Phantom Movie Gross

Posted: 3/23/05 at 12:17pm

So, based on this does anyone know if Phantom was considered a hit or flop?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=phantomoftheopera.htm
Updated On: 3/23/05 at 12:17 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 12:23pm

I think the film has technically made back its investment in world wide distribution (to calculate total budget/advertising costs, typical Hollywood figure is twice the budget).

That said, I think the film has to be considered a huge financial disappointment. The play has grossed billions of dollars worldwide and the film barely squeezed out 140 million globally, less then the film of CHICAGO made in the United States!

[BoxFive]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 12:29pm

A MAJOR flop, heads have already rolled because of it, but, there should be no suprise regarding it's dismal box office as it failed as a screen translation of the HIT stage production.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 12:31pm

Box --

Who's head would have rolled? Andrew Lloyd Webber's production company financed the film completely. Warner Brothers was only in charge of U.S. Distribution. Seeing as how Webber picked the director, and had a hand in picking the cast, I don't see how anyone's head could roll except for his own...

[BoxFive]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 12:38pm

The RUG has already shaken up it's in-house film division because of it, look for "Sunset Blvd." to be MUCH more faithful to the stage production.

Sir Andrew put on a grand and brave public face, but is unhappy that the film lost it's direction and visual connection to the stage version, he put his trust in Joel, foolish.

Just ask Batman and Robin....

[MikeH]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 12:38pm

I wouldn't say a major flop. I think it did great for a sung through-musical with little to no advertising. Chicago had major star power and was more "accessible" to movie audiences. For the type of musical Phantom is, I thought the movie did great. Successful stage shows don't necessarily make successful movies, and vice-versa.....

[BoxFive]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 12:40pm

The stage musical is the BIGGEST theatrical success in the history of the theater, the hope was the film would follow that and be a major blockbuster, sadly it was not.

[MikeH]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 12:43pm

True, true... I myself had hoped it would be a great success too, and while there were some things that I didn't care for about the film- I'm pleased with it's modest success and hopefuly it'll help pave the way for more movie musicals....

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 12:56pm

The movie failed because it was overly long and exceedingly dull. They also lost all of the "live theatre" spirit that made the show work on stage. The movie just spotlighted the show's weaknesses: muddled storytelling and reallly REALLY bad lyrics.

By this time the show is long past its peak. It's now just a New York tourist attraction.

[whiskedaway]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 12:57pm

"The RUG has already shaken up it's in-house film division because of it, look for "Sunset Blvd." to be MUCH more faithful to the stage production."

one of the biggest complaints i read in reviews of phantom was that it was too much like the stage show. which is true. other then the sets, costumes etc. the movie is almsot exactly the same.

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 1:09pm

I consider it a flop. I did not enjoy it as much as the stage version. And the advertising was strange. It had been playing for a month before it's "wide release". I went to the website to see exactly where it was playing in "limited release" and it seemed to be playing everywhere! I live in Denver and we don't always get limited release movies. But we had Phantom. it's just ashame that the movie did not live up to the hype. The show itself is not a masterpiece but it was a fun show with good music and I would see it again. Most likely will when it hits Denver this year. But the movie just did not do it for me.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 1:12pm

It was extremely faithful to the stage version. To me it's just a dull show. I used to work at the theatre when it first opened on Broadway, and only cared for a few scenes in that show.

[EddieVarley]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 1:13pm

Actually as a huge fan of POTO, I thought it was WAAAAAYYYYY off from the stage version, I mean swordfights?! Underwater chases?! A HORSE used for what seemed like a yard and a half of travel time?! And of course a Phantom who wore a mask that was too small and who could not sing the score.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 1:31pm

Well some of what Schumacher was going for -- the horse, etc. are from the original book. I don't begrudge him that, but my complaint is that the film was not stylized or exciting enough visually. It was almost too faithful -- everything that makes the play exciting -- the labrynth, the masquerade, etc. seemed very flat and unimaginative on film.

The opening sequence was brilliant though.
Updated On: 3/23/05 at 01:31 PM

Posted: 3/23/05 at 1:32pm

I feel the movie just really took too long to get made. After all, how many millions have seen it on stage at this point? I am surprised thought that there wasn't more box office interest here in the US.

Why did it open in select cities first and then roll out?

[phantom phan]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 1:46pm

Exactly. Why select cities and why for that amount of time? I've heard of limited releases before but limited release for an entire month? What is THAT about? Plus, when it was in full release, I checked Yahoo movies out, which shows you the amount of theatres it's in, and it said something like 1660 theatres... I think a normal full release is in something like 3200 theatres.

I think they should record a show from the present broadway cast and put in on DVD and see how well it does.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 1:58pm

They tried to open the film in a slow roll out the same way CHICAGO did, to try to ideally position the film for awards consideration, but the reviews were horrible and apparently word of mouth wasn't enough to sweep the film along without major Oscar nominations.
Updated On: 3/23/05 at 01:58 PM

[Sally]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 2:01pm

<< Why did it open in select cities first and then roll out? >>

I'm guessing that they hoped word of mouth would build and that by the time it opened wide, people would be champing at the bit to see it. If so, it didn't work out as planned.

I have no idea about the select cities and the specific amount of time involved.

Some critics thought it was too close to the stage production and some thought there were too many changes. Some thought it should have been more like the Lon Chaney movie (I think that opinion is pretty clueless).

Some critics didn't like the stage musical and likewise disliked the film. Some hate anything ALW ever wrote.

I think that the film would have come in for criticism no matter what they did, but I agree with the other posters on this thread who said the film they did make seemed kind of flat. Also, it would have pleased me more if they had cast a Phantom who sang better than Gerard Butler. Angel of Music? Huh.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 2:06pm

I really shouldn't spend so much time defending the movie...

Considering it's gross, I wouldn't at all call it a flop, it did make a small profit...but no matter how much I loved it, I wouldn't call it a huge success either. I agree that there was a lot going against it. I see where they were trying to go with the limited release thing, but it totally backfired on them. By the time it came to full, it stopped playing in some theaters it started in. Also, I just don't think advertising was that great, as many people who love Broadway who I encouraged to see it, didn't even know that it was playing. And of course reviews didn't help.

It's too bad that more people didn't get to see it at least to form an opinion. I know opinions here are pretty mixed, but of course, considering I saw it 7 times, I brought a lot of people to it that perhaps wouldn't have and almost all of them loved it(my only friend that didn't isn't a huge musical fan, but she did appreciate the hot guys). It certainly didn't have the success of Chicago, but I don't think it at all stalled musical movies, and with The Producers and Rent coming out next year, hopefully we'll be coming to a great era of movie musicals.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 2:07pm

Also, they thought the title -- the Phantom "brand" -- would be enough, without stars. There's no getting around the fact that the absence of a single name hurt it.

And it didn't exactly aim high. Schumacher may have lifted sword fights and such from the novel, did little to enhance the original story, and filled few of the plot and character holes (like the fact that Raol, on film, comes off as the wimp of death. Not worthy of our investment in him.) The film had an odd sort of lack of rooting-for appeal. It left you neither stirred nor shaken. I agree, only the opening came close to realizing the possibilities.

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 2:14pm

I actually really liked the movie. Mind you, I don't think it's the pinnacle of film achievement, but for me it was a nice little escapist movie with a couple of cute guys and beautiful costumes to drool over.

Posted: 3/23/05 at 2:31pm

We also need to keep in mind the future DVD release as well. They might make a few bucks there.

I think the big mistake was rolling out after opening in big cities. The critics killed the chances of big box office numbers. Had the movie opened in a wide release, I feel the numbers domestically would have been better.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 2:34pm

flop or not....it sucked! just like the stage version.

[CurtainUp]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 2:40pm

Haha did anyone else hear this read in a valley girl voice "Phantom Movie! GROSS! Ew!" wow...I'm really tired.

Posted: 3/23/05 at 2:53pm

When does the DVD come out?