Weekend Box Office

[MikeS]

The weekend figures are in. No big Surprise. Tomb Raider was #1 with 48.2 Million. It will rank up in the top 4 big openings of the summer.
# 2 was Atlantis making 20.4 Million. This just made my projection I mentioned in another thread so it should pull 100M by the end of its run. It was projected to pull 27Million and missed by 7M.
Shrek pulled 12.9 Million and so far is the top grosser of the summer pulling in 197.2 Million. It should end it's run in the 240-260 million range.
Pearl harbor pulled just 9.5 Million since it has been pulled of most of it's multiple screens. It's take so far is 160 Million just recouping it's cost but not it's marketing. It should end at 175-185 Million.

Next week Dr. Doolittle should open big. rated PG it should pull some from Shrek and Atlantis. Tuen in next week and see who is #1.

[Amateur Imagineer]

I knew Shrek was doing well, but I didn't realize it was doing THAT well. Anyone know the numbers for Toy Story 1 & 2? I really liked Shrek, but IMHO the green ogre doesn't hold a candle to those Pixar classics. Monsters Inc looks like it will be a hit, too.

As for Atlantis...it's not really a reflection on Disney that Tomb Raider drastically outperformed it. Tomb Raider is typical summer fare, the stupid-but-fun-action-movie that ALWAYS draws large audiences.

I haven't seen either Atlantis or TR yet, so I can't comment on their quality...but I'd wager that Atlantis is better. Unfortunately, being better doesn't necessarily mean greater profits in Hollywood today. Word of mouth, marketing, and the mood of the potential audience (which is random and fickle) all determine a movie's success. Let's hope Atlantis' success picks up, or we might see even further slashes in Disney's animation budget.

[All Aboard]

Amateur Imagineer,

TS - $192m
TS2 - $245m

[johare]

Disney created the movie AND decided to release it on the same weekend as Tomb Raider, so how is the performance of the movie not a reflection on Disney?!? Who's fault is it?

[Amateur Imagineer]

Johare--I agree that it was a bad decision on Disney's part to release Atlantis this weekend. Granted, almost every weekend in the summer would be a challenge for Atlantis, but I wonder why they didn't choose last weekend? Maybe Disney thought Swordfish would be more successful

[johare]

I'm not sure what or even if Disney is thinking lately. With advertising I think they spent $240 million on Pearl Harbor so if that $175-185 million number is correct it's going to cost them a bit.

Atlantis looks interesting, but it's going to be one that I wait to rent on DVD. It will be interesting to see how well it does thru the summer. Hopefully Monsters will do really well for Disney around the holidays.

[Pixieduster]

johare,

just my opinion, but if you have a chance to see it on the big screen, you should. The visuals and sound are wonderful and I think you'd lose some of that on the small screen.

[johare]

That's ok...I have a big screen TV :D

[MikeS]

Amateur
Sure Tomb raider is typical summer fare and a dumb adventure film but what is Atlantis??? Shakespear???
All I read on these posts are that Anything Disney puts out is gospel and anything else is crap.Well I think the opposite is true. Pearl Harbor went down quickly while not a bomb... still bad. Godzilla bad. Remember that one. Hyped to death and didn't deliver. Atlantis..while good is no monument to animation. It will make a fair profit (100 Million)and fade into History like the Hunchback did.
Don't forget that THE PUBLIC>>>NOT US is the judge here. It really doesn't matter what WE think THEY are calling the shots. This same public that was called silly and fickle because they like Shrek, also LOVED Lion King, Aladdin,Mermaid, Mulan Etc. It's not the audience....it's the film. Fact is Pearl harbor WASN"T that good.(I'm not bashing here ..it was OK but NOT what it was hyped to be) Atlantis is good..(I saw it yesterday)but forgettable. Don't blame Paramount,or Dreamworks for having their finger on the pulse of the audience and delivering what they want...blame Disney for being out of tune and thinking they can put out anything with their name on it and make it a hit. All the Hype in the world couldn't save Pearl.
Animation pink slips will go out to 50% of Disney's staff this week and guess where they will go....to see Uncle Jeff at Dreamworks. Disney's animation future looks bleak. Only 3 films are in production over the next 4 years.My bet is Dreamworks will be the new animation KING. If that is true Disney can only blame themselves.

