|
Post by spherical on Jun 12, 2008 15:07:17 GMT -5
Why on hell they released a 2,5 million of dollars movie STRAIGHT-TO-VIDEO? According to Angus (Scrimm), it was because the lame studio didn't want to invest 7 million of dollars in advertising. Dumb. Anyway, did PHANTASM III make some business in order to outgross its budget? 2,500,000 million of dollars are A LOT! Was it a success in the video market, back in 1994?
|
|
|
Post by movieminded on Jun 17, 2008 21:07:36 GMT -5
Being in the video retail & distribution business I can say that it wasn't a big hit on video, mainly due to the fact that back when it was released "Direct-to-Video" rarely existed. It wasn't like the market today where only the biggest movies get theatrical releases. Universal didn't really market the movie to stores or potential viewers either, once again making it easy for Phantasm III to flop. Eventually Phantasm III recouped it's cost with international sales, cable & tv royalties and so on. It's easy for a movie with a budget of $2.5 million to make back the money eventually as long as people want to see it eventually. And the Anchor Bay release was so successful that Anchor Bay went so far as to get Oblivion's rights from MGM, showing that money has been made on the title.
People blame Universal for not releasing the title due to marketing money but there were other factors in their decision. The first was that Phantasm II did not make much money for them and the second was that Army Of Darkness, which had a similar audience flopped for Universal just a little while before Universal was given Phantasm III. The other main factor was that Universal didn't have any of their own money in the movie, unlike Part II, so they didn't really have anything compelling them to go out of their way on the film as well. The movie business is a business, people forget that, and the studios have to do what they think is best for the studio moneywise, which always isn't the best move in the end. At least Phantasm III was released at all, there are plenty of films that never see the light of day. People should be thankful Universal took the effort to release it, even if it was direct to video.
|
|
|
Post by spherical on Jun 18, 2008 9:22:43 GMT -5
Movieminded,
Huge thanks.
Being 'Phantasm III' an excellent and flawless movie, we must be glad that they released it in one form or another. Even if it wasn't a big hit, the movie found an audience, back in 1994. Said that, we all know HOW MUCH the Phandom has grown in the past decade!
Well, 'Phantasm II' costed about 3 million of dollars and grossed 7 millions of dollars ONLY in America. They did some business, as you can see. It's just that studios are hungry as wolves, and they want to cash even more money than the usual, no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by spherical on Jun 21, 2008 14:09:18 GMT -5
Of course, I don't agree.
|
|
|
Post by spherical on Jun 22, 2008 8:34:05 GMT -5
In my book, it's a brilliant movie and pretty much "captures" what I love in the series.
|
|
|
Post by The Never Dead on Jun 22, 2008 17:45:16 GMT -5
It may not have been a success on video back in the day, but I rented it almost every weekend.
|
|
|
Post by spherical on Jun 23, 2008 12:13:17 GMT -5
It may not have been a success on video back in the day, but I rented it almost every weekend. That's great, you did the right thing, pal...
|
|