The Big Picture: The Numbers

[Imp_Emissary]

As if I wasn't angry enough at the points Bob raised regarding box-office emphasis and profit (that Universal tried to establish a unique demographic among intelligent, self-aware movie lovers and got its ass handed to it by a fucking overly masculine, pandering, poorly written pile of mindless garbage), I reached the point of infuriation when I heard that not only are people seeing Pirates 4, but it's the highest grossing movie this year with a ridiculous $250million dollars intake globally in the first week. Cut that shit out humanity.

Well, you know what they say. If it sells more it must be good. Just ask the crack dealers.

 

[fundayz]

I liked Scott Pilgram and it's a real shame it didn't do well. But it's not surprising either. A lot of the jokes and references would even have gone over the heads of a large section of modern gamers. Sometimes you've got to face reality

This. To any non-gamer, non-geek the movie was terrible. No matter what geeks think, making Scott Pilgrim was a bad decision on Universal's part.

MovieBob's argument boils down to "most people don't like the movies I do, so movies I like aren't made as often BAWWW".

 

[FangShadow]

I do believe bob has a point. It does seem that for both movies and games, when something fails, people tend to completely seal off that direction as though it's filled with leppers and nuclear fallout. I believe that instead of just sealing of the area, we should go through and see why these things failed. It seems that most of the time, the risky things fail in execution.

Now I do agree that the market determines what gets made, and thinking of the way things are at least from where I live in the USA (for those wondering, the bible belt south), its one of those things where you'd rather take the safe unoriginal bet and be sure you'll at least have some fun than risk going to something that may be better conceptually and risk having no fun.

Keep in mind I saw expendables and have yet to see scott pilgram (wanted to see it opening day as I had yet to hear about the franchise before hand, but went with friends and they pretty much wanted expendables. it was ok, but doubt I'd watch it again.)

Not trying to start a war but that is how I see it....

 

[Inuprince]

The only thing I can say is - the movie business didn't start today - so what's the big surprise in all of this? The film starring famous action stars outsells the niche appeal movie - oh my god what a surprise.

If this is really the only reason Universal didn't highlight the Lovecraft movie - (which really sounds awesome we can all agree on that) - then you can go and throw your hatred at the studio because they are idiots for showing it the same weekend - I am not an expert but they probably knew when The Expendables were coming out - and since, to them especially, the box office is what matters, why didn't they put the Scott Pilgrim movie later (2-3 weeks later) - there's not a blockbuster every week - why show your movie the same week when an anticipated superteam action-movie is coming out?
They can only blame themselves.

This exists in the game industry as well - if I am a developer of say ... strategy games - and I have a brand new take on the genre - however good I believe it to be - I am sure as hell not going to release it the same week the new Call of Duty comes out, cause then I am screwed for SURE.

 

[DearFilm]

I liked Scott Pilgram and it's a real shame it didn't do well. But it's not surprising either. A lot of the jokes and references would even have gone over the heads of a large section of modern gamers. Sometimes you've got to face reality

This. To any non-gamer, non-geek the movie was terrible. No matter what geeks think, making Scott Pilgrim was a bad decision on Universal's part.

MovieBob's argument boils down to "most people don't like the movies I do, so movies I like aren't made as often BAWWW".

I am a gamer and a lite-to-moderate geek, but I still found Scott Pilgrim terrible. It is just like how I felt about Paul: references and winks and nudges do not make up for a poorly constructed story.

 

[Gindil]

The Numbers

How Scott Pilgrim ruined Guillermo del Toro's day.

Watch Video

Bob, I love your commentary but you should look at just ONE guy and notice why the first three days or a week shouldn't matter.


He's made his OWN movie and he's currently in the black. The movie was for 4 million (Red State) and before it's been distributed, he's made it all back.

F___ Hollywood. Guillermo should talk to Smith.

 

[The Gawaine]

Guess what I happen to be reading right now? (now exactly now)

 

[Alar]

That sounded like it would have been the greatest monster horror movie ever made...

