MovieChat Forums > Valiant (2005) Discussion > The reason it flopped is because...

The reason it flopped is because...


It's not goofy enough to hold kid's attention and not smart enough to hold parent's attention. Just my opinion.

reply

This film so far to date as made 95 million dollars world wide. Remember it is a British film being distributed in the U.S. by Disney.

It only had to make 50 million with production cost and prints and advertising to break even. After that is is all profit.

So far it has made a profit of 45 million dollars. With DVD and pay Cable. Posters, games, t-shirts, action figures. Vanguard and Disney will take in an estimated 95-110 million dollars. Yep thats a flop alright.

reply

[deleted]

Did it flop? I took my 9-year-old niece and we loved it, along with my mother. She even started dancing around at the end when all the birds are celebrating in the bar. All the kids the in American suburban theater loved it.

"Nobody's perfect."

reply

[deleted]

"I took my 9-year-old niece and we loved it, along with my mother. She even started dancing around at the end when all the birds are celebrating in the bar."

If your mother started dancing around in the cinema at the end, it must have been a hell of a movie. Maybe I should see it myself.

reply

I know you're joking, but believe it or not I've actually seen that happen in a few screenings. The best course of action is to get your head down, and run out of there as quickly as possible.. before they ask you to join in..


reply

95 million? Cite please. IMDB shows as follows:



Business Data for
Valiant (2005)


IMDbPro.com offers representation listings for over 55,000 individuals, including actors, writers, and directors, as well as contact details for over 10,000 companies in the entertainment industry.
Click here for a free trial!

Budget
$40,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend
$5,914,722 (USA) (21 August 2005) (2,014 Screens)
£1,096,329 (UK) (27 March 2005) (403 Screens)
€30,430 (Netherlands) (31 July 2005) (75 Screens)
Gross
$5,914,722 (USA) (21 August 2005)
£8,494,897 (UK) (3 July 2005)
£8,430,974 (UK) (12 June 2005)
£8,397,737 (UK) (5 June 2005)
£8,092,878 (UK) (22 May 2005)
£7,997,026 (UK) (15 May 2005)
£7,873,563 (UK) (8 May 2005)
£7,516,781 (UK) (1 May 2005)
£7,234,264 (UK) (24 April 2005)
£6,773,076 (UK) (17 April 2005)
£5,969,322 (UK) (10 April 2005)
£3,875,739 (UK) (3 April 2005)
£1,096,329 (UK) (27 March 2005)
€30,430 (Netherlands) (31 July 2005)
Weekend Gross
$5,914,722 (USA) (21 August 2005) (2,014 Screens)
£17,721 (UK) (3 July 2005) (129 Screens)
£26,339 (UK) (12 June 2005) (196 Screens)
£81,366 (UK) (5 June 2005) (296 Screens)
£88,275 (UK) (22 May 2005) (345 Screens)
£107,749 (UK) (15 May 2005) (385 Screens)
£171,960 (UK) (8 May 2005) (411 Screens)
£238,246 (UK) (1 May 2005) (449 Screens)
£334,669 (UK) (24 April 2005) (432 Screens)
£524,441 (UK) (17 April 2005) (439 Screens)
£906,754 (UK) (10 April 2005) (428 Screens)
£921,359 (UK) (3 April 2005) (414 Screens)
£1,096,329 (UK) (27 March 2005) (403 Screens)
€30,430 (Netherlands) (31 July 2005) (75 Screens)
Production Dates
15 April 2005
Filming Dates
2 January 2003 - ??



Yup, so far that's a flop.

reply

Hi,

I can hardly speak for the rest of the UK, but here in Oxford the cinema seemed to shun the film, only screening it at times during the day and also certainly no more than two weeks.

if this strategy was nationwide then not many people would be able to see it, hence low box office takings. for some reason, here in oxford some films seem to get this treatment. i really wanted to see valiant but will now have to wait for the dvd release.

reply

From memory when it hit the cinema and all the making of stuff was on TV, the production budget was about £3.5m ($6.5m) .. not the $40m mentioned above. A lot was made of the fact that it was a tiny team exclusively using off the shelf software and rendering engines hence why it was so cheap.

reply

More financial info about "Valiant"

Released in US August 19, 2005
Total US Gross $19,471,912
Production Budget $35,000,000
Worldwide Gross $58,471,912

These totals were ripped directly from:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2005/VALNT.php

reply

Don't forget marketing costs. Commericals and billboards aren't cheap.

reply

"Don't forget marketing costs. Commericals and billboards aren't cheap."

A films "budget" almost always includes marketing...so 40 mil including.

reply

Hi, I'm really sorry, but speaking as an avid Disney fan and animation freak, I was really disapointed with this movie, I'm sorry, but I think it's actually the first animated film I really haven't liked. The characters weren't well developed or believable, the plot was shaky and I can't really remember any good jokes. I didn't find the animation overly stunning either. The pigeons didn't look like they should have been able to fly, and Valiants voice didn't fit at all.
To those of you who dissed 2d animation and good story and character developement, wow, I hope that was sarcasm, otherwise todays audiences are really losing brain cells at quite the alarming rate. CGI can make for beautiful animation (the Incredibles, Shrek, Madagascar...style at least) but when it comes to Valiant, give me Lion King or Emperors New Groove any day of the week.
There should definitely be more animal films done in CGI, but done well and believably, like the fish in Finding Nemo, or Buster from Toy Story

"He will be irresistably drawn to large cities where he will back up sewers, reverse street signs and steal everyone's left shoe"

reply

Actually it doesn't. Usually its equal to the films budget.

reply

Why such a terrible movie as this makes 95 million and Serenity makes 25 mil is beyond me. Valiant is horrible. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Why such great actors as John Cleese and Ewan McGregor are in it is a complete mystery.

reply

yea its a british film. that is why it was boring

Well, there is one advantage to being me. Something you can never imitate, having you for a friend.

reply

They should do more movies about CGI animals - its so creative and has never been done before.

reply

arb is right MORE CGI animals! cause lets face it....old style hand drawn and painted animation is just crap. death to cell animation long live crappy CGI animals!

reply

'theflyingsaucers' is right! I say we go back and remake Snow White with badass computer graphics! *beep* Walt Disney and all he stood for! What did he know! We don't need to entertain people anymore with "quality writing" and "imaginative worlds"...things just have to be 3d and shiney.

__________________________________________
"I still can't think of anything..."

reply

totally agree on redoing snow white in CGI!!! maybe we can make the prince's lips just A TAD BIT PINKER!

M.Rouge,H.Potter,Phantom,A.Idol,
Smallville,Snicket,Sisterhood,and
Georgia Nicholson

reply

[deleted]

amen brother....or possibly sister..

reply

idiot...they were being sarcastic

reply

[deleted]

I wholeheartedly concur with the previous statement...

You are definitely an idiot

reply

I just have to say there was not enough character development, it had too much pradictable material and it was too short

reply

<I just have to say there was not enough character development, it had too much pradictable material and it was too short.>

True, and may I can't remember any of the jokes... I think it was actually a great idea and I loved the premise, but the execution was disappointing.

To those people who say it was meant for children, well, to me it sounds like an excuse for a flop. I think it WAS meant for everyone, but it wasn't good enough to attract the attention of adults.

Furthermore, just because people don't like it doesn't mean they're stupid Americans who enjoy Adam Sandler movies, and it certainly doesn't make you a connoisseur for liking it. A creative idea doesn't make a good movie.

And to guy who said "South Park" was crap... no, some episode are crap, some episodes are pure genius. That's just how South Park is. Besides, different strokes for different folks.

reply

[deleted]

You know they were being sarcastic if you read what they say. Whoever said "people are losing brain cells by the minute" was right! I cannot believe how dense some people can be - if it is not EXPLAINED to them, they take everything as it is said. Maybe it is because we are all reading it, and not hearing someone saying it, but to me that is no excuse. Read more books, stretch your brain. The movies everyone seems to LOVE are the stupidest dreck ever. Anything that makes you think a bit (and let's face it, most BRIT comedy forces you to think, since it goes by so fast and it is usually someone alluding to something without laying it all out for the dim-wits) is a bad movie. Go watch Mr and Mrs Smith, The Dukes of Hazzard, or anything with Will Farrell or Jim Carrey, but I will watch anything with quality British actors.

I do agree 100% with the CGI vs 2D animation. My son let out a mighty, "NOOOOOOOOOOO!" when I said Disney was no longer doing hand drawn animation. Why? Because their last few bombed. Not because we want to see movies that are hand drawn - they didn't ask us!! Oh no, they base it on Home on the Range. Let's face it, that turkey was what, 15 minutes long? I felt cheated and I saw it in a $2.50 theater. We want something like the Little Mermaid etc.

ABS
(When Shakespeare wrote his plays, the majority of people who went to them could not even read or write. Yet they understood the plays and what people were saying. This means illiterate peasants spoke Shakespeare-speak, or something close to it, if they understood it without needing a car chase or massive bloody fights. But our modern college grads say, "Sup?" and generally sound like idiots. People say, "Shakespeare movies are too hard to understand" or, worse, "They are too boring." What is the world coming to?)

reply

[deleted]

just back onto the subject of valiant flopping. did it or not cause everyone's saying different things. Also it is yet to be realeased in a few countries so they might get a few more million yet

I needed some hemp for my smoking-Paul McCartney's defense for smuggling a kilo of grass into japan

reply

Funny that guy couldn't see the sarcasm in the first place, then still wasn't sure after it was pointed out.

reply

Who wants to see a sappy cartoon movie with lurid off-gray pink colored birds with weird spongy lips and dumb looking aviators' goggles?

reply

This isnt really any good in any way. But i guess kids could enjoy it somewhat.

reply

[deleted]

I actually thought this movie wasn't that bad...

Not a patch on Toy Story or Toy Story II, but a heckuva lot better than such crap as South Park...



Science and science fiction fans
Check out my blog, Science and Sanity
http://thethunderchild.blogspot.com

reply

crap as South park!! no wonder you liked Valiant,,, you obviously have absolutely no taste.... or you are over 90 years old,, in which case, stick to the matlock reruns and stop sharing your opinions with those of us who actually have a sense of humor.....i'm not saying southpark is good for children,, but come on.....

reply

Some people don't enjoy watching tasteless trash. I don't need or want to see many of the things on South Park.

reply

Wow! "2006 me"? What were YOU thinking?

reply

Wow! "2006 me"? What were YOU thinking?

You crack me up.

reply

[deleted]

I think you wil find that birds dont have lips, education failing you perhaps?

reply

[deleted]

Disney does so like to make money! Otherwise we would not have "Franchises" such as Toy Story, Snow White (when did this originally come out in theatres and they are still making money on it hand over fist). Been to a Disney "Resort" lately? How about taking a trip on one of their "cruises". I am still waiting for them to make their own Disney "jets". This way you can take a jet to the boat to the resort and never once have to take out your credit card! Disney not like to make money...PPPPPLLLLEEASSSEE....!

BTW...I loved Valiant, but then again, I am a WWII fan(?). It was the first movie that I could take the whole family to see. We have a movie theatre that lets you sit in big comfy chairs that roll! You can also order food and drinks. It is a great place for kids to be kids..off to Wally World I go to buy the DVD...

reply


This film won't flop as in Lose money. remember DVD rental and retail sales are very lucrative. It will make a profit. But I do agree that the film was a flop in the fact it wasn't a 'hit'.

Top movies- please comment!
http://www.ymdb.com/user_top20_view.asp?usersid=17574

reply

A bit of a dissapointment, but not really a flop. $35 mill production cost. $57 mil gross.

reply

Shrek was appealing to Adults and Kids. This one is too boring for Adults who expect to be entertained well.
Kids will love it, however. It's certainly better than power rangers and teletubbies which still seem to turn a profit.

reply

"It's not goofy enough to hold kid's attention and not smart enough to hold parent's attention. Just my opinion."

I think that probably is the main reason why this movie hasn't been very well recieved. I didn't hate it, but I didn't really like it very much either. I'd describe it as mediocre. There have definitely been worse CG films, but there have been a lot of better ones too.






reply

I just watched it tonight, and I thought it was a rather good film. I think the reason it flopped was that its publicity was next to nill, and many Americans just don't appreciate British humor or actors. Also children under say, 7? 8? won't quite laugh at the non-slapstick jokes and more at jokes like Bugsy putting his armpit in Mercury's face. I enjoyed hearing John Cleese and Tim Curry's voices in the film it made it funny for me.



"THIS...IS GOD!"-Freddy Kreuger

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I certainly haven't - the British voices made it an ok movie for me. Here in Sydney (Australia for anyone who doesn't know) it is playing alongside Chicken Little, the obnoxious, big headed, unbelievably uncute character in the American movie. I did notice that the littlest kids did not seem to engage with Valiant but 8s and 9s liked it. At least they were not smartarsed and rude in order to get a laugh.

I also agree with some posters to this site that the look of the pidgeons was not the best and they also missed some opportunities for jokes. I thought that instead of taking a regular shower, the birds would be in big bird baths flapping about as they do. Also agree Valiant's voice was not distinctive enough, I've noticed this before with Ewan McGregor. I didn't even know it was him until after the movie. Ricky Gervaise on the other hand, I just have to hear him say anything and I laugh.

By the way, why does everyone sign off with some movie quote????

reply


Well I'm going to see this movie later on today with a couple of kids. The adds make it look good & after all it is only a cartoon. So how bad could it possibly be.

(Dunno who started the quotes @ the end of a message, but when I saw that most others had one, I thought I'd join in too)

"Close the door, will you? Your ship's about to blow up - there's gonna be a draught."

reply

[deleted]

I think the main reason this movie flopped: Reliance upon the CGI bandwagon. "Hey, it's CGI, it's got to be good!"

Bollocks.

The early Pixar films set the bar far higher than most people appreciate, because not only does the CGI still look appealing even today (albeit a little more cartoony and a little less photorealistic), but because there was decent plot and character development *without* reliance upon such cheap gimmicks as pop-culture (compare that against Shrek 2) and toilet humour.

Because of this, both viewers and producers got brainwashed into the idea that CGI=Hit movie. This isn't the case. A growing proportion of moviegoers are recognising this now, but sadly a growing number of CGI-reliant movie producers aren't taking the hint. This can also be attributed to the growing superficiality and vapidness of movie-goers these days; namely, those who watch a film merely because it looks good, not because of the rest of the elements that make it a good film. It's a self-reinforcing cycle that just keeps going...

Finally, yes, I think there will be a resurgence in anthro-animal movies a la 1960's Disney because it would fit nicely into the cycles and phases Hollywood appears to work in. The next likely "in-thing" will be Furry culture. It's already begun somewhat with Narnia, and it wouldn't surprise me to see a whole swathe of both original and unoriginal ideas hit the screen as a result: Redwall, Spellsinger, etc...

reply