Early 'Pearl Harbor' Results

[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 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....

 

[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.