Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
This commercial isn't really about the movie, but I still like it
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Haunted Mansion
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I saw it yesterday in Dolby. Sounded great. I liked it! It dragged at times but I can’t remember the last time I saw a movie where I was captivated the entire time. Most of the HM attraction Easter eggs and references were well done. Wish they would have snuck some Paul Frees in there though. Did not like the lead La Keith. His low mumbling stuttering voice became annoying rather quickly. Owen Wilson was pretty funny. I really like the little kid too.
I was surprised at how “scary” they went. Especially with Constance. Not a fan of the direction they went with Leota. Too goofy/ corny. Wish she would have been more like Constance and HBG in tone and style.
I was surprised at how “scary” they went. Especially with Constance. Not a fan of the direction they went with Leota. Too goofy/ corny. Wish she would have been more like Constance and HBG in tone and style.
Last edited:
TP2000
Well-Known Member
But anyways, back to the fact that 2003 HM > 2023 HM...
Here's an interesting comparison; the opening weekend box office for both films adjusted for inflation.
Mansion 2003 had a production budget of $90 Million in '03, but adjusted for inflation that coincidentally comes to nearly the exact same budget as the 2023's version of $157 Million.
But the 2023 version had almost half of the opening weekend domestic box office as the '03 version did. On this trajectory, the new Haunted Mansion movie is set to lose at least $100 Million for Disney. (Barring some bizarrely huge success in overseas markets in August, as the film hasn't opened yet in some countries)
A reminder, the 2003 financials are adjusted for inflation to 2023 dollars.
Movie Comparison: The Haunted Mansion (2003) vs. Haunted Mansion (2023)
Domestic box office comparison between The Haunted Mansion (2003) and Haunted Mansion (2023)
www.the-numbers.com
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
On the other hand, audiences seem to rate the newer version more highly. I realise that the box office is the only standard of measurement that counts for some of the posters here, but a few of us still care about the films themselves.Here's an interesting comparison; the opening weekend box office for both films adjusted for inflation.
Mansion 2003 had a production budget of $90 Million in '03, but adjusted for inflation that coincidentally comes to nearly the exact same budget as the 2023's version of $157 Million.
But the 2023 version had almost half of the opening weekend domestic box office as the '03 version did. On this trajectory, the new Haunted Mansion movie is set to lose at least $100 Million for Disney. (Barring some bizarrely huge success in overseas markets in August, as the film hasn't opened yet in some countries)
A reminder, the 2003 financials are adjusted for inflation to 2023 dollars.
View attachment 734298
Movie Comparison: The Haunted Mansion (2003) vs. Haunted Mansion (2023)
Domestic box office comparison between The Haunted Mansion (2003) and Haunted Mansion (2023)
wtyy21
Well-Known Member
That's true. Most territories had set the premiere of the film in August (except Japan that would release the film this September). Let see how the film performed domestically for second weekend, but the film would bring unexpected surprise, like Elemental does. If the film goes big in some markets, it would cut the film's box office loss to at least tens of millions dollars.
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
Maybe it's because I was a child in 2003 and am now 30, but I remember the Eddie Murphy Haunted Mansion being marketed WAAAAY more than the new one. It felt like a real event. The only time I saw a trailer for the new movie was when I saw the Little Mermaid remake. Had I not been active on this website, it's likely I would have forgotten the movie was coming out at all.
The new film is better than the Eddie Murphy version, but that's not much use if people don't even know the movie is coming out.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
I can’t say I remember much marketing for the 2003 one either. I tend to think, as you’ve pointed out in other posts, that the new one has been released at a disadvantageous time.
Last edited:
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
If the Eddie Murphy version came out 48 hours ago…you’d be defending that. No doubt.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
So you’re comfortable “digging in” on the box office doesn’t matter strategy?
That’s unstable ground to stand considering this may go on for years
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Is it really so strange that I—a private individual with no connection to the entertainment industry—care more about a film’s enjoyability than I do about its box-office performance? Why you should consider that a “strategy” is beyond me.
Chi84
Premium Member
You can’t argue over someone’s personal enjoyment of something. Oh, wait . . .
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I'd seen YouTube commercials for Haunted Mansion a lot the past few weeks. But I think they really did a disservice by hiding the fact Daniel Levy was in this movie. Just as they seemed to hide that Catherine O'Hara was voicing the mom in Elemental.
Schitt's Creek was a huge cultural phenomenon that many Gen X and Millennials remember very fondly. They seemed to pretend Levy didn't exist in this movie's marketing, which was a huge mistake in my opinion.
Among other big mistakes they made, like releasing this film in late July instead of late September.
"El Gran Magnifico"
Mr Flibble is Very Cross.
IMHO "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken" is better than both. Disney should retheme the ride and re-release that. Not a new version. The original.
Adjusted for inflation: a $2 Million budget with a $40 Million Box Office.
Very enjoyable too.
Adjusted for inflation: a $2 Million budget with a $40 Million Box Office.
Very enjoyable too.
"El Gran Magnifico"
Mr Flibble is Very Cross.
Some of these things seem SO OBVIOUS. Makes you question who's actually steering the ship. And whether that individual or group of individuals are actually capable in the roles they are in. The tie-in to Halloween throughout the parks would have very much helped.
Last edited:
So they should of push Dan levy as if he had a starting row even though it amounted just a cameo with maybe 2 lines of dialogueI'd seen YouTube commercials for Haunted Mansion a lot the past few weeks. But I think they really did a disservice by hiding the fact Daniel Levy was in this movie. Just as they seemed to hide that Catherine O'Hara was voicing the mom in Elemental.
Schitt's Creek was a huge cultural phenomenon that many Gen X and Millennials remember very fondly. They seemed to pretend Levy didn't exist in this movie's marketing, which was a huge mistake in my opinion.
Among other big mistakes they made, like releasing this film in late July instead of late September.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Daniel Levy has an almost blink and you miss it 30 second cameo. He isn't a part of the main cast. That is why he isn't part of the main focus of the trailers, they aren't hiding him.I'd seen YouTube commercials for Haunted Mansion a lot the past few weeks. But I think they really did a disservice by hiding the fact Daniel Levy was in this movie. Just as they seemed to hide that Catherine O'Hara was voicing the mom in Elemental.
Schitt's Creek was a huge cultural phenomenon that many Gen X and Millennials remember very fondly. They seemed to pretend Levy didn't exist in this movie's marketing, which was a huge mistake in my opinion.
Among other big mistakes they made, like releasing this film in late July instead of late September.
Also the final trailer for the film, that was released almost 2 weeks ago, did have him in it. And what you see in the trailer is almost all his cameo entails.
Prince-1
Well-Known Member
Awww, look who wants to be be part of the conversation. Now go on and continue to pretend like you know something about movies.
Last edited:
Prince-1
Well-Known Member
Walt is one of a few people on here who likes to think they know everything about everything. And if you don't agree with them then you are wrong for doing so.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
And of course if they did they would be derided for hyping a cameo.
networkpro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
IMHO, its still an investment by the Disney company that should produce a net profit. It's not an art-house film made to promote some esoteric esthetic, but a for-profit endeavor. What's telling is that it was written for a US West Coast-centric (or identifying) audience by the use of the New Orleans exterior for Master Gracey's mansion. Its located in 4 different lands across the parks: New Orleans Square at Disneyland; Liberty Square at Walt Disney World; Fantasyland at Tokyo Disneyland; and Frontierland at Disneyland Paris.