80 Days a Flop?

[wtg2000]

Eisner: Dodgeball? Never played it. PASS. The Terminal. A guy stuck in an airport. Isn't everyone flying on private jets now? PASS. Around the World in 80 Days. Isn't that Jules Verne? Hey, didn't we have him in that Timekeeper show that we pulled? Wasn't the 20,000 Leagues ride that we pulled based on him? Isn't the nearly bankrupt Disneyland Paris' Tomorrowland based on Verne? Here's 100 million dollars. Let's do it!

 

[Phoebesaturn]

Originally posted by wtg2000
Eisner: Dodgeball? Never played it. PASS. The Terminal. A guy stuck in an airport. Isn't everyone flying on private jets now? PASS. Around the World in 80 Days. Isn't that Jules Verne? Hey, didn't we have him in that Timekeeper show that we pulled? Wasn't the 20,000 Leagues ride that we pulled based on him? Isn't the nearly bankrupt Disneyland Paris' Tomorrowland based on Verne? Here's 100 million dollars. Let's do it!

Don't forget he also passed on the HP movies.

 

[WDW_DV]

Originally posted by Phoebesaturn
Don't forget he also passed on the HP movies.

Too bad, we could have had Hagrid, Norbert, Buckbeak et al at the Beastly Kingdom in DAK - oh, wait, nevermind....

 

[KMovies]

Alamo - Disney produced and Distributed - and lost tens of millions.

80 Days - Disney DID NOT produce, only distributed - lost money on marketing and prints but DID NOT lose the 110 million production costs. The film's owner got back 1/2 of the production costs from overseas rights; he may have got some from Disney. But in the end, this won't lose the kind of money that Alamo did because Disney didn't pony up the money for the film. The production company was the same one that did "Holes".

 

[dcentity2000]

I was only talking about hype and so on - The Blair Witch Project cost very little, yet I'd still class it as an 'A' list movie. I'm not saying that 80 Days is a 'B' list movie - for all I know it could be off the chart in either direction. I was just commenting on the number of percieved 'A' list movies out at the moment and the possible adverse influence they would exercise upon the performance of 80 Days.



Rich::

 

[Peter Pirate]

Don't forget he also passed on the HP movies.

He (Eisner) DID NOT pass on Harry Potter. Ms. Rowling dealt with one studio (picked by her representatives) in hopes of avoiding a 'frenzy' which was sure to ensue. Eisner was very unhappy at not having the chance to bid on the rights and has said so on numerous occasions.

 

[Phoebesaturn]

I could swear that I read that here or somewhere else. Oh well I consider it a good thing he didn't get his hands on them.

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
He (Eisner) DID NOT pass on Harry Potter. Ms. Rowling dealt with one studio (picked by her representatives) in hopes of avoiding a 'frenzy' which was sure to ensue. Eisner was very unhappy at not having the chance to bid on the rights and has said so on numerous occasions.

 

[Wes]

Originally posted by Phoebesaturn (referring to refutation of Eisner passing on Harry Potter)
I could swear that I read that here or somewhere else. Oh well I consider it a good thing he didn't get his hands on them.

Phoebesaturn, I have to agree with you on this. I searched the board, but this new version only goes back to 2001, which was after the first HP was already released. But on the old boards, I thought it was definitely the understanding that Disney passed up HP.

And I thought Disney also passed on LOTR.

 

[Phoebesaturn]

Originally posted by Wes
Phoebesaturn, I have to agree with you on this. I searched the board, but this new version only goes back to 2001, which was after the first HP was already released. But on the old boards, I thought it was definitely the understanding that Disney passed up HP.

And I thought Disney also passed on LOTR.

I was pretty sure that Another Voice let us in on that news....I could be wrong. I know that they were working on LOTR. Seems Eisner would only do two movies. Plus a whole mess of other issues happening all at once. Like the rights running out for them to do the film.


Lets just say there seems to be more miss then hit these days. In fact without Pixar's moives and money in the mix I struggle to see how Disney would still be around today. ( In its current form)

 

[raidermatt]

Don't know about HP, but yes, they did let LotR go.

In short, the story goes that Disney-owned Miramax wanted to make 2 films. Peter Jackson was willing to go with that since he thought it was the best he was going to get. When Miramax went to Disney for funding, Eisner said "no", only one film. So they gave PJ a certain amount of time to find another studio if he could.

Almost literally at the last minute, he found New Line, who asked "Why are you only making two movies when there's three books?"

Hence we have the trilogy we have, instead of a single Eisner-ized movie. (Or nothing)

 

[TinknBoys]

I couldn't tell from these posts, but has anyone even bothered to see this movie. My family, DH, and two DS,13 and 9 went on opening day and thoroghly enjoyed it. Common, give it a chance.

