I don't think my attitude has been insulting, but then again you probably don't think yours has been snide. I guess it's a push.Mistwell said:Your insulting attitude aside, I do some work in that industry, as does my wife.
...This movie is going to come out a massive negative for the studio...There is no question at all - NONE - that this studio is extremely disappointed with how this movie did, and it is losing money. That's not debatable, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact....There is no way you can make lemonade out of that lemon....I know you think I have some dog in this fight. I don't....This movie is bombing so hard it is making splashes through the industry.
I don't know if you have a dog in the fight, but you sure are cutting loose with the hyberbole full-blast. massive bomb, major disaster, spashes through the industry, and so forth.
Bottom line: a movie that wasn't expected to make a great deal of money wound up making less. I'm curious as to what you think the studio's expectations for the opening weekend was. Throw a number out there for us. If you are indeed involved with the industry, then you should know how assiduously studios avoid an R-rating, and how significantly a long running time can impact ticket saltes. Kill Bill's $50 mil opening was considered a surprising success, and it had a low runtime due to the whole two-volume approach.
That's a good example of your exaggeration right there. That article does not indicate a "trending down". All it does is take a report on Best Buy & Circuit City's 2006 DVD sales and makes a projection that 2007 might be "the first year in consumer spending history that DVD sales actually decline". So, looking at consumer spending history as a whole, DVD sales have apparently been doing pretty well.And DVD sales are trending DOWN, not up.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/2...-sales-in-2007/
And that article on Harry Potter avoding "Grindhouse fate" is so specious that it's kind of funny. A classic exercise in rumormongering. A movie got its runtime cut. Well, that simply has to be Grindhouse blowback because, y'know, movies almost never get their runtimes trimmed down. Note that the article's author, "our ANI correspondent" (gee, wonder why a real name isn't provided) states a correlary as fact ("What has movie bosses really spooked is the fate of 'Grindhouse', a three-hour plus double feature by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez which bombed at the box-office.") but doesn't provide any support for it. Yet some folks will still take it as gospel, then tell other people there's no room for debate or opinion because it's simple fact.
Last edited: