Wanted to watch it so bad as a kid but couldnt because I wasnt 13 yet, the rating was PG 13. Anyway I saw it earlier today and noticed that a lot of work and detail went into making it. I was wondering if this movie did decently well.
shareI don't think the box office receipts were nearly what Universal wanted - however I understand that it did very very well on the home video market. So well that it was among the earliest movies released onto DVD, and re-released on DVD a couple years later [although the only change was the second release lacked the first's DTS soundtrack].
I believe that at one point Universal was even putting serious consideration into a direct to video sequel.
So I guess in the long run it did well for Universal.
I first saw this on video a few years after its initial release and was surprised how much I enjoyed it.I now own the DVD. Was kind of dissappointed to see EW put it on its 'worst' comic book adaptations ever. Nowhere near that bad.
shareI find EW is always a pretty good reverse barometer - if they say a movie is bad it's pretty sure to be decent. In the case of The Shadow though, both audiences and critics at the time missed the boat when it comes to this film - I've always thought it was a good movie and I've never been able to see why people didn't like it. Perhaps they responded poorly to the darkness of the lead character or to the cheesy humour, but the film was meant to be that way, and it works well in my opinion.
shareIf I recall correctly, Ebert liked the movie. The 1994 Shadow movie is not a perfect adaptation certainly - but it isn't one I'd ever place on a "top worst" list.
shareEbert didn't just like the film , he loved it. If you look up his video review of this on youtube or a similar site he constantly raves about this film. He also really liked The Phantom, a similar movie to The Shadow that also didn't perform as well as had been hoped on the big screen.
Ebert loved the film so much he gave it a whopping 3 stars and questioned whether it was as good as the sum of its parts. I think saying he only "liked it" rather "loved it" is probably ok.
shareMaybe you're getting this movie confused with Dick Tracy
shareI rather liked the film, which was no way as bad an adaptation as say, the most recent version of The Spirit.
Laura S
BETHANY COX
"Music comes from within, from your heart and from your soul."
I don't think it did very well at the box office, and a lot of critics hate it, for some stupid reason. I actually enjoyed the Shadow, with great special effects and acting, abut it was a little wierd at times, but it was meant to be as the Shadow is a mysterious character.
I've always thought it was a good movie and I've never been able to see why people didn't like it. Perhaps they responded poorly to the darkness of the lead character or to the cheesy humour, but the film was meant to be that way, and it works well in my opinion.
Been a while SS. :)
t's funny how the passage of time can change one's opinion. Maybe I just couldn't appreciate what it offered back then, but now that everything is so wrapped up in bad CGI, bad acting, and lousy story-telling, I suddenly could appreciate that The Shadow had all of the good qualities that are missing in today's movies. It was genuine. It had heart and you could tell that all involved had tried to bring together a really good cinematic experience. In a way, the film was not so much ahead of its time as a bit too late. People were losing their sense of humor and their ability to have fun at the movies, fun not from endless CGI action scenes, but from clever writing, wit, and good acting set to the backdrop of grandiose visual flare.
[deleted]
In terms of meeting its production costs, this movie probably was considered a bomb by the studio, but according to the 1994 film annual that I saw in a bookstore a long time ago; this movie opened up at #30 out of 100 if my memory serves me right. Not bad. It also was #2 behind "The Lion King" during the first weekend opening. What I didn't like about this movie was some of the cheesy lines in the movie. I have been collecting Shadow items for over 30 years and have a pretty good idea how the character should have been in the movie and sometimes it wasn't like that. From the time I first heard that a Shadow movie was being made, I waited 13 years for the 1994 movie to come out and will be waiting eagerly for the next one. I hope it does well.
shareIt was released a week ahead of Forrest Gump that summer. I don't think that helped.
shareikwaterski; THE ROCKETEER grossed in excess of 48 Millions$ world wide according to Box Office Guru and Wikipedia. With a budget of 40 Millions$ that would make this a big time flop. To have been a success it would have had to of made 120 Millions$ U.S.
I liked the film and thought it better then either THE PHANTOM or THE ROCKETEER. THE PHANTOM just looked cheap and 'Disney' emasculated THE ROCKETEER. Taking all the sexual power out of it.
....and 'Disney' emasculated THE ROCKETEER. Taking all the sexual power out of it......
