Haunted Mansion

Disney Irish

Premium Member
But why did movies of similar performance and scale routinely get sequels?
You would then have to say Homeward Bound at millions less earned was a flop the same year in 1993, which had a theatrical sequel by 1996.
Yes I would call Homeward Bound a flop during theatrical.

Ask Eisner who greenlit many sequels over his time as CEO why he approved Homeward Bound 2 (which earned even less money than the first) over Hocus Pocus 2. Maybe Eisner wasn't a fan of The Divine Miss M, because he sure didn't cast her in anything other than a cameo in Fantasia 2000 after Hocus Pocus. And that was after a string of 9 successful films for Disney at the point.
 

Phroobar

Well-Known Member
Yes I would call Homeward Bound a flop during theatrical.

Ask Eisner who greenlit many sequels over his time as CEO why he approved Homeward Bound 2 (which earned even less money than the first) over Hocus Pocus 2. Maybe Eisner wasn't a fan of The Divine Miss M, because he sure didn't cast her in anything other than a cameo in Fantasia 2000 after Hocus Pocus. And that was after a string of 9 successful films for Disney at the point.
Which is weird because Bette Midler was all over the Disney MGM Studios during it's early years. I think it was she spent years on Broadway and had no time to make silly kids movies for Disney. She hasn't really stared in movie is almost twenty five years.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Yes I would call Homeward Bound a flop during theatrical.
Information on Homeward Bound’s budget does not seem to be readily available. Compared to some other Disney produced films of the time Hocus Pocus was actually kind of expensive when other live action films were being budgets in the low teens. Even Tombstone cost a little less than Hocus Pocus. It doesn’t seem unreasonable for Homeward Bound to have cost less $10 - $15 million which means it’s threshold for financial success would have been a good bit lower.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Which is weird because Bette Midler was all over the Disney MGM Studios during it's early years. I think it was she spent years on Broadway and had no time to make silly kids movies for Disney. She hasn't really stared in movie is almost twenty five years.
She has starred in or otherwise had roles in over 20 films post-Hocus Pocus. Not to mention guest spots on tv shows, several documentaries, etc. so she was plenty busy. None for Disney until her return in Hocus Pocus 2 in 2022.

So its not like she wasn't doing anything in Hollywood anymore. Maybe there was a falling out, who knows.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Information on Homeward Bound’s budget does not seem to be readily available. Compared to some other Disney produced films of the time Hocus Pocus was actually kind of expensive when other live action films were being budgets in the low teens. Even Tombstone cost a little less than Hocus Pocus. It doesn’t seem unreasonable for Homeward Bound to have cost less $10 - $15 million which means it’s threshold for financial success would have been a good bit lower.
Its very possible it could have been more financially successful during its theatrical run, especially compared to Hocus Pocus.

But for the sake of this discussion I would just consider its a flop also, even more so with the sequel.
 

Phroobar

Well-Known Member
She has starred in or otherwise had roles in over 20 films post-Hocus Pocus. Not to mention guest spots on tv shows, several documentaries, etc. so she was plenty busy. None for Disney until her return in Hocus Pocus 2 in 2022.

So its not like she wasn't doing anything in Hollywood anymore. Maybe there was a falling out, who knows.
She had roles but she wasn't staring in much. Broadway is more her thing.
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
No need to have a theory on why Bette did not work for the mouse house for five to eight years. It happens. Movie stars have contracts with different studios at a time.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Maybe Eisner wasn't a fan of The Divine Miss M, because he sure didn't cast her in anything other than a cameo in Fantasia 2000 after Hocus Pocus.
Under the Touchstone banner, Bette was in these films during the Eisner reign:

Down and Out in Beverly Hills
Ruthless People
Big Business
Beaches
Scenes from a Mall
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
It did. $44 million is less than the $56 million it would have needed just to cover its production costs and about half of the $84 million needed to cover the traditional marketing assumption.

Adjusted for inflation, Haunted Mansion is tracking almost exactly towards the box office Hocus Pocus suffered with in '93.

The most glaring difference is the ridiculously bloated budgets Disney now uses. Adjusted for inflation, Disney spent over double to produce Haunted Mansion in '23 than they did for Hocus Pocus in '93. With all the advances in employee efficiency and technology of the last 30 years, why would your production costs double in that time? Makes no sense to me. :banghead:

Flops Across The Decades.jpg
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Under the Touchstone banner, Bette was in these films during the Eisner reign:

Down and Out in Beverly Hills
Ruthless People
Big Business
Beaches
Scenes from a Mall
Yes, we were talking about her work AFTER Hocus Pocus in 1993, which she didn't work for Disney again with the exception of a Fantasia 2000 cameo until Hocus Pocus 2, 29 years after the first. That is a long gap not to have worked for Disney when she worked with them on many movies before that.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
With all the advances in employee efficiency and technology of the last 30 years, why would your production costs double in that time? Makes no sense to me. :banghead:
Human costs, ie actors, directors, writers, producers, etc., have all increased tremendously over that period, these are not factored into the inflation costs.

Not saying that as an excuse, but more maybe an explanation on why costs are different even after adjusting for inflation.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
So the new Haunted Mansion film is a flop, which is no surprise. To me, it looked too dark and not much fun. The personality of the Mansion has always been more eerily playful rather than horrifying. IMO, a better way to portray it on film would be to have most of the ghosts, including The Hatbox Ghost, behaving as mischievous but ultimately benign entities, with one exception - The Bride. She'd be a ghost the rest of the ghosts are afraid of. In fact, Hattie would have some history with her. Who do you think put his head in that hatbox? ;)

And then there's the other ghost whose head has been separated from her body - Madame Leota. Perhaps The Bride is responsible for that too. Perhaps Leota and Hattie were lovers once - Hattie having left The Bride for her. Maybe the Bride didn't like that and dealt with it, and now Hattie and Leota are unable to interact with each other as full ghosts. Perhaps their mutual dream is to someday dance with each other in the Haunted Ballroom. And there - bang! - you've got a doomed-love story a Haunted Mansion film's plot could revolve around. That would at least give an HM film some heart. Anyway, it's fun to think about...
 

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
Yea the turtles were HUGE then. I still watch the original TMNT movie. And the turtles arcade beat em up, classic. I remember people going crazy trying to find the April action figure as was only one to case. It is shocking that being alive in the 90s and not knowing about the turtles.
The original TMNT was, for a time, the highest grossing independent film. It did better than anything else Disney released that year (1990, early in the Renaissance era) except for Pretty Woman.
 

DavidDL

Well-Known Member
Just got out of a second viewing. I suppose the only lingering question I have is, are the ghosts who follow the cast home doing so as a command (ie, they are doing the bidding of the Hatbox Ghost to keep them in the Mansion) or, are they trying to get the cast to return in order to help them out (ie, set them free)?

I suppose it can be interpreted either way. Evidence for them following orders is Hatbox’s “You’ll be back. You’ll be back.” line at the start of the film, as if things are going according to his plan. However, I think it’s just as possible to see them as asking for help with their hauntings. They don’t seem particularly “evil”, per se. -and the Mariner’s line, “Return!” plays into the finale when “return” is the phrase used by Harriet and Leota to banish the Hatbox Ghost back to the regions beyond.

It’s possible a little of both could be true, too. Curious what vibe others who saw it got?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom