Young Black Stallion IMAX - $63,000 Opening Weekend

[Jack]

On opening weekend, Young Black Stallion managed a $12,352 per-theater-average in 51 theaters, totalling $629,999 for the weekend.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=w ... allion.htm

This is even less than TLK's $27,664 PTA in 66 theaters, which made $1.8 million for it's debue.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id ... ngimax.htm

Keep in mind that tickets for IMAX theaters are about $10 per person, and the theater is much bigger.

As some have illuded to in other posts, Disney may be testing out the profitablity of IMAX for with YBS, since the numbers for TLK were aparently dissapointing. This would explain why they chose to move back Aladdin, and replace it with a brand new movie, TBS.

If this is something Disney is truely doing, there's a chance they may give up on IMAX - especially with the the new release doing less than half what TLK did.

Thoughts?

[Jake Lipson]

This is sad since I don't want to see Disney give up IMAX, but the animation is already given up. Lion King was their test for that, and it failed. Young Black Stallion was their test of the theroy that "Ok, people don't want to watch old animations they have on tape at IMAX, do they want to see something new?" and that apparently didn't work either.

And...for the record, direct from what IMAX employees have told me: Disney didn't just move Aladdin back -- they completely shelved it. We won't be seeing it on IMAX unless Buena Vista Home Entertainment decides to give it a small run in September-ish in order to promote the upcoming DVD.

Me, I'd release it in regular theaters in the summer. Disney hasn't got much of a summer slate - Home on the Range will probably be gone by the time summer starts; Around the World in 80 Days in June probably won't do much business; and Princess Diaries 2 at the end of August seems to be their only tentpole hit. Bringing Aladdin back out over the summer would be a huge success, give them a big boost in profits and be the perfect way to promote the DVD. Plus, it'd give Shrek 2 a run for its money.

Of course the plus side to dumping IMAX is that we're more likely to get the original theatrical versions on later DVDs, but it's probably too late for Aladdin and Little Mermaid since the IMAX touchups were completed on those.

[poco]

and Princess Diaries 2 at the end of August

I didn't know they were making a sequel about this. DOes anyone know what this will be about?

[Uncle Remus]

The Princess Diaries 2 is based on the sequel of the book The Princess Diaries which the first movie is based from.

[Jake Lipson]

[off topic] No it's not. The book and movie of the first one were drastically different and now the sequel movie will have NOTHING to do with the book, period. I don't know what in the darn hell they're doing with the movie, but in the book, Mia doesn't go live in Genovia and continues to try and balance the princess thing and a normal life. Book 2, "Princess in the Spotlight," perticularly focuses on the craziness surrounding Mia's mother being remarried to her algebra teacher after she got pregnant. Mia lets it slip and then Grandmere gets involved and...well...it's nuts. But they're best thought of as 2 seperate franchises, movie and book, because they've got almost nothing alike except the title. Seriously, I really am disappointed Disney picked up the books, because some other studio would've done it right. It's just not Disney material.

I think the movie sequel involves Mia protesting marriage to someone who has a claim to being the prince of Genovia but I could be wrong and...I really don't care. I'm skipping it. The first one made me physically sick, and I shudder to think about the sequel.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled IMAX discussion.[/off topic]

[Rebel]

I would have liked to have taken my niece to see "The Young Black Stallion" but it is a 2 hour drive one way to the nearest IMAX currently showing it.

[Paka]

I would have liked to have taken my niece to see "The Young Black Stallion" but it is a 2 hour drive one way to the nearest IMAX currently showing it.

What Rebel said right there is one of the main reasons why IMAX films don't make big business. There's only a few dozen around the U.S., and they're usually in big metro areas. They're both literally and "mentally" obscure. Even if hordes of city folk could see the films, the promotion just isn't big enough to be in the public's mind. That, and the concept of an "IMAX" film is probably lost on many - they dunno what the hell it is in the first place - or why it'd be so different from a regular theatre. And even if they do know, the draw of seeing an old film on a really big screen isn't that strong. No matter how you slice it, IMAX releases are truly for nerds only. Just like "Collector's Edition" anything.

I really don't get why Disney would think these IMAX releases would pay off. It's such an obscure, limited venue that you're bound to lose money on it. To have such big expectations for such a novelty format is true folly, I say. But hell - whaddaya expect from Disney suits?

But anyway, I dunno how successful a regular-run release of Aladdin would be, either. With home video so rampant now, a theatrical re-release just doesn't have as much pull anymore. Again, it's just a matter of seeing it on a big screen, versus seeing it at home for free. Most Average Joes would opt for the latter. Of course, the suits probably put in a crappy "All-New Song!" just to draw the curious.
Plus, with the insane release schedule for summer, Aladdin probably wouldn't get a word in edgewise. Look what happened to Peter Pan over the holiday weekend. It was drowned in a tidal wave of big Hollywood blockbuster movies. And that's an all-new movie, too! Despite that, it's still just another adaptation of Peter Pan. Audiences, imo, felt they were already familiar with that old rag, and went to see Steve, Jack, or Julia instead.

And hey, Jack - don't you want to add another "0" to the numbers in the thread's title? YBS didn't do that poorly!

[Jake Lipson]

I really don't get why Disney would think these IMAX releases would pay off. It's such an obscure, limited venue that you're bound to lose money on it. To have such big expectations for such a novelty format is true folly, I say. But hell - whaddaya expect from Disney suits?

Agreed. But the live-action Hollywood blockbusters seem to be an exception to this rule. Attack of the Clones did huge business for an IMAX release and from what I hear Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions were no slouches, either. In any case, WB seems to be satisfied with those returns and is picking up Disney's slack. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is going IMAX in June coinciding with its super-wide bow in traditional theaters, and they've also got people talking to IMAX about The Polar Express in IMAX 3-D in November 2004 and the Johny Depp/Tim Burton Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in summer 2005.

With the exception of Shrek 2 and Harry Potter, the summer seems a bit slouchy on family films though. Home on the Range will be gone, Around the World in 80 Days is a Jackie Chan action movie and probably won't appeal to famalies who could just as well see HP, and Garfield looks horrible and will obviously be overshadowed by the contuing success of HP. So if Disney could roll out Aladdin maybe in mid-July after HP has died down a bit it might do well as an alternate to Spider-Man 2, King Arthur and I Robot, which really aren't going to be kids movies. Also, what do they have to loose? I think it'd be a big hit, and even if it's not, it'd make SOME money and would raise awareness for the DVD release. Considering Aladdin as a brand is otherwise dead right now, having already had its two sequels and TV show, a theatrical reissue would be a great way to reward the loyal fans and get fresh and ripe intrest going in the franchise again.

[goofystitch]

Last Monday, I drove two hours from Wisconsin to Chicago because I really wanted to see "Young Black Stallion." The theater was very small. I'd estimate it at about half the ammount of seating as a normal small theater. It was about half full. Everyone seemed to like the movie, but I overheard complaints that for a $7 movie (compared to the average $4.50 for normal movies at that theater), the film should have been longer than 45 minutes! It was good, but way too short.

In regards to "Princess Diaries 2," If anyone watched the Disney World Christmas Day Parade, every time it went on commercial break, they would have a movie star congratulate the parade on it's anniversary. On of the stars was Julie Andrews saying she is on the set filming PD2 and the chair in the background even had the movies logo on it, so it is definately being made.

[Jack]

Personally, I'm glad Disney tried out IMAX, because it carries on Walt's tradition of trying something new and striving for innovation. It's too bad that it failed, but I wouldn't call anyone at Disney crazy for taking the route, just as I woundn't call Walt crazy for the way he distributed Fantasia.

[Paka]

Personally, I'm glad Disney tried out IMAX, because it carries on Walt's tradition of trying something new and striving for innovation. It's too bad that it failed, but I wouldn't call anyone at Disney crazy for taking the route, just as I woundn't call Walt crazy for the way he distributed Fantasia.

