By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com
Interesting Disney Move…
The Hollywood Reporter reports that Disney is seeking approval from exhibitors for a June 1 release of the Alice In Wonderland DVD, just 13 weeks after the film is released into theaters.
It may be that Disney is trying to shorten the DVD window, as it has threatened to do in the past. (Industry suicide, if you ask me.) But I have a different theory.
Prince of Persia: The Disney Death Star.
Why did Dick Cook get slaughtered so swiftly… even before his successor could figure out how he was going to handle his key support job for the future, a marketing chief? I wondered then whether it was Prince of Persia, too expensive, too crappy looking.
Here is how the Alice effort may fit in… Alice does decent business in March, along with some decent profit on The Last Song. But maybe not a massive smash. So you don’t want to take your writedown on Persia in Q2.
Persia premieres in Q3, as does Toy Story 3, though it opens just 10 days before the quarter closes. When In Rome and Princess & The Frog will go to DVD in Q3, but it’s not quite enough to cover the expected loss. So… enter Alice on DVD, which would be released in Disney’s Q4 if relased in the normal window. Realistically, most movies play out by Week 10, though they are still on screens. Besides The Blind Side phenom and three Oscar films, the highest grossing film on the charts of over 9 weekends last weekend was New Moon, which did $277k last weekend in 26th place.
In T4, Disney has most of the TS3 revenue plus a Step Up sequel, plus The Last Song‘s DVD to cover if The Sorcerer’s Apprentice doesn’t do well.
So, look for the 3 DVDs, 10 days of TS3, and maybe the Miramax sale – which I still lean towards “won’t happen” on – will all happen in Q3 to cover for Prince of Persia.
But it’s just a theory…
PERSIA POWER. WRONG. That thing is going to be HUGE.
Though my take on it depends on ONE crucial issue:
Did Gyllenhaal actually grow his (usually boring) hair out to that (awesome) length?
Or are those extensions?
THAT is the difference between A REAL MOVIE and half-assing it.
If that is Jake’s REAL, GROWN OUT HAIR, then it’s a good movie. If that’s a piece or wig, then nobody cared about the small stuff.
IN ANY MOVIE where the lead character has long hair, the actor ABSOLUTELY should grow out his own real hair, or the movie is as cheap as something that passes off Vancouver as NYC.
Same goes with facial hair.
why does jake get luscious long hair in persia but sam has a BUZZ CUT in greece? not fair
Lex is on to something, there is a reason Mission Impossible 2 was the highest grossing movie of the series. Cruise’s hair.
Interesting theory Dave, I was watching the trailer during the Superbowl thinking “who is this movie for?”. It’s still early though.
Oh my God, I just read on another blog where Lex wrote a diatribe on Cruise’s hair in MI2. The fact that I am thinking on the same wavelength as that dude is frightening. I’m off to church.
Jumping on Lex’s point, I personally think the reason MI2 works (for those like me who enjoy it) is that it’s so unabashedly ‘male wish-fulfillment fantasy’. If you’re a ten year old boy who plays out adventure scenarios with toy guns in his back yard, MI2 is pretty much the movie you’re going to make up in your head. Granted, I still think the movie works on technical merits, as the action scenes are terrific and wonderfully ‘clean’ (ie – skillfully edited and easy to follow at all times), the romantic subplot is playful and adult, and the picture feels wonderfully big and lush. In a time when summer entertainments try to score novelty points by going dark and anti-hero, John Woo’s MI2 was a gloriously old-fashioned and romantic (in a literal and literary sense) action MOVIE. In many ways, it was the ‘ultimate John Woo picture’ almost to the point of self-parody.
Of course, it helped that MI2 lifted plot elements from Alfred Hitchcock’s Notorious.
Which one is MI2 again? Is it the one where Tom Cruise is the secret agent, breaks into secure facilities, wears latex masks, and defeats the crazed megalomaniac?
Who is the lead “New Dog” for President of Marketing these days, or is that what Finke & Waxman do instead of providing analysis and opinions on issues?
Word is that they may have their woman… and not anyone from inside the regular circle.
