Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Darkness Falls
-
14-05-2003 10:00am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
Move to horror board mod
I thought this filme was a bit **** tbh....REALLY bad storyline, very cliched script, the acting was O.K, I thought the baddy was below par and didnt find her scary at all...Id say the best bit is the opening bit...other than that its all...stay in the light...DEAD stay in the light DEAD
anywho if your looking for a "leave your brain at the door film" this might be for you..
(or if you are easily scared)0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Saw this today, and I have to admit, I rather enjoyed it.
There was a few 'Jump' scenes near the start, but didn't get scary at all.
It was pretty damn fast-paced, which made it very enjoyable.
Reminded my slightly of aliens.
The end was dreadfull tripe, but I looked at it in a very tongue-in-cheeck light, as the plot was completely bare. Couldn't really take it seriously. I mean, the part wherehe set his hand on fire and punched her!? Pure cheese!!!
On another note, I did find it rather hard to take then main baddie seriously, especially seeing as the whole porcelain mask made her look almost exactly like Arcturus/Kovenant/Mayhem/ect. drummer Hellhammer:
Shocking!0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I'm so glad you chose those two particular films, or at least had no time to find better examples. They give me such a good footing with which to tear apart your argument, whilst bolstering my own.Originally posted by AngelWhore
Oh, now I disagree!
Just an off-hand example would be Gilliam's Baron Munchausen, which got absolutely no backing. Neither did Jacob's Ladder, and those alone are fantastic films. And I'm sure if I had the time I could find plenty of films that are now classics that had little or no advertising to begin with.
In the case of the Adventures of Baron Munchausen.. as you probably read in Hotdog, or Empire, or whatever it was that did a feature on Gilliam recently, certainly the studio gave it very little in the way of financial backing for the production. Precious little, as a matter of fact. A scene that was supposed to involve 2,000 extras got scaled back to having.. 2. But this didn't stop it marketing to a relatively unresponsive public - and why not? It had two-fifths of the Python crew. It had Robin Williams. It had the writer of Brazil. It had Oliver Reed! It had JOHN NEVILLE!
Darkness Falls has... uh... that girl from Buffy?
In the case of Jacob's Ladder.. again, this was a film that the Studio really didn't know what to do with, they couldn't really make out what kind of way to market it. A horror? A psychological thriller? A comedy? Who knows?! But again, it didn't stop them marketing it. It didn't make it to the sides of busses or anything, but it's poster appeared around the place. And again.. why not? It was a good property, they just didn't know what to do with it. Let's go through the list for this film.. they had Adrian Lyne - a pretty big star from Fatal Attraction, 9 1/2 weeks and Flashdance (all HUGE films, by the way), the writer (and producer!) of Ghost, Tim Robbins (quickly becoming a star), Danny Aiello (already a pretty big star).
Darkness Falls has... uh... that girl from Buffy?
These films aren't even in the same league as Darkness Falls. This famous "girl from Buffy" is probably all that saved the film from a straight-to-video release.
Lack of advertising says a lot about the film, whether you'd like to acknowledge it, or not. It means that the studio either didn't know what to do with it, so did... nothing with it, or the studio really didn't think people would lap it up, so didn't make any effort.Originally posted by AngelWhore
Lack of advertising really says nothing about the film at all, in my opinion.
This is not to say that it's a bad film, and that it's not for consumption by anyone. It could be right up your street - but if there aren't 1,000,000 more like you at home, the studio won't give it the time of day. It's a shame, but it's true.
I really don't think you're fully aware of the staggering figures involved here. The 'underground' and 'cult' films that you hadn't heard of, but might have seen around in second-hand video shops represent less than maybe 1% of the total output of all the movie studios each year.Originally posted by AngelWhore
But then again, this is coming from someone who generally goes for far more underground and cult films, and from my experience, there are treasure troves of completely unheard of films out there. And not simply as an exception to the rule, but quite a lot of the time.
So - back on track... uh.. I haven't seen Darkness Falls.
That's the end of my useful contribution to this thread proper
0 -
-
I have a lot of spare time.Originally posted by AngelWhore
Sorry Obeygiant, I dont have a reply as long-winded or sarcastic as yours
There was an article about Gilliam's problems for just about every film he's ever made in Hotdog a couple of months ago. It was basically written to encourage people to go out and get Lost in La Mancha, but has a lot of nice anecdotes about Brazil and Munchausen.Originally posted by AngelWhore
No idea what feature on Gilliam you were reading, because I certainly didn't see it anywhere. But the point being that Munchausen had massive backing for the production, in fact it went from a $25 Million Film to a $45 Million film. Which, back in the 80's was quite a lot!
Just clear something up for me.. what exactly do you mean by these two sentences:
"Gilliam's Baron Munchausen, which got absolutely no backing"
and
"Munchausen had massive backing".
Are you using the words "backing" and "marketing" interchangably? Or are you trying to confuse me with contradiction?
You originally gave Munchausen as an example of a film that got no advertising - it did. Unfortunately, the studios didn't know how to advertise the film or to whom they should advertise, so they advertised the stars associated with it. The studios would have been insane not to at least hype the stars, after paying so much for them.
From what I can see, she is the only 'star' in Darkness Falls. As I said, I suspect she is the only only thing that kept the film from going straight-to-video, but she was not a big enough star ("in the same league" as Gilliam/Neville/Robbins/Williams/Reed/Lyne) to give the studios' marketing departments to work with.Originally posted by AngelWhore
Which brings me to your sarcastic 'girl from buffy' comments. And I'd really ask, how does that come into it!?
