Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Movies that might have fared better with a different release time

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Movies that might have fared better with a different release time

Old 06-06-05, 09:02 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 22,063
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Movies that might have fared better with a different release time

Let me say that this is not a thread about how a movie's quality should or shouldn't be determined by how much money it makes. Rather, it is about movies that did okay nor not as much as hoped at the B.O. and most likely would have benefitted from being released at a different time of year than it was, as audiences tend to have tastes for certain kinds of movies at certain times of year.

My picks:

The Score- not a great movie, but it was more of a fall release that didn't seem to have any business being out in the summer.

The Interpreter-again, this had a fall feel to it, not late Spring

The Terminal-why they put this out in the summer I will never know, it seemed to have Christmas/ Holiday film written all over it.

Cinderella Man-I know, it's a little early to call and word of mouth might help it, but this should have shot for a Fall release as well

Before people start pulling out the whole "A good movie will do well regardless argument," I must disagree. It will work sometimes, but I honestly think it depends on what audiences are in the mood for at a certain time.
Old 06-06-05, 09:17 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Drexl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 16,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't remember when it was released in theaters (later in the summer I think), but I found it odd that they didn't release Wimbledon at the same time as the actual Wimbledon tournament.

Moulin Rouge is another one that probably would have done better in the fall.
Old 06-06-05, 10:13 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Michael Corvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 58,108
Received 17 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
The Terminal-why they put this out in the summer I will never know, it seemed to have Christmas/ Holiday film written all over it.

That is the only one that comes to mind for me. I think it would have done significantly better around the holidays.
Old 06-06-05, 11:13 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Papillion, NE!
Posts: 2,342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Thing (1982) was in direct competition with E.T. Guess who won?
Old 06-06-05, 11:23 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pa
Posts: 11,856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How about most of the Halloween films and "other Horror" movies coming out in July? This seems to happen every year.
Old 06-06-05, 12:09 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth ....
Posts: 4,701
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
they released reindeer games in Feb. instead of Nov-Dec. Wasn't a great flick but it wouldn't have done better with a XMas release.
Old 06-06-05, 12:22 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell
Posts: 30,634
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by chowderhead
they released reindeer games in Feb. instead of Nov-Dec. Wasn't a great flick but it wouldn't have done better with a XMas release.
Would you say the same of Die Hard 1 & 2?
Old 06-06-05, 12:40 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wyatt Earp, not a bad movie (I liked it), but it was around the time as Tombstone.
Old 06-06-05, 12:49 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Camp LeJeune, NC
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rob Roy (Neeson, Lange) was a superb movie, but was released, IIRC, immediately after Braveheart. Never stood a respectable chance, regardless of how good it was.
Old 06-06-05, 01:47 PM
  #10  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Boy, the potential list for this question is huge!

So many flicks to choose from...
Old 06-06-05, 01:50 PM
  #11  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdilia
Wyatt Earp, not a bad movie (I liked it), but it was around the time as Tombstone.
I love WYATT EARP dearly. I just adore the picture...

But it's always compared to TOMBSTONE, and it drives me crazy. I wish EARP had come out earlier.
Old 06-06-05, 02:29 PM
  #12  
Moderator
 
Geofferson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Village Green
Posts: 39,217
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The Thin Red Line was released around the same time as SPR and got clobbered at the box office. Also, I think Road to Perdition would have done better had it been released in the fall or winter.
Old 06-06-05, 02:30 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DthRdrX
How about most of the Halloween films and "other Horror" movies coming out in July? This seems to happen every year.

It's better to have a DVD of a horror film for Halloween instead of releasing the film in October and selling the dvd in feb.
Old 06-06-05, 03:13 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think Titanic was originally slated to be released in the summer of 1997 but due to delays and over budgets it was released during the holiday season. I believe the new release date played a huge factor on the success of the film.
Old 06-06-05, 03:23 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Goat3001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,028
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Even though the movie made a very respectable amount of money, the first X-Men might have made more had it been released after Spider-Man. I think when X-Men was released some thought it would be just another lame comic book movie like Batman and Robin. After Spider-Man people changed their tune on comic book movies and a solid movie like X-Men might have done better.
Old 06-06-05, 03:25 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pa
Posts: 11,856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[QUOTE=Jackskeleton]It's better to have a DVD of a horror film for Halloween instead of releasing the film in October and selling the dvd in feb.[/QUOTE

That makes sense but they don't release many Christmas movies in the summer ....

