Once we get rolling on this, feel free to go wild commenting on other people’s idea. But I think it would be a great exercise for all of us to offer, “What went wrong with Grindhouse?” in 25 words or less.
If you have more than one theory, number them up and give us multiples, 25 or less.
I’ll start – Grindhouse did exactly as much as it was meant to do. It was 3 hours long. It acknowledged being intentionally bad. Sold!
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I’m seeing it tonight and I think all this negativity will make me enjoy it that much more 🙂
Please, please let that be the case!
Talented directors working beneath themselves making homages to intentionally bad films that nobody has heard of. Self-indulgent, self-congratulatory, masturbatory. Poland is an apologist.
1. Intended audience forced by guilt to attend holiday family get-togethers where sneaking out to 3 hr movie where entire family can’t attend + traveltime = not feasible. (25 wds)
2. No one but a cult freak knows what a f*cking Grind House movie is.
3. Most of the names associated with the marketing materials + trailers mean nothing to anyone but cult/movie/gamer afficionados.
4. SPy Kids guy doing a zombie movie and QT busting another nut doing referencing might not fill average filmgoer with enthusiam for said 3 hr picture.
I was busy eating chocolate eggs and humoring relatives. That’s my excuse anyway.
It’s a Kurt Russell movie.
Nothing went wrong, expectations were out of whack.
Neither director is ‘working beneath himself’. Rodriguez is a semi-talented director and he made a semi-good film. Tarantino is a very good director and he made a very good film that is not ‘intentionally bad’ or especially ironic. Death Proof is much closer to Pulp Fiction than it is to Kill Bill (and Planet Terror is much closer to The Faculty than any other Rodriguez project).
How did I become tagged as an apologist for a movie I panned half of completely?
Total Fucking Confusion. Calling this beast ‘GH’ set it up for a fall. Made no sense at all to 90% of filmgoers – too much marketing time preaching to converted. Not enough saavy to expand aud base.
First of all, Tarantino is definitely working beneath himself by making a genre film that is a throwback to a film like “Duel”. Nothing wrong with “Duel”, but Tarantino with Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown proved himself to be a director who can do much more than make a simple genre film. He can make films that transcend, but he’s too lazy to do that so he makes dreck like Kill Bill and Death Proof. I disagree with you, Jeff, in thinking that Death Proof was anything more than a fucking car chase flick.
And Dave, you are an apologist for making up excuses for why it didn’t do better, especially for saying that it’s everybody else’s fault for thinking it would do big business. It’s Tarantino and Rodriguez’s fault for making intentionally bad films that were being sold as intentionally bad films.
It’s a concept that audiences didn’t understand and weren’t interested in seeing.
The title of the film had nothing to do with the soft opening. There’s no proof that movie titles ever impact boxoffice.
J-Mc… 25 words or less.
I got one:
Machine gun leg? We want machine gun vagina!
People saw Rose McGowan with the machine gun leg and thought it was a movie about the Paul McCartney-Heather Mills divorce.
Noah, that’s not new, really. I don;t think anyone can eclipse the weapon T. Miike had in one of his movies, I think it was Gokud
The budget was too big. If this were a *real* grindhouse movie, it would have made a profit.
I took it as a suggestion, not a rule, DP.
Noah, I’m not convinced that you’ve seen the movie. Death Proof does transcend. Neither film is ‘intentionally bad’, whatever that means.
Typical.
How do I convince you I’ve seen the movie, Jeff? Want me to give you some “spoilers”? I mean, come on dude, just because I have a different opinion about it than you? And both films are “intentionally bad” when the prints are scratchy and have missing reels. You’re not exactly trying to make a coherent, full film if you intentionally take whole parts out of it.
Sorry, DP, feel free to edit it down if you think it’s that important.
People, like me, who are outside of the QT/RR ass-kissing cult, have no interest in seeing a seemingly bad movie with the only gimmick being the girl with a gun for a leg.
1. Mainstream audiences don’t like 3 hour movies.
2. The movie never should have cost that much. 25 million for the pair would have made fun and profitable.
3. no sex appeal to the ads. one legged strippers aren’t sext. alba was. Sin City box office – Boffo. Grindhouse box office – Not so boffo.
I also agree that budgets were too high.
(wordcount = 8)
That said, I don’t see how Death Proof could have cost that much unless they gave Russell a big salary.
Checks and balances were missing for two directors who are more concerned about entertaining themselves and feeding their egoes than pleasing as many as possible.
QT/RR’s loyal audience is now 30+. If they’re married, and/or with kids, they ain’t seeing GH over Easter/Spring Break. 300’s college audience -no memory of indie theaters = no interest.
Wrectum. Knock knock – McFly?
The title ‘was’ the concept.
It was flawed and it got floored.
Accurately recreating an experience that 99% of people didn’t want to experience the first time around (and weren’t aware of) produces the audience you’d expect.
Jeff – Kurt got paid but not his studio fee. QT and RR just have zero ability to stay within budget, which is why they would have never survived in the true GH days. Bob and Harvey should have gave each 10M + 14 shooting days and said make it work. That way, the GH flavor would have came from the pressured shoot. Instead, we get a bloated post-modernist mess that defeats its own purpose.
3+ hours with NO true celebrities (no Bruce Willis, you’re not a celeb any more) and 2 directors who are still trying to milk the “director as celebrity” angle that died when JACKIE BROWN did at the box office.
man, all i know is that i’m looking toward a summer with more sequels than i have fingers and toes. something original, even if it’s a tipping of the hat to low-brow, older genres, sounds fun. i look forward to seeing these movies. one thing is wierd, tho…nobody seems to remember what a double feature is (or was). the kids who work at the multiplexes are dumbfounded when you ask about the times for the separate films that make up GRINDHOUSE.
Listening to film nerds talk about obscure movies that nobody’s seen over a couple of beers can be fascinating. Watching their 3 hour homage that would’ve felt like watching paint drying even at 90 minutes is b o r i n g. I enjoy seeing clips of those old 70’s flicks but the crap they filmed to sandwich between the cool set pieces wears thin fast. “Grindhouse” has some great scenes but the other 170 minutes is tedious.
Jeffrey Boam’s Doctor, dude, you’re making absolutely no sense.
Guess I’m in the minority. I thought the concept was great. It tried to create a movie experience…3 hours of film entertainment. I like the work of both directors. I like both films…thought they delivered. At the end of the evening I felt like I’d had a great and unique night at the movies. I felt that both directors had really tried to do something interesting.
My only explanation is that I couldn’t get a lot of friends to the World theater when I was a kid to go see these movies in the 70’s. I couldn’t get too many of my friends to go see Grindhouse. It’s too extreme for them. But I can’t wait to see it again.
1. Marketers took for granted a built-in geek audience for Rodriguez and Tarantino and forgot to make the movies look generally appealing.
2. Film was sold as the “Grindhouse” gimmick instead of as “Planet Terror” and “Death Proof” two (supposedly) quality pieces of entertainment.
The people of America are either smarter or dumber than Hollywood takes them to be. Or they just don’t take well to inside jokes.
So far Death Proof is the best movie I’ve seen this year. It’s a gas, gas, gas.
Planet Terror, the worst.
Wrecktum. You dismissed my reason for GH’s failure to ignite. You said it was the concept. I clarified my position by saying that the title ‘was’ in fact – the concept. Got it?
Martin – your facts are completely wrong in regards to RR’s ability to stay within budget. He’s notoriously efficient and able to come in under in terms fo deadline and budget.
And some people have short memories.. doesn’t anyone remember the Showtime exploitation reimaginings from a few years back? RR did one and Tarantino nearly did. They made em for cable as they knew there was no theatrical pull.
So what happened to common sense in those years between?
Planet Terror was bad, but watchable. It was dumb, but at least it was never boring. I’d give it maybe 2/5 stars, but Death Proof was a disaster. Some of the worst acting and dialogue I’ve seen in a major hollywood film in years. People walked out it in droves halfway into Death Proof when I saw it on Friday.
The only reason I didn’t was because kept thinking it was gonna get better. Quentin Tarantino needs someone to tell him when to edit some of his precious dialogue. Nobody goes to a fucking slasher movie to hear bitches whine about guys for 45 minutes.
I loathed Death Proof, not because I’m unhip or uncool, it’s because I thought DP was lazy and uninspired, and the equivalent of watching Quentin Tarantino drop his fucking trousers and start stroking his cock for 90 minutes.
Dialogue used to be his strength, but now his dialogue is becoming a chore to sit through.
And what’s up with the black chick in the second half of Death Proof? It’s like QT only knows how to write one black character: Jules from Pulp Fiction. It’s like she was doing a shitty Samuel L. Jackson impression, complete with the bad wig.
Yes QT, we get it, you’re into feet, and you like referencing old movies. But it’s getting really tired already, especially when he’s now referencing his own movies.
QT needs to stop spending so much time and energy on winking at the audience, and try telling an interesting story.
I’m glad this film bombed. Maybe now QT and RR will open their eyes and get their shit together and go back to making REAL movies, and stop trying to show the world how fucking clever they are.
what happened is that our culture sucks. norbit good, grindhouse not worth the trip etc.
I LOVE the way everyone is so divided on this film! I thought it would be a no brainer that people were nuts about DEATH PROOF and ambivalent about PLANET TERROR. yet, there’s strong opinions in both directions on both films.
And…
I agree that this film succeeded in what it was trying to do-and in what Glamourboy said-make people have an moviegoing experience or a “night out at the movies” like we all used to have when we were kids. The loss of many 2nd run movies houses that would show double features is a shame 🙁
“Mainstream audiences don’t like 3 hour movies.”
Titanic.
Oh you did not just reference Titanic in relation to Grindhouse. Referencing Titanic to ANYTHING is bad.
My guess as to why it failed is because audiences just weren’t sure what they were getting. And with Quentin Tarantino popping his name onto junk like Hostel maybe some though “He wouldn’t actually be directing a car chase movie” and didn’t go? I’m not sure.
I’m more confused as to why movies like Are We Done Yet and Norbit and all the other junk we’ve seen so far has succeeded seemingly effortlessly, yet Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez can’t squeeze out a hit between them. Strange.
That, or I presume people like MikeOckk saw the ads and didn’t even remotely understand what the movie was trying to do.
I reckon they should have tried some crazy marketing like, hosting advance screenings at any drive ins they could find or something like that. Hmm. Anyway.
Sorry this was way over 25.
1. Stop expecting blockbuster $ from cult movies.
2. Stop releasing explicit product on family holiday weekends, HW. Didn’t work for Black Xmas, didn’t work here.
I’m dating a 26-year-old who literally has no idea who Tarantino is. If she represents the target audience, the gross is no surprise.
(25 on the nose)
Black Christmas was perfect counterprogramming, it just wasn’t good enough to make an impact. When else would you release a movie like that, July?
Rodriquez is a gifted technician but one with an adolescent mind and Tarantino’s film references have gone from informing his films to being the whole point of them.
>Maybe now QT and RR will open their eyes and get their shit together and go back to making REAL movies, and stop trying to show the world how fucking clever they are.
Bing — You win!
Not being sarcastic here. Enough with this masturbation and go back to forging into new territory. I think RR is terrifically overrated in any case but QT needs to proceed directly towards his WW2 flick.
Yeah, because a WWII movie is incredibly fresh territory.
Grandcosmo, I agree about your first point but you’re wrong about the second – what was the film-referential point of Death Proof? It was QT’s most original film in a decade.
Tarantino doing WW2 is new. He’s done the ’70s thing time and time again. Why the snarkiness?
I think we can be pretty sure that Inglorious Bastards is going to look more like Cross of Iron or Kelly’s Heroes than it will Sands of Iwo Jima or Twelve O’Clock High.
oh yeah WW2 – it’ll be cool.
And like it’ll be using 5 FROM HELL and FORCE 10 FROM NAVARONE as templates – Harvey Kietel will pop up as an Italian preacher who keeps a little gun in his bible. And Tarantino will make an extended cameo as nosy bartender with a John Ford eyepatch, who lifts it up and winks when the shit goes down. Then Michael Madsen and Mickey Rourke with a fat suit on pull off a homage to Bud Spender and Terence Hill, with an extended bar fight scene. Then a cool black actor kicks in the door and says “whats happening my nazis, I’m about to go grindhouse on your asses”… But hold on.. before you can say holy Techniscope – a gonzo-meta-video-clerk-moment happens – the camera pulls back to a few hip futuristic chicks playing a virtual WW2 PS3 game, chatting incessantly about watching Sam Fuller movies and whammo! Guess what? we’re suddenly in Robert Rodriguez’s segment of the WW2 film. And its in 4D no less.. thats like anaglyph 3D only with more eyestrain, like that movie Shark Skid Stain and Eyesore Kid. There are amazing cool faux digital rot FX on the laser hologram and all the time you’re thinking… man can it get any cooler ?
What went wrong with Grindhouse?
SNAKES ON A PLANE syndrome.
While Kill Bill and Jackie Brown were influenced in part by other genres, I find it incredibly biased (anti-tarantino) to say that those films aren’t forging into new territory. And it’s hard to argue against the stance that those films are much better examples of the genres he’s working in. Same goes, apparently, for Death Proof.
Consider KB and Jackie Brown were QT’s last two films before Death Proof, I can’t help was assume you are talking about them too Noble. And if you’re not talking about those two films when you say QT needs to stop with the masturbation (as you put it) then all that’s left is Death Proof and, well, one shlocky action movie isn’t exactly enough to go around saying that sort of stuff.
Oh, and yeah. A WWII movie? Now that is wholey original and something we’ve never seen before, huh?
BTW, Grindhouse has an 8.6/10 on IMDb so far. Sure, call it fanboys, but that’s still bloody good!
Boam – RR is efficient because his crews are tight, small, and about as non-union as he can get away with. But what he saves on below-the-line he eats during post, and the larger the budget he’s given, the worse the balance. It’s been that way since El Mariachi; his actual shoots are cheap, but the cost of post negates most of it. His saving grace is that none of his films have costed near a 100M, usually below 50M. When he had GH postponed during shoot, all those contingency contracts kicked into the reserve funds. So for the first time, his shooting costs ate the backup before he went to post.
