Comments on: ‘Strange Magic’ Breaks Record for Lowest-Grossing Animated Feature in Wide Release

By: Baymax

Baymax — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 01:27:00 +0000

In reply to rbrtck. Ok.

By: Pearl

Pearl — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 09:56:00 +0000

Disney/ Lucasfilm didn’t fund the film entirely. Lucasfilm’s investment in its Singapore animation studio, where most of this film was made, was subsidized by the Singapore government, so that has to be factored into the budget.

By: rbrtck

rbrtck — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 22:03:00 +0000

In reply to Baymax. Teacher's Pet might be the lowest grosser for a 2000+ theater release, but Strange Magic was released in 3000+ theaters and might be the lowest grosser (domestic) for that (as the article correctly points out).

By: rbrtck

rbrtck — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 21:57:00 +0000

In reply to Morgan Stradling.

Lucas cared about the movie, which is one reason many of us are guessing that completing it and releasing it widely were a couple of the terms Disney had to agree to in order to purchase Lucasfilm.

As for its announcement, I think there is no telling how much longer Disney might have waited if they didn’t have to address the rumor of “Strange Magic” being the subtitle of a Frozen sequel. Maybe this made no difference, but the announcement, late as it was, came around this time period, so maybe it did.

And as for being given a chance, from what I’ve seen myself, I still think it was given a chance to do better than it did. Maybe the general public, like most of us in this case, didn’t find it appealing (and maybe the same goes for The Iron Giant even though most animation fans disagree strongly in that case). If Disney executives felt the same way–or even more than that, they felt embarrassed (that’s how the trailers and commercials make me feel)–then they wouldn’t want to draw too much attention to the movie. If it was going to flop for sure anyway, then doing so quietly (with no known budget for scale) would be best for the company. It sure looks as though they got what they wanted–a flop that virtually nobody cares enough about to laugh at Disney for or sell their stock over.

By: Baymax

Baymax — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 17:29:00 +0000

In reply to Morgan Stradling. I thought Disney's Teacher's Pet was the lowest grossing animated film of all time with $6 million dollars. Nathan Lane as a dog, anyone?

By: Morgan Stradling

Morgan Stradling — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 15:40:00 +0000

This was a movie that Disney acquired in the Lucasfilm acquisition and, based on the fact that Disney didn’t even formally announce this movie’s existence until a few months before, Disney wanted nothing to do with this. Maybe it was too far into development to scrap it, so Disney just quietly rolled it out, not really caring much about it’s performance.

Either way, pretty sad. I hate to see an animated film do poorly, especially when it wasn’t given a fighting chance by the studio (Iron Giant, anyone?).

By: Justinianwithabox

Justinianwithabox — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 12:12:00 +0000

Hey, if you’re going to be terrible, might as well be the best at it! Shoot for the stars!

By: Haley Gilbertson

Haley Gilbertson — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 02:08:00 +0000

I mean what else were we supposed to expect? It looks and is crazy, I actually saw it this weekend, great soundtrack, but the weirdest ending in the freaking world! I mean its not the worst I think, but it isn’t the best either, so I guess push comes to show when you make movies that make you feel like your on LSD in that ending
Seriously who else felt like they were on drugs at the very end?

By: Juuchan17

Juuchan17 — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:06:00 +0000

I’m not surprised about this “record-breaking” announcement. I, at least, did see ads for it around Christmas time [not as many as I did for “Paddington”, which did seem like the better movie to promote], but I only first learned about this movie on this site [Thanks, Rotoscopers!].

About the numbers, I really don’t think it’s worth mentioning the budget of this movie, since we can already deduce that it has tanked HARD. But as many have mentioned already, Disney doesn’t care, Lucas doesn’t care [heck, he made the movie he wanted… a fantasy movie for girls]. and the obvious one, the audiences didn’t care… too much.

At least it did make some money, though, but I think more people will be more curious once it hits their local Redbox machines. Better to spend $1.50 to see a movie than $8 or more in theaters or $20 to buy the actual movie in stores.

By: rbrtck

rbrtck — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 20:45:00 +0000

In reply to Stephen Erlandsen.

I saw quite a bit of advertising for it on TV, at least (and I don’t even watch much TV, and only over-the-air TV on top of that), so it might depend on where you live and what avenues for advertising you’re exposed to.

Anyway, the main points to take away remain the same–Disney themselves are neither surprised nor do they care, which in this case is so extreme that it’s actually interesting to people like us. 🙂