I still don't follow your reasoning. Again, Fincher has never had wide-spread generic public appeal - it takes very specific tastes to appreciate his films. Not to mention they have all been 'R' rated. It may escape people in this era of 'Passion of the Christ's' and 'Matrix's but it wasn't that common for R rated films to climb to the tops of the charts, especially the darker 'R' that Fincher tends to go towards.

In my opinion, his movies don't reach their full potential UNTIL their home video release. Fight Club was very underappreciated upon its theatrical release (and it could fairly be called a 'semi-flop' if you wish) with only an $11m opening and $63m gross. Yet since home video it has elevated both Fincher's career and Pitt's, I would argue. (didn't seem to help Norton though!)

I don't think there is any sane film business analyst who would argue that Panic Room wasn't a success -- an R rated film, lead by a Female Star who hadn't seen a big hit in a while, with no other famous actors in it, with a cult director who's last film was weaker at the box office... going on to earn $100m?

Let's give this thread a bottom line:

There's been a lot of interesting points presented to make this SE sound interesting, and being the occasional blind-buyer, I may go ahead and pick it up, provided I can find a copy for a little less than the SRP...which shouldn't be a problem whatsoever.

Thanks everyone.

If you get it before tomorrow at Amazon, you can buy it for $30 shipped and get a free DVD:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...104451-2330255

(Dr. Strangelove, Taxi Driver, Close Encounters, Lawrence of Arabia, or Black Hawk Down)

If you get someone to Share the Love, that'll knock it down to about $26 and change for both discs.

Does this mean this thread can be locked and forgotten now?

I'm still waiting for the 5-disc SE of "Good Burger."

I can't believe no one's hit that joke until now.

One would hope, seeing as how this subject has been discussed ad nauseum here.

Remember, any movie or DVD that has been out for more than five minutes probably already has a thread devoted to it.

I thought it was a really good film, so I bought the initial release. I don't see the need for me to buy the 3 Discer though.

Well, we wouldn't want anyone to piss all over our giant love-fest of consumption.

I don't think it's beneficial at all that it's verboten on these boards to suggest that any DVD might not be worth its price tag, or that anyone should consider limiting their DVD purchases.

I think, considering how many people semi-jokingly talk about "addictions," we might consider functioning more like a support group and less like a community of enablers.

Not worth its price tag?

I got it for $25 from Amazon, and got "Dr. Strangelove" free with it (a $10 value). So for $15 I have little reason to complain about its high price.

Man, what a nice set. I really enjoyed all of the pre-vis footage and the commentary tracks that accompanied them. Great learning experience.

I think the underlying problem here may be "DVD Envy". This is when people complain about a certain title getting the royal SE treatment while some of their favorite films(which they perceive to be, and may actually be in many people's opinions, far more "worthy" because of box-office/critical acclaim, etc.) get little or no effort on DVD. I've suffered from this from time to time myself. The bottom line is, IMHO, is shouldn't bother anyone. Nobody has put a gun to anyone's head to buy the Panic Room 3-Disc SE. Some may consider this effort a waste of time and money but it only matters what the studio (Columbia Tri-Star) thinks. Columbia has decided to invest in this effort because they think it will be profitable to do so...we shall see.

By the way, I bought the Panic Room SE(and received a free DVD included with the purchase) and think that this is one of the best, most comprehensive DVD packages you will find. The DVD producer, David Prior, has done an outstanding job in putting together an exhaustive look at a fine modern thriller. I'm happy to have rewarded Columbia for their investment with my purchase.

Are there many other movies that I would love to see get this type of treatment? Of course there are. But that doesn't take away from what Columbia/David Prior has done with the fantastic Panic Room SE.

This has to be one of the most over-the-top things I have ever read. Thank GOD you are not a studio head or all we would get is stale stars in stale blockbuster vehicles designed to rape the wallets of the moviegoing masses.

I have no idea how much PR cost to make, but I am sure that at nearly $100M, it was financially succesful. Some of the best films made squat at the box office, and the most "successful" film of all time is rife with poor acting and a lame warmed over romance plot

That said, I echo the sentiment "don't like it, don't buy it." Fincher has a rabid following and I am sure that there are thousands that will absolutel devour the extras he has cooked up for this film. I am also sure that you could take every appearance of the title "Fight Club" and replace it with "Lord of the Rings" and someone would agree with the stance that a SE is not needed.

