NCMojo

... that the whole "Internet phenomena" theory is pretty much worn out? Or that promoting a movie based solely on the "ain't it cool" premise is not a good idea? Or even that (perish the thought!) fanboys like us do not have sufficient box office clout to move a major movie?

1 1 Blades of Glory P/DW $23,000,000
2 2 Meet the Robinsons BV $17,004,000
3 N Are We Done Yet? SonR $15,000,000
4 N Grindhouse W/Dim. $11,591,000

I'd also blame the riddiculously stupid idea to open this film on Easter weekend -- seriously, when was the last time that a film filled with this much violence and gore has performed well on Easter weekend, Mel Gibson? -- and its longer running time, which cut into the number of screens it aired on.

But what other explanations do you have for the film's lackluster opening? Too little star power? Too little promotion? The trials and tribulations of the Weinsteins?

SoSpacey

actors in this movie have been everywhere you turn promoting this movie. at least it feels that way to me.

real grindhouse films of the 70s played on limited screens in the first place, and i am sure for a reason. for some reason now these are going to appeal to a mass audience?

i just dont think this type of movie appeals to the Joe6Pack. And if it does, it doesnt appeal to his girlfriend, or his mother, or his buddy, or his cousin...

AllHallowsEve

I think this will end up one of those niche films that failed at the box office but becomes a cult classic.

cactusoly

Although I have no interest in seeing them, I can understand the returns for "Blades of Glory" and "Meet The Robinsons"... but "Are We Done Yet?" there is something seriously wrong here.

d2cheer

I don't consider myself a "fanboy", but this a niche film. And not a very good one at that. If the "fanboy's" had box office clout then every Kevin Smith movie would make huge cash. Face it the "fanboy's" are a niche market as well. These type of movies usually do not make large amounts of money because the target audience is not that large to begin with. IMHO that is...

RichC2

To contradict D2's comments, I thought the films were very well done, but the jokes in Planet Terror go over much better with a packed theater, and the intentional pacing of Death Proof is a complete matter of taste (and the ending goes over better with a big theater).

That said, the Internet was credited with 300s success. So that Internet theory is very much alive. The star power was there but wasn't utilized in the advertising. Also, the ad campaign in general wasn't the hottest, and like other said, there's a limited appeal.

Mr. Cinema

It means that next time, they probably shouldn't release a gory, hard "R" rated film on Easter weekend.

Giles

yeah, I noted this in another 'Grindhouse' thread - for a 'Christian' centric society, this wasn't the smartest of release dates for this type of film.

ScandalUMD

With the crap-horror renaissance going on right now, I think that better could have been expected. It's a real shame that something exciting like this is going to be outperformed by "Epic Movie."

But, this may have some legs (unless theaters dump it). The Tarantino/Rodriguez audience is actually a little older than the average moviegoer, and a lot of people travel over Easter weekend. Also, this will be a big seller on DVD.

But the internet phenomenon has been dead since it failed to launch Howard Dean. Internet buzz is totally nonrepresentative, all the people buzzing on the internet are a foregone conclusion, and they don't even matter. The fact is, a movie's success or failure is based on how it "tracks" with people who are such stupid clueless dickheads you couldn't even stand to talk to them.

Jackson_Browne

A big reason why it didn't make more money is because of its length. Theaters couldn't shows as many shows per day which meant that it was at a disadvantage to those other films from the start. That's why the big studios tend to shy away from 3-4 hour epic films these days.

d2cheer

That actually is not a good argument, other "epic" and long movies have done very well, the per screen average was not very good as well. If a lot of people were seeing it then the average per screen would be higher. There were 3 people at my screening on a Saturday afternoon... take that for what its worth.

Adam Tyner

That was factored into box office estimates which still had the movie grossing twice as much as it actually did.

maingon

I would say easter weekend, the length, Easter weekend people go to church, have family activities. And this isnt a family movie so this didnt seem like a good time to release a movie like this. People probably dont have time to go see a 3 hour plus movie

Daytripper

Another "Grindhouse" thread?

JIF

As beloved as Rodriguez and Tarantino are to fanboys, they aren't box-office gold.

The Weinsteins will likely see a profit after box-office, home video, Pay TV and network broadcast receipts have all come in.

GuessWho

This is not a mainstream movie. Why even dare assuming mainstream box office returns?

Kudama

Truer words...
Man! I made a point of going opening night and was expecting a whole Snakes on a Plane freakfest but the crowd was so Goddamn mellow it made me sad. I almost felt guilty for laughing as much as I did. At least there were some rowdy people near the middle to back of the theater, but I was surrounded by numb nuts.
They even made people queue up for this and everybody seemed excited, but once the movie started it was like all these people had bought tickets to the wrong movie.

I really enjoyed the actual movie (all of it) but I was so hoping for a laugh riot with all involved. At least with SOAP everybody was totally into it on opening night.

Kudama

Don't be trippin'

JMcCraw

Mine too. I couldn't even get anyone to go with me because they were either going out of town, spending time with family, or "don't like horror movies".

BravesMG

What's funny is that it's looking like this would have been a MUCH more profitable venture to release these individually. They took a chance with the double feature and I think they got kicked in the ass because of the length and confusion with the general public. I'm 26 and I've never seen a "Grindhouse" picture, but I'll see whatever Tarantino and Rodriguez release. I don't think this concept of a double feature and fake trailers made sense to the public. If they just hyped this as individual movies from those two guys, I think they had a much better shot of being financially successful. But I really enjoyed the experience and loved that they gave me those two movies in one shot, but I think that financially it's not paying off.

Daytripper

Love it.


It's just that I see people get crucified all the time for not doing a search when a similar thread exists. And there are five and counting "Grindhouse" discussions going on now. And you can currently see all of them on the same page.

Carry on.

And so I'm not accused of total threadcrapping, isn't the numbers for "Grindhouse" on par with box-office of RR's other films? It probably
won't do "Kill Bill" or "Pulp Fiction" numbers.

Kudama

You're totally correct. I just couldn't resist the cheap gag.

slop101

After I saw it, I talked to a lot of people who I think would dig this movie, and not a single person had even heard of it. Seriously. I know I caught quite a bit of the marketing for this, but it seems like very few people were aware of Grindhouse and what it was about - I had to explain to everyone the concept and the directors (who they were familiar with, and would flock to see a Tarantino/Rodriguez movie), but for some reason, they were oblivious to Grindhouse.

mmconhea

I doubt the studio cares about the box-office for grindhouse. It'll cover the costs. They know the big money will come in from the DVDs

RoyalScreed

They will overseas.

I don't see it as any kind of loss--theres only a hyper-limited market for stuff like this.