Underdog nets 12 million at box office

[crazy4wdw]

Box office mojo is reporting that Walt Dinsey Pictures' "Underdog" made just over 12 million for its opening weekend. On a more positive note, the total box office for Ratatouille stands at $239,172,000. Also, the total box office for Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End stands at $951,609,947.

 

[EUROPACL]

Does anyone have any numbers on what this thing cost to make and market? Boxoffice Mojo dosen't list any numbers for it. AV have you heard any numbers?

 

[Another Voice]

This one is such an embarrassment that I haven’t heard anyone talking about it. The phrase I like is that it’s “disappearing off resumes all over town”.

I’ve haven’t seen any figures, but I’m guessing $55-$65 million to make and about a $15-$20 marketing. CGI effects still cost a lot the way Disney does it (hiring them out to other studios who charge a premium). And both of those are probably on the low end – Disney’s rather forgotten how to make low budget flicks these days.

There no real reason why this movie was made. It happened because someone in marketing thought they had a slot for a late summer movie and (this is the real reason) if people don’t work they don’t get paid. For most suits and others in Hollywood, the quality of the movie they’ve okay’d is far less important than filling the production pipeline with something. When the movie flops, the suits can always find some way to blame it on the audience.*

“People are tired of super hero movies” is the excuse I’m putting my money on come the office pool on Monday.


* - This is how ABC has been working for a decade now. Face it – no real executive would have ever spent money to put ‘National Bingo Night’ on the air if they had the slightest bit of responsibility for their actions.

 

[EUROPACL]

I’ve haven’t seen any figures, but I’m guessing $55-$65 million to make and about a $15-$20 marketing. CGI effects still cost a lot the way Disney does it (hiring them out to other studios who charge a premium). And both of those are probably on the low end – Disney’s rather forgotten how to make low budget flicks these days.

I am still amazed at just how much money is spent making a movie these days. I always have these "what if" ideas that pop up in my mind and I can't even begin to think how I would spend more than a few million in my entire life (if I had it).

“People are tired of super hero movies” is the excuse I’m putting my money on come the office pool on Monday.

More like people are tired of bad super hero movies like Spiderman 3, Catwomen, Ghost Rider, Fantastic 4, Superman Returns, and X-Men 3. I have big hope for next summers Iron Man movie...I saw the comic con footage of some of it and it looks really good they really nailed Tony Stark by casting Robert Downey Jr. Jon Favreau really seems to be staying true to the comic book and IMO that is the first spot they tend to go wrong with these types of movies. I think that is one reason why I liked Sin City so much it was pretty much the comic book come to life. (and the great casting).

 

[Another Voice]

Between studio overhead and Hollywood's ancient, undfunctional guild system - just making a studio moives costs $25 million before anything happens at all. There's no reason why movies cost so much at all - the vast majority of the money spent on a flick never shows up on the screen. Look at the budget for At World's End - how much just went into the care and feeding of Depp's and Bruckheimer's ego? Better yet, Google for the court records for the lawsuit over Sahara.

Hollywood has been shown time and time again the way to the future - both The Lord of the Rings and 300 were megahits that cost a fraction of what a studio production would have cost. Both also had amazing stories, another lesson people at Disney refuse to learn and so they continue with inane wastes like Underdog.

You really have to be a superior idiot to sit at a desk and say, "Let's spend $100 million to make and market a movie about a talking beagle that has nothing to do with the forgotten cartoon we paid huge bucks to buy just we have something to show on DisneyToon Channel".

As for "bad" superhero movies - Hollywood doesn't make bad movies. It's you mouth-breathing, cousin-marrying, WalMart-shopping, trailer-living yokels that live in that wasteland between Manhatten and Malibu that are the problem. You didn't respond to the movies like you were supposed to. If you listen to Hollywood suits, everything the town turns out is desitined to be a hit if only some unfortunate situation didn't occur.

From conversations I had (and these are real reasons that real people have told me), Spider-man 3 was a disappointment because American's resented the fact that the movie premired in Tokyo before the U.S., Shrek the Third fell short of expectations because it got "too European" with the King Arthur storyline, and Pirates 3 flopped because Kieth Richards said he snorted his father's ashes and it turned people off to his cameo.

 

[hannah's dad]

From conversations I had (and these are real reasons that real people have told me), Spider-man 3 was a disappointment because American's resented the fact that the movie premired in Tokyo before the U.S., Shrek the Third fell short of expectations because it got "too European" with the King Arthur storyline, and Pirates 3 flopped because Kieth Richards said he snorted his father's ashes and it turned people off to his cameo.

If movie-makers are really stupid enough to believe this, they deserve all of the failure that accrues to them. But I suppose the failure doesn't usually hit them in the wallet.

 

[KMovies]

I bet that Underdog wasn't very expensive and will do OK on DVD. Not every movie is set out to be a blockbuster.

Look at Daddy Day Camp ... that has "straight to DVD" written all over it and will likely do worse than Underdog.

 

[EUROPACL]

Hollywood has been shown time and time again the way to the future - both The Lord of the Rings and 300 were megahits that cost a fraction of what a studio production would have cost. Both also had amazing stories, another lesson people at Disney refuse to learn and so they continue with inane wastes like Underdog.

I'm glad Disney lost the rights to LOTR....we got three great movies out of the deal without Eisners hands all over it. Sorta the same way I feel about Harry Potter.

As for "bad" superhero movies - Hollywood doesn't make bad movies. It's you mouth-breathing, cousin-marrying, WalMart-shopping, trailer-living yokels that live in that wasteland between Manhatten and Malibu that are the problem.

To be honest I have sleep apnea...so the mouth breathing is not my fault. I shop at Target (hate walmat..its always dirty). I did live in a trailer in College but have a nice house now....and that thing with my cousin was a one time deal.

KMovies I bet that Underdog wasn't very expensive and will do OK on DVD. Not every movie is set out to be a blockbuster.

Look at Daddy Day Camp ... that has "straight to DVD" written all over it and will likely do worse than Underdog.

I don't know 100 million sounds like 101 million too much. I don't expect every movie to be a blockbuster movie either...there are tons of good low budget movies and Underdog is/was never going to be one of them. I'm not so sure you help the cause for Underdog by listing movies that will do worse.

 

[Sosai X]

Remember the recent movie "Evan Almighty"? Wanna know how much that cost to make? Ready for this?

$175,000,000.

One hundred and seventy five MILLION dollars. Return of the King cost just over 90 million, and is three times longer. Throwing money on a garbage script doesn't make it better. What was that phrase, something of lipstick and pigs I think..

 

[Another Voice]

That was just the budgeted costs for Evan Almighty - and even then it was the most costly comedy of all time. The grapevine in Hollywood puts it's final actually cost at just over $250 million. It's one of the most costly flops of all time.

 

[bnlbebes]

Underdog, The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, George of the Jungle...

Why does Hollywood keep digging up these old cartoons and then making them into something completely different? How do they expect to market nostalgic entertainment to a young audience who is not part of the nostalgia? If you are going to revive a "classic" then be faithful to it, so at least the older fans might appreciate it, give it a good review, take their family to see it, and renew interest in what may be a worthwhile investment.

 

[Another Voice]

Why does Hollywood keep digging up these old cartoons and then making them into something completely different?

Because the rights are cheap and they've already been "proven" successful.

The cost for a Hollywood movie is so great that studios are very relucant to risk $200 million on a "new" idea. Making a movie from another media - television, comic books, commercials - is supposed to bring along a "built-in" audience.

 

[DisOrBust]

Has anyone seen it????

 

[EUROPACL]

Has anyone seen it????

With a total boxoffice of around 25million in 10 Days and opening on just over 3,000 screens...if you figure an average ticket price of 6.00 (Adult and Child)...that means that around 138 people per screen per day or just over 416,000 people total. Good luck finding anyone that has seen it. Although I did see a post on the Community board gushing over the movie (go figure). If you really need to see the movie on the big screen I feel this may be your last week to catch it.

 

[MomofKatie]

DD8 and I saw it yesterday. DD laughed all the way through. I thought it was cute, harmless entertainment meant for children.

Who here discussing how disappointing and awful it was is a member of Underdog's target audience (kids and tweens)??

Personally, as an adult, I wouldn't have paid to watch it- but I wouldn't be interested in a movie about a talking dog in the first place. My DD wanted to see it, and she was completely satisfied. Wasn't that the purpose of the movie??

 

[Another Voice]

Wasn't that the purpose of the movie??

The "goal" of Disney is to provide family entertainment that parents can enjoy as much as their childern do - The Little Mermaid, The Lion King and such.

Making a six year old laugh is easy. Making a six-year old and their parent laugh is a difficult. It's also where the big office is. No strickly-kiddie flick will make enough money to cover its production cost.

There is no reason why Underdog could not have been a movie that appealed to children and adults. It would have taken effort, talent and imagination - but it would have been possible. Sadly, Disney acts like it lacks all three of those ingredients.

But the bigger shame it that people let Disney get away with insulting product "becasue its for the kids". Disney is better than that; we deserve better than that as well.

 

[KMovies]

I guess people don't understand or know the movie business.

Studios make movies for various reasons, some big budget, some small budget. Some that will do well in theatres, others that won't.

Take for example Daddy Day Camp. That movie earned 1/4 of what Underdog did in the opening weekend. It was planned for straight for DVD but instead was released to the theatres as a big commercial for the DVD. It will probably generate a profit on DVD but we all laugh at it.

Underdog wasn't going to be a major film. That would be Pirates or Ratatouille. Disney was looking ahead at the DVD and TV for a film such as Underdog.

Here are studios and grosses for 2007

Paramount 1158.9 mil / 10 new movies / 116m per movie
Warner Bros 946.7 mil / 12 new movies / 79m per movie
BV (Disney) 910.9 mil / 8 new movies / 114m per movie
Sony 882.9 /mil 15 new movies / 59m per movie
Universal 664.8 mil / 11 new movies / 60m per movie

As you can see, the studios has released the least number of movies yet are in the middle of the pack for overall money. Secondly, they are almost at the top per movie.

While Disney may have expected Underdog to do better, just look at several movies that came out this month. Stardust, Hot Rod, Bratz, Daddy Day Camp - all are performing much worse.

Yes, we may want every movie to appeal to everyone, but what studio does that?

Come on, give Underdog a break. It's doing what was expected.

 

[Another Voice]

Come on, give Underdog a break. It's doing what was expected.

In the sense that Disney make a really bad movie that they had no hope of being a success - yes then that business plan is working out just well.

However, don't we expect a little bit more from Disney? Do you really want to be a fan of "we know it stinks, but stupid people will still give us money"? Is that mark of success "we're not as bad off as the guys down the street"?

How puny are your ambitions.

P.S. - Take out the bloat of At World's End (which is still loosing money) and see how the your chart works now.

 

[KMovies]

Who said no hope of success -

Disney released a movie, probably not expecting to make a profit in the theatres (most films do not), but would be successful in the DVD market and then a film that can be run on the Disney Channel, Starz, ABC Family, ABC Saturday night movie.

Gosh, people are forgetting that a movie has a life after its theatrical run.

 

[KMovies]

Take out Spiderman out of Sony and see where they are.

Take Shrek out of Paramount and see where they are.

Take Harry Potter out of Warner and see where they are.

Take Knocked Up out of Universal and see where they are.

By the way, Disney did not lose money on Pirates 3. It has grossed over 950 mil worldwide - just 100 mil behind Pirates 2.

PS - Pirates 3 will be coming out on DVD too - so more money.