Friday Estimates By Inexpendible Pray-dy Klady
My take on The Expendables was… Alien vs Predator. Old franchises made over and sold as new. Freddy vs Jason. And that is about the range where Stallone’s biggest rivival film at Lionsgate will land. Opening between $33m and $37m and totaling out domestically in the 70s or 80s. The real big question on this one is what the international ends up being worth. Liosngate won’t participate in it, except for in the UK. But for the movie… for Stallone… and for all the others… will this film do double what it does here overseas or will it, as would be more typical, do just slightly better over there than over here? That’s the story that will be most interesting here.
Eat, Pray, Love will do slightly better opening than Julie & Julia. Seems to fit. I’m sure that a lot of people expected bigger and better. It is, of course, idiotic to somehow make this about Julia Roberts’ star power, given that this will be her 4th best career opener as a lead… and two of the three bigger ones had then-box-office co-stars. (And one of those, btw, was seen as being soft when it happened too… The Expectations Game.)
I actually think this film is suffering a little from the critics. Older women, the primary audience, are one of the groups that actually listens to the critical buzz unless they are completely clear on what’s coming (Sex & The City). In the case of Julie & Julia, $20m became $94m domestically. Sony will eat and pray on that.
Scott Pilgrim vs The World will double Edgar Wright’s previous best openings here in America, thought to be fair to Focus, the ad buys were not nearly as big. Still, it’s a Snakes on a Plane ($13.8m) kinda opening. Obviously, I like this movie better than I liked Snakes, which I enjoyed. But films open on marketing, not the movie. And it is hard to convince anyone that this film is more than the niche product it appears to be. So the budget on the film can be legitimately questioned.
On the other hand, where was Nikki Whisperer Ron Meyer, crediting Despicable Me to Mark Shmuger as he has chosen to place blame on Shmuger – AGAIN – here? With due respect to Donna Langley and Adam Fogelson, they didn’t turn up at Universal from some other planet. And either did Ron Meyer. I am aware that everyone is concerned about being unemployed when Comcast finally takes over. But isn’t a nasty piece of work to keep playing this blame game… especially on a movie that the studio seems genuinely proud of and which has gotten some real raves? Is it really appropriate for the boss to throw Edgar Wright under the bis while covering his backside? Couldn’t we wait until the movie is done, much less released, before trying to blame Paul Weitz for the third Fockers film being a wreck?
Entourage got it right this week. If you have dirt to air and don’t want anyone ot question it, you have a place that’s more than happy to do it for you… though I fully expect “Ari Gold” to do as his namesake does and to bury it will the offer of more dirt down the road.
But I digress…
Even as it has fallen out of the US Top Ten, Toy Story 3 has become the #1 worldwide grossing animated film of all time this week. Yes, 3D bump… yadda yadda. And according to Bob Iger on their quarterly conference call, the merchandising has been equally impressive… and thus, even more valuable to the company. Big win.
Inception continues to chug along. The #5 film of the year continues on that pace, as it really has from the beginning. It will/has crack(ed) $500 million worldwide this weekend, passing Clash of the Titans on the year’s worldwide chart. WB should just about break even, noting their distribution fee, in worldwide theatrical, while their financing partners will have to wait a few months for the DVD release to do so. Still, a real success story… but very, very hard to duplicate.
I don’t think “Expandables” will get anywhere near 70s or 80s.
I wasnt expecting scott pilgrim to do much. Itd be nice to see something original break out and make some ducets. Either way, i dont care. Its like Speed Racer. I loved it. It tanked. Bought the blu ray and watch it all the time.
If anyone thought scott pilgrim was going to make bank, then they should have their head checked. Like kick ass, some films are just too freaky to cross over.
Hooray for the expendables. B movies need a bump financially. I loved them both but they werent moneymakers.
“Still, a real success story… but very, very hard to duplicate.”
A success based on a hard to duplicate scenario was a success, ergo, no further hard to duplicate success. Okay Mr. Thalberg.
I know IO will disagree, but IMO the marketing for Scott Pilgrim wasn’t very effective. This is anecdotal but I work in Manhattan with people between 22 and 35 (with a few exceptions but not many). The guys have been talking about The Expendables for weeks but I never heard a single mention of Scott Pilgrim. I wasn’t crazy about the trailer or any of the TV spots I saw. It didn’t grab me or seem like something I needed to see in theaters. Some marketing does a more effective job of selling broad appeal than others.
Also, anyone else catch NPR’s Linda Holmes stating that SP’s critics actually hate the audience and not the movie?
nikki finke takes it to another level this week by slamming women for going to see “Eay Pray Love” while praising the “innovation” of “Expendables.”
Amen, Christian – Dave, why does it NEED to be duplicated? Always seemed to me that Inception was going to be a one-off for Warner Bros to keep the relationship going with Nolan between Batmans. My guess is that they were just hoping to lose not too much on it – now, with about $700 million worldwide on a $160 budget, it will probably just be marginally less profitable than The Dark Knight or Matrix Reloaded. Remember, both of those cost a lot more than this and spare me the talk about how the budget number was low from the studio – add on $10 or $20 million to the cost and still a big win.
LINDA HOLMES OF NPR used to moonlight as “Miss Alli,” the most man-hating, fag-haggy, obnoxious “moderator” around on the loathesome Television Without Pity. Even on such a bullshit site run by power-happy, axe-grinding feminist fatties and bitter queens, she took it to such a level that even the entire (likeminded) membership/readership came to dislike her… Whole websites were devoted to hating her and her tinpot power tripping and TAKING THIS SHIT WAY TOO SERIOUSLY moderation and uncomfortable, barely-controlled RAGE.
Yeah the “you hate the audience and not the movie” argument is beyond moronic.
Stella’s Boy: I think you’re onto something. There’s been only one movie released this summer that my son has expressed any interest in seeing in a theater: The Expendables. And he’s 23. On the flip side: Couldn’t interest either him or his mom in seeing Scott Pilgrim.
And I don’t think it was lack of awareness either. Between TV spots, subway ads, billboards, Internet hype, etc., SP was ubiquitous. It just didn’t interest a large segment of the target audience.
The marketing for Scott Pilgrim was successfully in making Scott Pilgrim fans salivate. Most of you must have seen how they all ate up the interactive trailers, re-edits, etc. That’s were these studios go wrong. You’ve already won over the hardcore crowd. They’ve seen it 3 times already at ComicCon or won their way into early screenings. Convincing non-fans that this wasn’t standard Cera fare was where Universal fell face first.
I sincerely hope the budget wasn’t this newly rumored 90 mil. It’s unfathomable that Universal would be so stupid to put that money behind the nichest of niche Michael Cera vehicles. 60 mil is pushing it even.
A. I don’t actually understand what language christian is speaking.
B. Geoff… huh? This is a BOX OFFICE column, not an artistic value column.
“with about $700 million worldwide on a $160 budget”
where is this $200 million more than it’s currently at coming from? and the budget… you are kidding, right?
You are correct… at this price tag, they did it as a small-loss leader. And instead, they will make a little money.
You both have forgotten that media was selling this film as The Next Thing… smart and box office strong. With a $550m – $600m worldwide gross, there is no question that others will be considering how to duplicate something like this. But like I wrote – in a not-remotely-controversial turn of phrase – it will be hard to do.
“I don’t actually understand what language christian is speaking.”
That’s how I felt reading your strange take on how a hit film is somehow not a hit film.
At least Geoff understood.
David: OK, I am going to ask a question, and given my past experience, I half-expect you to somehow take this as an insult, or accuse me of being condescending, or call me a dingleberry, or whatever playground taunt pops into your head. So let’s just pretend that I’m someone else asking this question, with no ulterior motive, who seeks nothing more than simple clarification, OK?
You wrote: “This is a BOX OFFICE column, not an artistic value column.” (Your caps.) I am confused by your use of the word “column.” Did you mean this particular THREAD is focused exclusively on box-office, and that you see other threads here as more appropriate places to discuss artistic matters? Or do you see Hot Blog as a whole devoted to dollars and cents, rather than style and content? The reason I ask is, a while back, you referred to the Hot Button as “a trade,” kinda-sorta like Variety and Hollywood Reporter. And there was that kerfuffle a few weeks back between you and Mutiny over discussions about box-office performance that were colored (or not) by personal attitudes toward movies under discussion.
Once again: I am just curious. Chalk it up to a desperate attempt by an old man to seek some sort of consistency in his world. Now excuse me while I go outside, chase those damn kids off my lawn, and shake my first at the sky.
wrote this as a column for a decade, joe.
This thread is about box office.
Other threads are about art.
I don’t quite understand how this can escape you after all these years.
christian – it appears that you are projecting. I have never once said this film was not a hit. What I have said is that it is not a mega-hit, as some are making it out to be, and not a huge profit generator. Just the facts, man.
On the other hand, Matrix Reloaded, which is still derided as a bomb, had a better bottom line than Inception will. Matrix Revolutions, however, probably lost about $100 million, eating much of the profit on Reloaded.
None of this is brain surgery. But people don’t have much interest or memory or stamina when it comes to box office/business. It is not an emotional thing.
It’s like Avatar vs Gone With The Wind. I never wrote that Avatar is the most impactful grosser of all time. Neither Avatar nor Harry Potter have moved the needle on stock price for their parent companies in any direct way. Star Wars was a ton more significant to Fox than Avatar is.