Disagree. Much though I love my copy of the Rocketeer TP, the movie is one of the few examples of a film adaption being better than the original work. The reduction of the nudity of Secord's girlfriend would only bother rather oddly fixated people, being the original was a nude cartoon. The role was made more believable for Connolly - in a lot of ways making her even more desirable. The movie's differences from the book were all for the better in my opinion, making what is a truly beautiful film. Thematically, stylistically, the casting, the score, the cinematography - it was all a success. Wonderful film, much better than the book. And I love the book, so that's saying something.
It's a tender love song, very beautiful. {Whats it called?} Lick my love pump.
HapHazzard; We are not sure what you mean by "rather oddly fixated people". What we were referring too was the 'edge' that the comics originally had including sexual that was taken out. This contributed to the films rather dismal domestic gross of just under 50 Million$, not much of "a success". Disney should have left well enough alone. The same thing happened to FANTASTIC FOUR by removing original intent of the comics the audience did not respond in the manner the studio had hoped for.
shareThe Rocketeer not doing as well at the box office as Disney would have liked had little to do with how it was translated to the big screen [also keep in mind that the Rocketeer's creator worked closely with Disney on the film].
The Rocketeer was released on June 21, 1991. That was one week after Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves [June 14, 1991] and just about two weeks before Terminator 2 [July 3, 1991]. As you can see the Rocketeer was stuck between two of the "BIG" movies of the year - obviously not a good place to be. [And while not 'big' movies, the Rocketeer had to contend with Problem Child 2 and Naked Gun 2 1/2 before T2 arrived].
Box Office Mojo reports the following production budgets
Rocketeer: $35 million [Disney]
Robin Hood: $48 million [Warner Brothers]
Terminator 2: $102 million [Tristar (part of Columbia, by then owned by Sony)]
WB and C/T had far more to lose that Disney did just judging by production costs; it's more than reasonable to say that those two studios subsequently spent far larger amounts of money spent on advertising than Disney. In any event, the advertising behind RH and T2 combined would have far out-stripped Disney's ability to advertise the Rocketeer.
In any case, all the comic book fans I know are virtually unanimous in agreement that The Rocketeer was a top notch adaptation, and among the best of comic book based movies.
shadow-otr; Well at our age we would not consider ourselves "comic book fans" anymore, our era was earlier. Movie fans yes, having had all the original ROCKETEER books we still feel it fell short of them. As for Stevens his input once the film was transferred from 'Touchstone' the Adult release part of the company to Disney the Family part it was pretty much discarded.
Stevens..."immediately, Betty and anything else 'adult' went right out with the bathwater. They really tried to shoehorn it into a kiddie property so they could sell toys. All they really wanted at the end of the day was the name."
That does not sound like a happy camper who was satisfied with the results of the film and neither were we. The above was sourced from Comic Book Artist by John B. Cooke.
HapHazzard; We are not sure what you mean by "rather oddly fixated people". What we were referring too was the 'edge' that the comics originally had including sexual that was taken out. This contributed to the films rather dismal domestic gross of just under 50 Million$, not much of "a success". Disney should have left well enough alone. The same thing happened to FANTASTIC FOUR by removing original intent of the comics the audience did not respond in the manner the studio had hoped for.
Xerxes13; try reading my previous post again, it's perfectly comprehensible. The TP's are one form of the Rocketeer story and will always stand alone in that regard. That the movie was different made sense at the time - comic book-derived movies at the time simply weren't treated as 'grown-up' properties andf as such the sexual elements of the books were toned down. As far as I'm concerned, they weren't missed - the film is a beatifully made work of art in it's own right and too me is the better for it's differences. I love the books, I love the film and each stands on their own merits. That you pine for the sexually more risque atmosphere of the books is just an odd thing to me - personally, I have no problems with nudity in films where context makes it fit; the adapted story of the Rocketeer would have forced it to be shoehorned in to fit the movie and frankly, it wouldn't have made sense. Beyond that, if I want to see topless women or even full sex there's plenty of other films that contain that material, and failing that, there's always porn. It just wasn't right to incorporate it in this version of the story.
I think the problem you have - or I hope it's the problem you have, as if you genuinely miss cartoon toplessness there is definately something a bit odd about you - is that the film was different at all from the books. You just have to accept the movie for what it is. It is a shame Stevens was a bit disappointed too, but the fact remains it is still a terrific movie, loved by many. None of the differences made detract from the books, nor will they ever. Two great versions of the same story in two mediums. Differences were inevitable, and frankly the loss of some nudity and the change of a name really isn't a big deal - except to those oddly fixated people I've already mentioned.
It's a tender love song, very beautiful. {Whats it called?} Lick my love pump.
HapHazzard: It is not a problem of comprehension. Nor that we cannot understand a difference in interpretation. It is a matter of preference and like Stevens we preferred the original concept too be transfered to the film. The only thing "odd" is you who keeps harping on the same arguments when it is obvious you do not comprehend our posts very well. If you have problems with heterosexual relationships in film maybe your fixations need to be addressed. Do not transfer them on to us.
We do not have to "accept" the movie as it is we do not care for the interpetation. Though we did like how THE SHADOW was handled. Now is that simple enough for you to comprehend. If you reply try to be brief and do not keep repeating yourself.
Xerxes, you're the one complaining that the 'sexual power' of the comic book was taken away, thus 'emasculating' the story when the film was made. Don't whine now because someone else thinks that's a rather pointless and frankly odd criticism to hang on the movie. As I've said - and yes, I'm repeating myself....stating anything once seems to fly over your low forehead - the sexual elements of the book would have been out of place in the vision of the film that was being created. They were trying to capture a grander vision of the story, more of a Saturday adventure reel feel and frankly I don't remember too many dames stripping for the cameras in the days serials like King of the Rocketmen were being made. The TP is what it is - Stevens did a fantastic job. The film is what it is, a seperate version of the story. A better vision in my book as it's a purer telling. It was directed just right, cast perfectly, scored brilliantly and is one of the best films of the '90's for me.
Now, feel free to again try and intimate I have some problem with sexual expression in movies.....I've already made my points over that little nugget quite clear in previous posts. In some movies sex and nudity fits and is most welcome. In others it doesn't and if you can't get your head around that fact, well, one of us has a problem alright. I would think it's more likely the one pining after a lost screen translation of nude cartoons. Still, at least you'll always have your 'life' sized standee of Jessica Rabbit, so you can at least console yourself there.
It's a tender love song, very beautiful. {Whats it called?} Lick my love pump.
HapHazzard; Obviously the meaning of the word "brief" escapes you. Your problems and a need for acceptance and agreement too your views needs clinical help which we are not qualified to give. To become personally abusive and hostile to someone you do not know or their personal habits holds some deep rooted insecurities. Since we are not 'liberals' we do not provide affirmative action for the emotionally or intellectually challenged. Suggest professional help or see your priest or social councilor.
You are spending to much time on these boards, End of Line.
You got kind of hostile first xerses. Anyway, Hap is just saying what kind of feel they were going for with the movie.
sharefalloutboy73; You mistake hostility for directness, that is a difference you do not understand in your 'PC' world. We did make personality attacks, HapHazzard did. There is nothing he said the first time we did not understand, he just became redundant. We know what Disney intended in their movie and they were wrong and it has nothing to do with nudity that HapHazzard kept harping on. It was the 'edge' that was lost and STEVEN's concepts which he himself has stated. THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) had edge, where was the nudity, no where. Now if you cannot deal with that type of directness suggest you go elsewhere.
shareWe know what Disney intended in their movie and they were wrong
That's just your opinion, and judging by the responses from other people it's a rather lonely one. The two properties stand as seperate telling of the same story. If you are so stupid as to think that in 1990 Disney was going to make a Rocketeer film with nudity, you're a *beep* idiot, but I'm already gettiong that impression. Plus, 'darker edge...?' WTF are you talking about...? The film had at least as much violence and action as the book, so frankly I haven't a clue what else you're looking for, despite your denials that it wasn't just the nudity you thought was missing. Or did you miss the murdered henchmen...the guy folded up.....the main villain burning alive before exploding......the Nazi's blown away by mobsters and government agents...? Hmmm? What else was missing, xerxes...? Oh yeah, I forgot. You haven't come up with anything apart from comments about sexual power and the changes to Betty's 'character'. You know, the 'character' that gets nude. Am I harping again? Give me an example of something else that backs up your claim and actually says something other than comments about the risque aspect of the book, because in terms of a 'missing' darker edge, it was as dark as the comic book ever was - not very, to say the least.
...and it has nothing to do with nudity that HapHazzard kept harping on.
Really.....funny...because as there wasn't any actual sex in the book, only a couple of 'shots' of Betty topless, I can only assume that's what you're referring to, and I seem to recall you making the following comments....
'Disney' emasculated THE ROCKETEER. Taking all the sexual power out of it........."immediately, Betty and anything else 'adult' went right out with the bathwater. They really tried to shoehorn it into a kiddie property so they could sell toys. All they really wanted at the end of the day was the name." -
That does not sound like a happy camper who was satisfied with the results of the film and neither were we.
You're the one who made those comments. I have acknowledged the other changes made, but as I've said, don't whinge because you have been pulled on comments you have made.
Obviously the meaning of the word "brief" escapes you.
And evidently, the meaning of the word 'hypocrite' escapes you.
You mistake hostility for directness, that is a difference you do not understand in your 'PC' world. We did make personality attacks,
Really....? He mistook your words, huh? Guess I must have misread the following....
Your problems and a need for acceptance and agreement too your views needs clinical help which we are not qualified to give. To become personally abusive and hostile to someone you do not know or their personal habits holds some deep rooted insecurities. Since we are not 'liberals' we do not provide affirmative action for the emotionally or intellectually challenged. Suggest professional help or see your priest or social councilor.
Seems like a personal attack to me. Such a shame you felt so stung by my comments....wait a moment, nope, it's not a shame.
You are spending to much time on these boards, End of Line.
Hilarious. Hypocrisy and the rather naff use of a Tron line all in one sentence. Try looking at our respective posting histories for the last few weeks, buttmunch. Rearrange these words: not, stand, got, leg, a, to, on.
Now if you cannot deal with that type of directness suggest you go elsewhere.
Seems you should take your own advice. Still, you being upset over having two different people pull you up about your ill-thought out and hostile comments must rankle. Good.
It's a tender love song, very beautiful. {Whats it called?} Lick my love pump.
'Disney' emasculated THE ROCKETEER. Taking all the sexual power out of it.
TheSolarSailer: 'Disneyfied', exactly how they emasculated the film. Agree with Timothy Dalton he was the best thing about the movie as well as the SFX and production design which really captured the spirit of the time.
It appears Disney just cannot leave things alone. Believe that the character of the MANDERIN was changed just to exploit the Asian market in IRON MAN III.
I still give Disney credit for, at the end of the day, making a fine film of The Rocketeer. But had they had their way, we wouldn't have even gotten the classic helmet from the comic book. They had to fight to get that in the film. I read a site one time that detailed this clash, and it even showed some horribly boring alternate helmet designs that wre proposed by the studio. They were laughable. It certainly wouldn't have been The Rocketeer without the helmet! In any case, Dave's flavor was all through the film, right down to the way the dialogue was written to reflect the 1930w...another thing Disney fought them over. But in the end, it still stands as a great film and I am grateful that we got as much as we did from it, even if some Disneyizing took place.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
TheSolarSailor: Well, we are apart on this one. Do not think it was a great film, but a opportunity lost. Read Steven's Bio, he to felt that Disney had emasculated his concept and lost much of its appeal. Like THE PHANTOM and THE SHADOW it was for a niche market. Believe though if they had kept closer to Steven's more 'adult' concepts the B.O. would have significantly been improved.
shareThat's alright if you don't like the film as much as I do. I tink in the world of comic book adaptations, it comes quite close to capturing the essence. Does that equate to being a perfect adaptation? No, not at all. But I do think it comes closer than a great deal of other adaptations out there. I won't really get into the Marvel films, as I am not an expert on the material and can't really tell you all the details of what was done right and wrong in them. I do know, however, that they can be good entertaining effects flicks, but at the same time I just feel that they are churning them out of a factory. I suppose I like things to be a bit more grounded, yet that stuff is sort of the antithesis of grounded. Oh well. the only Marvel-related films I truly enjoy is the Xmen series. I know it has misfires, but overall I like the world of the mutants. And that is a good example of successfully grounding it from being SFX overkill while also delivering some neat stuff. But the core story elements are what I enjoy, the parallels to racism, fear of things different, and all that jazz. But again, I am not a real expert on the comic books, and I understand that it deviates a lot as well.
