http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... _disney_dc
Every review I have read(two) called it terrible.
Far too much nation building message and not near enough character development was what I had read. Which is too bad because between Davey Crockett, Daniel Boone and Jim Bowie there was plenty of characters to do well.
Bad News for Eisner - the Alamo has bombed
-
indianajdp
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 7:10 pm
- Location: Central Hoosierland
Touchstone
Well touchstone is under Disney so they did do it.
My roommate was an extra in the movie. He mentioned how he hated working for Disney because trying to get his information for taxes has been a real problem for him.
Chuck
My roommate was an extra in the movie. He mentioned how he hated working for Disney because trying to get his information for taxes has been a real problem for him.
Chuck
Well well, a Codfish on a HOOK!
Re: Touchstone
No, you are not entirely correct here. Disney is one movie company and Touchstone is an entire other. They make diffrent movies and are not the same.Peter Pan wrote:Well touchstone is under Disney so they did do it.
My roommate was an extra in the movie. He mentioned how he hated working for Disney because trying to get his information for taxes has been a real problem for him.
But they are bouth owned by The Walt Disney Company, thats true. But that does not make a Touchstone movie a Disney movie.
It sounds weired that your friend has problems with getting the info, I guess I am just to spoiled with the great system that we have here in Norway. But he should not blame Disney for what Touchstone is doing to him. You must remember that they are a company by them selves, and the fact that their stock is owned by someone else does not change that.
I don't really see what the problem is here. You all bash Eisner for being greedy and cutting corners and then, when he does spend some hard cash and invests in a film, you all seem to be pleased when it looks like being a box office bomb.
What's the story?
What's the story?
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
Now, from Memory didn't Treasure Planet get about $13m on opening weekend? (IMDB says about $12).
So that means the $9m the Alamo made is about 30% less than Treasure Planet's opening weekend.
Are we going to see Disney executives begin to call The Alamo a failure and declare it as nothing more than "a tax write off" in the next couple of days?
On another note, I don't see a film about The Alamo having much international appeal, not as much as Treasure Planet's anyhow!
So that means the $9m the Alamo made is about 30% less than Treasure Planet's opening weekend.
Are we going to see Disney executives begin to call The Alamo a failure and declare it as nothing more than "a tax write off" in the next couple of days?
On another note, I don't see a film about The Alamo having much international appeal, not as much as Treasure Planet's anyhow!
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
Yep. But the point is, before the week was out, Disney were already making official statements about Treasure Planet being a flop. Those statements, reported worldwide, stopped people seeing Treasure Planet as much as Harry Potter did.
I look forward to similar statements about The Almo, which appears to be a bigger flop.
I look forward to similar statements about The Almo, which appears to be a bigger flop.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
What is really sad is that The Alamo had a production budget of $100 million plus a $30 million marketing budget.
Easter weekend is not typically a big weekend for movies. The Passion received a little boost from the timing, but the overall total gross revenue from ALL movies showing was lower than previous weekends.
Easter weekend is not typically a big weekend for movies. The Passion received a little boost from the timing, but the overall total gross revenue from ALL movies showing was lower than previous weekends.
I wouldn't say it's gotten entirely bad reviews.
Ebert and Roeper, two thumbs up
http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertan ... today.html
Leonard Maltin was positive
http://www.leonardmaltin.com/picks.htm
It is definitely disappointing at the box office, but that doesn't affect my decision to want to view the movie.
Ebert and Roeper, two thumbs up
http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertan ... today.html
Leonard Maltin was positive
http://www.leonardmaltin.com/picks.htm
It is definitely disappointing at the box office, but that doesn't affect my decision to want to view the movie.
Jim
Disney Fan in Maryland
Disney Fan in Maryland
...and in fact, some of the reviews go to great pains to point out how accurate it is.
Eisner can't really be blamed for its failure. It's certainly nothing to do with the actual content of the film, AS NOBODY SAW IT BEFORE THE OPENING WEEKEND apart from a the critics. It's clearly just the idea which put people off.
Given other historical epics, The Alamo sure seemed like a reasonably safe bet.
Eisner can't really be blamed for its failure. It's certainly nothing to do with the actual content of the film, AS NOBODY SAW IT BEFORE THE OPENING WEEKEND apart from a the critics. It's clearly just the idea which put people off.
Given other historical epics, The Alamo sure seemed like a reasonably safe bet.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
Eisner should be blamed for even existing.
Also, I heard the it's plagued with political correctness
On the bright side, there are Alamo movies that have been made before the plague of political correctness.
There is Davy Crockett - The Complete Televised Series made in pre occupied Disney (while it was under the control of Walt himself)
http://ultimatedisney.com/davycrockett.html
The DVD set is OOP but can still be found at a good price. I even got my copy signed: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... php?t=3368
Then there is the unmatched John Wayne movie which can be had for cheap: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ance&s=dvd
Also, I heard the it's plagued with political correctness
On the bright side, there are Alamo movies that have been made before the plague of political correctness.
There is Davy Crockett - The Complete Televised Series made in pre occupied Disney (while it was under the control of Walt himself)
http://ultimatedisney.com/davycrockett.html
The DVD set is OOP but can still be found at a good price. I even got my copy signed: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... php?t=3368
Then there is the unmatched John Wayne movie which can be had for cheap: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ance&s=dvd
Last edited by Class316 on Tue Apr 13, 2004 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eisner may not be responsible for the movie or its failure. However he was not responsible for the success of Finding Nemo or Pirates of the Carribean either, but he certainly took credit for the revenue that they generated for Disney.
Regardless of Eisner's influence on the movies themselves, the poor box office is definitely bad news for Eisner. The Alamo, Ladykillers, and Teacher's Pet have all done poorly at the box office. AFAIK, Hidalgo and Miracle have both done alright, but no real blockbusters (personally I think Miracle could have done more if Disney had not announced the DVD release so soon). Even Home on the Range has not really done particularly well so far. So overall this year's box office returns are kind of low so far.
What does Disney (or its holdings) have coming out between now and Around the World in 80 Days in mid June? I look forward to seeing it, but I wonder how it will do in competition with Shrek 2 and Harry Potter, Spiderman 2, and the other summer blockbuster movies.
Combine the poor box office with Comcast withdrawing their buyout bid and Disney's stock is likely to go down.
Regardless of Eisner's influence on the movies themselves, the poor box office is definitely bad news for Eisner. The Alamo, Ladykillers, and Teacher's Pet have all done poorly at the box office. AFAIK, Hidalgo and Miracle have both done alright, but no real blockbusters (personally I think Miracle could have done more if Disney had not announced the DVD release so soon). Even Home on the Range has not really done particularly well so far. So overall this year's box office returns are kind of low so far.
What does Disney (or its holdings) have coming out between now and Around the World in 80 Days in mid June? I look forward to seeing it, but I wonder how it will do in competition with Shrek 2 and Harry Potter, Spiderman 2, and the other summer blockbuster movies.
Combine the poor box office with Comcast withdrawing their buyout bid and Disney's stock is likely to go down.
But Rebel, are you saying another company would handle the films better?
As far as I can see Teacher's Pet was never meant to make big box office. I think the theatrical release was nothing more than marketing for the DVD release. I understand Miracle did infact make lots of money as it was a low budget film. You can't expect every film to break the $100m, and if it was low budget (say $25m) then $63m is a fine box office. It looks like Miracle will do better than Miramax's Ella Enchanted (which cost $35m) and of course, Eisner has nothing to do with the everyday running of Miramax.
I can't comment on Hidalgo but again it sounds OK as a movie (and the trailer made it look good) so I think most people would expect it to perform well at the box office.
As for The Alamo, are you suggesting another studio would turn it down? I even think I read somewhere that Disney heads (so that probably means Eisner) held it back from its original release date so it could be improved. Would other studios do that? As a concept, the Alamo is just as sound many other historical epics - from Master and Commander to Troy even (which incidently has the potiential to be an even bigger bomb).
Other films, well, no studio would turn down a Choen film starring Tom Hanks. Can you imagine the outrage if Eisner did turn it down? Any other studio would willingly snap-up that combination. Do you think any studio would predict The Ladykillers would perform poorly based on the pedigree of the filmmakers?
You can't blame Eisner for the failures of these films. If studios knew how to make smash hit movies, they would do it all the time. Making movies is not and cannot be an exact science. Even Lord of the Rings was a major gamble for New Line and could have sunk the company. Disney had a good year last year - it doesn't mean that they will or should have a good year in 2004. It's impossible to predict hits.
Look at Warner Brothers. They spent over $100m on Looney Tunes: Back in Action. Heck, they even spent close to $70m on Excorcist IV - only to scrap the film and totally refilm it with a new director and new script (despite getting what they asked for with the original film, but that's another issue). Dig deep enough and every studio has failures (or even string of failures - Columbia didn't do so well in 2002 apart from Spider-Man).
As far as I can see Teacher's Pet was never meant to make big box office. I think the theatrical release was nothing more than marketing for the DVD release. I understand Miracle did infact make lots of money as it was a low budget film. You can't expect every film to break the $100m, and if it was low budget (say $25m) then $63m is a fine box office. It looks like Miracle will do better than Miramax's Ella Enchanted (which cost $35m) and of course, Eisner has nothing to do with the everyday running of Miramax.
I can't comment on Hidalgo but again it sounds OK as a movie (and the trailer made it look good) so I think most people would expect it to perform well at the box office.
As for The Alamo, are you suggesting another studio would turn it down? I even think I read somewhere that Disney heads (so that probably means Eisner) held it back from its original release date so it could be improved. Would other studios do that? As a concept, the Alamo is just as sound many other historical epics - from Master and Commander to Troy even (which incidently has the potiential to be an even bigger bomb).
Other films, well, no studio would turn down a Choen film starring Tom Hanks. Can you imagine the outrage if Eisner did turn it down? Any other studio would willingly snap-up that combination. Do you think any studio would predict The Ladykillers would perform poorly based on the pedigree of the filmmakers?
You can't blame Eisner for the failures of these films. If studios knew how to make smash hit movies, they would do it all the time. Making movies is not and cannot be an exact science. Even Lord of the Rings was a major gamble for New Line and could have sunk the company. Disney had a good year last year - it doesn't mean that they will or should have a good year in 2004. It's impossible to predict hits.
Look at Warner Brothers. They spent over $100m on Looney Tunes: Back in Action. Heck, they even spent close to $70m on Excorcist IV - only to scrap the film and totally refilm it with a new director and new script (despite getting what they asked for with the original film, but that's another issue). Dig deep enough and every studio has failures (or even string of failures - Columbia didn't do so well in 2002 apart from Spider-Man).
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database