Jump to content


How did Dreamworks' Sinbad (2003) bomb so badly?

Recommended Posts

I have just seen the movie and it was a spectacular misfire. You have got to be talented to screw up as badly as they did. A completely unlikeable protagonist who has no redeeming qualities and eventually steals his best friend's girl, yet another warped sense or story about love (note to Hollywood: no one who has fallen in love ever does or says it in this way) and a wholly stupid plot that made zero sense from start to finish. 


Now the love thing may just be my pet peeve, but that's why I despise most of rom-coms/dramas Hollywood shits out and any blockbuster that tries to create a romantic subplot, because they absolutely have no depth and are the most shallow excuse and addition. Any writer or director that leaves half-hearted, unbelievable love elements should be put out to pasture. 


However, to create a plot based on a mischievous goddess bent on causing chaos, someone who can wilfully become anyone and do anything is just completely idiotic and I'm surprised no one asked Logan to fuck off. Perhaps because he's been nominated, but what a shitshow this was. No stakes at all, and what do you really expect when you give someone all power. If they win, you knew they would, if they lose, they shouldn't have because of the rules you set up, so you fucking lose either way. 


I'm so glad that it opened to $6m back in 2003 in the middle of summer and ended with $26m total off a $10m 4/5 day. Hilarious performance and it lost $125m for Dreamworks. Superb. No one should see this trainwreck. I just wonder how it was greenlit.


I don't know how it bombed so badly as I wasn't following box office then and maybe BOM forums were still new too, but how did this end up the way it did? It's deserved completely, don't get me wrong, but I wonder how Dreamworks who I assume wanted this to be a summer tentpole ended up opening it to $6m. 


Katzenberg called it the death of 2D, but really, it being so shit definitely was a reason. Down nearly 40% on its second weekend and 80% on its third back in 2003 is all kinds of horrible. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually saw this in theaters and it was so bad. A big waste of money. I bet quality was a big factor in it bombing.

People thought it was about a crappy comedian who was only kinda relevant in the 90s.

It probably would have been better if it was. Edited by Empire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The film was not good but compared to some Dreamworks films like Shark Tale and Monsters V Aliens this was a work of art and it would have made much more money if it had been CGI. And at the time talking animals and comedy, not fantasy adventure drama, were more popular in animation so that was a part of why the film was not succesfull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.