Nevertheless, I miss the good old days when studios weren't afraid to promote horror movies around Halloween.
Old 06-06-05, 03:38 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Matthew Chmiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 13,263
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Goat3001
Even though the movie made a very respectable amount of money, the first X-Men might have made more had it been released after Spider-Man. I think when X-Men was released some thought it would be just another lame comic book movie like Batman and Robin. After Spider-Man people changed their tune on comic book movies and a solid movie like X-Men might have done better.
So FOX should've delayed X-Men over two years for the hope that a comic book film with really no bankable stars and a director the general public has no idea about would do over $400 million? Nobody knew that Spider-man was going to make a killing at the box office and beat Episode 2. Most people initially compared it to The Mummy, a blockbuster with legs due to the sold out showings of a Star Wars film that pushed people to other movies. Instead (and the fact it was released soon after 9-11), Spider-man happened to become one of the biggest films of all time with just cause.

However, X-Men did pretty well theatrically.

X-Men (7-14-2000)
Budget: $75 million
Domestic Gross: $160 million
Overseas Gross: $139 million

That's nothing to sneeze at. Especially since that film also had no bankable stars. The only thing getting people into the theater that it was a film based off of a respectable comic franchise.
Old 06-06-05, 03:44 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Leandro/San Francisco
Posts: 7,422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Innerspace? But that could have something to do with Marketing as well.

Shawshank Redemption?
Old 06-06-05, 04:04 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Goat3001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,028
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel
So FOX should've delayed X-Men over two years for the hope that a comic book film with really no bankable stars and a director the general public has no idea about would do over $400 million? Nobody knew that Spider-man was going to make a killing at the box office and beat Episode 2. Most people initially compared it to The Mummy, a blockbuster with legs due to the sold out showings of a Star Wars film that pushed people to other movies. Instead (and the fact it was released soon after 9-11), Spider-man happened to become one of the biggest films of all time with just cause.

However, X-Men did pretty well theatrically.

X-Men (7-14-2000)
Budget: $75 million
Domestic Gross: $160 million
Overseas Gross: $139 million

That's nothing to sneeze at. Especially since that film also had no bankable stars. The only thing getting people into the theater that it was a film based off of a respectable comic franchise.
I never said that Fox should've pushed back the release date. I said that had the movie been released after Spider-Man it probably would have made more money. I think you're looking too much into what I said. Obviously no one at Fox knew how good Spider-Man would have done but after Spider-Man, comic book movies had become the craze, and X-Men would have benefited from the craze, X2 did. And no, the $160 it made domestically is nothing to sneeze at but it could have made more and more money is always better.
Old 06-06-05, 04:13 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Matthew Chmiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 13,263
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Goat3001
I never said that Fox should've pushed back the release date. I said that had the movie been released after Spider-Man it probably would have made more money. I think you're looking too much into what I said. Obviously no one at Fox knew how good Spider-Man would have done but after Spider-Man, comic book movies had become the craze, and X-Men would have benefited from the craze, X2 did. And no, the $160 it made domestically is nothing to sneeze at but it could have made more and more money is always better.
How are you sure X-Men would've benefited from the Spider-man craze? Any of these films ring a bell?

Hulk?
Constantine?
Blade: Trinity?
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?
Catwoman?
The Punisher?
Elektra?
Old 06-06-05, 04:16 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: So Cal
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually, the reason why Spider-man was even made was because of the success of the X-men movie. People were really surprised that it was a hit. No one was going to doubt how good Spider-man was going to be though.
Old 06-06-05, 04:31 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Goat3001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,028
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel
How are you sure X-Men would've benefited from the Spider-man craze? Any of these films ring a bell?

Hulk?
Constantine?
Blade: Trinity?
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?
Catwoman?
The Punisher?
Elektra?
You make a point but my assumption was based pretty much only on how well X2 did. I think that had X-Men been released when X2 was X-Men would have made more money, possibly the same that X2 made. They are essentially the same movie released at different times. The both recieved good reviews from critics. They (obviously) had the same cast and they (obviously) had the same fanbase.

Superboy, you may be right, I never heard that before. If you are right then X-men was released at the right time.
Old 06-06-05, 06:41 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Crocker Jarmen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,827
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
I think it was March or April when House of 1000 Corpses came out. I seems like an obvious movie to have out for Halloween.

Here's something I wondered about that's sort of related. I wonder what the reaction to David Cronenberg's Crash would have been if it had been released a year later, which would have been around the same time as the Princess Di car crash.
Old 06-06-05, 09:05 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 22,063
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Blade:Trinity-why on earth did they think putting this out at Christmas would be a good thing? They should have done like they did with Blade II and put it out around Spring Break time for the colleges.

Predator 2- the day before Thanksgiving of 1990? WTF?
Old 06-06-05, 11:06 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Weird New Jersey
Posts: 8,493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I always thought Wayne's World 2 was rushed. It was released in December and bombed. A spring/summer release would have made a world of difference.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.