Oh sure, I'm impressed that Disney tried IMAX out, but am angry at them for presuming that their re-releases would make any large amount of money. They should have learned their lesson back in 2000, when their all-new animated film, Fantasia 2000, didn't break the bank in grosses. They lost a good chunk of money on that endeavor - over $100 million spent on production and marketing, and it returned a paltry $60 mil. It only earned a pathetic $8 mil when it was moved down to regular theatres after the IMAX run. Of course, that's the 4th-highest earnings for an IMAX film to date, but in comparison to overall costs... a negative net. :-/
So how do they figure that releasing old films, with millions spent on their clean-up and minute detailing for IMAX, will earn them any more than F2K? It's an awfully expensive way of promoting dvds, in my opinion. If their goal was promotion, they could have just done a limited release run at regular ol' cinemas nationwide. But I guess they figured they'd do promotion in a grandiose way - while, ironically, limiting their audience at the same time. You won't get a lotta exposure with only 50 theatres around the country... Even a 1,000 theatre regular run is better than that.
And like Rebel said - there are plenty of people out there who would have liked to see the films, but were so far away from the nearest venue that they just don't think it's worth the travel.

Oh, and you still need to fix the numbers on that thread title, Jack.

Attack of the Clones did huge business for an IMAX release and from what I hear Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions were no slouches, either.

I wouldn't call Attack of the Clones' $8.5 million a huge haul myself - even for an IMAX release. 22nd overall, by this list. Plus, it was a new release. And a prim-o geek film. And what did I say earlier about IMAX releases? Almost exclusively for nerds. For fanatics that would get a kick out of something as novel as seeing an old favorite on a huge screen. Not really something that Joe Average and his family would dig, too much.

In any case, WB seems to be satisfied with those returns and is picking up Disney's slack. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is going IMAX in June coinciding with its super-wide bow in traditional theaters, and they've also got people talking to IMAX about The Polar Express in IMAX 3-D in November 2004 and the Johnny Depp/Tim Burton Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in summer 2005.

Like you said - coinciding with their regular release. Warner Bros. knows to treat IMAX releases as exactly what they are - a novel format. They don't do exclusive engagements or re-releases on them - they put it out as an addition to the wide release of their biggest new movies. And they choose films that would likely draw the most people to see it in IMAX - big sci-fi and fantasy titles. Not cartoons. Not light romantic comedies. Geek films. I'd say WB's the smarter when it comes to IMAX.

With the exception of Shrek 2 and Harry Potter, the summer seems a bit slouchy on family films though. Home on the Range will be gone, Around the World in 80 Days is a Jackie Chan action movie and probably won't appeal to famalies who could just as well see HP, and Garfield looks horrible and will obviously be overshadowed by the contuing success of HP. So if Disney could roll out Aladdin maybe in mid-July after HP has died down a bit it might do well as an alternate to Spider-Man 2, King Arthur and I Robot, which really aren't going to be kids movies. Also, what do they have to loose? I think it'd be a big hit, and even if it's not, it'd make SOME money and would raise awareness for the DVD release. Considering Aladdin as a brand is otherwise dead right now, having already had its two sequels and TV show, a theatrical reissue would be a great way to reward the loyal fans and get fresh and ripe intrest going in the franchise again.

I think, though, that you're underestimating what's in the cards for this summer (or any summer, when you think in release terms). There's such an inundation of would-be blockbusters that something as meek as a re-release of an animated film - as classic as it may be - would be nothing short of drowned. Disney would probably lose money going that route even if they only spent a moderate amount to promote and distribute it. Believe you me - Shrek 2, Prisoner of Azkaban, and Spider-Man 2 will be pulling most of the family audiences this season. Other big-name summer flicks like Troy, Terminal, and The Village, or classic brainless pablum like The Day After Tomorrow, Blade: Trinity, Thunderbirds, Alien vs. Predator, and Catwoman must be considered, too. The season will simply be awash with huge "event" films vying for the public's attention - so I'd make a fair wager that Aladdin would get nary a glance.