Conversely, there are no movies on which any studio risks so much in proportion to their overall budgets that a single film or even a couple of films can bring down a studio.
Amusingly, the only thing that doesn’t change over time is the weak analysis of the film business. I always recommend David Puttnam’s Movies & Money, where you can read about how the movie business is repeating itself and is doomed to die because of it in 1908, 1928, 1948, and onwards.
All-in-all, WB will make a lot more on Valentine’s Day than it will on Inception. Obviously that doesn’t make VD a better movie… or even a good movie. Same with 2012, which will gross more and make more profit. Don’t blame the messenger.
And as far as Cultural Impact, IO was half right about Avatar. He made it about that one film. But the truth is, the culture has become too dense and the release patterns too short for movies to have the kind of impact they once did. Avatar may be more important culturally in China. But here, it’s a massive hit that ran a few months. Star Wars ran in theaters for over 18 months. Jurassic Park ran in October. Being a part of the conversation for such a long time is very, very different.
But the culprit here is not the movies themselves, no matter many ways and times an aging press corps screams it.
In the press, Mad Men is the most important show on TV… and on Sunday night, there may be one hour on the four major networks that draws fewer viewers than the combined rating (4 airings) for Mad Men.
That doesn’t make Mad Men the worst thing on Sunday night tv… nor does it makes its success for AMC any less important to them in their context… but it is the fact, whether we like thinking about it or not.
OK, at the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton: What do you mean by “this” in this context? Again, not trying to be argumentative, just seeking clarification. And, frankly, I am genuinely curious, because there are times when I teach journalism courses, and I’m finding that definitions are changing constantly, so it’s not as easy as it used to be to answer student questions about what is what.
As I see it: The Hot Blog is, well, a blog. You post either a comment (anything from a mini-review to a comment on someone else’s reportage to an open invitation to us to write whatever the hell is on our minds), and that kicks off an individual thread for the blog. It’s fun, it’s informative, but it’s not something that fits the classic definition of a column. On the other hand, The Hot Button is a column. At least, that’s how I would define it. Same thing for your weekly handicapping column during Oscar season.
Am I wrong? Do you see each posting you make here as a column as well? Look, I’m not trying to trip you, or trap you, or debate over semantics. I want to understand how you, as a professional, define the aspects of your job. Not how I or anyone else might define it. Andrew Sullivan, for example, blogs for The Atlantic, and refers to himself as a blogger. He also writes separate columns, however, and links to them from his blog. (And books, for that matter.) Do you see the distinction a different way? Do you think such distinctions are irrelevant these days?
Joe… forgive me… but you love to play this game and I am bored to tears with it.
Bring it up some other day, in some direct context, and I am sure I will find it fascinating to waste time trying to define my work… which will inevitably lead to people picking it apart and trying to explain what I really mean by this or that.
There is a very real difference between writing a column and blogging… and tweeting… and direct reporting… and research reporting… and short-form interviews… and DP/30… and what someone like Barbra Walters or even the guy on Actor’s Studio does.
My only rule is to try not to blur the lines of fact and opinion, even if the two elements daily take place in the same blog entries.
There is a method to my madness… but I am not always conscious of what it is. Sometimes, I screw up by my own standards. But I find that most of the scrums in here are about my opinions, not the facts. And that is why I have a blog, Joe.
My guess is, I will go back to columns – as I do during Oscar season – at some point. I love the back and forth of the blog – except when it gets nasty and personal for no reason – but I also believe that it undermines the authority of my work, whether deserved or not.
And I will probably go ahead and write a book, the tone of which will probably be a lot lighter than the tone gets in here. Even I get tired of beating my head against the wall.
— 30 — (for now)
OK. Thanks.
Mad men is a great example.
Relevant because the media loves it. Remember seven years of Buffy the Vampire Slayer coverage in entertainment weekly? Covers, constant articles. But most of America had no idea what it was. I dont think you can apply that logic to inception.
It been well received, but had the movie received an obnoxious amount of coverage? Pegging inception as some kind of exception to the rules is bunk.
The kind of up your ass hipsterism that you see from media outlets has not been heaped onto inception.
Of course neither Avatar nor Inception can be as culturally significant as the ‘groundbreaking’ movie events they are compared to because they don’t stay in theatres long enough. However if the films stand repeat viewings on dvd and tv and grow in the mass consioussness, and if the filmakers successfuly build on their mythologies with the sequels… then perhaps you have the possibility of leaving your mark on a generation.
Ok, Dave – I’ll bite, but let’s talk about the studio deflated budget numbers for movies like Avatar, then. You can’t just play this “real studio numbers” game with movies you don’t like or think or overrated like Star Trek or Superman Returns, can’t have it both ways.