[Amateur Imagineer]

Whoa whoa whoa Mike S....I didn't say Atlantis was excellent, I just supposed it was better than Tomb Raider. I agree that Pearl wasn't very good, and I didn't even BOTHER seeing Godzilla, that looked horrendous. But I make a clear separation between Disney's animation studios and their movie productions, with the usual distinction being that Disney's animation is good, while their life action is bad. :)

I didn't mean that the public is silly and fickle because they liked Shrek, I honestly believe Shrek is a very good movie and worthy of the support it is receiving. However, sometimes the public will support movies out of the blue that are truly awful, and others they will ignore movies with good marketing campaigns and positive word of mouth. I hope that clears things up.

I'll be curious to see if Dreamworks can continue paying their animators such high salaries, especially with the added weight of the animators who will be fleeing from Disney.

[HBK]

Originally posted by MikeS
Amateur
All I read on these posts are that Anything Disney puts out is gospel and anything else is crap.Well I think the opposite is true. Pearl Harbor went down quickly while not a bomb... still bad. Godzilla bad. Remember that one. Hyped to death and didn't deliver. Atlantis..while good is no monument to animation. It will make a fair profit (100 Million)and fade into History like the Hunchback did.



one word....

Bravo!

Don't blame Paramount,or Dreamworks for having their finger on the pulse of the audience and delivering what they want...blame Disney for being out of tune and thinking they can put out anything with their name on it and make it a hit. All the Hype in the world couldn't save Pearl.

That's the problem Disney is currently running into....disregard to the Disney brand. It's something Eisner should be very, VERY afraid of. People aren't flocking to Disney's newest parks based soley on the name. People aren't flocking to the newest Disney movies because they're the latest "Disney" release.

Once you lose your brand name loyalty, your chances of getting it back are slim and none. And for Disney, Slim just left for Dreamworks.

I didn't say Atlantis was excellent, I just supposed it was better than Tomb Raider

Imagineer....have you seen both movies? If not, why even make that claim?

I'll be curious to see if Dreamworks can continue paying their animators such high salaries, especially with the added weight of the animators who will be fleeing from Disney.

Do you know how much Shrek cost to make? 60 Million. That includes paying the voice talent of an all star cast.

Sounds like Dreamworks knows what they're doing to control costs....but control them the proper way so that the public still ends up with a quality film.

When Disney makes cuts...they use a machette.

[Fiver]

At the risk of becoming a target, I must give my opinion over this whole Dreamworks Vs. Disney competition. I agree that as of late Disney has made many decisions that come off as Money over Quality. I have worried about the Animation Dept for the past few years as I saw more and more changes come about that seemed to deviate from the old standard of Quality First. Now I'm a hardcore Disney fan myself. My loyalty to the Disney name drives my DH crazy and has led most of my friends to call me a nut. I really liked Atlantis, and I've seen it twice now. I came out of that theater still laughing at the jokes, and amazed at the animation. My Dh really enjoyed this movie as well. I left the theater feeling satisfied. Most of the people around me also enjoyed it. Now I saw Shrek the weekend before, and I was expecting this major animation experience. I was very disappointed. There was some good humor, but nothing in the movie moved me at all except for the credits and that was to leave the theater. Now I can see several people going to see it. Its a movie that a whole family can see. I just dont get the statements that people have been making about it. Now I realize that this is my opinion, but heres what I think. Shrek is not even remotely as good as TS2. Children absolutely adore Woody and Buzz. Shrek is just not as appealing. I actually found Mike Myers voice to be grating on my nerves, and I really like him as an actor. I just dont see children running around exclaiming "I'm Shrek! Now get off my land!!". And as far as this movie surpassing Lion King. In my opinion if that did happen then it would be a sad, sad day. To see this film raised to the level of Lion King would make me lose all faith in the public. When I first saw Lion King(saw it 9 times that summer), I went through the whole gambit of emotions. I left that theater engrossed. My 2yo godchild was mesmerized the whole time. After that movie she fell in love with lions. When it came out on video, she watched it so much that she knew several lines, and she was only 3yrs old! IMO Shrek did not do this, and to say that it is on par with a movie that did...how disappointing. I still have faith in Disney, and I will stick with them through thick and thin. When Dreamworks gives me a century worth of animated movies that make my children believe in Magic and Dreams that can come true, I might start comparing them to Disney. Until then, Shrek better get off my land! ;)

Fiver

[HBK]

. I still have faith in Disney, and I will stick with them through thick and thin. When Dreamworks gives me a century worth of animated movies that make my children believe in Magic and Dreams that can come true, I might start comparing them to Disney. Until then, Shrek better get off my land!

