web
counter
 

How The Lion King Stacked Up Against 20 Other Re-Released Classics and the Vast Critic/Audience Divide on Drive

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Box Office Round-Ups | Comments (26)



ryan-gosling-drives-in-drive_500x332.jpg

Disney released The Lion King in fancy new 3D over the weekend, and the film opened with an unexpectedly great $23 million (predictions I’d seen last week had it pegged around $15 million). It’s a two-week engagement, so I suspect that at the end of that period, The Lion King will sit around 5th all-time for re-issued classics. It makes sense since, in terms of audience size, The Lion King still stands as the most successful animated film in the last 50 years.

It did get me wondering about other re-issues, however. I could not find a definitive list of the most successful, but through some research, I was able to find the numbers on most (if not all) of the high-profile re-issues. By a very large margin, Star Wars is easily the most successful. It also may not be surprising to see that animated and family films typically do well on re-issues. Adult films, conversely, do poorly no matter how successful they were during their original run (see, for example, The Godfather’s $1.2 million on re-release). I also found it curious that movies that have been re-released several times find little success in some years and great success in others: See, for instance, Grease, which garnered $28 million in 1998 and $365,000 last year (with a sing-along component). I also found the re-issue numbers on Tim Burtons The Nightmare Before Christmas rather curious, too: It made only $375,000 on its first re-issue, seven years after its release. But it made $8 million in 2006, nearly doubled that in 2007 ($15 million) and then made only $1 million in 2008. I’m certain there were many factors at play, but it is strange to see such wild fluctuations over a four year period.

I’ve only bothered with one re-issue in my lifetime: 1998’s Gone with the Wind ($6.7 million), but I mostly did so to see if I could sit through a film with an intermission (I believe that is one of only two films I’ve ever seen with intermissions, the other being Kenneth Branaugh’s Hamlet0.

For the edification of your curiosity, below are 20 more re-issues, and their box-office grosses.

But before we get to that, a quick run-down of the rest of the weekend’s numbers: Drive opened behind Contagion< at number three, with around $11 million and presents one of the bigger oddities among critics and audiences: Critics loved it (including Dan, myself and 92 percent of Rotten Tomatoes’ critics) but, overall, audiences did not. It received a C- on Cinemascore, which is much worse than it even sounds (even the worst films typically don’t fall below a B-, as they are rated by friendly audiences members who who paid to see a movie they wanted to see). IMDb has it at an early 8.8 (which would put it among the top 15 movies of all time and although it won’t hold on to that over the coming weeks, it’s likely to stay in the top 100). Metacritic, likewise, gives it an 80/100, so film lovers generally dug Drive. But the average multiplexer did not care for it. At all. I don’t understand why, but I imagine the critic/audience divide will resurface around Oscar nomination time, and words like “pretentious” will be thrown around by people who don’t actually know what “pretentious” means.

Compare the C- that Drive received to the B- that I Just Don’t Know How She Does It received and, well, you begin to understand why Jersey Shore is the top-rated cable program on television. Nevertheless, I Just Don’t Know How She Does It ($5 million), like Straw Dogs ($4.5 million), both had weak openings, below the 4th place The Help.


The Box-Office Performance of 20 Re-Issued Classics

Star Wars (1987): $138 million

101 Dalmatians (1991): $60 million

E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial : $40,000 (1985)

Bambi (1988): $40 million

E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial : $35 million (1997)

Toy Story / Toy Story 2 (2009): $30 million

Cinderella (1981): $28 million

Grease (1998): $28 million

Star Wars (1982): $15 million

Sleeping Beauty (1986): $15 million

The Wizard of Oz (1998): $14 million

Mary Poppins (1980): $14 million

Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas in Disney Digital 3-D (2007 re-issue): $14 million

The Polar Express (2005): $10 million

Gone with the Wind (1998): $6.7 million

Blade Runner (1992): $3.7 million

Citizen Kane (1991): $1.5 million

The Godfather (1997): $1.2 million

Taxi Driver (1996): $962,000

Scarface (2003): $739,000

The Passion of the Christ (Recut) (2005): $508,326

Grease (2010): $365,000









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



The 2011 Emmy Award Winners | [REC]³ Génesis Trailer: Welcome To The Perfect Wedding









Comments

Drive was so amazing; I left the theater weak in the knees and shaking. There was only 5 other people in the AMC theater with me, 4 of which were couples - on a date? I think some of the marketing pushed it to appear kind of as a romantic film - of star-crossed love - but as we know about 1/2 - 3/4 way in, the film takes on a decidedly different tone, both brutal and unflinching. I've heard a lot of criticism from people that it was gratuitously violent and gross. This pisses me off. I didn't think it was gratuitous, in fact I actually found the horror of the violence to be insanely realistic yet surreal and the perfect foil for the story we've seen thus far, following what appeared to be a gentle-spirited Good Guy. The violence is what endeared me to the rest of the film. To see it get to those points reminded me that life is not always grocery shopping and playing outdoors in the sunshine. It's messy, and so easily and readily out of control. I cannot stop thinking about Drive. Was one of the best films I've seen in years.

