just curious.. seemed like a good enough movie for kids.. nothing objectionable..
they should come out with a sequel..
and what happened to the newly produced series of looney tunes shorts for WB-affiliated films?
"With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility"
Stan Lee, 1962
[deleted]
This was an awful fil, devoid of the wit of Looney Tunes - yes they were witty, adult in some ways. This piece of sheeyat film was a money making exercise by all concerned. Dante's last promising film was 'Matinee' and he should have hung up his megaphone right after that.
You may have good taste in your mouth.
Otherwise - pffft.
Everyone was watching that horrid Cat in the Hat movie...
Also, I don't remember the advertising campaign for this film being all that great. They were running Cat in the Hat ads for weeks, trying to tie it in with both Thanksgiving and Christmas.
I LOVE SPACE JAM!
But seriously, I want to use Space Jam, as a reason as to why this movie didn't do so well..
Marketing/Merchandise: To say that Space Jam had better marketing/merchandise is an understatement. Almost every other day leading up to the release, you had trailers, or tv spots running constantly. Mcdonald's had the movie tie in deal, and the toys. As far as other merchandise, you had coloring books, clothes, shoes, rerelease of old looney tunes cartoons..
LT:BIA to be honest, had next to nothing ( Forgive me if I miss anything). I vaguely remember one trailer or 2, and that was it. Barely any merchandise...
This film was sandwhiched between 'Elf' and 'Cat in the Hat' during the Holiday season of 2003.....both huge hits. I don't know if their goal was to sell tickets when those movies were sold out or what. This movie has like one of the highest drop-off percentages from opening weekend to second weekend in box office history.
It didn't have a star like Michael Jordan to sell the film behind. Clearly, marketing failed the film.
As a pure Looney Tunes film, I enjoy it much better than Space Jam. Joe Daunte clearly understands the Looney Tunes humor here. Job well done in my opinion - unfortunate box office numbers didn't reflect it. Very underrated.
Bendy-stretchy-nonsensical cartoon animation of this type is perhaps the least successful and least popular of all movie genres. In the last 10-11 years, I'm only aware of one major film release of that type, Looney Toons: Back in Action (2003). It made 85% of its $80M production cost back in worldwide theater grosses.
I suspect the genre is dead.
____________________
One factor was poor advertising, and another, like many pointed out was releasing this in the winter going up against the shotty Cat in the Hat, and Elf. I remember seeing a few ads on TV, and wanted to see this in theaters, but never did. I caught it on HBO later in the year, and loved it. Only found out it bombed so poorly as of last year. Such a shame, because it deserved much better numbers at the box office. Perhaps a Summer release would have been more appropriate.
shareI was looking around the trivia, and to those who haven't read the trivia, but wonder why this movie did poorly at the box office. This sums it up: "The film's release was also the subject of a big stroke of bad luck: it was supposed to premiere in July, but was shelved after Finding Nemo (2003) became a smash. Come November (the start of the holiday movie season), and the film was released. Unfortunately, the movie opened just after Brother Bear (2003) and Elf (2003), just before The Cat in the Hat (2003) and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003), and just the week the Occupation of Iraq began. Warner Bros. refused to promote the film because of it chaotic production and overrun budget."
share