Box Office for Frank Miller's the Spirit in DC Archives Message Board Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Box Office for Frank Miller's the Spirit

Author	Comment
richard63	Box Office for Frank Miller's the Spirit	Lead	[-]
Posts: 12674 Jan 20 09 1:54 PM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Tags : spirit, frank miller As it stands now, it's $19,768,000 domestic, $12,803,058 foreign for a total of $32,571,058... http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=spirit09.htm That's a bit more than I expected, though I don't suppose it will win Miller any more directing jobs. I doubt we'll be seeing Frank Miller's Buck Rogers (his next rumored project) anytime soon.
Ferjo Byroy		#1	[-]
Posts: 3778 Jan 20 09 2:18 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wow! That much? People went to the theater thinking they were going to see something else. I did.
clessidraman		#2	[-]
Posts: 2462 Jan 20 09 2:20 PM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	That is really bad, I was checking mojo.com and 6,4 Millions for week one with over 2500 theater is really bad especially for the holiday season week 2 is even worse with over a 50% in drop or 3,2 millions and still over 2500 theaters. Week 3 is a disaster only 168 theaters and $ 60,000.00.
clessidraman		#3	[-]
Posts: 2462 Jan 20 09 2:23 PM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Ferjo Byroy wrote: Wow! That much? People went to the theater thinking they were going to see something else. I did. The trailer was too reminiscent of Sin City ......
richard63		#4	[-]
Posts: 12674 Jan 20 09 2:40 PM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	clessidraman wrote: That is really bad, I was checking mojo.com and 6,4 Millions for week one with over 2500 theater is really bad especially for the holiday season week 2 is even worse with over a 50% in drop or 3,2 millions and still over 2500 theaters. Week 3 is a disaster only 168 theaters and $ 60,000.00. No budget information available from boxofficemojo, but it was made using the same methods as the 300 and Sin City, which cost $65 million and $40 million to make, respectively. As it stands now, I would guess that the Spirit has perhaps made back half of its budget.
clessidraman		#5	[-]
Posts: 2462 Jan 20 09 2:51 PM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	richard63 wrote: [quote="clessidraman"]That is really bad, I was checking mojo.com and 6,4 Millions for week one with over 2500 theater is really bad especially for the holiday season week 2 is even worse with over a 50% in drop or 3,2 millions and still over 2500 theaters. Week 3 is a disaster only 168 theaters and $ 60,000.00. No budget information available from boxofficemojo, but it was made using the same methods as the 300 and Sin City, which cost $65 million and $40 million to make, respectively. As it stands now, I would guess that the Spirit has perhaps made back half of its budget.[/quote] Plus there is advertising, according to CNN, the average movie cost 25 million to advertise and theaters get a 30% share, no idea what distribution costs, but The Spirit seem to be a big money looser.
KidColt		#6	[-]
Posts: 1115 Jan 20 09 9:26 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	This is so bitterly ironic, as Mr. Eisner's Spirit was lauded for its use of cinematic elements to tell a story. If any character/strip should have translated well to movies, it's the Spirit. What a shame.
The Queen of the Geeks		#7	[-]
Posts: 1734 Jan 20 09 9:31 PM Silver Age Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If Miller had stayed true to the strip, I have little doubt the movie would've been successful. But he didn't, and it wasn't. Actually, I didn't see the movie. One of my buddies, who knows what a huge fan of The Spirit I am (it's my all-time favorite strip), told me the movie would just piss me off. I don't need to spend eight bucks to get irritated.
Fin Fang Foom		#8	[-]
Posts: 9366 Jan 20 09 10:50 PM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If Miller had stayed true to the strip, I have little doubt the movie would've been successful. But he didn't, and it wasn't. I suspect, had a film stayed closer to the source material, the result would have been yet another charming period piece that would have quickly come and gone, remembered only by people with an interest in that source material. That's not to say Frank Miller's approach was the right one, not by any means, but I don't believe a more strict interpretation of Eisner's work would have fared that much better, either critically or commercially. In The Back Of Beyond: My photography blog. Everything seen through the camera of my iPhone.
dearlenbaugh		#9	[-]
Posts: 4579 Jan 20 09 11:33 PM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"I suspect, had a film stayed closer to the source material, the result would have been yet another charming period piece that would have quickly come and gone, remembered only by people with an interest in that source material. " Yep. Two of the most faithful adaptations of period-comics-to-movies, in my opinion, were Rocketeer, and The Phantom (with honorable mention to The Shadow). And they tanked.
richard63		#10	[-]
Posts: 12674 Jan 21 09 12:08 AM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well, I've argued on another thread that period pieces aren't necessarily box office poison. That said, I agree that a really faithful adaption of Eisner probably wouldn't have done very well either. One major problem is how do you sell it. Eisner's Spirit is a guy with a mask, but he isn't really a superhero. You got genre confusion there. I wonder how well the movie "L.A. Confidential" would have fared if Guy Pearce's character was a masked hero.
logan five		#11	[-]
Posts: 235 Jan 21 09 12:40 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I have to agree that this kind of material is a hard sell. Really, anything sourced from vintage comics. We are at a point where the technology exists that, if someone with vision took the reins, an astonishingly faithful rendition of the peak era Lee/Kirby FF could be brought to the screen. Not like the sedatingly bland recent films, I mean pure, undiluted Kirby kreations brought to life! It could be the most amazing movie that absolutely no one would go to see. Which would be a good thing, I suppose, because such a strong dose of unbridled creativity would be lethal to the average audience. Last Edited By: logan five Jan 21 09 12:43 AM. Edited 1 times.
James Friel		#12	[-]
Posts: 10354 Jan 21 09 4:14 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Fin Fang Foom wrote: If Miller had stayed true to the strip, I have little doubt the movie would've been successful. But he didn't, and it wasn't. I suspect, had a film stayed closer to the source material, the result would have been yet another charming period piece that would have quickly come and gone, remembered only by people with an interest in that source material. That's not to say Frank Miller's approach was the right one, not by any means, but I don't believe a more strict interpretation of Eisner's work would have fared that much better, either critically or commercially. Making it as a much smaller-scale period urban-noirish crime film with tongue-in-cheek overtones, could, however, have been done much, much more cheaply, and might have made quite a decent return on investment. Ah, the meek. Playing the long game. Sneaky bastards. --Denise Mina, Field of Blood
Lee Semmens		#13	[-]
Posts: 4151 Jan 21 09 6:05 AM Golden Age Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Perhaps the lack of success of the Spirit movie is because he is nowhere near as popular or recognizable among the general public as the likes of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.? Eisner and the Spirit may be very highly regarded in comic book aficionado circles, but I would bet that the vast majority of people have never heard of either, and probably not Frank Miller as well.
clessidraman		#14	[-]
Posts: 2462 Jan 21 09 8:59 AM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Lee Semmens wrote: Perhaps the lack of success of the Spirit movie is because he is nowhere near as popular or recognizable among the general public as the likes of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.? Eisner and the Spirit may be very highly regarded in comic book aficionado circles, but I would bet that the vast majority of people have never heard of either, and probably not Frank Miller as well. That is also a strong consideration, that's why I was so surprised when DC decided to Archive the entire "Spirit" vs its own and vastly more popular Batman.
richard63		#15	[-]
Posts: 12674 Jan 21 09 12:43 PM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Lee Semmens wrote: Perhaps the lack of success of the Spirit movie is because he is nowhere near as popular or recognizable among the general public as the likes of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.? Eisner and the Spirit may be very highly regarded in comic book aficionado circles, but I would bet that the vast majority of people have never heard of either, and probably not Frank Miller as well. I never buy this argument. Iron Man grossed $582 million worldwide. That character was virtually unknown outside of the comics. The 300 grossed $456 million. Folks lack of knowledge of the Frank Miller graphic novel didn't stop them from seeing the film.
Fin Fang Foom		#16	[-]
Posts: 9366 Jan 21 09 2:24 PM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	That is also a strong consideration, that's why I was so surprised when DC decided to Archive the entire "Spirit" vs its own and vastly more popular Batman. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, reprinting the complete run of The Spirit (in it's original incarnation) was probably a part of the licensing contract -- either something Eisner and Denis Kitchen (who represented him) had insisted upon, or something DC was willing to offer as an inducement. (Once that was done, reprinting a selection of other material probably seemed only natural.) Even if that weren't the case, The Spirit would easily have the advantage -- it had an end point that would allow a series to be complete in a reasonable number of volumes, and as a body of work it has a consistent reputation as among the best of its' class, something you can't really say about 70 years of Batman. In The Back Of Beyond: My photography blog. Everything seen through the camera of my iPhone.
Rod Keith		#17	[-]
Posts: 149 Jan 21 09 8:32 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think if the Spirit had in fact been faithfully translated, it would have done much better than it did. Maybe not Iron Man numbers, but good word-of-mouth, positive fan buzz, and the buying power of even a tiny niche market would have helped it immensely. As it was it alienated even the comics fans who should've been the lifeblood for this film. I don't know any comic fan who wanted to see it. If it had been a great movie, it may not have been a huge draw, but at the very least the core audience would've helped with repeat viewings and given it some kind of cult status..
KidColt		#18	[-]
Posts: 1115 Jan 21 09 8:56 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well, I have all the respect in the world for Eisner's Spirit, but one reason he might be a movie flop is that there really is no tragic origin. With no tragic origin, he really has no motivation to fight crime. Stan Lee did a heck of a good job with this. We all know about Spidey and Uncle Ben, and the X-Men being persecuted because they are different. I think this connects with the audience. Yeah, the Spirit was targeted for death by a criminal, but he right away caught that criminal. He really had no reason to stay dead and wear a mask. Batman, on the other hand, had a very tragic motivation. Which is what I believe separated him from all the other 1930's and 1940's playboys who fought crime. He had a drive, and a motivation that changed his life. Whereas the Sandman or Phantom detective did the same thing because they were bored. Haven't seen the movie, but i doubt it has anything that would convince an audience that denny Colt had a real reason to put on a mask and fight crime.
dearlenbaugh		#19	[-]
Posts: 4579 Jan 22 09 1:04 AM Registered Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"One major problem is how do you sell it. Eisner's Spirit is a guy with a mask, but he isn't really a superhero." Indiana Jones is a guy with a whip. "Perhaps the lack of success of the Spirit movie is because he is nowhere near as popular or recognizable among the general public as the likes of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.? " Who heard of Indiana Jones before Raiders of the Lost Ark came out? As everyone in Hollywood knows, there are just too darn many variables involved to predict a sure hit. If not, every movie would do big box office.
logan five		#20	[-]
Posts: 235 Jan 22 09 2:17 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If Raiders of the Lost Ark were released today - with someone besides Harrison Ford as Indy - I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it flopped. Even though Raiders is a perfectly crafted film, it was Ford's charisma that sold to the mainstream, just as it was Ford's charisma that sold the less perfectly crafted Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Genre trappings will not sell a film to mainstream audiences, you need a hook. And these days the Hollywood target audience is 13 to 21-year-olds, so we're talking something flashy and hormonal (Iron Man and 300 were both sold at that level). I'm not sure what the hook would be for the moody, low-key, wryly humorous neo-noir that we Spirit fans seem to be envisioning as the perfect adaptation.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Box Office for Frank Miller's the Spirit

Box Office for Frank Miller's the Spirit