|
Random Stranger posted:I said to myself, this sounds kind of like fun and it might be interesting to do Heaven's Gate. And then I realized that the only logical entry point into writing that essay would be to get into the studio cut versus the director's cut and that's would just be painful. Just because it's not as bad as its reputation doesn't mean that it's actually a good movie and a three and a half hour version of a bland movie would make me want to shoot myself. But perhaps some brave essay writer out there will prove me wrong. I desperately want to read your essay on Constantine.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Random Stranger posted:I said to myself, this sounds kind of like fun and it might be interesting to do Heaven's Gate. And then I realized that the only logical entry point into writing that essay would be to get into the studio cut versus the director's cut and that's would just be painful. Just because it's not as bad as its reputation doesn't mean that it's actually a good movie and a three and a half hour version of a bland movie would make me want to shoot myself. But perhaps some brave essay writer out there will prove me wrong. A comparison of Jonah Hex to Wild Wild West would be really interesting. I figure Jonah Hex is like what would happen if no one on the set of Wild Wild West was having any fun at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
Vargo posted:What about movies that did the opposite? Didn't do well in America but made bank overseas? Pacific Rim is considered a bomb for this thread even though it's made back double it's budget already, mostly from non-American markets. I think it's strange that only US returns are considered, at least in cases where there is a big disparity between market returns. It's a useful general indicator though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
John Dough posted:Pacific Rim is considered a bomb for this thread even though it's made back double it's budget already, mostly from non-American markets. I think it's strange that only US returns are considered, at least in cases where there is a big disparity between market returns. It's a useful general indicator though. Pacific Rim is an odd one too, it's an American film with a Mexican director, filmed in Canada, with a bunch of British people in the cast, based on a Japanese genre and with effects by an American company. Like the Lord of the Rings movies, it's an example of a film with an international pedigree aimed at an international audience. It has a roughly 75/25 split of International to American box office, which while somewhat unusual is not unprecedented. Even Avatar, a huge hit in the states, only did about 28% of it's total business there, which was very similar to the split for the last Harry Potter film and not so different from Titanic. 2012 would be considered a flop in the US but did nearly EIGHTY percent of it's business elsewhere, making it highly profitable overall. I guess the decision has to be, are you making a book about films which completely failed to find a receptive audience, or about films which were not well loved by American audiences? If you're going for the latter, you are asking very different questions than if you go for the former, as you'd be focusing on a single (if varied) culture's reaction to films that come from a much broader variety of backgrounds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 09:33
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I desperately want to read your essay on Constantine. It is pronounced "Con-stan-tine" and Chas Chandler was not Short Round.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 10:15
|
|
|
Can I claim The Big Year? I won't have time for a pitch until later, but I really like that movie. I think it bombed because it was sold as a comedy with a bunch of comedic actors, but it's not all that funny. Which is OK. e: The Big Year Budget: $41 million Box Office: $7.45 million Every review seems to call this movie a 'comedy,' which is indeed what it is billed as - a Caddyshack with birding instead of golfing, say. And there are some genuinely funny moments. But this is not a particularly funny movie, and that's OK. It's instead a great example of how labels and expectations affect the ways we watch movies. Sure, a movie starring Jack Black, Steve Martin, and Owen Wilson, about birders in a competition to see the most birds, sounds like it's going to be madcap. But The Big Year is instead what happens when instead of the competitive hijinks of something like It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World/Rat Race you're faced with a sometimes funny, sometimes bittersweet discussion of the constant push and pull in all of our lives between greatness and happiness. In addition to the marketing and expectations issues, this is a movie that really speaks to the ambitions and dreams (and concomitant fears) of people around ages 30 and 65, and how those ambitions and dreams are sometimes achieved, sometimes deferred, sometimes changed, and sometimes forgotten. It's a part of life unknown to those in their teens and 20s and easily ignored by those in their 40s but which seems so frightening to those looking ahead to - or behind at - a lifetime spent in apparent mediocrity (or a lifetime spent achieving greatness, along with its equally great sacrifices). I really wouldn't pretend that it's a great movie, per se, especially in that while it mostly avoids over-sentimentality it occasionally drifts that way, but it's certainly a very good movie. Xenophon fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Sep 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:Pacific Rim is an odd one too, it's an American film with a Mexican director, filmed in Canada, with a bunch of British people in the cast, based on a Japanese genre and with effects by an American company. Like the Lord of the Rings movies, it's an example of a film with an international pedigree aimed at an international audience. It has a roughly 75/25 split of International to American box office, which while somewhat unusual is not unprecedented. Even Avatar, a huge hit in the states, only did about 28% of it's total business there, which was very similar to the split for the last Harry Potter film and not so different from Titanic. 2012 would be considered a flop in the US but did nearly EIGHTY percent of it's business elsewhere, making it highly profitable overall. A couple of things. Four things, actually. 1) Apparently foreign money gets cut into by foreign distribution deals and other associated costs. Hollywood accounting is beyond obfuscated at this point but filmmakers are increasingly predicting the collapse of the blockbuster for a reason. 2) I would rather read about outright bombs than stuff that's (A) generally considered at least OK by most people and (B) basically broke even or a little under. 3) Writing a comprehensive "this is an overlooked good movie!" review of something that came out about two months ago strikes me as a little lazy. The OP wants you to find him twenty movies, let's make it twenty really interesting ones that people wouldn't necessarily know a lot about. 4) What this thread is quickly pointing out is that every year there are piles of good movies that don't make a nickel. Name Change fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Sep 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Mars Needs Moms is supposedly so politically regressive that like every mainstream critic called it out, and that's saying something. Perhaps it's been done to death, but it should be easy enough to tear it apart. Cutthroat Island sunk a studio (Carolco) that released some huge hits. Subtext-wise, it's a swashbuckling movie with a female hero that flopped. The Alamo was "written and directed by a Texan," and maybe somebody can squeeze out a few hundred words about killing your darlings. I was thinking I'd at least watch Pluto Nash, having never seen it, but I just read the synopsis on wikipedia and it's beyond incoherent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
nocal posted:Mars Needs Moms is supposedly so politically regressive that like every mainstream critic called it out, and that's saying something. Perhaps it's been done to death, but it should be easy enough to tear it apart. The thing is, no mainstream critic called out Mars Needs Moms. I think maybe a few mentioned the sexism in its title briefly, but if you Google "Mars Needs Moms gay", it's literally just me and people quoting me. I've had to subject other people to that movie just to tell me I'm not nuts. But the other problem with that suggestion is that in addition to the horrible politics, it's also boring, annoying, stupid, and gently caress-ugly. Honestly, I'd like to see someone try to take that film on and produce an essay that portrays it as having a shred of worth. (This person tries.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
200k less of 27mil and I could have gushed poetically about Dark City and the impact it made. Back to looking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
Vargo posted:The thing is, no mainstream critic called out Mars Needs Moms. I think maybe a few mentioned the sexism in its title briefly, but if you Google "Mars Needs Moms gay", it's literally just me and people quoting me. I've had to subject other people to that movie just to tell me I'm not nuts. That's weird. It's possible I read your review, though I don't remember, so I checked RT. I see a few critics commenting on the politics. Even a positive review notes that "there are some weird gender political battles at play here." Again, tempted to do this one...but it sounds awful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
nocal posted:Again, tempted to do this one...but it sounds awful. Just to clarify, I don't think this isn't about writing essays about box office bombs, it's about writing essays about box office bombs that you actually like. In the OP it does say: quote:To that end, I want to collect essays from CineD regulars regarding films you love and, more to the point, why you love them. So there's no need to subject yourself to an awful move just to analyze it because that's not really the point (unless you end up liking the film).
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Well the one film that I was interested in doing was already claimed. In the OP. I'll have to see if I can find any other I'm enthusiastic enough about to write a couple thousand words for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Noxville posted:Well the one film that I was interested in doing was already claimed. In the OP. I'll have to see if I can find any other I'm enthusiastic enough about to write a couple thousand words for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