Posted by: Missboo_missquick at September 19, 2011 8:26 AM

It makes complete sense why audiences didn't like "Drive." Literally, every piece of action in the movie is in the thirty second commercial. I could sense an uneasiness in the audience as the movie took its time, like they understood some cool stuff was happening, but not sure why.

Also for the way the film was marketed, it was a bit extreme in violence for general audiences. I sat through the credits while next to me, an older married couple argued. The wife said five times over to her husband, "You are not allowed to pick the movies anymore." He was like, "Well Stewart said it was good." "What does Stewart know," she replied.

I'm glad most audience didn't embrace it actually because I'm not sure if it was made for them. It feels like an art house type film in that it chooses to go without dialogue for long stretches, which requires a lot of patience from general audiences that they don't have. Think about it, this film is a wide release playing everywhere, there's more than likely to be some hate towards it.

Posted by: Corey at September 19, 2011 9:16 AM

Nightmare Before Christmas reissues are easy to explain. The first time wasn't in 3D and wasn't well promoted at all. I didn't find out about it (as a fan on my third VHS copy at that point) until after it was gone. The second time was its first 3D reissue and was released a week before Halloween. They hyped it beyond belief in the top film markets. You couldn't turn a corner in NYC without seeing a poster for it, for example. The third time was the exact same 3D two years later, so only the die hardest of the die hards showed up. It also was not as well promoted as the previous reissue.

As for Drive, I knew a straight up action film couldn't have won an award for Best Director at Cannes. Now I really need to see it ASAP.

Posted by: Robert at September 19, 2011 9:27 AM

Maybe it's because they're expecting The Fast And The Furious: Real Girl Edition and they're getting a think-think-think movie instead. I mean I look at the poster and I think that, and am very surprised to hear it's not a bad, dumb movie just based on the name and advertising. If what you want is a bad, dumb movie, you're certainly not going to like a good, smart movie in its place.

Posted by: Lucas at September 19, 2011 9:40 AM

Mrs. , and I were going to see "Drive" today but ... uh-oh.

We had Corey's overheard conversation after seeing "Sexy Beast" many years ago. I've since redeemed myself and don't need to damage my movie cred again.

Seriously, Mrs. , spent years telling people how she hated "Sexy Beast." YEARS!

So it looks like beer and sammiches at Jay's instead. Everyone can agree beer and sammiches are great, right? "Beer and sammiches," 100% on the Tomatometer and A+ Cinemascore and 10 IMDb.

Roger Ebert abstains from voting, of course.

Posted by: , at September 19, 2011 9:53 AM

What of the other Star Wars re-issues of 1997? Empire did $68m and Jedi $45m, as per Box Office Mojo. That'd put them at 2 and 4 on the list.

Posted by: Arran at September 19, 2011 9:54 AM

Compare the C- that Drive received to the B- that I Just Don’t Know How She Does It received and, well, you begin to understand why Jersey Shore is the top-rated cable program on television.

A-goddamn-men.

Posted by: TylerDFC at September 19, 2011 10:02 AM

I just hope they re-issue Raiders of the Lost Ark just before it comes ou Blu. I would see that in the theater again in a heartbeat. Same with Jaws.

Posted by: TylerDFC at September 19, 2011 10:13 AM

I second TylerDFC. A Raiders re-issue would get my money.

Did not see Drive, and we typically see everything, because it didn't grab our attention. Just that simple. We will Netflix it.

Posted by: logan at September 19, 2011 10:34 AM

I love old reissues. It gives me a chance to see things on the big screen that I never had a chance to see before.

Gone With The Wind. (It's square, not widescreen, and didn't feel long at all.)

Rear Window. (Oh, that Technicolor. And I want every outfit Grace Kelley wore, except for the jeans in the last scene.)

Fantasia. (Is there any other way to see this except on the big screen with surround sound?)

Star Wars. (Boo Hiss. You know what you did, Lucas!)

Posted by: BWeaves at September 19, 2011 10:48 AM

Without any basis or research, I'd like to believe that movies reissued before the eighties would have done better (inflation adjusted) than a lot of these because there simply weren't other reasonable ways to watch them at the time.

I think back to my own 1970's childhood and the rereleases of all the Disney movies. There was no other way to see Dumbo than at the theater. Watching them on the 22" RCA all cut up with commercials just was not the same experience at all. Same goes for movies like Casablanca and Gone With The Wind (and the intermission wasn't that unusual back then).

Posted by: ed newman at September 19, 2011 11:01 AM

ed newman has a point.

I remember seeing "Gone With the Wind" in a mid-1980s go-around in a theater in Roanoke, Va., just to see Atlanta burn on the big screen. And: Intermission!

Only other re-release I've seen was (props, BWeaves) "Fantasia," probably late '90s, when ,daughter developed an interest in classical music.

Posted by: , at September 19, 2011 11:36 AM

Damn, how could anyone not love Sexy Beast! That flick is fucking phenomenal. I am stoked to see Drive. Then again this is coming from someone who actually encouraged friends to watch Dear Zachary (of course I warned them explicitly).

Posted by: Iheartlasagne at September 19, 2011 11:41 AM

Audience v. Critic

Dumbass audience went in expecting a movie...

Instead the got a film.

Posted by: PissBoy at September 19, 2011 11:49 AM

"and words like “pretentious” will be thrown around by people who don’t actually know what “pretentious” means."

We should just direct those people to this article's comments. And the article itself. That'll learn 'em.

Posted by: Poboy at September 19, 2011 12:07 PM

I believe that is one of only two films I’ve ever seen with intermissions, the other being Kenneth Branaugh’s HamletO.

That bit of news just saddened me. A quick search of the internet showed these films with (possible) intermissions. I know some of these did...I also think The Searchers did. I would hope you've seen some of these.
Lawrence of Arabia
Oklahoma
Fiddler on the Roof
The Sound of Music
Ben-Hur
West Side Story
Dr. Zhivago
Born on the Fourth of July
2001: a space odyssey
Ice Station Zebra
South Pacific
My Fair Lady
Spartacus
The Towering Inferno
The King and I
Gandhi

I would think there are many others too. I'm pretty sure Seven Samurai did, and a vast majority of silent films.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at September 19, 2011 1:06 PM

Audiences that can't distinguish banal, predictable, and ultimately boring action movies from interesting, thoughtful fare will not care for Drive. It does not stay in lockstep with canon. That's why I liked it. The banal succeeds because those flicks feature sexy woman leads showing lots of skin and buff, tough male leads showing their buffness and toughness, the best fantasy stuff. A focus on sex drive (yes, I know) trumps the intellectual every time with general audiences. These folks made a film that puts the canon in its place, but then they marketed it as typical. Why?

Posted by: Michelle at September 19, 2011 1:07 PM

Iheartlasagne,

I didn't loathe it like she did (I mean, she STILL brings it up), but I didn't think it was great.

SEXY BEAST SPOILER ALERT!

For one thing, it's the "crook comes out of retirement for one last job" formula, though with something of a twist.

But really, the big problem I had with it was Don browbeating Gal to do the job because he seems to be the only person in the criminal universe who can pull it off, when -- once you get past the fact they start the job in a swimming pool -- it merely involves standard digging into a bank vault from the building next door. (And as for the pool, I believe a critic at the time wrote something like, "Why didn't they just drain the swimming pool?")

Gal and only Gal could tunnel through a wall?

So for all the drama leading up to it, the heist itself was a huge letdown.

That's even before we bring up the boulder that destroys Gal's pool at the start, setting up what happens to Don at the end. Yes, I recognize a metaphor when a scriptwriter hits me over the head with one, but -- the boulder, how, where, why? Its existence was required to provide the ending; therefore, it MUST exist, even if it makes next to no sense to do so.

I saw the movie once and it was many years ago, but those are the things that have stuck with me.

I think the bulk of the praise for the movie comes about simply because saintly Ben Kingsley played about as far against type as it's possible. "OOOHHH, Ben Kingsley spews bile and looks like a closed fist! I give it five stars!" Whether the actual story -- which wasn't bad, but wound up seeming kind of pointless to me -- made any sense be damned. I remember a mediocre musician barely anyone would remember now (Liz Phair) getting huge hype in the '90s because she sang lines like "I wanna be your blow job queen." "OOOHHHH," the critics said, "She talks dirty! Put her on the cover of Rolling Stone and call her 'The Next Great Rock Star'!"

