Peter Pan Sequel Review/Box Office Numbers

[lrodk]

I was surpised to read a rather positive review(3 stars) of the Peter Pan Sequel movie in today's N.Y.Post. I've provided a link to the article below.

Even Roger Ebert gave it 3 stars out of four in his review today. While I can unserstand why many adults view this as an inferior product, certainly it can't be all that bad in light of the fair number of generally positive reviews that have surfaced. In other words, maybe, just maybe, it's not the clunker that we all feared would materialize. In any evet it will be interesting to read other reviews this weekend, not to mention the take from it's first weekend in release.

http://www.nypost.com/movies/39149.htm

[Buzz2001]

I'm telling you it was a good movie. Saw it last Saturday. My DD won tickets from Radio Disney in Hartford to an advance screening. Place was packed, accepted very well. Good music, villians, heros/heroines, happy, sad, classic Disney!

[JeffH]

Tasha was excited.
The theatre was packed for Peter Pan-Return to Neverland.
The movie was excellent, I thought the theatre would break out in applause at the end.
In fact I liked the (original story) sequel better than the original (story remake) which featured Tinkerbell turning on Peter Pan (as a traitor!!!), which always upset me.
I saw no poor animation, here (or in any other Disney production to date)

[padams]

The Atlanta Journal/Constitution gave the movie an A-, which is quite a compliment from the AJC (its movie reviews seem to still grade on the bell curve, very few As). DH and I took DSs 4.5 and 6.5 yesterday, and we all enjoyed it. DSs also loved the short Pluto film preceding RTN. The theatre was pretty crowded, more than I have seen for any other movie lately. Has anyone heard the box office numbers for this weekend yet?

[lrodk]

Buena Vista showed its marketing muscle this weekend by getting Peter Pan: Return to Neverland into 2,605 theaters over a busy President's Day weekend. Friday's reported take was 2.685 million and Saturday's 4.986 million. The total estimated take for the weekend is expected to be 11.8 million . That would put in in third place for the weekend behind Crossroads(14.6 million) and John Q(20.6 million). Collateral damage was pushed to 4th place, after debuting at #1 last week, behind RTNL at 9.1 million. With an estimated production cost of $15 million, RTNL has already re-couped roughly 2/3rds of that amount. After it's theatrical run is finished, Disney expects to pull in another $100+ million in video sales, making RTNL a huge financial hit. It's staying power in theaters will be determined by it's % drop-off in gross over the next two weeks. It will be interestnng to see how it plays out.

[MikePezz]

I must say the reviews have suprised me. I was somewhat worried about the reaction to this movie. Since I had heard it was originally intended for direct-to-video release, I thought it would be of lower quality (and from the snips of previews, it was hard to tell if the animation was of theater-release quality.

If Disney can provide quality stories for already established characters, I guess I can accept it.

[RyMickey]

Thought that I'd add my two cents:

The flick was much better than I expected (however, I must admit that my expectations were low to begin with). The story was cute and simple and the animation was surprisingly good. The flick reminded me of the original "Peter Pan" in both style and substance, but it didn't feel like it was simply a retread of the original. This movie is, by far, the best flick to come out of the Disney tv animation department ever. In fact, "Return to Neverland" surpasses "Atlantis" and "Dinosaur" in my book. So, all you nay-sayers and doubters, give this one a chance...you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Return to Neverland: B+

RyMickey

[JeffH]

Toy Story 2 was originally going to be a direct to video.
I don't think they have a difference between TV and movie quality...they just make good movies.

[Another Voice]

The direct-to-video version of ‘Toy Story 2’ was very, very different than the film you finally saw in the theaters. It had a vastly different script, different characters and a much lower quality of work. It was Pixar and their near mutiny that changed things around (over the objection of Disney). Rather than work on an inferior product, Pixar completely changed the script and (according to rumor) more than tripled the budget for the film. The battle over ‘TS2’ was the start of all the friction between Pixar and Disney. What you saw in the theaters was, from start to finish, a theatrical level product.

That’s quite a bit different than ‘Peter Pan 2’ where just the opposite happened. According to a fifth-hand rumor I’ve heard (in other words, it sound true but I can’t first hand for its validity), this movie started out as a fairly ambitious live action feature. The original movie too would have been about Wendy and her family in WWII, but the fantasy elements would have been more offstage and more of a supporting role. Where the original ‘Peter Pan’ was about not wanting to grow up, the sequel would have been about having to grow up and why childhood is a wonderful, but short-lived, part of life. The story was Wendy facing adult reality and adult responsibility but keeping her own “magic” alive, and Wendy trying to shield her own children from the real world despite all that has happening all around them.