He also had joint lead with Robin Williams in Caddilac man, sole lead in Erik the Viking (another, reasonably successful Python-related movie), as well as a pretty big part in Bull Durham. Oh, and he also had a pretty funny appearance in the Sure Thing. Like I said - he was well on his way to being a star.Originally posted by AngelWhore
As for Jacobs Ladder, the biggest thing Tim Robbins was in beforehand was Top Gun, and he didn't make it big until The Shawshank Redemption a few years later. And I dont think anyone really considers Danny Aiello a big star at all.
And maybe I was a bit over-zealous in calling Danny Aiello a "star" - but certainly an amazing character actor. And he was already established as such by the time Jacob's Ladder came around.
It is exactly the point if you give these films as examples of films that weren't given a lot of advertising. In this, you are wrong. They were given quite a bit of advertising, for good reason. Darkness Falls got very little, and from all I've read about it, for good reason too.Originally posted by AngelWhore
Now, as for saying these aren't in the same lague as Darkness Falls is completely besides the point.
Whoa boy, down off that high horse.Originally posted by AngelWhore
This just happens as coincidence that someone brought up the topic of a film needing such things as advertising to be any good in the first place.
This is basically my entire arguement again, as I'm attempting to make the point that a film wouldn't need such superficial "X Y Z" to be any good.
Sarcasm: God knows, the world would probably come to an end if an UNKNOWN actor ever put out an good preformance!? :rolleyes:
Noone ever said that only advertised films are good. Read my comment that you disagreed with earlier, then come back here. For the sake of my sanity, I'm just going to copy & paste something I said earlier that you seem to have missed...
(Talking about films that get little or no advertising) "This is not to say that it's a bad film, and that it's not for consumption by anyone. It could be right up your street - but if there aren't 1,000,000 more like you at home, the studio won't give it the time of day. It's a shame, but it's true."
This is not always the case - it's merely a rule-of-thumb. The amount of advertising a film gets is generally proportional to the level which the studio thinks the general public will accept a film (edit: I originally had the word 'quality' here, but "quality" is such a subjective thing, it isn't what I meant). I'll repeat something from before, paraphrased: "This is just a yardstick, not gospel. Films that receive little advertising (and the same goes for films that receive too much advertising) should signal to the viewer "approach with caution". Not "do not watch under any circumstance". Take the current case as an example... Darkness Falls: A mediocre film that received mediocre advertising.
I've already acknowledged earlier that this does not account for personal taste, just public taste. And I've also acknowledged that there are exceptions to this... so I'm not going to acknowledge these things again 0 -
-
Originally posted by ObeyGiant
I have a lot of spare time.
As have I...
Here goes:Originally posted by ObeyGiant
There was an article about Gilliam's problems for just about every film he's ever made in Hotdog a couple of months ago. It was basically written to encourage people to go out and get Lost in La Mancha, but has a lot of nice anecdotes about Brazil and Munchausen.
Never read hotdog.
And to be quite honest, I'm going by what I've seen in The Hampster Factor.
Maybe it's too Gilliam-centric, but as far as I gathered from it the film got no advertising.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Just clear something up for me.. what exactly do you mean by these two sentences:
"Gilliam's Baron Munchausen, which got absolutely no backing"
and
"Munchausen had massive backing".
Are you using the words "backing" and "marketing" interchangably? Or are you trying to confuse me with contradiction?
Let me introduce you to a little friend of mine called "Context."
'Backing' can be used, as I've used the it in different contexts. When I said Munchausen had no backing, it was meant in relation to what I was saying at the time. Which was about films getting backing in advertising.
Also nicely snipped out was the 'Context' of my second quote, which was "Munchausen had massive backing in production."
Condradiction? No.
You confused? Seemingly.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
You originally gave Munchausen as an example of a film that got no advertising - it did. Unfortunately, the studios didn't know how to advertise the film or to whom they should advertise, so they advertised the stars associated with it. The studios would have been insane not to at least hype the stars, after paying so much for them.
Again, I'm going by what I saw in The Hampster Factor.
So perhaps taking it 'As is' from Gilliam's own mouth was wrong?
Now, disputing with you if it did or did not get advertising seems a bit pointless. Because as I have gathered it, the film was seen as a no-hoper, and hence, they didn't even bother to advertise it. But seemingly, as you said it didn't receive any backing in production, and a quick google seems to prove you wrong... Maybe I'll go with Gilliam's story.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
From what I can see, she is the only 'star' in Darkness Falls. As I said, I suspect she is the only only thing that kept the film from going straight-to-video, but she was not a big enough star ("in the same league" as Gilliam/Neville/Robbins/Williams/Reed/Lyne) to give the studios' marketing departments to work with.
Seems my points just aren't getting through...
Here's a point:
Blair Witch Project.
No marketable leads, but yet marketed to hell!
An original idea/premise done it for the film.
And it made it huge.
So therefor my 'Superficial XYZ' high horse is still riding high.
And you still dont seem to grasp that I'm not defending Darkness Falls as a film with this arguement. So it being in the same league as another film doesn't come into it. Just as you points of who's in the film doesn't come into it.
And yes, I completely realise that I'm off-topic as can be.