In any case, I think The Rocketeer was doomed no matter what based solely on the release date. Even if the film had been Touchstone Pictures and included truer characterizations and the more adult elements, I think it would have sank the moment Terminator 2: Judgement Day came out. They were crazy to place the film anywhere near T2. It's like when Paramount released Star Trek Nemesis so close to Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers. I mean, really? Sometimes I have to laugh at the stupidity of studios and their release date choices. The Rocketeer shouldn't have even been a summer release. Fall would have been a better time for it. But I most definitely agree with you that The Rocketeer, like The Shadow and The Phantom (a movie I really do need to get around to watching), are for niche markets.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
Insofar as the movie introduced a worthwhile character/fired the imaginations of many previously uninitiated young thangs(was about 11 when I saw the flick; broadened my horizons regarding heroes and led me to noir.), it's success was considerable.
shareWell... The real box office, now, I don´t know.
But I saw this movie on theaters, I absolutely loved it as I loved many bashed movies of the 90s.
But I do remember it was underrated at that moment, in my opinion it didn´t have the box office it deserved.
And, even thought I am out of 90s movies, this one is one of the very few I still watch and enjoy.
The FX are awesome.
"Hey, do ya love me. I'm untouchable darkness!"
I did some digging to find out what other movies were hitting around the same time as The Shadow. I don't know what Universal was thinking but it seems to me that they should have moved the movie's release earlier or later in the year.
The Shadow came out on July 1, 1994 {first Friday of month} and made just under $12 million on opening weekend.
The Lion King came out on June 15, 1994 {TWO weeks before The Shadow}, opening weekend was almost $41 million.
Forrest Gump hit on July 4, 1994 [the Monday after The Shadow hit], and raked in nearly $25 million on opening weekend.
So right there, the movie is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The Lion King is still going strong when The Shadow opens, so much of The Shadow's potential audience of older kids is still being drawn to the Disney movie. Forrest Gump not only premiered the same weekend as The Shadow but carried the same rating amd for multiple reasons part of the "adult" audience waited to see Forrest Gump over The Shadow.
If that wasn't enough, the chances of The Shadow managing to maintain a long steady box office take were hampered by New Line's release of The Mask, which premiered on July 29, 1994 with a box office take of $23 million.
Perhaps someone else will have a clearer memory that I on this, but I don't recall Universal doing all that much in the way of advertising for The Shadow compared to Disney [Lion King] and Paramount [Forrest Gump].
The movie would have underperformed no matter the release date. A summer blockbuster based on a decades old comic character that wouldn't have been that familiar to a majority of the modern young audience and a leading man (Baldwin) who had failed to be the box office draw many believed he would be years before...
Quite frankly as much as I personally like the movie I'm surprised Universal greenlit the picture as it was.
But the budget was 25 million, and it made something like 32 million. While not a blockbuster, it did break even up against the Lion King and Forrest Gump. If the movie had no real competition it would have done much better. I don't understand what someone said before, that with its budget it had to make 120 million to be successful. It sounds like my definition of profit is not the same as that of a Hollywood executive. Still, I listen to the old radio show on Sirius-XM Radio Classics, and I think the movie is close enough in tone to the originals and good campy fun even if you don't know about the source material. Plus, the effects were good at the time, and still hold up for me.
share"But the budget was 25 million, and it made something like 32 million. While not a blockbuster, it did break even up against the Lion King and Forrest Gump. If the movie had no real competition it would have done much better. I don't understand what someone said before, that with its budget it had to make 120 million to be successful. It sounds like my definition of profit is not the same as that of a Hollywood executive."
Although The Shadow made back its production budget with a little extra to spare, the advertising budget was likely at least as much as the production budget. I understand however that this film did quite well on home video, and is probably well into the black.
Doug
I find it amusing that everyone keeps referring to The Shadow as a comic book character. Though The Shadow did have a comic strip adaption, he started on the radio, and developed in novels.
Doug
Right ON
There were comic books of The Shadow as well that came later on, so the movie can still technically qualify as a comic book movie, though in reality the comic books weren't really a consideration at all when The Shadow was being made into a film. It was basically an adaptation of the radio dramas with some pulp elements thrown in for good measure. It's a really great film that captures the flavor of old time adventure quite well.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?