A much more complex and interesting movie, but it wasn’t a kiddie movie. And it certainly wasn’t one that would churn the video tapes through the cash registers at WalMart. The script was ordered dumbed-down several times and in the end it turned into the Saturday morning cartoon we have now.

[RyMickey]

Another Voice writes:

"The script was ordered dumbed-down several times and in the end it turned into the Saturday morning cartoon we have now."

I don't know whether you have seen the movie or not, but I think that you are seriously underestimating the quality of this movie. This is head above heels better than the crud that Disney has been churning out as direct-to-video releases. While this was once headed in that direction, the quality of "Return to Neverland" is far superior than that of "Lady and the Tramp 2" and any of the Aladdin sequels (to name a few). To me, the animation is quality. It truly reminded me of "old-school" Disney films. So what if the backgrounds weren't as intricate as in "Tarzan?" While I wouldn't have complained if the backgrounds were "Tarzan-esque," the fact that they weren't didn't detract from the movie in any way. I still stand by my mini-review of "Return to Neverland." This was a fun, enjoyable movie to watch.

RyMickey

[Buzz2001]

Regardless of what the so-called experts are saying, the proof is in the ticket sales. In the end, that is what this movie will be judge on. So I guess will just have to wait and see how it does. One man's junk is another man's treasure.

[All Aboard]

I agree with RyMickey's last post. We pretty much own all of the direct-to-video stuff. I am guilty of buying just about anything that can be seen on the TV and has the Disney label on it.

That said, I certainly believe that there are many examples of these products that are just plain bad. Lady and the Tramp II may be the worst of the bunch. I can't sit and watch that, it's flat out awful.

Return to Neverland doesn't at all compare to these. While no where near the level of the neoclassics of the early 1990's, it's a fairly solid film in my opinion. I was suprised, quite honestly. I thought I was in for a Simbas Pride, or the Return of Jafar. But what I got was far more enjoyable. I have few complaints. Certainly getting the voices close was a near impossible task, the toughest listen there is the Lost Boys. (Tony Batula is now 61 years old [thanks, IMDB] and probably would have trouble reincarnating his 1953 character.)

I found the setting very interesting, it gave us a really close look at the character of Jane. I really enjoyed how she closely matched her grandfather in terms of belief of Peter Pan. Without spoiling for others, I won't go into other "moments" that I really enjoyed. But suffice it to say that Disney knew they had viewers out there that had seen the original many times and they took advantage of playing off emotions instilled by the original.

[dizneeboy]

Wasn't sure what to expect with the mixed reviews. Saw it on Friday and was pleasantly surprised. Unlike some of the previously made sequals, this wasn't excrutiating to watch and was pretty enjoyable all around.

The only two things I didn't like was the direct rip off of the "new crocadile" ( quotes to spare those of you who haven't seen/read about it yet). I thought it was a bit lame. The other thing was paying full price for an hour and 12 mintue movie...although, I watch the original when I got hom and it wasn't too much longer ; )

All the kids in the theater really enjoyed the movie and that is who is was made for! Not we sometimes over-critical adults ; )

B+

[Buzz2001]

Lady and the Tramp II may be the worst of the bunch. I can't sit and watch that, it's flat out awful.

My DD loves that one. She may not be a film critic but isn't it all about the kids and what they like?

I don't understand all the comparisons to the old films. Half of the kids that see this new Disney movies have never seen the original movies so they have nothing to compare it to nor are they looking to compare them to anything.

I think dizneeboy says it best...

All the kids in the theater really enjoyed the movie and that is who is was made for! Not we sometimes over-critical adults ; )

[raidermatt]

Buzz, I understand what you are saying. But here's why I think that is dangerous thinking for Disney. When I was a kid, I loved Bugs Bunny, Porky Pig, Popeye, etc. That's what was on, and that's what I watched. I also saw Disney animated films, either new ones, or re-releases of the classics. If you had asked me at the time, I probably wouldn't have expressed much of a preference for either. Certainly to an observer, I would have appeared equally interested in both.

Fast forward 25 years. Do I still like Porky Pig? Sure. Would I go out of my way to watch him? Not a chance. But I make sure I snap up the Disney classics. Why? Disney makes quality, and they have always know how to hit our emotions. Loony Toons made us laugh, but did they make us fantasize? Have they ever made us cry?

Yes, the children must love the films. But as they grow older, they must continue to love them, both in the same way, and in different ways. That's why when we talk about Disney films, a laugh out of our child is just not enough.

That said, I enjoyed Return to Neverland very much. And yes, my 3-year old son loved it. The animation was not ground-breaking, but was of better quality than Sat morning cartoons. It seemed to keep the style of the original film. Yet the story was not just a re-hash. It has some truly emotional moments, which is something that Shrek, with all of its high-tech wizardry, never accomplished. So while I would not be happy with this film being the crowning acheivement for Disney this year, it is worthy of the Disney name.