Like I said earlier, add a $10 mil to Inception’s budget and it’s still a big win – the movie just opened in a few territories and still could have $200 mill in the tank.
Not asking for it both ways, Geoff. You bought the spin about a smaller number and now you are asking me to accept it. I didn’t on Superman Returns or Star Trek… or for that matter, Matrix Revolutions or Rings 2 and 3 or Batman & Robin or whatever else I know something about.
If Inception gets to $700m, I will happily acknowledge it and trumpet it. I don’t think it will see $600m at this point… and I still that that’s a great number for this film… just not great against its cost.
And Anghus… really? You don’t think Inception has been positioned by the media as an underdog? Okay. Guess we are reading different media.
AE Ase – I do think Avatar will be remembered as being as significant as Star Wars and Jaws in time… because it will significantly change the future of movie production… just as T2 did and Jurassic Park did. Will it be believed in the same way? Really depends on the sequels. They extend the legacy.
And… oddly… I have to say… the Rings legacy… not as sticky as I expected. I mean, the group that is still into it is very big. But it really left fewer “social catch phrases” (not literally phrases) behind. I don’t really think Avatar has left that behind either… not at this point… aside from 10′ tall blue people. I can think of many things I love in that film, but not a single money beat. And is there a line from Dark Knight that’s stuck?
I still carry “Wait ’til they get a load of me” and “You don’t think you’ll win, do you?” and “You can’t handle the truth” and “you won’t like me when I’m angry” and “I see dead people,” and “I HATE snakes,” around with me. Try getting on a crowded pleasure boat and not having someone say, “I think we need a bigger boat” with a mock UK accent.
Have we permanently replaced these movie memories with “Leave Britney ALONE!,” “They killed Kenny! You bastards!,” and “You’re fired!”?
i think “why so serious?” from TDK has sorta stuck. even i say it, and i’m not even a rabid darkie
(“i see you” has stuck from avatar, but that’s just in our household)
also, “hey, how you doing” has sorta stuck here as a joke when things are obviously not going well
(“i think we need a bigger boat” with a mock UK accent? surely you’re not quoting jaws w/that…i’m stumped)
Yes… absolutely. Leah right, me wrong.
Dave, you no doubt read a lot more than i do. But i’m just talking about your run of the mill everyday media. Inception came, went, stuck around due to strong word of mouth.
Never heard it positioned as an underdog. If anything, it seems like it played out just as most people thought it would.
the hype you’re feeling is net hype, not real media hype. if you can cite some examples, i’d love to see how you came to the conclusion. Inception wasnt oversold pre-release, it had a nice word of mouth bump that circulated, but other than the boards, the response has mostly been on par with any other tentpole release.
Seriously, Dave – what do you know that no one else knows about this movie – are you saying that is cost $50 million more than Warners is saying? WHAT number would suffice for you to consider this a hit, relative to cost? No illusions that this thread is more about numbers than movies as an art form, because NUMBERS do not lie, brother.
There about a dozen films released so far in 2010 that cost as much or more than Inception and it’s going to end up grossing more than two times domestically than most of them – you can’t keep moving the goalposts because of web “media” hype.
Sorry, NO ONE was hyping this movie as a franchise or the wave of the future – it was a SINGULAR event, a big budget sci fi thriller geared towards adults that a lot of “adults” got excited about, that’s it. It exceeded just about every one’s expectations, even against cost. You cannot tell me that Warners spent whatever you’re claiming they spent on it, expecting this thing to make Harry Potter numbers. No way.
And yeah, I think The Dark Knight has dialogue which has entered the lexicon as any movie in recetnt years – cannot tell how many times I have seen or heard “Would you like to see a magic trick” referenced or “…he’s the hero we need, not the hero we want….”
“But films open on marketing, not the movie. And it is hard to convince anyone that this film is more than the niche product it appears to be. So the budget on the film can be legitimately questioned.”
Uh no. Movies do not always open on marketing. Occasionally they open on this: SLY STALLONE VS MICHAEL CERA. I can go on and on but I’ve got places to go, people to see, and this is not a column. It’s a post on a blog.
But it wasn’t just about Sly. The Expendables had good marketing that appealed to the target audience in a way that SP did not. In a live-action leading role that isn’t Rambo or Rocky, Stallone hasn’t grossed over $40 million since Copland in 1997. That movie’s $13.5 million opening weekend is his best as a live-action lead outside of Rambo’s $18 million. Even though he co-wrote and directed it in addition to starring, The Expendables wasn’t sold exclusively as a Sylvester Stallone movie. In this case one movie was sold far better than the other, and that has nothing to do with their quality.
Stella’s Boy is spot on.
“Scott Pilgrim” — First trailer (from back in June) has “From the director of Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead”
(kneecapping)
“Eat Pray Love” — Latest trailer refers to “Academy Award Winner Julia Roberts”
(pistol-whipped)
“The Expendables” — straight sell, no name-checking, no whoring for awards
(fire guns in the air)
Chucky, sorry, but The Expendables has been sold on the names of the people in it because they are action stars… duh. You, of all people, should know NTPWMF.
SB, you forgot Rocky Balboa, and I disagree. SP has been sold awesomely but this is the US and remember: it takes us a while to catch up. SP had to deal with people like you and let’s be honest: geeks and hipsters are not the same people. Some geeks saw the ads and thought HIPSTER and you are not going to get the chubby brethren of hipsters to see a movie they think is about hipsters. That’s not advertising as much as an ingrained set of differences that no ads are going to change.
“‘The Expendables’ — straight sell, no name-checking…”
So wrong. So so so so so so so so so wrong.
“‘The Expendables’ — straight sell, no name-checking…”
So wrong. So so so so so so so so so wrong.
Chucky might have a point about the Pilgrim marketing namechecking Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, two movies only the geeks care about (I say that as a fan of both).
But the SP marketing reminded me of lipstick advertisements in the first season of Mad Men, when Peggy tells all the males that emphasizing the variety isn’t as powerful as emphasizing the individuality of each colour.
Think about all those posters and internet banner ads, the Seven Evil Exes were all lumped together, next to eachother. That shit should have been marketing gold. Give each Evil Ex his or her own TV Spot, make character posters, give the general audience a rundown of who each Evil Ex is, etc.
I know they were scared of marketing Cera, who is not at the height of his popularity these days, and as a result, the marketing had no central figure to focus on, and it just lumped all seven villains together as one concept.
Fuck this shit. Ima get me a job in marketing.
OK, now that the movie’s out, maybe I can be a little less evasive: Maybe, a-loco, they didn’t market each individual ex because they were afraid of turning off mainstream audiences by revealing the gender of one of the exes?
I’m pretty sure that was a gag in one of the trailers, anyways, Joe.
But yes, I remember when reading the books, the surprise was pretty fantastic. Probably worth the spoiler, though, because the beauty of it is in Scott’s reactions, and the wordplay about “ex-boyfriend” vs. “ex”.
Besides, don’t mainstream audiences like having their prejudices confirmed when it turns out that homosexuality REALLY IS just a phase?
Maybe. But, having not read the comics, I was a bit surprised when the cat was let out of the bag. And my first thought was: OK, I can understand WHY this is such a surprise. If that makes sense.
“Itd be nice to see something original break out and make some ducets.”
Except that The Expendables at #1 will make it the 7th straight weekend where an original title will be at the top of the box office (and the fourth straight original debut at #1). Yes, I’m being pedantic, but people are always complaining about everything being based on a comic or a computer game and, hey, here’s one that’s kinda both!
Never mind that though, it’s quite obvious that this marketed to Scott Pilgrim fans and not many others. I am quite sure that most moviegoers would have seen the ads and thought it was targeted directly at 17-year-old boys. Whether you’re a 31-year-old woman or a 44-year-old man and still like it, that doesn’t really matter. Many would’ve seen it as nothing to get excited about, but the fanboys thought everyone would.
Why aren’t more people seeing Animal Kingdom?!
christ kam you’re a sight for sore eyes (just to say i feel bad i haven’t seen ‘animal kingdom’. but i don’t think it’s come here yet so i may have a good excuse)
chucky is heavily armed as usual, hilarious
KCAMEL POWER.
He wouldn’t believe it in a million years and absolutely despises me, partially for good reason… but Kamikaze should TOTALLY COME BACK.
and speaking of heavily armed, i’ve had a weird epiphany after watching ‘hurt locker’ again for the…3rd time, i think; i’ve come to the conclusion that anthony mackie as sanborn is as interesting and effective (perhaps even more so) as renner’s james; renner is great but mackie anchors the piece and he didn’t seem to get much vocal acclaim when it all came down for ‘the locker’, which seems messed up. the tense sniper sequence with him and renner trying to pick off
oh how weird, half my comment is missing. fuck it
Knowles just posted his Inception review. And I read it. And… I don’t know what to say. I think I’ve rarely read a worst critique – lambasting the film not for what it is (mostly, as he does touch on the ski sequence) but for what it isn’t.
The guy has a schtick, I get and respect that. But fuck me does he seem to be full of himself, drunk on being an ‘authority’. I wonder if the internet will ever turn on him, because surely he must irk as many as he inspires?
On the Expendables vs SP marketing: It’s pretty simple, isn’t it? REAL MEN throwback to a glorious epoch of AMERICA NUMBER 1 ACTION MOVIES WHERE MEN WERE MEN vs limp dick story of supertechnicolor dweeb who’s trying to get the girl with the weird colored hair.
I’m not hating on SP btw – I’m just saying that for the CASUAL moviegoer, it probably wasn’t the hardest decision in the world to make.
@ DP – I agree that Avatar gets remembered for being seminal in the same way Jurassic Park did. However, much like that franchise – if it doesn’t build on the legacy it definitely doesn’t get a lasting place in the pantheon of seminal cultural films, such as it is. If it does (this may go for Inception too, if there are sequels), then maybe it becomes a super phenomenon, and maybe this generation’s (blasphemy alert!) Star Wars- like super franchise.
As for the catchphrase thing – why so serious is instantaneously recognisable. But yeah, we have moved on to ‘you killed Kenny you bastards’ and ‘fuck you guys, I’m going home!’
IO your devotion to all things SP is so complete you can’t even acknowledge that the marketing might have been weak and partly responsible for the $11 million opening weekend? If it was so good, why weren’t more males in the target audience talking about it? Why didn’t the buzz extend beyond those psyched about it the second they heard the movie was being made? (I did not forget Rocky Balboa.)
Considering the R-rated Expendables is going to make about $25 million more than the PG-13 SP, and each was targeting younger males, isn’t it fair to say that marketing played a key part in that?
Leah, I couldn’t agree more regarding Mackie and Hurt Locker. By the time my wife and I saw it on DVD, I had hyped up Renner (we’re both huge fans of The Assassination of Jesse James and I have been a Renner fan since Dahmer). When the movie was over she looked at me and said “who was the other guy?” Mackie deserved a nomination for Hurt Locker. I think he steals the movie.
Guy Pearce is in Animal Kingdom. That’s enough for me. Watched LA Confidential a few nights ago. Wife had never seen it. Love that movie.
Chucky, as usual, is an idiot. The marketing for The Expendables was MOSTLY name-checking. In LA there are bus stop ads that consist entirely of the cast lineup.
And of course, THAT’S THE RIGHT IDEA. That’s what people are paying to see, all of their favorite faded action stars (minue Van Damme and Seagal) teamed up together. How else would you sell that, on PLOT?
“Knowles just posted his Inception review. And I read it. And… I don’t know what to say. I think I’ve rarely read a worst critique – lambasting the film not for what it is (mostly, as he does touch on the ski sequence) but for what it isn’t.
The guy has a schtick, I get and respect that. But fuck me does he seem to be full of himself, drunk on being an ‘authority’. I wonder if the internet will ever turn on him, because surely he must irk as many as he inspires?”
The internet has turned on Knowles. I haven’t taken a poll but I’d bet the majority of people who read about movies online that know of his existence can’t stand him. He is easily the dumbest person talking about movies on the internet, which is saying a lot. It doesn’t help that he writes like he’s suffered a head injury. And not to make too much fun of someone for being fat, but the guy broke his knee bending over once. That’s Orca fat.
Unfortunately, we all still go to that site, and I don’t even know why we do it anymore. In the early days it was about breaking geeky news. Now you can get that from about a billion better places online. I guess I keep going out of some movie dork Pavlovian response. Reading my own post here, yeah, he and ain’t it cool really don’t add anything.
^ I think Harry Knowles is kind of sad, really. He started off as a really passionate geek, but his experiences with the industry have left him completely without perspective. How can you expect him to criticize a Stallone movie when he idolized the guy in the 90s and is now “buddies” with him in the 2000s?
And I know it’s not cool to make fun of his weight, but when I heard he moderated the Expendables panel, I lol’d at the thought of him sitting around with all those muscular behemoths.
The fact that Harry blows Stallone every time he releases a new movie and then doesn’t even hesitate to review it is a farce. Why would anyone with half a brain listen to anything the guy says? He may be a nice guy and a true film buff, but he has zero objectivity and even less credibility. I trust Shawn Edwards and Peter Travers more.
SB, you really think everything is some sort of conspiracy to GET YOU. It’s really kind of weird. I also think the marketing worked for the people it worked for but there are some people like you, who were never going to give this film a chance. It was just not going to happen and no marketing can change the unhip to hip, you dig? Probably not because I AM OUT TO GET YOU! BRUAHAHAHAHA!
Harry is just an unabashed unobjective fan and I have no problem with that. With Harry, you get what you pay for. I don’t get all the vitriol outside of his sometimes terrible taste. We all qualify. Maybe.
