Popeye is a personal favorite. Colorful, humorous and completely bizarre. But was there really a demand for a live-action Popeye movie in 1979-80? Did they really think this could compete with Star Wars/Superman/etc for whizz-bang family entertainment? I mean really?
share[deleted]
it cost 20 million and took in 50 mill in america alone, how is that a flop. Plus it would made alot over seas..
You are correct.... Its funny, i've seen print articles some of which call this movie a major flop and others calling it a smash hit....
It definitely made solid money.... For what its worth, its the longest line i've ever waited in, to see a movie. i was a wee lad, and remember the line literally went out the building and a good 400 feet down the street, so there was massive hype surrounding it.
Jaws 3D and ALIENS were also pretty long lines... one of which was deserved.
Maybe these days, with the multiplexes, lines are a thing of the past. I can't really recall lines for any modern films, even the popular ones.
I think you are right about the multiplexes and lines. Everything is just thinned out a bit now. I remember being a kid in the 80s and most places we lived had 2-screen cinemas; the "big" one might be a 4-plex. There were always lines for any showing of a new film.
The longest line I can remember was my parents taking me to Conan the Barbarian. The line wrapped around the building and when it was over, the line for the next showing was just as long.
These days I catch movies at a 10 screen cinema and popular titles will even be duplicated on 2 or 3 screens, staggering the times and the lines.
live it
shareIt made money only because it's a kids movie
Trust me, kids and families left the theatres in 1980 shaking their heads wondering what they just saw. I was one of them.
It's the same reason why they keep making those horrible animated chipmunk movies. They are god awful but families are starved for something to take their 7 year olds to see in the theatre. So they just go see whatever "kids" movie is playing. I could release an animated film of me taking a $h!t for 90 minutes and it would make 75 million!
As long as it's computer animated and 3D glasses are involved - then things like plot, story and acting make no difference.
I'm sorry for you. My two girls loved it and we went back to see it 3 times. Hell I only saw the first Star Wars twice in the theatre.
shareIt was riding the marketing wave of adapting comic books to films and TV.
To me this was one of the worst, most idiotic, and just dunderheaded ideas to ever come out of Hollywood. It really is. Popeye's niche audience were grade schoolers and nerdy middle and high schoolers who watched cartoons. But by the time the film was released a lot of the classic cartoons produced between the 30s and 60s that were airing during the afterschool time slot, had been pushed aside for offshore imports and American films focusing on new media properties; He-Man,
Care Bares, Rainbow Bright and others.
Popeye had all but dissapeared, and I can't think of a single kid who could think of him or talked about him in 79 or 80.
Now, having said that, the film's artistry in terms of production values, is top notch. Like I said in another post, I would not have cast Robin Williams as the lead, but the supporting cast was dynamite. Robin Williams is dynamic, intelligent, witty, and just talented as hell, but the roll needed someone who was both rough and tough from being out at sea.
Not that that would have saved this film in terms of box office success. I think it was fated to flop form the get go for all the reasons I mentioned. But the final product, the Sweethaven Village, the shots / cinematography, the costumes, set design and everything else, was an artistic success.
Unfortunately it's a film that probably should have been made during the war years, to cash in on WW2 era Popeye who wore a white suit, and was identified as naval personnel, instead of depression era merchant marine.
Anyway, I hope this helps.
Either way, it's an odd film to have gotten made. The marketers who pushed for this film to get made clearly had NOT done their homework, and I hope they got pushed out of the film industry, and wound up working retail on the wrong side of the tracks. This film deserved better in terms of a director and production. Robert Altman was a competent film maker, but the twisting of the classic Popeye tale, I think, was a bit much for a lot of people who gave it a shot.
But by the time the film was released a lot of the classic cartoons produced between the 30s and 60s that were airing during the afterschool time slot, had been pushed aside for offshore imports and American films focusing on new media properties; He-Man,
Care Bares, Rainbow Bright and others.
I think you're right to a good degree. You're right, a lot of what I mentioned didn't come on until the mid 80s, but stuff like Hanna Barbara offerings and Japanese anime were getting more and more air time. Classic toons were serving as filler.
I still think there was a marketing misfire. I love the movie artistically. I love the characterizations, I love the sets, the costumes, and even the structure of the film itself; a collection of comic strips compressed into a film. But I thought the larger story arc needed some tweaking though. The whole spinach thing needed reworking. And I think that held back a more successful film.
I think people were willing to give Popeye a shot, but having Popeye dislike spinach until the final scene ... I think torpedoed the success that the film might have had.
A bit of an odd duck either way. But a good looking one nonetheless.
I have similar opinion about this movie. Everything was good but the story itself needed some tweaking. Plus I think think the songs could have been a whole lot better.
Esta es mi firma
"Care Bares"??? Oh yeah, the one with the strippers who got involved in their community?
shareI don't know. I was born in 1969 and definitely knew who Popeye was. If a guy had huge arms he was compared to Popeye, and every time you ate spinach (or didn't eat spinach) Popeye's name came up. We even watched the black and white cartoons in the 70s. I think most kids knew Popeye and the whole cast of characters in the 70s and early 80s.
I think the movie failed (relatively speaking) because it seemed dark when we were kids. The sets might be artistic successes, and I can appreciate that now as an adult but when you're 10-11 years old or younger that just isn't appealing.
There was also a number of movies like The Dark Crystal that were the same way. Yes, great movies when you're older but when you're the target audience you're not begging your parents to bring you to see them like you are Star Wars or Superman.
To say it's the worst idea Hollywood has ever had and to hope the writers never got a job again is kind of ridiculous. I'm glad they made the movie because it's an entertaining film that's well-casted and the sets and costumes are great.
yes it is a classic unknown to some
shareyes it is a classic unknown to some!
shareSince Popeye had been around since the 30s, I would imagine that this movie was also target at adults that grew up with the cartoon. I have not seen the movie in ages and saw it only once, but remembered being mesmerized by its surrealness.
I wonder how many people went to see the movie because they felt nostalgic about the original cartoon which this movie tried to remain true to.
As for it being a flop, what I've read is that it made about three times what it cost. Not really a financial flop. It was classified as a flop because it did not meet the studio's expectations. Go figure.
[deleted]
There seems to have been a strange idea in the '80s that the pulp characters or Fliescher characters had appeal in the late '70s and on, plus Robin Williams was doing imitations of Popeye at that time as well, so he was a shoo-in.
But I've often puzzled as to why the success of Superman didn't result in more superhero movies.
The conclusion and assumption seems to be that it was more a pulp group of characters, not comic book characters, who people wanted to see, hence why there was the Doc Savage movie with Ron Ely, the Lone Ranger bomb, Popeye, Little Orphan Annie, the Bo Derek Tarzan fiasco, Flash Gordon.
There was still a sting over the '60s Batman movie, so clearly no one wanted to see that again.
Hollywood had to get away from its cynicism over stuff like this as well, seen in the Doc Savage movie especially.
Characters that appeared in the '70s cartoons such as Waldo Kitty and what I call the Filmation cartoons for some reason were considered appealing. No one was wanting to do the Stan Lee Marvel heroes.
If they did do Marvel back then, they had to massively overhaul them.
Carol Burnett did a skit about reading characters in comic strips and they were essentially this same set of characters (Annie, Sheena of the Jungle, etc.)
Well, to me the answer is pretty simple. Superman was an action hero, and a movie about him and his adventures cost money, particularly if you want a good movie that stays true to the feel of genre the comic book is presenting.
How and why any marketer would assume that an ostensibly sci-fi ation superhero comic book character would imply that OTHER comic book characters were primed for filming, is beyond me. But that's kind of how directors and the film industry "think" (if you can call it that). Ergo; "Gee, that Superman movie was a big success, and he's a comcic book character. How about a Howard the Duck movie ... ?" And so it goes.
Part of the whole reason you read novels, comics, or watch movies is to engage in escapism, and to be part of that world in a vicarious sort of way. Ergo when the first "Superman movie", the musical based off the Broadway stage play, came about, fans and would be fans, myself included, are baffled as the mess that gets filmed.
Film makers often are so engaged in the emotional story and presentation that they really, and I mean REALLY forget what the hell it is they're supposed to be creating. Their thinking is that "Gee, if it's clever enough, funny enough, and looks good, people will like it..."
Uh, no. If Batman is a detective with some unique smarts, then you better make his movie like a detective film. If Superman is a sci-fi action hero who doesn't need guns, then you better show him pounding the bad guys and so forth.
But that's not what happens. Instead the director and producers get caught up in "what people like" verse what should be on screen.
Hope that helps.
