<![CDATA[Spielberg's Box Office Failure ?]]>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Amistad

MrDangerZone — 17 years ago(May 31, 2008 01:27 PM)

Feel bad for this film. good film, but 40 million budget and a 4 million dollar box office weekend ? ? ? Damn.
James Cameron just destroyed him with his titanic, same week end.
Cameron is a better director and picks better projects than Spielberg.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/222484/spielberg-s-box-office-failureRSS for NodeThu, 14 May 2026 06:54:40 GMTSat, 02 May 2026 14:40:56 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Spielberg's Box Office Failure ? on Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:10 GMT]]>sarizonana — 12 years ago(July 15, 2013 03:52 PM)

And he( Mathew Mccounaghey ) did a great job in it.
When I saw him I was very surprised, I never thought he could be a real serious actor but I liked him very much in this film.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866463https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866463Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:10 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Spielberg's Box Office Failure ? on Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:09 GMT]]>MartyScorsey — 12 years ago(April 25, 2013 03:02 PM)

Back in the mid-1990s Matthew McConaughey was considered the next big thing, as big a star-to-come on the big screen as George Clooney or Ed Norton. Obviously it didn't work out that way, but I bet his casting was a reason for celebration at the time.

Space Shuttle Atlantis: the music video http://youtu.be/ZZ67FMfC1Gg

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866462https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866462Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:09 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Spielberg's Box Office Failure ? on Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:08 GMT]]>DreTam2000 — 13 years ago(January 06, 2013 07:21 PM)

If
Amistad
is boring,
Schindler's List
is boring.
Both films are marvelous, but
Amistad
is a special feat, and obviously the underrated of the two. Spielberg depicts in ways that are unmatched. Mathew McConaughey could have been done without, of course.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866461https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866461Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:08 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Spielberg's Box Office Failure ? on Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:07 GMT]]>VWstarwars — 13 years ago(August 08, 2012 04:13 PM)

How can it stand the test of time? It was boring when it was in theaters and just as boring now?

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866460https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866460Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Spielberg's Box Office Failure ? on Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:06 GMT]]>ejoe1 — 14 years ago(March 02, 2012 06:12 PM)

I have to say that Amistad very well stands the test of time. I'm watching it again right now.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866459https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866459Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:06 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Spielberg's Box Office Failure ? on Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:04 GMT]]>IMDb User

This message has been deleted.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866458https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866458Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:04 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Spielberg's Box Office Failure ? on Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:03 GMT]]>MartyScorsey — 14 years ago(October 24, 2011 09:38 AM)

Regardless of box office performance, these days, it's very hard for a mainstream movie NOT to break even over time. Royalties from TV re-runs all around the world will see to that.
Really, the only financial failues are movies that actually bankrupted their studios or sent them into receivership, e.g. Heaven's Gate sending United Artists into the ownership of MGM, because then the long-term earnings didn't do any good to those who actually invested the money in the first place.

Barnet and Chase Farm's da Vinci Robot rocks!

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866457https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866457Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:03 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Spielberg's Box Office Failure ? on Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:02 GMT]]>politicaldefiance — 14 years ago(April 07, 2011 09:13 PM)

It's too bad this movie didn't do better. And I don't think that Cameron is a better director than Spielberg.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866456https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866456Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:02 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Spielberg's Box Office Failure ? on Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:01 GMT]]>Gus-69 — 13 years ago(May 17, 2012 01:43 PM)

Yes, dear, it was a failure.
Studios keep, on average, 55% of the theatrical grosses. Doubt me? Go check www.boxofficemojo.com. Plus the M&A costs aren't computed in the official budget.
So, do the math.

http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866455https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866455Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:01 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Spielberg's Box Office Failure ? on Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:00 GMT]]>Ricochet84 — 15 years ago(December 04, 2010 11:45 PM)

It made 44 million. Not great, but not a failure.
Cameron is a better director and picks better projects than Spielberg.
Cameron is crap compared to Spielberg. Plus, cameron has a net worth of 650 million Spielberg has a net worth of 3 billion.
So tell me again - who picks the better projects?
You couldn't sell hacksaws in a jail!

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866454https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866454Sat, 02 May 2026 14:41:00 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Spielberg's Box Office Failure ? on Sat, 02 May 2026 14:40:59 GMT]]>IMDb User

This message has been deleted.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866453https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866453Sat, 02 May 2026 14:40:59 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Spielberg's Box Office Failure ? on Sat, 02 May 2026 14:40:58 GMT]]>MrsKrabappel — 17 years ago(September 30, 2008 07:40 AM)

But Spielberg has taken down more genres and had more Box office success
Lawyer:You sir are a moron
Homer:A Mormon,but I'm from earth!

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866452https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1866452Sat, 02 May 2026 14:40:58 GMT