Sorry IO but sometimes your observations could not possibly be more off base. I am not a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Not even close. I am also not the only one here who believes SP’s marketing wasn’t all it could be. And obviously the marketing “worked for the people it worked for.” It also didn’t work for the people it didn’t work for, and that turned out to be a lot of people. Must be a lot of tragically unhip people out there. Represent.
SB, yeah, there are a lot of tragically unhip people out there like you, so you did use represent right, which is shocking because you are tragically unhip. Again, you act as if certain people, me including me, because we have a different view of things than you, and you simply cannot understand how said people cannot be just talking/posting/reviewing out of their asses. Fine, so be it, but that’s a rather warped perspective of the world sir.
What in the hell are you going on about? I’ve said it before, as has DP and many others, marketing has nothing to do with quality. I am not judging SP as a film when I criticize its marketing. They are completely separate. It also is very well-liked here. I don’t think those who like it are wrong or delusional or talking out of their asses. I certainly don’t think they’re “cowards.” You’d think someone who merely expresses a different opinion from you regarding a movie’s marketing shot your dog while you helplessly looked on. And you want to talk about perspective? Careful in that glass house IO.
The turn on AICN over time was inevitable. Eventually what was hip becomes infiltrated by the studios and writers sell their dignity trying to use their positions to cross oves over into the creative side of the business. And none of them were good enough writers to be film journalists. They’re just kind of assholes with opinions. Nothing wrong with that, but there wasnt anyone worth following.
And now, the site is nothing more than a harry review once or twice a month and week old stories.
Hearing how the film people turned on them is a more interesting story. Hearing how filmmakers turned on them for script reviews. The guy who gave away the ending of the Mist and it ended up getting posted on the imdb boards. Or the guy who reviewed a screener for Signs claiming he’d seen an early screening. Or they guy selling bootlegs. Or the much publicized script review for Abrams Superman and the reveal of the original Terminator Salvation ending. This kind of stuff doesn’t contribute anything positive to the film world.
SB: unlike you and David, I am pragmatic and not always on the attack of the marketing. I have seen ads for SP all over the place but if a movie exist that is too different for most people, you cannot blame the movie.
You and everyone also seems to think of the word COWARD as if it’s 1810 instead of 2010. If you don’t like COWARD then let’s go with TIMIDITY. The American movie-going public are TIMID to a FAULT. This is just not about SP. This is about EVERY FILM FROM ANY GENRE THAT’S AWESOME BUT DID NOT CROSS OVER! Seriously, think of a film that you like that’s awesome and that the American MGP turned it’s nose up to, then you get the point. The people in this country as a whole make crappy choice after crappy choice.
It’s not like I hated the Expendables or anything but COME ON, that movie barely had any scripted dialogue in it. It’s the most stilted freaking performed movie ever made but the people went to see it because they wanted BOOM BOOM THEY COULD FEEL FROM THE MOVIE THEATER BATHROOM! That’s just timid and I feel it’s cowardly in terms of taste and broadening their horizons on countless films.
If you got a problem with that, then you know the two words I have for you, but SP is another film to feel the wrath of the timidity and the cowardice of the MGP, and it’s not SP’s fault or it’s marketing.
Anghus, no it does not contribute anything to the film world but Herc is an awesome TV review and Quint is making movies for god’s sake. Hell, Harry had enough cash to take over famous monsters, so they are branching out but it is what it is. They are not CHUD and I will leave it at that, yo.
I agree about Herc. One of the only writers at AICN I like. I don’t believe that I am always attacking the marketing. I also don’t think it’s an easy job, and it’s very easy to criticize. Like others here, I believe the studio did a better job selling to those who were already going to see it than they did selling it to everyone else. Were I still single and childless, I would have seen SP opening weekend for sure. I used to see just about everything. Now, the next movie I see in theaters will be Inception. And so it goes.
And movies are expensive these days IO. Not everyone is in a position to see every movie they want to, especially more casual filmgoers. I’m pickier than I used to be as well, waiting for DVD or cable with movies I would have more than likely seen in theaters at one time. With movies hitting DVD or OnDemand in 3 months and Starz in 6 or 7 months, it’s not as hard to wait on stuff that doesn’t look like it’s worth $10 a ticket, not to mention a babysitter and popcorn/snack money.
Herc has the worst taste of anybody at AICN – I mean, he slobbers over THE BACHELOR and every crappy reality show ever made.
Does he? I ignore reviews of reality TV.
Christian I have to disagree with that statement. He has a lot better taste in reality shows and if it were not for him, there have been countless shows I would have never checked out. The dude rules.
SB, we have had the economy conversation before but I really do feel that what happened to SP has more to do with the timidity of the MGP than anything else. I could be wrong but it just seems that as I grow older, the more I realize that America really just does not get stuff right away unless it’s tacky gym pants or acid wash jeans. Anything really cool, the country is behind the times on, that’s just annoying.
Yeah that is possible IO and I was using the economy and the cost of movies today to make a general point, not highlighting any movie in particular. Although maybe younger males interested in both SP and The Expendables had to choose between the two, knowing they’d catch the other sooner or later on DVD/OnDemand.
“He has a lot better taste in reality shows”
That’s like saying you have better taste in dirt.
Reality shows are awful, insert Lexg rant of choice.
IO, its nothing against anyone in particular. Quints a great guy. But i’ll give you an example of the kind of subconscious stuff that makes me wince.
quint’s doing interviews with the cast of scott pilgrim. awesome. as im reading an interview with brandon routh, somehow the discussion of warner dvds comes up and there a mention of how he used to get stuff for free, but not anymore…
its the kind of ‘huh’ moment that you would think wouldnt have been brought up, or even posted into an interview. there’s no editing being done, just the flat out transcription of 2 guys talking. In theory, that’s great. But why should i care about who gets free dvds at AICN. That’s become ‘a thing’. So much so that ive seen it creep into several columnists interviews.
the kind of ‘its really about me’ mentality that makes readers go ‘i dont care about this guys perspective’, because this guy is interviewing an actor and the topic of dvd freebies comes up.
bad writing. uninteresting. i want to read about the guy, not the guy interviewing the guy. his perspective is less important to me. AICN never got that.
Some perspective Anghus. You’re having a discussion about an individual called ‘Quint’ and everyone on here knows who you are talking about. AICN cultivated personalities for the site.
AICN always got how important that was.
Debate about lack of talent aside, it’s silly to say they got it wrong by allowing their writers to be more than just bylines.
developing anonymous personalities… which is why so many questioned their credibility.
Harry taking over for Famous Monsters makes perfect sense. But i never went to Forry Ackerman for film criticism. He was beloved for what he represented.
there are writers online who developed actual personalities using a real name, have lots of credibility, and are more than a byline… and most importantly they don’t make the story about them.
Say what you will about AICN, but what it did was cement this mentality that geek culture is about the geek, not the culture.
I really enjoyed Scott Pilgrim. Sad it’s bombing.
Yeah it’s not bombing. THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER UNTIL IT GETS PREDATORS, then we call it and wait for the DVD/BD sales. Woo.
“Leah, I couldn’t agree more regarding Mackie and Hurt Locker. By the time my wife and I saw it on DVD, I had hyped up Renner (we’re both huge fans of The Assassination of Jesse James and I have been a Renner fan since Dahmer). When the movie was over she looked at me and said “who was the other guy?” Mackie deserved a nomination for Hurt Locker. I think he steals the movie.”
stella’s: i heard that. mackie is an absolute revelation in the sniper stand-off out in the desert with renner — so much tension, so much waiting, so much silence between rounds (so many sand-encrusted eyelids); mackie’s eyes in those silent moments just sell it, he is unbelievably convincing as a man under life-or-death pressure, requiring life-or-death concentration and skill; that whole sniper sequence is just visual poetry right down to the sudden blown-off-their-feet deaths of the british unit, just one shot ‘pft’ and bam, down and out for the count, really rather beautifully done and an excellent example of silence as a tension-building device. i’m not sure why it took me this long to grok the truely deep significance of mackie’s perf but it’s the lynch-pin of the movie for me (also, the more i see of ‘the locker’, the more of a fucking nutjob james comes off to me, he really is a bit of a loon – or a ‘true wildman’ to quote whatshisdoodle; i also wondered about the implausibility of james being allowed back for another tour after he clearly initiates a serious breach of military protocol by leading his ied team into clear and present danger immediately after the night-bombing during which specialist eldridge is abducted and shot by james in an attempt to save his life, a life put in jeopardy solely because of james’ desire to engage in combat outside his purview [curse you ‘in the loop’], is that realistic? perhaps the US military really is that desperate for bomb disposal techs. not that i’m hung up on ‘realism’ because i really dig the movie, it just struck me as unlikely)
sorry to babble on about this, i realise it’s totally further to nothing in this thread
oh man, apologies for not using a spoiler warning in the above just in case, lame of me
“If Inception gets to $700m, I will happily acknowledge it and trumpet it. I don’t think it will see $600m at this point… and I still that that’s a great number for this film… just not great against its cost.”
Uh, Dave…according to boxofficemojo.com,Inception just hit $563,869,482 and counting.
“If Inception gets to $700m, I will happily acknowledge it and trumpet it. I don’t think it will see $600m at this point… and I still that that’s a great number for this film… just not great against its cost.”
Uh, Dave…according to boxofficemojo.com,Inception just hit $563,869,482 and counting.