What the hell was Universal thinking? -sigh-

 

[FangShadow]

If this is really the only reason Universal didn't highlight the Lovecraft movie - (which really sounds awesome we can all agree on that) - then you can go and throw your hatred at the studio because they are idiots for showing it the same weekend - I am not an expert but they probably knew when The Expendables were coming out - and since, to them especially, the box office is what matters, why didn't they put the Scott Pilgrim movie later (2-3 weeks later) - there's not a blockbuster every week - why show your movie the same week when an anticipated superteam action-movie is coming out?
They can only blame themselves.

This exists in the game industry as well - if I am a developer of say ... strategy games - and I have a brand new take on the genre - however good I believe it to be - I am sure as hell not going to release it the same week the new Call of Duty comes out, cause then I am screwed for SURE.

I also agree with this. It was just a bad idea to launch anything the expendables at least for the first week or two. The expendable pretty much had the heavy advertising and nostalgia factor going all at once.

captcha: saltes grant ...?

 

[fundayz]

I am a gamer and a lite-to-moderate geek, but I still found Scott Pilgrim terrible. It is just like how I felt about Paul: references and winks and nudges do not make up for a poorly constructed story.

Exactly. Angry nerds might say "oh the expendables was trash and is only a pander to the lowest common denominator" but they don't realize Scott Pilgrim and other "geek" movies are the exact same thing, a pandering to a the lowest "geek" denominator.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I'll be honest, considering the number of people who really enjoyed Fast 5, the move to a sequel is bringing happiness to more people. It's not like PotC4, it's actually good at what it wants to be and what people want to see

I liked Scott Pilgram and it's a real shame it didn't do well. But it's not surprising either. A lot of the jokes and references would even have gone over the heads of a large section of modern gamers. Sometimes you've got to face reality

^_^ I reject your reality and put in its place my own. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go play Tomba! 3 with Heath Ledger.

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

WE GET IT, BOB! You don't like the Expendables. But stop blaming it for Scott Pilgrim's failure. Scott Pilgrim was a big budget movie that catered to a small, niche audience. The nerd crowd is not big enough to support an expensive movie (this is why super hero movies tend to cater more towards a wider audience, and thus make more money). It didn't matter when it came out, or what it came out against, it was going to do poorly in the box office anyways.

 

[K V MAN]

great topic as usual Movie BOB,

now if any one asks why i quit movies i'll refer your video, thanks.

 

[Sutter Cane]

To me the reason Scott Pilgrim failed was the same reason that Kickass failed.

They were advertising films that weren't going to happen.

If you never read Kickass and only saw the trailer then you'd think it was just a comedy on some guy who tries to be a superhero, isn't that good but internet memehood inspires others to take up the mantle as he then gets better and eventually all the heroes team up to face the bad guy with the little girl and dad being the best ones even if no one takes them seriously.

Kickass was alright but it wasn't the film the non-geeks were promised, the general public looked it up and realised it wasn't their cup of tea after they realised the film was going to stay true, they wanted wacky comedy, not dark comedy that abandons comedy by the third act with the torture scene (seriously... why? it's marketing hell). It failed.

Scott Pilgrim also was advertised as just comedy until the above scenario happened.

Basically if people want to make movies like Kickass and Scott Pilgrim then they need to ditch the dark and drama and only make it a spoof of the genre or just comedy if they want the Hollywood cash flowing in.

Sad? Yes. Necessary? Also yes.

Kick Ass was a finincial success. From what i understand they had pretty much already covered their budget before the film even hit theaters

 

[gellert1984]

OK, so I actually like the fast and the furious, I've kinda enjoyed the movies, they arent special but they are fun.

However, I would gladly sacrifice whole small fishing hamlets along the coast to the Elder gods to see a good lovecraft movie. This makes me a sad future insane servant to beings for whom irrepressible evil is just a side effect of living.

