MovieChat Forums > End of Days (1999) Discussion > What Went Wrong Here?

What Went Wrong Here?

posted 3 years ago by space1999 (725)
14 replies | jump to latest

All I remember was the massive opening and than the film fell of the planet.

From boxofficeguru in 1999:

"Moviegoers spent $20.5M watching Arnold Schwarzenegger battle Satan in the new supernatural thriller End of Days. The Universal release finds the action star protecting a young woman who was chosen to mate with the devil before the year 2000. Opening in 2,592 theaters, End of Days averaged a fiery $7,918 per site and grossed $31.5M over the five-day weekend. While the opening performance was very good, it was not spectacular and did not reach the Friday-to-Sunday heights of many of Schwarzenegger's previous action films. Terminator 2 debuted with $31.8M in 1991, True Lies opened with $25.9M in 1994, Total Recall premiered with $25.5M in 1990, and Arnold's last headlining film Eraser debuted with $24.6M. All four of those pictures were summer releases while his winter films have usually been comedies.

Universal reported that End of Days fared best with the male action crowd and performed well across ethnic and urban areas. Once the world's biggest box office star, Schwarzenegger needed a hit in order to justify his stature in the industry and to prove that unlike his action hero peers (Stallone, Seagal, Van Damme) he can still draw large audiences into the multiplexes with an explosive thrilling picture. The R-rated End of Days, which also starred Robin Tunney and Gabriel Byrne as Satan, was backed by an aggressive marketing campaign and was released at a time when people have the end of the millennium on their minds.

According to Universal, End of Days carries a production cost of $83M though other reports have pegged it at $100M. Whatever the accurate budget, the studio covered 40% of the cost and is handling domestic distribution while Buena Vista International has the picture internationally. Schwarzenegger action flicks tend to gross about 55-60% of their worldwide totals in overseas markets. Since End of Days deals with the coming of the year 2000, BVI is wasting no time rolling out the film around the world with simultaneous launches this weekend across Scandanavia, Italy, Argentina, and Singapore. Arnold and Satan will invade Germany, South Korea, Malaysia, and the United Kingdom in the coming weeks hoping to wreak havoc on a global scale.

http://www.boxofficeguru.com/112999.htm

[–] Wuchak (8732) 2 years ago

It fell short of Universal Studios' expectations, yet it made $212 million worldwide against a budget estimated at $100 million. That's not even counting the ensuing VHS/DVD sales. In short it was profitable for the studio, just not as profitable as the bastages desired.

[–] space1999 (725) 2 years ago

Right? But it was the end of his career?

[–] SteveG (1370) 2 years ago

Well his career did not end but his popularity was definitely waning. I believe it started before this though. Im thinking Junior, Jingle All the Way, Batman and Robin did not help his popularity. He had a good run for sure.

[–] Wuchak (8732) 2 years ago

I agree with SteveG: It wasn't the end of his career. Whatever anyone thinks of "Terminator 3" it was a respectable hit worldwide. I suppose the same thing could be said for "Genisys." He wasn't on top any longer, but he was still appearing in fairly high profile flicks.

[–] enriquesingh (1810) 2 years ago

212m worldwide gross out of 100 million (production budget) is a loss.

Theaters take roughly 45% of that 212 million.

There's also promotion-advertising costs (which is several million more in expenses, it depends but studios spend an additional 50% and 200% in relation to their production budget in advertising).

[–] Wuchak (8732) 2 years ago

It eventually made 'em money, which is the case with all of these underperforming blockbusters. Even the notorious "Waterworld" eventually made a profit. That's why studios keep taking the risk; they know they'll make money, even if it's years later. They won't break out the champagne, but they'll make a profit.

[–] bozo_500 (13105) 2 years ago

It was the beginning of the end (of days) for Arnie as an above the title draw.

-Batman&Robin had tainted his movie career (also his heart op was an issue for studios,and leading to him being out if action for a year or 2)

-The Matrix had blown everyone's mind earlier that year really shaking up the action genre and making Arnold (and Stallone, JCVD etc) feel like a thing of the past

[–] Wuchak (8732) 2 years ago

And yet "Batman & Robin" was easily the best of that 1989-97 tetralogy. Go figure.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7699) 2 years ago

Personally, I enjoy this movie but I will admit it isn't that well written. But a lot of the poorly written parts are funny.
"Maybe he did it himself."
"Then how did he get the last scalpol in?"

[–] UncleRuckis (2627) 2 years ago

I enjoyed this as well. Decent movie and Gabrielle Byrne killed it like always.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 2 years ago

It didn't have a happy ending. Americans love a happy ending.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7699) 2 years ago

That's not True or else there wouldn't have been so many Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Nightmare on Elm Street movies.

[–] enriquesingh (1810) 2 years ago

I actually like the premise a lot, but the execution wasn't good and there was a lot of pressure behind the scenes... it was rushed to theaters to make it on a certain date... I even think the director was a last minute replacement.

I enjoyed the movie, but feel like it should have been better.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 2 years ago

*Scoff, sneer* Steven Seagal and jean-Claude Van Damme were NEVER “peers” to Arnold Schwarzenegger. His peers would be Sylvester Stallone and Clint Eastwood. A peer is an equal.