LandBaron’s “what if” game: Pearl Harbor Opens Theatrically Dec. 7th 2001!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

I usually don’t play ‘what if’ games. I’ve been much too disappointed and let down by Disney, even in the good old days. But I have been pondering a sort of "what-if" kind of thing, and I thought I’d run it by you.

Everything in life is timing.

I saw a show on the history channel this evening. It was about Pearl Harbor. During the show there was a commercial for Disney’s Pearl Harbor coming out on DVD (on Dec 4th!! Not the 7th!! Go figure!!). Also on the show was a moment where one of the participants said something about the attack bringing the country together. He also stated that nothing like that moment in history had ever been experienced before or after (obviously filmed before September 11th). And that it had a profound effect on the country.

Putting those two items together I began to wonder just how different the box office might have been if the theatrical release of the film would have taken place now instead of when it did (early summer was it? The memory is the first to go!)

So, I thought I’d ask my rumor & news buddies: Do you think the movie would tank as badly (or at all!) if the release date would have been, say, December 7th 2001?

I think the results would have been very different. Especially with a slick (almost subtle) marketing campaign tying it to our current affair. What’d think?

I suppose we can blame Ei$ner for picking the wrong date!!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I suppose we can blame Ei$ner for picking the wrong date!!!!

ONLY KIDDING!!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

You are right scoop!!! Amend it to say:


Do you think the movie would have bombed as bad (or at all!)


Better?

 

[degenerationxwwfwdw1]

Well I for one don't believe that the movie bombed at all. Sure it didnt meet everyone elses expetations but one thing most people forget is the overseas sales. It was probebly the biggest hit of the year in the foreign market (if not the biggest pretty close). And the reviews would have been the same. Most movie critics wouldnt know good entertainment if it smacked them in the face. Im sure if it would make more money now but not as much as one might think. The long running time hurt box office more than anything. I also think people put too much trust into movie critics and let them decide which movie to see. Usually if a comedy comes out and gets horrible reviews that is a good thing because critics dont like true comedies but that is off the subject ;-) If it were about 30 min. shorter it would have made about 25 more million (I think). But I believe that there is nothing wrong with the movie as it is. I was extremely pleased with the finished product. Disney will be seeing the cash registers ring when the video and DVD comes out. No doubt about that

 

[Another Voice]

Sir Baron, have you been listening in on the hallway conversation in Burbank? That’s probably the second most asked question around the lot.

There was some talk about a special theatrical re-release that, fortunately, never went far. The best answer to your question will be the DVD sales and video rentals. Given the audience for ‘Pearl Harbor’, it’s home video sales should trend along the same lines as its box office sale. All of Hollywood will be watching the trend as well – everyone around here is trying to figure out the public’s tastes right. The spitting camels are getting ready to release some numbers (especially after Dreamworks trumpeted the sales for ‘Shrek’) so we should hear something next week.

I think the more interesting questions would be if the same movie would have been made now. There are several military-themed movies coming out in next few months and Hollywood has been busily reshooting scenes from all of the films to tweak the final product. Patriotism is not a natural emotion in Hollywood.

It’s also going to be interesting to see if the “war as a spectator event” aspect of ‘Pearl Harbor’ is going to be received by the general public. I wonder if the main attack sequence is going to seem either more potent or just plain offensive now that we’ve all witnessed real horror so personally. Explosions mean one thing when you know they’re just special effects; they’re something else when you know what they really represent.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

That’s probably the second most asked question around the lot.

OK. Sometimes I’m not the brightest bulb in the cutlery set (how’s that for a mixed metaphor, Scoop?!), and maybe I just missed an AV post (very unlikely). But if this is the second most asked question, what’s the first!?!?!

I think the more interesting questions would be if the same movie would have been made now.

I think the smart money would be to rework the script from a clone of Titanic and to the feel of a John Wayne WWII film. Just what I would have done if I were head mouse. But hell, what do I know. I would repair CoP too!!

 

[KMovies]

Since it had the biggest Memorial Day opening ever ... and then played into the summer, it was the best weekend of the year to go open. It would have had a huge opening for December, then played the Christmas season, but unless it had big Oscar potential, it would die off after Christmas. Bottom line - probably less money than the 198.5 million that it did earn.

 

[raidermatt]

When I originally heard that May was the release date, I wondered at the time if Thanksgiving would have been better. Had 9/11 not happened, I probably would consider it a toss-up. But it did happen, and "Behind Enemy Lines" is proving the public is not shying away from military movies. So I think the answer is, yes, hindsight being 20/20, a Thanksgiving release date would have pumped up the box office for Pearl Harbor.

