Discuss: Was 'Prince Caspian's' Release Date a Mistake?
Filed under: Action, Disney, Box Office, Family Films
One thing you can count on in Hollywood is that when a film under-performs at the box office, the studio will have a bevy of explanations for it -- and it's never just that the movie is no good. (Wouldn't that be great, though? "Yes, our tentpole summer release tanked. Our best explanation for this is that it was just a huge pile of crap.") This week, according The Hollywood Reporter, Disney head honcho Rober Iger claimed the reason The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian hasn't done very well is that its May 16 release date was too competitive. I find humor in that excuse for two reasons. One, Disney moved the film to that date on purpose, away from its originally planned date of December 2007. The fact that Walden Media, which co-produced Prince Caspian, also had a Christmas movie, The Water Horse, may have been a factor in the move, with Disney not wanting to cannibalize its own audience. But the Narnia series, with its PG rating (though undeserved) and overt Christian allegories and occasional cameos by medieval-weapon-distributing Santa Clauses, is a much better fit for December than May. Any fool can see that.
The second reason the excuse is amusing is that it's not like the competitiveness of May 16 was a huge surprise. It's not like they moved the film to May 16 at a time when there were no other major titles announced for around the same time. It's MAY, dummies. That's when big movies come out. Disney knew that Iron Man would come out on May 2 and Speed Racer on May 9, and they moved Prince Caspian to May 16 anyway.
Which brings us to another point: Speed Racer flopped. So when Iger says that May 16 was too competitive, what he really means is, Iron Man was too much competition.
So what do you think? Was the marketplace too competitive for Prince Caspian? Or are there other reasons for the film's disappointing box office?
_thumbnail.jpg)
Michael Bay Trashes Megan Fox, Talks 'Transformers 3' and 3D_thumbnail.jpg)
First Look: Stewart, Fanning and More Are 'The Runaways'
Actor Needed to Crush Hearts of Innocent Little Kids
500 Days of ... Jenny Beckman?
Karl Malden Dies at 97
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-29-2008 @ 9:35PM
Ryan S. said...
I do think that had Caspian been released in December or even in June, it would have performed better. Since they went more the action direction, they brough themselves more into direct competition with Indy and Iron Man.
Reply
5-29-2008 @ 10:11PM
Owen said...
I genuinely think that it was the way that they cannibalized the story and made it absurd. In order to, what, complicate Peter they made him an ass. In order to action up the movie they made everyone make nonsensical decisions. The scene where Peter and Susan share a look conversation that takes place over a mile of battlefield and come to conclusions, it was absurd. What a stupid and poorly done movie. I think that might have been the issue with it under performing.
Reply
5-29-2008 @ 10:18PM
Ryan Beesley said...
In what seems to be a busy start to the summer, I've only seen Ironman so far, and I've seen that twice since a week after my first viewing (and two weeks after it came out), my coworkers decided to make it a business meeting. Putting Caspian on that weekend was not a receipt for failure, but it has to be a strong movie to think it will be top dog in a "depressed" economy. Box office sales are down this year over last, and there's more films to try and fight over those entertainment dollars.
GTA IV hasn't helped either as I've spent far more time and money than I have on the theater... then again, I still have Halo 3 and The Orange Box to complete.
Yeah, Caspian should have been in December!
Reply
5-29-2008 @ 10:20PM
Ryan Beesley said...
You'd have to see it to know that.
Reply
5-30-2008 @ 12:03AM
AJ said...
It's a christmas movie released in May of course it wasn't going to do well! It had nothing to do with the change in the plot or peter because no one knew that till they saw the damn thing!
Reply
5-30-2008 @ 1:18AM
lola said...
I think the release date did have something to do with it. It's May, we're right around the corner from summer, and I'm not really in the mood to see a movie that - to me - feels like a holiday film. It's the same reason I prefer my Harry Potter movies in November, and why The Hobbit will hopefully come out in November or December, too. They feel like they belong to that season, not to the season of grilling and sunbathing.
Reply
5-30-2008 @ 1:51AM
Law said...
I don't think Iron Man was really the competition, but rather Indiana Jones. Had they released Prince Caspian the week after Indy (at least), it may have had a better chance. If they had just stuck to December like the original plan, it would have had no problem. I mean Indiana Jones, one of the most anticipated films of the summer, opened just short of a week after Prince Caspian - of course it was going to crush it at the box office. Disney made a stupid decision, and now they have to pay for it, literally..
Reply
5-30-2008 @ 9:43AM
Kevin said...
I totally agree with you. Caspian had a pretty good opening weekend, not stellar, but pretty good. But with how competitive this time of the year was going to be they would have to release an exceptional movie not to expect an enormous drop off in the 2nd weekend when playing against an Indiana Jones film. Hell, they're both playing to the same target audience (kids and young adults) except that every parent that drives their kids to the movies is going to insist on seeing Indy. There was no way not have a significant fall off for Caspian when those two movies went head to head.
5-30-2008 @ 9:31AM
Ralph said...
Don't forget why it's a summer release and not a Christmas release: If you release at the beginning of summer, you can cash in on the Christmas DVD season. It's why Pixar originally acquiesced to Disney on that release schedule (Pixar used to be on a Christmas movie release).
I still think this is why STAR TREK got moved from Xmas 2008 to Summer 2009.
Reply
5-30-2008 @ 10:04AM
Ray said...
I think the marketing for this hurt it. The first one looked more like a fantasy/family film and this looked like all battles/violence. That can keep parents away... if they're trying to target an older crowd, I don't think a group of teens are going to get together to go see the latest Narnia movie (I may be wrong about this, but it recalls the ridiculousness of the SNL Digital Short.) Plus the running time of well over 2 hours can keep parents away too.
Reply
5-30-2008 @ 10:26AM
kevjohn said...
I saw the first Narnia movie for the first time a week before this hit the theaters. I hated it, for numerous reasons. The weekend this came out I went to go see Iron Man. Again.
I thinkthey made a mistake making it a PG movie. Not too many teens (who I assume are one of the key target audiences) are clamoring for movies that may be aimed at folks even younger than them.
Reply
5-30-2008 @ 11:07AM
AJ said...
Well the thing with Narnia is that it is religious and they can release it in December and then the DVD can come out during easter time to fill little christians' easter baskets
Reply
5-30-2008 @ 1:27PM
Stev said...
The first was crap! Turned off alot of people. It was only a huge hit because it kid-fueled. Now with other options, nobody chose to see it.
Reply
6-03-2008 @ 7:20PM
GWGumby said...
To me the date is a factor. I can't really explain why, but I too would prefer a movie like this or Harry Potter in the fall than in the summer. That coupled with the fact that not a single preview or commercial actually connected me to the story is why I didn't go see it. There was no hook to pull me in, thus I didn't go.
Reply