Derrik Draven Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 Check out it's costs to make against what the movie has made so far. Granted, it's still somewhat early but, if you follow movies much, you know that the dollar figures they bring in, usually fall of greatly after the first few weeks. Riddicks been out about 2 weeks and, it's not even remotely close to breaking even. I haven't seen it yet. Is it bad or, is it just a case of disinterest from the general crowd not really knowing who the hell Riddick is? Here's the numbers:Riddick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romier S Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 Its too bad, I actually liked the movie quite a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChoiceStriker Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 Ouch. Yes, this is bad for them (a 61% second-week dropoff hurts), but when you consider the foreign markets and the DVD rental and sales, they've still got money to make off of it. $46 million compared against the $140 million it cost to make and market the film seems bad, but it's not as horrible as it looks for them. What could be VERY bad is what Around the World in 80 Days will do for Disney - Same $140 million budget, but it's only made $13 million in a week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain rising Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by ChoiceStriker@Jun 25 2004, 02:05 PM What could be VERY bad is what Around the World in 80 Days will do for Disney - Same $140 million budget, but it's only made $13 million in a week. The fact that I have never heard of this movie is a bad sign, personally. (I know the book, but had no idea Disney was making a film of it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChoiceStriker Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 The fact that I have never heard of this movie is a bad sign, personally. (I know the book, but had no idea Disney was making a film of it). I'm surprised - they've been pimping it pretty hard on TV. But anyway, it's a critically panned Jackie Chan vehicle. After The Alamo and Home on the Range, Disney's got to be hurting pretty badly this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zathras Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 Thank you Mr. Eisner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Scorpio Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 What could be VERY bad is what Around the World in 80 Days will do for Disney - Same $140 million budget, but it's only made $13 million in a week. I just heard about this flick a few weeks ago and didn't even realize it was out until I saw the box office gross in the paper. I'm a big Jackie Chan fan, but his latest offerings haven't been the greatest. *Disclaimer* I haven't seen Around the World in 80 Days, so I won't comment on it, but have been bummed about the current Jackie Chan trend. */Disclaimer* The trend is to pair Jackie with another actor to do the talking for him, and since in the States there are different rules and regulations to follow, his stunts suffer. Aging doesn't help the matter any, either. But his last few movies....The Tuxedo. With Jennifer Love Hewitt? Why? What good can come of this? Do movie studio execs /really/ think that such a pairing will be a success? And moreso, Chan had to use the Tuxedo in order to bust out stunts. One reason Chan films work so well is that he plays an everyman. When he gets punched, he winces. He's not a superman. Just a damn crafty cat who will put a hurtin' on sucka's who jump up. Another case - Chan and Claire Forlani in The Medallion. I'm not sure who's acting is more wooden, Hewitt or Forlani. Neither of these pairings come close to putting someone with Chan who knows the genre (ie Michelle Yeoh). Heck, even older Chan films don't always get done proper. Legend of Drunken Master (Drunken Master 2) was cut. They get dubbed. *Full disclosure - Dubbing Jackie Chan movies doesn't usually bother me. Any other film I watch a movie with subtitles instead of a dub. But dubs in Chan flicks seems to add to the overall cartooniness feel. The original actors, in many cases, provide the dubs and have such a goofy tone that they work. I guess I'm just bummed that films like Rumble in the Bronx, First Strike, Supercop, and so on have become a thing of the past. That being said, I do love Shanghai Knights and Shanghai Noon. It's one instance where the pairing of Chan and Owen Wilson just worked. The first Rush Hour wasn't bad either, but it was the culprit that spawned all of these Jackie Chan buddy-cop flicks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark E Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 I guess I'm just bummed that films like Rumble in the Bronx, First Strike, Supercop, and so on have become a thing of the past. You and me both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.