Haunted Mansion

[MisterPenguin]

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?

I think it was just a plot device to:

1. Force people to stay in the HM (too many ghost/horror movies have people inexplicably sticking around instead of running away)

2. Be a story beat to match the ride's "a ghost will follow you home!! mwahahahaha!!!"

The movie did show that there were ghosts that wanted to oust Hatbox; and others, in fear of him, did his bidding. So, the motive of the ghosts following them home could go either way.

With the ghosts' intentions at odds with one another, I'm looking forward, tho, to Haunted Mansion 2: Civil War!!

 

[DavidDL]

I think it was just a plot device to:

1. Force people to stay in the HM (too many ghost/horror movies have people inexplicably sticking around instead of running away)

2. Be a story beat to match the ride's "a ghost will follow you home!! mwahahahaha!!!"

The movie did show that there were ghosts that wanted to oust Hatbox; and others, in fear of him, did his bidding. So, the motive of the ghosts following them home could go either way.

With the ghosts' intentions at odds with one another, I'm looking forward, tho, to Haunted Mansion 2: Civil War!!

I agree it's absolutely a plot device but I do like to think about the "in-universe" explanations for stuff like this. After a little bit more thinking, I'm all in on those assigned to "follow them home" doing so at the behest of Hatbox. For the following reasons:

1) Hatbox's line during the opening title card inferring it.

2) We're told that Father Kent's haunt said the same thing as Ben's ("return"). This suggests a larger, coordinated plan and similar orders to the haunts if they are all using the same phrase to get folks back in the house.

3) Hatbox has a line during the finale where he says, "You all have betrayed me for the last time!". While this could just be generic villain dialogue, the way it is said doesn't feel like it makes much sense to me without some sort of betrayal from the haunts before this point in the film. Which is actually the case if the haunts were originally acting under Hatbox's orders. Because once it becomes clear that our cast actually has a shot at banishing Hatbox/poses a threat to his plan, they turn on him and begin helping the crew by detailing his plan and even leading them to where they can find an item to be used in his banishment.

4) It gives a comeuppance to Hatbox, who is banished using the term "return". The same command he gave the haunts to try and keep the team trapped inside the house, ultimately ends up being that which traps him in the region beyond.

I know I am just thinking too hard about the silly ghost movie. Sorry. I just think this sort of stuff is fun to think about.

 

[ppete1975]

At a budget of $28M and BO of $45M, Hocus Pocus lost $19M in the theatrical window. If one wants to call that a flop or not, they may, but people have shifting definitions of "flop" so as to make that term no longer useful any more.

It's obvious though, with being a 'cult classic' that Hocus Pocus, in the end, made up for the theatrical loss with all its repeated airings on ad-supported TV. And it certainly gave MK one of its best castle shows (at an up-cost).

and tons of merch now

 

[MrPromey]

I agree it's absolutely a plot device but I do like to think about the "in-universe" explanations for stuff like this. After a little bit more thinking, I'm all in on those assigned to "follow them home" doing so at the behest of Hatbox. For the following reasons:

1) Hatbox's line during the opening title card inferring it.

2) We're told that Father Kent's haunt said the same thing as Ben's ("return"). This suggests a larger, coordinated plan and similar orders to the haunts if they are all using the same phrase to get folks back in the house.

3) Hatbox has a line during the finale where he says, "You all have betrayed me for the last time!". While this could just be generic villain dialogue, the way it is said doesn't feel like it makes much sense to me without some sort of betrayal from the haunts before this point in the film. Which is actually the case if the haunts were originally acting under Hatbox's orders. Because once it becomes clear that our cast actually has a shot at banishing Hatbox/poses a threat to his plan, they turn on him and begin helping the crew by detailing his plan and even leading them to where they can find an item to be used in his banishment.

4) It gives a comeuppance to Hatbox, who is banished using the term "return". The same command he gave the haunts to try and keep the team trapped inside the house, ultimately ends up being that which traps him in the region beyond.

I know I am just thinking too hard about the silly ghost movie. Sorry. I just think this sort of stuff is fun to think about.

I suspect you've now put more thought into this element than the people making the movie did.

 

[erasure fan1]

At a budget of $28M and BO of $45M, Hocus Pocus lost $19M in the theatrical window. If one wants to call that a flop or not, they may, but people have shifting definitions of "flop" so as to make that term no longer useful any more.

I don't think the definition shifts at all. At least not from the people who keep referencing it. It's been pretty well established when people talk about a movie flopping based on budget, marketing... That it's flopped in it's theatrical window. Hocus pocus lost probably closer to 30mil plus. That's a flop by every definition for a movie of that budget. Unless I missed it, I haven't heard anyone say it's still a flop or hasn't made back its money now. But it will always be a flop in its theatrical window.

 

[SomePixieDust]

I didn’t mind this movie, I thought the whole cast was cute. Loved Danny Devito lol

 

[drizgirl]

Thumbs down from me and my Haunted Mansion loving daughter. We almost left about 30 minutes in. Glad we stayed to see the rest (for the nods to the ride) but that was about it.

 

[DKampy]

I don't think the definition shifts at all. At least not from the people who keep referencing it. It's been pretty well established when people talk about a movie flopping based on budget, marketing... That it's flopped in its theatrical window. Hocus pocus lost probably closer to 30mil plus. That's a flop by every definition for a movie of that budget. Unless I missed it, I haven't heard anyone say it's still a flop or hasn't made back its money now. But it will always be a flop in its theatrical window.

Not you… but some people do change the definition of a flop… I remember seeing this one exchange where The Little Mermaid was a complete flop and no one was seeing it… and then in the next post said Mission Impossible was not doing that bad

 

[TP2000]

Is there some industry standard for what a flop is? I ask that seriously, as an amateur observer of box office data, but as someone not versed in the mysterious ways of the Hollywood film industry.

What is the standard definition of "flop" in the movie business? I would assume any movie that fails to break even at the box office is a flop. But maybe it has to be even worse than that to be branded a "flop"? Some mathematical process that all studios recognize, like not hitting 75% of your production/mareting budget at the box office?

If so, what does that make something like Elemental that will only lose $100 Million at the box office, compared to an obvious flop like Indy 5 that will lose $200+ Million at the box office.

It looks like Haunted Mansion is going to lose at least $150 Million at the box office for Disney by late September.

Surely that level of failure for Haunted Mansion achieves "flop" status, right?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Is there some industry standard for what a flop is? I ask that seriously, as an amateur observer of box office data, but as someone not versed in the mysterious ways of the Hollywood film industry.

What is the standard definition of "flop" in the movie business? I would assume any movie that fails to break even at the box office is a flop. But maybe it has to be even worse than that to be branded a "flop"? Some mathematical process that all studios recognize, like not hitting 75% of your production/mareting budget at the box office?

If so, what does that make something like Elemental that will only lose $100 Million at the box office, compared to an obvious flop like Indy 5 that will lose $200+ Million at the box office.

It looks like Haunted Mansion is going to lose at least $150 Million at the box office for Disney by late September.

Surely that level of failure for Haunted Mansion achieves "flop" status, right?

There are several indicators of floppiness...

1. Critics hate it.
2. Audiences hate it.
3. It didn't make a profit in the theatrical window.
4. It's not going to make up for a theatrical loss in the following pay-windows.

Points 1 & 2 are important in that, even if financially successful, a bad product hurts your brand. And that effects how well your next movie does. (Cf. how Cars 2 stifled interest in the much better Cars 3.)

This is all muddled in that people in general don't know about "the rule of thumb." They don't know about so much extra being spent on marketing nor anything about the theatrical revenue sharing. So, the general public sees that a movie makes a BO of half a mil, but doesn't understand that with a big budget... that's not financially profitable.

And the general public often goes by the vibe and word of mouth. So, a movie can have buzz, and be well liked, and be thought a success in people's minds because of that, but, it still lost money (cf. Tangled.)

So, there are many definitions of 'flop.'

It should be unquestioned that a movie that wasn't well received and lost so much money that the after market can't make up for it is most definitely a flop.

But if there's only one or two bad indicators, you can focus on the good indicator and spin it as 'not a flop.' And conversely, if there are one or two good indicators, you can instead focus on the bad and call it 'a flop.'

You should see on Xtwitter how the Snyder-bros make every Snyder movie out to be the greatest and most profitable superhero movies ever but the Gunn movies as the worst. All based on gut and cherry-picking data. This isn't a Disney fanbase phenomenon.

 

[TP2000]

There are several indicators of floppiness...

I can't help thinking there's a couple good jokes there somewhere.

1. Critics hate it.
2. Audiences hate it.
3. It didn't make a profit in the theatrical window.
4. It's not going to make up for a theatrical loss in the following pay-windows.

