PEOPLE SAYING IT IS HAVE THE IQ OF A KITTEN AND IT WENT OVER ITS BUDGET SO SAYING ITS A BOMB MAKES ME FURIOUS!! Sorry if I went overboard I was just trying to prove a point apparently it didn't do well overseas so still a bomb.
shareWell, it did bomb. Sorry to bring this up to you...
shareWorldwide: $282,763,712 (says box office mojo)
Not a flop, not a huge financial success but it made a bit of money back.
I doubt we'll be seeing a third.
Worldwide: $282,763,712 (says box office mojo)
Not a flop, not a huge financial success but it made a bit of money back.
I doubt we'll be seeing a third.
There is still other countries it's being released in
shareThere is still other countries it's being released in
I read the book many times as a kid, this bears absolutely no resemblance to the story.
Quite often you get changes in a film or the odd different character, but this is a total re-write Lewis Carrol [real name Charles Lutwidge Dodgson] is probably spinning in his grave.
Lewis Carrol [real name Charles Lutwidge Dodgson] is probably spinning in his grave.Indeed.
I read the book many times as a kid, this bears absolutely no resemblance to the story.
It didn't makes its production money back therefore it did fail at the box office!
shareIn terms of box office yes it did, but the studio doesn't keep all that money. If the film costs $170 million you are wanting at least $340 to cover that along with whatever the marketing costs where. This year has been a year of financial duds. Alice, Tarzan, Ghostbusters, The Huntsman, Star Trek Beyond, The BFG, TMNT2, and probably more.
Simply being good is in no way a guarantee that the film will have success. I will note as Star Trek has not opened in China yet it could be saved by that territory, but even if it is, I can't see any sequels to this series being made sadly (as they where a lot of fun).
It has now grossed $289.4 million worldwide which is pretty fine really. Not great and no where near as expected but also much better than what some other sites have reported. EVERYONE jumped in the opportunity to post a blog about how this movie has completely bombed and is doomed for eternity. But not really, the international numbers are quite alright.
shareNo its not fine. As I said before it may make it to $300 million WW but it needed at least $340 million WW to cover its production budget alone, probably more since so much of the gross was from overseas and the studio gets less of the box office from overseas than the US. It will probably lose money but just a minor amount. It won't be the bloodbath of red ink that the Lone Ranger, John Carter or TomorrowLand was for Disney.
At best assuming the production budget isn't understated and advertising is only $100 million or below, after theatrical revenue might get it to break even. I think Disney can live with that given how many of there other films have done so well this year.
You Never Go Full Retard
Even if the film breaks even and starts making profit (won't happen), it will still be a box office disappointment, because Disney expected it to make at least $500 million.
shareI doubt the film will make a profit either and there obviously will be no more of these films. But as long as this film breaks even or just loses a minor amount of money I don't think Disney cares.
I doubt Disney believed that they would hit on all their films this year. They probably expected a few to bomb or under perform. If they don't take a write off on this than that's a win in the overall picture given what Zootopia, Jungle Book, Civil War, and Dory have done so far.
You Never Go Full Retard
This is a sequel to a film that did over $1 billion at the box office. There is no way Disney was expecting a box office this low. This film likely has lost more then a minor amount of money.
shareThis film likely has lost more then a minor amount of money.
What basis are you saying that the home video and tv rights will cover what is likely to be a $100 million+ marketing budget? Just curious.
shareWhat basis are you saying that the home video and tv rights will cover what is likely to be a $100 million+ marketing budget? Just curious.
(...)because Disney expected it to make at least $500 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The first one made over a billion.I think Disney had a higher
number than $500 million in mind for this movie.
considering the first film made over a billion dollars...this film's (just under) $300 million is extremely disappointing. The film had a production budget of $170 million - it needs $340 to breakeven. This is because the studio only ever gets around half of the actual gross - distributors and theatres get the rest - films should really be making at least double their production budget to breakeven. Alice 2 is currently a loss for Disney of around $23 million. This doesn't include advertising costs. Alice 2 was a flop of the summer and unfortunately was a box office bomb - mainly because its a loss and its such a weak follow up (financially) to a billion dollar film.
shareI found this film to be quite good. One reviewer said it was just horrible and others said it didn't even follow the book very well.
I have a couple of my own thoughts about the film. First off, it's a Tim Burton film, with Helen Bonham Carter and Johnny Depp. This film came out after the Depp incident and his now ex-wife that kind of put a bump on the opening weeks. Two very dark, characters in their own right. They portray fictional characters from a book that many have read. Second, have you ever seen a Tim Burton movie that wasn't just over top different. That's what he does. Who would go to a movie to see some run of the mill story, exactly as it was written.
Mia Wasikowska and Anne Hathaway did their jobs, and very nicely, in my opinion. And no matter how much money you spend on a film, it's always a gamble that you ever recover it all. Those that are lucky enough to do that, good for them. But that's not what makes a good movie. You can throw tons of money at film production, and it flops like a big fat turd. I've seen films on budgets that literally hit a home run out of the park. So don't judge a movie on how much money it cost or even how much it bring in. Film should be enjoyed first of all for what it is. The only person that can say weather it was good or bad yourself. That's all that matters. In my opinion.
So, if you haven't seen this film, go out and watch it or wait for DVD. Sit down with a bag of goobers and pop-corn and enjoy a couple hours.[/black]
Not a Tim Burton's film - which completely derails your post.
Also, personal opinions aside, this was one of the most incompetently made film I've seen this year.
Characterization: next to none (excpet for the Time character, whose characterization was "SBC overacting").
Story: a complete mess that lacks both focus and direction and is far removed from anything even remotely Lewis Carroll-esque;
Directing: staging, framing and blocking were terrible - the action sequences were flat, the dialogue scenes were "people standing and talking" and the narrative approach was uneven and not a bit cohesive;
Special FX/CGI: I was utterly shocked at this, but the level of the SFX was somewhere between 2002 and 2005 (literally: there are better special effects in Attack of the Clones (2002) or Revenge of the Sith (2005) )
Soundtrack: can't remember a thing about it, and I've seen the movie less than 20 hours ago - oh, wait, yeah. I just remembered: they had an awful pop song at the end, which had nothing to do with the movie's tone. Speaking of which...
Tone: totally unbalanced. When you open a movie that features some kind of "alternate reality" by establishing a ludicrous opening sequence and premise for the "actual reality", the passage from one dimension to the other becomes completely moot. Also: most of the "humor" in the movie was a couple of steps above 'fart jokes', while the movie was trying to present itself with the wacky/nonsensical/satirical approach of the source material (failing, miserably);
Cinematography: orange tones for "Wonderland" and teal for the "real world", seriously?
Acting: most of the actors did (more or less) a decent job with what they were given, except Depp - who'son autopilot, as usually - and Sacha Baron-Cohen annoingly overacting.
Yeah, great movie.
I can respect your opinion. Tim Burton was the Producer, first off. I think you are extremely harsh. I don't know what you expected when you went to watch it. Was it just reason to kill a couple hours or were you genuinely wanting to get something out of the film.
Granted there are a lot of things that are weird. But my take on watching a movie is, try to take some good with the bad out of the experience.
Many reviewers have this consistent attitude that all movies are bad. They have to prove their worthiness to get a "gee whiz" or "awesome" out of it.
Again, you have an opinion and you're welcome to it. Hope your next movie review is a satisfying experience.
Never expect the movie to live up to the book