I'm glad you have faith in Disney (SINCERELY). I used to. I just don't think the current company is capable of re-creating that "century worth of animated movies that make my children believe in magic".

The company made huge cuts to it's animation department. The company's strategy with regards to animation is to go back and try to complete a storyline which made you "believe in magic, and dreams that can come true.".

The problem with that strategyis this....

Those stories were complete. The princess lives happily ever after.....the good guy got the girl and rode off into the sunset....etc.

These movies may make a few short term bucks....but they won't have the staying power that the animated classics of old did (Mermaid, Lion, Cinderella, etc).

With Shrek, Dreamworks has proven themselves able to produce a excellent animated film which still makes them a profit. Shrek only cost $60 million to make.

Now granted one film doesn't make a Studio. But if Shrek, combined with the mass defections of Disney animators is any indication, there's a new number one in the animation town...and it doesn't seem like they're going anywhere.

[MikeS]

Fiver
Have no fear of becoming a target. These are only opinions. But the last post was dead on. The man who gave you Lion King that you loved so much is now in charge of Dreamworks and he has a lot of the LK talent with him. His 2nd computer animated film, Shrek will make $260 million. Not bad for his 2nd film in computer animation. I don't see regular animation hanging with us too much longer. It is just cheaper to do it by computers. Shrek was 60M to make. Atlantis was about 100m. Shrek will turn a profit, Atlantis will break even...maybe. The point is Dreamworks will only get better Disney (now with loss of talent) will only grow worse. Sad to say it's the passing of the torch. Already there is a Shrek 2 in the works which will only be better than the first profit wise. I can't blame Katzenberg for doing it right but Disney can only blame themselves if their animation Dept fails and defects to dreamworks. They relied too much on their reputation with not much to back it up.
amatuer, I'm not picking on you. Your right their live films have been really poor lately. My point is the masses that like Shrek and Tomb Raider were also bombbarded by Disney's blitz for Pearl Harbor and Atlantis and in PH case no mater what you wrap bad fish in... it still is bad fish. The public knew it and didn't buy the hype.

[Patch'sD]

I am not a Disney fan or Dreamworks fan, nor a Universal fan. I just want to be entertained, and currently, Disney just doesn't do it for me. I saw Shrek based upon the reviews I read, Both of our local papers gave it four stars, I saw it twice, once for preview and once as a paying customer. My whole family saw it and loved it. I thought the humor was unique, the best computer animation out there and a very good plot. I agree with HBK, how many times can you sit through a good vs evil plot with good winning every time. Two of my children are older now and don't really want their parents coming to the Movies with them. That being, I don't think I will be sitting through to many more animated features. Shrek was different, The reviews pointed out it was something for everyone. I liked Toy Story and Toy Story 2. And yes Children love Buzz and Woody, becuase they're toys. But as an adult I might not have seen it. Shreks was a winner becuase it apealed to the masses. I sat through it amazed at the animation and very entertained by the Humor. It was overall very entertaing movie.


To say that you are going to lose faith in the general public if Shrek out does Lion King is ludicrous. I think it is ludicrous for a consumer to stand by a Company that depends on it's branding rather than it's product. SKG Dreamworks is providing topnotch entertainment now, not twenty years or 100 years ago. No one holds the patent on providing Great Entertainment, all it takes is some inspiration and some creativity. Something the Disney company is lacking now.

[Another Voice]

I think what’s being reflected on this board is more about Disney fandom than how the public in total is reacting to these two films. I can’t help thinking that if the brand names on the films were switched, you’d be seeing a lot of posts about all of pointless violence, horrible plot and “New Age mumbo-jumbo” in Dreamworks’ ‘Atlantis’ -- and a bunch of posts about the fantastic animation, hilarious up-dated humor and the touching ‘Hallelujah’ sequence in Disney’s ‘Shrek’.

Most people unconsciously decide to “like” a movie before they see it, and most people think that a movie they “like” is therefore “well-made”. I don’t begrudge anyone their own opinion on a movie, but it’s very dangerous for a studio to believe that they have a lock on any segment of the market. More often than not, the public will support a well-made movie over something that tries to pander to the public, irregardless of who makes the movie. The public can spot a move that’s been made with passion and talent over a movie that’s been made as part of a marketing campaign – just asked anyone involved with ‘The Animal’ or ‘Pearl Harbor’.

I think if Disney could care a little more about telling a compelling story, and a little less in its ability to market its own product, the box office results would have been different.

[HBK]

Look out guys, they may claim we're forming a new car pool!



My point is the masses that like Shrek and Tomb Raider were also bombbarded by Disney's blitz for Pearl Harbor and Atlantis and in PH case no mater what you wrap bad fish in... it still is bad fish.

Wonderfull quote. It really hit the nail on the head.

[johare]

Patchs'd, I agree 100%. It is totally ludicrous for someone to say that they would "lose all faith in the public" if Shrek surpassed Lion King. It's sad to see people so blindly loyal to Disney...fortunately the opinion of the general public carrys far more weight than people who just like everything Disney does no matter what it is. Even more crazy is the thought that Dreamworks needs to produce something for an entire century to be worthy of comparison to Disney?!? To me it matters what a company is doing NOW, not what they accomplished 50 years ago. Disney to often asks us to "remember the magic" because they have been failing to produce any new magic for years now.

Another Voice, you are also correct...if the situation were reversed and Shrek was a Disney movie we'd be hearing the Disney loyalists praising it for years to come...and if Atlantis was anything but Disney...well, you already said it. Same thing last year...The Grinch was a FAR better holiday movie than 102 Dalmations, but I'm sure you wouldn't need to look far around here to find people who feel the opposite.

HBK, better get a bus for your car pool! :D

[HBK]

Disney to often asks us to "remember the magic" because they have been failing to produce any new magic for years now.

WOW! What a batch of quotes!

HBK, better get a bus for your car pool!

Honk Honk! All Aboard!

[All Aboard]

Well, just please count me out when identifying "blind Disney loyalists." For one, we have been to see Shrek three times. It's a marvelously hilarious film. Second, I'll step up to the plate and state that Disney has fired off some serious stinkers in the past couple of decades. Hercules, Oliver and Company, The Great Mouse Detective and The Black Cauldron were awful in my opinion.

Next, to this notion that Shrek will beat the Lion King. In what? Domestic gross, worldwide gross? Am I wrong or did LK do about $315m domestic (at lest $350 adjusted for inflation) and something like close to $800m worldwide (probably $850m after inflation.) Is someone out there projecting Shrek to top these numbers? That would, indeed, be mighty impressive.

As to "failing to create magic for years" How far back are we talking about. Tarzan was a wonderful film, great music, terific animation, great way to present the story. Hunchback wasn't too long ago, to me it is one of the finest animated features I have ever seen. Without a doubt, the most powerful and passionate music.

[johare]

Here's a Reuter's Quote from 6/10:

"``Shrek'' is tracking better than Disney's animated hit ``The Lion King'' which holds the cartoon box office record with $313 million, according to studio estimates."


Here's another quote from an article on 6/4:

"``SHREK'' ROARS

By contrast ``Shrek,'' a fairy tale spoof about a green ogre's quest for love, fell just 33 percent. It has grossed $148.6 million after 17 days in wide release, and is tracking better than Disney's ``The Lion King,'' which holds the cartoon record with $313 million.

Industry observers expect the new film to reach $270 million, about what ``Lion King'' had earned before Disney pulled it from theaters early and re-released it a few months later with a different marketing campaign. DreamWorks distribution president Jim Tharp said his closely held company was considering a similar strategy, but had not made up its mind."

After pulling in another $12.9 million this weekend, Shrek is still on track to catch or even top Lion King.

[HBK]

After pulling in another $12.9 million this weekend, Shrek is still on Shrek to catch or even top Lion King.

Yeah! What he said!

[Buzz2001]

7.5 years later. Make a comparison with equal movie prices. Shrek may beat the Lion King but will never be half the movie.

Here is a list of all-time movies adjusted to todays movie prices. Lets see how many of dreamworks animated movies are on the list.

I think you'll be surprised as to what Disney movie tops the list

http://movieboxoffice.about.com/movies/movieboxoffice/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.the-movie-times.com%2Fthrsdir%2FTop10everad.html

[HBK]

Shrek may beat the Lion King but will never be half the movie.
Signed Mike Eisner.

Lets see how many of dreamworks animated movies are on the list.

Give it time my friend, give it time.

[Fiver]

WOW!!!