 

[DearFilm]

I am a gamer and a lite-to-moderate geek, but I still found Scott Pilgrim terrible. It is just like how I felt about Paul: references and winks and nudges do not make up for a poorly constructed story.

Exactly. Angry nerds might say "oh the expendables was trash and is only a pander to the lowest common denominator" but they don't realize Scott Pilgrim and other "geek" movies are the exact same thing, a pandering to a the lowest "geek" denominator.

But since geeks are so much better than everyone else, their lowest common denominator is still genius by comparison. Obviously.

 

[Anchupom]

That's majorly upsetting. I would have happily forged a fake I.D. to get into that film when it was out, if my birthday hadn't happened yet.

It sounded incredible! Damn you, Universal, you were the best studio and now you've gone back to your wicked ways...

 

[Xenominim]

Scott Pilgrim decided to target the geek demographic and failed to make a profit, that was the issue. To someone who knows games and geek culture, by and large yes the movie is wonderful (though even many people there didn't enjoy it). But if you don't know geek culture, well then the movie is bound to be terrible. All those videogame sound and visual effects, guys turning to coins, anime style fight scenes, if someone isn't into that kind of stuff it comes off as completely random and idiotic with no explanation given as to why those things are happening. I know perfectly well that my parents wouldn't enjoy the movie, my mother has only ever played Tetris, and my Dad hasn't played anything since the original NES, they're not going to get why a 64 hit combo popping up randomly during a fight is funny. So I don't blame most people for not seeing and enjoying it, the movie is only entertaining if you get the references.

 

[vxicepickxv]

I would have loved to been able to see Scott Pilgrim in theatres, but I was never given the option. Did buy the Mega Pack with DVD and Blu Ray and a digital copy, but I can only do so much.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

Ugh...

While I agree the cancellation of Mountains sucks and I liked Scott Pilgrim when it came out, the rest of this video just sounded.... bland and preachy.

Look, I've never seen the Expendables so I can't say how good or bad it is (its doesn't look fantastic, but I'll wait till I see it to reserve judgement), but blaming the audience that went to see isn't necessarily a good response. Look, when I watched Scott Pilgrim I knew that even if it were to be the only movie that came out that weekend and the weekends after that that it still probably wasn't going to do well BO wise. Why? Because it had a very niche audience. This isn't an issue of the movie-going populace being idiots, this is an issue that this was a movie that only really had a particular audience in mind. No amount of advertising or availability was going to change that. You may argue that if they were "smart" or "sophisticated" that they would see it, but thats stupid. Even after watching Scott Pilgrim, my second favourite movie of the summer (first was Inception), I did not think it was some sort of god-send that shook the industry. It was fun, funny, and clever sure, but smart? Perhaps smarter than the other movies released then, but not enough to classify it as "smart".

Besides which, think of this at least. Consider the top 3 movies in the BO the next few weeks after Scott Pilgrim was released: The Expendables, Eat, Pray, Love, and Vampires Suck. What do these movies all have in common? Poor reviews, but also follow some cookie-cutter production. Which means what a person expects is what they get. You say that these movies did well because the audiance are morons, but think about it for a moment: how many people are able to see several movies in a week? In this economic climate not many, so rather than take a risk nd potentially find yourself not liking something (again, unless the movie itself was changed I can't imaginethe same audience that saw the Expendables liking Scott Pilgrim) or go with whats safe and get the most bang for your buck.

If everyone had the time or the money to see every movie that comes out then one movie not doing well would be a problem of the audience (or, "gasp", a problem of the movie), but when most people are in a sitation where they have to put their priority for living above their priority for entertainment in general, do you seriously expect them to go out on a limb for an audience they have no connection to? I like several movies, games, and music that sometimes just doesn't bring in enough to justify other new things, which indeed bums me out, but I do not expect the rest of the world to bow their likes and dislikes to mine just so I can have more stuff and they can have less.