PHANTOM FILM go down as one of the greatest cinematic flops! — Page 2

I never knew Jesus christ Superstar was a flop domestically--but I think these kinda movies have to take into check the international gross which often is huge for musicals.

Moulin Rouge LOST money domesticlaly. whoever here said it was a hit is wrong. it got VERY mixed to negative reviews and was seen as a disappointment at the box office (box Office Mojo gives the budget at 50 mill, the marketing at 20 mill and the domestic gross at 56 mill).

It did very well internationally however (interestingly the amount it got domestically vs internaitonally is basically a flip of how Chicago did--hrmm) and on DVD--and funny, by the time it got to DVD most of the reviews were largely positive--if othen only begrudgingly so.

Chicago also had a slow start with limited runs--opening at number 13 on the charts at 77 theatres (though it had a bigger per screen average than Phantom with 20,000 that weekend)

Obviously, for many reasons (stars, critics, maybe past it's prime Phantom being an older item in the public's eye whereas Chicago's huge Broadway success is more new) Phantom won't do as well but..

E

E

I think that the release plan for the film was a complete suicide ! Opening widely ONE month after the limited release, means whatever hype there is for the film has died down by that time. I still don't think it is a flop, but it surely is not a success either, which as someone already said is not good for the greenlight for more movie musicals. But, as already pointed, revenues for these type of films rely heavily on the DVD sales as well. There are numerous films, that, although did not do well on their cinematic release, made a fortune on DVD sales and turned very profitable on the long run. And certainly Phantom is going to sell a lot of DVD copies when released !

Take care

I think the strategy behind a limited opening, followed later by a wide release, is the studio is hoping strong word of mouth will create a perceived demand for the film. By the time the film opens wide, all the people who have been waiting for it to appear "at a theatre near you" will be clamoring to see it.

I don't understand what all this POTO venom is about. Why does it seem like so many people are anxious for its demise? Don't they realize, as has been stated before, that one too many movie musical flops will signal the end for all future movie musicals? Three big budget flops from the 1960's---Hello, Dolly!, Star!, and Doctor Doolittle---brought 20th Century Fox to the brink of bankruptcy and ushered in the end of the Hollywood Musical for many years. Do we really want that to happen again?

---

Damn right, ckeaton. Guys, you really can't trust WENN. Ever. And I say this as someone who's on record as absolutely hating Phantom.

Anyway, "biggest flop of all time"? Gimme a break. It's not expensive enough for that. What about Alexander, which cost $195 million including marketing and has only made about $59 million worldwide so far? Phantom isn't even the biggest flop of the movie year.

Switz, there are several threads with criticisms of the film. This is a thread discussing the economics of the film and what not. You might want to dig up one of the other threads, rather than drag this thread off-topic, especially to a topic covered a billion other places.

It's a good thing you commented after reading none of the other posts, I like to do that. That's how threads start to look all acid trippy.

---

http://studiobrf.newshare.com/

PHANTOM FLOP? WARNER'S DENIES IT
Warner Bros. has denied analysts' conclusions that Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera has flopped at the box office. A spokeswoman for the studio pointed out on Monday that the film had the second-highest per-theater average last weekend behind Meet the Fockers and that its box-office take increased 20 percent over the previous weekend. "Phantom of the Opera is definitely not a flop and our box office will continue to prove it," the spokeswoman said. (Films released in selected markets -- Phantom is playing in 622 -- generally see better-than-average per-theater results. Moreover, 75 percent of last weekend's top-20 films showed increases over the previous weekend, including The Aviator and Spanglish, which rose by 33 percent.) Phantom, which cost $60-80 million to produce, has thus far earned $16 million.

I know it has been said NUMEROUS times already on this thread, but it is in limited release. It is 2,000 some odd theaters less than every other movie in the top 10 of last weeks box office take. So, is it a flop. NO!!! If you count all those movies in limited release, none are in the top 10 movies. So, are they flops? No. Everyone needs to calm down and wait until the the end of January when it is released everywhere. I would go see it once a week but it is a 2 hour drive for me to go see it and I can't do that. So, take a breather and just wait. Oh yeah! Last weekend it was number 10 and this weekend it was #9, so it is moving up.

---

Other films that have done worse as a whole than PHANTOM has so far:
Gigli, Alfie (Remake), and let us not forget Heaven's Gate (That ONE film put MGM on the brink of bankrupcy!)

---

"Well, that's what happens when you cast people who can't sing, that can't even really "act" either. Too bad."

That is one opinion. I, as well as others on this board really liked the movie. My prediction is, once it goes nationwide, it is going to get big. And DVD sales will be a HUGE money intake for Webber and friends.

---

You are right spider, but I do believe that it stayed i nthe top 5 for around 4 or 5 weeks.

---

Chicago didn't have the best singers either, but at least they didn't bastardize the whole story. Catherine Zeta Jones and Renee Zellweger and Richard Gere can at least act. I personally didn't think Richard Gere would have been the strongest choice, going in to the film, but he had such presence, it was totally forgivable.

I don't know what rock Emmy rossum crawled out from under, or who is grooming her to be the next "big thing" but she was awful, from her vapid expressions to her thin-voiced singing which no amount of pitch correct could fix.

Gerard Butler couldn't sing either, but he seemed like he was really trying, and....so pretty. Made me believe the triangle.

Patrick Wilson I thought was a good actor, esp. when he played "older" Raoul. Not the best singer in the world, and what was up with his hair????

If they were going to dub Minnie Driver anyway, why not get some broadway up and comers and dub the rest of the principals. Then Warner Bros. could have their pretty faces, and the music would have been powerful enough to carry the story. There are plenty of talented people out there; the studio just didn't want to spend the time or money to actually look for them.