Okay, okay....first I want to respond to the remark about how sad it is to see someone so blindly follow a company. Now I never said that if something stunk that I would praise it just because it was disney! My loyalty to this company has been formed from years of happiness that have come from their movies and their parks. Also, I have been quite critical of this company when I have felt that have made some poor decisions...when they have sacrificed quality over profit. I also do not believe that it is not soley things in the now that dictate what is successful. It is from years of success that this company has earned its following. One that is so strong that if affects how other companies judge their success. I'm sure that Dreamworks is made up of a lot of people that grew up with Disney as their main influence. Disney has set the standard for these companies to follow and perhaps to surpass. I'm sure Dreamworks will be a powerful player in the field of animation, but I want to see more before I start shouting to the rooftops that a new standard has been set. Disney has faced and always will face a lot of pressure to make a perfect product. No company can constantly make Lion King after Lion King, but we can expect them to try. As much as everyone is accusing people of blindly following Disney, the same can be said about everyone here blindly following Dreamworks. If Dreamworks is going to become a leader in this field then they need to be held to the same level of expectations that everyone here is placing on Disney. I liked Atlantis. No it was not the best piece of animation that Disney has ever done, but to say that Shrek is a masterpiece? that it is right up there with Lion King? Come on....plus my Dh made a good point...if you take away everything that Shrek is parodying and the jabs at Disney then all you have left is a 15min film with a grumpy ogre, which in itself is not very appealing. Shrek may be innovative in its format, but it is derivitive in its content.

Fiver *starting to build a barricade to stop all the pies heading my way*

[Buzz2001]

HBK, how did you guess.

May this be a disgruntled Katzenberg


Fiver - don't forget Dreamworks other classics like Antz; The Road to El Dorado; Chicken Run; Joseph, King of Dream; The Prince of Egypt; Small Soliders

[johare]

"Shrek may beat the Lion King but will never be half the movie. "

According to who?!? You?!?

In adjusted dollars they have Lion King listed at $356M. In today's dollars don't be surprised if Shrek gets very close to that number.

And, btw: you with the exception of Lion King, I don't see many recent Disney movies on that list (especially in the top 50) either. Not surprising since most of these movies were released before VCR's existed and some even before televion. Guess you can 'spin' the numbers any way you want with a list like this. At least I did learn one thing from this...Lion King is BARELY half the movie that E.T. (a Universal film) was! :)

[HBK]

Originally posted by Buzz2001
HBK, how did you guess.

May this be a disgruntled Katzenberg

Simple...

Something tells me Mr. Katzenberg doesn't have much to be upset about lately. He's thoroughly kicking Disney's high priced tail lately.

This is starting to become pointless.

If you enjoy the product Disney is offering...great! If you enjoy the product Dreamworks is offering...great!

The numbers DO NOT LIE. Shrek is pacing itself better than Lion King did. Disney hasn't produced an animated film in the past 8 years which comes CLOSE to what Shrek has accomplished. There is no debating that fact.

What is up for debate is how Disney reacts. So far, not good. If you have someone declare war on you, you don't release half of your troops.

[Buzz2001]

johare - I guess according to the $313,000,000 people spent to go see it. Then the folks that purchased the video or DVD.


HBK - if you say so

[johare]

So Buzz, if people spend $357,000,000 on Shrek it will then be the better movie, right?

[HBK]

HBK - if you say so

Allllllllll righty then! I do say so!

Jeez, why not end your post with Neiner Niener Pumpkin Eater?

[Buzz2001]

Never did I say Shrek was a bad movie. I saw it. Almost feel asleep during the middle. It got a little boring. I like the ending and Eddie Murphy but the overall, the movie was not as good as the Lion King, Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Mulan, Hunchback and so on. Whether it hits $500,000,000 or $250,000,000. Maybe its me but its not even close.

Its like comparing the Red Sox's to the Yankees. Sure the Red Soxs are in first place now...but we all know where they will be in October.

Sorry fellow Red Sox fans.

[johare]

hbk, exactly...according to the list that 'Buzz' referenced, Toy Story 2 made $252.09M and Toy Story $209.91M adjusted for inflation. Since Shrek is on track to easily top $260M in today's dollars, there is no denying that it is better than either Toy Story movie and has a real shot at outperforming Lion King.

