Posted on 11/15/2004 6:33:49 AM PST by FrankRepublican
There is now link but in today's Wall Street Journal on page B1 there is a story on the Tom Hank's movie "Polar Express" which is turning into a mega bomb. The reviews have been pretty awful. The film cost $170 million plus $125 million in distribution costs and has sold about $23.5 million. It will probably start disappearing from the theaters soon.
Time Warner was lucky that they offloaded half of the project's marketing and production budget ($62.5 million) on Steven Bing. Bing is a multi-millioanire and real estate heir. He also funded Kerry's 527 to a tune of close to $14 million or so. Bing's family owns lots of real estate in NYC and are reportedly billionaires. Bing has been trying to break into Hollywood and asked Warner for a distribution deal. Looks like he got one. He is rumored to have some unsavory connections with organized crime families in NY.
No chance of my watching it. The trailers dont really look like the making of a Christmas Classic.
nice to see you around!
$170 Million? For crappy animation? Damn.... I like "The Polar Express" story... nice to hear every year, but based just on what I see in the previews have little desire to take my kid to the movie...
Planning on spending my entertainment $$$ on the Spongebob Movie over thanksgiving weekend. Yes I know, viacom and all the evil libs... but Sorry guys, Spongebob's funny.
Is "Goodnight Moon" in production yet?
Isnt Santa Claus "one aspect of the Christmas myth."?
My thoughts exactly. We read The Polar Express to our twins many times, but 2 hours of a story it ain't! It could have been a TV special, maybe......
This connection seals the deal for me not to take him.I'll take him to a museum or somewhere fun!
Wrong. He did it because he genuinely cares about our veterans and WWII history. He even made a speech at the WWII grand opening memorial and helped spearhead the drive to build it.
Hanks is a liberal but at least he doesn't wear it on his sleeve like the rest of Hollywood. I wasn't aware that Bing was behind "The Polar Express", however. I thought Hanks produced it.
For Heaven's sake, you don't have to make everything into a political statement. That is what liberals do. I saw this movie and saw nothing remotely political about it, regardless of any merits it may have or lack.
That's a hoot. Wonder who they'll cast as the old woman whispering "hush"?
(2) St. Nicholas was a real person, about whom playful folk practices emerged.
It's Bush's fault...right??
Too bad this didn't pan out for the kids. It is a delightful book.
Is it the fact that the movies I mentioned has superior storytelling, which drives customers to see them multiple times in the theaters? I think Polar Express is doing poorly because it's the type of movie that won't garner repeat patronage by moviegoers.
This sounds like the first bad movie Hanks has done since, what, Joe and the Volcano, or whatever it was.
I think he's a very good actor and one of the few good guys in Hollywood. He may be a lib (few aren't), but he has great talent and charm.
They're doing it as a twelve-part miniseries on NBC. The network jumped on it after ABC optioned "Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel" for a four-hour sweeps project.
And South Park is very entertaining to boot.
Spongebob is da man. I will see it even if Alec Baldwin is a voice.
"The film cost $170 million plus $125 million in distribution costs and has sold about $23.5 million."
It's been reported that AOL lost 650,000 subscribers in the last 12 months.
At $20 a head per month thats about $156 million...that walked.
Thank you Dick Parsons, hope you are enjoying your $50 million office suite on CPS.
~Peter~
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.