'Time on my hands' indeed.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
He also had joint lead with Robin Williams in Caddilac man, sole lead in Erik the Viking (another, reasonably successful Python-related movie), as well as a pretty big part in Bull Durham. Oh, and he also had a pretty funny appearance in the Sure Thing. Like I said - he was well on his way to being a star.
And maybe I was a bit over-zealous in calling Danny Aiello a "star" - but certainly an amazing character actor. And he was already established as such by the time Jacob's Ladder came around.
Well on his way or not, he still didn't make it big untill Shawshank.
And as for Danny Aiello being good or not, I certainly think he's a great actor. But my point being that he couldn't carry a films sucsess, or be the point of any advertising. In fact, he's got many a straight-to-video film and he's still a good actor.
Reminds me of that word I keep using... 'Superficial!'
Perfectly describes it, don't you think?Originally posted by ObeyGiant
It is exactly the point if you give these films as examples of films that weren't given a lot of advertising. In this, you are wrong. They were given quite a bit of advertising, for good reason. Darkness Falls got very little, and from all I've read about it, for good reason too.
Still completely besides the point.
Read above.
Donnie Darko was another film that was a huge flop, because it got next to no advertising. Maybe you could disagree with me, but I dont remember it being advertised, and I don't remember it being in the cinema at all... I'm sure the execs thought it was for good reason too.
Whether or not Darkness Falls got no advertising for good reason is still irrellivant.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Whoa boy, down off that high horse.
Noone ever said that only advertised films are good.
That's what started me off on my rant in the first place!
And it doesn't need to be 'Said', it can be implied.
Which was.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Read my comment that you disagreed with earlier, then come back here. For the sake of my sanity, I'm just going to copy & paste something I said earlier that you seem to have missed...
(Talking about films that get little or no advertising) "This is not to say that it's a bad film, and that it's not for consumption by anyone. It could be right up your street - but if there aren't 1,000,000 more like you at home, the studio won't give it the time of day. It's a shame, but it's true."
I've missed nothing.
Stop being so damn pretentious.
But seeing as I've had a massive arguement with someone for weeks, who Incidentally, I was agreeing with, its doesn't even come into the equasion. I could agree with you untill the cows come home, and still rant like a bitch on acid. And I'll still go on untill I start foaming at the mouth.
My point still stands, but as I keep saying, I'm not ranting to defend Darkness Falls what-so-ever! In fact, it could just be that I'm ranting for the sheer sake of venting off a bit of flustration at, as you so brilliantly put it yourself; "If there aren't 1,000,000 more like you at home, the studio won't give it the time of day. It's a shame, but it's true."
Now do you get it?Originally posted by ObeyGiant
This is not always the case - it's merely a rule-of-thumb. The amount of advertising a film gets is generally proportional to the level which the studio thinks the general public will accept a film (edit: I originally had the word 'quality' here, but "quality" is such a subjective thing, it isn't what I meant). I'll repeat something from before, paraphrased: "This is just a yardstick, not gospel. Films that receive little advertising (and the same goes for films that receive too much advertising) should signal to the viewer "approach with caution". Not "do not watch under any circumstance". Take the current case as an example... Darkness Falls: A mediocre film that received mediocre advertising.
I've already acknowledged earlier that this does not account for personal taste, just public taste. And I've also acknowledged that there are exceptions to this... so I'm not going to acknowledge these things again
Now, as of my above statement, you should indeed be on my line of thought. Or at least I hope you are. Whether or not you agree, or I disagree I'm still going to be ranting at the idea of what the "General public will accept."
No you here, that I fully understand why a film would and would not get advertising, and what the public would and would not go for. But the public does sadly go for complete muck. The public keep the likes of Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant rolling around in money like pigs in ****!!!
And no you here, that I am not ranting to defend Darkness Falls, I'm ranting at the sheer audacity of the public opinion. Or better yet, the preception of the studio exec's idea of it.
I'm also fully aware that I'm not some 'Army Of One' or 'Going to bring down said miss-opinion'... I'm just venting at it.
So, reply if you want, ObeyGiant...
You're a perfectly intelligent person, and I hope to get into a better debate with you. And definetly over something better than this. But I hope you gather that anything you wish to say will have no effect, as I do admit to the pointlessness of it all, other than my own personal satisfaction. And in this case, it's been very satisfying. But perhaps we can indeed debate over something with a more definite ending. Although perhaps maybe we could argue more over Munchausen? Might seem a little pointless, but heck! Satisfaction?
Maybe if you do have lots of time on your hands as you say, you'll 'get' this rant.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Originally posted by ObeyGiant
You should - it's easily as good as Empire as a film magazine.
I rarely read any film magazines.
In fact, last one I read was Total Film last month, and that's because a friend left it behind.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Like I said, over here the film got plenty of advertising, but not in a nice, director-friendly way. How would you feel if you'd just spent the better part of a year bashing your head against a brick wall to get a film made, and at the end of it, the studio, who are supposed to 'sell' the film on your behalf don't get it, and instead go about advertising the "names" behind the film?
You'd probably be pretty pissed.
But make no mistake - Munchausen got a lot of advertising. I still have movie magazines from back then. That film and Young Einstein pretty much dominate the pages. They also had trailers for Munchausen on every CIC video around that time.
Maybe I've a short-term memory, but I dont remember seeing any ads for it. I've also many an old VHS tape, and dont recall seeing anything about it on any of them.
But I definetly remember Young Einstein being advertised.
