View Full Version : Another bomb for disney???
09-23-2002, 01:32 PM
The newest disney/miramx creation-Four Feathers made approx. 7.5 million its opening weekend. Is this another bomb for disney as im assuming the movie cost more than that to make and they sure spent alot on PR.
So do we have another bomb on our hands??
I did see them movie and wasnt impressed at all!!
09-24-2002, 10:32 AM
You missed the big news though...
Warner released Ballistic, a 70 mil film which took in just a couple dollars over 7 mil.
Four Feathers, split between Paramount and Miramax, cost 1/2 as much, about 35 mil, and took in nearly as much, almost 7 mil.
Who had the real loser of the weekend - and by the way, the last 7 Warner films have bombed (8 Legged Freaks, City by the Sea, Feardotcom, Ballistic, Pluto Nash, Powderpuff Girls and Bloodwork). Pluto Nash, 90 mil cost, 4 mil gross.
09-24-2002, 01:37 PM
Well if the movie cost Miramax 35 milliom to make the moive if the provided numbers are correct and then you add in the advertising costs it looks like the disney company will lose money on the deal and the miramax name was mentioned as promiently as paramount when i saw the movie so i would guess its more of a c0-production rather than foreign licensing agreement, but if im wrong im sure scoop will tell me.
Dscoop-And where is all the happy news??? Did eisner quit andi dont know?? Or was some new e- ticket attraction announced?? Giving us back what was stupidly taken is nice to hear but good news would be something extra and not the return of the old!!
09-24-2002, 01:47 PM
Thanks for the info dscoop, if the foreign reaction is similiar to the states it looks like they can hope to break even at best!
09-24-2002, 06:25 PM
Really, most films lose money at the boxoffice; they hope to make up for it with video, pay tv, and tv rights. So, if 80% of the films lose money at the box office, this one will too. But that is normal. Not normal is actually making money off of the box office gross.
This will be a break even or loss situation, but that is normal. Every film is a gamble and you don't always walk away with a winner.
They probably knew that it wasn't going to be a money winner in the long run, so they released it in September to capitalize on the low competition. So maybe they brought in a couple of extra million that way, and lost less money in the long run.
Go to www.boxofficemojo.com which lists all of the weekend grosses, top 150 movies. Look at the grosses and the cost and marketing costs, and see that most every film is at a loss.
09-30-2002, 04:28 PM
With the cost of ticket prices, it seem the only movies people want to pay to see are the big block busters that are best seen on the big screen. Who wants to shell out twenty bucks for tickets for a movie with no great special effects that will be on HBO in a few months?
That only leaves the target market of the teenagers and young adults, so they pump out those horrible poorly made and poorly acted horror and/or sex filled movies.
Disney should stick to producing the great animated features like the Lion King....
09-30-2002, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by The Duchess
Who wants to shell out twenty bucks for tickets for a movie with no great special effects that will be on HBO in a few months?
I do. And anyone who is a fan of film and the cinema.
09-30-2002, 05:36 PM
I agree with you both. I'm more discriminating about what I will pay to see in the theatre vs waiting for cable or blockbuster BUT special effects isn't what gets me there. I catch enough movies on cable that I wish I'd seen in the theatre that I do know it is still worth going.
09-30-2002, 10:01 PM
OT, but is this a remake of an old flick that I think was named "Four Feathers of Courage" ?
09-30-2002, 11:16 PM
No bomb here ... Sweet Home Alabama opened to 35 million dollars!
09-30-2002, 11:45 PM
Warner Brothers did OK with Scooby Doo and they've got the 2nd Harry Potter film on the way so I wouldn't lose any sleep over them.
I am surprised that Four Feathers is doing so badly. I thought that it looked like a pretty good movie and plan to see it. It looks like I'd better do it soon.
10-01-2002, 01:24 AM
People will pay for quality films that interest them. Take a look at the box office for ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding’. People will go to the theater for movies that really interest them – special effects and big screens don’t matter. If people wait for a movie to come out on home video or cable to see it, that’s the fault of the film and not the audience.
As for ‘The Four Feathers’ (opinion – an unfocused movie more interested in it’s importance than in telling an important story), it was a joint production between Miramax and Paramount. One gets the U.S. box office, the other gets the rest of the world. Miramax has really stepped up its joint production efforts with all the other studios. It has several major films in the works with Universal too. There’s been a growing separation of interests between Disney and Miramax fueled, according to rumors, over the Eisner’s cost cutting frenzy and the way it’s chaffing the Weinstein brothers. Hey, Mikey didn’t let the guys make ‘Lord of Rings’ and I’d be upset too. Worse, Miramax used to rule the independent film industry. But Disney’s constraints have caused them to fall behind New Line Cinemas and the rest are closing very fast.
It’s a typical commissary game to guess how much longer Miramax remains a part of Disney.
P.S. Warner Bros. also has 'Lord of the Rings' and they are so messed up these days they need every cent it makes.
10-01-2002, 05:36 PM
Lord of the Rings is New Line; Harry Potter is Warner Bros.
10-01-2002, 06:19 PM
AOL Time Warner own both Warner Brothers and New Line.
10-01-2002, 09:15 PM
touchstone owned by disney? is so they have 2 or 3 crap movies comming. one was a sandra bullok movie hat was the first preview in years i wanted to be over quicker.
10-04-2002, 03:27 PM
Most American studios make at least one 'big' picture every year that is never really counted on to do big box office; it is made specifically to garner Oscars for the studio. "Four Feathers" is this year's shot at the statues.
Will it work? I think it has an excellent chance at the second-tier awards, for things like costumes, art direction and cinematography, but I don't think it's a contender for any of the so-called Big 5 (actor, actress, director, screenplay, and best picture.)
Major, major mistake in casting Americans in the 3 leads; with very few exceptions, Americans just don't do the British Empire very well. American filmgoers also don't CARE about the British Empire of the 19th century, and movies about the colonial wars never do decent box office in the US except on the arthouse market. All in all, money wasted.
BTW: this is the 9th time this story has been filmed. It's a remake of a remake of a remake of a remake, so to speak.
10-05-2002, 01:13 PM
Okay well I'm thinking I don't want to waste my time on that
tuck everlasting either
10-05-2002, 03:19 PM
Wes Bentley and Kate Hudson are both from the USA, but Heath Ledger is from Australia adn Djimon Hounsou is from West Africa.
10-05-2002, 04:42 PM
If this movie was made to be a contender for any main Oscar award it will be a big loser in that aspect than even the box office!!
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.