Revenge of the Sith a flop?

[johnsemlak]

Interesting article. Any thoughts? I handn't realized RotS was doing badly.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/07/11/1120934177171.html?oneclick=true

What sank the Sith?
By David Dale
July 12, 2005

[Sydney Morning Herald]

It sounds like insanity to apply the term "flop" to a movie that makes $35 million at the box office, but that's a realistic reaction to Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith. In blockbuster land, it's a dwarf.

The distributors are wondering what went wrong. All the forces were aligned for Sith to sail past Titanic as the biggest moneymaker in our history - the resolution of a legendary saga, massively publicised, launched in a record 530 cinemas, with no serious competition for three weeks until Mr and Mrs Smith came along, and with school holidays to give the fans plenty of time for return visits.

And yet it has made less than any of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, less than two Harry Potters, less than Shrek 2 and - most embarrassing of all - less than its own truly terrible predecessor, The Phantom Menace.

Sith's opening was full of promise. In May, when this column asked readers to predict the final earnings, we got 145 responses, among which 130 readers gave convincing reasons why Sith was bound to make more than the $39 million of Phantom Menace (you can read their comments at http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tribalmind).
AdvertisementAdvertisement

This week Sith will drop out of the box office top ten, with just over $35 million total earnings. That will make it Australia's number 11 moneymaker of all time, just behind Babe and just ahead of Meet The Fockers. If you adjust earnings for inflation, Sith comes in as the number 41 best ticket seller of the past 50 years, just behind The Poseidon Adventure, that disaster movie from 1973 where they all walked around upside-down.

Sith's fate in the US is only marginally better -- the total take of $US 375 million makes it their No 8 all-time moneymaker, well behind Phantom Menace on $US 431 million.

What happened? Here are some theories

1. Parents reluctant to take children? Anikin slaughtering a bunch of "younglings" and then having his legs chopped off might have stopped a few thousand half-price ticket sales, but it hardly explains a shortfall of $15 million.

2. Audiences losing interest in science fiction? In support of this notion, Steven Spielberg's UFO series Taken attracted only 1.3 million viewers in the mainland capitals last Tuesday. But then again, War of the Worlds made $10 million in its first week, despite Tom Cruise being on the nose with most Australians.

3. Something else? Send your explanation for the sinking of the Sith to The Tribal Mind at ddale@fairfax.com.au

Our most-seen movies

1. The Sound of Music (1965)
2. Crocodile Dundee (1986)
3. Dr. Zhivago (1966)
4. Titanic (1997)
5. Star Wars (1977)
6. E.T. (1982)
7. Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
8. Babe: the Gallant Pig (1995)
9. Shrek 2 (2004)
10. The Return of the King (2003)
11. Jaws (1975)
12. The Sting (1974)
13. The Two Towers (2002)
14. SW1: The Phantom Menace (1999)
15. Harry Potter/ Stone (2001)
16. Man from Snowy River (1982)
17. Ryan's Daughter (1971)
18. Grease (1978)
19. Jurassic Park (1993)
20. Towering Inferno (1975)
21. Forrest Gump (1994)
22. Magnificent Men in Flying Machines (1965)
23. A Clockwork Orange (1972)
24. The Godfather (1972)
25. Harry Potter/ Secrets (2002)

(Ranked by inflation-adjusted earnings since 1965)

 

[RangerWickett]

I am unhappy that it made that much money. I am unhappy that people do not agree with me on how bad the movie was.

I am unhappy that "Hudson Hawk" did not make $432 million.

 

[wingsandsword]

It's a flop because it's only the 8th highest grossing film in US history?

It's hard to call a film a flop when it makes a huge profit, and was pretty widely loved by it's fan base and critics. The DVD sales will be huge too.

The IMDb reports its budget at around $115 million, which it made back its opening weekend. Now with around $360 million, and a roughly equivalent amount from non-US showings (according to the IMDb, it had $360 million in non-US showings a month ago). That's over $700 milliion in global take. It didn't overtake Titanic, and it isn't the biggest thing ever, but it certainly made Lucas even richer, and nobodys career or bank account is hurting.

Lucas knew up front this wasn't a movie for everybody. He even warned against taking small kids to it, and in a nationwide (I don't know about worldwide) overall box office slump as people prefer to watch movies at home on DVD and not pay huge ticket costs and the theater environment it did pretty dang good.

 

[Endur]

Phantom Menace was the flop, not Revenge of the Sith.

Phantom Menace hurt the Star Wars franchise so badly that both follow-on movies could not recover from the damage that was done.

Lots of people who would have gone to see all three saw Phantom Menace and didn't bother to go see the other two.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I call BS.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Revenge of the Sith a flop?

"Maybe, just maybe Revenge of the Sith is a flop. Yeah, and maybe I'm a Chinese fighter pilot."

 

[Banshee16]

Let's put things in perspective....

A flop? The movie's made $370M in North America, plus almost the same amount overseas.

That's huge money....especially considering that this year is like the worst year for ticket sales in 15 years or something, from what I've heard.

Out of the 3 prequels, I liked Sith the best personally. I actually find it on par with the original trilogy, when I remove nostalgic distortions of how good they actually were from the mix.

Banshee

 

[Pozatronic]

I can't believe "Crocodile Dundee" is only #2!

 

[trancejeremy]

I think that there was so much pent up excitement for Star Wars for the Phantom Menance, because it had been what, 20 years since the last movie. Much of that is gone.

Box Office Mojo has a chart comparing the 3 prequels, and how they did day by day

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=starwarsprequel.htm

ROTS did much better than TPM at first, but TPM seems to have had more legs. But ROTS will still probably end up at $400 million or so. (The guy in the article seems to have ignored that TPM was apparently in theaters for 24 weeks, while ROTS has only been in them for 8. While most the business is done, it should probably still draw in 20-30 million more). And of course, it's already done much better than Attack of the Clones, which made $300 million.


Still, maybe most of us were wrong, and Lucas was right about Jar Jar Binks. Maybe ROTS would have done better if Jar Jar had more screen time?

 

[John Crichton]

Bah. Boxoffice numbers are becoming less and less important. DVD, home theater and pay-per-view are becoming much more popular. The theater experience (not to mention the prices) isn't as comfy as it used to be for most people. And this is coming from someone who LOVES to go to the theater.

There are some films that I immediately label as "wait for it on DVD." Even though it might be good there is no reason to see it on the big screen. Unless theaters can start giving a much better experience than a typical home set up this trend is gonna continue.

And considering that the source is from an Australian site and focusing on the local impact it really doesn't mean all that much except to further the fact that the theater industry is and has been fading. Movies come out on DVD within a year of their release and some much sooner. Personally, I saw Phantom Menance so many times in the theater simply because I wanted to watch it enough times to have it stick in my memory. Who knew when we'd get a VHS release (DVD was still new)?

Now I have little problem missing movies, especially ones I'm on the fence about. Add to that - films very rarely stay in the theater for more than 6-8 weeks. So if you miss it, it's gone and you may as well just wait a bit longer for the DVD. Spend $4 on a rental and save some cash to catch it at home.

And comparing this release to Phantom Menace (aka - the most anticipated movie of All Time) is completely unfair. Even if it is still Star Wars. The quality didn't matter, people just wanted to see it.

So, again - bah.