kid in the late 90s.
-
I don't care if the original was a flop, it was a charming movie that was fun to watch. I loved Rex Harrison as Dr. Dolittle, and no offense to RDJ I'm just not feeling him. Musical or no, I don't see the charm in this. I think one of the things I liked about the first was that the animals themselves didn't talk (save for the parrot), so it made it seem more like Dolittle really was speaking to them when we couldn't. Eddie Murphy could have the animals talk because it was more about the comedy. This . . . . doesn't appear to be comedy.
If you can't charm the pants off me like this, then you're not Doctor Dolittle:
-
The original 67 film was a huuuuuuuuge box office bomb. It didn't get even half its budget back and even its soundtrack was a failure and was found in discount bins for decades..
The more you know.
-
1. Why are they remaking a movie that was a huge flop and is not fondly remembered?
2. Is it going to be a musical? They don't seem to be advertising a musical.
3. That cover of What a Wonderful World is awful and completely tonally wrong and depressing for what looks to be a fun lighthearted thing.
4. From the producer of Alive in WOnderland and Maleficent. Explains a lot but… that's just the producer? Is it a complete no-name directing? Was that the best resume they could throw on there besides Downey's?
The director has been around for a couple decades, but nothing major under his belt and he's mostly done horror thrillers up till now. Why was he picked for this?
1. Eddie Murphy's been past his prime for a LONG time, RDJ's at the pinnacle after bringing Tony Stark's arc to a close. He's super bankable in any case and will get people to come regardless of the subject matter.
4. They do that a lot on DVD covers, just to get some kind of connection with their film to others that are looked at favorably. If they can't get anyone who actually contributed significantly to the project like a director, they'll go with a producer or executive producer so they can play a first-degree-of-Kevin-Bacon game.And directors can still impress even outside the genres they're most known for, like how the Russos were more TV comedy directors and then successfully directed really huge action-adventure films.
-
1. Eddie Murphy's been past his prime for a LONG time, RDJ's at the pinnacle after bringing Tony Stark's arc to a close. He's super bankable in any case and will get people to come regardless of the subject matter.
Yeah, if you went like two posts further you'd see I wasn't talking about the Eddie Murphy movie. I forgot they even existed.
4. They do that a lot on DVD covers, just to get some kind of connection with their film to others that are looked at favorably. If they can't get anyone who actually contributed significantly to the project like a director, they'll go with a producer or executive producer so they can play a first-degree-of-Kevin-Bacon game.
Yes, I know why they do it. I wasn't asking "why did they put these successful movies in the trailers" I was asking "do they really have no one else on the team with actual credentials beyond the producer who had nothing to do with those films creatively"? Because if the top talent you can point to aside from the actors is a no name money provider, rather than the director or the writer or the composer… that's not a great sign. That's only a small step removed from "someone on this film worked in the industry at least once before". I'm sure the caterer and the stunt doubles have some good films to their credit too.
-
Yeah, if you went like two posts further you'd see I wasn't talking about the Eddie Murphy movie. I forgot they even existed.
Given that there were two Eddie Murphy Dolittle's, it's hard to have forgotten, but the second bit about R2DJ being bankable was still on point.
Yes, I know why they do it. I wasn't asking "why did they put these successful movies in the trailers" I was asking "do they really have no one else on the team with actual credentials beyond the producer who had nothing to do with those films creatively"? Because if the top talent you can point to aside from the actors is a no name money provider, rather than the director or the writer or the composer… that's not a great sign. That's only a small step removed from "someone on this film worked in the industry at least once before". I'm sure the caterer and the stunt doubles have some good films to their credit too.
Well according to a co-worker of mine who wants to become a producer, there's more to it than just ponying up the money for a project, they do a lot of the organization and whatnot so there may be more going on to their credit than the mere title of producer might seem to indicate to the casual observer. What I really like is when they put things like, "From the stunt coordinator of…" or "From the fight choreographer of..." since then you get a real visual recall of whatever the movie they're referencing is.
-
Given that there were two Eddie Murphy Dolittle's, it's hard to have forgotten,
Not if you never saw them and didn't grow up on them. That's just a thing that was in tv commercials for a few weeks 20 years ago when I was well into my late teens.
When was the last time you recalled the Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan romantic comedy from the same year, You Got Mail?
The Spice Girls movie?
Heck, when was the last time you thought about or remembered the major academy award winner of that year, Shakespeare in Love?Or, for something more recent. How many live action Chipmunk movies have there been?
It's ABSOLUTELY easy to forget about something you haven't had any reason to remember or care about.
Well according to a co-worker of mine who wants to become a producer, there's more to it than just ponying up the money for a project, they do a lot of the organization and whatnot so there may be more going on to their credit than the mere title of producer might seem to indicate to the casual observer. What I really like is when they put things like, "From the stunt coordinator of…" or "From the fight choreographer of..." since then you get a real visual recall of whatever the movie they're referencing is.
Yes, producers have some role in rustling up the talent and making deals, yes, and sometimes its their name putting an assurance on something that gets it through the studio, like when Tarantino puts his brand on a foreign film he had nothing to do with, or when Spielberg presents anything. but they generally have very little to do with the actual production itself. In the promo trailer you don't credit the producer (unless its one of those major names) if you have anyone remotely decent on the actual production with a track record.
-
The Murphy films are what I grew up with, for better or worse, and I like them well enough. I never saw the original and I don't really plan to, and while this new version looks okay, it's not something I'm eager to see.
Like the Avatar? / Like the Miis?Dragalia Lost ID: 97617932505
-
I will say in defense of the original, it was a financial flop but still was nominated for Best Picture. It didn't win, but that's because it had to compete with The Heat of the Night, Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.
The Eddie Murphy movies were fun, and that's all they really needed to be.
-
I mean, it's not a bad concept for a film. Period piece where a dude can talk to animals and goes on a whimsical adventure around the world, visiting exotic locales, and conversing with wildlife. This trailer did not sell that at all though. The music was just an awful choice. It doesn't seem to fit the tone of what they're telling here at all.
Luffy, Zoro, Nami, Usopp, Sanji, Chopper, Robin, Franky, Brook, Jimbei, Carrot, Vivi, Smoker
"ONE PIECE, IT EXISTS" - The Great Pirate Edward Newgate
-
You know, I think the last time I heard What a Wonderful World used in a film was in Finding Dory and…yeah, it was pretty dumb and ill-fitting there too.
-
@Vongola_Boss_XI:
I mean, it's not a bad concept for a film. Period piece where a dude can talk to animals and goes on a whimsical adventure around the world, visiting exotic locales, and conversing with wildlife. This trailer did not sell that at all though. The music was just an awful choice. It doesn't seem to fit the tone of what they're telling here at all.
It's a perfectly good concept, that's why the book is considered a classic. This was just an awful trailer.
-
I will say in defense of the original, it was a financial flop but still was nominated for Best Picture. It didn't win, but that's because it had to compete with The Heat of the Night, Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.
The Eddie Murphy movies were fun, and that's all they really needed to be.
It got nominated because Fox had a huge outsized influence on the academy thanks to its larger than average number of employees, and thanks to a very large marketing campaign where it wined and dined other academy members. Nothing to do with quality (otherwise Cool Hand Luke and Dirty Dozen would have been nominated).
The film was a mess anyway. Rex Harrsion was an uncooperative ass on set to everyone, not to mention being racist and antisemitic to his costars (which actually would be true to the racist source material).