[JAP]

My DD and I loved it! I thought the story was wonderful and my DD was able to follow the story without being confused with the original Peter Pan.:)

[Buzz2001]

Good point raidermatt (though I'm a Dolphin fan). I never looked at it that way. Being that I didn't get into Disney until my DD was born in 1993, I see you point. The first one I ever saw was Beauty and the Beast and I can watch it 1,000 times.

[MAKmom]

We loved it! :pinkbounc

[JimB.]

Disney's Peter Pan sequel Return to Never Land pulled in a healthy $16.1 million over the four-day weekend ($11.8m through Sunday).

[Buzz2001]

Peter Pan Sails to Top of Box Office
02-19-2002

(by digitalmediafx.com) Peter Pan: Return to Never Land flew to the top of the box office on Monday, bringing in $3.7 million for a first place finish. Over the four day holiday weekend, Disney's sequel to the classic animated Peter Pan finished 3rd at the box office with a take of $15.6 million.

Peter Pan: Return to Never Land cost Disney's TV Animation division only $20 million to make. The movie is expected to gross close to $100 million by the end of its box office run as Disney reaches deep into its archives to continue making animation sequels and animated sequels to sequels. The numbers are encouraging for Disney, resulting in a very high profit margin before the sequel hits DVD where it will make even more money.

[elemusing]

The BEST part of RTN was when Wendy and Peter Pan meet at the end for a minute. It made me get all misty eyed. :-)

[Mickey76]

:)

Piglet203 and I saw it last night and loved it. I was surprized that it was as good as it was. I was expecting a semi-good storyline and animation that could have been better. I was wrong. The story was great, the animation was great. I can't say enough good things about it. We also liked the Pluto cartoon before the movie.

The "Lilo And Stitch" movie does not look good at all. I've said before that it looks like Disney's version of Pokemon and I'm sticking by the statement. I hope this isn't the direction the company is taking.

All in all, it was a great night to be at the movies.

Mickey76:)

[lrodk]

Peter Pan RTNL is holding it's own at the box office this weekend. Through Saturday, RTNL had grossed approximately $24 million, with Sunday's take likely bringing it ever so close to the $30 million mark. The numbers this weekend will likely see RTNL slip to 4 th place for the week, but the 2nd, 3rd and 4th place spots are very tight. Friday/Saturday's combined gross was $6.21 million, approximately a 20% decline from it's Friday/Saturday's numbers on opening weekend. Conversely, films like John Q, which opened at #1 last week, saw a Friday/Saturday drop of 33% from it's opening week, and Crossroads, which was in second place in front of RTNL saw a whopping 50% decline. RTNL's strength this weekend, relative to other films that opened the same week, should keep it on track toward blockbuster status. When you consider that the studio has already re-couped their costs, from here on out every dollar taken in is pure profit. The same cannot be said for films like Collateral Damge, who opened a week earlier and cost 3-4 times as much to make. That film will be hard pressed to break even at the box office. RTNL could easily reap a 500% profit for Disney at the box office, with another 100 million plus quite easily in video sales. that would up profits for the film to the 1000% plus range. To put it in proper perspective, films like Collateral Damage or even Pearl Harbor for example, because of their relatively higher production costs, would have to gross in the $300-$400 million range to achieve the same success. I'll post RTNL's numbers for Sunday later tonight or tomorrow.

[Buzz2001]

1 - Queen of the Damned - $15,155,000 - $15,155,000
2 - John Q - $12,525,000 - $39,855,000
3 - Dragonfly - $10,400,000 - $10,400,000
4 - Return to Never Land - $9,000,000 - $27,200,000
5 - Crossroads $7,100,000 - $26,266,000

[DaveO]

From what I have read this movie is a combination of feature animation and TV animation. I think this is why the film works in the animation aspect. I have read that they used some feature animation components such as computer animation to supplement the TV work. This is what gives it the quality feel - unlike the other direct to video movies. I have not seen it - just the previews. I will certainly be seeing it soon with all of the good reviews.

From a business perspective maybe Disney should be producing these types of movies more often and save the blockbuster feature animation to every two years. This will spread the financial risk and they can truly concentrate on the blockbuster movies and building anticipation making them an event when they are released.

Dave O.
OKW 4/01

[Buzz2001]

Still holding on.

1 - We Were Soldiers $20,200,000 - $20,200,000
2 - 40 Days and 40 Nights $12,500,000 - $12,500,000
3 - John Q $8,400,000 - $51,075,000
4 - Dragonfly $6,800,000 - $19,400,000
5 - Return to Never Land $6,500,000 - $35,300,000