King Arthur (2004)

[Disneykid]

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

Technically, yes; generally, no. It's released by Touchstone Pictures which is one of the many "adult" distributors Disney owns (along with Miramax, Hollywood, and a few others). But it doesn't actually say "Walt Disney Pictures Presents" on it like Pirates of the Caribbean did, so this isn't a Disney movie like that one was in that sense.

[2099net]

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?

It means basically that next year, sales of DVD are likely to be fewer than this year's. So Disney is unlikely to make as much money in 2005 as they did in 2003/2004 (with a lot of 2004's money being DVD sales of films released in 2003).

[PatrickvD]

It means basically that next year, sales of DVD are likely to be fewer than this year's. So Disney is unlikely to make as much money in 2005 as they did in 2003/2004 (with a lot of 2004's money being DVD sales of films released in 2003).

well I think 2005 will b a nice dvd year for Disney : Incredibles, Pocahontas, Bambi and Cinderella. I think (and I'm not sure) animated films sell better on dvd than live action films. You'd think they can make some nice $ from those titles

[2099net]

It means basically that next year, sales of DVD are likely to be fewer than this year's. So Disney is unlikely to make as much money in 2005 as they did in 2003/2004 (with a lot of 2004's money being DVD sales of films released in 2003).

well I think 2005 will b a nice dvd year for Disney : Incredibles, Pocahontas, Bambi and Cinderella. I think (and I'm not sure) animated films sell better on dvd than live action films. You'd think they can make some nice $ from those titles

Well, I think Sleeping Beauty sold less than 2m copies on DVD. Appalling considering what an excellent set it was. I don't have much hope for Pocahontas or Lilo and Stitch as a result.

[PatrickvD]

less than 2 million copies!? I thought it sold a lot more.. Could this have something to do with the promotion? Were people aware of the dvd? I mean, it was such a great release

[reaganhockey]

Just my idea about it all, I think kids today are more into the "grown up" films and Toy Story and computer animated stuff. I kno the kids I babysit are eight, four, and two, and none of them have seen The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, the Little Mermaid, etc. They are into Spider Man, Star Wars, Toy Story, Finding Nemo, and Ice Age, and with the exception of those last few movies, they are into a lot of movies I don't think I was allowed to see until I was ten or twelve. So I made sure every time I babysat I brought over a different "kid" movie. But it's impossible to do that with all the kids in the neighborhood. Yea, there will always be the older people, like a lot of us, that keep buying the movies, but I think what it comes down to is what the kids grew up with . Yea I grew up with all those movies (sleeping beauty, beauty and the beast etc), but the younger generation doesn't. And even the kids that you show the movies too, will prefer the computer animated movies. But yea, I think thats why Sleeping Beauty didn't sell to well. It's older than a lot of those films (i think) like Beauty and the Beast, so naturally those dvds will sell better. But yea. I don't kno much so don't take what I say TOO seriously! hehehe

[2099net]

less than 2 million copies!? I thought it sold a lot more.. Could this have something to do with the promotion? Were people aware of the dvd? I mean, it was such a great release

http://www.leesmovieinfo.net/Video-Sale ... 4&limit=54

It actually sold 2.9m in 2003. I saw a chart a few weeks before XMAS where it was about 1.5m. So those last minute XMAS sales really helped!

[AwallaceUNC]

. But yea, I think thats why Sleeping Beauty didn't sell to well. It's older than a lot of those films (i think) like Beauty and the Beast, so naturally those dvds will sell better. But yea. I don't kno much so don't take what I say TOO seriously! hehehe

Yep, by 32 years!

And what you know is fine- everyone can contribute in some way, the theories you've presented here being an exaple. So it's fine- we all learn (often from each other) as we go! This website has a lot of pages that can help you on your way.

-Aaron

[ohmahaaha]

Poor publicity on the part of Disney, I think, has struck again. I've been seeing publicity and hype on Spider-man II almost since the first Spider-man movie was a hit, and especially this year. I think I heard about King Arthur maybe 2 weeks before it came out, but that was just because I read a movie magazine that mentions EVERYTHING that's coming out. Never saw a trailer for it at the movies, never saw a commercial for it ...

[PatrickvD]

Poor publicity on the part of Disney, I think, has struck again. I've been seeing publicity and hype on Spider-man II almost since the first Spider-man movie was a hit, and especially this year. I think I heard about King Arthur maybe 2 weeks before it came out, but that was just because I read a movie magazine that mentions EVERYTHING that's coming out. Never saw a trailer for it at the movies, never saw a commercial for it ...

exactly... either they are deliberately underpromoting their films (because with Finding Nemo they proved they CAN do it, that movie was all over the place) or they are really messing up on the promotion of their products lately

[Joe Carioca]

Not exactly related to the box-office flop of the movie, but here is something interesting... It seems the marketeers of the movie were trying to reach a bigger male audience. The first picture below is the original picture of Keira Knightely, and the second one is the one you see in the poster.



It seems Keira got a free silicon implant!

[AwallaceUNC]

Haven't seen it, but it's definitely bad news for Disney. Or is it good news? As twisted as the Roy E. Disney philosophy seems, it does have some truth behind it- 'Bad news for Disney is bad news for Eisner, which is good news for Disney.' How big an effect will it have? Hard to say. I agree that marketing is much to blame, but the calendar placement is the worst. Whoever made the decision to open the film on Spidey's second weekend should be tracked down and Fed-Exed a pink slip pronto.

-Aaron

[2099net]

Does anyone know if the Extended King Arthur DVD will include the theatrical cut as well? Perhaps with seamless branching?

As some people may remember, I am a stickler for picking up the theatrical cut, but it seems unfair the bulk of the extras are being put on the extended cut. But if it comes down to only one, I guess I'll get the theatrical edition.

[ichabod]

Does anyone know if the Extended King Arthur DVD will include the theatrical cut as well? Perhaps with seamless branching?

As some people may remember, I am a stickler for picking up the theatrical cut, but it seems unfair the bulk of the extras are being put on the extended cut. But if it comes down to only one, I guess I'll get the theatrical edition.

I believe The Extended DVD only has the extended version of the film. If you want the original theatrical version you will probably have to buy both!

[BonusMage]

but it seems unfair the bulk of the extras are being put on the extended cut. But if it comes down to only one, I guess I'll get the theatrical edition.

I wouldn't say that, they get the same things, From DVDAnswers -
Both discs will include an audio commentary with director Antoine Fuqua, deleted scenes with optional director commentary, an alternate ending with an optional director commentary, a new Blood On The Land: Forging King Arthur making of featurette and a Round Table Video Commentary with cast and filmmakers. Completing the packages will be a Knight Vision pop-up trivia feature, a playable X-Box video game demo as well as producer Jerry Bruckheimer’s personal photo gallery. As for the technical specs, the theatrical cut will be available in seperate 2.35:1 widescreen and 1.33:1 full screen releases, whereas the director's cut will be available in widescreen only. All will carry an English Dolby Digital 5.1 track.

[Maerj]

Does anyone know if the Extended King Arthur DVD will include the theatrical cut as well? Perhaps with seamless branching?

As some people may remember, I am a stickler for picking up the theatrical cut, but it seems unfair the bulk of the extras are being put on the extended cut. But if it comes down to only one, I guess I'll get the theatrical edition.

I am assuming you actually saw the film... I missed it unfortunately but I really did want to see it. So, since I am assuming that you did indeed see the film and have strated a thread about the DVDs of it, I can also assume that you really enjoyed the movie? If you did, would you please elaborate?

[2099net]

No, I've not seen the film. Really, these days, it's just as cheap, if not cheaper to get the DVD.

I want to see it for the same reason I want to see most "big" movies, critically panned or not. And I want to see the theatrical release, so I can experience what the critics did, and compare my reactions to theirs.