I couldn't agree more. I never saw Fight Club in theaters. The ads with a grinning Brad Pitt made me say no way. When it was released to DVD, the reviews were all very positive, so I gave it a shot, and it is now one of my favorite films, and I now have some respect for Pitt as an actor, and have gone back and looked at some of his other films I had skipped due to disliking him so. I would also not skip a new film now just because he is in it.

Additionally, it is a very big deal that an April film with an R rating made nearly $100M. This isn't Austin Powers and the teenybopper weekend audience we are talking about here. These are mostly adults going to see it.

Box office alone is no barometer of a movie's success or quality. Plus most studios now plan to make the BIG bucks with the inevitable DVD release which is why stinkers get multi-disc releases that will make us raise an eyebrow. Many of these SEs were in production before the theatrical releases.

Box office is the only gauge of a movie's success and a very important part of gauging its quality. Success in movie making is expressed solely in dollars.

Generally when studios refer to a film's success they're talking about its financial success.

When critics or film-lovers talk about its success, they talk about its *artistic* success.

The two rarely meet.

That is because the word success is being misused. A film can have critical accalaim, but success can only be defined based on the purpose of making the film. Films are made to generate profit. So, profit is the only gauge of a film's success. Critics don't judge success. They judge quality.

Not all films are solely made to generate profit. That may be true from the businessmen's side - but not from the filmmaker's standpoint.

The auteur director won't worry about profit - that's up to the producers and money men.

And "success" means "The achievement of something planned, desired, or attempted."

So if a director attempts, desires, or plans to make a certain film a certain way, it's a success, regardless of whether it makes any money or not.

Success doesn't not mean "financial success" even if that's how it's often misused.

And yet, despite very probably being profitable on b.o. alone (something a small percentage of movies accomplish these days), you consider Panic Room a failure because it didn't pass $100 million at the Box Office.

And based on that standard, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle was a success (it passed $100 million) even though it was not profitable at the box office.

Sounds to me that, if the $100 million in gross revenues is the standard of success and failure, then profitability isn't the measure of success, revenues alone are.

So if a studio were to make a string of movies that cost $150 million each that made $100 million each at the box office, they would be a successful studio, right? Every one of those movies would be successful under your definition.

But if a studio made a string of movies that cost $35 million and made $70 million at the box office, they'd be doing nothing but failures.

Fine. Using your own definition of success above... Panic Room was a success. Case closed.

Fincher is one of my favorite directiors, and Im sure this dvd well sell fine.

I am thinking though about another point in this thread, how much did PR cost to make?

It couldnt have cost that much, the setting was basically that big strange house, and no real big actors to pay, I bet it made a solid profit.

Didn't they say in the documentary that the set alone cost 6 million dollars?

I think all of the CGI work was also pretty expensive. But from what I heard CTS was very happy with the film's performance.

So a film such as ROTK is successful because of the gross and not the Oscars, SAG's and Golden Globes it has won?

Citizen Kane must be crap by your equasion because it was a flop. What do thousands of fans and the overwhelming praise of critics matter. Citizen Kane was a failure.

Give me a break. You are CLEARLY stirring the pot with these comments.

That is absolutely not accurate. Most films are never made with the expectation of making $100 million.

Hollywood expects films to be profitable, but that is based on the original investment in the film. Obviously, a film with a budget of $100 million is a failure if it does not make $100 million. But a $50 million dollar film which grosses $100 million is a huge success.

Heh. If they had actually bought a house like that it probably would have cost $12 million.

Box office mojo -

48 mill production budget
30 mill advertising

196 mill gross worldwide.

Rounding the numbers up, the studio spent 80 mill and made 200 mill. Studio gets back half of that, so they made 20 mill easy.

Not counting DVD, TV, and other forms of revenue of course.

Great, I'm glad you finally agree that you admit you were wrong, and that Panic Room was a smashing success at the box office!

As stated above, the only number worth considering is gross earnings-expenses. Total net for Panic Room = $120 million.

For a studio to get more than double their money back on a film is a huge success. Add to that dvd and tv (as stated above) and the studio (and Fincher/Foster) are all laughing their way to the bank.