![]() The other issue for Walt Disney’s Dumbo, aside from mixed-negative reviews, was a general lack of excitement around the picture. ![]() The period piece production and circus sets aren’t cheap, but this is another movie that, like Burton’s Dark Shadows (which cost $150 million in 2012) or the $155 million-budgeted Blade Runner 2049, will likely register not as a “nobody wanted to see this” flop, but as a “disappointment in relation to cost.” Like Pete’s Dragon (which cost $65 million), Dumbo is a human-scale character drama that just happens to have a single CGI supporting character at the center of its story. All due respect to a film that looks perfectly lovely and appropriately “big,” this is another case of a major studio overspending and creating a miss (or the perception of failure) from what might have been a perfectly okay performance had costs been more reasonable. Whether or not Dumbo legs out or catches fire overseas, the movie’s reception highlights Walt Disney’s current catch 22.įirst, don’t spend Beauty and the Beast money on Dumbo. ![]() And, yes, that would be another disappointment for Disney’s sub-genre of “let’s remake or sequelize a Disney classic” sub-genre, especially as the Tim Burton fantasy cost a whopping $170 million (just over/under Beauty and the Beast and The Jungle Book and 79% more than Cinderella) to produce. ![]() That would be virtually tied with Mary Poppins Returns, which earned $348.8 million worldwide from a $171 million domestic total. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |