Early 'Pearl Harbor' Results

[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

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.

 

[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