So was 'Red Dragon' a 'bomb'?
 

Just curious. It seemed like "Red Dragon" was hyped to hell and back and yet it's made just under $90 million in its first month and is about to slip out of the top 10. Compared to $120+ million for "Silence" and $160 for "Hannibal," does that make this a 'flop'? Or an 'underperformer'? With a pretty big name cast (albeit a hack of a director) it's curious this hasn't done as well as it could've. Thoughts?

$90well rector) it's curious this hasn't done as well as it could've. Thoughts?seemed like "Red Dragon" was hyped to hell and back and yet it's made just under $9Red Dragon" was hyped to hell and back and yet it's made just under $90 million in its first month and is about to slip out of the toIt seemed like "Red Dragon" was hyped to hell and back and yet it's made just under $90 million in its first month and is about to slip out of the seemed like "Red Dragon" was hyped to hell and back and yet it's made just under $90 million in its first month and is about to slip out of the top 10. Compared to top 10. Compared p 10. Co Dragon" was hyped to hell and back and yet it's made just under $90 million in its first month and is about to slip out of the top 10. Compared to $120+ million for "Silence" and $160 for "Hannibal," does that make this a 'flop'? Or an 'underperformer'? With a pretty big name cast (albeit a hack of a director) it's curious this hasn't done as well as it could've. Thoughts?

mpared to $120+ million for "Silence" and $160 for "Hannibal," does that make this a 'flop'? Or an 'underperformer'? With a pretty big name cast (albeit a hack of a director) it's curious 0 million in its first month and is about to slip out of the top 10. Compared to $120+ million for "Silence" and $160 for "Hannibal," does that make this a 'flop'? Or an 'underperformer'? With a pretty big name cast (albeit a hack of a director) it's curious this

Why does if a film makes or doesnt make money its a success or a failure, I judge films on if I liked it not if it made $x at the Box Office

I don't think anyone's saying that the movie sucked or rocked based on box office returns (at least not in this thread). The "success" we're talking about here is strictly in terms of box office performance.

To answer the question, no I don't think Red Dragon was a box office bomb at all. It didn't do as well as the other two, but I didn't really think it would.

This is, quite possibly, the oddest response I've ever read here.

Hey Pixyboi, how dare you turn Waitakares words back against him/her! ;)

I think I speak for all of is when I say... wtf?

I have no idea what anyone in this thread is trying to communicate. I voted that it wasn't a flop but not spectacular.

:whofart: :hscratch:

WARNING THIS MOVIE CONTAINS:

NO REAL CONTENT!!!
JUST HYPES!!!

I enjoyed "Red Dragon" a great deal. As did everyone I know that saw it. I even go as far to say I think it's one of the best movies I've seen this year. And is 1000 times better than "Hannibal". It's unfortunate the movie won't crack 100 million. I think "Dragon" suffered from coming out too soon after "Hannibal". So many people hated that film so much, I suspect they stayed away from "Red Dragon" as a result. But I do think "Dragon" will find an audience on video/DVD. So, do I think it's a bomb at 90 million? No. Maybe an underachiever.

Wow. I truly hope that didn't take you a long time to do.
Otherwise, you will be receiving the dork award...for dork excellence.

:)

What was the budget? If the budget was $200 million then yes, it was a bomb. If the budget was $20 million, then it was a hit.

BTW,

I believe that this "wasn't as good as the others" because it was hyped as a 'Hannibal film'...when it is not.

And those expecting a 'Hannibal film' went and were probably disappointed, told their friends who were going to see it because they thought it was a 'Hannibal film' that it hardly had Hannibal in it....and it didn't make as much money.

A flop? No.

No, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I don't know. It was directed by my favorite director, Brett Ratner.

Don't know... haven't seen it.

Prob just catch the dvd.

-k
###

imdb.com says the movie's budget was $90 million. So it broke even domestically. Some may consider that a failure when you have the likes of Anthony Hopkins, Ed Norton and Ralph Fiennes.

But to also put it in perspective, its predecessor "Manhunter" had a budget of $15 million and grossed only $8 million.

Other interesting factoids:

Anthony Hopkins last movie, "Bad Company," grossed about $30 million total.

Ed Norton's last major movie, "Death To Smoochy," grossed about $8 million.

Ralph Fiennes last major movie, "The End of the Affair," grossed about $10 million.

So, maybe this bunch of actors ISN'T a good box office draw on their own anyway.

Still, I enjoyed "Red Dragon" very much and look forward to seeing it on DVD.

Hi everyone! How was your summer? One thing I love to do is talk about movies! Two movies on my must-see list is Swimfan and Red Dragon. Anyone see these?

Since Red Dragon has only made 90 million, I'm going to go see it this weekend to help support it financially. I just downloaded the trailer and it looks awesome!

(Disclaimer: The following was NOT a paid promotion of either Swimfan or Red Dragon. -wink-)

Not really a flop. More like a slight disappointment IMO.

