The last post about 'Pearl Harbor'

[Another Voice]

The Los Angeles Times has published an insightful post-mortem on ‘Pearl Harbor. The article looks at the marketing, the hype and the performance of the movie and does a good job of explaining modern Hollywood. The article neither bashes nor praises Disney, but just sets out the facts as seen from the outside:

--------------------------
‘Pearl Harbor’ is by no means a box-office bomb, even though it is now widely viewed within the industry as a disappointment. The bottom line, Disney officials say, is that the film, which cost $140 million to produce and nearly that much to market worldwide, will turn a profit.

Some industry experts suggest that is not a foregone conclusion, and at least one Wall Street analyst predicted that the film will make only a "modest profit."

The huge expectations surrounding "Pearl Harbor" demonstrate just how treacherous and tricky the business of promoting movies can be. Studio executives are acutely aware that there is no magic formula for delivering hits that connect with a mass audience.

Indeed, Eisner got it right when he suggested there is no such thing as a sure bet in Hollywood. As has been proved time and again, blockbusters are determined by the moviegoing public, not marketing departments.

After cranking up the hype machine for "Pearl Harbor," Disney officials now are in full spin mode, trying to persuade the industry they are "thrilled" with the results.
-----------------–

The article can be found at : http://www.latimes.com/news/asection/20010617/t000050402.html

 

[mattjs]

What I find truly unbelievable in the article is that they spent $140M making the thing and that doesn't include the salaries for the producers and Afleck?

So 22% to 24% of the profit is going to to those guys and not Disney? By the time Bay & pal and Afleck take thier cuts this thing'll have cost a whole lot more than $140M.

Wow!