Perhaps that could be due to my younger sister loving it at the time?Originally posted by ObeyGiant
For the convenience of whoever else is involved in a debate with you, you should make yourself clearer, and avoid using overlapping terms. I know you probably understood yourself perfectly well, but look at this from the point of view of an outsider. This looks like a snotty thing to say, but I'm only saying it because I'm starting to genuinely enjoy these regular head-clashes on this thread.
Anyway... more about the "backing in advertising"/"backing in production" below...
As far as these head clashes go, that does seem like a very low, and snotty stab in the dark, my friend.
It's perfectly clear in context...Originally posted by ObeyGiant
"Precious little" was a slight exaggeration. It received enough to get the film out the door, in a form. But not the form Gilliam wanted. From Gilliam's own mouth: "By the sixth week, all the money was gone, and that's when the **** really hit the fan", "At one point, Film Finance were going to sieze my assets", "I warned [Film Finance] before we'd even started shooting that there were problems (with the budget)". The article tells the tale about how Gilliam put his fist through his car windshield during a meeting with a Film Finance representative, to ask for more money.
Which brings me back to the point about "backing during production"/"backing in advertising". The only reason Gilliam wasn't fired before Munchausen was released was because the studio had already paid lots of money for "A Terry Gilliam Film". Now... seriously... logically... do you think a studio wouldn't advertise something they paid lots of money for? Bring back that list of all the big named stars - do you think they wouldn't at least advertise that? Let me say this again, for the third time in this thread... they did. They advertised the stars. They didn't advertise the film, they advertised "A Terry Gilliam Film, Starring John Neville, Robin Williams et. al" ("Hey, studio.. what's the name of that film?" "Who the **** cares?! It's got Terry Gilliam, John Neville...").
I think you're basically trying to fit a square plug into a round socket...
Companies would completely bury a film if they thought it would give them a bad reputation, no matter what it cost them. The orignal Friday The Thirteenth wasn't marketed at all, the company simply didn't want it out there full stop. It got loads of noteriety though, because it was so controvertial at the time. As was Withnail & I, which was produced by Denis O'Brein, and George Harrison who worked with Monty Python, but didn't think the film was funny at all, so basically they done **** all about it. Now I realise neither of the films were near as expensive as Munchausen, but it still doesn't matter, as a company will rather risk a loss than to have a dirty stain on their sleave. And this is a pretty common thing, so no matter who is in it, I think nothing is below a film exec.
Whatever they payed for, it still wouldn't matter.
In fact, the exec that took over while The Wicker Man was being made wanted that film buried. They even lost the negatives suspiciously... All because they thought that the company wouldn't recover from the film.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
My point has never once been that only films with "marketable leads" are given a massive marketing campaign. I guess you got mixed up when I listed the people in both Munchausen and Jacob's Ladder - I listed these to give some kind of proof (if even only the common-sense kind) to my claim that these films were marketed, but mainly for the names associated with them, with the film itself coming second.
When a studio doesn't know what to do with a film, or doesn't think a film is going to be good enough to stand on its own two legs, it falls back onto Plan B - the stars. In the case of Darkness falls, I'm guessing the studio realised they had a lacklustre product on their hands, and turning to Plan B, the only 'star' they found was.. the Girl From Buffy. Hardly enough to carry an entire move.
I'm sorry - looking back I realise you didn't understand the point I was trying to get at with my comments regarding the Girl From Buffy - I hope the above helps clear it up.
My god you're full of yourself, aren't you!?
Please, don't get so up your own arse.
Saying things like 'You didn't understand that' and suchlike is a sign that you're losing the arguement. Or have no arguement!
Anyway, more to the point at hand...
I never said your point was solely anything!
No mix up, at all.
But how about a better example...
If Darkness Falls was released at Halloween, gauratneed money, not matter how crap it is, or how cliche'd it is, or even if there's nobody of noteriety in it. Look at Jeepers Creepers, for instance! That had HUGE box-office takings, and was easily a worse film than Darkness Falls. They're even making a sequal! Any tripe can be made big with the right timing, and the right advertising. And it wouldn't depend on the plot, or the SFX, or the actors.
So, I'm not insinuating that a film has to have marketable leads to be marketed. Nor am I saying that you meant it that way either. In fact, my point of Blair Witch probably stands better now I think about it, seeing as most of the advertising was a load of 'Scariest film ever' quotes, and some footage of people coming out of the cinema looking all frightened. Couple this with the Scream-style films hitting it huge around the time = perfect marketing!Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Nonsense - he was a big name by The Player and Bob Roberts. At the time of Jacob's Ladder, people at least knew his face, and most could probably put a name to that face.
Alone, he certainly couldn't. But both he and Tim Robbins (at the very least, faces people would recognise) were nowhere near as important as the director and writer.
At the time of Jacob's Ladder, Adrian Lyne was a HUGE name. I've already listed his credits.. Flashdance, 9 1/2 weeks, Fatal Attraction (which he was nominated for a best director). The writer, whose name escapes me right now, won an academy award for his writing on Ghost. These two alone are enough to ensure a film gets some kind of media recognition.
Anyway, I've bitched enough about Tim Robbins not being huge...
Besides, Bob Roberts was never a big film, so as far as I think, you're still flogging a dead horse.
Adrian Lyne isn't that much of a director at all, and I doubt they could EVER market a Psycological Horror film from the director of 'Flashdance' or '9 1/2 Weeks' no more than they could market it from the writer of 'Ghost'... So that's probably just left it with the Fatal Attraction link, which could probably be marketable. But seeing that it was a more of a hot & sexy thriller... Absolutely nowhere near as dark and nihilstic as Jacobs Ladder!
So, I could indeed argue that there is certainly NOBODY involved with the film that could have an audience that it could be marketed towards.
But seeing as Lyne has done absolutely nothing of noteriety or importance since, could be seen that he's only a one-trick pony.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
In America, it got a little advertising. About as much as a low-budget movie by a first-time director with Drew Barrymore on the list of producers could get. Unfortunately, it didn't flop in the States because of poor advertising. It flopped in the States because it opened shortly after September 11th.
Over here - cinemas took a look at it's business in the States, and decided they didn't want any of it.
Ok, now you've got me agreeing with you completely on this point.
Un-argueable, in fact.
Just the thought of the amount of hate mail and 'Distastefull' remarks that could've been aimed at the film would put any exec off marketing it...
And I wondered why I've not seen Fearless on TV for years...? 0 -
Continued...Originally posted by ObeyGiant
I think I've done it. They say every arguement is a quest to find the perfect way to sum up what you've been saying all along. Well - I've read your rant about the taste of the general public, and I think I've done it.. if you read nothing else of this post, read the following:
When a film arrives into a multiplex cinema, with little or no advertising, alarm bells should ring regarding the quality of the film.
Advertising and multiplexes. The two go together like Ben and Jerry. If the advertising is missing - something must be wrong. Noone is saying it's a guaranteed stinker of a film. Noone is even implying that. Just that you should probably take a bit of caution, especially if you're the type to complain about taking a risk, only to given a mediocre film.
Besides - if an "unknown" film is any good, you will generally hear a lot through word-of-mouth. People love to hype the "hidden" stuff they've found.
I would completely argue and disagree there!
In fact, the film Frailty made it to the Omniplex here in Galway.
A place that over-looked many, many a film!
Didn't even show punch-drunk love!
And Frailty was a film that was completely un-advertised, and ignored. Despite it boasted probably the best preformance by a child actor in the last decade! A definite Haley-Joel Osment beater if there ever was one! In fact, the two young brothers in the film were quite brilliant altogether. As was Bill Paxton as the Father.
And I was probably the only person in the cinema for that one...
I also remember it being completely dead for Memento, and I dont remember seeing any posters, or ads for that whatsoever.
Both films I knew absolutely NOTHING about when I went to see them, and they bother impressed me to no end!Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Arguing is never pointless. DeVore et al. would be out of a job if it was.
Didn't say argueing wasn't pointless, I'm just saying my ranting is pointless other than my own self-satisfaction. And to be honest, I'm glad you also enjoy this 'Head-clash' as you put it... We should do this more often. 0 -
-
-
-
Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Hahaha.
I was beginning to wonder if anyone would notice that we'd manage to completely ruin what started out as a reasonable discussion about a film.
I was also beginning to wonder if anyone else was reading this thread
I agree, we must do this agian...
Only, not ruining a thread might keep the doctor away, so to say...
But anyway, my response to previous post:
actually wrote this offline, to try and save something on the huge ****ing bill I'm writing up!
Long time since I've done that!Certainly in the case of Friday 13th, I'd agree with you. This was an extremely controversial film (at the time) that could have damaged a studio's reputation, so the film was quietly "dropped". In the case of Withnail, they really didn't know what to do with the film, so they switched to Plan B - the stars. There were none, so they just didn't advertise it much.
In bundling Munchausen with these films, you couldn't be more wrong - this would not have been a "stain on their sleeve", no matter how bad the actual film was. In "Adventures in the Screen Trade", William Goldman explains how so many films get made by studios just to have a list of names, to put the fear of God into rival studios.. thumbing their nose, saying "nah nah, look who we've got in our movies". This is what happened with Munchausen. It's a well-publicised fact that Gilliam would have been fired from Munchausen, if the studio hadn't desperately wanted "A Terry Gilliam Film" on the title credits.
And even if you don't believe all of what I have just said.. this film did not come out of nowhere. Yes, the number of stars in Munchausen guaranteed that there was coverage from day one, but also giving it a lot of coverage were it's famous financial problems, which helped it gain a uh.. 'reputation'. Oh, and besides, 4 academy award nominations are enough to save any film, regardless of director or cast, from obscurity. Let me repeat that: Four Academy Award Nominations.
Four.
Now look back on your argument here - would a film with FOUR ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATIONS be a "dirty stain on the sleeve" of the studio?
I guess what I'm trying to say is.. just because you hadn't heard of it until recently, doesn't mean it was an widely-unknown film.
Ok, now perhaps you've missread my comments...
Perhaps you actually read it as "Try and be as condescending as you possibly can!"
Lovely the way you have full knowledge of the films I've seen, and furthermore, when I've seen them! Astonishing! Utterly astonishing! Why, you honestly must be some kind of brilliant sage, or a clone of myself with all of my memories? Or better yet, perhaps you're just being an unbeleivably presumptious know-it-all? Now, far be it for me to take the higher moral ground here, as I fully admit that we're both taking some rather sarcastic stabs at each other, but in fairness being as downright childish as telling me when I've seen a film is just not cricket! And, as I've said before, I'm not trying to take the high moral ground here, so therefor I'm not even going to bother with the 'Not going to give you the satisfaction' in reguards to when I did actually see the film, in fact... I'm damn well going to give you the satisfaction! I'm a child of the 80's... Whether you're insinuating that I'm some no-knothing kid, or not, I'm slightly miffed none-the-less. I spent my childhood watching all the great fantasy films of the period, from He-Man to Flight Of The Dragons, or Dragonslayer to Time Bandits (Which incidentally, was probably my first Gilliam film)... Labyrinth to Dark Crystal, or The Last Unicorn, then maybe Conan and Excalibur when I was that bit older... And so forth, and on and on... In fact, I'd rent out loads and loads of these films, and I own many of them on video, and some I've got again today on DVD. There's probably nothing out there from the period, or genre that I've not seen. I also used to love watching the Sinbad movies on Sundays with my dad. My point? I've not just 'Recently Heard Of' Munchausen, in fact, you're completely wrong. It was definetly a favorite of mine, and has been for many years. The first time I saw Death in the film, I was terrified and I had to close my eyes on repeated viewings until I got used to it... But anyway, enough nostalgia! I think my point has been made, whether you'd like to beleive me or go on being completely presumptious, so on with my arguement...
Now, as you say my 'Blundling of these films' couldn't be more wrong, you completely miss my point entirely! Never once did I say that the film was a dirty stain, I certainly didn't mean it, and maybe you took it that way, but you were wrong. My point is to establish that a company would completely bury a film reguardless... Not to imply that Munchausen was said dirty stain. Understand? Now, saying that Withnail & I didn't have anything to advertise with is sheer total contradiction of the points you're trying to make. Example: Monty Python Producers + Comedy + 80's + British Audience = ?
You figure it out...
Now, as for Oscar nominations, I disagree. A nomination is not much of a selling point, whatsoever! One example I could give is Shadow Of The Vampire, which was nominated for 2 oscars, and there is no denying that it is a completely obscure film, and it didn't get shown in the cinema here. A better point would be The Negotiator, which had Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey, both had many a Nomination throughout their careers, did they not? Remind me here... Didn't they both win an oscar or two? Yet why did the film bomb out completely? Surely by your theory, a film that had two of the most popular, and quite brilliant actors of the 90's would be a absolute sure hit? Wouldn't it? Or if an nomination meant that much, why isn't Brad Dourif such a widely known actor? In fact, The Two Towers is probably the only film he's been in recently that had any kind of mainstream chance. Yet, in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, out of a supporting cast that had the likes of Christopher Lloyd, and Danny DeVito, who are now massive stars, Dourif was the one who got the nomination, and he was the one who drifted off into obscurity. Where's the magical powers of the nomination now? I think I've given enough examples now... Moving on...0 -
I want you to right now, go back over the posts that you have made. Pay very close attention to the part where you say "Which brings me to your sarcastic 'girl from buffy' comments. And I'd really ask, how does that come into it!?". You asked me what I meant - you didn't understand what I meant, so I cleared it up and apologised for not making it clearer in the first place. Somehow this makes me "up my own arse"? Or shows I'm "losing an argument"? I'm arguing with someone who is listing personal anecdotes about famous films he hadn't heard of, claiming these films never got any advertising?! I'm arguing about film marketing with someone who claims he rarely reads movie magazines, the main outlet for film advertising?! And you're claiming I'm.. losing?!
Durrrrrr.
Or was the "What do you mean? I don't understand" taken out of context?
There was no "What do you mean? I don't understand" to be taken out of context in the first place! You're really just taking whatever you want from what I'm saying... Now, seeing as you're being utterly condescending, again, maybe I'll do the same. Now, please, go back and read the thread over. I hope you're actually reading it again, rather than rolling your eyes. Maybe I should go back, edit my posts and underline some parts of it? You reading it? Good. Now, if you've read it again, PROPERLY, you should find me saying how my arguement isn't one defending Darkness Falls. I think I've made it a rather poignant point, so you really should've caught on by now. Can you see how I'm saying it wouldn't come into it? Lets recap, shall we? Me not defending said film was made a point of before you made your 'Girl from Buffy' comments. I also said that it wasn't even that good a film from the start, hence putting it aside from the point I was making. I didn't even make any mention of it in the post just before said comments in question were made! This should be evident, as I was saying how I should have started this arguement elsewhere, and that I was completely off topic. Hence, it simply not coming into it! The question is more of an ironic statement, seeing as the entire arguement had nothing to do with the film.
Lets perhaps recap again, just in case it whooshed right past you... But this time, I'll quote myself:And I'd really ask, how does that come into it!? This is basically my entire arguement again, as I'm attempting to make the point that a film wouldn't need such superficial "X Y Z" to be any good.
Ok, what do we see here? We see that I'm making a distinction that I'm trying to make a point that a film doesn't need such things to be good. Take notice of the question preceding it, reading it as an ironic statement. Got it? Now, take notice of my using of the words 'A Film' rather than saying a specific film. Why? Because, as I've made a point of, I'm not talking about a specific film, seeing as I've dismissed the film of topic. With the distinction made that I'm not talking of a certainly film, I have clearly stated that my entire arguement is, quite simply about a film not needing so and so. That simple. Here's it in simpler terms perhaps: "This doesn't come into it, because this is my arguement here."
Lets recap a little more, shall we!?
Basically, all I said at the start of this whole thing was"Personally, films I've seen without any prior knowledge of who's in them, or what they are about can be some of the most suprisingly good." and "it's a slightly immature thing to say that you'd need to know something about the film prior to seeing it." Now, see the arguement!? There's the arguement, nothing more to it! THAT'S IT! So, the "How does such and such come into it?" comment was completely relevant, and still is. Understand!?
