Early 'Pearl Harbor' Results

[Another Voice]

It’s not a bomb yet just because that tiny propeller is still spinning...

Initial projections show an opening weekend of about $62 million, with a total holiday take of between $76 - $84 million. While that’s a lot of money, that’s considerable below Hollywood’s projections of $100 million and way off of Eisner’s forecasted $115 million (and his boasted $135 million). It’s also well behind ‘Jurassic Park: The Lost World” – the record holder for a three-day weekend box office at about $91 million.

Worse, only a part of the box office goes to Disney. The “box office” is the total ticket sales; that money is split between the studio and the theater. The spilt is usually about 55% to the studio, 45% to the theater, it’s really a little more complicated but this assumption will work here. Disney’s take from ‘PH’ this weekend is probably around $45 million. The box office take usually also falls between 30% and 50% per week, meaning Disney’s share next week, and a normal two-day weekend, will be about $12 million. Cut that in half the next week, and the week after that, and so on. It’s going to a struggle for Disney to recoup it’s $250 million investment.

The reviews are still overwhelmingly bad. I checked may favorite source on the internet (www.rottentomatoes.com). I like them because they carry the largest number of reviews of any site that I’ve seen – and they’re just reviews, despite the name the site doesn’t take a stand on way or the other on a movie. Right now, ‘Pearl Harbor’ stands at 26% favorable. For comparison, ‘Armageddon’ was at 53% favorable and ‘Titanic’ came in at 87% favorable. The review from the ‘LA Times’ was the only major media source to give an unqualified positive review.

On the rumor side, the movie’s screenwriter (Randall Wallace, who also wrote ‘Braveheart’) is now speaking out against the movie’s director (Michael Bay). Basically that Bay brought in other writers and weakened the love story, changed the dialogue, and to put in more explosions. This tiff also comes after Bay’s swipes at Michael Eisner. Infighting between the major players of a film usually means that they know there’s a big problem. By the way, the “.. and then all of THIS happened” line is the butt of every joke in Hollywood this weekend. I’ll post some of the better ones later.

Anyway, sorry for all of the numbers. I had a professor back in college who had a great saying, “The only truth in the universe is mathematics. Everything else is just a matter of opinion.” Whether you like the movie or not, there’s no getting around its box office.

P.S.
I’ve tried to avoid writing a critique of this movie, but I think everyone can guess my feelings toward it. My biggest concern is that Disney’s marketing machine is trying to turn this movie into a patriotic tribute to American service people, and trying to turn seeing this movie into a patriotic duty. It’s not, this movie is a silly action film that cares more for its special effects explosions than for the people it is trying to portray.

I humbly suggest that in addition to seeing ‘Pearl Harbor’, you also find a broadcast or a copy of ‘Dear America: Letters Home From Vietnam’. A film by HBO made in 1988, it has dozens of well-known actors reading actual letters from service people in the war. Every moment of this film is filled with the true emotion, the true respect, the true honor that is missing from the three-hour long ‘Pearl Harbor’. It’s last letter, from a mother to her dead son and left at the memorial in Washington, is the single most poignant commentary about war that I have ever heard. This women, writing from the heart, was able to express in a few paragraphs the anguish and pride that all of America should feel. Watch ‘Dear America’ and you will know the experience of war. Watch ‘Pearl Harbor’ and you only see $135 million in toys from Hollywood.

[Testtrack321]

Poor AV, poor AV. IT IS A GREAT MOVIE AND IS WORTH IT! Plus it is really patriotic to the ninth degree!

[JeffH]

I just read a box office report on IWON.com and it paints a completely different picture.
Realizing that this is a long movie, which limits the number of shows per screen, and therefore how much it 'theoretically' can make, Pearl Harbor will easily beat the previous 'long movie' record holder, Private Ryan. It reports that the movies 3 hour running time kept it from breaking the box office records.
As far as Eisner's supposed 135 mil prediction, Disney's ACTUAL statements were
"Disney officials said the forecasts had been wildly extravagant and the company had always been restrained about making bold predictions.

It was "mathematically impossible" for the film to gross $100 million over four days, as some people had been predicting, said Disney distribution president Chuck Viane.

"It's never, ever been possible to do a $100 million weekend (with a three-hour film)," Viane said.

I have found over the years that critics are generally FoS, it's what the people think that really matters and this is what seems to be the case:
"The film was playing to sellout crowds, scoring highly in exit polls and pulling in a surprisingly high share of women."

[Pixieduster]

There was guite a mixed crowd of people at the show we saw. We had an older couple sitting in front of us and they really enjoyed the film. Behind us we had three teenage girls who were sobbing throughout a good part of the movie. I think that this movie has something that will appeal to everyone.
I'm sure there are many people who will not see this movie based on the bad reviews early on. I always make up my own mind about a film and I'm glad I went.

[Another Voice]

JeffH, glad to see you back (even if we are going to have one of our rare disagreements).

First, I just checked and Disney is not going to release the traditional Sunday numbers. That is not a good sign. Through Saturday, the film made less than $40 million and estimates for the four-day take are now tracking to a lower $75-$78 million.

Disney knew that a three-hour film would be a problem, that’s why the contract they made with the theaters both increased the number of screens the movie was to be on and mandated special “early and late” show times. There was no “mathematical impossibilities” here – Disney is far too smart for that one. I read the spokesman’s statement and it’s standard-issue Hollywood damage control (flavored with a few out-and-out lies). Nothing kills a movie faster than by being labeled a stinker its opening week. And no studio ever makes a public prediction about weekend grosses, but that doesn’t stop them from boasting in private (which Mr. Eisner tends to do and where the $135 million figure came from).

I never said that ‘Pearl Harbor’ was going to completely tank. Given a big enough marketing campaign, you can get any movie to have a huge opening weekend. After that, it’s up to the film itself as measured by the reviews and word-of-mouth to keep making the money. Eighty million dollars is a lot of money. Of course, they spent much, much more money on this film as well as betting the studio on a strong performance. If the film goes down, the new round of cost cutting will make losing the boats, entertainment and park hours at WDW seem like nothing.

And that’s something we can both agree is a bad thing.

[JeffH]

Did you actually see the film and dislike it, or are you just jumping on the bandwagon of Disney bashers?
Disney has won the box office for 6 of the last 7 years, and critics love to bash the best (that's how they sell themselves, and get famous). I've seen many undeserving movies killed by moron critics and "bad" press. A lot of talented people worked hard to make this an entertaining movie, please give it a chance.

[MikeS]

Jeff
Not to paint a different picture the theater I saw it at was largely empty and I saw it and while the attack was fantastic the picture stunk imho. There will be little repeat business. I say under 200 Million overall.

[Captain Crook]

JeffH hit my point (in the thread I tried starting), is this just once again "Bashing" the Mouse? Even your projected figures don't seem too bad, in fact approaching 100 million seems good (but I'm no expert).

You (AV) have repeated that it will ultimately be word of mouth which carries this film and from what I've heard the masses are loving it. MikeS just reported that he didn't (as well as the first empty theatre review I've heard) and I suspect you don't but everyone else here has. Our local news (not ABC) has had lobby interviews every night and I heard one "lukewarm" review and all the rest positives. The reports I'm seeing say the theatres are jammed packed...What elses is there if the seats are full? It still looks to me like Disney has a winner on their hands despite critical objection...Or maybe foul play?

Lastly, regarding the length, I read theat many theatre operators requested more copies for show on smaller screens and Disney said no, they didn't want to decrease the "big screen effect" for the viewers...Hardly sounds like the Disney picture we see painted so often...

As for Eisners prediction...Well, that report sounds a little Jum Hillish doesn't it?;)
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Another Voice]

I have seen ‘Pearl Harbor’ a total of four times over the last month or so – including last night with an audience (about a third full). The reaction was luke warm and about what I expected. This movie is extremely commercial, filled with time-tested ways of tugging the heart strings of an audience. Some of it always works and it worked last night.

As for the reaction shown on television, that’s rarely an indication of what people are going to tell their friends in private. How would you react if someone shoved a camera and lights in your face and demanded an instant judgment that would be seen by all your friends and neighbors? And if you’re the producer of the local news, which makes better television – a guy drowning on about “the love story is trite without wit or substance”, or a group of N*Sync fans bouncing up and down, squealing about how dreamy Josh Hoshnett is? ‘The Mummy Returns’ also got huge favorable ratings it first week – and then lost 60% of its box office the next weekend. The true test of word of mouth isn’t what people say as they leave the theater, it’s how many of their friends they convince to see the movie the next weekend. And that’s going to be the test for ‘Pearl Harbor’ as well.

The ‘big screen’ effect had nothing to do with the film’s presentation. Disney’s contract mandated that the film be shown in the theater’s biggest auditoriums because that’s where the most seats are. In most complexes, the biggest theater has more seats than two of the smaller theaters combined. This was part of the strategy to guarantee big box office – and also a way of squeezing out the competition. Also, a print of ‘Pearl Harbor’ probably costs Disney about $50,000, so the fewer they have to make the better.

I don’t see the negative critical response against ‘Pearl’ as Disney bashing. If anything the response has been very mild compared to some recent giga-hyped blockbusters like ‘Godzilla’. And if ‘Planet of the Apes’ or ‘A.I.’ turn out to be bad movies, you’ll see the all the same negativity as well. What the reaction is against is the unwarranted hype that Disney surrounded this movie with. The expectations were enormous and Disney ran around telling everyone that this wasn’t just a major movie – this was an IMPORTANT film. This was a film like ‘Platoon’ or ‘Patton’ – a movie that would define history for a new generation. Instead what everyone saw was a bad popcorn action flick with a few ego-stroking moments of “what a great filmmaker am I” thrown in.

Disney’s problem isn’t organized bashing against them (“The Vast Anti-Mouse Conspiracy”?), it’s that they haven’t made anything good in a long time. If they’d just try to make good movies, people would respond. There wasn’t bigger joke in Hollywood before Eisner took over then a live-action Disney film (anyone remember ‘The Cat From Outer Space’?) – and that was turned completely around by making good movies. They’ve won the box office banner simply by releasing the most pictures of any studios – a tactic they can no longer afford to do. It’s time they again tried quality over quantity.

And lastly - a $100 million is a lot of money, but if it costs you $200 million to get it, are you really coming out ahead?

[Coronado Williams]

Originally posted by Another Voice
They’ve won the box office banner simply by releasing the most pictures of any studios – a tactic they can no longer afford to do.

Confirms my suspicions, then. From Exhibitor Relations data so far, it appears Disney will not be #1 this year. Thank you, AV, your insight is always fascinating and unequalled in accuracy and intelligence.

[degenerationxwwfwdw1]

Well Pearl Harbor was really everything it promised and more. I think this is the one movie to see this summer. Great acting, great action, suprisingly great love story. and the most unfairly reviewed movie of the year. If you dont leave this movie being proud to be an American there is something wrong with you. This movie deserves every penny it makes. Now I hope that money doesnt have to make up for Atlantis. Atlantis dosent look like it will make a large amount of money (I hope I'm wrong).

[Bob O]

Comparing Pearl Harbor to the Letters from vietnam is comparing apples to oranges. Pearl Harbor is basically a love movie based around the attack and i dont think it was meant to be a defining movie like Saving Private Ryan. I havent seen the movie yet but will do so in a week when the crowds slow down but from people ive spoken to they thought the attack/action parts were great but the love story bombed! The Mummy Returns is on target to make more money than the original which isnt usually the case and in fact from what ive read made more money than Pearl harbor over the 3 day weekend numbers. From people ive spoken to few will see it again until its out on video or a budget theatre.

[OnWithTheShow]

BTW the theater I saw it in was showing it in 3 400 seat theaters and a 800 seat theater all at the same time (1030PM) and there were few empty seats in any of the theaters.

[Pixieduster]

Apparantly, the negative reviews have had a very large effect on how many people have gone out to see this movie. I have talked to several people over the last couple of days where the subject of this movie has come up. One person told me "don't go see Pearl Harbor" I asked if they had seen it. They said no, that they heard it was terrible. Several other people had stated that they were not going to see it because of the bad reviews. I hardly ever listen to reviews. Often times I find I end up liking many of the movies that get negative reviews. It's obvious from reading these boards, that some really liked this movie and others didn't as is the case with most movies. I don't think we'll ever "prove" one way or another if this movie is good or bad, because it's a matter of personal taste. One thing that is certain is that it did not and is not going to do as well as was hoped due to the bad publicity is has received.

[Captain Crook]

Voice, I didn't mean to imply that if the movie made 100 mil that would be good, certainly you don't think me that niave, but if it appproaches 100 mil for the 3 day holiday, then that couldn't be a bad start, could it? Now as you've stated, you don't think it'll hit that mark and I believe you know a lot about this, but the numbers aren't in yet...

Also you commented to the reaction on television that I spoke of, but I must disagree because here in So. Fl. I see people bash the movies quite often on these big premieres. But it hasn't happened with PH, I haven't seen the report for tonight yet...

As for word of mouth, I agree that will be the test, but again from what I'm reading from across America, not just tinsel town, people seem enthusiastic...

The big screen effect was reported in an article I read with the head of Buena Vista Distributing saying they refused the extra copies due to the presentation factor I mentioned...

As for Disney not making any good movies, I just can't see that. Was not Sixth Sense Disney to name one...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[JeffH]

Disney wins the box office every year because they put out good movies, with several breaking the 100Mil mark every year. It's the competition that releases the shallow films, that if they would take the crown that should be questioned. Disney doesn't win the bo crown based on weak, goofball, or teen sex films, and rarely puts out a stinker (Mission to Mars), Disney generally puts out good family entertainment (except for Pulp Fiction).

[Another Voice]

Well, the final numbers are in: $75.1 million for the four day weekend. That’s lower than the low end of pre-release estimates and will be a huge disappointment to the company (they’ll claim otherwise to Wall Street). That makes the opening receipts far lower than the Memorial Day weekend opening for ‘Jurassic Park: The Lost World” and about the same level as last year’s ‘Mission: Impossible 2’. The three-day total “normal weekend” total for ‘Pearl Harbor’ was less then the first weekend for ‘The Mummy Returns’. The opening is still the highest ever for a non-sequel movie, but it came at a tremendous marketing cost.

Disney’s job right now is to avoid the perception that this film is a looser. You’re going to see several Disney spokespeople on TV tomorrow spinning that this was better than they hoped, and Michael Bay will be talking to anyone who answers his call to say that he’s “just thrilled” to have such a hit on his hand. To goal is get people to disregard the reviews and the news and to go see the movie next week. As a quick aside, the newspaper ads out here for ‘Pearl Harbor’ do not include any quotes from critics. Is this just an L.A. thing or is this happening everywhere else as well?

Until some weekday numbers come in, it’s going to be hard to do some final projections. My guess is that the total domestic take will be just less than $200 million. Working through the numbers, this film could still make a very slight profit. But that’s only after its home video release. And that’s counting on a “normal” international box office; I have serious doubts about its performance in Europe and Japan. All of the American flag-waving and the inept love story will kill the film in Europe and the “challenging” subject matter makes it iffy for Japan. If next week’s box office is $35 million or less, this film will be a looser; if it’s over $45 million it will okay.

Thanks for reminding me of ‘The Sixth Sense’; my statement shall be modified. That film is also a case where the critics rescued a Disney film. It had almost no public interest until the extremely positive reviews got people into the theaters and a major hit was born. Reviews cut both way. Funny how no one ever claims there a plot to overly praise a film, but everyone believes that the critics are always out to “get” someone.

One last bit about the numbers – ‘Shrek’ had an incredible weekend. It’s three-day totals went UP from last week. This rarely, rarely happens (even over a holiday for a “family movie”). It’s two week total is now well over $100 million. Some of the demographics are showing a fairly high repeat viewing. There’s now a chance that ‘Shrek’ will outperform ‘Pearl Harbor’ at the box office. And won’t that be a dark day in the perfect Kingdom of Duloc?


P.S. Bob O – I agree that ‘Pearl Harbor’ and ‘Dear America’ are two vastly different films (in many ways). My comments were in response to Disney trying to sell ‘Pearl’ as some kind of noble tribute to veterans on Memorial Day. I find that marketing tactic to be offensive and the fact that so many are buying it to be very sad.

[Another Voice]

Sorry JeffH, our postings must have past each other in the ether. Last year’s B.O. crown was won with this stunning line-up: ‘Coyote Ugly’, ‘Duets’, ‘Gunshy’, ‘High Fidelity’, ‘Gone in Sixty Seconds’, ‘The Crew’, ‘Unbreakable’, ‘Shanghai Noon’, ‘O Brother Where Art Thou?’, and the ever kid friendly ‘Hellraiser: Inferno’.

This year’s list includes ‘Daddy and Them’ (it’s rated R – I’ll leave the rest up to you), ‘Double Take’, ‘Mullohalland Drive’, ‘Just Visiting’, and again for the kiddies – ‘Hellraiser: Hellseeker’. Oh, and I forgot ‘Committed’, where the movie poster features a young women “flipping off” the viewer. Sadly, many newspapers around the country did not find the good family entertainment value in this and refused to run the ad.

Disney right now is no worse – and no better – than any of the other major Hollywood studios.

[wdwguide]

Originally posted by Another Voice
Well, the final numbers are in: $75.1 million for the four day weekend. That’s lower than the low end of pre-release estimates and will be a huge disappointment to the company (they’ll claim otherwise to Wall Street).

75 million is an incredible number for this movie after only four days. That means more than half the production costs and more than a third of the total cost have already been recovered.
It looks as if the movie will be quite profitable after its domestic release, and after that it will boost revenue as it is released abroad and on video/DVD.

Claiming the it is a flop because it didn't break Jurassic Park 2's record is ridiculous.

[Another Voice]

The studio only gets half of the box office take - the theaters keep the rest. So Disney is only going to keep about $40 million. And the box office will drop 35%-50% each weekend from here out. It's a long road to make $200+ million.

[RyMickey]

I'm working my way through college at a movie theater. I can tell you that we were jammed this weekend for Pearl Harbor. True, we didn't break any records for us, but nearly every single show of Pearl Harbor sold out for us.

The assumptions that the movie was ever going to make $100 million in its opening weekend were incredibly off-base. This flick is three hours and 10 minutes long. Sure, we had several prints of the movie at our theater, but we could only show it three times a day on most of those screens. Compare that to a movie like "The Mummy" or "Shrek" where you can show that movie at least five times a day. "Pearl Harbor's" $75.1 million its opening weekend is incredibly good for a three-hour plus movie.

As for the percentage of money that Disney is taking from Pearl Harbor...if Disney's only taking 50% of the profits from each theater on opening weekend, then I think something is seriously wrong. If I'm not mistaken (I could be wrong, but I don't think I am), most movie studios take 75%-plus of the profits from a movie on its opening weekend. Most theaters don't even recoup the cost of the prints on the opening weekends.

I will say that a good portion of the crowd at our theater was generally age 25 and above, but nearly everyone coming out of the movie enjoyed it.

And if you're wondering if it's any good: I went into Pearl Harbor expecting to be disappointed. I surprisingly enjoyed it. Yeah, some of the dialogue is a little corny, but the romance aspect in the movie (which most critics were denouncing) worked very well. Go see it. It is definitely a decent movie.

RyMickey

[Bob O]

AnotherVoice i agree wholeheartedly with you about disneys tactic of selling it as a tribute to veternans is offensive. I think the sad reality is that its hard today to get large audencies for a war movie without a love angle to it,Saving Private Ryan being a exception,that type of movies has seen its best days just like a good western. I dont kno if youve seen Enemy at the Gates. It was a excellant war movie with a lot smaller love story aspect than Pearl Harbor but didnt fair too well at the Box Office even though it had some great war action scenes. Also most moives dont have all networks,escpecially abc running specials giving the movie extra hype.

[DisneyFanGuy]

Hi Another Voice.

My understanding of the industry is that the cut during opening weekend for any movie is more like 90% for the studio, and that a sliding scale applies for the following weeks. (The studio keeping less of a percentage as an incentive for the movie house to keep the picture playing longer) That's the way it was explained to me by a friend in the industry a couple of years ago.

As for the weekend grosses, I agree that it's a moderate disappointment for Disney. The trades always say that everyone watches the second week grosses to see if a picture has "legs" though, so I suspect that Disney is nervously waiting! It would be a shame if it settles in below 200 mil because Disney doesn't seem to be in the mood to "bounce back" from anything these days. Losing big money on PH will not exactly benefit "the cause".

[larworth]

I really hope the movie does well. The last thing we need is another potential hit on earning’s. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is bad enough, I don’t want Peter to have to cover for Pearl as well.

The pre weekend reviews in the Philadelphia area papers were medium to slightly favorable (2-3 out of 4 stars range). No real negativity, but hardly raving either. There was the obligatory local news coverage of the big opening day event. In this regard the advance PR did seem to create some buzz.