MI:2 was about as much of a movie as Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle. Sure, imagery was on screen, at 24 frames per second. And yes, the sound system was tested to its limit. But like a stick of celery, it proved to expend more energy than it produced.
The European sheen of the first, with its black and whites, were thrown away. MI:3 tried to be a bit of part 1, and a bit of part 2, and succeeded for the most part. If that was what you were looking for.
Good theory…it doesn’t make any sense to go with this window other than for Persia considering Disney has been marketing the crap out of Alice for ages, and the Mouse House is either in red ink or barely broke even on its last several releases (Old Dogs, Surrogates, G-Force, When in Rome, Princess and Frog, ACC).
“The Last Song” is going to be interesting…Hilary Duff generally wasnt marketable after Lizzie McGuire, and Miley is certainly a bigger star than Duff was, but has also courted a ton more controversy…
“Which one is MI2 again? Is it the one where Tom Cruise is the secret agent, breaks into secure facilities, wears latex masks, and defeats the crazed megalomaniac?”
Other than the masks, no, that doesn’t describe II all that well.
So Ethan Hunt didn’t work for IMF, didn’t break into the Biocyte laboratories, and didn’t prevent Sean Ambrose from killing millions of people to become the richest man in the world?
I must have watched a different movie then…
Just saw the trailer for Last Song and think its going to be huge. Duff never courted anyone but the pre-teens and this trailer is also going for the moms as well, Kinnear gets just as much facetime in it as Cyrus. Disney’s touting the Sparks connection (which means the mom is probably not going to be breathing when the credits roll) so this should perform as well if not better than Dear John. Women are showing a lot more muscle at the box office and this should bring them in in droves.
Another possible explanation is that Alice is a likely candidate for a reissue when the first wave of 3-D Blu-Ray players and TV’s roll out in the fall. So, Summer for 2-D, Fall for 3-D. Ka-ching!
Also, i think it’s a gimme that the Alice DVD will contain some sort of promotional material for Toy Story 3, so it makes sense that it would be released before TS3 bows theatrically. Don’t underestimate the power of those pre-movie commercials watched at home. There are some at Disney who credit the phenomenal opening for The Lion King to the movie’s teaser being prepended on to the zillion-selling VHS of Aladdin back in ‘Fall of ’93.
Does everyone basically think Alice is going to get more than $100M DM (or even $150M DM)? Mayeb it’s me, but I don’t think it’s a slam dunk. Sure it’s a beloved tail, but it looks creepy enough that it might lose the young audience. Of course, if it skews more teens, then it could do good.
I’m just curious what people think. Burton’s movies are sometimes hit or miss with his visions. And Depp is not a complete guarentee. I could see it doing $100M DM but not much more than that.
Does everyone basically think Alice is going to get more than $100M DM (or even $150M DM)? Mayeb it’s me, but I don’t think it’s a slam dunk. Sure it’s a beloved tale, but it looks creepy enough that it might lose the young audience. Of course, if it skews more teens, then it could do good.
I’m just curious what people think. Burton’s movies are sometimes hit or miss with his visions. And Depp is not a complete guarentee. I could see it doing $100M DM but not much more than that.
Apologies for the double post.
Re: “Mission: Impossible” – “M:I-2” was, for me, the best of the franchise. I liked a lot of DePalma-isms from the first one, but could just never, ever, ever get over the ending where it turns out that Jim Phelps was behind it all (even heard that was why Peter Graves had no interest in being in the movie). I thought it was just such a “fuck you” to the franchise and to anyone who liked it/worked on it/etc.
That said, there’s a lot of silliness in the second one (MOTORCYCLE DUEL!!), but it’s harmless.
The third one kind of rocks here and there, but I’ll take wire-removal CGI over CGI-CGI any way.
“Does everyone basically think Alice is going to get more than $100M DM (or even $150M DM)?”
It’s really no different to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory – Burton/Depp, beloved British literature property, strong fantastical elements, children focused but slightly creepy…
That did $200mil domestic so no real reason to think why Alice wouldn’t, especially with the infamous 3D Bump(tm).
