Cinematical

I am going to see this tonight and I feel I am on the razors edge of not being able to see it....I am puzzled about why this hasn't been successful.

However one idea I would have had would have been somehow would have been premiering the the film in the cheap seats first at low prices....not a great business decision at first, I realize, but who knows....

Another thing, I have been holding off buying Kill Bill on DVD waiting for the supposedly planned 4 hour version....Where is it?

Reply

It makes no sense for other filmmakers to point to Grindhouse as precedent for a film that was too long. Why? Because the length is justified by the content; because it was two films; because it was designed as a theatre experience. Its content is actually delivered in relatively tight, entertaining packages. Tight, that is, compared to behemoths like the Lord of the Rings films.

If a film's length is justified by its content, I really don't care if it's 90 minutes, 120 minutes, or 180 minutes. I had a much easier time sitting through Grindhouse than I did the never-ending Return of the King (200 minutes) or Chronicles of Narnia (140 minutes, but felt like much more).

Reply

When viewing a good movie,it doesn't matter how long it is. A short,terrible movie will seem endless. Remember it's not how long you make it but how you make it long.

Reply

Funny thing is that Harry Potter will likely be successful no matter the length...I do think the producers of Grindhouse overestimated the audience. Horror films are looked at a money maker because you can do them on the cheap so that $25 million in gate translates into profit. When you start adding in Kurt Russell, Rosario Dawson, Bruce Willis, Naveen Andrews, Rose MaGowan and a large cast of others, the budget is already high before you shoot.

Horror has a limited audience and is seldom a blockbuster. Sure, the adjusted gross box office for Jaws was just under $800K, and the Exorcist just under $700K, but third is the Sixth Sense at about half ($357K). Tenth on the list of top grossing horror is the Omen. Adjusted for today's dollars it hit $177K - which would be considered disappointing for something the studio hoped would be a blockbuster. Of the top 25 grossing films in the horror genre (of which action films The Mummy, Aliens, Van Helsing, and The Mummy Returns are included as horror), there have only been five years during which more than one of the top grossing horrors have come out. All have come out since 1973, and in only one year were there more than two in the same year (1999).

And none of the films have been those 70's zombie/road horrors ala Grindhouse. The toppers are as follows and all amounts are adjusted for inflation...

1 Jaws (1975) $795,369,426
2 The Exorcist (1973) $686,631,452
3 The Sixth Sense (1999) $357,566,366
4 The Mummy Returns (2001) $221,650,716
5 Jaws 2 (1978) $215,603,340
6 The Amityville Horror (1979) $213,841,738
7 Alien (1979) FOX $200,233,659
8 The Mummy (1999) $189,949,583
9 What Lies Beneath (2000) $179,115,699
10 The Omen (1976) $177,620,519
11 The Blair Witch Project (1999) $171,800,749
12 Interview with the Vampire (1994) $155,538,215
13 Scream (1996) $144,714,476
14 Seven (1995) $142,937,987
15 Aliens (1986) $142,545,860
16 The Ring (2002) $137,432,001
17 Scream 2 (1997) $137,017,261
18 Halloween (1978) $124,730,769
19 Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) $123,601,
20 Sleepy Hollow (1999) $123,550,077
21 Van Helsing (2005) $120,177,084
22 Haunting (1999) $111,473,051
23 The Grudge (2004) $110,175,871
24 The Others (2001) $105,846,318
25 Scream 3 (2000) $102,704,845

While many of the above were great, it's just not a sure thing.

Reply

This may very well get Disney to trim down Pirates 3 but who knows? I don't know about Potter because the shortest of the first 4 films was also the best (thanks to Alfonso Cuaron) and made the least amount of money (thanks to a June release instead of Thanksgiving). Potter 5's story is much more action packed and the first one that might fare better in summer than in November. So it will probably stay where it is.

But if Pirates 3 is close to 3 hours, I'll bet they'll trim it back as close to 2 1/2 hours as possible and release a director's cut DVD. Either that or it will stay at its current length and be released on a record number of screens in order to make up for the amount of showings lost by such a long running time.

People will see Pirates 3 no matter how long it is. Everyone loved Pirates 1 and the kids really took to Pirates 2. And look at Return of the King... 3:20 and more people saw it than saw Fellowship and Two Towers.

The problem with these things is that there's so much damn money riding on these movies that the studios are too blinded by that to realize that a well-hyped conclusion to a trilogy aimed at families will not even come close to suffering the same fate as a 3-hour R-rated horror movie double feature that kids can't go to.

Reply

I just went to see this movie last night. I loved it! What I saw of it, that is... It seems the theatre we were at, made the clandestine decision to split the movie into two.

1. We were charged full price for each admission.
2. No one at the box office mentioned we weren't paying for the 'double-feature' which was billed EVERYWHERE in plain site.
3. 'Planet Terror', itself, began 15 minutes late.
4. At the point when the first film brings up 'The End' on the screen, the screen goes black, the lights came up... and we thought "Oh wonderful! They DID put a brief intermission in!"
5. But then, after a quick trip to the restroom, two cigarette breaks, and twenty-five minutes later, we
went looking for a manager.

The manager proceeded to tell us we only paid for one film. 'But it says "DOUBLE FEATURE" all over the place. We want to see the other movie!!' we exclaimed. All she had to say was 'Sorry, call the theatre tomorrow and the safe will be open. Maybe you can talk them into letting you come back to see the other one.' Of course, this is ridiculous, because we've already paid for the double-feature!!! TWO movies, not ONE!

Upon calling the theatre this morning, the day-manager explains to me that Miramax (Who isn't even the listed Production house for these films, I think; isn't it The Weinstein Co. and Dimension Films?) made the decision to split the movie into two parts and let the individual theatres decide whether to show them together or split them up. He wouldn't give me a refund for our tickets, but in true money-grubbing and Hollywood style, he offered me free passes to come see another film.

And although I don't really feel like giving my patronage to this theatre whom I feel has blatantly ripped me off, I may just take the free passes and smuggle in some sancks and drinks of my own instead of paying the exorbitant prices all theatres have these days. My little way of sticking it the metroplex-nation.

One way or another, I thought "Planet Terror" was hysterical and I was really looking forward to sitting in the theatre to watch 3 hours of film. I had heard about the great, goofy, spoof trailers and I was looking forward to those as well! And I still want to see the films, altogether, not disassembled, dissected, re-arranged and destroyed. I'm really surprised that Rodriguez and Tarantino aren't getting up and saying something about this. I'd be pissed as hell if someone came and started messing with my films AFTER they'd already been released to theatres...

So, that's my two cents, anyway.

Reply

The movie was being framed by nearly every critical review in sources like variety, to be a movie for this creepy subculture of the movie going public. All the articles had a question like, "The question remains if a 3 hr + movie, made only for fans of a genre that has died away, can really do well at the box office?" Look up the reviews, even the positive ones and see how many say something like that in them. I know I've read it about 10 different places. In asking a question like that you basically tell people who know nothing about the flick, that it's for horror geeks, it's really long and it's made to remind you of a crappy movie so it must be a crappy movie. The Weinsteins didn't do a thing about this, they let the media frame their film and this is the result. NY, LA, Austin and Chicago type audiences fawn all over the experience but middle America (not a geographical reference but typical suburban) audiences are not going to bother spending money on a "weird" movie.

Since the movies aren't bad and the fake trailers have genre fans wanting to see Machete and WWotSS made into Grindhouse 2; the question becomes what is wrong. All they can accept is the time length of the film. Otherwise they'd have to admit to adverstising problems. Which is something they cannot stand. All they know is to put the best jokes, and the most exciting scenes in the tv commercials and play them during monday night football. Otherwise you'll have to actually use your brain to create an interesting marketing campaign. The time length is going to be the gut reaction but be ready for more broad comedies like Blades of Glory (which saddens me because I hear Will Arnett and Amy Poehler are amazing but I cannot stand Will Farrell), I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, WIld Hogs, and Kickin' it Old School.

I know that Pirates fans want as much Jack Sparrow as possible; and I know for a fact that the biggest problem HP fans have is that they cut too much out of Harry Potter movies so they want a longer film. I had a feeling those terrble numbers would have lasting effects on the industry all I can say is I wished I was surprised.

Reply

I saw the movie this past weekend. The only problem with the film was it came out on easter weekend. No one is gonna ditch their kids if they have them to see a gore fest of a film. Live and learn should have released it later in the year. Grindhouse is a October November film. That time frame would have played great with the Thanksgiving trailer!

Reply

I agree with the last post. The biggest reason for this movie not having been successful was its opening weekend. Many teens would've stayed home that weekend with their families. If they were to go out and see films, it would've been to go see some family-friendly fare. The film performed well in both coasts but not in the midwest which makes sense since they are more likely to observe Easter than the other viewers.

Reply

Nah, the thing failed because it makes fun of horror movies from a genre WAY before current horror-hordes were born. It's not horror, it's satire, and there is 'Scary Movie 32' to take care of that.

Kids between 16 and 26 want to see torture porn now...not something that's a spoof of an obscure subculture from the 1970s. It's just a miscalculation.

Not to mention, 'Death Proof' was abysmal. I have enjoyed and appreciated everything Quentin Tarantino has done except this. I had to leave the theater during the second marathon of inane 'girl chatter'. I just couldn't take another beating. If I want to hear girls talk about who they made out with recently, I can go sit at a 'Noodles' on a college campus.

Reply

Here's my theory for why this film flopped in the US:

The people who saw this film and loved it (including critics) are the type of people who will pay to see a movie because of who directed it. It's not normal to be an educated consumer in America, and retailers who count on consumers being educated do so at their peril.

The average American who goes out to the movies wants to know something more about the story, and who will be appearing in it. They don't really think as much about who the director is, and the promotion of this film and the resulting buzz centered around Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino (understandably, because it was a double feature...twice as many stars and plots to talk about). Many people weren't sure why they should care about those names (even if they *had* heard of them), and the fact that it was a double feature just made it that much more of a risk (films over 3 hours had better be *really* good).

I was semi-informed about what I was going to see, having read a few things and also having heard a good review on NPR, but I honestly didn't know much of anything about the characters or the plots until I was sitting there in the theater. I went to see it because of Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino, and I was rewarded for being a smart consumer (realizing that I'm more likely to enjoy all films from a particular director than I am to enjoy all films on a particular subject...like zombies, or car chases).

Other people don't know what they're missing, because the promotion and buzz have failed to tell them what they're missing.

Reply