Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

37 posts in this topic

210.png

 

Disney?s ?The Lone Ranger? heavily faltered out of the gate with a miserable opening weekend gross of just under 30 million. The production has been troubled since the beginning with Disney wanting to scrap the movie before it got started. But obviously it did and with a 215 million dollar budget plus more than a hundred in addition on advertising. Disney now probably regrets not scrapping the film as they stand to lose a whopping 150 million dollars. This is yet another huge loss for Disney following last year?s bomb John Carter. Maybe they should start looking more into the public wants before starting projects that cost more than 200 million dollars. 

 

But their woes won't last long as more Marvel movies are coming out as well as Star Wars. There bomb wont matter much because Iron Man 3 made more than a billion and Monsters University continues to hold strongly at the worldwide Box Office.

 

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/GraveOutbreak/news/?a=82909

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is yet another huge loss for Disney following last year?s bomb John Carter. Maybe they should start looking more into the public wants before starting projects that cost more than 200 million dollars. 

 

The public does not even know what they want.  Disney is just fine.  Last year with all the marvel movies being a hit plus lots of great movies this year.  Westerns just don't cut it anymore.  Westerns need swearing, ho's and killing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the darn movie JUST CAME OUT and yet we are already saying it's a failure, yet people who have seen it say "it's good"... sounds more like an analyst whining because they spent over $221 million (with advertising added in) on this movie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$150million for them is nothing, they'll make it back with other projects later.  

 

Domestic Total as of Jul. 7, 2013: $48,715,010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is surprising to whom? They picked a no-name actor to headline the movie. Teamed him up with a well-known, but waning actor. And then made the movie about a hero everyone stopped caring about 60 years ago.

 

Disney isn't worried, though. The Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars franchises will eat any loss this movie creates. $150 million is nothing to a company the size of Disney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry Woola, your movie was good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with movies today are the trailers. All you see nowadays in trailers are all the great action scenes and the funniest bits of the movie.  Plus the number of trailers they spew out you basically see all the great parts so why bother and just wait for it on-demand.  There is no substance about the movie in trailers.

 

It was Disney's own fault that John Carter failed; renaming the movie and horrible trailers.  I caught the move on cable and thought it was a good movie.


And this is surprising to whom? They picked a no-name actor to headline the movie. Teamed him up with a well-known, but waning actor. And then made the movie about a hero everyone stopped caring about 60 years ago.

 

Disney isn't worried, though. The Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars franchises will eat any loss this movie creates. $150 million is nothing to a company the size of Disney.

 

Named actors is no formula for bring in viewers; Will Smiths movie tanked and he normally brings a big crowd.  I can careless of the actor(s) just as longs as the can act and the story is good.  Otherwise I wait for on demand or pay cable.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$150million for them is nothing, they'll make it back with other projects later.  

 

Domestic Total as of Jul. 7, 2013: $48,715,010.

 

Ok, the studio gets about half of the box office.

 

It'll need to make $400 million just to break even. Not going to happen.

 

Man of Steel, which cost $225 million is just beginning to make a profit. It's at nearly $600 million in the box office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$250 million budget???

WTF?

 

That right there is their first problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$250 million budget???

WTF?

 

That right there is their first problem.

 

I have it listed at $215m but yeah.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have it listed at $215m but yeah.  

$250 mil was the first budget until Disney shut down production and restarted it at a lower budget

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Named actors is no formula for bring in viewers; Will Smiths movie tanked and he normally brings a big crowd.  I can careless of the actor(s) just as longs as the can act and the story is good.  Otherwise I wait for on demand or pay cable.

Well, yeah it's certainly not a guarantee that the movie will do well. But it definitely improves the advertising/marketing ability of the movie to attach a name people actually know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yeah it's certainly not a guarantee that the movie will do well. But it definitely improves the advertising/marketing ability of the movie to attach a name people actually know.

 

Armie Hammer may not draw enough of a big crowd but Johnny Depp is regardless he isn't the main actor in the movie.  I caulk this up Disney sucking at advertising.

 

Look at Pacific Rim, the trailers tells the story and teases you with action, sold.  Despicable Me 2 had Despicable Me to bring in viewers plus the first movie has been playing on basic cable for the past month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that Hollywood and Disney combined are losing creativity. So many cop story lines and ...MAYBE, just maybe, a new idea will pop up for a new movie once in a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad this bombed. Maybe they will learn they need to make enjoyable movies with quality scripts in order to be successful. Films like this just illustrate that studios think they can just throw a bunch of big names together and make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can careless of the actor(s) just as longs as the can act and the story is good.

So you do care who the actors are?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TWDC made $43 billion in revenue in 2012...I think they'll be fine :P

 

Between other money making franchises like Avengers et al. and their TV channels, this is pocket change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never got past Tonto being a plain old white guy...

 

Also, After Earth was awful.  Will Smith couldn't have saved that pile of crap, even in his absolute prime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you do care who the actors are?

No, as I said I can careless who the actor is.  Should have be more clear, as-long-as the person playing the part can act and tell a convincible story is what matters to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, as I said I can careless who the actor is.

Um... that means you do care....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it pretty much serves them right, year after year they spew pure garbage movies, that 1. are unappealing 2. only done to be milked into a sequence of 1.2.3.4 cash cows. Originality and creative writing doesn't fly out the window, hell there is no window no more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um... that means you do care....

 

In my mind no; I see these as two different attributes and not the same.

 

So lets switch this around if the story of the movie has a good premise and is told well and I don't mean told by actors but how the movie is filmed and how everything ties together then the actors do not dictate if I see the movie or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind no; I see these as two different attributes and not the same.

So lets switch this around if the story of the movie has a good premise and is told well and I don't mean told by actors but how the movie is filmed and how everything ties together then the actors do not dictate if I see the movie or not.

What ILikeTobacco is getting at is that the correct phrase is "I couldn't care less". If you say you can care less, that means you care somewhat.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ILikeTobacco is getting at is that the correct phrase is "I couldn't care less". If you say you can care less, that means you care somewhat.

 

Now see ILikeTabacco couldn't you just come out say what Julian.benjamin said instead of beating around the bush :rofl:

 

Thanks for pointing that out julian didn't realize I stated it that way....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be fine once worldwide numbers start showing.  They certainly won't be making the money they wanted to off the movie though.  They want to make a large margin to warrant the risk of the capital on the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.