Buscemi wrote:Thanks to people like you. You're one of those people who isn't satisfied when a movie isn't a stupid action movie or a stupid comedy or fanboy driven (I cannot think of a film you liked this year that wasn't one of the three). And when a movie like this happens, what does the studio do? Pushes it aside in favor of an action movie.
When a Spielberg movie fails to take off, then something is wrong with us as a whole.
That's a bit harsh, especially because Tranny and I turned out to be right about Tintin.
Everyone knew it wouldn't do much business here in America, it's a brand Americans don't recognize - period. Similar to Mr. Bean, it was always going to make bank in Europe and other places around the world, but barely a blip here.
And the box office has nothing to do with Spielberg's talent - you should know that by now.
Paramount was right to pour their marketing dollars into MI4 and it's paying off. Dumping money into a bigger campaign for Tintin would've been basically throwing it away.
Alexandra Daddario: Eyes of a Demon, Face of My Future Ex-Wife
It could have easily worked as an original film, if people don't know about the comic books. Just the new adventure film from Spielberg should have been enough to make it a success. So does it mean now that you can't have a success at the US box-office if the film isn't based on a well-known property ? I am about to lose faith in US audiences then
Banks, you do know that the first Bean was a hit in the US? It grossed $45 million in 1997, which is a great result for an indie. Also, the studio pushed that film very heavily (by having the entire Mr. Bean series aired in the US and having a sizable ad campaign). Opening the film limited and building on word-of-mouth (the concept of Mr. Bean is similar to the works of Jacques Tati, who of course is popular with cinephiles) was also a smart move.
Everything on this post is strictly the opinion and only the opinion of Buscemi.
Chienfantome wrote:It could have easily worked as an original film, if people don't know about the comic books. Just the new adventure film from Spielberg should have been enough to make it a success. So does it mean now that you can't have a success at the US box-office if the film isn't based on a well-known property ? I am about to lose faith in US audiences then
Well that's certainly what the studios in Hollywood think, as they frantically buy every word committed to paper, whether it's a novel, comic, or graffiti scrawled in a toilet cubicle.
1. Mission: Impossible $6.2 million (-30% from Wednesday plus advance totals, -10% without)
2. Sherlock Holmes 2 $4.8 million (+12.5% from Wednesday)
3. Alvin and the Chipmunks 3 $3.9 million (+11% from Wednesday)
4. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo $3.1 million (-38% from Wednesday)
5. The Adventures of Tintin $2.4 million (+4% from Wednesday)
So the expected frontloaded nature on The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo proved true while the family films and Sherlock Holmes pick up.
Everything on this post is strictly the opinion and only the opinion of Buscemi.
Buscemi wrote:Thanks to people like you. You're one of those people who isn't satisfied when a movie isn't a stupid action movie or a stupid comedy or fanboy driven (I cannot think of a film you liked this year that wasn't one of the three). And when a movie like this happens, what does the studio do? Pushes it aside in favor of an action movie.
When a Spielberg movie fails to take off, then something is wrong with us as a whole.
Thanks Buscemi ,this is one of the funniest posts I have read in a while. Just because I was right about a film's box office for once and you were wrong and are now trying to make excuses like "lack of advertising" and "stupid audiences" doesn't mean you need to come and attack my taste in films. For your information, my favorite movie of the year was 50/50. That isn't a stupid action film or comedy and has no fanboy effect (though it probably does in your twisted fucking mind). I have been subjecting myself to as many films as possible this year (I'm up to 77 so far, if you would like to see the full list I'll send it to you). There are PLENTY of films that I have enjoyed this year that aren't even remotely close to a stupid action movie, comedy, or fanboy film. Sorry i'm not on your level of film superiority. You are honestly the only person on here that I don't like. You are always a dickhead about everything and make a plethora of ridiclous, ignorant statements (For example the post I quoted). Sorry to everyone else to here. I hope I don't get banned for this, I just had to lash at Boosh's igonrance.
I don't like you either. All you ever do is agree with everything Geezer says. You hardly have any taste and you seem like nothing more than a fratboy in real life. In real life, we would never get along since you have no personality. But at least in real life, I can ignore you.
The only way you could go any lower is if you were a troll or a spammer. Thankfully, you're neither.
Everything on this post is strictly the opinion and only the opinion of Buscemi.
Chienfantome wrote:It could have easily worked as an original film, if people don't know about the comic books. Just the new adventure film from Spielberg should have been enough to make it a success. So does it mean now that you can't have a success at the US box-office if the film isn't based on a well-known property ? I am about to lose faith in US audiences then
I don't know why you guys keep thinking that average audiences go see movies because of who directed it.
Especially an animated kiddie movie - parents nor kids give a damn who directed a cartoon (or mo-cap, whatever), they just go based on commercial, trailers, and yes Chien, if it is a well-known property.
It never looked good, the marketing campaign was bad, and Paramount couldn't sell it on the name, like they did in other countries.
Alexandra Daddario: Eyes of a Demon, Face of My Future Ex-Wife
Buscemi wrote:I don't like you either. All you ever do is agree with everything Geezer says. You hardly have any taste and you seem like nothing more than a fratboy in real life. In real life, we would never get along since you have no personality. But at least in real life, I can ignore you.
The only way you could go any lower is if you were a troll or a spammer. Thankfully, you're neither.
I'm glad you can make judgements on my personality and state that I'm a fratboy (which couldn't be further from the truth) when you've never met me.
Shryke, I will cut the shit. Sorry about this whole ordeal.
Moving swiftly on from the petty name-calling, apparently there has ben a boo-boo with the box office reporting on Dragon Tattoo.
Its 5m figure for Wednesday actually included the Tuesday (1.6m) so it actually only made 3.4m. The good news is that it's not as front-loaded as we thought as it only dipped slightly for Thursday. The bad news is that it won't be earning as much as we expected. Probably 15m for the 3-day weekend. Of course, in the long run that could still translate to a 100m movie, but it'll need legs longer than Charlize Theron's.
Should have figured Tintin wouldnt do much. Besides Gnomeo and Juliet, there has not been one kids film that has done better than expectations. (I guess Puss N Boots met expectations)
I am sure many people can go see a film just based on the name of the director, or else I could not explain how Eastwood's Hereafter made 2 million entries in France
We Bought a Zoo - 3,117
Adventures of Tintin - 3,087
The GIrl With the Dragon Tattoo - 2,914
War Horse - 2,376 (Sun)
The Darkest Hour - 2,324 (Sun)
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close - 6 (Sun)
In the Land of Blood and Honey - 3