[All Aboard]

Originally posted by HBK
Something tells me Mr. Katzenberg doesn't have much to be upset about lately. He's thoroughly kicking Disney's high priced tail lately.

Do you define "lately" as "the last three weeks"?? Road to El Dorado did $50m last year, Chicken Run and Price of Egypt barely cracked $100m (a figure that folks are projecting Atlantis to hit - yet, for Atlantis, that would make it a "bomb.")

While some folks may be blindly following Disney, others seem to be diefying Dreamworks based on the success of a SINGLE FILM! Shrek has about the same probability of being "the beginning of something great" as being "Katzenberg's one-hit-wonder."

[HBK]

Its like comparing the Red Sox's to the Yankees. Sure the Red Soxs are in first place now...but we all know where they will be in October.

Now you're really starting to offend me..... :)

[HBK]

While some folks may be blindly following Disney, others seem to be diefying Dreamworks based on the success of a SINGLE FILM! Shrek has about the same probability of being "the beginning of something great" as being "Katzenberg's one-hit-wonder."

Uhm...

Uhm, did you forget Lion King? How about Beauty & the Beast?

Yeah who produced those films?

[class...in unison]

JEFFERY KATZENBURG!

P.S. Atlantis is considered to be a failure if it only reaches 100 million due to it's cost. Moves such as Shrek (I can't speak for the others. I don't know what their costs were) are successfull if they hit 100 mill because they cost less to produce. Shrek only cost $60 Million.

[Buzz2001]

Okay - you win. The movie wasn't that good to be discussing for this long.

Good luck with the Red Sox's

[All Aboard]

I thought those films were basically produced by Ashman, Hahn, Shumaker, and Sarah McArthur, guess I was wrong.

[Patch'sD]

I don't see how how only 15 minutes of the movie was not related to taking up jabs at Disney or parodies. I don't think the fairy tale creatures are owned by Disney, nor is Robin Hood, Dragon Slaying, Walking through the woods, Knights Fighting, Talking Donkey's Orges taking baths, and several other scenes. I think that the Computer Animation was the next step. The fur on the Donkey Moving, The Dragon Flying Scene, Many different Facial Features moving during close ups. I don't think Dreamworks is the second coming, but they did put out a very good, Entertaining Movie. I also had the chance to see Tarzan, Hunchback, and Lion King. All of them were great. I think Tarzan was one of the better efforts, Disney spent over 100 Million on that one. Hunchback had a great Story Line and was very well done great anamation scene with Notre Dame. However I never read anything about anyone knocking Esmeralda's Pole Dance, It sort of resembled a scene from the Ex Mrs. Willis Stripper Movie.

But I agree whole heartly, This is a Disney Site, " In Disney We Trust". Want to get a response to Trip Report, Just say you had a bad time. People will step all over themselves trying to make excuses for Disney or calling the Poster an Anti Disney person just making up Stories.

[Amateur Imagineer]

Buzz2001--I agree that Lion King was better than Shrek...however, that's a matter of personal opinion. As for the Red Sox--you can talk all you want about the Yanks being on top in October. But the Sox lost the best pitcher in the league for a short time (Pedro), have had FOUR 100+ RBI hitters on the bench due to various injuries etc, and they've STILL managed to win their last 7 series.

HBK--You raised an excellent point that I had actually thought about when I was in WDW last week. If Disney doesn't put out quality films, then what can they do to draw new customers to the parks? They're advertising the same things over and over.... Without a hit movie on which they could base a parade or attraction, it's going to be hard to bring in new visitors. Brand names just don't work like they used to in our hyper-marketing culture.

[Buzz2001]

amateur - I too am a Red Sox fan. I am just realistic. I have been waiting for them to win one for 39 years.

[YoHo]

Hey, I'm a Cubs fan, You Red Sox whiners can cram it :bounce: :cool: I've been Waiting almost 100 years to win a World Series.

[DVC-Landbaron]

I'm with ya YoHo!!!

But this is the year!!!!


(The Cubs in first place - You know it ain't August!!) ;)

[PhilJT]

Originally posted by YoHo
Hey, I'm a Cubs fan, You Red Sox whiners can cram it :bounce: :cool: I've been Waiting almost 100 years to win a World Series.

That's amazing. Does that mean you and Walt were born in the same year?;)

Cubs and Red Sox both in first place...How come the Cubs fans can act like Tigger bouncing for joy, while we citizens of Red Sox Nation feel compelled to mope about it like Eeyore?

