Buscemi wrote:If his movies are legs films, then how do you explain the low numbers on Invictus and J. Edgar? And Gran Torino had a big opening when it went wide (and wasn't hampered by bizarre appearances).
The film will be lucky to hit $50 million now (seeing that this is a film that Warner Bros. expected to be big).
I think Eastwood the actor has a much bigger draw than Eastwood the director. I'd bet money that the average moviegoer would rather go see a movie with him in it than one where he was merely the director (if they even bothered to find out).
I mean, does the average moviegoer really care who directed a film? Maybe if it's a Spielberg, or a Nolan, or a Fincher, or maybe one or two others. Honestly, I think about 90% of the population really only cares if it looks interesting, and most of Eastwood's films (that he hasn't appeared) have looked too ponderous, too boring, or too ambiguous.
But still, you think that a guy who is well-known as Eastwood could get a consistent amount of hits (acting and directing) instead of being hit or miss at the box office.
Everything on this post is strictly the opinion and only the opinion of Buscemi.
Any way you guys try to spin it, Trouble With The Curve is disappointing. Same with Hope Springs, that came nowhere near other comparable Meryl Streep movies.
Alexandra Daddario: Eyes of a Demon, Face of My Future Ex-Wife
Top 10:
5/4 points - House at the End of the Street, $13.0M
5/4 points - End of Watch, $13.0M
3 points - Trouble with the Curve, $12.7M
2 points - Finding Nemo, $9.4M
1 point - Resident Evil: Retribution, $6.7M
Dredd, $6.3M
The Master, $5.0M
The Possession, $2.6M
Lawless, $2.3M
ParaNorman, $2.2M
PTA:
5 points - The Perks of Being a Wallflower
4 points - Diana Vreeland: The Eye Has to Travel
3 points - How to Survive a Plague
2 points - The Master
1 point - End of Watch
So every film gets at least one PTA or one Top 5 point except Dredd.
I think that people were asking about why Dredd flopped. My opinion: the film was well-marketed but I guess it was too British to connect with the mainstream American audience. This is also likely why other UK-made action films hardly get released (if they do).
Now, it wouldn't surprise me to see Lionsgate shelve Hummingbird (despite having Statham in the lead, it's a very British-sounding film).
Everything on this post is strictly the opinion and only the opinion of Buscemi.
Were people asking why Dredd flopped? I think it was fairly obvious from the outset it was never going to succeed.
Is 2000 AD even that popular in the states? I never really ever imagined it was, which fundamentally makes it more of a niche movie than most other comic adaptations, much in line with movies like Jonah Hex or Conan. That and the bad taste Stallone left in everyone's mouth from his attempt are probably the reasons for it's failure, as well as it being placed in a pretty bad weekend, where almost every movie flopped.
I certainly know that Skunk (at his site) was asking why it flopped and I figured there were others.
Anyway, the trailers made no mention of 2000 A.D. and put all of its focus on the action. And you think that the aural assault of violence and the compelling plot of cops vs. drug lords in a walled city would have been enough to sell it. But alas, it was simply too foreign for an American audience to succeed.
Everything on this post is strictly the opinion and only the opinion of Buscemi.
silversurfer19 wrote:Were people asking why Dredd flopped? I think it was fairly obvious from the outset it was never going to succeed.
Is 2000 AD even that popular in the states? I never really ever imagined it was, which fundamentally makes it more of a niche movie than most other comic adaptations, much in line with movies like Jonah Hex or Conan. That and the bad taste Stallone left in everyone's mouth from his attempt are probably the reasons for it's failure, as well as it being placed in a pretty bad weekend, where almost every movie flopped.
What is 2000 A.D.?
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - The Dude
Dredd too british? I doubt 1% of regular moviegoers even knew it's based on a comic book, let alone a british one. It's a retro looking sy fy action movie. It didn't stand a chance, there's just no audience for this kind of thing.
It was a UK production (though filmed in South Africa) and most of the cast and crew was based there (the major exceptions being Urban and Thirlby). Mainstream action movie audiences in the US rarely go crazy over Europe-based projects due them being so rooted in the country that financed them (this is a major reason why we've never seen an action movie set on the Autobahn, for example).
Everything on this post is strictly the opinion and only the opinion of Buscemi.