…and just like clockwork, all of the Tarantino and Rodriguez detractors come to feast on the rotting corpse of “Grindhouse”. It never ceases to amaze how people won’t hesitate to use a surprisingly low (or high) opening weekend gross to validate their own subjective opinions of a particular film or a filmakker.
I loved the movie, but the general public obviously could’ve cared less. It’s as simple as that. Not hard to figure out. People just werren’t interested this time around.
BTW, Enough already with all the references to masturbation and pleasuring oneself. It’s starting to get a little disturbing at this point.
Heaven’s no! We can’t have … The_Sun_Toucher? disturbed here on the internets!
It was masturbation. Most of all Tarintino’s flick, which I gave up trying to like at around the fifth time we had an obscure vinyl record drop down and no plot to speak of.
Yes, these two are filmmaker’s I enjoy having around, but they need to move on from all of this homage bullshit.
Neither Planet Terror nor Death Proof delivered what they promised.
2 horror movies for the price of one. Planet Terror was more like a comedy, and after a while, all the exploding head shots became repetitive, while Death Proof was a slasher film, minus any actual slashing.
The thing about real Grindhouse movies like, I Spit On Your Grave, is that they were never boring. They entertained you by any means necessary. Whether it be through having the main character appear completely nude in half the movie, or having her cut one of her attacker’s dick off.
Death Proof was Quentin Tarantino’s homage to himself. People for years have been raving about his dialogue, so he was like, let me give em 45 minutes of my precious dialogue, and maybe they’ll forget that I’m not delivering on what I promised.
Grindhouse movies were never bad on purpose. The acting was horrible, because they couldn’t get any real actors to do those movies. The dialogue was awful, because they were written very quickly by hacks. The stories were so over the top, because that’s the only thing they had going for them.
If you can’t get any good actors, and you don’t have any money to make a good movie, you need a draw, and for most of these movies the draw was full frontal nudity, or over the top violence.
The frustrating thing about Grindhouse was that they had the money, they had the talent both in front of and behind the camera, and it STILL sucked!!
Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino pussied out, and went the safe route, so once the word got out during the Thursday night sneaks, it was over for them.
“Heaven’s no! We can’t have … The_Sun_Toucher? disturbed here on the internets!
It was masturbation. Most of all Tarintino’s flick, which I gave up trying to like at around the fifth time we had an obscure vinyl record drop down and no plot to speak of.
Yes, these two are filmmaker’s I enjoy having around, but they need to move on from all of this homage bullshit.”
lol Now maybe your method of masturbation differs from my own, but last time I checked that word has nothing to do with the kind of movies one makes.
If you think these guys are repeating themselves, just say that. All of the references to jerking off aren’t as clever or as funny as some of you seem to think. It just starts to seem juvenile after a while. Come up with a new metaphor for self indulgent film making.
I think most people’s memory of grindhouse flicks are clouded by a false sense of nostalgia.
Most of the them were cheap and talky. Sure there were usually “good scenes” but you had to wade through a lot of often boring crap to get to them. In this respect Tarantino nailed the aesthetic (with the exception that I enjoyed most of his film).
I enjoyed Grindhouse but I think it would have been more interesting as a truly low-budget exercise. I’m more curious what RR and QT could have come up with using the average DTV flick budget.
Does RR reuse the exact same scene in both the Machete trailer and Planet Terror (the scenes where Trejo is blown over the wall on his motorcycle with gluns blazing, ditto for Rose)?
Maybe because QT and RR should have left the directing to real B directors, like Matthew Bright or James Merendino, who don’t work much either and could have really expressed themselves instead of these two directors, who are among the most annoying creatures on the planet. I’m so happy they won’t be sweeping The Scream Awards, will they even show up?
“I think most people’s memory of grindhouse flicks are clouded by a false sense of nostalgia.
Most of the them were cheap and talky. Sure there were usually “good scenes” but you had to wade through a lot of often boring crap to get to them.”
Exactly! People tend to look at that whole era with rose colored glasses. They only remember the films that were the exception to the rule. They never remember the ones that were simply bad and not the least bit entertaining.
Now I’m no expert on Grindhouse cinema, but I’ve seen enough of them to know that they are no different than modern mainstream films in that the best scenes often end up in the trailers. For every “Superfly” or “Shaft”, you had a ton of Blaxploitation flicks that were a chore to sit through. The same goes for all the “Rape/Revenge” pics that are often used as examples of how much “fun” those grindhouse pics were.
What went wrong with Grindhouse? SNAKES ON A PLANE syndrome. Posted by: Clycking
I agree, this was the problem. A bad movie, that got too much hype.
Although I have a friend who is fairly knowledgable about pop culture and keeps on top of things, and he hadn’t heard of Grindhouse until the preview before 300. So maybe not enough pre-hype?
I saw Matthew Bright present the worst movie EVER MADE: TIPTOES at Sundance.
Jeffrey Gillmoure introduced him and simply said “Sometimes on movie sets, people don’t get along. That’s what happened here…ladies and gentle men, Matthew Bright.”
Bright came out and proceeded to SLAM his producers and said he hoped that when the movie ended, the producers went outside and got struck and killed by a bus.
He hasn’t worked since.
How can any 25 year old not know who Tarantino is? I’m that age, and even if I hadn’t seen Pulp Fiction as a teenager, I would have heard of his name through the 90s, and then there’s Kill Bill. Then again, he isn’t exactly in Spielberg territory as far as brand recognition goes with the general public. So maybe it’s not so odd.
As to what went wrong with GH:
Should have been released as two separate movies and as a 3 hour feature in select theaters. That would have made sense.
>>Black Christmas was perfect counterprogramming, it just wasn’t good enough to make an impact. When else would you release a movie like that, July?
A week or two before Christmas. Not on the day itself.
Holidays where families go to the movies as groups… You’re not going to drag Grandma and ten-year-old kids into a slasher flick. (Hopefully.)
Tarantino keeps going back to the well and people are bored. Rodriguez is totally overrated. Both of the movies looks dumb.
word count = 21
PS.
The excuse about the 3 hour running time doesn’t work for me. I had no idea it was that long, I assumed it was two 45 minute movies. Nobody I know who’s into movies knew it was that long either. None of us were interested enough to check the listing times.
I loved Jeffrey Boam’s Doctor’s Inglorious Bastards rant.
(though I completely disagree with it. The “man on a mission” subgenre is woefully underrepresented in the modern WWII canon, and I’m dying to see his take. I’d also love to see him do a traditional western.
If you are making a homage to films filled with sex, nudity and violence, forgetting 2 out of 3 with a 3 hour run time is chuckleheaded.
That sounds just like Bright, PetalumaFilms, and he couldn’t have found two more deserving parties than the Hanleys and Brad Wyman. “Ted Bundy” was a “treat,” I’d rather see Bright or Merendino do a B movie than QT or RR do this crap.
RoyBatty hit the nail right on the head!!
There was sex and violence, granted that QT or RR should have gotten Rose McGowan to go topless.
Why is there so much hatred for this movie(s) relative to everything else out there? Can anyone honestly tell me they think Planet Terror or Death Proof is a worse film than Are We Done Yet? or The Reaping? (and where were all you people when 300 came out?)
The two movies did not fit well together–they didn’t make for a good double feature, since RR’s everything-but-the-kitchen sink approach was a bad setup for QT’s slow-burn. That may not be why it didn’t do well financially, but creatively it was a problem.
And he almost did it in 25 words or less.
Easterweekend.
Hey JEff MCM,
Nobody here is raving about Are We There Yet or The Reaping. QT and RR’s mistake was making these movies so expensive. RR made El Mariachi for $7,000.00 and QT made Reservoir Dogs for 2 million, so it’s not like they don’t know how to do it.
If they would’ve made them on the cheap, and under 1 hr each, the Weinsteins could’ve let them make it as raunchy and violent, as the movies they here trying to emulate.
Istead, they made a Hollywood movie disguised as a Grindhouse movie, cast well known actresses who’d never in a million years get naked in a movie like this, and people have the nerve to act surprised it bombed?
25 word answer:
Grindhouse comes off as a pretentious, self-important, elitist, mocking, vulgar, joyless, humorless, obscure, junk food for the soul, misogynist, over-long, turgid, wank fest.
Now the long answer.
I have not seen the film. My response is based on the promos and my knowledge of the material and T & R. When I saw the first preview for it before 300, my date says that either looks really clever or really pretentious. As it got closer to the release date, pretentious seemed to win out.
Spielberg is a film lover who makes good films based on the films he loves. He doesn’t hit you over the head with references. He just uses them as a way to service the story.
T and R are the guys in the video store who think their obscure culture references make them better than you. It comes out in everything from their references to their music cue choices to their dialogue. The references do not service the story…the references are the point.
Grindhouse movies were not self important. They were fun. T & R’s Grindhouse comes off as self important and pretentious.
I was actually prepared to see it yesterday, but after I caught an ad saying something like “You thought you’d seen all the movies have to offer: Now T & R take it to a new level”; I said ‘oh, fuck off’ and saw Blades of Glory instead.
There is nothing exciting or fun about Tarantino and the more promos I saw for Grindhouse the more I was turned off by its aura of elitist, self-importance. Lack of prentention was the pre-eminemt factor of these films and it seems it was the one ingredient they forgot.
I am committed to seeing it with a friend later this week, but I do not look forward to it. From what I gather, McGowan’s striptease opens the flick and then its downhill. And now I hear she’s not even nude! Have they even seen an exploitation flick?
I also know of no women that want to see this. In fact, most of the women I know thought it looked downright sleazy, offensive and sexist. Apparently the canned ‘female empowerment’ angle didn’t fly.
The poor performance of Grindhouse should also put to rest the myth that 300 was a blip cut of this cloth. It was not, it was a much different beast and Hollywood should learn from that. Grindhouse’s total run will do less than 300’s opening weekend.
That says something.
“If you are making a homage to films filled with sex, nudity and violence, forgetting 2 out of 3 with a 3 hour run time is chuckleheaded.”
A really key point about why the films don’t work… but not why they didn’t open. Opening has nothing to do with the quality of the film. I think the 3 hours is turning out to be the killer. But the lack of sex and nudity will be an interesting bit of the history of this film.
Also Nicol… Tarantino gets a pass from most critics. And while a lot of critics were 50/50 on the film, in the end the QT element meant leaning positive. All but the Cream of the Crop makes the fresh/rotten call for themselves.
And what 300’s opening says, Nicol, is, a) that it was first, b) that it was perceived as visually revolutionary, c) that action porn, which is to say, all the action beats without the bothersome dialogue or story (not promised in the ad materials or delivered in the film), is appealing to a big audience.
Nicol, where are you getting this ‘female empowerment’ thing? It’s not an angle I’ve seen prominently.
I’m also curious as to what you think is the ‘different beast’ that 300 represents – I think you think it’s ‘a movie with a story and characters that touch the audience’s emotions’ but I’d like to not put words in your mouth.
Also, I think terms need to be defined here: when i think ‘pretentious’ I think of a very different species of movie than one involving one-legged strippers and car chases.
People didn’t want to see it.
How’s that for a patronizing short answer? But, it’s true. I saw “Blades of Glory” last week, and I knew that think would have legs. Not that it was “that” funny, but the crowd I saw it with laughed hard and frequent. I’m not surprised it all it only dropped 29%.
1. Tarantino and Rodriguez should have agreed not to exceed the 70 minute mark. Planet Terror felt bloated and it lopsided the project. I wouldn’t have cut much from Death Proof, but the whole explaining of Butterfly and Robert Frost at the first bar, although peppered with great turns, was draggy.
2. Easter weekend was an inexplicable choice for opening this movie. It’s a summer flick.
3. It seems like people really didn’t care for the concept. When I went to see the movie on Saturday, there was an usher posted at the door with a sheet of explanations for the scratches on the film, the sound blips, the missing reel cards, etc. that she’d have to relate to every single person entering the theater. Which means Friday night’s audiences were a pain in the management’s ass, because this theater NEVER posts ushers at the door for anything.
4. People old enough to remember the grindhouse movies are now probably too old and “mature” to appreciate any sort of homage to the schlock of their youths. The only childhood memories they want to relive are the safe, “Charlotte’s Web” kind they can share with their children.
5. The marketing (to people who don’t get the tongue in cheek vibe) makes the movie look as brainless and crotch-centric as the worst movies most people have ever seen. What you get from the actual film isn’t really what they’re selling in the ads.
6. Expectations were set way too high for a 3 hour long sleazy cult movie that doesn’t have the inspirational qualities of a “300” to fig leaf the sex and violence.
7. The absence of any good sex scenes hurts the premise of the venture, and also doesn’t help give the film any legs in the ensuing weeks. And oddly enough, the fake trailers had all the T&A the films didn’t.
There are lowbrow pretensions as well as highbrow ones. A film like this could easily be called “pretentious” (I wouldn’t, but someone else could).
Movies featuring a predominant black cast, and are very positive and happy in nature, tend do good mid-range business. DP’s written this before that black audiences are very loyal, if not the most loyal. Are we there yet? had at least that going for it.
Dave,
I think you have constantly underestimated the popularity of 300.
You have said it is part of the same ‘action porn’ genre as Sin City, Kill Bill etc. It is not, even though many thought it might be.
Those films never opened or grossed anywhere near 300’s. 300 opened and has played as a broad crossover film that had far wider appeal than you are giving it credit for.
The film is playing on the level of a general crossover blockbuster. I have agreed with you many times before and disagreed with you too, but your refusal to see 300 as anything but a fanboy blip I find astounding. Fanboy/action porn films with no crossover appeal do not gross 200 million.
300 performed like The Matrix, another film that was marketed as fanboy but went on to become something much bigger.
Now, we may have to define what a fanboy film is, but I would argue Grindhouse, Kill Bill and Sin City are it. And they usually do not have much female or older audience appeal. 300 did have female and older adult appeal much like Gladiator/The Matrix. It appealed because it was visually revolutionary and had themes that people wanted to see. It was neither nihilistic and did not have anti-heroes. Love it or hate it…that counts.
It may be a cliche but women love Gerard Butler and men would love to look like him. It is the type of film that people want…a genuine rousing adult action/adventure with a hero you can root for. Hollywood used to produce many of these but gave up.
Grindhouse is not new or edgy…it feels like more of the same ‘ole same ole. The fact that fanboys did not even come out tells me they are not burned out…they are just tired of the pretentious nature of Tarantino in particular. What Grindhouse offers they can get anywhere, if not as slickly done.
The Kill Bill films were not all that loved.
Also, do not underestimate how many fanboys bagged out on Grindhouse when they discovered Kurt Russell is not a bad ass by they end. This is not a spolier but was written about by many critics as evidence of the films sophistication. I’m sure it made many fanboys just say ‘1 for 300 please’
The latest newspaper ads have changed and focus excusively on Kurt Russell in the middle looking all badass and Bruce Willis by his side. That’s the Grindhouse film Tarantino should have made. Not 40 minutes of ‘trashy’ women saying ‘bitch’ mothafucka’ and ‘nigga’ before Kurt Russell goes all jellyfish.
I think they realized this too late.
JeffMCM,
Tarantino played up this angle on talk shows like Conan O’Brien and many critics have tried to say Death Proof in particular was about ‘female empowerment’.
Take a quick gander at Rotten Tomatoes. I’m just saying if that was the spin they were using to get women into theatres…it didn’t work. I know of no women that wanted to see this. I’m sure they exist, but I do not know of any. In fact, my parter is not sensitive but for her, T&R are synonymous with misogyny.
She did however love Lena Headly in 300. Again, women look at her and see a glamourous woman standing up for her beliefs. They cheer when she exacts revenge at the end. I know of no women that want to look ‘trashy’ and say ‘nigga’ and ‘mothafucka’ every second word. It’s obnoxious.
My partner doesn’t speak for everyone…but I’m just saying.
As for 300…just as the word of Grindhouse got out fast so did the word on 300. Older adults are seeing it and they are not seeing it because it is ‘action porn’. They are seeing because it is visually stunning to behold and about themes of honor and sacrifice that appeal to many.
I’m sorry you and Dave cannot see that, because it is easily one of the year’s best.
JeffMCM,
It comes off as pretentious because it comes off as self-important. The actual subject matter is irrelevant.
Under 25:
The only marquee names are old dudes. Studios are making big-budget grindhouse flicks and have been for years. No boobs.
Agree with Angus and Hallick. 3 hours? No way not me. Tarantino returning to tried and true. How come budget was $75Mil? No-name stars. Did the budget go to the directors? This was art house through and through, not mainstream. Should have opened in art house, then spread to mainstream. (50 words)
Nicol,
I actually agree with you about the fake-empowerment. How is crippling a woman and then having a man restore her to wholeness with a fanboy-fantasy gun-leg, a “buck up” speech and, finally, his dick, anything but a big ego-stroke for RR?
Death Proof is a bit more complicated, but I also got tired of the “fuckin ‘ motherfucker I’ll fuck you up” dialogue, as well as the say-everything-twice pacing. Okay, one of them fell in a ditch. She fell in a ditch, yeah, she fell in a ditch. It’s overdone foreshadowing and not that cleverly written. Same with interminable arguement about “ship’s mast.” We know they’re gonna do it, right?
Still, the first murder/crash and the final chase kicked ass, up at least until the cop-out joke ending.
Also
SPOILER
Why the hell didn’t they pull out the gun sooner?
Modern teen-movie culture requires movies that skew mainstream, not movies that skew anti-establishment or misanthropic. GRINDHOUSE (a wonderful experience) is not fodder for uber-clear uber-teens. 300 (a piece of shit) is.
I meant “uber-clean” not “uber-clear” in my earlier post. These pod-people that represent today’s moviegoing audience want to be pandered to, not challeged, freaked-out, or disgusted. So a Will Ferrell half-laffer with no style or form or evident craftsmanship is a “hit” (same for NORBIT and WILD HOGS), and a funky, obssessive thing like GRINDHOUSE is “not good” because proto-fascist teenagers didn’t see it on the 1st weekend of release.
Oh, and god help us: Tarantino is now thought-of as yesterday’s news by these mutant pariah audience members. So who replaces him? Nobody – the idea of the auteur has no appeal to these zombies who get marketed to these days… They don’t believe in ‘special’ or ‘talent’… In fact, most audience members believe that they themselves are doing the heavy-lifting at the movie theater, as if somehow they themselves are creating the pleasurable experience, not the filmmakers. Dire times, worse to come.
Nicol… many things you feel about 300 really can’t be argued. They are opinion. And that’s cool. However. I have never said that 300 was or is a fanboy blip. Pure fanboy movies cannot get to $100 million, much less $200 million. And as I have long written, the box office for that group is Fanboy 8… $8 million open max, $25m total domestic max. 300 was way bigger than fanboys from screening one.
HOWEVER… 300 was not a cultural event in the end either. $70 million is a 3.5 quadrant opening… no question. Teens went, 20s went, 30s went, 40s went, and a smattering older and younger. And I would argue that a large percentage of those people who went were let down. You , I assume, disagree.
Ice Age II was a different kind of massive opening… a young family movie that that audience was desperate for. They also liked the first film and watched it on DVD a lot. But did that Ice Age II make it a cultural touchstone? Easy answer – not even Oscar nominated… not that Oscar is everything.
Anyway…
Don’t bullshit a bullshiter, Yancy. You sound like a PR person. I might agree with you, but I haven’t seen it yet, I was just piling on because QT and RR rub me the wrong way and my unofficial experts were severely disapointed. I’d see it at home if I could do yoga at the same time. And, I can’t pay to see movies, it’s personal — I still pay quarterly union dues to the Editors Guild ($660/year), even though I don’t assist anymore, so I’m stuck with having to go to free screenings and I’ve gotten used to small theatres and less public screenings, which so trumps “going to the movies.”
Nicol, you have hit on the head exactly why people responded to 300 and why it is such a huge hit – and also what I hate about it so much. Not only is it war porn, it’s regressive in about every possible way and presents a fantasy notion of a society in war and the people who fight it. There are no characters in the movie: just idealized stick figures.
Kurt Russell ‘wimping out’ at the end is one of the reasons Death Proof is so good – he’s playing the less pretentious version of Leslie Vernon at that point, the sociopath who can’t get what he wants. Your suggestion that the movie focus on the rigid, unyielding men of the movie, Willis and Russell – who are the movie’s bad guys by the way – as figures to be idealized…is not surprising.
Opinion is soooo boring.
What am I “bullshitting” about, T. Holly? And how many openly misanthropic PR people do you know? I loved GRINDHOUSE, and i think the rejection of said film is entirely the fault of the culture, and not the film. American culture has been in its death throes for a while. How is that PR? How is that bullshit? I actually feel that way!
T Holly, a PR person would express themselves much more blandly and with more gentility than Yancy.
So you think you’re serious, what do you want me to say? Can someone please turn the McKnowItAll off.
At least people can comprehend what I write.
I can actually imagine a (hopefully) small segment of the audience turned off by the change in Stuntman Mike’s character. Over on the IMDB comment boards for ZODIAC I was rather disgusted to discover a contingent of fans who were rooting for the Zodiac killer–one in particular stating that serial killers “stick it to The Man” whenever they kill some unsuspecting innocent. These, folks, I’m sure, would also have been rooting for Stuntman Mike right up until his…change.
Yancy, if you were as counter-culture as you believe you are, you’d never join a group that would have you as a member. McHammerhead, meditate on your third eye awhile.
Uh, thanks for proving my point.
The more snarky answer is that the American public decided to go for authentic low-brow movies (BLADES OF GLORY, ARE WE THERE YET) versus ersatz ones (GRINDHOUSE).
Here’s an angle no one has thrown out yet: porn x2. When the original grindhouse-type films were actually being made, the average American didn’t have ready, easy access to porn. Plus, porn since that time has taken the thrill out of on screen nudity. I have a friend who is a generation ahead of me and even to this day he gets worked up over nudity on film. But in this age of internet porn and independent video stores with the “no minors” room in the back, simple nudity for most of us under 45 has lost its zing.
Also have to agree with the idea that the Weinsteins should have said “Sure, as long as you can make them on the cheap.” Because cheap means you have to be creative, cheap means being inventive. $67M for THAT??! (and anyone want to argue that the bulk wasn’t spent on the first half?).
And can someone explain to Tarantino that VANISHING POINT (nor THE DRIVER) are considered grindhouse films per se. As much as I like his half better (and it has its own flaws), it’s not a “grindhouse” film as much as a “drive-in” one. Something that American International, Corman or Embassy would have made in the mid to late 70’s.
can wait for dvd. (four words)
And word of mouth must be terrible. Of the new films that opened this weekend, GRINDHOUSE had the worst Friday to Saturday drop (every film had a bad Easter Sunday drop).
Film Drop
ARE WE THERE YET? 0.7%
THE REAPING 0.5%
FIREHOUSE DOG 8.7%
GRINDHOUSE 19%
And before anyone chimes in with “fan-boy effect” take a look at THE REAPING, which as a horror film is a prime candidate for that Friday to Saturday drop. Yet it dropped less than 1% to GRINDHOUSE’s nearly 20.
What I think is killing the film is not only the outright “I didn’t like it” as a whole, but the those who like one versus the other (which seems evenly split, even among the film’s fans). Nothing says “wait for DVD” louder & clearer is for a buddy to say “Try to skip the first/last half. It blows.”
QT is the ultimate in style over substance. to expect more is insane. auteur my ass. he’s only ever made high priced exploitation movies
I think Roy is right about the half and half issue.
I don’t think The Reaping had a traditional fanboy audience though, being a religiously-oriented horror movie with Hilary Swank in the lead as opposed to some teenage star.
Hendhogan: QT’s first three movies were not ‘high-priced’.
RE: counter-programming.
What TWC started with Wolf Creek, continued with Black Christmas and now tried with GH is actually pure cynicism. The average moviegoer might not be aware that it’s just one company, but it does seep into the collective consciousness that “Hollywood” is beginning to release pure violence on religious days. This isn’t releasing a horror film around the holiday, but on the actual day. It will put-off people who are not religious zealots but want to go to the movies. The marketing for these films is antithetical to everything else going on around it, so when you saturate the airwaves, you don’t create buzz, you create annoyance.
I remember seeing Casino on Christmas, and it was packed. The collective feel was the appreciation for a good film being released when people had the time to see it. TWC releases feel like an extension of Bob & Harvey’s politics.
I agree that GH would have done much better if it was a summer release. It could have owned August.
which three? “pulp fiction” had a budget of $8 million, but with hefty backends and that doesn’t include advertising budget. “resevoir dogs” is little over one and a half million, with same add ons. sure “el mariachi” cost 7 grand to make, but millions in fixing sound quality. what we saw was not a $7000 movie.
movie’s QT has directed 7. that includes “four rooms” and separating “kill bill” into two volumes. the man’s more famous for being famous than he is for being a filmmaker.
don’t get me wrong. i have enjoyed both those films, as well as a couple he wrote. but it’s just mindless entertainment. as mindless as “norbit,” but at least “norbit” doesn’t try to pretend it isn’t.
i think it would have gotten lost amongst all the summer films.
i saw “scarface” when it opened christmas night. so, know the feeling martin s.
Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown are all low-budget movies, not ‘high-priced’. None of the movies have anything in common with Norbit – Tarantino is way beyond ‘mindless’ entertainment (Rodriguez, not so much).
Dave,
I suspect that my larger point isn’t whether or not 300 is an ‘event film’ but whether or not it is something worth trying to replicate.
I maintain the proper comparison is The Matrix or Gladiator, not Ice Age II; films that were promoted to fanboys but became something much larger. I do think that 300 has become larger as many people are talking about it, many articles have been written and to some degree…that does constitute an event.
It is being parodied on You tube and many of the slogans are now seeping into common language. I do not think this will be a forgotten film.
I guess we will agree to disagree.
JeffMCM
As usual, you miss the point by a country mile and then twist it out of context to mount a personal attack.
1. I have not seen GH and all my discussion is based on the perception of it in the public sphere. Whether it is a good or bad film is irrelevant to my points. It didn’t even open with its core audience.
2. I do not care if Kurt Russell and Bruce Willis are villains in the piece. The film is made for fanboys and if you read the chat rooms on AICN or IMDB, you’ll find they love Kurt Russell as a badass only second to Bruce Campbell. To make a film that promises badass Kurt and delivers jellyfish Kurt could not have helped the word of mouth.
Because you personally may have a fetish for feminized or emasculated males is beside the point. Most fanboys who like badasses do not. QT grossly misjudged his audience and what they wanted…if he even cared.
3. They have changed the newspaper ads to focus on Kurt and Bruce as badasses. Obviously they knew they were in trouble and are now trying to sell what it is not. When I said Tarantino should have made the badass Kurt film, I meant a film about a Kurt Russell character that was a badass…it didn’t have to be a film where he was killing women.
Jeezuz Jeff, are you really that out of it or do you not really get the point of most of these discussions? Sometimes you are so off-base in your assumptions I wonder why the hell I even try explaining things to you.
Martin S
I am glad you mentioned the whole counter-programming thing. I was going to but figured it would be too obvious coming from me.
TWC has made it a point to consistently release violent, exploitative films at Christmas and now Easter and I agree with you, I think it is a political point they are trying to make. A ‘fuck you’ to the public who celebrates those holidays.
They were probably hoping for controversy and got burned.
I am seeing GH on Thursday, but I am glad the brothers lost out on this one.
The two biggest-grossing movies of all time are TITANIC and LOTR 3–both several minutes longer than GH. The two biggest-grossing movies of all time adjusted-for-inflation are GONE WITH THE WIND and THE TEN COMMANDMENTS–both half-an-hour longer than GH. Also longer than GH: LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, GODFATHER II, BEN-HUR and SCHINDLER’S LIST.
Translation: it ain’t the running time.
Nicol D – I would say you are the one twisting something for use in a attack tied more to your personal assumptions.
I can sum up why most probably Bob and not Harvey has a hard-on for holidays in one single title, one word: SCREAM.
It was released on December 20th, 1996 and ever since, Dimension has had a fair amount of success targeting vacation teens with horror titles. This time it blew up in their faces because at first they rejected the marketing and then the actual word-of-mouth sand the movie (GRINDHOUSE was the only new release to suffer a drop over 10% Fri-to-Sat).
It’s smart, it’s time-tested (in my time it was action movies my teenage buddies and I went to) and has nothing to do with your purile theories.
I’d really like to thank Harvey for adding more fuel to my fire when it comes to his counter-programming. Here’s the money quote from his talk with Finke.
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/what-went-so-wrong-with-grindhouse
“We didn’t educate the South or Midwest. In the West and the East, the movie played well. It played well in strong urban settings. But we missed the boat on the Midwest and the South.”
I don’t think we need a Navajo Code Breaker for this one.
Roy – he’s releasing the flicks on the actual day, not around or near which is what Scream was. Wolf Creek was released on Christmas day as was Black Christmas. GH was released on Good Friday, the beginning of Easter Weekend. Harvey is targeting the holi-day, not the holidays. Even Finke can see what he’s up to.
Nicol, we consistently manage to miscommunicate with each other. Leaving aside your arrogance in reviewing movies you have not seen, yes, I understood everything you said in your previous post, and none of it was what I was speaking to. I’m sure that if the movie had sold itself as a Bruce Willis/Kurt Russell action movie, like you suggested, it would have sold more tickets, but that’s beside the point. I don’t really care how a movie is marketed, I’m much more interested in the underlying themes and narratives it presents to its audience. Just because you have a fetish for hypermasculinized fantasy men – which _was_ my primary point – does not give you an excuse for ignoring what I was really saying.
Plenty of movies get released on Christmas Day. Wolf Creek is less offensive of a movie than, say, The Ringer.
Weinstein did not allow any thur midnight shows. That slice of genius probably lost them 3-4 million boxoffice just like that. To please the exhibitors and to rake more in, it should have always been two films with an intermission. Watch em back to back, whatever order you want – but pay separately at a discounted grindhouse ticket price of $7.50. The discounted price alone would have pulled people in as a marketing angle.
And drop the fucking dumb and confusing Grindhouse title from the release.
Jeffmcm:
Leaving aside your arrogance in reviewing movies you have not seen
I doubt Nicol’s intention was to review Grindhouse, rather to explain why it failed its box-office expectations. That is why it is not “beside the point” (for Nicol) that Grindhouse would have sold more tickets as a Bruce Willis/Kurt Russell action film. On the other hand, I’m sure Nicol would agree that a well-marketed film does not a good film make, but would not argue with you over the quality of the film itself since Nicol has yet to watch it.
Both of you aren’t disagreeing as much as arguing over different things. You even seem to agree on the same fundamental issues. Please clarify the scope of discussion rather than drag on with this pointless strawman-whacking.
Nicol’s text was ‘here’s the problem with the Grindhouse marketing/distribution scheme’ but his subtext (which wasn’t really subtext in that his dislike of Tarantino was fully expressed in his posting) was to critique the films and the filmmakers, sight unseen.
Maybe we need a general Grindhouse discussion thread that isn’t intended to be limited to marketing issues.
Four Rooms didn’t do so hot either. (7 words) OR:
QT: always funny. Rose: always funny & sexy. RR: never funny. Grindhouse: more Rose breasts, no Kurt jowls, hot funny action sex guns = HIT. (25)
Four Rooms didn’t do so hot either. (7 words) OR:
QT: always funny. Rose: always funny & sexy. RR: never funny. Remix Grindhouse: more Rose breasts, no Kurt jowls, hot funny action sex guns = HIT. (25)
Oh Jesus more anti-Christian and religious people BS. Since when do the Weinstein’s care about anything but making money and receiving award nominations? I highly doubt they sit around and pick release dates based on sticking it to religious people rather than trying to make as much $ as possible.
Nicol will call me an elitist snob, but I could care less. I have yet to see 300 because I do not trust the taste of the people I know who have seen it and love it. All males under the age of 25, they consider Sin City and The Boondock Saints and Lucky Number Slevin and the like to be some of the best movies ever made. To consider a movie awesome, all they require is buckets of blood and maybe a little simplistic revenge thrown in for good measure. The people I know who are not males under age 25 either haven’t seen it or didn’t like it.
i’m over 25 (by a lot). i saw 300. i liked it for what it was, mindless entertainment.
If that’s all it is, mindless entertainment, which of course is fine, I prefer other genres for that.
Martin – let’s look at this “Weinstein Anti Religious Crusade” evidence shall we?
Exhibit #1 is the release of WOLF CREEK on Dec 25th, 2005. Only thing is THREE other films were released that day, as Christmas Day has become a traditional day to release movies. There was a comedy (RUMOR HAS IT), a period epic (THE NEW WORLD) and a romancer (CASSANOVA). Seems like classic counter-programming.
Exhibit #2 is the release of BLACK CHRISTMAS on Dec 25th, 2006. There were two other films released that day, CHILDREN OF MEN and NOTES ON A SCANDAL. As with the previous exhibit, part of the strength of your argument disappears by the mere fact that other films were released the same days. But the biggest issue for this one is how do you not release a film entitled BLACK CHRISTMAS on Dec 25th??? You’ve already admitted that you have no problem releasing a horror film the friday before (in the case of SCREAM) so that its first week of release is during holiday.
Exhibit #3 is the fact that Easter is Sunday, not Good Friday. Films are released on friday, Good or not. I know of very few places that shut down on Good Friday, so it’s not exactly a Big Kahuna religious holiday to begin with. Where was your outrage about THE REAPING? Not only is that film a horror movie, but it has religious overtones.
Beyond this is the fact my gut tells me this would not be an issue if the brothers were the Watkins and not Weinsteins.
not to get too far off topic, but is anyone suggesting that 300 is more than just mindless entertainment? hell, ditto GH
as far as holiday counterprogramming goes, what goes on in a marketers head is fairly simple. they equate movies. somebody pointed out “scream” and it’s success during a specific period, consequently all horror films will do well then. that’s it. until it’s proven wrong. “norbit” opened in february (and probably cost eddie murphy his oscar) because paramount tracked that comedies open well in february.
it’s ridiculous because “scream” isn’t “black christmas.” that there is no science, no formula is scary to marketers. without reason, a movie flopping suddenly becomes someone’s fault and that someone is going to get fired. spread the decision out, rationalize results, take credit when good things fall your way, that’s how people stay employed on the studio level.
that said. GH was expected to make $30 million dollars, which is $6-$8 million more than the number one movie for the weekend was. how can you counterprogram and expect that kinda $$$? the concept of counterprogramming means you’re appealing to those not in mood for what is expected of the weekend. how anyone can expect a counterculture film to beat a culture film is what’s surprising
Hend – I only said that the Christmas releases were counterprogramming, never said the same for GRINDHOUSE.
In fact, GH is straight programming – it’s a spring break movie. Guess it goes to show how few on here are actually still in school, but this was spring break week for many across the States. Both high school and college.
In the end, no one other than film geeks wanted to see this thing. Lost among all the talk about 3 hour films is the fact that NO horror movie has clocked in at 180+ minutes. The usual audience for horror-type films is also there for the social aspect. That is especially true for the under 21 crowd. That’s half the reason and a 3 hour film eats into the time you can cruise the parking lot trying to grab some ass.
Everyone was aware that this film was coming. Poland is dead wrong about this being a matter of big studios versus a relative start up like TWC. There isn’t anything a big studio could have done different to put butts in the seats. The media was blanketed with GH stories and interviews. Bob and Harvey must have spent a fucking fortune on TV ads alone.
