Hollywood Bitchslap Forum Index Hollywood Bitchslap
Community Forum
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

pluto nash

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Hollywood Bitchslap Forum Index -> General Movie Talk
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cinematicradio.com
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2002 7:57 pm    Post subject: pluto nash Reply with quote

i was looking for reviews of pluto nash .But i found none (surprise)according to movies.com there were no press screenings......hum bad sign? make room on the bottom 20 list!

seriously has any seen this ? are there advanced reviews ?
Back to top
Oz
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5920
Location: Vancouver, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2002 9:20 pm    Post subject: Well.. Reply with quote

Compare that and how One Hour Photo is being pushed. I've been to two movies this week, and before both some theater boob was out front of the audiences offering freebie advance tickets to the flick and telling us that it's "sposed to be good n'stuff".

One Hour Photo rocked Sundance, if memory serves (or was it Cannes), and has been promoted, screened, offered as a freebie and generally received almost unilateral advance praise. In other words, it's been handled the way a smart marketing company handles a good product - they let it speak for themselves and build a rep.

Then there's Pluto Nash. Nobody has seen it, despite it being scheduled for release about eight times, then pushed back seven. You know it's going to get pounded, and you just know it deserves to, but said pounding won't be until it's second week, giving it a chance to make a fortune on the "blind faith" first week audiences.

And then they'll make a sequel, and we'll all wish Satan was walking amongst us, because he'd know what to do.


Last edited by Oz on Fri Aug 16, 2002 2:59 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TheAngryJew
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5612
Location: Philadelphia

PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2002 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

See, here's the thing:

Warner Bros. is all in a huff and threatening less press/preview screenings in the future because us onliners have been too "mean" to Pluto Nash before it's even been released.

On one hand, it's common knowledge that the movie has been delayed at least three times. 90% of the time, that is NOT a good sign that a movie is something special.

Then of course come the inevitable 'test screening' reviews that certain websites call their bread and butter. These cool news sites will publish just about any old thing, so when some 13-year old from West Bumblefuck offers a 'NO stars' review for a film ("It suked! The FX were aweful and eddies not even funny!") that's still being worked on, has no music, and is often missing big segments - they post it worldwide and the movie instantly becomes seen as tainted.

Swing it back the other way: Warner Bros. has a movie that they're trying to sell. (No shame in that; movies are business.) The execs are well-aware that WE KNOW the movie was postponed numerous times. THEY ALSO know that there's some fairly unpleasant buzz on this title. If it were your business, you'd certainly try and protect your interests.

Based on my relatively extensive experience with movies, I can safely suppose that Pluto Nash is going to be a pretty weak flick. As is always the case when I see any potentially-awful movie, I hope I'm proven wrong. Despite a LOT of what I consider to be awful awful missteps in his career, I still consider myself a very big fan of Eddie Murphy.

Hey, WB, it ain't personal. The movie looks like kind of a turkey...but I still think that people should decide for themselves. Part of me hopes that Pluto Nash becomes a massive surprise hit; that way the studio execs can stop blaming their expensive misfires on the online movie community. At the very least, the studios may set their sights on the (very few) websites that actually deserve their scorn, and leave the rest of us passionate movie lovers alone.
_________________
Scott Weinberg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Oz
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5920
Location: Vancouver, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2002 3:05 am    Post subject: Alas. Reply with quote

See, here's the real thing. If you don't want 13 year olds to slam a half finished movie on Harry Knowles' website, don't show it to them! Finish the damn thing, then release it, instead of anchoring every scene on what the test scores were like for a ten-minute phase of the film.

The first studio that cans test screenings will receive praise, from filmmakers and real fans. On the other hand, the first studio that cans press screenings can guarantee that people like me will get in a vendetta state of mind and find the highest mountain to yell 'boycott' from.

You see, you can't have your cake an eat it too. If you want to benefit from early buzz, you have to make sure you have a product worthy of it. An unfunny trailer, a release date that's been thrown back more often than a fish with Bea Arthur's head on it, and Eddie Murphy do not make for good early buzz.

