Snapshot: November 13-15, 1992
By Joel West
January 30, 2009
Not to say there wasn't any type of buzz following Coppola's Dracula as it was being made. Controversy with the studio over how Coppola wanted the film to look, on-set tension between the film's leads Ryder and Gary Oldman (his first big leading man role as Dracula), and rumored poor test screenings had all the makings of box office disaster. In fact, the film was even playfully dubbed The Bonfire of the Vampires. Not the kind of noise the iconic filmmaker wanted around his $40 million horror film. Furthermore, the film was far from a sure thing to begin with. The Godfather III aside ($66 million), Coppola hadn't steered a film to outright blockbuster status since 1979's Apocalypse Now ($78 million). While Oldman was coming off 1991's JFK ($70 million), he had never been tasked to carry a film on his own with such high expectations. Reeves and Ryder still weren't established stars; not to mention the fact that Reeves was clearly overmatched by the material. Only Hopkins was the real draw, coming off the previous year's Best Picture, Silence of the Lambs ($130 million). Still his name hadn't proved profitable earlier in '92 with Freejack ($17 million). This was coupled with the fact that the genre was in the box office doldrums. There really wasn't much going for Bram Stoker's Dracula.
Which just reinforces the importance of marketing.Dracula would have numerous opportunities to get its name out there in the fall of '92.
Through the end of September up until the weekend before Dracula opened, a number of R-rated films held the top spot at the box office. The Last of the Mohicans ($75 million), Under Siege ($83 million), and Passenger 57 ($44 million) were all providing adult audiences some escapism from the family-oriented blockbusters of the summer. Throw in the sleeper-hit horror film Candyman ($25 million) and Dracula had two months to prepare the right audience for Coppola's vision. The full-length trailer was masterfully cut (some could argue even better than the final product), showing the film's selling points (Hopkins, top-notch special effects, buxom Vampire brides, atmospheric sets) prominently. This was simply a vampire film audiences had yet to see; while fitting perfectly into the '90s theme of "bigger is better."
The week leading up to film's release was generating the type of water cooler buzz the studio was hoping for. You simply couldn't change the channel without seeing an ad for the film. In fact, most viewers probably couldn't even get Oldman's contagious laugh that shown in the film's commercials out of their heads (it has been 16 years and I still hear it!).
Dracula was without a doubt going to open big, the only question was how big?
When the final ticket was punched, Bram Stoker's Dracula had pulled in a massive $30.5 million over its first three days. At the time, it was the biggest non-sequel R-rated opening ever and biggest ever opening for a non-summer film (surpassing Back to the Future II's $27.8 million in 1989). All the turmoil and bad buzz that initially plagued Dracula was not enough to overcome the exceptional marketing. The trailers conveyed an epic horror film that was helmed by one of the greatest directors ever and clearly struck a nerve with moviegoers. Now the question was how much would the film make over its entire run? It would easily top $100 million, but how about $150 million? Is $200 million possible?
Continued:
1
2
3
Print this column