I attended the Saturday matinee. The movie ended up being about 75% full. It was showing on 3 of 12 screens. The funny thing was we ended up taking my daughter (6th grade) and a friend with us. They didn’t want to see PH (too violent) so they decided to see Shrek. I was worried about the PH crowd so we got there plenty early. I had to laugh when my wife came back with the tickets and said Shrek was sold out (all the earlier shows had been as well). The kids had to wait an extra hour to see a later show. Not what I was expecting. By the way she thought it was hysterical.

On to the movie. My wife really liked it (4 stars). I’m afraid I’m in the 2 star range. I thought the attack was well done. Did a good job conveying the chaos, horror, devastation without having to rely on the graphic reality of a Private Ryan. Great special effects. However, given that you can imply (only 2 overall) what I thought of the rest of the movie. I don’t want to bias anyone that hasn’t seen it with my quirky perspective. Suffice to say that I don’t like it when things take me out of the story and put me back into my seat watching a movie. There were so many places where they were trying so hard to be epic that it kept throwing me right back into my seat.

I thought that one of the things you needed to be a mega hit (ala Titantic) was a big repeat viewing. Maybe AV can comment on how big a factor people going to see something a 2nd and 3rd time really is? I do wonder if this is the type of movie people will want to see again and again?

[JeffJewell]

The last thing we need is another potential hit on earning’s

...if Pearl Harbor bombs and Atlantis sinks, it might finally burrow through some thick stockholder skulls that Eisner's management is disastrous for Disney; that purchasing and overhyping formulaic alledged blockbusters is not good for Disney, that hacking the budgets for your internally generated productions then wondering why no one showed up is flat out bad for Disney.

I'll be the first to admit that, should the movies fail to earn their production costs, all Disney budgets will suffer in the short term.

But if it leads to the end of Eisner, it will end up being in Disney's best interests, long term.

Jeff

[Another Voice]

The financial arrangements between studios, distribution companies, and theaters complex to say the least. I’ve tried to keep things simple rather than bore everyone with the details. I had a sign in my office that said, “there are only two things in the universe that humans can truly never understand: quantum physics and studio accounting – Carl Sagan”. Generally, the studios and theaters set up an adjusting scale which gives the studio a higher take up front and the theaters more in the later weeks. The details vary from film to film, studio to studio and even theater to theater, The deal is often changed during the run of the movie if the film isn’t doing well. And there are a whole slew of credits and charges that fly back and forth between all three parties involved. In the end, the rule of thumb is that the studio is supposed to end up with 55% of the box office.

Some films try for more, the most notorious is ‘Star Wars: Episode I’ which did try the 90% gambit (as well as a take of the concession stand, ad placement and a whole host of other goodies). This deal was so one sided that many consider it the prime reason that the film was pulled fairly early. It probably also cost Fox a good $15-20 million in revenue. I don’t know what the deal is with ‘Pearl Harbor’, but it’s not anywhere near ‘Star Wars’. I would also bet that Disney gave up quite a bit in exchange for the number of screens they put it on. Theaters HATE three-hour movies, and they really hate them in the biggest auditoriums.

As for the opening projections – EVERYONE was expecting at least $100 million. Disney had arranged for the screens and show times to guarantee that number. It’s funny how Disney never mention the “mathematical impossibility” during the last three weeks when all of those Wall Street analysts were upping their recommendations on Disney based on the performance of ‘Pearl’. The surveys done right before the weekend showed that of people planning to see a movie, 95% knew that ‘Pearl’ was opening this weekend and more than 60% said it was their “number one pick”. No other movie in history had scored that high in awareness and/or preference. There were a lot of young suits with attitudes running around Burbank last week. It’s going to be interesting to see if they even head out for lunch today.

It’s been rumored for several months that many jobs are on the line if ‘Pearl Harbor’ fails. Disney’s strategy had been to release a larger number of lower budget films, but that wasn’t generating the ‘Lion King’ sized synergy that Eisner wants to drive profits. The switch is being made to fewer but bigger movies and started with ‘Mission to Mars’, ‘102 Dalmatians’ and ‘Unbreakable’. ‘Pearl’ was supposed to generate an entire year’s worth of earnings for Filmed Entertainment: a huge box office followed by the hit video release just before the holidays (can you guess the day they have planned?). If ‘Pearl’ has a significant fall off next week, the crutch that’s been holding up the entire studio will have collapsed. And Michael also has a little problem with a place called ‘California Adventure’ (early rumors claim that the attendance was under 20,000 every day over the Memorial Day weekend – Disneyland was topping 60K).

An early projection – I think ‘Shrek’ will beat ‘Pearl Harbor’ next weekend. I’m probably wrong, I just have this feeling…

[YoHo]

Well, I can't argue studio Accounting, nor would I try. I will sa this. In the other thread, I claimed that the Critics were smoking the crack. I still believe this. And AV, your starting to sound way too much like an insider(like movies should aspire to more then keeping me entertained for a couple hours. You sound lke Roger Ebert without his Dingdongs:crazy: The entire critiquing Industry sounded like Jay Sherman Last week and I think they're full of it. The 24 sreen multiplex I saw it in had it in all 4 of their big THX theaters, Plus it was on their Imax screen(Looked incredible). In Said Imax theater. It was packed and the majority of the viewers were younger then I (26). I have a suspicion that the word of mouth on this film will be more positive then not and a lot of people will be telling friends that the critics are stupid.
while the love story wasn't the best, it did pull me in and If I actually liked Ben Affleck i probably would have liked it even more.


At any rate. I don't know if it will do good or bad, but I think word of mouth will be fvorable. I just don't know if it will be enough.


P.S. J/K about the insider bit. But I think my number one problem with critics is they can't see a movie through the eyes of an average viewer and that's what they're payed to do.

[DVC-Landbaron]

… indicative of the watering down of Disney

Just a little anecdotal story to mix in with the hard facts and incredibly interesting rumors. But first a quick note: Thank you AV!!! Your perception, knowledge and intellect is a tremendous asset to the DIS!! I read many other boards and even post once in a while. The DIS is BY FAR the most intelligent, articulate and insightful of them all. And by and large the most friendly as well!! I, for one, love your posts. How anyone could think of you as a Disney basher is beyond me!!

OK!! On with the story:

This morning as I was driving in from work I heard the local radio personality talking about Pearl Harbor. It was on WGN, the biggest radio station in Chicago (I said biggest, not necessarily the best). While they were talking the woman who does the traffic commented that she had wanted to see Shrek over the weekend and they were sold out. The host said, "What movie?" and she answered, "Shrek. You know, the Disney film that opened last week."

My point? We know, very well, the difference between Dreamworks and Disney. But 90% of the pubic doesn't. The lines are becoming more and more blurred as other studios (and amusement parks) become better and Disney becomes more mundane. More competitive and less a leader. More like the crowd. More ordinary.

I really hope this spells the end to Ei$ner's way of doing things, if not Ei$ner himself!!

[Josiah Harper]

Pearl Harbor' Wins Box-Office Victory
By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) - ``Pearl Harbor'' won an easy victory at the box office, debuting as the No. 1 film with $75.1 million over the four-day weekend.

The heavily hyped World War II epic fell short of setting individual box-office records, but it helped lift Hollywood to an apparent record-breaking weekend.

The overall box office was on target to beat the all-time high of $183.7 million set last Memorial Day weekend, when ``Mission: Impossible 2'' debuted. The top 12 movies alone grossed $176.6 million this weekend, up 3 percent from the same holiday weekend last year.

The final tally will not be available until Tuesday, when weekend grosses for all films are counted.

``Pearl Harbor'' had the second-best Memorial Day opening ever, behind the $90.2 million gross for ``The Lost World: Jurassic Park'' in 1997.

Last week's top film, the computer-animated ``Shrek,'' slipped to No. 2 but had an impressive second weekend, grossing $54.2 million, according to studio estimates Monday.

``Shrek,'' featuring the voices of Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz and Eddie Murphy, has taken in $110.7 million in just 10 days, passing ``Chicken Run'' as DreamWorks' top-grossing animated film.

``The Mummy Returns'' took third place with $19.1 million, pushing its total to $170.7 million. The sequel passed the $155 million taken in by ``The Mummy'' in 1999.

``Pearl Harbor,'' ``Shrek'' and ``The Mummy Returns'' each is on track to top $200 million. That would equal the number of films released in all of 2000 to hit that mark, with many potential blockbusters still to come this year.

``This is just the beginning. It's going to be a big year,'' said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

Made by the action-adventure team of producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Michael Bay (``Armageddon,'' ``The Rock''), ``Pearl Harbor'' stars Ben Affleck, Kate Beckinsale and Josh Hartnett. The filmspins a love triangle involving the three, culminating in the fiery attack on Pearl Harbor.

Some analysts had speculated that ``Pearl Harbor,'' though generally slammed by critics, might break the record set by ``The Lost World'' or even hit $100 million in its first weekend.

``You know, the competition always tries to raise the expectations of the press, so that when the numbers come in, all you can do is fail,'' Bruckheimer said. ``For us, this is enormous success.''

The film's running time, just more than three hours, precluded any box-office records, said executives at Disney, which released ``Pearl Harbor.''

``You heard so many people saying it was going to do upwards of 90 or 95 million dollars. That was just unrealistic because of the length of the movie,'' said Robert Bucksbaum, a box-office analyst for Reel Source Inc. ``This was an excellent opening.''

It was the best opening ever for a three-hour movie and the biggest debut for a non-sequel. It was also a corporate record for Disney, outpacing the studio's ``Toy Story 2,'' which pulled in $80.1 million over the five-day Thanksgiving weekend in 1999.

``It's the nicest way to address the critics,'' said Chuck Viane, Disney's head of distribution. ``You do it with grosses.''

In limited release, the Nicole Kidman-Ewan McGregor musical ``Moulin Rouge'' continued playing to sellout crowds. In its second weekend, the movie took in a remarkable $254,000 in just two theaters in New York City and Los Angeles.

``Moulin Rouge'' opens nationwide next weekend.

Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Monday at North American theaters, according to Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc. Final figures are to be released Tuesday.

1. ``Pearl Harbor,'' $75.1 million.

2. ``Shrek,'' $54.2 million.

3. ``The Mummy Returns,'' $19.1 million.

4. ``A Knight's Tale'' $9.3 million.

5. ``Angel Eyes,'' $6.3 million

6. ``Bridget Jones's Diary,'' $4 million.

7. ``Along Came a Spider,'' $2.2 million.

8. ``Memento,'' $1.9 million.

9. ``Blow, $1.3 million.

10. ``Driven,'' $1.2 million.

**********
Just an FYI,

Joe

[Galahad]

JeffJewel said:

if Pearl Harbor bombs and Atlantis stinks....

Is there insider intelligence that says Atlantis stinks? Just curious.

[Disnsyncey]

Well, I don't have much to say, but here's 2 things.....

1) I live in a small town, 25,000 people I think, and we have a seven screen moviehouse......Pearl Harbor was playing in the biggest theater there and the one with the digital sound (haha yeah, we're really high tech haha).....they played it 4 times a day (come to think of it, we never have 1 movie on 2 screens)...12:00, 3:45, 7:15, and 10:45.......most all the shows I can guarantee were almost filled, if not to capacity......on Sunday (yeah, I've already said this) there was like a line of at least 60 people waiting to get in when we left the matinee

2) About the repeat viewings thing.....I didn't see Titanic cuz I'm not all about romance movies, and I just felt like vowing never to see it haha, so it didn't get any repeat viewings from me, but I have already seen Pearl Harbor 2x....once at 7:00 on Friday and once at 3:45 on Sunday.....that's no surprise, cuz I barely ever see movies less than 2x......I actually think critics should see a movie 2x before commenting on it (haha) cuz u realize things the second time around.......and I know 2 other people have seen it 2x also......

and I bet I made no sense, but that's all I gotta say haha
Later!
Kat

[JeffJewell]

Is there insider intelligence that says Atlantis stinks?

Atlantis _sinks_. Get it? Pearl Harbors bombs, Atlantis sinks...

Anywho, I personally have no insider information that Atlantis either stinks or is going to sink.

I do know that the budget for Atlantis was $100 million, and I have been told that a typical budget for that sort of movie is more like $135 million. Given what I know about Eisner and budget cuts, I find it easy to believe that the Imagineers went to bat with about 75% of what they needed to make the movie.

I do have insider information that Altantis is the most violent Disney animated feature to date. Although that is disappointing to hear in the sense that it's another step away from the family values that built Disney, the fact has no predictive value on the quality or box office results of the film.

Finally, I do have insider information that big chunks of the advertising budget were being cut, right up to the last few weeks. This suggests that either Disney felt the movie to be such a sure-fire winner that it didn't need the advertising (but look how they advertised Pearl Harbor... kinda makes you think that scenario isn't likely), or that they've already given up on the movie and are just avoiding further expense.

Jeff

PS: I also know the following two facts; that Altantis will get seven dollars out of me, and Pearl Harbor will not.

[YoHo]

I also know the following two facts; that Altantis will get seven dollars out of me,


I wish I got movie tix that cheap.


and Pearl Harbor will not.

Your loss.

[Galahad]

Ah..... Stinks....sinks...I get it.... A little reverse inside-out dyslexia here.... :p

[JeffJewell]

Your loss
In what way?

I've never cared for love story movies, and I've never cared for war movies. My interest in things historical is such that a good documentary is far preferable to a special effects sequence. Whether Disney paid for it or not, it's not a movie I ever wanted to see.

By my estimation, you describe having three extra hours at my disposal and seven extra dollars in my pocket as a "loss."

Defend Pearl Harbor all you want (it won't make a shred of difference either way), but please notice that I never made any judgement on the movie itself, I simply stated I didn't care to see it.

Jeff

[YoHo]

Sorry, assumed you had an agenda not in evidence.
Please accept my apologies

[mattjs]

I generally agree with you YoHo. I don't usually expect a movie to be more than a couple hours of entertainment and therefor, I'm rarely disapointed. But I don't expect all movies to be that way.

