DVD Talk
"Van Helsing" -- is it a bomb? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : "Van Helsing" -- is it a bomb?


The Antipodean
05-30-04, 05:36 PM
So I saw this line in a news article about this weekend box office haul --

..Universal's sixth-ranked "Van Helsing," which earned $4.9 million, a drop of 54 percent. Its 24-day total rose to $108.8 million. Even Universal's summer 2003 bomb, "The Hulk," had made more after four weekends.

I haven't seen it yet and after caustic reviews and an idiotic trailer will wait 'til movie. But it's clearly a movie that didn't meet expectations, and unlikely to make more than $120-130 million at this point. Consider it made 50% of its money in three days for its opening weekend.

Thoughts? Bomb, hit or underperformer?

RyoHazuki
05-30-04, 05:51 PM
(awaiting Groucho joke)

fumanstan
05-30-04, 05:52 PM
Underperformer. Same with Hulk, which i also wouldn't consider a bomb.

TheMadMonk
05-30-04, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Sierra Disc

I haven't seen it yet and after caustic reviews and an idiotic trailer will wait 'til movie.

You will wait until movie? What does that mean?

FiveO
05-30-04, 06:05 PM
I'll let you know when I see it...rental after it comes out on DVD.

Looks like an underperformer as of now.

Mondo Kane
05-30-04, 06:25 PM
Underperformer.
But a bomb for the supposed franchise that would have continued on television.

atari2600
05-30-04, 06:58 PM
this movie was so much better than the hulk....

dyerjp
05-30-04, 07:04 PM
i wouldn't consider it a bomb, maybe an underachiever in north america, but if you include the money that it has brought in from the overseas markets, universal will still make a nice profit off of this.

Jackskeleton
05-30-04, 08:58 PM
Not a bomb, but also not a success. Universal will make it's money back on home video sales and licensing as well as overseas. Now a days it's very hard for a film to bomb considering dvd sales.

Kal-El
05-30-04, 09:16 PM
It's a movie.

Sessa17
05-30-04, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by fumanstan
Underperformer. Same with Hulk, which i also wouldn't consider a bomb.

What he said. VH was not a "BOMB" in the sense that it will probably not lose money, however it is a "bomb" in the sense that this is a movie that before it was even released had MAJOR amusement park rides & themes based on it, had a TV series & possible animated TV series in development, & already had possible 2 more sequels in the work, all of which are really now not warrented based on the underwhelming B.O. take.

jaeufraser
05-31-04, 02:39 AM
It's no bomb, just a under performer. While Universal is probably disapointed as they were hoping for a huge franchise, it's not like a Cutthroat Island or Alamo where it is just a complete financial disaster. At least it will gross more than it cost worldwide.

Original Desmond
05-31-04, 03:07 AM
underperformer

but i liked it so that's all that counts really

PalmerJoss
05-31-04, 09:01 AM
I'd say it's a disappointment, but not a total loss. After the film gets released on dvd it'll probably make a whole lot more money.

Shannon Nutt
05-31-04, 10:53 AM
Well, let's put it this way - it will make it's money back, and probably turn a slight profit - but there's not going to be a sequel. In fact, NBC has dropped plans to carry the TV show that was to be filmed on the same locales in Prague. Assumingly, Universal is shopping the show around to other networks now.

Jericho
05-31-04, 11:17 AM
I don't really think the box office killed the potential TV show, but it didn't help anything either. The TV show looked like a longshot before the movie came out. A huge box office might have saved it, but it didn't kill it.

The movie has done okay. I mean getting $130 million or so isn't that bad. It's just not great. The studios obviously put out a ton of movies hoping for huge box offices, and inevitably some of the movies won't be $200 million plus winners. there's a finitie amount of money people have, and it seems to be going towards Shrek, Day after Tommorrow, and likely Spiderman 2 and Harry Potter 3 among others.

I'd agree with the consensus and say it was no bomb, but was likely a disappointment to Universal.

fryinpan1
05-31-04, 11:43 AM
Production Budget: $160 million
Est. Marketing Costs: $50 million

Total as of May. 30, 2004: $109,012,000 (Estimate)
+ Overseas Gross: $120,213,559

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=vanhelsing.htm

Matthew Chmiel
05-31-04, 01:19 PM
If we're just taking the US theatrical release into effect, it's a bomb. A film with a $200 million (total) budget only making $115 million during it's theatrical run? Yes, bomb.

