Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Rpbin Williams' Career - Straight To Video Hell!?!?!

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Rpbin Williams' Career - Straight To Video Hell!?!?!

Old 06-07-06, 10:39 PM
  #1  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Robin Williams' Career - Straight To Video Hell!?!?!

I am surprised to find another Williams' straight to video movie 'The Big White' with Robin Williams and Holly Hunter coming on 6/13/06.

Along with 'The Final Cut' and 'House of D' (which lasted in theatres for 2 minutes), Williams' has been making films that I've never heard of anymore.

Obviously, RV changed that a bit, but its weird to see a whole slew of movies that he's been in that havent been released in theatres.

Considering what a huge star he was, can it be almost 8 years since his last hit 'Patch Adams'?

Very strange indeed.

Last edited by vegasbaby; 06-08-06 at 11:20 AM.
Old 06-07-06, 10:53 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Matthew Chmiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 13,262
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The Final Cut was supposed to have a hugh push by Lionsgatte.

However, the success of One Hour Photo never came to be and Lionsgate, in a hopes to be profitable with the flick, trimmed the film down to PG-13.

Once the edits came, the film ended up only on around 100 screens or so in DLP presentations at Loews theaters across the country.
Old 06-07-06, 11:14 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
What's the problem with that? Just because something is "straight-to-video" it doesn't mean that it reflects the quality. I think we have this sterotype that any film that didn't get a theater run is just total crap. You might as well say that any film that didn't get a certain amount of theater count release must make it crap.

Sometimes the films budget just fits better for a straight to video release.
Old 06-07-06, 11:41 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Was Insomnia a hit?
I don't think it pulled big numbers, but I don't think it really cost that much to make.
Old 06-08-06, 05:10 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 3,137
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I saw "The Big White" in a theater. I thought it was decent enough.

-JP
Old 06-08-06, 08:13 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
matome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NY
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by chanster
Was Insomnia a hit?
I don't think it pulled big numbers, but I don't think it really cost that much to make.
It made $70mil domestic so it was probably a decent hit.
Old 06-08-06, 08:18 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
 
raven56706's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Back in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 21,766
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Insomnia was a great movie... but robin just came out with Rv and its doing good
Old 06-08-06, 08:24 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
The Bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 54,916
Received 19 Likes on 14 Posts
Even if RV has pulled in some bank, the movie had a reported budget of $65MM. Not exactly gangbusters.
Old 06-08-06, 09:15 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
DeanoBKN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 5,386
Received 23 Likes on 18 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackskeleton
What's the problem with that? Just because something is "straight-to-video" it doesn't mean that it reflects the quality. I think we have this sterotype that any film that didn't get a theater run is just total crap. You might as well say that any film that didn't get a certain amount of theater count release must make it crap.

Sometimes the films budget just fits better for a straight to video release.
No I agree, but I think the OP was wondering if no studio has faith in Robin Williams being a box office draw anymore.

I still think he is. After all, I only saw One Hour Photo for Robin Williams' performance.
Old 06-08-06, 09:37 AM
  #10  
Inane Thread Master, 2018 TOTY
 
OldBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Are any of us really anywhere?
Posts: 49,298
Received 888 Likes on 751 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackskeleton
What's the problem with that? Just because something is "straight-to-video" it doesn't mean that it reflects the quality. I think we have this sterotype that any film that didn't get a theater run is just total crap. You might as well say that any film that didn't get a certain amount of theater count release must make it crap.

Sometimes the films budget just fits better for a straight to video release.
ok, so with that logic what "straight-to-video" release has been a success? title and stars please.
Old 06-08-06, 10:49 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mordred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 12,215
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by scott1598
ok, so with that logic what "straight-to-video" release has been a success? title and stars please.
I don't think Jackskeleton was saying any have been "successes", just that they aren't necessarily crappy films.