Points 1 & 2 are important in that, even if financially successful, a bad product hurts your brand. And that effects how well your next movie does. (Cf. how Cars 2 stifled interest in the much better Cars 3.)

This is all muddled in that people in general don't know about "the rule of thumb." They don't know about so much extra being spent on marketing nor anything about the theatrical revenue sharing. So, the general public sees that a movie makes a BO of half a mil, but doesn't understand that with a big budget... that's not financially profitable.

And the general public often goes by the vibe and word of mouth. So, a movie can have buzz, and be well liked, and be thought a success in people's minds because of that, but, it still lost money (cf. Tangled.)

So, there are many definitions of 'flop.'

It should be unquestioned that a movie that wasn't well received and lost so much money that the after market can't make up for it is most definitely a flop.

But if there's only one or two bad indicators, you can focus on the good indicator and spin it as 'not a flop.' And conversely, if there are one or two good indicators, you can instead focus on the bad and call it 'a flop.'

You should see on Xtwitter how the Snyder-bros make every Snyder movie out to be the greatest and most profitable superhero movies ever but the Gunn movies as the worst. All based on gut and cherry-picking data. This isn't a Disney fanbase phenomenon.

I appreciate all that. Using those metrics, it would seem to me that at least 4 of Disney's last 6 tentpole films have been flops. The two that aren't flops would be; Guardians 3 was successful by all reasonable measures, and that Elemental was successful in saving a dying brand by being a decent movie even if it lost $100 Million.

The other 4? Yikes.

 

[LittleBuford]

As I’ve noted before, I’ve never understood the term “flop” to refer solely to a film’s profitability. By that definition, Cleopatra, having lost money upon its release, would have to be deemed a flop despite being the highest-grossing film of 1963 and the winner of four Oscars.

 

[Hawkeye_2018]

You also need to take into consideration that many recent films had an inflated budget due to Covid and other factors.

 

[celluloid]

As I’ve noted before, I’ve never understood the term “flop” to refer solely to a film’s profitability. By that definition, Cleopatra, having lost money upon its release, would have to be deemed a flop despite being the highest-grossing film of 1963 and the winner of four Oscars.

That is because originally, the term flop was commonly accepted to be something that failed on all accounts.
1(the literal formal definition
2. INFORMAL
(of a performer or show) be completely unsuccessful; fail totally:
"prime-time dramas that flopped in the US market"

 

[erasure fan1]

As I’ve noted before, I’ve never understood the term “flop” to refer solely to a film’s profitability. By that definition, Cleopatra, having lost money upon its release, would have to be deemed a flop despite being the highest-grossing film of 1963 and the winner of four Oscars

Agreed. But the vast majority of the discussions going on are about Disney and their films profitability. That's what's being talked about. I think the difference between your Cleopatra example is I'm not sure any of the films being discussed are Oscar worthy. Studios make films all the time that they know aren't going to do well financially because they are looking for the awards recognition. Like penguin said, there's multiple definitions of flop. All we can really discuss right now is the financials. It will be years before we see if any of these films become "cult favorites". Or gain any real life after the theatrical window.

 

[LittleBuford]

Just saw it. What a fun and funny film! I laughed out loud several times. It also had some genuinely moving moments surrounding the theme of grief, which I thought was very well handled. Some people here have remarked that one needs to be a fan of the ride to really connect with the film, but I would largely disagree. While the tributes to the attraction are indeed plentiful, they feel to me more like a bonus for those of us in the know than something viewers need to recognise in order to follow or enjoy the plot. Perhaps the only exception to this is Madame Leota, whose on-screen portrayal is curiously underwhelming and might not make much sense to those unaware of her significance in Haunted Mansion lore.

Anyway, I would recommend this without hesitation to others.

 

[DCBaker]

Haunted Mansion arrives on Disney+ on October 4.

 

[SomePixieDust]

Haunted Mansion arrives on Disney+ on October 4.

View attachment 742108

Looking forward to it

 

[Hawkeye_2018]

Finally watched this. Pretty average, which really felt like was all the movie was trying to be. A strange mix of casting that didn't really seem to blend well.

 

[Phroobar]

Finally watched this. Pretty average, which really felt like was all the movie was trying to be. A strange mix of casting that didn't really seem to blend well.

I still don't get why the kid is running around in a suit and tie. Is this why has no friends?