Duder

It's usually pretty hard to get across a clear story synopsis in a trailer for subtitled movies, because the general rule of thumb is to hide the fact that it's in a foreign language, which means you can't use ANY dialogue in your trailer. The only way around this is to use a cheesy "In a world..." Mr. Voice-narrated trailer, which probably wouldn't get more people to see this besides those that were already interested in it to begin with.

fernsita

I don't think that's necessairly true though, of foreign language films. First off, there have been an innumerable amount of movies that have not been in English that have become popular among American audiences, like Passion or City of God or even Central Station. I think that what drives a movie is the story or the idea behind it, as well as the people surrounding the film.

Secondly, while the trailer doesn't contain dialgue I think that you get a very good idea of what the film is going to be about and the dialgue really isn't needed to get you to want to go. I mean after seeing the chase scene I was drawn in! It's definitely going to be a huge highlight for me.

Jay G.

I guess it depends on what you view as "popular." Passion of the Christ certainly fits the bill, with a domestic gross of over $370 million. However, Ctiy of God only grossed about $7.5 million domestically, while Central Station grossed less, under $6 million domestic. They're not even in the top 20 of foreign-language releases in the US, and as far as overal domestic releases, aren't even in the top 3,300.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...fthechrist.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=cityofgod.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...ralstation.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/...id=foreign.htm

If you check out that last link, you can see the disparity in box-office of foreign-language films is great. Only a handful of films have grossed even $20 million domestically. Apocalypto's budget is only known to be "under $50 million," but is thought to be around $20-$30 million. If it grosses City of God numbers, it's a bomb.

fernsita

Interesting notes. I wasn't aware that these films had grossed such little money, but I must also point out that while they may not have grossed that much at the BO they may have made up for that in rental revenues after they had been taken out of the theaters and had received such great critical acclaim.
On another note, also, there are films where the language you have to admit doesn't even matter! I mean there are scenes where people aren't even talking and they end up becoming some of the best movie scenes you have ever seen, so you can't really discard a movie just because it is not in the same language as you are accustomed to watching it in.

Jay G.

That's a pretty big maybe. Most of the time, video revenue roughly equals theatrical revenue. Even if video revenue was double the usual amount, that would only triple the overall gross of the films, putting them in around $20 million.

Also, being foreign films, both played in festivals and won numerous rewards before they were even released in the US. Both had critical acclaim from movie reviewers early on; I went to see City of God in theaters based on the strength of the reviews. Maybe if one had won an Oscar it could've gotten a boost, but even then it might not've been much. For example, Spirited Away was still playing in theaters when it won its Oscar, and Disney expanded the showings following the win. Its post-Oscar gross ended up near doubling the overall domestic gross of the film, but it still only made around $10 million. And that's for a film where the majority of screens were showing it dubbed in English.

Personally, I have no problem with foreign language films. I see a large number of films in Korean, Cantonese, Mandarin, Japanese, French, Italian, etc. with English subtitles. Some of my favorite films are in a foreign language.

However, it does seem that the public at large may have a problem with foreign language films, in the sense that it would discourage them from seeing the film, and that the most successful foreign-language films have succeeded despite not being in English. It's not a surprise that 4 of the boxofficemojo's top ten foreign-language grossers are martial-arts films, two of them with Jet Li. Nearly all the rest are romances of some sort, "art" films for the masses. The big-grosser you mentioned, Passion of the Christ, succeeded because it struck a chord with American Christians, not because it was in Aramaic.

Apocalypto could still be a success, but being in a foreign language is a hindrance to that success. I'm not saying it's right that it is, I'm just stating that it is.

fernsita

You make some good points, but I don't agree with some of them. First of all, didn't Central Station win an Oscar? I believe that it did...

I agree with you that Passion was successful bc it struck a coard with a large group of people due to its theme, but I think that this movie in many ways does the same thing. It's a subject that many people are passionate about- history- and that may lead them to go watch the film to see how it is being interpreted by this director. Also, bc Passion was so successful fans of Gibson may just go and watch this film bc he is the director and bc he does not release films too often. So, in the end it doesn't only have to do with language like you say it entails a lot of different things that come together.

Jay G.

It was nominated for Oscars for Best Actress in a Leading Role and Best Foreign Language Film, but lost out to Shakespeare in Love and Life is Beautiful, respectively.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0140888/awards
http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/...wards_USA/1999


History really isn't that popular a subject. Even among those who are fans of "history," most are fans of particular times/places within history. I don't really think that ancient Central American history is as appealing to as many people as say, WWII epics are.

There may be fans of Gibson The Director, but some are going to be turned off by the subject matter, some may be turned off by the language, and some may be turned off by Gibson's recent behavior. Even after all that, we don't how much of a fan base he even has.

A lot of factors can decide a film's success, and being in a foreign language is only one of those factors. However, it is largely a negative one.

fernsita

Interesting that you pointed out that while Central Station lost, another foreign film (Life is Beautiful) did win an Oscar, which does support my previous argument.

I am not sure where you are getting the information that history is not a popular subject. Bc if you think about it, there are a ton of movies that have been based on historical events that have been immensely popular. For example, Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List both have a historical based backdrop which kind of educates viewers about the events in a way, but have a sotry going on at the same time. So, I would beg to differ with you on this point also. I think that people tend to lean towards films that are somewhat based on reality bc they feel like they are getting something more out of the movie.

Finally, in terms of Gibson, I actually think that his fan base has grown probably rather than weakened after all these events. I think that his supporters would have similar points of views to him and would understand the mistakes that he has made lately. But we'll see.

Jay G.

I pointed out that it won the "Best Foreign Language Film" Oscar. A foreign language film is guaranteed to win that category every year, by design.

An important consideration though is the reasoning why that category exists, since theoretically all foreign language films are eligible for all the other Oscars as well. The Academy's rationale is that foreign language films are at a disadvantage when competing with English-language films, thus they get a special category where they have a much better chance.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "your previous argument," since I was the one that brought up Oscars in the first place as giving a possible boost to a film. However, in regards to Life is Beautiful, while the Oscar gave its theatrical performance a boost, it wasn't much of one. Ticket sales jumped 45% the weekend after the Oscars, but that could've been as much to do with the doubling of the number of theaters as with the Oscars. In fact, regarding the fact that the theaters doubled, that means that per-theater attendance was down. Also, Life is Beautiful was already highly successful before it won the Oscars, it was already the highest-grossing foreign language film ever, so its results are atypical.

I'm not saying that historical films can't be popular, or that certain historical periods don't have its fans. However, I do dismiss the notions that there are plenty of fans of history in and of itself. The two films you list are both WWII related films, which is a particularly popular genre. In fact, Life is Beautiful fits into that category as well, and could be one reason for its popularity. However, just because people like these particular type of films doesn't mean that they'll equally like or be interested in a film set in a completely different time and place because it's "historical" as well.

If you look at boxoffice mojo's list of genres, "History" isn't one of them:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/

It does list specific genres like "War - WWII," "Western," and "Swashbuckler," that are, by design, historical. However, it's a stretch to say that these genres have been successful simply because they're historical, since there are many other qualities each genre has that may explain its popularity better.

Furthermore, a lot of historical dramas have done rather badly recently. Master and Commander, Troy, Kingdom of Heaven, Alexander, Cinderella Man, and The New World have all underperformed domestically, and they didn't have to deal with being in a foreign language as well.



Congratulations, I believe you're the first person to suggest that anti-semitic, sexist, drunken behavior is actually beneficial to one's career.

At best, people "understanding the mistakes his has made lately" would lead to a neutral change in public opinion, not an increase.

fernsita

I am not really going to get into a long argument over the Gibson situation bc I think that is somewhat off topic in terms of the movie itself. What I can say is that there are other historical films like Braveheart for example that have been successful at the BO. And while Cinderella Man was not that successful at the BO, it was a fantastic film that everyone should watch. I actually saw Crowe say on a 60 Minutes interview last night that he blames the studio for the lack of popularity among viewers. Interesting notion.

I think the point of this thread, though, should come back around full circle to the movie itself and people's interest or disinterest in watching it. While I understand that you believe that the movie may not do that well at the BO, there may still be people out there that are interested in watching it, like me. No matter what the theme or who the director may be, it looks like a good movie!

Giles

I'd be curious to see this in DLP since the film was shot with Panavision Genesis HD Cameras (according to IMDB).

exharrison

OT, but I don't even remember City of God being foreign-language. I must watch too many foreign movies when I forget that I had to read subtitles.

BDB

people were hissing and booing this before the showing of Borat

Giles

with this type of reception, I expect this film to bomb... fast.

Groucho

To compare other historical films to this one is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. Most successful historical films are surrounding widely known events and/or are filmed in English.

Jay G.

Braveheart wasn't as successful as you seem to think. It grossed $75 million at the box-office, which was slightly more than its production budget of $72 million. Considering that studios typically get half the gross, and that there were marketing and distributing costs, Braveheart was a failure domestically, although it did very well overseas:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=braveheart.htm

And, of course, Braveheart was a film that was predominantly in English.

I never said that historical films can't do well though. The current top domestic grosser of all time is Titanic, a historical drama. However, I think it's preposterous to think that there's legions of fans of "history" in general that will flock to Apocalypso simply because it's historical.

We're not arguing whether or not Apocalypso will be a good film though, we're arguing about whether it will be successful, and specifically whether being in a foreign language will be detrimental to its success. You're argument that it will be successful because its historical is directly countered by Cinderella Man's BO, and that of hundreds of other of historical dramas that weren't successful.

I don't know if you meant this as a serious point, or were just throwing it out, but I really disagree with Crowe's assessment. The studio really, really pushed this film. They hyped the critical acclaim it received, they promoted well past its opening weekend. A movie theater chain even offered a money-back guarantee on the film. The simple fact is that not a lot of people felt like seeing it, historical setting and story aside.

There hasn't been anything preventing that type of conversation in this thread. If you don't feel like talking about its potential success or failure, you're free to stop doing so.

DRG

Well, a movie that slyly makes fun of anti-semitism probably isn't the best thing to pair a Mel Gibson trailer up with.

BDB

No Doubt, but I think it looks uninteresing, and always have, I don't really even know if there is a plot in the film, based on the trailer.

Jay G.

Isn't it obvious from the trailer? It's about this guy running, then some girl hisses at him, and then the people chasing him get attacked by a panther, and there's some people with white powder all over their bodies that are important, and there's some pregnant woman getting lit for an upcoming Vanity Fair cover....

Giles

throw in some caucasians and you've got a updated version of 'Cannibal Holocaust'

fernsita

I don't think the trailer looks uninteresting. I just think that they are trying to keep the storline somewhat up in the air so as to not give anything away. I think it's funny that when a trailer doesn't give things away that people then say oh it doesn't have a plot, and then when it does give thins away they are like oh i don't even have to go se the movie. Seems like no one is ever satisfied.

Jay G.

I actually think the most recent trailer is trying to convey the basic plot; it's just trying to do so without dialogue or voiceover and only a handful of intertitles. It shows a man happy with his family in a little village. It shows a group of evil-looking men sneaking into the village at night. It shows the man being forcibly taken away from his family, and to a large city where through wall paintings and bloody people it's inferred that human sacrifices are performed. Then the intertitles say the film's about a man's journey home, and it cuts to the man fleeing through the jungle, hiding and possibly even setting traps.

Of course, I knew the basic plot before watching the trailer, so I was able to accurately interpret what the trailer was trying to convey. Without that foreknowledge, I can see how the trailer can be very confusing.

Well first, it may not be the same people making both complaints. You're never going to please everyone, so whichever way the trailer went there'd be some complaints. Secondly, there's a big difference between explaining the basic plot of a film and giving everything away in the trailer, including the plot twists.

fernsita

Jay, agreed on all points. I understand that there is always going to be a group of people unsatisfied, I just think that the trailer actually does a good job of creating anticipation for the movie, especially with that action/chase sequence that it includes. From what I have read, that scene is going to be amazing!

harrydoyle

Looks like this movie is generating a lot of positive buzz these days. The thing I'm seeing in the reviews is that it's a really original movie. The Mayan angle is especially unique. Here's a Rolling Stone review:

http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/...008/apocalypto

al_bundy

they had mel on 20/20 or dateline, which ever one is on ABC

he said the theme is overconsumption of resources and gluttony