Why did it bombed at the box-office?
-
thehumanfly — 16 years ago(October 09, 2009 10:07 AM)
I'm gonna attack all of these one at a time
I just don't get it, it wasn't a succeess but later it became a hit on video and DVD over the years.
I believe Dark Crystal is what they call a cult hit.
The film was a success, it just didn't meet the studio's expectations. A $40 mil domestic gross from a $15 mil budget isn't a failure by any means. Especially when you take into account foreign box-office.
1982 it would have been competing with E.T., if it was still in theaters when The Dark Crystal was released.
E.T. had been out for about 6 months, but it was still a powerhouse at the box-office. It had an effect on the Dark Crystal's success, but it was only one of several factors.
The fact that the Disney channel used to air The Dark Crystal (& Labyrinth) quite a bit back in the 90's may have been a contributing factor to its later success on the home video market.
Dark Crystal had been out on VHS for almost a decade by that time. It was a reasonable rental success when it came out (video was a new money-making format at the time), but by the early 90's it would be safe to say that it was actually disappearing from store shelves. It did ok on DVD, but that could be down to the explosion of interest in the fantasy genre at the end of the 90's/ early 00's fuelled by things like 'Harry Potter' and 'Lord of the Rings'. Also DVD's are cheap to buy, and with internet rentals you can 'queue' many titles, which means in some ways it's more accessible than it's ever been to people who might like it. The internet allows people to see the names of films (or have them recommended) and then go and see them in a way that was never possible before. If you'd asked a teenager in 1990 what they thought of the Dark Crystal, 99% of them would never have even heard of it, because it hadn't been successful enough to impact the national conciousness. The internet and DVD have allowed it to find its audience through being 'linked' to other films. 'Labyrinth' endured slightly better, largely due to it's lighter tone, and the fact that it featured both a legendary star (Bowie) and someone who would become a star (Connelly). So even though Labyrinth
really did
flop ($25 mil budget - $12.7 mil box-office), it had a larger built-in fan base prior to the internet. Just looking at the current votes on IMDB: Labyrinth has 33,000, Dark Crystal has 14,000. Considering Dark Crystal was a much bigger cinematic hit, it really underlines the much broader appeal that Labyrinth has.
Well personally i think it's a better movie then the overrated mainstream "Labyrinth" which stole this movie's limelight.
Labyrinth never stole its limelight. Dark Crystal had already started to fade from memory by the time Labyrinth came out. Dark Crystal was sandwiched between 'E.T.' and 'Return of the Jedi' in terms of its era, and it - like 'Krull' - disappeared in their shadows. Labyrinth had nothing to do with it.
um cause it's a gloomy, plodding, run-of-the-mill fantasy film?
Sorry I disagree with you Onepotato2. The Dark Crystal was beautifully done, full of fantasy and mysticism. I will admit the skeksies still scare me a lot. A definite 10/10 in my book. Why it bombed at the box office I shall never know, though Legend and Krull both bombed as well, and both are beautiful films, though if I had a favourite of the two, I'd go for Legend.
It wasn't run-of-the-mill when it came out. But yes, it does have a rather slow pace compared to modern films, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. As for 10/10; I personally rate no film that high, as it implies perfection (or an inability to criticise effectively). Dark Crystal is far from perfect, if it had been perfect it would've beaten E.T. at the box office and would be one of the most famous films of all time. It was very flawed, but it also had some great and highly original things in it. As it stands, I believe it is a good (but not, in my opinion, great) film. 'Krull' is also flawed in many ways. And 'Legend' while beautiful to look at, is also flawed.