[Buzz2001]

Cub fans are content with the Cubs. They will follow a team that never wins. Like the Cincy follows the Bengals

[MikeS]

Seems like Shrek has become part of American Culture. I just saw Shrek and Donkey in a Wal Mart commerical.

[babar]

Go Cubs!!!


(now back to the original post):p

[DisDuck]

DCV - August is only 7 weeks away. Plenty of time for a swoon (I bleed Dodger Blue - go Bums)


Now back to your regularily scheduled program.

[YoHo]

Cubs fans will follow the cubs even when they lose, because Wrigley field is the best baseball park in the history of the universe. If you've never been to wrigley (or gone to a baseball game in the 50's (arbitrary) or earlier) then you've never seen baseball. :bounce: :bounce:



I actually am confident that my cubbies will make it to the post season and then tank just like every other year. Or, they'll make a trade for that efthander they covet and the whole thing will come crashing down.


The only thing I fear is that Tribune will mishandle Kerry Wood the way they did Maddux and then I'll have another hall of fame pitcher that I must hate as a traitor.



The Braves suck!:bounce: :bounce:



(Just wait till september, I bleed orange and blue, and I've been bleeding a whole lot for the past decade.

[johare]

Does anyone know how much of the 'gross' receipts for a movie actually go back to the studio? For example, Pearl Harbor reportedly cost about $225+ million to make when you include advertising. It has currently grossed about $160 million domestically. How much of this $160 million actually makes it back to the studio?

[Another Voice]

The general rule of thumb is that 50%-55% of the box office goes to the studio. The specifics vary from movie to movie, theater to theater and even week to week. Generally, the studio will take a bigger cut in the first couple of weeks than later, and the bigger the film is supposed to be, the larger the studio cut as well. The theaters get a much larger cut after the film opens and often renegotiate the contract if a movie fails to live up to its expectations. The theaters also get studio funding for ads, in theater posters and such – like those millions of ‘Tomb Raider’ drink cups in theaters coast-to-coast.

Back end deals can also affect the studio’s take. To keep the initial budgets down, several people involved with ‘Pearl Harbor’ agreed to lower salary in exchange for a percentage of the revenue that the movie would bring in. Again, these are complex deals. But rumors say that about 10%-15% of the revenue from ‘Pearl’ will find its way to various “talent” and associated companies.

My guess is that Disney will end up with about 45% of the box office take (give or take a few million). And Disney will NEVER publish the actual figure because this kind of information is Hollywood’s best kept secrets. A whole sub-species of lawyers exist to do nothing but dig around studio financials and most of the time they find nothing.

In short, it’s going to be a hard fit to get ‘Pearl Harbor’ to profitability.


P.S. The Cubs? How come you guys aren't pulling for Disney's California Angels? Oh that's right, the initials 'DCA' mean "bad" in all kinds of endeavors.

[Patch'sD]

Here's a article from the New York Daily News on Dreamworks and Shrek.

Dreamworks on Cloud Nine (http://www.nydailynews.com/2001-06-19/New_York_Now/Movies/a-115358.asp?last6days=1)

Four more animation projects in the works.

Also set the URL as a favorite so you can plot the Yankees course towards a 3-peat

[Dan Murfman]

Enjoyed reading this post. But it got real interesting with the baseball talk. BTW the Red Sox magic number to clinch the division is 93. And boy it must be hard to be a Yankee fan that they forget how many times they won. Last year was the 3 peat and going for 4 this year. ;)

[All Aboard]

Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers... HA! Look out, here come the Marlins :) :)

[YoHo]

Yeah, the marlins are coming.... right to Orlando for a headon collision with the Devil Rays to make a new Florida team that nobody will go see. :)


Eh, they probably draw better then the braves.

[Patch'sD]

Sorry, Did forget. Championships just seem to be running into each other now, forgot about the Braves Bashing, or was it the San Diego Pasting, Certainly wasn't the Mets Tharshing.

[YoHo]

Bunch a New York BUMMS I tells ya! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Patch'sD]

Yep, New relief pitcher on the way, Getting ready to pass the Sox, and take on the Mariners.

[Dan Murfman]

Is the relief pitcher you're talking about the one the Yankees have now since passed on because he has a bum elbow?

[Patch'sD]

Did they, didn't have a chance to read the paper this AM. Thanks, I wonder if Boomer would take a relief role.