MovieChat Forums > Winnie the Pooh (2011) Discussion > Why is Pooh performing so poorly EVERYWH...

Why is Pooh performing so poorly EVERYWHERE?

posted 14 years ago by knowtheartist
16 replies | jump to latest

So Winnie the Pooh looks to make only $8 million this weekend (http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/final-harry-potter-already-wrecking-re cords/).

Normally, I'm one of the first to blame the studio. But not this time. Disney was expecting about $13 million. And you know, that seemed fair, with it going up against Harry Potter. But even that was an overestimation. I mean, a measly $8 million means, even if Potter hadn't been around, Pooh still would have performed poorly - as it did in other countries earlier this year.

So marketing was to blame, right? No, I don't think so. Not this time. The trailer made it clear that Winnie the Pooh was not only for kids but also the adults who grew up with him. And honestly, there's never been a series of TV commercials to give me chills as much as those for Pooh (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSoGRN3s-3g). Plus, let's not forget the Pooh ads spoofing Potter.

So it was the reviews, right? Definitely not. Winnie the Pooh is one of the best-reviewed films of the year.

With all this in mind, can someone please explain to me what in the world went wrong? Why aren't more people seeing Winnie the Pooh?

[–] ForeverStrawberry 14 years ago

The target audience is small. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't (blockbuster) movie-goers normally in the 16-24 range?

It will definitely become a financial success, but probably not a hit. The budget is $30 million. Let's say it takes in eight million each week from now and lasts two months. That's about $48 million. Coupled with DVD sales (which, for some reason, I predict will be high) it will at least break even.

I can understand why Disney released it during the weekend of Harry Potter (parents go to see it with their littlest that can't see HP--supervising teenagers but with your two-year old? Go see Winnie the Pooh!)

They probably should have done some toy-deal with McDonald's. That might have helped. But I think it will do just fine.

VOTE 10/10, WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0490668/

[–] Shimey013 14 years ago

There are 2 audiences for this movie.

1) The people that grew up with pooh (myself) w/ or w/o kids
2) the younger audience.

Also with Harry Potter doing 92 mil in 1 day will also affect the income for pooh.

I think the DVD sales will be the strong point.

This movie was poorly marketed towards the general audience, it was really only marketed to a select few. I hope with the good reviews and whatever, i hope the 2nd weeked becomes stronger.

I'm seeing it Sunday cause i dont wanna deal with the Potter crowd.

[–] Mr-Dedlock 14 years ago

it should have been released in the fall/winter around thanksgiving/christmas. it would have done much better, Winnie the pooh is more of a traditional holiday theme subject material, not a blockbuster summer movie.

[–] number1212 14 years ago

I think that it is performing poorly (in America at least)because:
a. It was released during the summer. I think of would have fared better if it was released in a less busy time of the year
b. Not very much hype
c. A limited audience. It is pretty much meant for little kids or people wanting nostalgia kicks.

[–] Kablueyy 14 years ago

I blame the marketing, at least for its failure in the UK. It was virtually unmarketed except in places like the Disney store or posters in the cinemas. It flopped over here and was released in April, so I guess it's either not been well hyped or maybe nobody wants to see Winnie the Pooh anymore.

If your life had a face I would punch it!

[–] white_fire4 14 years ago

Harry Potter. Why would most families go to see Winnie instead of the big finale to a kids book that is even more loved, revered, and read than Winnie???

Releasing it on the same weekend was VERY stupid of Disney. Had they released it a few weeks ago, it would have done much better, or if they had waited another month.

Not to mention, it was leaked online, in dvd rip format no less, the day of it's release. That probably didn't help much either.

Obviously people are going to see it, and it likely will actually rise up in the standings next weekend. But it will likely be a bigger hit on DVD/bluray. They just dropped the ball on this one big time, thinking that a Disney movie still carries the same clout as it used to, especially after the debacle with Tangled and Princess and the Frog.

Tangled was marketed like mad, but in the stupidest of ways, making it seem like some cheesy, heartless stereotypical movie. And Princess and the Frog really wasn't that great.

[–] TheWumberlog 14 years ago

I'd have to disagree that Harry Potter is more revered than Winnie the Pooh; I'd say they are on par with each other. Harry Potter is just more recent, so it's somewhat more popular. But when learning to read, some of the first books children are introduced to are the Winnie the Pooh books.

Besides, while the Harry Potter movies are entertaining enough, they are nowhere near as good as the books. The animated Winnie the Pooh has grown in its own right independently of the book, to a level where people find it easier to disassociate them and thus don't feel the need to compare them.

Also, my opinion is that it leaking online won't matter much in this case. The target audience of small children aren't necessarily the type who would watch it online. That would be more for a movie aimed at older audiences, especially those appealing to Internet-savvy people.

But I agree over nine thousand times over that it was tremendously stupid of Disney to release this against the last Harry Potter movie.

[–] cjd-16 14 years ago

I think it's just a matter of market saturation combined with people still holding on to their mid-2000's grudges against Disney.

Before this one, "Winnie the Pooh" has already had three theatrically-released movies since the year 2000, in addition to three direct-to-video releases. And while they were all at least somewhat good, the general consensus was that it was just too much of the same thing. The box-office take declined steadily with each release. "The Tigger Movie" put up a respectable $45.5 million. "Piglet's Big Movie" made half that amount, at $23 million. Then "Pooh's Heffalump Movie" made a pathetic $18 million. Disney milked this franchise to death, to the point that people just weren't interested in it anymore.

Also, based on the ridiculous amount of anti-Disney Youtube comments still coming in saying "Why don't you make movies like The Lion King anymore?" I think there are still a LOT of people who are still in the "Disney is dead" mindset, unaware that they had a complete corporate re-structuring and actually are trying to make good movies again. So despite the trailers, lots of people probably just assumed that this was another halfhearted attempt to milk the franchise, and stayed away.

But with both of those things said, this movie actually isn't doing as badly as this board is making it out to be. "The Tigger Movie" only had a $9.4 million opening, in March when school was still in session, and still managed to make it to $45 million. Plus there is the potential that a lot of people saw Harry Potter last weekend, but will see Pooh this weekend.

I went to see it earlier today, at the 4:20 showing, and I was shocked to find the theater almost half-full. And all of the kids in the theater absolutely loved it, so word-of-mouth will likely be very good. So IMO, it's way too early to write it off. Let's at least wait until the second weekend. Disney animated movies have never had great opening weekends. They live or die by their holdovers.

[–] comicman117 14 years ago

Oh bother!

[–] itchyfriend9 14 years ago

Why aren't more people seeing it? Because most people aren't prepubescent children. I was lured by the beautiful trailer, but it turned out to be just a kids movie. It was perfectly pleasant on that level (say, a particularly well done Disney Channel cartoon), but there was nothing there for me, and I felt silly watching it, so I left after about 30 minutes. Even the original 1977 movie had adult appeal, but this one was clearly for the kids, and I think Disney really dropped the ball with it.

[–] uruseiranma 14 years ago

It's not going to change the world-but it was F-U-N!

I don't see how the previous poster sees this as just a kids film. I saw things in here that were impressing the parents and adults around me as much as the kids.

The film is like Disneyland in a way: there's something the adults enjoy, and something the kids get as well. I saw some scenes where the kids were laughing because they saw one thing, and the adults because they understood another.

I think the reason is alot of people just look at this as something they'll wait a couple months for the DVD of. Plus, some may think, 'it's only an hour long! I'm going to pay $12 for 60 minutes?'

"Thanks, guys." "So long, partner."

- Toy Story 3 (9/10)

[–] gabby_bm 14 years ago

I do agree that the price tag was steep. I'm used to kids costing less than adults. The seats are the same, but paying full ticket price for my 2-year old just chaps my hide. Don't bother me with the reasoning behind this. I fully understand why it is the way it is. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

But seriously, beyond the price, the market saturation has a lot to do with it. Besides the movies, there's the whole Super Sleuths thing. There's enough Pooh in the marketplace that a new movie is NOT anything new.

Add to that the limited audience 2-6yr olds and their parents. And many of the parents probably had no desire to take their kids to a Pooh movie. Not at that price, not in a theater full of kids fighting over who holds the popcorn bucket, and not when they can get the DVD for 1/4 the price of going to the movies with their 2 kids.

And frankly, I don't see $8m as a poor opening weekend for a Pooh movie.

"Atlas Shrugged- Part 2"- Coming in 2012! --The saga continues!

[–] chiglet-1 13 years ago

Why did it perform so poorly?? Well, maybe due to the LACK of marketing for the movie. If you don't market/advertise your product, then people won't know about it, and sales will falter.
I heard about this movie in mid-Spring 2011. Kept an eye out for it's release. Saw NOTHING heard NOTHING pertaining to the theatrical release of this movie. Neither did y family and neither did a number of freinds who were looking forward to seeing it in the theatre. Still am waiting for the "theatrical" release as of the end of October, 2011. Nope folks, it was NOT released theatrically in MY area. But derned if I didn't find the newly released DVD at the store the other day stating (falsely for my area of the country) "theatrically released". I'm guessing that Disney did the old "select theatres" deal with this one thinking they'd make more money with the DVD sales. or maybe Disney was just looking for a tax write-off with what was probably a very decent movie.

[–] cidandreevefangirl 13 years ago

Same here. I only learned about the movie's existence on IMDB, and patiently waited for its release. And waited. And waited. It never came to my local cinema. And none of the cinemas I phoned even knew a new Winnie the Pooh movie had been made, let alone when its Australian release was. And I saw absolutely no advertisements, posters, or commercials for it. None of my friends even knew it existed.

[–] Radiofan15 13 years ago

Here in Mexico the movie open in April (around Easter), the same week as Rio and Hop... the movie have virtually no promotion. I was hinestly suprised to see that the movie was already in theaters when it debuted, because theere weren't any kind of ads (not even in Disney Channel).

I remember a tie-in ad with a credit card company and a local chain of stores without mentioning a theatrical release date or anything related... 2 MONTHS AFTER THE MOVIE DEBUTED.

Disney do nothing to promote the film, they just let it die, that'swhy they release either at the same week as HP8 in some territories, facing other family films with virtually no promotion at all in some other places or just giving it a limited release in countries like Australia just to release it in DVD one month later

[–] megaruda 13 years ago

BECAUSE PEOPLE SUCK