I'm not intending this to be a huge thread filled with over-analyzation, but I'm just wanting a few people's opinion on this:

I don't remember Panic Room doing extraordinarily well at the box office. Now, when I say "extraordinarily well", I'm sure it did ok for several weeks, but it was certainly no blockbuster, and posed no threat against tons of other record-holding movies. Also, I believe this title was already available on DVD. All that being said, why would this particular movie warrant a $35 3-disc Special Edition, with (if I saw correctly) 21 different making-of featurettes, and scads of additional bonus materials? It seems to me a terrible waste of time, effort, and money.

Just wondering what others think. I'm curious about this since, up to now, I've had no urge to even see this movie, let alone shelling out $35 for a SE. The previews just didn't look that interesting.

Because David Fincher loves DVDs. I wish better movies would get this kind of treatment *cough 21 Grams

But is the movie really that good. That's what I'm wondering.

Quite frankly, I didn't enjoy it enough on the big-screen to purchase even the barebones edition. On the flip-side, I think enough people liked it therefore I'm glad that a set full of extras is out for them.

Watching how well this sells or not, I think this will be a good example of how the film studios are taking advantage of DVD addicts like us who look to spend the money to add these jam-packed SE's to our collections, whether or not we liked the movies involved that well.

I have to admit, I'm standing there at the store, holding it in my hand, contemplating it, even thought I've never even seen it, nor really wanted to. Sign of a true addict, eh?

Infidel:

This has been discussed ad nauseum on several threads in the last few weeks, but here is the reality:

1. You only have to shell out $25 at Costco, plus you get a free additional DVD, knocking the price down to about $15.

2. So it has a big SE. Why does it bother you? Don't buy it, but don't critisize those that do and are very happy with the release (like myself).

When bare bones editions are released, customers complain. When extra features packed SEs are released, customers complain.

I understand the former a hell of a lot more then the latter.

On other thing:

I agree that this film was not a big deal at the BO. I saw it in the theatre and never considered purchasing it until I heard about this SE. The bonus features alone are the only reason I bought it, and don't regret ir for one second.

One reason is probably how Fincher [apparently] loves to release these packed discs (I love him for it!) and has for all his movies except The Game. The studio might've been wary about letting him do it for a movie without as much fanbase/popularity as Fight Club or Seven, but like The_Infidel said, there's plenty of us SE-lovin' collectors around to buy it. Also, as an aspiring filmmaker, I can say the extras are not only entertaining but extremely educational, so it's really one of the best discs out there for if you want to get an insight into the way movies are made start to finish.

You must have read my mind...I thought about posting the same thing this morning.

PR was an average flick at best. I can think of many others that would warrant a 3 Disc LE before this. LOA and Citizen Kane were only 2 discs, for crying out loud. That being said, it is good for the fans of the film.

I just wish the studio had selected a different one to lavish their attention on.

Gee, thanks for the scolding, mom. By the way, better read a little more carefully next time. I critiCized no-one.

Thank you. Now that was constructive without condescension. I appreciate that.

I bought the original superbit version second hand for $10CDN.

Thats about as much as im willing to spend on this film. It was an ok film but not worth my while double dipping as I doubt i'll be in any great rush to see it again.

Im sure many people loved the film and will love this DVD release, so im glad its out for them. Maybe ill rent it sometime to look at the special features...

No...but you might of rubbed a number of people, who looked forward to this set and bought it, the wrong way. I'm certainly one of them. It was not a huge success but I thought it was a great film and only made better by the amazing extras.

so you were rubbed the wrong way because he questioned if a 3 disc release of a movie that did so so in the box office was warrented? give me a break.

since your asking what we all think...personally i think its a waste. once in the theater was enough for me.

cheers,

jj

I loved this movie, I love Fincher movies, I love Fincher Styles... This movie needed an SE treatment (IMO), and Fincher delivered solidaly as usual (look at Fight Club or Seven). If you dont like the idea, dont buy it. For those people who dont like SE's, they should like them for the reason they generally drive down the price of the non-SE a few bucks so they can pick it up for cheaper. i am an SE whore unfortunitly.

Your choice of wording is very, very strange.

"taking advantage of DVD addicts"? This set is fantastic and has some of the best extras about the movie-making process I have ever seen in my life. If this is 'taking advantage', I say now to the studios "USE ME... ABUSE ME... MAKE ME YOUR BITCH!"

Seriously, there are many more things to be concerned about with studios. Putting out a great, reasonably priced SE shouldn't be one of them.

If you didn't like the movie and you don't care about learning how movies are made, you have the option of simply not buying it. If you liked the movie but don't care about the extras, you can grab the Superbit edition for less than 10 bucks. If you didn't like the film, but are a fan of 'behind-the-scenes' looks at filmmaking, this set is an invaluable addition to your library.