Generally speaking though, I don't think it's an unfair assumption to make that straight to video releases are not up to par quality wise with a normal studio release. I would guess that about 95% of the time, you'd be correct.
Old 06-08-06, 10:55 AM
  #12  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by scott1598
ok, so with that logic what "straight-to-video" release has been a success? title and stars please.
I myself enjoyed Dr. Dolittle 3, Bring It On 3 and American Pie 4. Oy!

C'mon ... straight to video is BAD NEWS 99.9% of the time.

The only straight to video that I can recall that was any good AND was popular was that Linda Fiorentino film 'The Last Seduction' from 10 years back. Funny, they made a straight to video sequel (with the talented Joan Severance!)!

We can face the reality that Williams' doesnt have the hunger anymore with all that money in the bank to push studio fare. I'm just surprised at the amount of straight to video movies he's been making the last 3-4 years.
Old 06-08-06, 11:01 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Traverse City, MI
Posts: 3,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i liked one hour photo, Final Cut
Old 06-08-06, 11:05 AM
  #14  
Inane Thread Master, 2018 TOTY
 
OldBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Are any of us really anywhere?
Posts: 49,298
Received 888 Likes on 751 Posts
Originally Posted by Mordred
I don't think Jackskeleton was saying any have been "successes", just that they aren't necessarily crappy films.
i think that is exactly what he implied.
Old 06-08-06, 11:41 AM
  #15  
DRG
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: ND
Posts: 13,421
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
I think it's just that he's taking a lot more risky, indie type roles. RV proved he can still do goofy family comedies and have some success. If anything, he call always fall back on a Mrs. Doubtfire sequel if things get dire. It would probably be horrible, but if something like RV can open with $16 million...
Old 06-08-06, 12:34 PM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Other Side
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm fairly certain that The Last Seduction wasn't released directly to video.
Old 06-08-06, 12:42 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,282
Received 369 Likes on 263 Posts
Originally Posted by Egon's Ghost
I'm fairly certain that The Last Seduction wasn't released directly to video.
It actually premiered on HBO. There may have been some limited theatrical screenings, but Linda Fiorentino was inelligible for Oscar consideration because of it.
Old 06-08-06, 01:00 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,656
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by vegasbaby
We can face the reality that Williams' doesnt have the hunger anymore with all that money in the bank to push studio fare. I'm just surprised at the amount of straight to video movies he's been making the last 3-4 years.
How many straight to video films have you seen him in in the last 3-4 years? I checked his IMDB and the only one I see is The Big White, which NatrlBornThrllr says he saw in a theater. So where are you coming up with this theory that Williams doesn't have" the hunger" anymore?
Old 06-08-06, 01:11 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by scott1598
i think that is exactly what he implied.
If Direct to Video was such a kiss of death then why would a studio attempt to market it in such a way? Take a look at recent news

Warner to Proceed Straight to Video
The studio is launching a direct-to-DVD business with plans to release 10 to 15 movies a year.

By Claudia Eller
Times Staff Writer
Published May 30, 2006

Looking for new, less risky ways to boost profit, Warner Bros. is launching a direct-to-DVD business that will release 10 to 15 low-budget movies a year.

First up will be a sequel to the studio's 2005 hit "The Dukes of Hazzard," scheduled to go on sale at the end of this year or in early 2007.

Movies made exclusively for DVD typically are done on the cheap without the costly stars and lavish production expenses associated with theatrical films.

Adhering to that model, Warner aims to keep each direct-to-DVD movie's production budget to $5 million or less, although some films may cost slightly more. The "Dukes" sequel, for example, won't reunite cast members Jessica Simpson, Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott.

The new venture, a partnership between Warner Bros. Pictures and Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Group, aims to cash in on what has been a lucrative, relatively inexpensive business for such rivals as Walt Disney Studios and Universal Pictures.

"We recognize that the made-for-video business is a place we need to put emphasis and devote considerable resources," Warner President Alan Horn said. "Discipline is the key to the ultimate success of the new venture for us."

Still, the direct-to-DVD business is no sure bet. It faces increased competition from boxed sets of popular television shows such as "Lost," "24" and "Desperate Housewives," one of the hottest areas in home video.

"The made-for-home entertainment business can be very profitable if you select the right projects, control your development and production costs and time your releases to minimize your marketing expenditures and maximize your exposure," said Louis Feola, Universal Pictures' former home video president who oversaw such popular direct-to-video franchises as "The Land Before Time."

Jeff Robinov, Warner's production president, and Kevin Tsujihara, president of the studio's home entertainment group, will oversee the new division, which is expected to be operating within three months. The two are looking to hire an executive to run the day-to-day operations of the unit, which is expected to have 10 staff members, including its own creative, business and marketing personnel.

Robinov said the division would produce live-action DVD prequels and sequels to existing Warner Bros. movies such as "Dukes," which grossed $80.3 million domestically but was not the kind of hit that would justify spending the large sums required to make and market a theatrical release.

Still, Robinov said, "That doesn't mean they don't have audience interest and built-in awareness."

Robinov added that although profit margins in the direct-to-video business could be thinner than in theatrical releases, such built-in awareness along with creative marketing could mitigate the financial risks.

Tsujihara said a "Dukes" sequel allowed Warner to repackage on DVD the original film and episodes of the popular 1980s TV series it was based on.

Warner's new division also will produce and acquire original made-for-DVD movies running the gamut of genres including horror, comedy and action films. Last month, Warner, a unit of media giant Time Warner Inc., announced it would finance three, under-$5-million DVD-only horror films to be directed by Daniel Myrick ("The Blair Witch Project"), producer Tony Krantz ("24") and TV writer John Shiban ("The X-Files").

Until now, Warner has released direct-to-video titles on a scattershot basis, mostly animated family fare from the studio's "Scooby-Doo," "Tom & Jerry" and "Loony Toons" franchises. The studio plans to continue releasing family-oriented DVDs, including films culled from its DC Comics library of characters, among them Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.

"We've had an existing slate of four to five of these evergreen titles a year, and they are fairly profitable," Tsujihara said. "We'd like to put together slates that have a mixture of genres."
While I know this wont help my case in the "quality" aspect of things. Disney's Direct to video sequels are also a good way to turn a profit. The money saved in not pushing it in theaters does help it turn a profit very easily. Since DVD sales aren't as public as the weekend's box office, you don't see many folks jump into the role of knowning it all in that aspect. Bambi II for example in this one chart I could find was beating a good number of stuff and ranked 15th..
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...video/dvds.jsp

Hell, remember when Toy Story 2 was going to be intended for a Direct-to-video release? Yeah.. it's very easy to say that not all direct-to-video films are trash and have the potential to make it big.


Boondock saints. It was given a pretty much straight to video service and look at it now, a fairly big cult title and it even got double dip treatment. Main reason why it wasn't mass released was because the idea of having a film with kids in coats with guns was a little too close to home. It still was a fairly big success.

I did mean it in both aspects. Just because the slew of straight to video films are crap and flooded with B and C level shit doesn't mean that it is all that way. It makes sense for studios to release films that aren't that expensive and that with the straight to video market can generate a better profit than just throwing it out on 2000 screens and spend how ever much money on film prints, extra advertising, etc.

Last edited by Jackskeleton; 06-08-06 at 01:49 PM.
Old 06-08-06, 01:24 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 3,137
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by FinkPish
How many straight to video films have you seen him in in the last 3-4 years? I checked his IMDB and the only one I see is The Big White, which NatrlBornThrllr says he saw in a theater. So where are you coming up with this theory that Williams doesn't have" the hunger" anymore?
Oh, that's right...I saw it at the Austin Film Festival. Hm, I didn't know it went DTV. Did "The Ice Harvest" go direct to video, too? I don't remember hearing much about that one either.

-JP
Old 06-08-06, 01:41 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Matthew Chmiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 13,262
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
There's quite a few direct-to-video films are not intended to go directly to the shelves of Blockbuster. As Jack mentioned, look at The Boondock Saints.

Originally intended to be released to theaters by Miramax (with production funded by the now defunct Franchise Pictures -- financers on the Academy Award-winning Battlefield: Earth), not only did Troy Duffy's huge fucking ego happen to doom The Boondock Saints from the beginning, but Columbine happened the same year the film was supposed to be released. Once Miramax dropped the picture, the only studio willing to pick up the flick was 20th Century Fox's Home Entertainment division. They initally released the flick into five theaters for a week before ultimately making the film a Blockbuster Video Exclusive with no fanfare. As history would tell, the film ended up becoming a cult hit with two DVD releases and a brief stint at Regal Cinemas.

One of my favorite teen films, 100 Girls, is another film originally intended to be released theatrically but ended up going directly-to-video. Made early in 2000 for a very low budget ($2 million -- give or take), the film hit festivals and nobody was interested in the flick. The problem as the director cites was, "The film was too mainstream for the independent circuit." In a last ditch effort, Trimark picked up the film and decided to release the flick directly-to-DVD on September 11th, 2001. Yeah. We all know how that turned out, but luckilly, the internet and a bombardment of showings on HBO has made the film become a cult flick. Not only did Lionsgate pick up the sequel that was filmed shortly after the first flick (which also ended up going direct-to-video), but the director now has a deal with New Line.

Speaking of New Line, they've made a fucking slew of decent films that ended up going direct-to-video because they couldn't market themselves out of a paperbag. Cheats and Havoc being the two major examples that come to my mind, despite being made by acclaimed writers and directors.

Also, a lot of foreign/international pictures end up hitting the United States direct-to-video as no studio wants to touch them. Dog Soldiers, Suicide Club, 2LDK, and a few others come to mind that have reached cult status due to their releases.

Then of course, as Jack mentioned, the slew of films made specifically for the direct-to-video market. This include the Nu Image/Millenium Films crop of crap that usually becomes a Sci-Fi Pictures original before hitting DVD, the Disney sequels, the sequels to films that were independent hits (e.g. Cube 0 and Cube 2), and the various C/D-level crap.
Old 06-08-06, 01:48 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,926
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel
The Final Cut was supposed to have a hugh push by Lionsgatte.

However, the success of One Hour Photo never came to be and Lionsgate, in a hopes to be profitable with the flick, trimmed the film down to PG-13.

Once the edits came, the film ended up only on around 100 screens or so in DLP presentations at Loews theaters across the country.
Hadn't heard that before. Did a search here and various reviews but couldn't find futher info on this. Not to sidetrack the thread but could you elaborate on Lionsgate forcing cuts?
Old 06-08-06, 01:49 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,656
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by NatrlBornThrllr
Oh, that's right...I saw it at the Austin Film Festival. Hm, I didn't know it went DTV. Did "The Ice Harvest" go direct to video, too? I don't remember hearing much about that one either.

-JP
The Ice Harvest was in theaters; I remember seeing it listed. I think there is a tendency for studios to pull films that aren't doing well faster, in order to get them turned around for DVD release sooner. Obviously they see that a lot of films that aren't lighting the box office on fire are doing even better on DVD, so why waste money putting out a product that sells better in another form.
Old 06-08-06, 01:53 PM
  #24  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My initial posting referred to Robin Williams' career, and how it looks like its in dire straits with a bunch of films that are practically (if not completely) straight to video, which in hollywood circles is considered the kiss of death for big name actors.

We can take this discussion to another place in discussing the merits of 'straight to video' , but my initial posting was referring to a big hollywood star relegated to the bargain bin in Blockbuster and how we dont see Jack Nicholson, Harrison Ford or George Clooney in the same predicament.
Old 06-08-06, 01:58 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
You may not see Jack Nicholson, Harrison Ford or Clooney in those roles because they are both lucky and know how to pick their projects. Sometimes you pick a low budget project because it could be "indie" or more of an arthouse feature and the studio ends up just bumping it down to a straight to video just to make sure they make a good profit on it.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.