King Arthur (2004)

[Disneykid]

More marketing, yes. But the primary reason this movie is tanking is that, quite simply, it's a bad movie. Just check the reviews. If this film offered a compelling new take on the Arthur tales people would find time to see it, even with Anchorman and Spidy (or is that Spidie) in theaters. Eisner distrusts creative talent, such as screenwriters, and therefore movies under the house name, save for DFA titles, have a rep of poor story qualities.

And once again you've enlightened us by your optimistic thoughts on how bad box office = a bad movie.

[Christian]

I also think there's a current mindset among the general public to slag every live action Disney movie no matter what. A week or two before the movie comes out everyone assumes it's going to be another "Disney live-action flop" so then they don't see it and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I saw Anchorman and Dodgeball and they were both sort of funny but I think I probably really could've waited for them to come out on video.

[Jake Lipson]

Another thing with the aiming for Pirates-level success -- Pirates, while in the same slot, was up against THE LEAGUE OF EXTRODINARY GENTELMEN which had bad marketing and bad reviews and did weakly. It was also "relieving" TERMINATOR 3 as the #1 picture in the country. There are far worse movies in the world than T3, but it wasn't too great either, and once people saw it and knew it wasn't too good, down it went. Plus, Pirates had good-to-great reviews and a star-studded cast.

King Arthur on the other hand -- up against ANCHORMAN, which looks like trash (IMHO) but will play to the crowd who likes that kind of humor. Also tried to relieve SPIDER-MAN 2, which is actulally an amazing picture with lots of rewatchability value. Add to that the mixed-to-bad reviews for KA and the severely rewamped story, and...well...yeah, I'm not suprised it's having troubles.

[Loomis]

Lack of investment in quality feature (or short) animation
Lack of investment and originality with the theme parks
Lack of vision for the overall direction of the Disney corp
Lack of ability to develop--in house or otherwise--successful scripts that would, in turn, produce successful films, that would, in turn, produce successful home video, successful licensing, etc.

Yes, because Pirates of the Caribbean; Freaky Friday; Finding Nemo; the Lion King DVD were such big flops for Disney last year weren't they?

As for the Parks: "But Disney is moving ahead with a new resort on the way for Hong Kong, a new ride debuting this month [October 2003] in Orlando, and new attendance records set last year in Tokyo. " (Source: CNN)

Finally, "it appears that BVHE has topped Warner Home Video for the No. 1 slot in 2003 by about $80 million, representing roughly $4.7 billion in gross consumer spending when combining all BVHE DVD/VHS sales and rental revenue from Jan. 1-Dec. 28." (Source: Hollywood Reporter, Jan 6 2004).

No doubt, Disney will have a leading market share again this year, with major releases like Aladdin and the Wave 4 Treasures yet to come out.

So I ask you - is Eisner really doing that bad a job of running a company?

What - they have one or two flops and they are written off? Gee, because it isn't as though any other company has had a flop this year. For every Shrek 2 that Dreamworks has, there is a Sinbad waiting in the wings.

It has been said on this board this week that Disney's worst enemies are its own fans (and I tend to agree). It would seem all that it takes for fans to condemn the entire company and it's management is one or two films to flop, and they conveniently forget all the other financial victories Disney has had lately. As Christian said, it has become a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

The other thing I would like to point out is the assumption that because it has performed badly, it must be a bad film. Or that it means the end of Disney. Everyone has a bad year or puts out a bad film. BUt all I have seen here is a bunch of negative comments.

[englishboy]

RE: reviews and attendance


Though I can think of many character-driven or art house films that are actually quite good that failed at the box office, I can't think of any summer action/effects films that, being quite good, also failed. This type of movie should have broad appeal and, if well made, should garner a summer audience. Anyone have a list of good summer action films that failed? I'd be curious.

(I do, however, disagree with League. League was an extradorinary comic book by Alan Moore--amazing in how it uses the tropes of Victorian novels in a post-modern experiment. I loved it. The movie chucked a good piece of the plot. It added Tom Sawyer because the, um, producers thought they'd make more money if the audience had a young AMERICAN boy to follow, not just those pesky Brits. Anyway, the flick was a poor adaption from an inventive book and in its attempt to maximize profit it eventually lost the spirit of the original story.)