No one here is being taken advantage of.

I think the perceived concept of "rubbing people the wrong way" falls on my original statement of "terrible waste of time, effort, and money." I meant these things on the part of the film studio, not the consumer. I have absolutely no problem with people wanting to buy something if they like it. Knock yourselves out. I think much too much was read into this subject. I only wanted to know if this was a good enough movie to warrant such extravagance (sorry if I spelled that wrong).

What's strange about my choice of wording? Your argument can be reversed. True, if you don't want to buy it, don't. But if you do want to buy it, do. Go for it. Those two cancel each other out. My point is that there are, in fact, people out there who might not necessarily like certain movies, or ever intend to watch them much after buying them, but they buy them simply to have them in their collections, simply because they're loaded with goodies. The studios know this, and know that these people will buy them. Again, if you want to buy it, please do. But this is an example of studios taking advantage of people, like it or not. The concept of taking advantage of someone, or certain situations, isn't necessarily a horrible thing, and certainly wasn't meant to be implied that way here. Any company in the world today is in business because they take advantage of the fact that people want something. And again, in this case, there are people out there who blindly snatch up DVD's simply because they're SE's. That's all I'm saying.

And don't read anything into the word "blindly" either. I buy movies blind quite often.

I suppose I would counter with a different question -- "Does it have to be?"

If a DVD goes into incredible detail about the storyboarding process, casting, filming, editing, post production, effects, advertising... that information is valuable to many people in and of itself, even if the end film result is crap. I'm not talking about fluffy, studio EPK stuff... but detailed 'you are there' supplements.

I think that people can be interested in detailed supplements about the movie making process, without particularly loving the film used as an example in those supplements. I fall in that category... I thought Panic Room was 'eh'. A watchable thriller that I never planned to see again. But this SE is one of the jewels in my collection. Fantastic.


[A classic example of this would probably be Project Greenlight. There aren't too many people out there who give two shits about Stolen Summer. But they'd gladly sit through hours of material about how the film got made.]

I do think a 3-disc release for a box office failure is over the top. Since I have not seen the film, I may buy it. However, I would not double dip for this.

Didn't Panic Room do around 100 mil domestically? I'd hardly call that a box office failure. Now Fight Club. THAT was a box office bomb.

Panic Room earned $96,397,334.00 domestically according to Box Office Mojo. If a major studio release fails to make $100,000,000.00 today, I consider it a failure. That is debatable, however. I still maintain that a 3-disc set is over the top for this film. It has little rewatch value.

Panic Room had the best opening weekend of any film by David Fincher: $30 million, which for a while was one of the best, if not THE best, March opening ever, not adjusted for inflation.

It went on to earn just shy of $100 million domestic, and another $100 million overseas. It was profitable after its domestic release, alone.

Many thought, at the time, that Jodie and Fincher attached themselves to this less-than-typical project for either of them to get a much-needed populist hit. It worked, while still allowing each of them to maintain their dignity with a well-crafted thriller.

edit: in response to the above post, it is ridiculous to base 'success' or 'failure' upon whether a film grosses over $100m or not. A film can be profitable making far less than that. Look at this week's Johnson Family Vacation movie. It cost almost nothing to make and market, yet is probably alread profitable after just the opening weekend. Yet it only grossed around $10 million. We'll probably see 140 sequals for it.

Then you have no idea what you're talking about (but, to be fair, I appreciate that you qualified it by saying that only *you* consider it a failure). In order to properly calculate whether a movie is a success or failure, you have to know how much it cost; a ten million dollar movie would not need to make 100 mil to be a success, regardless of the studio which released it.

In this case, 'Panic Room' cost 48 and made 96 domestically, plus another 100 foreign. Decent little haul for a B-movie thriller, especially one which was released in April, in order to get in ahead of the blockbuster season, rather than competing in it. My memory is that, at the time, they were describing it as having jumpstarted said blockbuster season early, as opposed to talking about how it bombed.

For whatever it's worth, 'Seven' only grossed 100 mil, 'The Game' did under 50, and 'Fight Club' did under 40, so 'Panic Room' is his second most financially popular title. [And 'Alien 3' was #3.]

The severe flaw in that argument is that Orson Welles didn't have people whose specific job was to document everything he did on set (and in pre- and post-production) for inclusion on a DVD set. If he had, I'm quite sure 'Citizen Kane' would have been a three disc set, at the very least.

There is only one answer to the question "Why is 'Panic Room' a three disc set?" and the answer is "Fincher". I honestly don't see why people have so much trouble understanding that.

I am only talking about failure with regard to public appeal, not with regard to profit. Many low budget films have already made a profit before their release.