![]() ![]() It’s not quite as old as “Dumbo,” but it had been a while since moviegoers were treated to a spoonful of sugar. That movie, which starred Emily Blunt as the magical nanny, wasn’t a reboot, but rather a direct sequel to the 1964 film. It ended its theatrical run with $348 million worldwide, including $171 million in North America. Reviews don’t necessarily sway audiences of family movies (2010’s “Alice in Wonderland,” for example, grossed over $1 billion and had a 51% on Rotten Tomatoes), but enthusiasm from the critic community can certainly bolster positive word of mouth.īox office sages suggest that “Dumbo” could play like “Mary Poppins Returns,” which got off to a slower start, but picked up steam over time. Audiences, however, were more favorable toward the movie than critics, awarding it an A- CinemaScore compared to its tepid 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. ![]() “Dumbo” didn’t have the benefit of solid reception, either. Warner Bros.’ “ Shazam!” debuts in China next weekend, which could further curb momentum. While Dumbo is recognizable in Europe, the character isn’t as familiar to Asian audiences. The film was well received in the Middle Kingdom, but its opening weekend was on the softer side compared to recent Disney titles in that territory. Outside of North America, “Dumbo” saw the strongest debut in China ($10.7 million), followed by the United Kingdom ($7.4 million), and Mexico ($7.2 million). That means the movie will have to resonate with audiences across the globe to avoid ending up in the red. The studio shelled out $170 million to produce “Dumbo,” not including marketing and distribution fees. “Titles that are pulled from the much older classic archive such as ‘Dumbo’ - beloved as they are - sometimes have more of an uphill battle versus their more recent counterparts to inspire massive audience enthusiasm,” said Paul Dergarabedian, a senior analyst at Comscore. “Beauty and the Beast” and “ The Lion King,” on the other hand, were first adapted in the ’90s, making them more familiar to today’s young parents as well as their children. The original movie - about a circus elephant ridiculed for his giant ears - first graced the big screen nearly 80 years ago. Part of the reason for the underwhelming bow is because while the peculiar pachyderm is certainly well-known, the character doesn’t have the same universal appeal as, say, the Belles and Simbas of the cartoon world.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |