It was a disappointment from what was expected by the studio and the pre-release hype, but it was hardly a bomb.

The best Dick Tracy film in my opinion would look like a Weegee photograph, and feel more like a 40\’s B-Noir. The violence should be more disturbing and less comical.

If it was ahead of it\’s time, it\’s only because it paved the way for glossy, star studded garbage like Sin City.

I hope Beatty\’s director\’s cut gets released now in a special edition as impressive as the REDS DVD from a few years back.

So yeah, for a big comic franchise that was going to launch a theme park ride and more it can easily be considered a flop. Did it make money? Sure. Was it the hit Disney wanted? No.

The total investment *inclusive* of prints and advertising may indeed have been within shouting distance of $100 million, but the actual negative cost was in the $40-50 million range. The first picture claimed to have exceeded $100 million in negative cost was \”Terminator 2\” in 1991, but James Cameron has actually publicly refuted that figure, stating that the negative cost was closer to $85 million (\”I wish I\’d had the other $20 million\”, was his quote.) And as both producer and director, he would be in a position to know. The first picture with a verified negative cost north of $100 million (if you exclude the state-funded 1968 Soviet production of \”War And Peace\”) was Cameron\’s \”True Lies\” in 1994. All other $100 million budget quotes predating it are posthumous inflations using present-day advertising cost projections. In fact, \”Dick Tracy\” wasn\’t even the most expensive picture released that summer: Although the $100 million barrier wouldn\’t be passed until Cameron did it, \”Total Recall\”, \”Die Hard 2\”, \”Days Of Thunder\” and \”Another 48 Hrs.\” each cost between $60-70 million, the most expensive being the $70 million \”Die Hard 2\”…and even that figure was believed to have been inflated slightly to publicly embarrass the filmmakers for going over budget. A similar charge was levied by Francis Ford Coppola against Paramount, regarding their leaked budget figures for \”The Godfather, Part III\” later in 1990.

The most expensive film ever made to that point had been 1988\’s \”Rambo III\”, with a $63 million negative cost. \”Total Recall\” and \”Die Hard 2\” were both believed to have surpassed it, with the latter winding up \”winning\” that dubious race. \”Dick Tracy\”, I can assure you, did not. Not even slightly. Unless your contortions of logic extend to tacking on the projected loss in theme-park-related revenues to the actual negative cost of the film itself.

Just saying.

P.S. The actual gross of \”Dick Tracy\”, when adjusted for inflation and using 2011 ticket prices as the variable, would equate to roughly $320 million worldwide, and $200 million domestic. So even if you adjust the negative cost to $100 million (for inflation, say), using the now commonplace and studio-generous 3:1 break-even point (a figure that was closer to 2:1 in 1990, as it had been for decades), it still wound up making money theatrically…just. Television and video sales would have ensured it wound up in the black.

But looking strictly at 1990 numbers: Dick Tracy brought in $162 million worldwide and it had a budget of $100 million (probably not including P&A which was enormous on that film — the studio promoted the shit out of it)

In 1990, yes, it was one of the top ten grossing movies of the year but in Disney eyes, hardly a blockbuster. Just for comparison, that year Disney also released \”Pretty Woman\” — it made $463 million worldwide. Just saying.