I can almost see the reply of 'You should have been more clear' or 'For the convenience of those involved in a debate with you'... Tell you what? Would it make it easier if, from now on, I have little brackets with a discription of what a statement is reffering to, or what a statement is meant to mean, or what context it is in, or whether it's sarcastic or ironic. Maybe some more paragraphs between statements that, despite being clearly not reffering to something, can be easily taken in the wrong way by some 'Special' people. Would that make you happier? On second thoughts, perhaps I'll not be arsed.
Now, moving on again...
Here's another lovely example of such pretentious 'Head Up Arse' presumtion you're so good at: "I'm arguing with someone who is listing personal anecdotes about famous films he hadn't heard of, claiming these films never got any advertising?! " Which quite frankly, is a childish and belittling comment. And here's another: "I'm arguing about film marketing with someone who claims he rarely reads movie magazines, the main outlet for film advertising?!" Or maybe "Durrrr" just says it all?
I dont even know if I'm going to bother to respond, as such statements just tear themselves apart.
Well, maybe a little responce at the idea of film advertising being mainly the domain of magazines.
Maybe a little sarcasm would do?
When I was a wee nipper, they used to advertise movies before other movies when one would attend something we used to call a Cimenatograph!
God help us if we ever get into a debate at a boards beer...
It'll be handbags at 30 paces!!!I'm sure Francis Ford Coppola as an executive producer helped. I really enjoyed the first hour of Jeepers Creepers when I saw it first. I was not in the least bit surprised when they announced a sequel, since as you said, it had huge box-office takings.
Yet you're trying to tell me that the producers of Monty Python couldn't sell a Comedy?
Durrrrrrr...Let me explain something. I'll prove it at the end of this paragraph, although I'm sure you'll know who I'm referring to quite quickly. When a director has had a string of hits (regardless of the genre), culminating in an Academy Award win (or even nomination), they allow that director a little.. leeway. The director can come to them with _anything_, and they'll green-light it. Even if the film is terrible, they can tack a "From the academy-award winning director of...", and have people check it out. The proof, if you haven't guessed already.. Gun Van Sant.
Jacob's Ladder not only had an Academy Award-nominated director, but an Academy Award-winning writer. If you don't think these things play any part in Hollywood politics, you're either a moron, or incredibly naive.
Also - Fatal Attraction has possibly the best portrayal of a genuine psycho, from any film ever.
As I've made clear above, I certainly know that these things make a difference, and I dont doubt it, but they certainly don't play as big a part as you're making out. I think that the oscars aren't the best selling point at all, as people will generally have prefferances no matter how gullible a market they are. If they like a certain somebody, that's what they want to see. Adam Sandler for instance, has an audience so he'll get that audience, whereas a film that won a certain amount of oscars simply wouldn't necciseraly appeal to the general public.I mean, comparing an Adam Sandler film, to say, The Pianist. Sandler most certainly would win out in the popularity stakes because he has the audience for it, whereas most of them aren't going to see a gruelling war film regaurdless of how many oscars it won. Another example is that, only a few years from when it was made, Titanic is now pretty much thought of as crap, and it's generally forgotten. Yet it won 11 oscars! Although that might be slightly besides the point, what has James Cameron done since? Off the top of my head, he's not even directing the new Terminator film... So something has to be said of the influence of Mr. Oscar, or indeed your 'Proof'.
Personally, I think I'm rather correct in saying so, but I'm never going to be as arrogant to have claimed I've "Proved" anything!Uh.. that would be a six-trick pony. Flashdance, 9 1/2 weeks, Fatal Attraction, Jacob's Ladder, Indecent Proposal and Lolita. Oh, and Unfaithful with Richard Gere did alright. So, a six-and-a-bit-trick pony?
Indecent Proposal! Don't make me laugh! And I wont even dignify Unfaithful with a response. But, I'll give you this one... I was wrong in saying 'one-trick-pony'. Both Fatal Attraction and Jacobs Ladder are great films, but I still say he hasn't done anything worthy after those films.
Also, I'd like to end by saying, I hope we can finish this arguement soon. It's really eating up some time I could waste elsewhere.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
So.. you've been trying to make a point that noone here actually brought up?Originally posted by AngelWhore
Sorry, did I insinuate that I meant anyone here said that a film needs XYZ to be good?
No wonder this has taken so long to wind down.
In all fairness, namechecking a bunch of movies has not proved me 'wrong', but this is, again, irrelevant. I was merely trying to point out that you had given two examples of modestly well-known films that got modest advertising when you were trying to prove a point about unknown films that got no advertising.Originally posted by AngelWhore
I'd saying it's very relevant to the fact that you called my film experience into question, in which you were utterly wrong.
So if you think it's irrelevant, then you've only got yourself to blame for bring it up.
Indeed it was. Having now taken the time to re-check my facts, it appears they _opened_ in 52 cinemas (and it did remarkable business in those cinemas). However, there were disputes between the studio and the distributors about how well the film would do elsewhere.. the studios wanted it showing.. well.. most places, and the distributors thought it would only sell very well in big cities. In the midst of all this, the film didn't get buried.. it got 'dropped' for a little while. When it was picked up again, and shown in places like Spain and France, it did amazing business. It was number one in both of these countries for a month or two. And then there was the video release - the video distributors had been a major financial backer of the film during production, so they ensured a large distribution and marketing campaign.Originally posted by AngelWhore
I could guess that it would be an extroardianary amount more than just 52. (I'd like to point out that I understand the number 52 may be incorrect.)
