rotfl

Brack, you are positively the first person I've ever heard to express the notion that a studio screening a bad movie has earned someone's respect. Usually, the kind of comment I hear is "Why did they even spend money on that?"

:lol:

Well, when you compare studios that do screen to studios that don't, I think it's safe to say you respect the studio more that does. You're denying this?

Yes! I am absolutely denying this. Every studio makes some good decisions and some bad ones. But you can get a decent idea of what the studio is like, by and large. For example, Warner Bros. is typically very artist friendly. Just this year they've released at least three major revisions of catalogue titles (Blade Runner, Troy, and Alexander), gave Zack Snyder freedom to do what he wanted on 300, and seem to have consistently made good choices.

Fox, on the other hand, made the new Die Hard PG-13, then hacked apart several of their other films, including the upcoming Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem, which I heard was pretty good until Fox got their grubby hands on it. They've treated Blu-ray like a red-headed step child, and have generally made a lot of poor decisions this year.

That's the kind of stuff I look at. Not whether or not they're screening their bad movies. I say shame on all the studios for spending money on such bad movies.

me too, bucko. I didn't say that this was the ONLY reason. don't be so thick, dude.

I would thank you not be so rude.

The fact that you think I'm being rude is hilarious.

I don't get the point here, especially since it doesn't seem to contradict what I wrote, and what you supported: that less people will go see a movie on the first week if it's perceived to be of lower quality.

Unless you're trying to suggest that people will go see a movie they know is bad simply out of respect for the studio for showing their turd to critics. "Well gee, the movie doesn't look very good and has got horrible reviews, but shuck darn the studio was brave to screen it to critics, so I'll go blow my money on that piece of crap." Is that what you're suggesting? Cause that doesn't really seem likely.

Yes, it was a better known book. It, and its sequel, had been at the top of the NYT bestseller charts only shortly previous to the release of the film.

It was a hugely irrelevant one. The Pursuit of Happyness was targeted at a completely different demographic. That was an inspirational "real-life" story aimed at tugging at the heartstrings of adults. Eragon was a PG rated fantasy story for the whole family to come see and have a romping good time. Films don't leach off of each other's audiences simply by virtue of opening on the same weekend, and it doesn't look like that was the case here.

The "and" credit isn't one given based on size of the role, but on the prestige and clout of the actor. The "and" credit in a film can be considered only second to first listing in the film. Unless you're suggesting that Nicole Kidman had the biggest role in the film because she's listed first.

And just look at that poster:
http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgfp1938...ass-poster.jpg

Both Kidman and Craig are portrayed more prominently than anyone else on that poster. The main character is just a dot on the back of the polar bear. If you asked someone completely unfamiliar with the movie who they thought the main characters were based on that poster, "kid on polar bear" would probably rank last.


So two reviews in your mind equals "a lot"? And the 2nd review doesn't say Craig's role is too small, but rather that Craig is "underused" in appearing in the role.

More people will go see crap that's been reviewed than crap that hasn't been reviewed, given all things equal. Screening a movie is a respectful act, because it at least let's people known more about the movie than simply press releases and trailers/commercials. Again, not screening a movie is gutless and more pathetic than a studio that does. If I had to choose between the two a list of pros and cons, I'd have to favor the studio that screens.

No, my comment had nothing to do with whether or not someone will go see a movie based on quality. Sure, reviews matter, but for the most part, your opening weekend numbers have to do with how well you marketed your movie. A movie's opening doesn't tell you if a movie is good or bad, just that it opened well.

In the case of The Golden Compass, the ads probably left some people feeling vague about the movie--people who don't have the internet and just see commercials. Since a lot of people didn't know much about it, and then there was this boycott that was national news, some people decided to skip it. Those who did decide to see the movie knew about said reviews, and probably were looking said for problems, and found them. Or maybe they didn't read the reviews, and wanted to see the movie, which only proves my point further. For these big blockbuster movies like TGC, reviews don't matter much for opening weekend.

Well, the commercials/trailer for Eragon, to me, didn't make the movie look nearly as interesting as The Golden Compass's did. And sorry to say, but if Will Smith's movie hadn't been released that weekend, chances are some of those people would end up seeing Eragon that didn't have the other option. I'm betting there's people out there who would enjoy both of those movies. I'll see anything as long as it's good.

Wrong, the "and" credit is usually for an important, but minor role. It's never a part that has significant time in a movie over the other leads.

Nicole Kidman is one of the main characters, yes. And you know, there's nothing wrong with telling people that certain well known people are in the movie. People shouldn't rely on a movie poster to tell you the significance of the actor's character. That is stupid, and you know it. And it's just one poster, I was using that as an example of describe why Daniel Craig wasn't in the movie much.


Those weren't the only reviews. Go to Rottentomates and look up random reviews if you don't believe me. "Underused" implies that the actor was not in the movie enough in the critic's eye, or that his role is too small, it's the same thing.

Anyway...

I am saddened by the fate of this film. The book really is marvelous.

As for the reasons for its fate, I have to give some credit to the religious groups calling for the boycott: I do believe they had some (possibly strong) effect on public interest in the United States. I believe the film's very different public reception in the UK is indicative of that. (Still annoys me to no end whenever people call for a boycott and yet have never seen the film or even read the source material.)

But the real blow was the simple fact of its mediocre critical reception, as well as the press leading up to the release that said it watered down the book's essence.

Many factors, unfortunate outcome.

Might want to change the thread title as it doesn't really ring true!

Wanted to love this, but it was quite mediocre. I think I liked that Seeker crap more than this.

It's my fault. I paid to see it instead of boycotting it. Sorry for killing it's domestic gross. :(

Yeah, the boycott wasn't the only reason. But it was a major one. The argument that "boycotts NEVER work" sounds a bit predetermined, and I don't think that's true. Otherwise, all studios would secretly create boycotts of their movies so they'd make a fortune.

Sure, because they think the one that wasn't given an opportunity to be reviewed must suck even more than the films that suck but do get reviewed.

You wrote that "people who would go to the movie now won't because they know it probably sucks." That last bit is a statement about quality.

That's really my point.

I'd go further and say that a movie's entire box-office gross doesn't tell you if a movie is good or bad. However, just because financial success, an objective number, doesn't determine quality, a personal subjective determination, doesn't mean that the general opinion of a film's quality doesn't affect box-office. Personally, there have been lots of films I've been interested in that I decided not to see based at least in part on overall negative reviews.

That's the important bit to remember. To you, the trailers may have looked interesting, and to you the film succeeded on a qualitative level, but to many, many others, neither the trailer was interesting enough nor the film good enough, to justify putting down money to see it.

It's not like those were the only two movies out that weekend. If there's no movie in theaters that interests them, people just don't go to the theaters. And sure, some people may have been interested in both films, but that doesn't mean that they didn't go see both films. Eragon should've been perfectly capable of drawing a large enough audience for itself, with or without another film in another genre and demographic opening at the same time.

http://ask.metafilter.com/16804/Cost...Featuring-With
"Last billing, especially if set off by "with" or "and" or something, is considered almost as good as top billing"

http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-we-write.html
"As for actors' billing - it all depends on how good your agent is. With a few exceptions (Barbara Stanwyck on "Big Valley"; James Arness on "Gunsmoke"), the lead star is listed first. Second billing is pretty good; last billing with the "And...as" tag is very good as well."

Didn't you just use a poster to determine the significance of his role? I'm not commenting on whether it's stupid or not, I'm just saying it's common, and thus it's reasonable for reviews to comment on such incongruities.

And I used the same poster to prove my point, that he's featured prominently in the promotional materials. I haven't seen one poster that doesn't feature him very prominently.

I did, and I couldn't find examples of what you're stating, thus why I asked you to prove it's actually a lot of reviews, since I can't seem to find them.

It's not the same thing. If a no-name actor, or someone the critic didn't care for, was in the role, do you think they'd still say the actor was "underused" in the role?

This is just going to make people want to see it more, especially to see what all this talk is about.

Personally, I'm still not even remotely interested in seeing the film.

What exactly does this have to do with talking about opening weekend numbers, especially about a movie we are talking about, The Golden Compass? You're making a non-point just to point out a very small exception to the rule. Most films still are screened for critics.


Yep, what does this again have to do with opening weekend box office numbers? All you're doing is taking bits of what I say, but not really making a point.



But not all, or even most, films. Movies that depend on good reviews, like small independent movies, is where it really matters. Big movies with a big advertising campaign don't have to rely on reviews. And even with great reviews, most people still aren't interested. People see what they want to see.


The first weekend box office for a movie with a real advertising campaign tells how well the ads worked. After the first weekend, if a film holds up fairly well, it says that people like it as well. And again, some movies that don't spend a lot on advertising do require good reviews to help with getting attention. Big budget movies like this really don't, again, for OPENING WEEKEND.

But really, if critics mattered that much to how people see movies, then Alvin and the Chipmunks would've bombed, and No Country For Old Men would be the number #1 movie for the 5th weekend in a row.


Weren't we talking about why Eragon didn't open as well as The Golden Compass? My reply had nothing to do with what I thought about the trailer. And the The Golden Compass did open better, so what is your point?


You assume to know how everybody spends their money on movies, which is very foolish. And BTW, Eragon opened fairly well. Again, your point was that it Eragon didn't open as well as The Golden Compass. The Golden Compass had no direct competition in terms of new movies. That's a considerable factor never to overlook.

I'd post the posters that don't have Daniel Craig, but the mods don't like it or something, so just google image search The Golden Compass and you'll see them.

Vatican blasts "Golden Compass" as Godless and hopeless

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican on Wednesday condemned the film "The Golden Compass," which some have called anti-Christian, saying it promotes a cold and hopeless world without God.

In a long editorial, the Vatican newspaper l'Osservatore Romano, also slammed Philip Pullman, the bestselling author of the book on which the family fantasy movie is based. It was the Vatican's most stinging broadside against an author and a film since it roundly condemned "The Da Vinci Code" in 2005 and 2006.

"In Pullman's world, hope simply does not exist, because there is no salvation but only personal, individualistic capacity to control the situation and dominate events," the editorial said. The Vatican newspaper said "honest" viewers would find it "devoid of any particular emotion apart from a great chill."

In the fantasy world created by Pullman's trilogy, 'His Dark Materials', the Church and its governing body the Magisterium, are linked to cruel experiments on children aimed at discovering the nature of sin and attempts to suppress facts that would undermine the Church's legitimacy and power.

In the film version all references to the Church have been stripped out, with director Chris Weitz keen to avoid offending religious cinema goers. Still, some Catholic groups in the United States have called for a boycott, fearing even a diluted version of the book might draw people to read the bestselling trilogy.

The Vatican newspaper said the film and Pullman's writings showed that "when man tries to eliminate God from his horizon, everything is reduced, made sad, cold and inhumane."

The U.S.-based Catholic League, a conservative group, has urged Christians not to see the movie, saying that its objective was "to bash Christianity and promote atheism" to children. The Vatican newspaper called the movie "the most anti-Christmas film possible" and said that it was "consoling" that its first weekend ticket sales were a disappointing $26 million.

New Line Cinema, a unit of Time Warner Inc, had hoped the film would pull in between $30 million and $40 million. It is doing better overseas but New Line sold the foreign distribution rights to help cover the movie's cost.

Actually, I think it shows Pullman is a cold author, and Weitz was not the right director, but hey, to each his own.

I think this statement embarrassed the Vatican, not that that's a new thing.

And regarding that quote, I would sooner say that the opposite is true--at least in the case of organized religion.

Pullman is a cold author?

I found the books to be very distancing, personally.

Good for them.