[Christian]

It must be lonely at the top. For all its flops Disney is still at the top of its game and being at the top means that everyone (fans and enemies alike) accuses it of EVERYTHING possible. For instance, take Lilo and Stitch. Most people liked this film, but being art it is subjective and some people are bound to not like it. The thing is, I actually heard one person (who is otherwise a Disney fan) who didn't like it use it as proof that the whole corporate entity of The Walt Disney Company is going downhill. "Well, they made one movie I didn't like. Therefore, that must be the end of the company."

Though I can think of many character-driven or art house films that are actually quite good that failed at the box office

Then you shouldn't be so harsh against America's Heart and Soul. King Arthur actually looks sort of bland to me but I can't make any final judgments until I see it and I certainly can't tell others not to see it. Apparently some people have enjoyed it and who am I to take that away from them? Speaking of Spiderman 2, I saw it and thought it was pretty good and I might even see it again when they bring it to the IMAX theater here but to me it wasn't quite as amazing as all the hype was making it seem. Nothing against the movie, more about the hype and you can't pin that on any one person.

[englishboy]

>>>Yes, because Pirates of the Caribbean; Freaky Friday; Finding Nemo; the Lion King DVD were such big flops for Disney last year weren't they?

Lion King, now ten years old, produced by people no longer associated with Disney

Finding Nemo, Pixar, who will soon most likely be leaving Disney.

Yes, Pirates and the Freaky remake both did very nicely.

>>>As for the Parks: "But Disney is moving ahead with a new resort on the way for Hong Kong, a new ride debuting this month [October 2003] in Orlando, and new attendance records set last year in Tokyo. " (Source: CNN)

When was the last time you were at a park? I've been to the Calif and Fl parks this year. Compared to ten years ago, the parks are in poor shape. If you can't get there, you can find photos on the web. This past week Big Thunder (Calif) had its third accident in the past year resulting in personal injuries. This is due, in part, to a reduced matainence schedule at the parks. The ride is now closed indefinitely. As for the new ride in Orlando, it's been reported that the budged for the Stitch attraction was downsized repeatedly. In other words, they cheaped out on it. The overseas--ie Hong Kong--parks are a co-operative venture with a host company.

>>>Finally, "it appears that BVHE has topped Warner Home Video for the No. 1 slot in 2003 by about $80 million, representing roughly $4.7 billion in gross consumer spending when combining all BVHE DVD/VHS sales and rental revenue from Jan. 1-Dec. 28." (Source: Hollywood Reporter, Jan 6 2004).

Yes, Disney is pulling good sums off its catalogue. I'd like them to continue to do this, hence my concern.

>>>So I ask you - is Eisner really doing that bad a job of running a company?

IMO, yep. He's dismantling aspects of the company from which Disney has derived its reputation and main revenue.

[Christian]

Lion King, now ten years old, produced by people no longer associated with Disney

I believe Don Hahn and Rob Minkoff still work for Disney and maybe others do as well. But I'm still not sure what the point of your remark is.

[englishboy]

The point of my remark: you shouldn't count the recent success of TLK on DVD as part of the current creative output of the studio. Its success is a legacy of work primarely completed ten years ago.

[Loomis]

The point of my remark: you shouldn't count the recent success of TLK on DVD as part of the current creative output of the studio. Its success is a legacy of work primarely completed ten years ago.

I only use it as an example of current Disney campaigns that have worked.

[englishboy]

Christian,

Hahn is still part of Disney Management. (He started as an inbetween and worked his way up--extremely cool.) But Minkoff left feature animation years ago to develop those two Stuart Little films. He had a hand in Haunted Mansion, but as far as I know, he has no formal relationship with the studio presently. (If that's changed recently, I'd love to know.)

But as for the point of losing the people who contributed to the 1989 to 1998 streak of winning animated films at Disney. Disney had lost all but one or two of its directors. Here's the list of directors who have left, resigned, or been forced out--Musker and Clements being the most recent.

Ron Clements
John Musker
Mike Gabriel
Eric Goldberg
Kirk Wise
Gary Trousdale
Roger Allers
Rob Minkoff
Paul Brizzi
Gaetan Brizzi

The point of Disney losing talent is fairly easy to back-up.

[2099net]

But as for the point of losing the people who contributed to the 1989 to 1998 streak of winning animated films at Disney. Disney had lost all but one or two of its directors. Here's the list of directors who have left, resigned, or been forced out--Musker and Clements being the most recent.

Well, some of those people left to form their own companies - something more and more people are doing in this entertainment age. It's just the way the world is these days.