I could see 250 Domestic, 600 mil WW easily. Disney has marketed the crap out of this movie and there’s less negative buzz surrounding it at this point than “Charlie.” Plus March looks EXTREMELY WEAK up until “How to Train Your Dragon” as far as competition goes.
Ah yes, David takes a piss on “Prince of Persia”.
You know for all of his hatred towards Finke (a hatred I can’t blame him for) it really does seem like quite a bit of her style rubbed of on him lately:
Prince of Persia: The Disney Death Star?
OK.
But here is where DP is truly betraying his own sense of good judgement:
Too expensive, too crappy looking?
Come on. The movie might be crappy looking to you but to argue that it’s too expensive is simply foolish.
A DP of old would have blamed Disney for not being serious enough about the franchise if they didn’t have the big budget.
And don’t hide behind the, it’s too expensive BECAUSE it’s too crappy looking rhetoric. It’s too early to be burying this film.
And as for the whole, Disney shifted the date to make up for loses thing – bullshit. They could have pulled something big from their “vaults” and released it on Blu-Ray on that date to much the same results and far less controversy.
Considering Bruckheimer’s superhero gopher movie cost 150 million…can you imagine the cost for Persia?
Hey SJRubinstein, wasn’t part of the plot to the first IM supposed to be that Ethan joins the original team, and they were they ones who were killed in the first mission? How’s THAT for a fuck you…not only do you kill the original cast, you have the original leader of that cast do it. That’s just such a typically clueless, weird Hollywood decision. And I have no love for the tv show…never seen it. But why do that?
The first is the best though…love the slower pace and the fact that it’s not a conventional action movie…there’s really only the one real action scene at the end. But DePalma is the man.
In fact, I’d take them in order…Woo is my second favorite for being a sort of boring movie, but the last half is pretty great. I love their endless fist fight on the beach.
The third is a distant third due to the tv style and boringness of it all. And the lame way they kill the villain, come on, an accident?
Are you just rambling, Gonzo?
I’ve never turned a phrase before? I’ve been pro-budget bloat?
And the DVD thing? Are you brain damaged? A Blu-ray release of a catalog title will generate the same revenue as the first DVD release of a movie that is expected to be very strong on DVD, probably out of proportion with theatrical?
Oy, man.
DP has been hating on PoP from early o’clock. It appears to be his anti-avatar. Just for the sake of clarity, and seeing that you are so sure this is going to bomb big, how about a prognostication as to its eventual box office gross Dave? You came out early on Avatar and I gave you due props for that, so seeing that you seem to so equally sure about PoP’s impending demise, lets hear it?
Princess and the Frog comes out on March 16.
http://www.amazon.com/Princess-Three-Blu-ray-Combo-Digital/dp/B0034JKZ3G/
My biggest problem with the third MI was the female lead. Giving Ethan a steady relationship completly changed the charecter. In the first two the women were his blindspot, and the villians were able to manipulate that to their advantage. The wife in the third was simply used as a plot device instead of as any charector development.
You’re misreading me a little, bulldog.
I have, indeed, been underwhelmed by the materials for PoP. But my thinking on this comes from the Disney side, not the “do I like the looks of this movie” side.
When they dumped Dick Cook, I looked at reasons why the firing was triggered. The loss on G-Force, in spite of more than reasonable box office, preceded by Shopaholic, followed by two very expensive Bruckheimer-produced summer titles caught my eyes.
When I realized, quickly, that the hire of Rich Ross was going to be a rejection of all things that represented The Disney Tradition, from staffing on, I softened on that position.
But I still look at the behaviors. And this move, which does fit things Iger has suggested in the past, is interesting, but nothing close to revolutionary. An incremental push from a 16 week DVD window to a 13 week window is a shoulder shrugger,
So we’re back to the old questions, trying to make sense of this.
I wouldn’t be at all suspicious about hidden motives were it a declaration that Alice was going day-n-date to DVD or even just VOD. A month. Six weeks. 3D theatrical only and the rest on VOD. Something aggressive.
So I follow the money. And with these companies, the quarterlies are really important to them. Paramount cleared out the entire fall and loaded in new DVDs just so it could make a “we did HUGE numbers” event out of the last quarter in 2009.
So, looking at Disney as a corporation, where could they have a problem write-off in 2010? PoP in the only film that makes sense. The quarter after PoP has most of TS3’s gross and another candidate, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. After that, they don’t really have an expensive non-animated film until Tron Redux in December.
Why does Disney want Alice DVD revenue in June? (Note… the story they put out doesn’t mention DVD much… it’s oddly about the theatrical windoe, which misses the issue entirely.)
Bottom Line: I could be wrong and there could be some other strategy here… but if there is, it makes no sense to me… not just me thinking it’s bad strategy (like selling the Miramax library), but strategy that just isn’t clear.
And that library sale may also be a part of all of this. They could be expecting two of the three (Alice, Prince, Apprentice) to go down and a library sale will cover another quarter’s problems.
People see all this as consumers. But none of it happens by coincidence.
What do I think the film will gross? No idea, really. Looks like $250m – $300m worldwide minimum, off the cuff. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.
All the more reason to load Q3, Meekay. Thx.
fwiw, it would be cool if somebody actually made ‘mission: impossible’ movies that were faithful to the concept and spirit of the totally bonza TV series i grew up with rather than yet another tired incarnation of the ‘man-spy’ flicks
Dave, you’re certainly more inside baseball than most, but just seems you’re making some big assumptions, here….
Seems to me that Alice in Wonderland is far from a guarantess for mega-grosses, I mean, after Watchmen and 10,000 BC, haven’t we all learned just how much of a crap shoot big March movies can be? Hell, after A Christmas Carol which Disney also sold the hell out of, only to see it open soft and then have its legs cut off about six weeks later with Avatar taking all of the 3D screens.
Alice in Wonderland has no holiday second-wind coming and doesn’t even have six weeks – it will lose of its 3D screens in less than a month to ‘Dragon and ‘Titans. You could assume as much that Disney is thinking it will fade fast and that’s why they should rush it DVD.
Another another thing about Alice – why isn’t Disney selling Anne Hathaway in it, at all??? She’s can bring in teenage girls and is probably about as consistent a draw as Depp, these days, for the right budget.
Prince of Persia does look like a huge risk, but no moreso than The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, which just looks awful – how much are the spending on that one?
Not sure if this is the case, but I kind of always saw Bruckheimer and Joel Silver as arch-rivals and you have to think that Silver has gotten more saavier in the past couple of years (post-Speed Racer) when he can do Sherlock Holmes for $90 million while Bruckheimer gets G-Force made for $150 million.
Still the one that boggles the mind most of me is Tron: Legacy – wow, I can see them easily spending $200 million on that thing and losing a ton. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll be there opening day to see it because it just looks cool, but where is the big audience for this property?
This isn’t even Star Trek, with a 40 year fan-base of TV shows and somewhat successful movies. The first Tron was a flop, no matter how you slice it or how influential it was – adjust for inflation or “tickets sold” or whatever, and I doubt it still did $100 million in today’s dollars. Are they counting on a Jeff Bridges Oscar win, at this point, so he can go out and promote the hell out of it? Just a reach and curious as to what you guys think……
I’m a 37 yo male and HATHAWAY is the ONLY reason I’d even consider seeing Alice in Wonderland.
It looks positively revolting.
Lex is a middle-aged man who lives in the suburbs, has a comfortable job that he hates, and lusts after barely legal girls.
In other words, he’s Kevin Spacey in American Beauty, but with less hope.
37 isn’t middle aged, hombre.
And Anne Hathaway ain’t “barely legal.”
“37 isn’t middle aged, hombre.”
Depends how heavily you drink.
And I say that as one who does so a fair bit.
LexG, you’re 37??? I figured you to be some one in your ’20’s.
Sorry, it’s just wrong to lust after people like Kristen Stewart and Emma Roberts, then – they were born in the ’90’s, for christ sakes! I just find that weird, myself – K Stew was a newborn while I was in junior high, serving popcorn at a movie theater. Can’t do it, sorry.
Besides, there are plenty of comely women in their ’30’s and ’40’s to lust after – let’s get real, here.
Still curious – how much is Disney spending on Tron and do people think it’s going to tank?
To me, making a sequel to Tron is just like making an original movie…the first may have tanked, but either people don’t know or don’t care at this point. So I look at it as less of a sequel and more like getting a halfway original movie for once. Star Trek IS a good comparison because no Star Trek has ever done that well…if Tron can get the same audience besides the superfans, it could do well.
This is assuming that the sequel isn’t mired in Tron legacy or any of that horseshit…they need to make a movie that if you haven’t seen the first you can follow just fine. They don’t need to make The X-Files movie.
Actually, 37 is fairly close to middle-age — the average life expectancy for a U.S. male is about 75 right now. Of course, if I want to be considered middle-aged, then I must live to be 114.
Lex’s obsession with young actresses is not half as creepy as Jeff’s obsession with Lex. And I agree with Lex that Alice looks terrible. Is it supposed to be exciting? funny? scary? The marketing gives me no clues. I can’t tell if this is an adaption of the story or some sort of reimagining of the material. I just know that my brain turns completly off everytime I now see trailers with CGI armies facing off against each other.
Disney seemed to go through this same phase in the beginning of last decade with Touchstone. Bruckheimer successes led them to greenlight huge budgets in films that were successful but not super profitable (Pearl Harbor, Gangs of New York) until they finally took it in the chin with the Alamo. Disney will start looking for a lot more Witch Mountain films and a lot less Prince of Persia films.
“Star Trek IS a good comparison because no Star Trek has ever done that well.”
While no Star Wars, Star Trek: The Motion Picture broke the opening weekend record nearly 30 years ago, amassing $11.9 million at 857 theaters or the equivalent of over $34 million adjusted for ticket price inflation, and its final tally of $82.3 million would equal nearly $240 million today. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan also set a new weekend benchmark in its debut, and the average total gross of the previous Star Trek movies, including both the respected entries and the clunkers, is close to $150 million adjusted.
http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2585
When I was eight I thought 18-year-old girls were hot, when I was 18 I thought 18-year-old girls were hot, at 37 I think 18-year-old girls are hot, and when I’m 80 I’ll still think they’re hot.
I’m banking on getting rich so I never again have to date a woman over 23. 30, tops.
As a GREAT MAN once said:
The heart wants what the heart wants.
“Let’s get real, here,” Geoff? Okay, Lex beat me to this point, but he’s right — hot 18-year-olds don’t stop looking hot just because your eyes get older. Sunsets and great works of art still hold up, too. Whether it’s seemly for an adult to drool over them is a separate issue, but beauty is beauty.
I don’t even understand how one’s brain can override this. If I see a stunning old still photo of Linda Darnell or Maureen O’Hara when they were 18 or 19, I think “Wow!”–not “Yikes, they were teenagers!” Nor do I think, “Ewwww, this one’s dead now, and that one’s like 90.” I’m just responding to an image.
I have no complaint at all about anyone, man, woman, or teenager, lusting after a barely legal girl.
I just don’t want to hear about it, incessantly, from a clinically depressed self-loathing narcissist.
Which is one of the big reasons I don’t post here so much anymore.
Oh, and I think the actuarial tables for a 37-year-old who drinks fairly heavily, is overweight, doesn’t exercise, and has no prospects for a healthy relationship make it fairly likely that Lex won’t make it past 70.
“Which is one of the big reasons I don’t post here so much anymore.”
Hot Bloggers:
You are welcome.
LexG: I’m going to be in L.A. next week. Can I buy you a drink?
“As a GREAT MAN once said: ‘The heart wants what the heart wants.'”
Woody Allen is a great filmmaker, but if the man himself is your role model in life, small wonder that your inner demons are what they are.
What happened to Disney? I remember when I was a child I would watch films like The Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians and be amazed! Now, Disney has gone downhill and its films seem to be getting worse and worse as time goes by. Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland does not compare to the original animation. If you ask me, many kids websites such as Disney’s should not be listed in the Top category on http://www.DozenKids.com. Is it time for us to realize that Disney and kids TV is not really what it used to be and in fact it now scraping the barrel of entertainment?
Kids: I agree, but it’s not just Disney. Seems like even blog comments have gone downhill in the last few years.