Not any more. India now has the largest film industry and film market in the world.Originally posted by AngelWhore
Maybe I'm mistaken, as I thought America was the biggest movie market on earth?
Malkovitch had a few things going for it that saved it from a complete arthouse release, the main ones being the two leads - Cusack and Diaz, who at that time were pretty much darlings of Hollywood. There was also the heavily-connected director (married to Sofia Coppola, daughter of Francis Ford), who had already made a name for himself with the Mtv crowd with his famous videos.Originally posted by AngelWhore
Now, in fairness... Lets take Being John Malkovich here. An rather art-house film, with a first-time Director, I think it was nominated for an oscar or two(I could be wrong, I don't bother keeping track of the oscars in general), released the same year as Shadow... Did pretty damn well, as I remember, and it was show for quite a while here in the Omniplex.
(Also: Shadow of the Vampire was nominated for two Oscars)
There's no arguing that he's made some very good career choices, or even that he's a bad actor. I absolutely love Exorcist III, and he rocks mightily in it. But he's so incredibly erratic. I think Spontaneous Combustion was his next film after Mississippi Burning - whuuuuuuuuut?Originally posted by AngelWhore
I'd argue that he's also made some damn good ones. Missisipi Burning was a brilliant film, and he was very good in it. He's also had some utterly fantastic guest-parts in the X-Files, Star Trek, and Babylon 5.
Cool - that gives me a chance to look down on someone too. The circle of life is complete.Originally posted by AngelWhore
And yes, it is rather pretentious of me, isn't it? But I'm still going to look down on the majority of film-goers reguardless.
Well, there was that too. When a director tells you to release his bleak, downbeat, 142-minute version, and the producers are insisting that you only release their 90-something-minute version... it can affect your judgement as to how to sell it. Starting with a big question - which one do you sell? Either way, the python in question never got a chance to 'sell' the movie.Originally posted by AngelWhore
Maybe I'm wrong, and I am going by interviews with the director here, but it was the producers who didn't get it
The Criterion Collection version of Brazil also rules, although I haven't gotten around to listening to it with the commentary yet.0 -
Advertisement
-
I was gonna reply to this tomorrow, but I'll have a stab at it...Originally posted by ObeyGiant
So.. you've been trying to make a point that noone here actually brought up?
No wonder this has taken so long to wind down.
Bingo!
It was just a comment that started me off on a rant, nothing more.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Indeed it was. Having now taken the time to re-check my facts, it appears they _opened_ in 52 cinemas (and it did remarkable business in those cinemas). However, there were disputes between the studio and the distributors about how well the film would do elsewhere.. the studios wanted it showing.. well.. most places, and the distributors thought it would only sell very well in big cities. In the midst of all this, the film didn't get buried.. it got 'dropped' for a little while. When it was picked up again, and shown in places like Spain and France, it did amazing business. It was number one in both of these countries for a month or two. And then there was the video release - the video distributors had been a major financial backer of the film during production, so they ensured a large distribution and marketing campaign.
Hmmm... At least I knew I was right in assuming that it DID do better on video than it did in the cinemas. But it's totally clear we're still not going to agree, so I'm just going to drop this.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Not any more. India now has the largest film industry and film market in the world.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that.
Still find it a little hard to swallow.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Malkovitch had a few things going for it that saved it from a complete arthouse release, the main ones being the two leads - Cusack and Diaz, who at that time were pretty much darlings of Hollywood. There was also the heavily-connected director (married to Sofia Coppola, daughter of Francis Ford), who had already made a name for himself with the Mtv crowd with his famous videos.
(Also: Shadow of the Vampire was nominated for two Oscars)Originally posted by ObeyGiant
There's no arguing that he's made some very good career choices, or even that he's a bad actor. I absolutely love Exorcist III, and he rocks mightily in it. But he's so incredibly erratic. I think Spontaneous Combustion was his next film after Mississippi Burning - whuuuuuuuuut?
I don't think I've ever seen Spontaneous Combustion...
Take it you reconmend it highly?Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Cool - that gives me a chance to look down on someone too. The circle of life is complete.
Oh, the irony!
I was only tonite watching Blackadder on DVD...
"It is the way of the world, Baldrick. The abused always kick down-wards. I'm annoyed, and so I kick the cat. The cat pounces on the mouse, and finally, the mouse..." "Ow!" "...bites you on the behind." "What do I do?" "Nothing. You are the last of God's great chain. Unless, of course there's an earwig around here that you'd like to victimize?"Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Well, there was that too. When a director tells you to release his bleak, downbeat, 142-minute version, and the producers are insisting that you only release their 90-something-minute version... it can affect your judgement as to how to sell it. Starting with a big question - which one do you sell? Either way, the python in question never got a chance to 'sell' the movie.
The Criterion Collection version of Brazil also rules, although I haven't gotten around to listening to it with the commentary yet.
I'd assume the 90-minute version would be the one to be sold, would it not? That's what eventually came out, so why not?
As for Brazil, yes I've seen that in town, mite expensive though. And seeing as I'm heading to the boards beer next week, I'll need to save my cash. Incidentally, are you going?
Could this have ended any more off-topic!?0 -
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement