Posted on 08/31/2006 8:45:18 PM PDT by Hal1950
Another movie coming up from famous director Peter Jackson who announced that he’s gathering a team for a “Dam Busters” remake.
As a child, Peter Jackson said he was a real fan of the 1954 version of “Dam Busters”, a movie based on the book with the same name written by Paul Brickhill, which revolved around inventor Barnes Wallis and mission commander Guy Gibson. He was 12 when he watched the movie for the first time.
“I always thought that out of all the World War II true stories this is one of the most extraordinary," Jackson, a longtime aviation and war buff, told The Dominion Post.
"My parents were English and they were both involved in the war. When it comes to World War II, I'm very based in this English mindset. Mum and Dad talked about it all the time. I almost feel like I lived through World War II."
About 10 years ago, he thought about producing a remake of the movie but he was surprised to find out that Hollywood star Mel Gibson had bought the film rights, held by British broadcaster Sir David Frost, and hoped to star and direct. Jackson said his agent “came back and said that [film company] Icon had the rights and that Mel Gibson was going to direct and possibly act in it. Obviously that didn't happen".
"I'd been chasing it for a long, long time but I forgot about it for a while at that point," Jackson said.
"Then, about two years ago, my agent got back to me to say Mel Gibson had dropped out and they were looking around for suitable film-makers to take it on. That's when I jumped on board."
Speculation over a possible “Dam Busters” remake was initially sparked in May, when Jackson reportedly spent a day filming one of the last surviving Lancaster bombers that took part in the mission.
The story of one of the most daring RAF mission in the Second World War was immortalized by director Michael Anderson starring Michael Redgrave, and it recounts the true story of Britain's military developing bouncing bombs to blow up German dams.
Sir David, on board as one of the executive producers, said: "This is a dream come true. It turned out that, even before we met to discuss it, Peter and I had both been excited by the idea of a remake of The Dam Busters.
“Peter Jackson is the ideal producer, not only because of his film-making genius, but also because of his aeronautical expertise and unique understanding of the human pressures wrought by war”, he added.
Jackson said it would be "as authentic as possible and as close to the spirit of the original as possible".
"So much of it was still secret," said Jackson. "They weren't even allowed to show the bomb itself and had to create a fictionalized bomb. We also want to include a lot more about the development of the bomb. Barnes Wallis (the inventor of the bouncing bomb) had to overcome incredible bureaucratic hurdles to get the bomb taken seriously.”
"It was seen as a crackpot, vaguely nutty idea. The RAF, as were all defense departments at the time, was always being approached by eccentrics claiming they had the weapon to end the war. But he persevered.”
“There's that wonderful mentality of the British during the war - that heads-down, persevering, keep-on-plugging-away mentality which is the spirit of Dam Busters," he told Screen Daily.
"One of the things that's really important for us, which isn't in the original film, is to capture how young these pilots really were," Rivers said.
The shooting is set to start early next year with a budget of $30-40m (£16-21m) and will be directed by Christian Rivers, the animation director on King Kong who will make his directorial debut on the project, renamed “Dambusters”.
It will be backed by Hollywood's Universal Pictures and Europe's biggest film company, StudioCanal. Jackson's agent Ken Kamins and Sir David will be executive producers.
But Universal didn't get all that 550 million, infact they didn't even get close to that. In domestic movie distribution there's a sliding scale of how revenue is split, the particulars of the scale change for every movie but the general structure remains the same. In week 1 the distributor gets around 80% and the theaters get the rest, by week 5 those percentages are reversed (theaters now get 80%) and that's how thing stay for the rest of the release. So in that first weekend when Kong grossed $50 million Universal got around $40 million, by January 13th (5th weekend) when Kong grossed $7.5 million Universal got $1.5 million. This is why distributors love splashy opening weekends, and why they release so many movies the theaters don't have the screen space to let movies hang around for months (which really annoys the theater companies).
Internationally things get even worse because the American company usually has to hire companies in the other countries to do the distribution for them, so even if the percentages of the theater take remain the same the distributor has to share their portion with another distributor.
Given how long Kong took to make its money Universal would be lucky to have gotten $250 million of that, just enough to break even and only fire one or two people involved in the budget decision.
You win.
Actually, wait! You don't win after all!
I just looked up Kong's DVD sales, which was considered a spectacular hit. Although the theatrical release was somewhat of a disappointment (but not a TOTAL one), the film had a mega-amazing DVD sale performance. Once it was released, it actually made 100 million in one week, which was record-setting for Universal.
While the theatrical performance left some to be desired, the DVD sales pushed Kong over the line and ensured a financial gain for Universal from the project.
Actually, you DID say that. From post 48:
We get that because it is 100% true. Kong was not a huge hit, indeed it was almost a terrible belly flop.
That's DVD I was talking theaterical, which is the part where the distributor gets the best cut (well first weekend anyway).
Theaterical was a definite disappointment, best case scenario they broke even on the theaterical, assuming they didn't have to give points of gross to anybody, probably lost as much as $10 mil. That's disappointing, not a disaster but definitely disappointing, the goal is to make a profitable on the theaterical and have everything else be gravy, when the theaterical barely breaks even that cuts down on the gravy which is disappointing.
But again the primarty point of discussion was the theaterical, not DVD.
Missed the important word: ALMOST a terrible belly flop. When it only made $50 mil that opening weekend instead of the 9 digits they had to be targeting when they greenlighted a $200 million budget they could have been the beginning of a disaster of giant monkey proportions. Luckily for them it held audience well and probably came close to breaking even theatrically, so it narrowly avoided belly flop status. But if it had been a flash and die like most movies are today that $50 million opening weekend would have made it a flop.
As I took it, it was whether or not Universal made a profit on the project itself. You even said the studio would FIRE some executives for greenlighting the project.
Stretching from the time the movie was released, throughout its entire performance in the theatre (it was STILL the fourth biggest movie in the studio's history), all the way till now. The movie made a respectable if not ground-breaking amount in the box office, but then its DVD release WAS groundbreaking. Then factor in merchandising (I own the soundtrack), and "Kong" has made and is still making a vast fortune for the studio. I doubt anyone's going to be fired over this.
By contrast, take Steven Spielberg's "Munich." That movie was a spectacular flop at the box office, but even more bad news is that all the other venues are disappointing as well. The film cost a lot of money to make, but it will take an estimated two years to even reach the amount of money it took to make. Now THAT is a gigantic flop, especially considering all the talent that was poured into it.
The original quote in post 45 is "and the box office says not that many people like Kong." Box office is theatrical.
When somebody greenlights spending $200 million on a movie and it only gets $200 million domestic gross that somebody gets fired. This is Hollywood, people get fired a lot, pick up their crap, head down the street, get another version of the same job, and probably get fired from that in 12 to 18 months. Hollywood is into rolling heads.
No, at $207 million for production and $32 million in advertising the movie did NOT make respectable box office. Respectable box office is profitable on domestic grosses alone. Had the movie cost under $100 million to make the $218 would have been respectable, with a $207 million budget the box office was best described by it's initials: BO. Sorry I garauntee somebody got fired opening weekend, once it opened at a pathetic (for the budget) $50 million it was obvious that the budget was too high for the real world revenue and that person got sh!t canned.
Munich was a flop, but it wasn't a spectacular flop. It only cost $70 million to make, can't really spectacularly flop with that small a budget. And of course it was one of Spielberg's "no really I'm a serious director" movies, those tend to not make much money, but they rev Spielberg up for another one of his license to print money movies. Check Spielberg's page http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=stevenspielberg.htm
Lots of loss leader "serious" movies followed by a tidy little blockbuster, and frequently the company running the cycle is Universal.
And of course the other big difference is that when Spielberg makes $200 million on a movie he doesn't spend $200 million to make it. Remember it's all relative to the budget, Saving Private Ryan got 2 million less domestically than Kong, but cost 1/3 as much to make. The difference between a $216 million dollar grossing hit, and a $218 million dollar grossing pink slip is $140 million in budget.
And yet the DVD sales indicate that many people DID like Kong. Although I think there is a "Home movie" box office as well as a theatrical one.
Now you're just starting to recycle the same ol' argument over and over again. You can't pinpoint exactly WHO was fired, and you offer a lot of speculation and theory more than anything else.
I think, above all, this may be an indication of a trend towards the future. People have been talking a lot about the box office, and a general decline in movie attendance (the ominous "Hollywood slump" of lore). This may or may not be true, but it is said that DVDs are a possible culprit. Why go see a movie in the theater now? You only have to wait a few months till the DVD comes out. And with that, you actually get a better and sound quality than a lot of theaters give (faults of management...dim picture, poor sound, not to mention old celluloid instead of digital printout). So why not just wait, and then rent it (or buy it)? Then you get the WHOLE movie...not just the film, but special features, deleted scenes, extended cuts, alternate endings, etc. etc.
In fact, I've even heard that in the not-too-distant future, movies are going to be released on DVD at the same time as the theatrical releases.
If this has any element of truth, "Kong" would illustrate a very good example. Of course, it's EXACTLY the type of movie you'd want to see on DVD, with its epic story and cool special effects. I remember seeing the movie in the theater and having some slight feelings of being underwhelmed...the sound quality was too low, and the picture looked a little dim. But my DVD experience with the film has been phenomenal.
The story of 633 Squadron only started with the dam mission. What it did later on was extraordinary!
But it's going to take years to make that money back, even after a theatrical AND DVD run. In its lifetime, it's made 47 million, and it cost 70 million. That's a big loss, because it has no interest to KEEP making money. It's no longer in theaters, and the DVD run has been going on for some time, so it is going to gradually trickle in the dollars over years of time. Even among serious "Oscar-contender" movies, that's pretty bad. It's much worse than most other dramas of its ilk.
Kong has more than made back the money it cost to make, and is continuing to reap in a fortune for Universal. You seem to want the movie makers to apologize for their gigantic budget, but hey...it's a humongous monster epic made by a guy who specializes in special effects-filled events. Why NOT have a 200 million budget, and make it as amazing as possible? That's the type of movie it is.
(I could be wrong, but I think "Superman Returns" would be a better example of what you're trying to illustrate. It had an even BIGGER budget than Kong, and didn't even break 200 million in the box office).
But apparently not enough to go see it in theaters. Or maybe everybody who saw it in theaters liked it enough to buy the DVD, DVDs cost a lot more than movie tickets so if you sell the same amount of both you'll make a lot more on the DVD. No there is no "home movie" box office, "box office" means theaterical because that's where there is a box office, DVD sales are part of the non-box office revenue stream, very important but not box office.
I'm recycling them because they're right and you're not presenting any counter argument. I can't pinpoint who was fired because it was some nameless dude, but I can garauntee that that somebody got fired. Whenever a movie doesn't break even with domestic box office somebody gets fired, that's how Hollywood works, full punishment for any failure. It's one of the reasons Hollywood has gotten so cookie cutter, everybody is afraid to take a chance because they know that a single failure results in instant termination.
Except of course the "Hollywood slump" is completely lore and lacks all support in the real data (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/ 2005 was bad but the overall trend is upwards and the numbers this year show it's probable things are back on the upward track, comfortably above 2005 and probably better than 2004). Yes movies do make the vast majority of their money from sources other than domestic box office, but domestic box office is still and will continue to be the yard by which a successful movie is measured.
A couple of movies already have been released on DVD at the same time they went theaterical. Arthouse type stuff that nobody really cared about. The big companies won't be going for it on the big budget movies as long as there's $9 billion to be made at the theaters during a "bad" year.
To me Kong is EXACTLY the type of movie you want to see in the theaters. It's a big larger than life pic that belongs on the big larger than life screen. Kind of like the Star Wars movies which I never even think about watching outside of the theaters but I go see in the theaters every time they come out, even if I know Lucas has tweaked it and made it worse.
No, you're missing the loss leader aspect. Munich itself will NEVER make back the money, but Munich will cause Spielberg to do another movie with Universal that will make $200 million easy and more than make up for the money lost on Munich. That's the kind of relationship Universal and Spielberg have, they bankroll his "serious" movies and usually lose money on them, in exchange he does many of his blockbusters with them. They let him do Always and he pays them back with Jurassic Park. It's a friendly arrangement.
But Kong didn't make back the money on domestic grosses, so by the standard definition used in Hollywood it was a failure. I don't want anybody to apologize for anything, except maybe you for refusing to get a simple point. The FACTS are that when a $200 million budget movie only makes $200 million in domestic grosses that movie is a failure, it always has been, and it always will be. What happens after that is immaterial, it FAILED at the box office, and the reason it failed is because they spent too much money making it. You don't spend $200 million making a movie that only makes $200 million back, that's stupid, the point isn't to make "amazing" movies (which frankly Kong wasn't) it's to make PROFITABLE movies, which Kong also wasn't. Jurassic Park was just as humongous a monster epic, and only cost $63 million to make, and turned around and pulled $357 million in domestic gross, if Kong had pulled either half of that it would have been a success, it did neither and therefore was a failure.
Superman Returns was doomed to be a failure from day one and everybody knew it. The problem with SR is that the official budget didn't even count all the writers, producers, directors and even a few stars who had been paid to work on that movie (or what eventually became that movie) over the past 10 years. Half a dozen different writers, including Kevin Smith who has a great story about it, were paid to write for that movie, just as many directors, almost as many producers and a few stars also have gotten checks. The real budget for Superman Returns (at least from what I read somewhere) was in excess of $400 million bucks, basically the reported $270 million (way too high) plus all the people that got paid to not make the movie. The actual release of the movie was basically a desperate prayer that it actually rebirths the franchise and maybe they can make back the money by the third or fourth movie. And yes many many people have been fired for the saga that lead to making Superman Returns, Warner Brothers really screwed the pooch on that one, more than once.
You don't spend $200 million making a movie that only makes $200 million back, that's stupid, the point isn't to make "amazing" movies (which frankly Kong wasn't) it's to make PROFITABLE movies, which Kong also wasn't.
THE MOVIE MADE BACK TONS MORE MONEY THAN IT COST TO MAKE!!!!! Even if it was 200 million to make, I don't care, they don't owe you an apology for making an expensive film. That's my final argument and nothing you say is going to change my mind. It was a SUCCESS. The domestic gross was only part of it. IT MADE FAR MORE THAN 200 MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!
SUCCESS, SUCCESS, SUCCESS, SUCCESS!!!!!!!
I know I'm getting shrill, but you are friggin frustrating to talk about this with. You keep saying the same thing over and over, and I have presented a flawless counter-argument, and then you just say the same thing. All you're saying is "the movie cost 200 million to make!!! Oh my friggin' God!! They should be ashamed, and it only made that much in the domestic gross!!"
But you're wrong. The film made a huge profit for Universal. It did, it did, it did. I'm tired of saying it. The DVD sales were huge. Universal made tons more than the movie cost to make. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE.
And despite what you say, I haven't lost the argument. You just won't present a good counter-argument to the DVD sales. You have failed to convince me that Universal lost money on this venture and it was a financial bust. You will never convince me because I'm right.
Case closed. Over. Nada. Zip. That's the end. It's over. People who continue it are morons with squirrell-brains. They have broccoli in their socks.
I'd rather staple waffles to my face and brand myself with an iron that says "I voted for Kerry" than apologize to you.
I don't give up because I'm right and you're wrong, and shouting BS doesn't make it true, it didn't make back tons more than it cost to make.
And repeating your shouts just makes you look childish and stupid, especially when they're false. Stomping your feet will not make Kong a success, it was a failure, it was a failure because they spent too much money making, and if the best argument you can come up with is yelling the same wrong word over and over again then you too are a failure.
I don't need to present a counter argument to the DVD sale, the DVD sale argument is a red herring, it is not related to the core discussion of if Kong was a success at the box office. It wasn't, and even if every man woman and child in the country bought the DVD that still wouldn't change the past and make it a success in the box office.
Gosh then you have to resort to insults. Insults tell the world you know you're wrong but aren't man enough to admit it. Which souldn't come as a suprise since your entire post was done in the spirit of a petulant 6 year-old that isn't allowed ice cream before dinner.
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.