Everything else (overseas total, DVD sales, cable airings, etc), then it's an underpreformer.

The film has already made it's budget back due to the addition of how much the film has made overseas. There's also the future DVD release coming up in four-five months that I'm sure will make Universal another $100 million. But whatever chance Universal was hoping for with a Van Helsing franchise is now dead in the water. Unless they want to pull a Columbia (with Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle), they shouldn't touch Van Helsing at all.

What I'm awaiting for is the release of Universal's The Chronicles of Riddick. Will it be this year's Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle or will it be this year's Matrix Reloaded? As of now, I'm predicting the former.

KingTutankhamen
06-02-04, 12:16 AM
I finally saw this movie over the weekend, and I LOVED it. And I'm pretty damn picky when it comes to critiquing movies. By way of comparison, I also saw TROY over the weekend, and that was a pretty solid DUD. VAN HELSING completely swept me up -- a classic 2-hour cinematic escape -- yet I caught myself halfway through thinking, "I'm buying this one the day it comes out on DVD." I'd highly recommend seeing this one on the big screen before it goes away. Stephen Sommers has proven that while he's not a deep filmmaker, he's a master of the "popcorn movie," a title that cheeseball Roland Emmerich, for instance, can't claim.

dcprules
06-02-04, 04:36 AM
I'd say no. It'll make $125 million and a couple hundred overseas, and then you factor in DVD, TV airings, and all of the merchandising for this film and it made quite a nice profit.

As for the film, it was entertaining but not exactly deep or emotional. It was entertaining escapist entertainment, but nothing more.

Giles
06-02-04, 09:08 AM
as a comedy the film works, so does the constant barrage of special effects that overshadows every other aspect of the film.

steebo777
06-02-04, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by atari2600
this movie was so much better than the hulk....
:jawdrop: I really hope you are kidding. The Hulk was better in it's first one minute on screen than Van Helsing's entire running length.

scott shelton
06-02-04, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Matthew Chmiel
Unless they want to pull a Columbia (with Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle), they shouldn't touch Van Helsing at all.

What I'm awaiting for is the release of Universal's The Chronicles of Riddick. Will it be this year's Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle or will it be this year's Matrix Reloaded? As of now, I'm predicting the former.

I'm not following your line of logic here...

THROTTLE didn't ring the bells that Sony wanted, but it made a good chunk of cash when the dust settled recently. And it was a sequel to an original film that did very well.

A HELSING sequel would far more risky than THROTTLE was for Sony.

As for RIDDICK, are you saying that it will either be a minor underperformer or a huge hit that many people were disappointed by?

Or will be a rip-roaring, end of the line bombity-bomb-bomb like THE ALAMO?

squi23
06-02-04, 01:40 PM
BOMB.

I spent too much time laughing or rolling my eyes during this movie.

Nowhere close to Hullk IMO.

Also, I couldn't get past how silly Jackman looked with the long hair.

JasonF
06-02-04, 01:50 PM
Production budget: $160 million
Advertising budget: $50 million
U.S. revenues: $110 million
Foreign revenues: $130 million

It's made Universal a $30 million/15% profit to date, which is good but not great. I'd call it an underperformer.

jaeufraser
06-02-04, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by JasonF
Production budget: $160 million
Advertising budget: $50 million
U.S. revenues: $110 million
Foreign revenues: $130 million

It's made Universal a $30 million/15% profit to date, which is good but not great. I'd call it an underperformer.

It is important to not that with 240 million in box office revenue, Universal will probably see at most 60% of that money. So at this point in time, they're still definately in the red. In the long run though, this movie will even out, but it definately is an underperformer.

JasonF
06-02-04, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
It is important to not that with 240 million in box office revenue, Universal will probably see at most 60% of that money. So at this point in time, they're still definately in the red. In the long run though, this movie will even out, but it definately is an underperformer.

60%? I thought the theaters were being all but cut out of the picture these days and the bulk of the money went to the studios? What am I missing?

jaeufraser
06-02-04, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by JasonF
60%? I thought the theaters were being all but cut out of the picture these days and the bulk of the money went to the studios? What am I missing?

Well, no not really. Theaters still get their cut, but the numbers vary. And the amount the theaters make just doesn't hold up for their business needs, that's the problem. Percentages vary, and are usually much higher for opening weeked (up to 80% or so) in favor of the studios. But in the long run, the break down is still around 50% I believe, though I imagine it might be pushing a little higher. But no, studios dont' get the whole revenue.