Same thing. Someone you don't expect to talk dirty talks dirty and everybody swoons.

Big fucking deal.

Posted by: , at September 19, 2011 1:28 PM

Look, I went to see Drive this weekend and I'll admit I enjoyed it and had a good time seeing it, but it is a very flawed movie that at time comes off as someone's very expensive film school project. It looks gorgeous but every scene is fighting to become iconic and the end result is so overdone that you can't even appreciate the cinematography anymore. I can accept restraint in the diaglogue, but this was still seriously lacking in legitimate character creation. I HATE people shouting and giggling at a movie, especially a drama, but honestly, I couldn't fault anybody giggling at the way some of the scenes were handled, with embarrasingly long pauses and stares in place of dialogue. I can accept Gosling's characterization, but having Mulligan match him in silence, especially when he starts to become so close with her son, is unrealistic and makes it hard to invest in their story. Over all I appreciate this for being a different movie from anything else coming out and for really injecting an interesting look and mood to the movie-- but don't pretend you just saw a perfect picture, because you might have to watch again.

Posted by: valerie at September 19, 2011 1:32 PM

@Valerie I completely agree with everything you said. I enjoyed the film but the prolonged silences and pauses made it seem as though it was trying too hard to be iconic and mysterious. Mulligan and Gosling's interactions mostly consisted of them staring awkwardly at each other and smiling. I could understand Gosling's silence. But, Mulligan's just seemed affected and deliberate. The marketing department should be blamed for the public's negative reaction to the film. This is a movie that should have initially opened in a few theaters, and then slowly expanded, building buzz and allowing audiences to find out what movie was really about. As opposed to the Fast and Furious like movie it was sold as.

Posted by: Gia at September 19, 2011 2:43 PM

"the other being Kenneth Branaugh’s Hamlet0."

Hamleto? Is that some kind of Danish omelette?

Posted by: Bert at September 19, 2011 4:45 PM

,

You make excellent points, and I must admit it's been a long time since I viewed Sexy Beast as well. Also I have a ridiculous affinity for Brit heist movies so am clearly biased.

SPOILER ALERT!

Definitely the boulder story arc was a bit silly, and I can understand your annoyance with it. Clearly you realize the boulder and Don were one and the same. I tend to tear movies apart and become irritated by the unlikely story lines that are so common; for reasons I can't explain I accepted the boulder bit and went with it, and felt rewarded in the end. Is it really so outrageous that a boulder might fall down and crash into a man's swimming pool? (Note to self: Must research...)

As for your observation that Gal was the 'only' robber who could pull off the heist - I never picked up on that (again, many years since viewing) but instead felt that it led back to the 'clash of wills' between Don/Teddy and Gal - they were NOT going to allow him not to do it, no matter what. To me that sorta was the point of the film - Gal was being forced to perform against his will, he finally acquiesced but ultimately came out on top, maybe due to the fact that he was living a relatively good life and just wanted to hang out with his love in the Spanish sun. Also, perhaps it had something to do with Teddy wanting to set Gal up for Harry the banker's murder and subsequently 'banish' him from London (which was all Gal really wanted anyway, right?).

Finally, you're absolutely right - the movie's success/positive reviews hinge largely on Ben Kingsley. He was so fucking amazing. But granted, he was not the whole movie and you are correct in stating that just being nasty/shocking against general character doesn't a movie/rock star make. Personally I think Liz Phair is pretty cool, but I have the mentality of a 13 year old prepubescent boy at times.

I'm not trying to convince you to love this movie; in fact you have made me question my adoration for it and for that I thank you. Always good to have a sensible movie chat with a stranger on the interwebs. Cheers.

Posted by: iheartlasagne at September 19, 2011 6:13 PM

I just walked in the door from seeing DRIVE. There were 12 of us in the theater. It was interesting to hear people talk on the way out of the theater. 2 young males(who looked like Jersey Shore rejects)were cursing the movie. "That fucking sucked! Only one heist and car chase?" So, I understand the appeal may be limited. I enjoyed it a great deal. So did an elderly couple leaving the theater.

Posted by: Sean at September 19, 2011 7:56 PM

Ah, it's the old "people who don't agree with my college born opinions about mass media that will be forgotten in 10 years are idiots" Pajiba writer's ploy again.

TRITE.

Posted by: Mr. stitch at September 19, 2011 10:39 PM

To be or not to be that is the questiono...

-William Shakespeare's Hamleto.

Posted by: Terry at September 19, 2011 10:47 PM

Iheartlasagne,

*hat tip*

Posted by: , at September 20, 2011 1:20 AM