And still, only some 15 million people wanted to watch it. So much for huge pools of QT and RR fans. The curtain has been pulled back to finally show that as gifted as I admit they are, much of the buzz about them has always been media hype.
well, roy, shows how geeky i was in school. i went to the movies to see the movies. there was ass to be had in the parking lot?!?
i can see your point about spring break. and that was a while ago for me. but not all spring breaks happen at the same time as i recall. and opening at the beginning of spring break weekend would seem smarter to me, allowing kids to see pic over the course of the break, as opposed to forcing them to catch it when familial responsibilities will be on them.
when i saw “scarface” it was midnight christmas after all the family stuff.
and while i’m writing this, i’m wondering. were college kids the target audience? as others have mentioned, younger kids wouldn’t know what a grindhouse movie was. could this be where the disconnect lies?
Roy – I think you are merging different ideas I have posited. I have never said that TWC is not capable of doing Grindhouse not only as well, but better than any major studio. The Hot Button yesterday was about the rest of their slate and their reliance on this film to perform to restart the engine over there. The DO know how to do this.
Screen Gems or Rogue or Fox Atomic or New Line never would have released a 3 hour grindhouse film. Never would have made these two films for more than $30 million combined.
This problem release does not define the history of The Weinstein Company, But this film, which is exactly in their wheelhouse, does make it very hard to get momentum, which they have sorely lacked with a relatively inexperienced overall staff.
Roy –
2005. New World – 3 screens. Cassanova 37 screens. So it’s actually only a choice between a Rom-Com and a torture film.
2006. Notes…20 screens. Dreamgirls – 900 screens. Children of Men – 15 screens. Black Christmas – 1,500 screens. All were Dec 24 releases, for the record.
Dec 25 horror releases – American Werewolf in Paris, Body Snatchers ’78. Darkness, The Faculty. Dracula 2000, Wolf Creek and Blck Christmas. Five are Dimension Films.
The IMDB listing for all Dec 25 listings shows it is beyond rare to release a horror film on the 24/25th, and for the first time ever, it occured in back-to-back years.
As for The Reaping…it’s a horror film built on religious context. The movie is about a woman who lost her faith being confronted by biblical prophecy. That is targeting the Christian audience. Go ask anyone who works in distribution about how much the “Left Behind” crowd is being targeted. What’s actually surprising about The Reaping is that it was the first big studio attempt with a genre film to attract that crowd.
As for your final comment, that’s always the last refuge of a factless argument.
Martin, the reason the Weinsteins keep releasing movies on Christmas isn’t because they’re bigots, it’s because they know they can make money counterprogramming.
Also, there have been plenty of religious-audience-oriented horror movies before The Reaping. The Exorcism of Emily Rose, for one, has an identical character arc.
new world, notes, dreamgirls, children of men, casanova were released on christmas for a special reason. oscar consideration. movies must play in theatres for a minimum of five days to be considered
Anyone else check out the talkbacks on AICN, where the dork brigade is actually opining (en masse) that WORD OF MOUTH will help GRINDHOUSE, that with Easter out of the way and word of mouth in effect, it’ll do BETTER next weekend?
Yeah.
i’ve yet to see a movie do better week to week, unless opening small, then moving wider.
on separate note, did anyone hear about the other “grindhouse” movie?
Another GRINDHOUSE movie? Who’s doing that, Michael Cimino and Elaine May?
no, some college kids did it before this one. was reading story earlier today.
http://www.filmwad.com/film-students-accuse-tarantino-of-grindhouse-theft-2139-p.html
this is the link if you wanna take a look.
although i would pay money to see an elaine may GH movie. lol
“The thing about real Grindhouse movies like, I Spit On Your Grave, is that they were never boring. They entertained you by any means necessary.”
Dude, nobody should like I Spit On Your Grave. That film is repulsive.
“And drop the fucking dumb and confusing Grindhouse title from the release.”
Nah, what would have been confusing would be just having them go by their two titles. What would people ask for. And some would go “oh, it’s two movies? Nah, screw that.”
All this Quentin bashing is really sad. I don’t care about Rodriguez (I’ve liked 3 of his movies – Desperado, From Dusk Til Dawn (seemingly more grindhouse than Planet Terror) and Spy Kids), but it’s sad to see all these people crawl out of their wholes of contempt to rag on Quentin who, obviously, they have hated from the beginning. I remember a lot of people saying Kill Bill was brilliant (which it is) yet now all these people are all “his last few movies have been crap”.
I do think maybe that Quentin and Robert’s names together was a hindrence more than anything. Like, people didn’t want to see the movie by one, but did wanna see the other. I dunno. I’m not even going to attempt to understand how a violent bloody action horror flick featuring Rose McGowen with A MACHINE GUN FOR A LEG can flop yet people will gladly flock to the latest Saw or Hostel or Norbit (that’s a horror movie, alright). I just don’t know what audiences want.
On the Christmas Day thing, their recent horror movie/christmas day fetish is even more mind boggling when you consider the Weinsteins were the guys who programmed Bad Santa something like a month before Christmas Day. Let it sail until Christmas and made big profits. If they had released Bad Santa on Christmas Day I expect they would have gotten the same grosses they got out Black Christmas.
Jeff – I’d agree with the counter argument but as KCamel pointed out, most of these films do better when they’re released earlier in the holiday season then on the actual day. Wolf Creek would have played much stronger if it was released earlier. As someone pointed to Scream, it opened on the 20th.
Hend, you’re right about the Oscar considerations. But that just goes to show how few films are truly released with a Dec. 24/25 opening in mind.
A 3 HOUR GRINDHOUSE MOVIE!!!!
3 HOURS EMULATING CRAP!
ON PURPOSE!
3 HOURS!
(and ironically, Tarantino’s was better than a grindhouse movie)
Good job – 22 words.
Just to clarify,
I have been very clear that I have not seen GH and have never mis-represented that in any of my posts.
All of my posts here were in response to why it failed hard on opening weekend and didn’t even connect with its core audience.
I have mentioned the poor marketing and the fact that the movie is not really what they are promoting. The fact that they changed marketing in newsprint relfects that they kind of realized that they had to shift gears.
Yes, I think if QT had made a hardcore Willis/Russell action film in the hard boiled 70’s mode, GH would have had a better chance of being a hit based on the potential for marketing alone. Has there ever been a movie marketed solely around the concept of a car that has been a hit outside the Herbie franchise? To many, I suspect this looked like a Christine rip-off. I know it is not…but it did look that way.
I also think many people may have confused the genre of this film? Based on the promos…is is camp? comedy? satire? horror? action? what? What a I paying for on Friday night.
Clyking nailed my views perfectly. I am seeing GH tommorrow night and will comment on the films quality or lack thereof then.
Finally, I think it is also safe to say that these guys do not have thier fingers on the pulse of the culture like studios think they do. Their names alone (in particular Tarantino’s) turn off far more people than they turn on.
People saw Kill Bill out of curiosity as to what QT had been up to for so long. He has not made that many films and many still had pleasant memories of Pulp Fiction. But the Kill Bill movies finally cemented his brand for many. They gave the public enough material to judge where he was coming from.
QT movies are like a smoked salmon and peas pizza…those who like it, like it a lot but it is a very rarefied taste.
No one’s addressed this yet, so I will: is it just me, or does MACHETE seem to have the exact same premise as SHOOTER?