I also don't think the movie can be considered a bomb. It is very close to $200 million domestically ($195 last I checked), and as degen pointed out, has been very successful overseas. Sure, Disney was hoping for something closer to $250 or $300 million domestically, but that aside, the movie cannot accurately be described as a bomb.

Another Voice- If the attack on Pearl Harbor were a fictional event, I think your questions about how the public would receive the attack sequence would be very valid. However, given that this attack was real, and was as devastating an event to the American people as the events of 9/11, I don't think it will be an issue. If anything, the parallels between the two events will make the public more receptive to the movie.

 

[MickeyMoose15]

Considering that it had a huge Memorial Day weekend (the second largest in history next to The Lost World) and probly would not have made as much as it did ($198 million domestically and $438 million world-wide).

 

[Bob O]

I think it would have made less money if released now as compared to when it was released. It wasnt a good war movie at all, and thats what it was marketed as. Now if the producers would have made a great movie like Saving Private Ryan or a excellant war movie like Enemy At the Gates or even the great tv produced show like Band of Brothers it would have done better. The attack scene was great but the rest was underwhelming and subpar. The casting of afleck and baldwin wasnt good at all . This movie will be forgotten and will just be another movie unlike Saving Private Ryan will IMHO stand the test of time and be considered a classic like Patton/Bridge over the River Kiwi etc. It made had alot of attendance due to all the hype from disney's many media outlets but didnt get the repeat business which makes a movie a overwhelming financial success.

 

[MickeyMoose15]

As great as Enemy at the Gates was, it only made $51 million total.

 

[Bob O]

Just because a movie doesnt make alot at the box office doesnt mean its not a excellant movie. The movie didnt have Pearl Harbors hype or namesake and movies about the german/russian aspect doesnt hold the same allure for american audiences. The battle scenes of the russian troops arriving at the front being mowed down by the germans was very well done and the movie had a true love scene unlike pearl harbor's! The budgetwas also nowhere near 150 million plus the probably equal amount spent on advertising.

 

[The Hunt]

Does anybody else think it might have gone over better if the title had been something other than "Pearl Harbor?" (Something focusing more on what the movie was actually about, like, I dunno, "Into Danger," or something.)

 

[HorizonsFan]

Patriotism is not a natural emotion in Hollywood.

I wonder when and why that happened...

 

[Bob O]

Patriotism doesnt come natural to hollywood due to their socialist bent and general dislike for the military which is shown where in alot of movies they proud people in the military are shown to be buffoons or drugged/drunk people. But now they will get on the bandwagon to make money.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Whoa!! Bob O!! And I thought I was a cynic!!

 

[JimB.]

Back to the original thought...................

IMHO, due to the "box office" being more "crowded" in the Holiday season, I'm not sure it would have done as well. People may be a bit too busy to sit down for a 3 hour movie this time of year. Besides, video sales have brought in $130 million in revenues since December 4th.

As of Dec 2, PH pulled in $198,539,855 (domestically) Which BTW, is more than JPIII, Planet of the Apes, Hannibal, American Pie 2, The fast & Furious, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, & A.I.. In fact, only 6 other films have pulled in more.

Its combined tally (foreign & domestic) tops $431 million, beating ``Shrek,'' with $425.8 million and ``The Mummy Returns,'' with $417.9 million

 

[YoHo]

People may be a bit too busy to sit down for a 3 hour movie this time of year.

Pssst! Don't tell Warner Brothers, but Harry Potter is 2.5 hours long. Ooo, ooo, Also, better avoid any New Line Execs. They might be mad at you if you remind them that Lord of the Rings comes in at around 3 hours (I can't find an official run time anywhere)

So, I wouldn't proclaim the assertion that 3 hour movies won't do well during christmas too loudly.

 

[Bob O]

DVC sorry to say but im very cynical!!

 

[raidermatt]

I guess I'm one of the few who like Enemy at the Gates, Saving Private Ryan, AND Pearl Harbor. I also like Tora! Tora! Tora!, and Midway.

I also did not have a problem with the love story set around the movie. By contrast, I thought the love story in Titanic was less interesting, but again, I realize I'm in the minority.

I thought Pearl Harbor was visually striking throughout, and I found the music very moving. While I can understand saying Enemy was a "better" movie in many respects, I enjoyed Pearl much more. Certainly there are some things I would have done differently, but that's because I have great interest in the events and circumstances leading up to the attack, as well as the attack itself. This was really the only piece that left me wanting more, but I'm still a big fan of the movie.

I suppose if I could make any changes I wanted, I would add some of the detail from Tora!, and some of the realistic human devastation from Enemy and Saving. Its not that I like to watch violence, but when it comes to real events, I think its important we see what really happened.