 

[dcentity2000]

I haven't - hence my lack of comment, really

I've heard some good things about the movie outside of this board so perhaps it isn't all that bad - I don't know. I must admit I was put off - although only slightly - by the trailers I saw; however, on the strength of your testimony, I shall go and see it in due course



Rich::

 

[Bob O]

I wouldnt waste my money forf this moive, i will wait till its on the disney channel or hbo/cinemax.

 

[crusader]

I saw it. It is a Jackie Chan flick complete with some phenomenal stunts. Too bad Disney didn't produce it - because it may have made a substantial difference.

The cameos were very entertaining - they should have given more script to the Wilsons.

 

[dcentity2000]

Crusader - would you recommend it? I'm on a knife edge - can't quite decide!



Rich::

 

[crusader]

Rich:

I wouldn't recommend it for you or I per se unless you happen to be a fan of Chan.

I took my nephews and my son who had a really good time. It is geared for that audience.

I was expecting far more being a fan of the original. Chan converted it into one of his movies which was a disappointment for me. I'm curious who controlled the production on this.

 

[CruiserDew37]

Originally posted by Bella the Ball 360
You know I was looking forward to King Aurthur but then I found out that Guinivere(sp?) was like a warrior princess (shades of Xenia) and that was it for me. King Aurthur is a great legend why the heck would anyone mess with it? NO WHERE did I ever read that Guinivere went into battle in Camelot she went to a convent!B]

This is exactly what i thought when i first saw the preview. We just read about 5 stories of Medieval literature, and in NONE of them was guenivere a warrior...

 

[Lady Cluck]

I love Jackie Chan, and do plan to see the new movie. If you have ever seen any of his interviews, he is a very intelligent guy.

Have you seen the two programs running on The History Channel about the Arthurian legend? On their website, click "On TV" and enter Arthur in the Search Listings box.
http://www.historychannel.com

The man we know as the literary King Arthur, is most likely a composite woven by poets, monks, and oral story tellers, from the soldiers and clan war lords from Brittain's Dark Ages (circa 500-600 AD). After the Roman occupation, Saxons from Germany began to spread across Brittain. The Battle of Baden Hill of legend has basis in historical fact, suggesting there was a great battle, pushing the Saxon invaders back. A generation of relative peace for the native tribes followed. The historians suggest this would have been the era when a great leader appeared, uniting the warring tribes. After a generation or so, the clans again began to fight among themselves, allowing the Saxons to invade. They pushed the natives into what is now Wales and northern France.

In a nutshell, historians agree that there was no single historical Arthur or Camelot in the way the story has come down to us in legend. "Arthur" is a title, not a name. The tribes from that era did not have the ability to build magnificent stone castles. Metal armor did not appear until after about 800.

I agree that depicting the queen as a warrior in a chain mail bikini is stretching, but what the heck, it's wonderful escapism, and being DIS'ers, we all like a good Fairy Tale!

From The History Channel listings:
History vs. Hollywood: King Arthur
How true is Hollywood to history? Through interviews with historians, cast, and production team, and extensive film clips, we compare history to "King Arthur", Jerry Bruckheimer Films' and Touchstone Pictures' spectacular epic tale of one man's destiny to become king. Antoine Fuqua directs the "untold story that inspired the legend" with Clive Owen as the reluctant leader, Keira Knightley as the beautiful Guinevere, Stephen Dillane (Merlin), Ioan Gruffudd (Lancelot), and Hugh Dancy

and

The Quest for King Arthur
For centuries, the adventures of King Arthur and his fabled court have dominated the imagination of the western world. But how did this overpowering legend begin and what truth lies behind the enduring story of Arthur, King of Britons? In this 2-hour exploration of the Arthurian medieval myths, we examine the tantalizing historical facts behind the story of this band of deathless heroes and illuminate the contemporary quest by researchers to establish if the 6th-century warlord truly existed.

Just my .02 - and my 100th post!!

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by larry_poppins
How many of us here are lining up on the sidewalk for Disney's next flop: King Arthur?

Larry

Um, I am. Have been looking forward to this one since last year. Saw 80 days and liked it a lot.

Honestly, when you consider that Disney does quality stuff, yet the movie "White Chicks" was #2 last week, I think you have to think it's the audience with the problems, not Disney. I'm personally glad that they are not stooping to appeal to the lowest common denominator. 80 Days was witty, fun and different from the other stuff out there right now. But you know, it had not scantily clad co-eds, explosions or trash talking so it doesn't appeal to teens and adults, and it does not have a real "family" aspect to it, as it does not have any kid characters (ala Harry Potter) .

JMO

 

[raidermatt]

Oh, they stoop just as much as anyone else... or have we forgotten who made "The Hot Chick"?