I think it was a VAST improvement to "hannibal". It quite caught the mood of SOTL again, without being as thrilling as SOTL.

overall, i enjoyed it. good actors, good plot (WAY better than hannibal, IMO) plus a nice tattoo.

What.. the.. hell?

I HAD replied with something like this:

Red Dragon wasn't a bomb, nor was it a smash hit. But it was a good movie and did good enough buisness to probably allow them to do one more, final chapter to this character.

Now.. what came out.. :eek:

Maybe I got HAXORED. :o

Was never a priority to see because it didnt need to be remade in my opinion.
Rainers negative comments about the original didnt get me to want to go see it either.

That pretty much sums it up!

But after you take in the fact that it will probably make atleast 100 million overseas and DVD/video then overall it should make money.

It's not a bomb, but the box office did seem to go from awesome hit to disappointment in about 2 seconds.

Remember, kids, psychedelic drugs and DVD Talk don't go together! ;)

I read that the movie cost about $60 million. How it could reach $90 million is beyond me.

Just how much money does an average studio film cost and why exactly? I realize some stars have large salaries, but aside from that, I fail to see every cent on the screen.

Regardless.. I did think it was quite a good movie. My favoriet parts were not of Hannibal, but of The Tooth Fairy.. he was simply one of the best antagonist characters ever. His interaction with the blind woman, and ESPICALLY when he was talking to his painting.. wow. Really pushed this movie over the top for me. Hannibal just felt like a bonus being there..

:cool:

Chances are that there was $30 million in marketing (isn't that rediculous)

I also wanted to chime in and say, I loved Hanibal. I liked it more than Red Dragon, and I don't understand why most people didn't enjoy Hanibal. It was great.

I agree.. I had not seen it until recently, and regret holding off. Actually I was stuck in a bad situation in Canada when it came out in the theater so I could not go see it. But the DVD just passed me. One of my girlfriends let me borrow it and I was stunned by it. To me it felt like a really dark fairy tale. I don't know how to describe that.. but yeah.. I liked it. I liked that they didn't just do another "Let's get together and solve a crime" movie. I'll be buying the book soon.

I enjoyed "Hannibal" too. But I can see why some people didn't like it. The people I talked to that didn't said it was too graphic for them. And others said it teetered on parody. I can kind of see the latter. It was definitely too gruesome for Foster and Demme to return.

Hannibal was done in a style totally different from both SOTL and Red Dragon. That rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

That's why it rubbed me the right way. :D

Has it been hyped to hell? The poll showed there is a big percentage of people who still haven't heard of this movie.

If you include all the money it would make from oversea and DVD sales, it is hardly a bomb at all. The profit margin may be smaller than the previous two movies. But the studio executives are still laughing to the bank. :consume:

Artistically, both Hannibal and Red Dragon are, in my estimation, absolute bombs. Manhunter and Silence, on the other hand, are both minor classics. Specifically regarding Red Dragon, try reconciling this one:

Manhunter - Michael Mann;
SOTL - Jonathan Demme;
Hannibal - Ridley Scott (in full hired gun / hack mode, but still);
Red Dragon - Brett Ratner (?!?).

I know the Ratner thing is old news, but man, I still can't believe that happened. Plus, he managed to finally get a thoroughly medicore performance out of Edward Norton, which to this point I thought was actually impossible.

Well I did a search and I guess this is the best thread for posting my feelings about Red Dragon.

I loved it, It was definitely the best in the trilogy......easily.

Ralph fiennes was amazing and as I said once before, this is one of the best casts ever put together, just an amazing job.

I'll prob. get bashed to no end for saying this but after watching Red Dragon, I went back to Silence and was actually disappointed (very disappointed). I thought the acting wasn't all that great and the atmosphere didn't really jolt me either (take Red Dragon though, when Edward Norton was walking around inside the house investigating the crime scene, that freaked me out, it felt like someone was in there with him the whole time).

The girl in the pit in Silence was horrible as well and I thought they should have made her look completely shocked and terrified to the point where she would be much more passive - IMO it took away a lot of the fear that was put into Bill's character.

I'm not saying Silence is the worst movie ever, but after watching Red Dragon, I couldn't help but go back and compare.

I also loved how they kept building on the tooth fariy's madness, you keep getting sucked in further and further into how crazy this guy is and then they throw a huge twist at you. Great movie.

Thanks . . . I just voted in a 2 year old poll and didn't realize it. I guess I'll just go ahead and put the lotion on its skin.
<P>For the record, I thought that Red Dragon was pretty good. Although Ed Norton did a good job, I still don't buy him as Graham (but then I've read the book many times).

:lol:

I know, I did the search though to avoid the dreaded "you should look at this (insert link here)" I don't mind when people do it or anything, it just sucks when it does happen because usually nobody else will reply in the new thread, it's all cool though.

:thumbsup:

A quick search on www.boxofficemojo.com reveals that the budget for the film was 78 million dollars, down from the 87 million for Hannibal, and that it returned 210 million dollars worldwide. When you factor in strong dvd sales, nice profits from rental and the selling of tv rights, I fail to see how Red Dragon could be considered anything but a big hit.