As for Disney's recent films - nobody expected The Lion King to be a big hit. There's no guarentee that Minkoff's next Disney film would have been well recieved. Indeed, while Stuart Little did well, it's sequel didn't (and indeed his Haunted Mansion, his last Disney film, didn't cover it's budget at the US box office). Who can say if Minkoff et al, would of had any hits as big or huge as their most remembered?

As for King Arthur, Jerry Bruckheimer and his cohorts aren't exactly known as hacks (well, actually most of what he does is, but it's successful hacking). So a talent drain here equals a talent infusion here. Plus, somebody has to raise up through the ranks to become the new talent.

That's not to say I approve of the situation 100%, but life must go on. You can't live in the past as there's no future there.

King Arthur may or may not be a bad film. Personally I think it looks better than the overlong Pirates of the Caribbean movie, which spent most of it's time fussing about with pointless and tiresome "coin chasing". Yet Pirates was a huge success (I wonder how much of that was down to it starring Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom... IN THE SAME MOVIE! IT'S A DREAM COME TRUE!)

You seem to support artistry, which means (I assume) that you agree no film should rely on its star names to carry it. All a film should need is its actual content.

As for League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I did think it was the best of the "summer blockbusters" last year. I had fears about the film before seeing it (expecially the inclusion of Dorian Gray, oddly this annoyed me more than Tom Sawyer) but it was much better than I expected. I actually thought the "dumbing down" was slight (remember a film is a different medium to a comic, where panels and dialogue can be studied at the reader's own pace, but Vampire Mina was an example of "dumbing down"). What really spoilt the film was Sean Connery, but that's the movie star system I was bemoaning above for you.

As for other "blockbusters" that should have done better - Looney Tunes: Back in Action deserved to do better (It's full of the pop-culture references people adore in Shrek 2, it's just the references aren't so apparent to most people. And it has a healthy dose of anti-Hollywood satire). So did Gremlins II while I'm at it - the best sequel of all time. More recent films that were overlooked... Peter Pan [Live Action] didn't do that well, or Eight Legged Freaks which was a fun throwback monster movie.

The problem is not just Disney's - Apart from Spider-Man 2 what have Columbia released in the past two years that has been a massive hit? Men in Black II? It's a sequel. Bad Boys II? Ditto. Hellboy struggled to make $60m. What about Universal? Van Helsing is only creeping above it's budget now. The Hulk? The Chronicles of Riddick?

The problem is the insane amount of money people seem willing pay to make a film these days combined with the crowded release schedule. Disney won last year (just as much down to luck as quality in some cases) and seem to be missing out this year (again, partly down to luck, I'm sure).

[Christian]

The problem is the insane amount of money people seem willing pay to make a film these days combined with the crowded release schedule.

Yes, there's so many movies nowadays you can't even think straight. Every weekend you've got one or two movies contending to be the biggest blockbuster ever plus numerous smaller ones. It's like being inside a tornado.

[Lady]

I just saw King Arthur and the film is actually pretty entertaining. It may not be intellectually stimulating, but it was a fun popcorn flick. Not to give away anything, but the battle on the ice lake is one of the better battle sequences I've seen lately. And even though the leads, Clive Owen and Keira Knightley, weren't as charismatic as the leads in say Gladiator or Braveheart, they still did a good job and I liked them in their roles.

You all may want to wait until it comes out on DVD though. It would make a good rental.

[Christian]

Sounds like a balanced review.

[reaganhockey]

Yahoo New! "King Arthur" Keeps the pressure on Disney

Okay, first of all, I didn't kno that King Arthur was a Disney film? but ok. I read this article and was like wow. But I didn't understand much of it. Can anybody translate? I mean I get the whole yea Disney's losing money, but what does that MEAN for like the next summers movies and stuff?

[Ciaobelli]

It means that Disney released yet another BOMB! Lets hope something goes right for them!

[reaganhockey]

isn't that weird tho? I think it was the timing. With Spiderman 2, i think they should have shot for either and early summer or late summer time. I haven't seen it yet, but I'd like to as soon as it comes out to nowhere mn! hehehe

[DreamerQ18]

So I am asking the same question and hopefully someone can answer it King Arthur is a Disney movie?

[Ciaobelli]

Maybe its as simple as: the movie is bad. I haven't seen it and I won't make further comments on its quality. I will wait for the DVD and rent it. Even though the idead of Arthur and Merlin with no Sorcery doesn't appeal to me.