Tho Superman appeared in the comic book first, he was 'designed' with every intention of going into the newspaper comic strip and eventually did so, and those early adventures looked rather like the '50s George Reeves show, hence why no super villains or anything else like that.
The idea and assumption at that time seemed to be any fictional character who didn't appear in comic books but seemed like they should would be ideal for movies.
I think for the age we were, with Superman in the movies, we were more puzzled why Marvel characters weren't picked for the movies even then.
Granted, Howard was a bomb (and if the belief was, hey, he's a Marvel character, still clear of them) but three years later it was the Batman movie with great success.
It's amazing there wasn't an attempt at a Prince Valiant movie or an earlier Shadow movie.
The Doc Savage movie was before Superman and has a hideous excuse for a music score with John Phillip Sousa pieces, but re-edited, it could be much better than what is seen. That mainly seems to be what is wrong with it.
The Superman movie really could have suffered had it not been for its soundtrack as well. The movie could have had a disco beat to it and imagine what that would have done to it. It could have come across like the Flash Gordon movie or something.
All that is true. But I think the real reason "Superman" was a success was because the producers put talent and money into it, and specifically Richard Donner to helm the thing, who knew who and what Superman represented in America.
I guess what I'm saying is that there's a competing mentality in producers. It's almost schizophrenic like in that one side says "The marketing data shows this" while the other side says "but this seems to look really good, and I like it because it has quality". When the two are at odds, I think, is when you get stuff like the live action Spiderman TV series in the 70s (which I liked somewhat) or the 1960s "Batman" film which was really atrocious.
There was a Prince Valiant movie made in the 1950s. I seem to recall there was a new one made in the 90s.
As for Marvel characters, well, the best riff I heard on the two pantheons, DC verse Marvel, is that DC characters in terms of persona are more of what we strive to be, or desire in terms of how we'd like to present ourselves, whereas the Marvel characters are more down to Earth, and show us more of how we really are. I think producers subconsciously latched onto that, and perhaps that's why DC got the big bucks and a nod with a Supes movie, verse a mid budget TV series featuring the Hulk or Spidey.
Clearly if group A made Superman, group B made Doc Savage and group C made Flash Gordon, the results and vision wasn't the same, hence why one was successful and the others bombed or are campy.
And Marvel at that time, tho not to me, was still too new, I guess, as the tv shows with Ferrigno and Nick Hammond displayed, changing them considerably from the book.
I had heard that "who we really are, who we want to be" applied to the Bugs Bunny WB characters,
Bugs, Road Runner, Tweety are who we want to be, Elmer, Sam, Wile E., Sylvester are who we really are.
Not to get too off topic (Popeye), but I think Flash Gordon was deliberately created to be a campy update to the 1930s serial. Still, that doesn't make it a good thing, but whenever you got Dino De Laurentis producing you know something's up.
As for Marvel, well, that's possible. I also think the technology wasn't there at the time to due justice to any of the characters; at least not without Salkind-Superman kind of money. Superman had a built in audience, where Spidey and gang were still reaching for theirs.
As with Doc Savage, and what happens today, the assumption or belief is many of these things have to be given a campy edge, a touch of sarcasm, such as what happened with the recent Dark Shadows movie.
No camp was applied to the '91 tv show, so that was deduced as to why it bombed (nevermind that live coverage of the Persian Gulf war also interfered).
Stepford Wives as well was camped up, modified, altered from the overly serious (and much better original) and forty years on, look at what happened with Land of the Lost.
Conclusions are reached on many of these that doing them overly serious will be a turn-off, so the poor excuse for humor or camp is added.
For me, where Popeye was concerned, unless you were familiar with the old comic strip, you wouldn't know who Ham Gravy or Castor Oil were, who transcended to none of the cartoons, so no, kids didn't know who all these characters were or the role they played in Popeye's history.
But unlike Doc Savage, Superman or Flash Gordon, Popeye was supposed to be total comedy, a cartoon character, and the movie did a good job making him real life, even tho the songs were likable, that seemed to be the most dialogue from the characters, everything else was what was known as 'throw-away lines'. You had to strain to hear them or pay absolute attention, which a child wouldn't do.
Yes, this was the case of the earliest cartoons, but this made it a turn-off for kids.
Still, this movie could have found an audience like Wizard of Oz or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang or Willie Wonka, had it been aired endlessly at the holidays or something.
I think you're absolutely correct about the short sighted-ness of a lot of producers who hire these directors that have a kind of, ... how does one put it, too hip to be cool kind of view of the audience.
It's why Doc Savage got the treatment that it did, instead of being the pulp action hero that he is, he got the shaft. The creative forces; producer and director, either A) over-estimated the audiences knowledge of movie making, and therefore turned Doc Savage into a camp-fest (remember, Superman was going to get the same treatment at one point), or B) they didn't know how to approach the material, and therefore turned it into a camp-fest with a bunch of "in the know" jokes and zingers.
That verse what I think Popeye got was what Chris Reeves might have called a "Public Trust" kind of treatment. That is he, Christopher Reeve, saw his role in the first Superman film as a public trust for an American hero and icon that everybody knew and loved. And I think that's how Robert Altman approached the Popeye character and Thimball Theatre.
Now, the fact that it went over most audience's head, again I think, was the fault of the market researchers. If only it had been shot in the late 1930s on two strip color stock, then it might have gained a legacy, because people would have identified with that dilapidated New England Depression Era coastal town.
I think the movie now has a kind of parent-child audience, as you suggested with the other films, but it's just not as strong. Which means that it probably won't have the staying power of an Oz, Bang or Wonka. Then again, when was the last time those films were big events on TV? Not anymore, or so I'm of the opinion.
Wizard of Oz is still shown every year, the other two, no, not as much, but they are over established now.
Both chitty Chitty and Wonka have made it to Broadway from what I understand.
Wonka was (poorly) remade, the kids get interviewed left and right.
both were favorites when we could catch them growing up.
Would Popeye have found this audience well into the '80s?
Eh, maybe not. He didn't relaunch a comic book series, but again, who could say?
This seemed to be what Robin Williams wanted with several of his movies there for a while, like Jumanji (which gets quite a bit of airplay, or has); that they would be over-exposed and become family favorites, as the last one, A Christmas Story, has done.
Yeah, just thinking about your last post.
I think "Popeye" missed its mark to become a family favorite by being made too late in the game. It was a gamble, and had mixed success.
I think today now that media is a lot more democratized via streaming and phone cameras, that film in general is more and more taking back seat to games and real time streaming.
I think Popeye rode the crest of that wave thirty years before by virtue of the kind of film it was; artistically very sound, but struggling to really find an audience.
Both films and TV shows, in terms of content, have diverged into two directions; good clever family shows, and really horrible shows for singles, but both with real good technical gloss. Meaning you won't see the likes of Popeye again for a very long time.
Thanks for the exchange.
It's amazing there wasn't an attempt at a Prince Valiant movie or an earlier Shadow movie.
I believe it was around this time that Popeye cartoons were coming back into popularity. There was the H-B series going on at this point, despite it toning down the violence which I never liked, but I guess this got the sailor man back intio the zeitgeist, which prompted Paramount to cash in on his success. Sure his popularity may have died out in the 1960s and he was absent for the '70s, but as research has shown, things that were popular 20 years earlier will become popular again. Popeye was POP-ular in the '80s, they'd re-run the '60s cartoon all the time, the arcade game debuted in 1982, so I'd say that decade was his time to return.
Unfortunately, Popeye has been dormant ever since. Hopefully this new movie coming in 2015 will make him popular again.
Why all the hate for this movie? I saw it when I was a kid and loved it. My daughter loves it now. Whats idiotic is critiquing this film as if its Star Wars or Close Encounters. Its a kids fantasy film. Nothing more and it does a very good job of being that. The songs were fun and Robin Williams and Shelley Duvall were both brilliant. So was Ray Walston
shareI like it, too. Could just be because it's from my childhood so it has a special place in my heart. Either way, I definitely don't hate it.
So sad to know Robin isn't here anymore.
indeed
shareAccording to that authorative source above all else, Wikipedia, it got made because a flaky producer wanted a musical based on a cartoon character after his studio lost the bid to make that other time-conquering film, (little Orphan) "Annie".
IMHO, it's just a charmless film. Ughhhhh.
Where it does parallel to today. You have every comic and graphic novel turned into film.
What really pushed this was two different events:
1) Superman pretty much opened the door for movies like Flash Gordon, Popeye and Indiana Jones. It appealed to the people who group up with the serials and cartoons of the 40's and 50's.
2) Robin Williams was perfect for the role and riding a wave of popularity.
This was a case that you had the perfect comedic actor with an absolutely horrible script.