So when you don't get it, don't bitch, marketing morons. Nuff said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
sean



Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Posts: 27
Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2002 10:44 am    Post subject: one thing I disagree with... Reply with quote

I think that, in theory, test screenings can be very helpful, because, in general, any time that a movie is watched with an audience, it helps. Just look at Steven Spielberg; he abandoned test screenings in 1993 and hasn't made a good movie since. Granted, they were terrible scripts which couldn't have been fixed by test screenings, and audiences seem to respond to some of them ... i'm getting off topic a bit, my point is just that test screenings can be a great tool for filmmakers, since the film often exists essentially in a vacuum before that. The problem isn't test screenings so much as the unneccessary dependence that studios have developed for test screenings.

PS to Oz: It was Smalls who came up with the name, not me. Don't you remember *anything*?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
natasha_theobald
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 13 Jul 2002
Posts: 2093
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2002 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think painters haul in groups from the mall to see where they should put the trees or if something needs more purple. Personally, I would rather see an artist's flawed, unique, personal work than something mucked together by committee. I understand the need for feedback, but I think that is what the other people working on the project are for. If you filter something too many times, you just end up with completely watered down products. I want some of the muck left behind. That, to me, is what makes something interesting. You can't be great if you aren't willing to fail in a big, audacious way. Fits of genius are preferable to nothing ingenious at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
sean



Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Posts: 27
Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2002 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, it completely depends on the movie, of course. And I'm not saying that the entire system hasn't become preverted by the studios and the committees. What I am saying is that any filmmaker who is interested in making a film with the audience in mind, as opposed to just masturbating, owes it to him/herself and the film itself to watch it with an audience before releasing it to see what parts work and what parts don't. This has nothing to do with the cards (the equivalent of the painter not even asking, but being told by viewers what needs more purple). The cards are evil and stupid, and should be, at best, vague guidelines or things to help the marketing people to deal with what they have as best they can (instead of trying to help them to change what they have). But any filmmaker who can't sit in a theater and tell when the audience is responding to [not neccessarily enjoying, mind you] the film in the proper way and when they aren't doesn't deserve to be a filmmaker.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
natasha_theobald
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 13 Jul 2002
Posts: 2093
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sean wrote:
But any filmmaker who can't sit in a theater and tell when the audience is responding to [not neccessarily enjoying, mind you] the film in the proper way and when they aren't doesn't deserve to be a filmmaker.


I completely respect that. Maybe they should handpick the people whose opinions they are taking initially, though. Family, friends, whatever. Someone who knows them or someone who knows film and will have useful things to add.

I don't like masturbatory, self-indulgent crap either. If I have to watch more twenty-somethings sitting around spewing what passes for clever dialogue but really belongs on the "Real World," I will vomit. I'm just saying that, given a choice, I would rather scrape a little mold off of the cheddar than be force fed Velveeta. Too many movies are processed cheese.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Oz
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5920
Location: Vancouver, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2002 8:41 pm    Post subject: My take. Reply with quote

See, here's the thing. If I was employed as a marketing person, I would know exactly how to handle any release simply by watching the thing, with a decent knowledge of the film industry. If I see One Hour Photo, I'm going to know exactly how good it is, what part of the film will play best on a trailer, who in it has the most audience appeal, blah blah blah.

If I have the slightest knowledge of the industry I'm in, I don't need six hundred teenagers to tell me "the cars are good" - I can watch the thing and know the cars will play well to teenagers. I can watch Blue Cush and know that I should be buying ad time during Friends. I can look at D-Tox and think, "okay, Sly has an audience, perhaps not a big one, but if we hype the shit out of it, we might squeeze a $20m opening out of it.

I don't need test screenings any more than a chef needs to hold test dinners. You taste it, it tastes good, you put it on the menu.

And should I ever get the chance to put my words to celluloid, I'd like to think I can look at the final result and know if the ending sucks, without putting it to a national vote.

My 4.5 Canadian cents.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
sporkgirl
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 05 Aug 2002
Posts: 498

PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2002 10:48 pm    Post subject: points deux Reply with quote

i'd like to make two points about this. one, there are no movies made that are one person's vision (as a painting would be). they are all made by comitee to one degree or another. and i tend to think that is a good thing, if only because of this: when you can watch a movie like say, the old standard, chasing amy, and know, in your heart, either no one told kevin smith the ending was retarded and ruined the movie, and he didn't listen, or no one told him, and either way it was an easily avoidable mistake. moral: these things should be caught before any old audience member can tell so clearly, and test screenings are the best way to do that.

example: in a league of my own, there was a scene of geena davis and tom hanks kissing that was cut after outrage in test screenings, and i cannot imagine sitting through the movie if that scene hadn't been cut.

the second point is related. oz, not everyone is as smart as you. i think this is pretty obvious, because if they were as smart as you, there would be no bad movies. i think the marketing system in hollywood contributes to this problem. no objective marketing executive gets to watch a whole movie and decide what will make the best trailer/promotion/poster. the movie companies only give them some scenes to pick from. sadly. there's little objectivity, and thus... yeah, you get it.

love,
rose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheAngryJew
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5612
Location: Philadelphia

PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2002 4:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
oz, not everyone is as smart as you.


Yeah, most are smarter. Twisted Evil Shocked Rolling Eyes
_________________
Scott Weinberg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
TheAngryJew
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5612
Location: Philadelphia

PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2002 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wowee wow wow.

Opening weekend estimates:

1. XXX, $23 million.
2. Signs, $19.5 million.
3. Blue Crush, $15.2 million.
4. Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams, $11.6 million.
5. Austin Powers in Goldmember, $8.7 million.
6. My Big Fat Greek Wedding, $5.8 million.
7. Blood Work, $4.8 million.
8. Road to Perdition, $3.8 million.
9. The Master of Disguise, $3.3 million
=====
10. The Adventures of Pluto Nash, $2.15 million

This one could supplant Cutthroat Island and the biggest moneyloser EVER!
_________________
Scott Weinberg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Necronomicon
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2002 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Holy shit. This COULD be the biggest moneyloser ever, and I'm willing to bet good money that it'll hold Murphys career for a while.
Back to top
Roy Smith



Joined: 13 Jul 2002
Posts: 57
Location: Cincinnati

PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2002 6:33 pm    Post subject: It's dead Jim Reply with quote

It's made only $4.3 million and it's already at my local second run theatre...maybe I'll see it for $2.50.

Hmm Nutty Professor II made $163 million...true it's $100 million less than the original but even Showtime only made $53 million with two big $ stars in it. My prediction...Eddie gets serious, goes low-budget, or it's Klumps III: with Beyonce' Knowles as his wife this time.
_________________
Walls keep things in or out. You will appreciate them when you try to live without them and need them the most.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Necronomicon
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2002 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is only playing in 33 screens nationwide right now. It'll probably be out on video in a month. It needed to gross $300mil to break even (or at least a decent amount of money), but considering all the shit that happened to it (including it being shelved for a few years), there was no way in hell that it could have even exceeded $10mil. Unless Warner Bros wants to keep Nash out for eternity so it'll break even, they'll just have to accept its amazingly bad box office numbers, unless they got a trick up their sleeves. If they keep it out for 20 weeks, I'd say it'll gross $4.5mil. If they are smart they'll release it (where it belongs) on video in a month.
Back to top
Roy Smith



Joined: 13 Jul 2002
Posts: 57
Location: Cincinnati

PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2002 2:48 am    Post subject: Hey, maybe you can help me Reply with quote

I want to learn about how much a movie costs so I can research their profitability; if Pluto Nash was an indie film with a $50,000 budget we'd call it a hit right?

I'm mainly researching Kevin Smiths movies and except for Dogma and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back we're not talking high profit here. I'm looking into researching what a movie made, what it made on video/DVD, and how much its cost to make it.

I'm curious how much a movie really makes. Considering the effects in the commercials and a "big star" like Eddie Murphy I'm willing to bet Pluto Nash, even after video/DVD money. sets a record, although perhaps not one the filmmakers originally intended.
_________________
Walls keep things in or out. You will appreciate them when you try to live without them and need them the most.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Hollywood Bitchslap Forum Index -> General Movie Talk All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group