If anyone is interested in doing one for Pootie Tang, it's absolutely available, making 3.3 million domestic on a 7 million budget. I don't think I have the time or the chops to do it myself, but it's available.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Big Trouble in Little China Look at this loving guy.  He's not in Big Trouble in Little China.  This guy is, though, and he's not nearly as much of a bad son of a bitch. But he has a lot more heart. Big Trouble in Little China was released in 1986, on a budget of $20-25 million. Captained by Horror Master John Carpenter, this vessel of absolute beauty stormed the beaches of No One Gives a gently caress, threw its crew onto the beach and left them there to have all of the fun imaginable. All of it. You cannot imagine the fun. You might even refuse to. This is a movie where a Chinese dude explodes from sheer rage. There's a place called the Chinese Hell of Being Cut to Pieces. The Asian sidekick is the proverbial hero because the White Leading Macho Action Star is an American Truck Driver who, although admirably courageous, is a useless piece of poo poo, in way over his head and has no idea what the gently caress is going on. He just wants his truck back. Then there's monsters and magicians and sorcerers, and all sorts of other weird poo poo and Kim Catrall. You still can't imagine the fun, I get it. It's hard to grasp, profoundly so. Here are pictures. A picture says more than a thousand words, but then again, you usually don't read pictures (you might have to read one of these pictures) Imagine being in a film where this is your poster and DVD cover  No, you can't. What about running into this guy  They used Jefferoo for reference This guy's also in here  He didn't care. Also him  Sweet guy, though. All this and much more is in this movie. There are also things that aren't in this movie, but I think that can be said of a lot of movies, so we shouldn't hold that against this one. It opened to a spectacular $2,723,211 on 1,092 screens, and has grossed roughly $11,100,000 to this day. Victory! No one understood this movie very well. I'd like to tell you why. edit: my pitch has pictures 
spaceships fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Anybody know the budget for Undercover Brother? It made 38 million, so it seems like it might qualify, but neither Wikipedia nor Boxoffice mojo list the budget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Anybody know the budget for Undercover Brother? It made 38 million, so it seems like it might qualify, but neither Wikipedia nor Boxoffice mojo list the budget. IMDB lists an estimated $25M. If anyone is interested in the following: Bulworth and Deep Rising I knew a lot of people in the 90s who loved this movie, but Bulworth might be an interesting contender. It's not quite a blockbuster, but it was fairly well hyped and came out as part of a string of politically-themed films about scandalous figures/events that happened to coincide with the final term of the Clinton Administration while he was under investigation for misconduct. After the relatively popular (and pop-culture) success of "Wag the Dog" and the use of the term by media pundits since, neither "Bulworth" or the even more hyped "Primary Colors" did all that well, and neither recouped their budgets. Bulworth: Budget: $30M (Wiki) Domestic Box Office: $26.5M (BOMojo) Primary Colors (If there are fans): Budget: $65M Domestic: $39M (BOMojo) I know I'm sort of tempted to do one on Deep Rising (If anyone else wants it, please take it, as I'm just throwing it out there mainly for people who might not have considered it.) Deep Rising Budget: $45M Box Office: $11.2M There was a window in 1997-99 that seemed to be a banner era for poorly performing films heavily based in the water. From Virus to Speed 2 to Free Willy 3. Releasing within weeks after the unstoppable and acclaimed Titanic, maybe audiences weren't in the mood for a light and horror-actioner set at sea that was Deep Rising. With cartoonish characters, B-actors, and questionable 90s computer effects, it doesn't really do much to put it on par with the Cameron film. Despite that, I do enjoy the hell out the movie. Edit: I didn't notice it mentioned elsewhere in the thread, for anyone wanting to do a double-feature: Grindhouse Budget: $67M Box Office: $25M JediTalentAgent fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:IMDB lists an estimated $25M. Damnit, I looked on IMDB too, but couldn't find the box office. It's been there long enough that I can't call it the "new" format, but I definitely prefer the former layout.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 08:53
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:If anyone is interested in the following: Are these articles supposed to be more "why this movie is actually good," "why this movie failed" or "Treat Williams represents the struggle between gender relations of Hun Dynasty China and the giant sea worms are Captain Cook and his crew"
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:3) Writing a comprehensive "this is an overlooked good movie!" review of something that came out about two months ago strikes me as a little lazy. The OP wants you to find him twenty movies, let's make it twenty really interesting ones that people wouldn't necessarily know a lot about. Consider me a little lazy, then. If our bookleaders decide that Pacific Rim counts, I'd like to call dibs and I'll write up a formal pitch. I loved the gently caress out of that film, I saw it in the theater literally ten times. I have a lot of words to say about it that weren't noted by critics, as it was commonly dismissed as entertaining but shallow action fare. A movie about robots punching godzilla can have just as much to say about human relationships as more "serious", oscar-baiting films, and a movie that missed the mark with its domestic audience and whose layers and themes were dismissed by even the critics who liked it deserves a fair shake, imho. If it's decided that Pacific Rim doesn't count, then I'll write up a pitch for John Carter (with Vargo's permission, I know he was looking at doing a thing with live action Disney films).
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 09:31
|
|
|
TwistedLadder posted:If it's decided that Pacific Rim doesn't count, then I'll write up a pitch for John Carter (with Vargo's permission, I know he was looking at doing a thing with live action Disney films).
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 10:01
|
|
|
I can't recall if this was posted in the thread or not yet, but another potentially good place to find some forgotten flops might be The Numbers. You can show by release dates and it shows budget/domestic box office in the chart. For example, to look through 1998 would be: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/year/1998 It's not complete, and it's still probably a good idea if you see something to see if you can compare the numbers with other sites (imdb, wiki, BOMojo, etc.) in an attempt to validate the budget/earnings, too. Also, might be good too to doublecheck overseas earnings to help find films that did poorly both home and abroad. Some potentially interesting flicks in there, so I'll post a few from just 1998 that MIGHT have some fans in this thread, that I haven't seen posted yet. Movie: Budget/Domestic Box Office 1998 Hard Rain: $70M/$20M Mercury Rising: $60M/$33M Quest For Camelot: $40M/$23M Without Limits: $25M/<$1M What Dreams May Come: $80M/$55M Beloved: $53M/$23M The Siege: $70M/$41M Meet Joe Black: $85M/$45M Babe-Pig in the City: $80M/$18M The Thin Red Line: $52M/$36M Mighty Joe Young: $80M/$50M 1996: Striptease: $50m/$33M (Hey, if people can be fans of Showgirls, there might be Striptease fans...) Chain Reaction: $55M/$21M Escape From LA $50M/$25M Last Man Standing $67M/$18M Long Kiss Goodnight: $65M/$33M JediTalentAgent fucked around with this message at 11:29 on Sep 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 11:23
|
|
|
I'd be tempted to do Stealth ($138m budget, $32m US, $76m total worldwide) if I could find anything about the writing process and how much the original concept got changed once Rob Cohen and the Pentagon got involved. Somehow I don't think that WD Richter (Invasion of the Body Snatchers '78, Big Trouble In Little China, Buckaroo Banzai) had it in mind to write a screenplay about how awesome drones are at bombing brown and yellow people and if only they didn't occasionally get struck by lightning and turn evil and listen to nu-metal everything would be perfect. U-S-A! U-S-A!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
I'm going to grab Escape from L.A. if that's all right? Escape from L.A. had a budget of almost ten times the amount of the original Escape from New York, but ended up only taking in two hundred thousand dollars more at the box office, and that's only if you don't adjust "New York's" box office for the fifteen years in between. And yet, Escape from L.A. is one of the most scathing, satirical indictments of post 9/11 society that has even been produced. Which is especially amazing, since it was released five years before 9/11. John Carpenter, Debra Hill, and Kurt Russell seemed to have some sort of crystal ball to see into the future (or maybe they all had those weird visions from Prince of Darkness), because watching the film in hindsight, it seems that they were riffing on society in 2006, not 1996. Plus, it had Snake Plissken surfboarding with Peter Fonda. Davros1 fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
If the criteria is that the film must have made LESS domestically than it's budget, and Wiki can be believed, I think I found a film that someone on this site likely could write a thing on fairly easily... Transformers: The Animated Movie. Budget: $6M Domestic Box Office: $5,849,647 It's a flop by mere inches... A few more I stumbled upon that might have some goon fans. Like Transformers, they aren't massive budget films, but seem to have enough of a loss to warrant bringing up: Return to Oz: $27M/$10M Lifeforce: $25M/12M JediTalentAgent fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Lifeforce has some of the best nudity of all time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Lifeforce has some of the best nudity of all time. Barbarella, which is also rated G
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
Somebody do Paranorman because I'm not 100% sure I'd have the time to put in to this myself and I wouldn't want to half rear end it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Somebody do Paranorman because I'm not 100% sure I'd have the time to put in to this myself and I wouldn't want to half rear end it. Paranorman made $40 million over its budget, it wasn't a bomb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
Also if anyone were to take that from me I would stab everyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Corek posted:Paranorman made $40 million over its budget, it wasn't a bomb. That is if we're including international, which apparently we are not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
It's not really a fair contender either because LAIKA Studios isn't under the same financial pressure of other studios since the CEO is a billionaire's son who mostly gets to do what he wants. In a good way, they make the best films (on the planet Earth). They've discussed how they could have made the film more marketable; they literally chose not to. It's more like a super high-budget art piece than a film in the traditional Hollywood financial sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
The Dredd thread reminded me: Doom bombed hard, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
I'd like to see someone do a life less ordinary, maybe in conjunction with Boyle's only other substantial flop, Sunshine. It's not a well loved film and only made back 1/4 of it's budget (in the US at least, international performance is harder to gauge but it at least had a mostly American cast, McGregor aside), but I think it achieves what it sets out to do really well and just had trouble finding an audience
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
I was considering doing Life Less Ordinary but I think I'm gonna have to focus on just doing Ravenous. It's definitely a neat, underrated film though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
Corek posted:Paranorman made $40 million over its budget, it wasn't a bomb. 56 Million Domestic on a 60 Million budget. OP says don't count international.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
I think I have an interesting angle on Howard the Duck, so I would like dibs on that if it's ok with everyone. I'll try to write up a rough outline over the next few days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
weekly font posted:56 Million Domestic on a 60 Million budget. OP says don't count international. Not that ParaNorman doesn't deserve more exposure, but isn't that kind of close to be considered a bomb? It made back 90% of its budget just in the US. Not exactly a blockbuster, but that seems to be quite good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
If I had more time I'd do Radioland Murders, the last good movie George Lucas made even though I seem to be alone in that opinion. It's very slapstick, but was intended as an homage to an older kind of film. It draws most of it's inspiration from Abbot and Costello's Who Done it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 11:05
|
|