There are reasons these films did not become monster hits, and it wasn't simply poor advertising or heavy competition. Back in the 80's, films released theatrically could hang around for a long time, so even if a film had a modest opening weekend, if the word of mouth was good it was entirely possible for it to grow and become even more successful (which is unlikely today). These films failed because they lacked the universal appeal and the near-perfect structure that would cause someone to rush round to a friends house and say excitedly, "Have you seen 'The Dark Crystal'?! No? I have! It was amaaaaazing! I wanna see it again, you've gotta come with me this weekend!" I saw the Dark Crystal at the cinema, and while I liked it, I wasn't bowled over by it. I can, however, still recall people rushing around recommending 'E.T.', 'Ghostbusters', 'Back to the Future', and others. Why? Because the films were, quite simply
closer to perfection
, or at least, many many more peop -
bravesirdidymus — 14 years ago(September 16, 2011 09:17 AM)
Very insightful comments humanfly. All the films you mention do have pretty big flaws but I would def rather had a film that tries something unique and fails then something more competent but completely generic.
-
sparklestar84 — 14 years ago(February 21, 2012 09:37 PM)
I remember watching The Dark Crystal a lot on tv in the 80s, when I was little. I always thought the movie was pretty well-known by kids my age at the time. My cousins and friends knew the movie well. We all liked it. In the 90s, I got the VHS and one of my other cousins, who is about 6 years older than me, borrowed it. I talked about it with other people my age. I always thought it was more well known in the 80s than what I've read online. Maybe it was popular with kids who had cable. Not everyone had cable then. I believe I saw it on HBO. Same with Labyrinth.
Anything I could have said I felt somehow that you already knew -
darkness_surroundz — 10 years ago(April 28, 2015 11:09 PM)
Don't forget that this came out with a HQ (for the time) first-time correct AR of 2.35x1 WIDESCREEN transfer on Laserdisc in 1992; It was a 2 disc collectors edition, supervised by Henson himself. He chose to use a very dark transfer of the film.
-
MaximumMadness — 16 years ago(December 12, 2009 07:22 PM)
I have a dream that someday, people who use the words "it bombed", will actually learn what "bomb" means.
This film made more than 2x its budget- $40 million gross VS a $15 million budget in the US alone
NOT
a bomb at all not a huge hit, but not a bomb.
Bomb = Making less than production costs back at the box office
Aka, this didn't bomb.
"Give Me Immortality, Or Give Me Death" -
RolandF1 — 14 years ago(February 08, 2012 04:09 PM)
Not sure if there is a correlation but I grew up in the 80s, and the first I heard of this film was on a VHS tape of He-Man cartoons my parents had bought me. It contained a trailer of the film that scared the beep out of me everytime I saw it! However, I found the preview intriguing enough to hire the film later on. I thought it was quite a good film and remember being thankful it wasn't as scary as the trailer made it out to be!
I'm wondering if the preview was on many kid VHS tapes hence the popularity after the cinema release. -
SpaceMonkey-Mafioso — 14 years ago(February 19, 2012 11:29 AM)
40 million in domestic box office in 1982 = over 100 million in 2012 dollars.
It was the #14 movie of the year- box office wise.
So, not even close to a bomb. It was a hit.
"Visions are worth fighting for. Why spend your life making someone else's dreams?" -
mikeyflatley — 14 years ago(February 20, 2012 12:13 AM)
very simple - niche audience. dis is like anime. no anime film is ever a big hit bec its a done in a medium 4 kidz wid adult themez. very niche.
adult audience generally need real actorz 2 take film seriously, otherwize they will not watch it or take it seriously.
I live, I love, I slay, and I'm content -
SyzyDamo — 10 years ago(May 20, 2015 09:23 AM)
There were a lot of HUGE films happening all through 1982 - which in my opinion has been one of, if not THE most important year for cinema since its inception.
Another cult classic, The Thing, was also released the same year, but was totally eclipsed by ET - as were a lot of good movies.
Its likely there were simply more attractive films to be seen by moviegoers, and it wasnt until the home video explosion that people got to experience just how good some of the other films of that year were. -
Woodyanders — 10 years ago(September 24, 2015 01:06 PM)
This film wasn't a box office bomb during its original theatrical release. It cost fifteen million and made forty million altogether at the box office, so it made back over twice what it cost to produce and thus didn't bomb at the box office.
I am the Duke of IMDb bio writers! I am A#1!