Underdog nets 12 million at box office

[EUROPACL]

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.

I'm so confused why you are so willing and happy to accept bad movies from any company much less Disney. You seem to really enjoy the fact that these films are bad and down right insulting as far as entertainment goes. Why blow the horn and anounce just how great these bad movies are compared to another? It's like expecting a bad meal at every place you go becuase of Mcdonalds and citing the Mcrib as something worse than the crap sandwich you were just served.

 

[raidermatt]

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

Whether it has made money so far or not is debateable. Up to 1/2 of the gross goes back to the theatre companies. That leaves $475 million. Production budget was minimum $300 million. That leaves $175 million. Depp gets a big payday. Bruckheimer's production company surely gets a percentage. Marketing.

There's not a whole lot left.

Sure, it will make money on DVD sales and such, but you can't say that coming up $100 million behind Pirates 2 is what Disney had in mind.

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

Nobody is forgetting it.

Don't well made movies have a life after their theatrical run also? An even better life than most junky movies?

What made more money in it's post-theatrical run.... Cars or Home on the Range?

Will Daddy Day Camp do better than the Princess Diaries in its post-theatrical run?

Is Daddy Day Camp and Underdog what Disney means to you?

 

[KMovies]

I do not feel that Disney is disappointed in At World's End at all.

First, it was filmed prior to the release of Dead Man's Chest. Therefore, it wasn't as if they decided to make part III because of the success of Part II.

Here are the TOP 5 grossers worldwide of ALL TIME

Titanic 1.845 billion

Return of the King 1.118 billion

Dead Man's Chest 1.066

Sorcerer's Stone 976.5

At World' End 954.7


Notice anything ????? Disney is there 2 times!!!! Pirates is up there 2 times!!!

How could anyone be disappointed in the theatrical runs of the last 2 Pirates films???

I'm sorry if people feel that Underdog wasn't worth a gamble. Maybe Disney should release 1 or 2 films a year - all big blockbuster films. Ignore the fact that most studios have a few blockbusters, a few cheap films, some middle of the road films. Some that are expected to get 200 mil, others 100 mil, some 50 mil and others 10 mil.

Ignore the fact that some films are made to appeal to select audiences, some to all audiences, some more for international gross, some more for domestic gross, some for DVD, some as a package deal to get other films made.

Nope, all films should be made the same - just blockbuster, just zillion dollar budgets, just to be released in the summer.

Nope, Underdog should never have been made. Home on the Range never made. Pacifier never made. Father of the Bride never made. Pirates 3 never made. Lilo and Stitch never made (it grossed less than Lion King) ... Lion King never made (it grossed less than Shrek 2). Finding Nemo never made (it grossed less than Shrek 2).

If you can not make a film that will beat Titantic ... don't do it.

Never build Epcot. It won't beat Magic Kingdom. Don't build Animal Kingdom. It won't beat Epcot. Don't make Dancing with the Stars. It won't beat American Idol.

Meanwhile, Underdog has held up fairly nice at the box office - just like most family films do. Sure, it could have been better - but when can't you say that???????????????????//

 

[DancingBear]

INope, all films should be made the same - just blockbuster, just zillion dollar budgets, just to be released in the summer.

Who said that? Clearly budget does not equal quality.

 

[Another Voice]

How could anyone be disappointed in the theatrical runs of the last 2 Pirates films???

Especially since those movies cost absoluetly nothing to make. Nadda, zip, nill, freebe, gratis, not one thin dime...

Yes - all that money just gushes right into Disney's checking account and it's free doughnuts for everyone!!!!!

Oh wait...


No is saying Disney shouldn't be making low budget movies - in fact, that's where I think the studio lays.

What we're saying is that Disney shouldn't intentionall make bad movies. There wasn't a single moment throughout the years of development on Underdog that anyone tried for a single moment to make a movie that wasn't a steaming pile of pooh.

You may not care about quality, you may wish to abuse children with this dreck - but others see things differently. Some people actually want to take their childern to good movies - not just kill a couple hours of their lives.

So when you root for a corporate bottom line inflated by garbage and junk, expect for normal people to stand up and say that we want good movies.

 

[KMovies]

I believe that Disney is just fine with how much money it is placing in the check book for Pirates.

Infact, to say that they are not, why would you ever make such a movie? I mean if 2 billion dollars for 2 films isn't enough to stuff the check book ... it would almost be impossible to do better than these films have done in the marketplace.

Let's wait and see how many DVDs are sold ... I would assume it will do just fine on DVD. Something that Disney considered while they made the film.

 

[KMovies]

Sometimes lack of Quality does pay off.

Borat!

No Quality there - but a huge payoff.

 

[Another Voice]

it would almost be impossible to do better than these films have done in the marketplace.

Funny - those three movies about the little guys and a ring cost did much better than Pirates did and all three movies combined cost less to make than At World's End did. And they've sold many times more DVD than the guy with the squid face did too.

Looks like Disney are flaming idiots, doesn't it.

 

[KMovies]

Guess So -

Pirates triology wasn't successful and even though it added a boat load of money for Disney, it just wasn't enough. Got to laugh.

Guess they should go back to doing what they do best - straight to video DVDs.

LOTR and POC were both hugely successful - something that doesn't happen a lot in Hollywood. That doesn't mean that there should have just been one triology made.

There is room for both.

 

[DancingBear]

Guess they should go back to doing what they do best - straight to video DVDs.

Again, who said anything of the kind?

LOTR and POC were both hugely successful - something that doesn't happen a lot in Hollywood. That doesn't mean that there should have just been one triology made.

Again, who said that? My guess is everyone would say the first Pirates movie was very good. The question is why weren't the second two as good.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

That doesn't seem quite fair though DB, the second two were OK (better than average, IMO) but the whole idea, the whole premise was a bit convoluted to start with. The quality and success of the first movie was a complete shock and I think it'd be neigh on impossible for them to have surprised us with the next two.

LOTR was an adaptation of great literature so this was no surprise although I still didn't like the movies much as they were just so predictable as always happens to book adaptations, IMO. So from a quality aspect I don't see the LOTR triogy as a clear winner at all nor do I see the fact that Disney may not actually be making any money from the last flick as indicitive of anything other than bad business from Disney, as for me I'm very happy they made the 2nd and 3rd even if they don't make Disney any money. They were still popular and entertaining movies.

Now Underdog is a film I would have defended Disney's right to make a couple of years ago as it probably will be good enough to fill the coffers a bit with very little risk but I now see this thinking as counterproductive. Voice said something that I agree with along the lines of 'anyone can make a 6 year old laugh but it takes talent to make a 6 year old and their parents laugh'...I agree with this and I think Disney and probably any self respecting film maker should strive for this. The direct to video movie lowers the bar for what filmakers can offer. I don't want a film maker to strive to make a movie that will be cheap and profitable (let the bean counters worry about that) I want a filmaker to strive for the best he can do, otherwise I don't think he's so much an artist as a prostitute.

 

[Another Voice]

My thoughts exactly Mr. Pirate.

Hollywood produces a lot of junk. It's poorly made, just the barest minium product that they can put on a screen or over the airwaves to make a buck.

What a waste.

My life is already filled with enough unpleasantness as it is, I have to suffer daily from the lax efforts of others.

Why should I have to put up with it in my entertainment as well?

Sure, there are probably the shallow, stupid people that cheer on bad movies under some bad idea that "money=good" for a company. But overtime bad movies don't really make money, and the companies that make bad movies don't last all that long - remember MGM?

What got me interested in Disney to begin with was there movies - fresh, imaginative, able to be meaningful to different people on different levels. Those of the elements of good film making.

I want that to continue. I want Disney to make great movies, I want them to enrich my life and the lives of my family. I want them to be great.

I don't get the brainless follower mentality - the ones who cheerlead a company or group no matter what. Garbage is garbage - it makes no difference if Underdog was released by Disney or by Sony. It's a bad movie that should have never been made.

But I guess some people get so wrapped up in being a cheerleader for their "side", they forget what they're actually cheerleading for.

 

[MomofKatie]

OK, last time I'll chime in- I'm sure I won't change any minds, but I can't keep reading all this bashing of all us "shallow, stupid people" who are "brainless followers" and stay silent.

You want to see movies that are meaningful to different people. You want people's lives to be enriched by seeing them. Great- how about this? MY 8 year old daughter (who was in the age range the movie was aimed at) loved the movie. It was meaningful to her. It enriched her 2 hours that she spent at the theater.

Because it wasn't meaningful TO YOU, don't bash it!!! YOU didn't like it- great. Feel free not to contribute to its bottom line. But don't make disparaging comments about those who did.

If you were a member of the targeted audience, you'd probably be singing another tune. All the 7 to 11 year olds I've talked to liked it. And their parents seemed to like it too- if only for the fact that their kids liked it and they could spend time with them.

 

[EUROPACL]

I'm reminded of a time when I was young...I knocked one of those glasses off the table that McDonalds or Hardees gave away (It was a Smurf Glass)...my Mom reached across the table and gave me a good smack and said " Darnit(only the other word) we can't have nice things".

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

MomofKate, shouldn't it be both? Shouldn't a filmaker or movie company strive to entertain both the child and the kid? We know they can do it based on the volumes of Disney classics? Why should we be accepting of crap just because it was made with only the kiddo's (and the quick buck) in mind? Won't the experience be better if all involved are better for the experience? In the long run, wouldn't your child be better off appreciating a well made movie?

 

[KMovies]

It's not that most commenters didn't LIKE the movie ... it's that they had no intension of seeing it and then made fun of a $12 mil gross ... which for most movies, would be awsome opening weekend.

 

[DancingBear]

I saw it. It was entirely predictable. They couldn't even find a reasonable way to work the girl into the story. My 6yo was mildly entertained (bored in parts) but forgot the movie as soon as we walked out of the theater. I was disappointed that this had absolutely nothing to do with the Underdog cartoons of my youth.

On the other hand, there have been many films that my son and I have enjoyed together, and which he still wants to watch on DVD or when they show up on cable (and which I'll watch with him)--Cars, Stuart Little, Wallace & Gromit, the first Shrek, Princess Bride, Madeline, Babe,etc.

 

[mitros]

Cripes in a hand basket guys, it wasn't THAT bad! We took our 5 yesr old niece, and we all enjoyed it. It was cute as well as entertaining. Too bad that there is so much distaste for the movie in this thread.
And while I usually agree with AV on pretty much everything, I'll part company with him on this one...........

PS: Hey AV, I'm sorry that your life is filled with all that unpleasentness. And regarding your daily suffering from the lax efforts of others, maybe you need to get involved with some other people in your life. And as much as that may seem sarcastic, believe me, that is not what I was trying for.

 

[Another Voice]

When you work in Hollywood, it's not like you have a high class of people to choose from, you know?

Hollywood goes in cycles. At the moment, it's far too easy for people to make a buck thanks the giant Main Steam Media Machines. It existed in the past thanks to studio control over distribution (Hollywood's so called "Golden Age") and in the era of broadcast television (remember the days of only three channels?). Like those two eras, this one too is coming to an end.

With each crash, the giants in Hollywood who had gotten used to the quick buck disappeared - RKO, MGM, United Artists, Columbia, 20th Century Fox, on and on again. The only companies to have survived were the ones that had focused on quality.

Disney has always been one of those companies. Until now.

Underdog is a production by people who couldn't even bother trying to make a good movie. A five year old laughing at butt sniffing jokes doesn't take any talent to put on the screen. Disney produces nothing these days but easy, poorly made product. The CEO is more interested in being able to sell junk on cell phones than on making good movies for the theater. And they've managed be the first studio in Hollywood to have lost money on a billion dollar box office flick.

Disney won't survive with that thinking.

The same technology that let's Disney sell junk like Underdog in your home also allows people with real talent, real drive and real passion the same opportunity to reach you as well. Disney's sad little efforts will be drowned in a flood of better material. Yea, some may still cling to the "Disney is always good" fiction of life, but normal people don't. They don't care about the brand life style when they choose a movie, they want something good. If Disney can't deliver, then...Disney is a business.

Or look at it another way. Disney spent the same amount of money (more, probably) to make and market Underdog as they did to design and build 'Expedition: Everest'. Which will your niece enjoy more over the next ten years?

 

[KMovies]

My God, how can anyone keep a straight face and make quotes like this

And they've managed be the first studio in Hollywood to have lost money on a billion dollar box office flick.

How isn't the studio recording profits??? The 2 films collected over 2 billion world wide. I believe that I read that the 2nd film brought in so much money that the 3rd film was already paid for. That does not include DVD sales, TV contracts, and Merchandising.

We want evidence of the losses that Disney has taken on Pirates 2 and 3. I don't think you are going to find that evidence.

Let's get out of the business if something like Pirates 2 and 3 can't make money - because there is no hope at all.