I look at film just as I do literature. I read a lot of books
for pure pleasure. Not a lot of depth but fun to roar through when you're out lounging at Stormalong Bay. But I also sprinkle in a few books that really make me think. Maybe something historical or philosophical. To me, it's no different with movies.

For all the mindless action and commedy flicks I've seen (and loved) there've also been a few genuinely deeper films as well. Films that made me think a little. Films that educated. But for me, the common bond between them all is that, more often than not, I've had a pretty good idea which type of film I was getting into before I even entered the theater. When I saw Armagedon, I knew from it's marketing it was weak on story and depth but high on action/adventure. My expectations were appropriate. The movie wasn't anything more or less than what I expected and I found it entertaining. But therein lies the problem I found with Pearl Harbor. For me, the film delivered neither as it was billed nor as it should have given the subject matter.

First of all, in my opinion when you choose to tackle a subject like Pearl Harbor you're instantly held to a higher standard. Particularly in the wake of movies like Private Ryan which relied upon the incredible research and writing in the works of Stephen Ambrose. Ambrose who tackled the subject from the soldiers point of view by tracking down those who were there (on both sides) and writing thier personal experiences. Not just the what happened and how, but how the soldiers themeselves were feeling at those very moments. Ambrose's works are incredible in that they put a whole new face on WWII. A face that never appeared for me in Pearl Harbor. --- And just as an aside, Another Voice is absolutely right about "Letters Home" (mentioned in the other PH thread) which ought to be required viewing --- In my opinion, Pearl Harbor doesn't belong in the same paragraph with either of these movies. But, as disapointing as that is is to me, what's even worse is that Disney actually seemed to understand the importance of PH being more than just an entertaining film and yet still totaly failed to deliver. That understanding is clear in the way the movie was presented to the public.

The movie was hyped and marketed as something it's not. It was hyped as being more than just a few hours of spectacular effects with a little love story clumsily tossed in to broaden audience appeal. And yet a few hours of flashy entertainment is all it really is. It was billed to pull on the patriotic heart strings and honor a proud generation that's finally getting it's due. And yet the studio's more interested in ensuring the Japanese are portrayed favorably enough to bring them to Japan's theaters in droves.

If the movie was about landing Space Shuttles on asteroids and the marketting clowns didn't try and push it as an "important" film I wouldn't really care. But it's not, so I do. But then that's just one opinion.

Of course, if I thought it'd get Beastly Kingdom built I'd see the thing twice every weekend. So hopefuly, regardless of my one uneducated film opinion, the thing will make gazillions of dollars and we'll be riding monorails Epcot to AK by Christmas ;)

[YoHo]

mattjs, I understand your point, but I think your being a little hard on the film. As I pointed out in the first thread on this, the View of the Japanese including Yamamoto has vastly changed recently. Even as far back as the movie Midway, the Japanese were shown as honerable men pushed into something they shouldn't have been involved in.

Between what I know, and an article I read this morning in the Chicago Tribune on some of the "facts" in the movies, I have been unable to find fault with Disney. I know that my reaction coming out of that movie was similar to that coming out of Private Ryan. I also know that the billboard ads for the movie painted a more........lighthearted....no, I can't think of a good word, they reminded me of War movies of old. John Wayne would have fit right in. And those are a different kind of war movie.

So, I guess my expectations going in were quite different.

[mattjs]

I think you're right YoHo. We just went in with different expectations. I really did find the movie fairly entertaining. I just went into it expecting more than that. Actually, strike that. That's not entirely true because I'd already seen the horrible reviews. But, up until the week prior to release, I really had high expectations (maybe unreasonably so) for this movie. Part of that was deffinitely my own vision for what I hoped it'd be but I also still feel a big part was the hype. Hype that might have gotten a little carried away in overplaying the "importance" and power of the movie.

And maybe that explains some of the incredible negativity in the media. The press can get pretty rough if they think your trying to pull a fast one on em.

[airlarry!]

Mattjs:

You are right on it...critics don't like a fast one being pulled over them. But it is also true that critics for the most part just don't like the Armagedden style movies.

They will vote for a Die Hard but not The Rock.

Here is my analogy: they want a movie like a breakfast...you know, eggs, toast, juice, strip of bacon, maybe a waffle on the side. Not a pop-tart.

But you know what? Americans like pop-tarts. They are not necessarily good for you to eat every single meal, but an occasional pop-tart won't kill you. In fact, they taste pretty darn good.

I went into Armageddon expecting a loud, obnoxious, formulaic movie. That's what I got. But I was entertained, and never bored. That is what I am hoping from Pearl Harbor, to be entertained. Now.

But........when the previews came out last year, I was expecting a lot more, a big movie with a message about courage, and duty, and honor. I don't think it would be wise for me to expect that now...and I think that is why Matt is right about the critics' perspective on this movie.

[JeffH]

The biggest opening of any Disney film.
One of the biggest openings ever (#2) of any new film, except for the highly anticipated, hyped to the hilt, Phantom Menace, despite the fact that it was a 3 hour film.
The biggest opening ever (by far!) of any non-sequel film ever.
The biggest opening ever (by far!) of any "long" film.

Right, this is a failure.
Right, this is a bomb.
WRONG!

Jeff's spin...
Let's see, Shrek, had a significant increase in its second week. It is therefore assumed that it is just doing sooo good. Well this doesn't normally happen to a film, especially to this much of an increase.
Did we ever stop to think that perhaps, that was the film that everyone went to see (newest film, already saw Mummy 2 weeks ago...) when they found Pearl Harbor SOLD OUT!?!?!?!?
Now hopefully those who went to the movies hoping to see Pearl Harbor and had to instead see Shrek, come back to see Pearl Harbor next week, and don't pay attention to the rediculous critics and PE bashers.

[JeffJewell]

...certainly, apology accepted. Looking back, I can see how my last line could be misunderstood. My intent was to reinforce how much I love Disney animation, from actual Imagineers. The success of the Tigger movie, perhaps more importantly than Atlantis' possible failure, probably means doom for feature animation.

Jeff

[Another Voice]

I very much enjoyed reading your post, mattjs. Very well thought out and written, and I agree with every point. For more than a year now, we’ve been told that ‘Pearl Harbor’ was going to be an important movie. We were told that Michael Bay was wanted to show Hollywood that he could make real films, important and respected films. We were told that Disney wanted a “prestige” film, they wanted a movie that the company could be proud of. They even hired Randall Wallace, the writer of ‘Braveheart’ to write the script. And if he could take an obscure Scott and give him the single best speech ever filmed about why a soldier fights (“one chance, just one chance to tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom!”) – just image what this writer could do with World War II? But in the end, they decided not to do it. They stuck with the commercially safe, sure to please the popcorn crowd formula. Yes, ‘Pearl’ may be popular but it missed its chance to be great. Good entertainment does not require you to shut-off your brain to enjoy it.

What I see in ‘Pearl Harbor’ is the theme that’s been running throughout all of Disney the last several years: lower your expectations. First it was with the animated films (“well, you can’t compare ‘Emperor’ to ‘The Lion King’…”). Then it was with the Disney Stores (“the merchandise has gone downhill, but this place is still better than shopping to Kmart…”). Next came the theme parks (“of course California Adventure doesn’t have enough to do, but better this than a parking lot…”). Now the mega-hit live action films (“if you make it through the beginning, the explosions are really kewl dude!!!…”).

Just like ‘The Little Mermaid’ marked the beginning of the rebirth of Disney films, I think that ‘Pearl Harbor’ will become the signpost for the company’s decline. With ‘Mermaid’ they rediscovered how to make good, audience pleasing films that once again captured the imagination. With ‘Pearl’, Disney chose to grab an easy buck while pretending to hold onto the values of the past. Is it any wonder that Eisner killed the film version of ‘The Emperor Has No Clothes”?


And JeffH – the early indications are that ‘Shrek’ sold out its theaters while ‘Pearl’ often had seats available. ‘Shrek’ was forced into smaller auditoriums by the release of the other film. If it had remained in the same theaters it had been released in, ‘Shrek’ would have had an even higher box office take. The real indication if ‘Pearl’ is a hit or not will come next weekend. If the box office decline is less than 35%, it will be a hit. If it’s more than 45%, its future is weak. Patience.

[JeffH]

Huh?
Shrek was shifted into smaller theatres (yes, this should be true), yet had bigger numbers than the week before? That would seem to indicate that Shrek must have did quite poorly when in the big theatres last week.
Actually, I would imagine that Shrek has spent the last 2 weeks in the smaller theatres, with the Mummy giving up the big screens this week.
It should also be noted that all the movies did better this week.
And yes, we need to be patient and not act like it WILL be a failure, and go on about what a FAILURE Eisner is because if it, and what a FAILURE all the movies since Lion King have been, and what a disaster all the Disney stores and theme parks are, and his plans to market new spinny ride hats.
Ridalin for all!!!
All I know is that talk like this will turn people off, and they won't bother to return to see the film and the stock will go down and AV will go broke. and Disney will be sold to Golan-Globus.

[RyMickey]

I don't quite understand what all this negative fuss is about. Let's lay things out on the line here:

°Pearl Harbor made over $75 million over four days. This ranks as the second best opening ever, the best non-sequel opening ever, and the best opening ever for a three-hour-plus film. Unlike some previous posters have said, Disney will retain more than 50% of this money. Opening weekend gorsses are split more like 75%-25% between movie companies and theaters. This is nothing special for Pearl Harbor. This is the way it normally is. Why do you think movie theaters charge so much for popcorn and soda...it's because they make zippo off of the movie's actual gross.

°In polls taken across the country (by CinemaScore, I believe), the film received an A+ average from those under 21, and an A- average from those slightly older. To me, this means longevity. If you give a movie an 'A', I bet that you'd tell your friends and family to see that movie.

°The average moviegoer doesn't care if Pearl Harbor is a "popcorn" movie. It's summer. That's what they want to see during the summer. Personally, I think many of you are teetering very close to the line of saying "Pearl Harbor is just a disgrace to the men and women that served during WWII." I don't see how in the world you could possibly say that. To me, while "Pearl Harbor's" portrayal of war is not as gritty as Saving Private Ryan, it is still incredibly realistic. What is wrong with a movie that shows the younger generations what their grandparents went through sixty odd years ago? Nothing.

Everyone needs to stop pouting and take "Pearl Harbor" for what it is. So what if there's a romance in it? So what if it's not as in-your-face as Saving Private Ryan? This flick will make money in the long run. Whether it takes overseas totals or video sales to do it, this flick will make money.

[Another Voice]

The big deal is that the film cost $140 million to make and another $80-$100 million to market and advertise. At a time when Disney is cutting out $50-an-hour motor boats to save money, loosing millions and millions on a rather bad movie just doesn’t seem to be the best move. The big deal is that Disney is already a poorly regarded studio in Hollywood and no one is taking any of their big projects there. Hell, even ‘Pearl Harbor’ was a bone tossed to Michael Bay to keep him from jumping ship. If it’s perceived that Disney messed up ‘Pearl’, they’re pretty much back to trolling the Betty Ford Clinic for directors and actors to work with. It’s a big deal because their big, important, all stops out film turned out to be such a cliché filled mess, it makes the low end Chuck Norris shoot ‘em ups seem like art house flicks. Is this honestly the best that Disney can come up with?

There is nothing wrong with making a movie that shows people what World War II was like. The video shelves are lined with them. But ‘Pearl Harbor’ has nothing to do with the reality of war – or even off the attack itself. The movie was far too calculated to dare risk any element that wouldn’t pass a focus group at the 90% level. If Disney had just admitted that they made ‘Armageddon with Propellers’, I don’t think they’d be in the trouble they are in right now. The movie is one thing, but the entire marketing effort has gone way over the top. Call me old fashioned, but the idea of watching Sen. Bob Dole try to list the members of the Back Street Boys from youngest to oldest in the Fastest Finger Round is not a proper way to honor those who gave their lives in defense of the republic.

Whether this movie will ever turn a profit has yet to be seen. Next weekend will tell.


On a lighter note – the first of the new “in”jokes from Hollywood:

Disney does ‘Gone With the Wind’ –
Scarlett O’Hara: “Brett, we were havin’ such great fun at the party, but you went away and then all of THIS happened.” (points to the union soldiers looting the burnt ruins of Tara).

[Josiah Harper]

If we don't know whether Disney will make a profit yet, as you said in your previous post, then I'd be interested in knowing what "kind of trouble" the company is in now.

You mentioned that "the movie was far too calculated to dare risk any element that wouldn’t pass a focus group at the 90% level." So, following your logic, you must feel that adding more material that would NOT "pass a focus group at the 90% level" would have the Company in less "trouble."

[WorknFires]

Oh well, I loved it. So did my mom who lived during that time and my husband a veteran. I say, keep up the good work!

Cheryl :bounce:

Por favor mantengan se alejado de las puertas

[Another Voice]

Disney expected the money to come flowing in immediately from their instant Oscar-front runner mega-hit. Now they're stuck with a critical failure that's going to require loads of resources for damage control. When your worry changes from "what are we going to do with all of this money" to "what budgets do we cut so we can pump out more ads" - I'd say that's trouble.

By trying to make a deeper, richer film Disney not only would have improved their chances for both critical praise and awards, but they would have also made a film that would have generated more repeat business and gotten the "once a year" crowd out to the theaters. As it stands, the most ardent fans are teenage boys who what to see things blow up. And they're only going to hang around until 'Tomb Raider' opens. Popcorn moves may open big, but good films tend to have a longer shelf life. 'Gladiator' is still bringing money for Dreamworks; how much has 'Gone in Sixty Seconds' made for Disney lately?

[MikeS]

Everyone
Listen to Voice. He is right. If this film was such a hit there would be no posts here. Pearl was marketed as a mega film with true elements that was historically correct a tribute to our fighting men.What we got was a love story with a great action scene in the middle typical of Bay/ Bruckheimer.Listen I saw it i paid my $6.50 and came out saying "typical Bruckheimer" 1970's TORA TORA TORA was far better. It had a spectacular attack scene that was recreated without digital effects. It was more correct in its history and skipped the romantic line to give us a true representation of the events.
Voice said it right, What has "Gone in 60 Seconds" made for Disney lately. Nada. This film will fade and I say will be Disney's "Waterworld". Maybe it will make 175 M but it won't make back what it cost to make and promote.
You guys can say how bad you think Shrek is but when threaters order more prints of a film to satisfy crowds. It's a Hit!! I predict Sheck will be the family film of the summer beating out "Atlantis" Rumor has it (it was in a trade paper) That if Atlantis fails the animation department will be getting pink slips. Just them saying that seems like they have doubts. Disney execs have feared Shrek all along. They know what Katzenberg can do.This is there second computer animated film after Antz(they have had other animated hits like Prince of Egypt and claymation hits like Chicken Run)and Antz was even a mild hit.There is no talk of layoffs there. And if Disney does lay off animators guess where they are going.? Right to Dreamworks. See what can happen.
As Voice said, if Pearl suffers this week it will be gone and In Video by October in a attempt to recoup its money. With Mondays sales off 15% from Sunday and Sunday down 2% from Saturday it doesn't look good.

[Josiah Harper]

...was far better as a sleep-aid.

Joe

[mattjs]

Another Voice or anyone else with industry knowledge...

How might studios finance a project like this? I guess it's probly a case by case basis but any idea with a project of this size what percentage is studio capital and how much (if any) might be financed or raised through investors?

[Killer Fish]

Another Voice:

You are incorrect about several things you have said so far. I have been reading this topic for a while now and you keep stating things that were false. First you stated that pearl harbor pushed shrek out of the larger theatres. This is not true. First of all this past weekend shrek played on 400 more theatrees than Pearl Harbor. 400 more THEATRES!! Second if Pearl Harbor had empty seats all the time like you stated and Shrek was sold out why did Pearl Harbor average almost $9,000 dollars more per screen. Also lets think you can show Shrek twice in the same time you can show Pearl Harbor once. So lets see it was on 400 more theatres can be shown twice and still made less money. I highly doubt that it was the movie that was selling out all weekend. Just wanted to let you know I was sick of you writing things that were incorrect. And just for the record the movie has made 9 million dollars just on tuesday and wednesday. Can't wait to see it be number one this weekend. Just my 2 cents!!!

[Another Voice]

Most movie theaters today have several auditoriums of differing sizes. ‘Shrek’ was moved from the theater’s larger auditoriums (or screens) that could hold, say a 500 people, into a screen that could hold, say, 200 people. ‘Shrek’ was still a popular film and could be sold out at 200 tickets, but ‘Pearl Harbor’ could sell TWICE as many tickets and still have seats available. ‘Shrek’ could have been in two screens in the same theater as well, but still have fewer tickets sold than ‘Pearl Harbor’. Also remember that a higher ratio of tickets for ‘Shrek’ are sold at children’s and matinee prices and that ‘Pearl Harbor’ was not accepting any discounted or free tickets its opening weekend. Many, many other factors are too technical, and frankly too boring, to discuss on a board like this one. There’s more to understanding the film business than watching the weekly b.o. recap on “Entertainment Tonight”.


Now, the real topic. Many movies are financed in exactly the same way the corporate America finances a lot of big projects – they get banks to do it. All of the major studios are owned by huge corporations with a cash flow to tap into, and that makes people wearing suits feel comfortable about given the corporation a line of credit. Even the “pure” media companies like Disney and Viacom have substantial other interests (like theme parks and cable systems) beyond film & TV production. The weirdest is Vivendi/Universal which owns water bottlers and sewers in Paris. The middle players like MGM rely more on institutional financing and pre-sales of distribution rights to raise the production capital. At the low end, the small production companies raise money from bigger studios, selling distribution rights, to begging for checks from dentists looking for a tax write-off.

Disney was unique in that it set up limited partnerships (the Silver Screens and Touchwoods) and raised huge blocks of cash to make its early Eisner-era films. While it gave Disney a lot of money at little corporate risk, it also dramatically limited its return on some of its biggest hits and so it fell into disfavor (but made the original investors a nice sack of cash). The current trend is for competing studios to jointly finance a big film: Fox/News Corp financed ‘Titanic’ by selling the international rights to Paramount/Viacom. Disney went it alone on ‘Pearl Harbor’ – and time will tell if it was a wise move.

[mattjs]

Friday numbers...

http://www.showbizdata.com/contacts/dailybox.htm

[darbella]

I think they should have advertised PH as a chick flick. My poor hubby had to sit through a romance that
he normally would have avoided like crazy. :smooth:

[YoHo]

According to SHowbizdata.com, through Saturday, Pearlharbor had a total gross of $110,820,663

with ~$12,000,000 on Saturday alone. so, a $35,000,000 take so far after monday.

[ASFCurly]

OK, as another movie theater employee for over four years and having experienced Star Wars Episode One, plus the Special Edition of 3, 4, and 5, I know what it gets like at the theaters and let me tell you this,
Another voice said the following, "Also remember that a higher ratio of tickets for ‘Shrek’ are sold at children’s and matinee prices and that ‘Pearl Harbor’ was not accepting any discounted or free tickets its opening weekend." first of all, our movie theater was allowed to accept free passes for Pearl Harbor, and yes I do mean allowed because we do not choose, we are told, originally we were told it was going to be pass restricted, but it was changed at the last minute, though I will agree with the fact that more tickets for Shrek are matinee or child, I would not say most of them were, if you mean a higher amount then Pearl Harbor, than definately, not too many kids at Pearl Harbor, but lots of tickets at matinee prices. We have lots of adults and teenagers going to see it, and while the latest shows (after 9) aren't that busy, the rest of them are packed if not sold out and we have it on 4 screens, and only one of those screens are the "small screens." That being said, Pearl Harbor is doing great at my theater. We have it on 3 screens, the three largest (we have 12 screens and the difference in the main 8 is maybe 50 people, the other 4 are smaller) Every single person that I talked to coming out of the theater either liked it or loved it, I did not hear a single negative review which never happens as I hear pretty much everything as I stand right by the door as people leave, I am an usher and clean up after, no offence, but the slobs that go see the movies. Yes, Shrek is timed, at my theater, at basically an hour and a half, but that does mean that we show two of them for every one of Pearl Harbor, we have 5 sets of meovies and show Shrek 20 times, as in 4 theaters X 5 sets, Pearl Harbor is only shown 7 times though, it is in three theaters, 4 times in one, and 3 in the other two. It runs 3 hours and 18 minutes at my theater.

Well, that being said, I loved both movies. I did not expect 100% accuracy in Pearl Harbor, I got exactly what I expected, a good movie with some info about Pearl Harbor and a love story. It helped me realized just how devastated Pearl Harbor was, just because you are told something does not mean you realize how terrible it really was until you see it, even if what you are seeing isn't real, it helps those of us that did not experience it, or any type of war for that matter realize how awful it is, so we will want to try to stop it. Yes, there are other movies that some people think are better that do this but not only did the love story part make me cry, but I bawled during the bombing, knowing that things like that actually did happen, I cried in Private Ryan but not that hard. Well, that's is for now, ASFCurly