Disney wanted to go in a darker direction, but still keep its younger audience. That's the thing. Both movies should have been darker, maybe even R. They lack Raiders' charm, Krull's imagination and Princess Bride's writing. The only things that work are costumes and effects.
This and BC aren't bad movies, just kind of underwhelming (BC especially).
Dragonslayer was a flop for one reason alone: this was its competition during the summer of 1981:
* Raiders of the Lost Ark
* Stripes
* Excalibur
* Superman II
* Time Bandits
* Cannonball Run
* For Your Eyes Only
* Clash of the Titans
* The Fox and the Hound
* History of the World, Part I
...you'd have to be a lunatic to release Gone With the Wind into that murderer's row (half of which are considered classics a third of a century later).
-- If "Dragonslayer" had been released as a Halloween/horror film, it would have done much better.
Superman II was released in Dec. 1980, I don't recall it having such a long run that it was still playing the following summer.
shareSuperman II opened in Australia in late 1980. It then opened in new regions throughout gradually until it reached the USA in summer 1981. It wasn't a worldwide release like now. It opened systematically, allowing Sarah Douglas (Ursa) as the only cast member to attend the various premieres on the World Tour, the last that Warners did on that schedule.
Nowadays, a film opens everywhere within days of each premiere. Then, Superman II took 9 months.
So, yes, the previous post was correct, regarding summer competition. I know this, because I know Sarah and have seen all the press material from that tour. Hope it helps!
by Alfabeta » Tue Jun 25 2013 09:46:42 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2005
Disney wanted to go in a darker direction, but still keep its younger audience. That's the thing. Both movies should have been darker, maybe even R. They lack Raiders' charm, Krull's imagination and Princess Bride's writing. The only things that work are costumes and effects.
This and BC aren't bad movies, just kind of underwhelming (BC especially).
[deleted]
It was actually a choice of the film makers to make the kind of movie that they did. They conciously did not want to make a classic "knight kills dragon" movie with a happy ending. That's the movie I would have made, but that's another story.
The producer and director deliberately made a gritty film that had magic as a motif, and gambled that that's what people wanted to see. I think they were right, but I also think the movie probably would have done better as a Christmas release when people expect that kind of film, as opposed to a summer offering when people are expecting action or light hearted comedies.
It's a magnificent film, but again, I would have shot a slightly different story.
[deleted]
This movie got too much into the "politics" of the lottery and all the other stuff and, I realize you have to be more than just a big scary dragon movie, but that stuff didn't build any suspense and made the dragon seem like an eventual intrusion to everything else. Something like the original King Kong is a good lesson on how to write a movie to where everything points to what the movie's about but still going in other directions: all leading, tho, to the same place. This movie, alas, went all over the place.
All Movie Reviews www.cultfilmfreaks.com