next »

Must register an account. Click above to enter. Can't log-in? Click here.

[Camamar]

True, but both were relatively modest films that debuted in the $15-20 million range.  This would've been a much better market that the current one, in which studios are releasing their holiday blockbusters.  (December may have even been a better time for Lionsgate to have released the family-themed "Family That Preys" movie.)

Those films are perfect examples of how in-exact film scheduling is!  Who would have predicted they would have been so tepid at the box office?

Even though there's no exact science, there are a few rules that studios tend to observe.  Avoiding the weekends after Labor Day and Thanksgiving is one of them.  No one has been able to crack them- especially with little to no promotion.

I'm not really sure there was little promotion of PWZ.  I'm not in the demographic they were advertising to, but I know from those who ARE in that group that they saw a LOT of television ads...just in places I wouldn't usually see.  The one network show I know there were ads placed was Monday Night Football.  A lot of guys saw them there as well as on late night adult-oriented cartoon networks.  And they were all over the internet in likely places.  Lots of guys told me they saw the ads on wrestling programs, too.  We have to face that the demographic for this sort of film is pretty limited. 

Moreover, the cultural "misery index" is not currently of the same nature as it was in the 70s when revenge films touched such a strong chord in so many.  The misery index right now is more akin to what it was in the 30s, when light comedy fare was so popular.

The 70's were MORE miserable than The Great Depression?  Or The Great Sh*t Pit that is our economy now? Or maybe I just don't understand the definition of misery.

Anyway...... I saw some P:WZ commercials in some likely places. I guess maybe the audience for comics is not so large or enthusiastic as some had thought....or too many people feel no compunction to pay to enjoy a crafted work of entertainment, and just find some site where they can watch for free.... the actors and other creators of the entertainment be d*mned.

*braces self for abuse from those who feel no compunction to pay to enjoy a crafted work of entertainment*

[Nomad]

Cam wrote:

"The 70's were MORE miserable than The Great Depression?   Or The Great Sh*t Pit that is our economy now? Or maybe I just don't understand the definition of misery."

Nomad writes:

I didn't make a quantitative comparison, but a qualitative one.  Certainly the "misery index" during The Great Depression was greater.  MUCH greater.  But I WAS speaking to its economic nature, just as we are experiencing today.

The 70s were more a time of rising violent crime, civil and social unrest, and the greatest challenge to our constitution since...well, maybe EVER!  A lot of people felt that our institutions were not protecting us and there was quite a bit of impotent, internalised rage, which is what revenge movies spoke to.  WE couldn't act out against those things, but it sure was great watching Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood do it for us!

[iblauralee]

I think the timing of the release did impact the movie.  You have a movie like Saw V come out in October and it has made over 50 million.  That movie has a lower rating than PWZ on IMDB.  I just think the Christmas holidays isn't the greatest time to put out this kind of movie.  I also agree that the movie was marketed poorly.  I only knew about the movie because I was an RS fan.  I don't watch football, wrestling, or cartoons so I never saw any marketing besides an advertisement on youtube.  They even did a bad job putting together/maintaining the Punisher movie website.  They didn't even get RS's bio on there until a couple of days before the movie.   

Oh well.  Nothing can be done to change anything now.  I just feel bad for RS and the others involved in the film.  It seemed like a great deal of effort was put out into studying and preparing for this role and so few had the opportunity to see it.   

I just hope that it put RS's name out there a bit more and people see how great he is!

[redshift]

Moreover, the cultural "misery index" is not currently of the same nature as it was in the 70s when revenge films touched such a strong chord in so many.  The misery index right now is more akin to what it was in the 30s, when light comedy fare was so popular.

I have to agree with that. Right now over here, it's all 'High School Musical' and 'Mamma Mia' and very lightweight comedies. 

Perhaps that's no bad thing; as much as many people feel like doing a 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry', it's probably better that they just down another one, join in the kareoke (sp?) and sing along with ABBA.

I like the term 'misery index' though. It made me smile, ironically.

 

[Nomad]

AHAHAHA!  Actually, there really IS a Misery Index with a formula.  It's the average of inflation added to the unemployment rate.  But I just broadened it to include cultural ills like crime and other forms of civil unrest.

[Camamar]

Cam wrote:

"The 70's were MORE miserable than The Great Depression?   Or The Great Sh*t Pit that is our economy now? Or maybe I just don't understand the definition of misery."

Nomad writes:

I didn't make a quantitative comparison, but a qualitative one.  Certainly the "misery index" during The Great Depression was greater.  MUCH greater.  But I WAS speaking to its economic nature, just as we are experiencing today.

The 70s were more a time of rising violent crime, civil and social unrest, and the greatest challenge to our constitution since...well, maybe EVER!  A lot of people felt that our institutions were not protecting us and there was quite a bit of impotent, internalised rage, which is what revenge movies spoke to.  WE couldn't act out against those things, but it sure was great watching Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood do it for us!

I don't know, Nomad. I think a lot of people feel angry & impotent and frightened and sad today, no less than in the 1970's, in a world:

* After September 11, 2001
* After the rich have figured out, even more effectively and efficiently, how to keep more of the economic pie in their hands & out of the hands of everyone else
* After it has become clear to many that the planet has been and is being terribly devastated by human selfishness and it may cause large-scale fighting over things as basic as drinking water sooner than most people could have imagined
* Where all the baby-boomers aren't as mellowed-out as they were in the 1970's.....unless they're doing it via prescription these days

[Nomad]

At least in the seventies, there was a sense of outrage that is very much lacking in today's world.  Rather than speculate on the mellowed-out condition of baby boomers (who are quickly becoming irrelevent) it may be more pertinent to ask about the complete passivity of younger people.  It's really Orwellian to note that the majority of them appear to be constantly hooked into their electronic Soma, concerned about what they can download NOW to their iPods.

*George Bush gets elected TWICE, and suffers NO consequence from the way he was "elected" the first time.

*Nor is there any outrage over Iraq, which certainly was known to be a debacle and a fraud by the time he was elected last time.

*VERY few people have any concern for the environment other than to mock Sarah Palin for shooting wolves from helicopters.

*No one really cared about the abuses at Guantanamo and that American soldiers were employed in torturing people.

Yeah, people are frustrated, especially about the economy, but they don't DO anything about it other than put their heads in the sand and watch "reality" television.

So the point I'm making vis a vis the failure of Punisher War Zone at the box office is that people are currently incredibly passive and don't even FANTASIZE revenge.  They want happy-happy and funny-funny and to try to guess at the office water cooler who is going to get tossed off the island or thrown out of the mansion next week.

Sometimes the success of a film has nothing to do with the film and everything to do with timing.  Ray would be better off making insipid films like Made of Honor.  Unfortunately.

And I promise I'm done with this topic now!   

[Camamar]

>>>At least in the seventies, there was a sense of outrage that is very much lacking in today's world.  Rather than speculate on the mellowed-out condition of baby boomers (who are quickly becoming irrelevent) it may be more pertinent to ask about the complete passivity of younger people.  It's really Orwellian to note that the majority of them appear to be constantly hooked into their electronic Soma, concerned about what they can download NOW to their iPods.<<<

The baby boomers (I'm one. Me Me ME! Sorry. Boomers are used to a lot of attention. )  have been characterized as having had such an impact on society because of their sheer numbers, that I don't know that they will be irrelevant until the last of them shuffle off their mortal coil.

And before that happens, someone may make a lot of money from shrewd investments in mortuary and funerary services -- and before that, in residences and health care for older people. And no doubt the real estate market will be greatly impacted by their comings and goings.

As far as younger people seeming passive, some may just have been raised to too great an extent by electronic babysitters.

I'm done now, too, with this topic. 

[Toduo]

Nomad,

Enjoyed reading your piece and would have to totally agree with you

[mob1]

>>>At least in the seventies, there was a sense of outrage that is very much lacking in today's world.  Rather than speculate on the mellowed-out condition of baby boomers (who are quickly becoming irrelevent) it may be more pertinent to ask about the complete passivity of younger people.  It's really Orwellian to note that the majority of them appear to be constantly hooked into their electronic Soma, concerned about what they can download NOW to their iPods.<<<

The baby boomers (I'm one. Me Me ME! Sorry. Boomers are used to a lot of attention. )  have been characterized as having had such an impact on society because of their sheer numbers, that I don't know that they will be irrelevant until the last of them shuffle off their mortal coil.

And before that happens, someone may make a lot of money from shrewd investments in mortuary and funerary services -- and before that, in residences and health care for older people. And no doubt the real estate market will be greatly impacted by their comings and goings.

As far as younger people seeming passive, some may just have been raised to too great an extent by electronic babysitters.

I'm done now, too, with this topic. 

I think you have hit the nail on the head, Cam.........and, it's about time the entertainment industry discovered the impact baby boomers have on THEM   . I just read that the only movies to do well this weekend were the art house films  hmmm  I never thought of "Milk" or "Doubt" as arty films . They appeal to a different demographic, an older, and/or more educated group who would prefer good dialogue in a film than high bullet/body counts. With the economy in a crisis, it seems the only ones with any money to spend are the older folks who were taught how to manage money, and that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is..ie: creative loans, low initial credit rates, etc. ....

signed ME, another baby boomer.....speaking in general terms. 

[Camamar]

>>>At least in the seventies, there was a sense of outrage that is very much lacking in today's world.  Rather than speculate on the mellowed-out condition of baby boomers (who are quickly becoming irrelevent) it may be more pertinent to ask about the complete passivity of younger people.  It's really Orwellian to note that the majority of them appear to be constantly hooked into their electronic Soma, concerned about what they can download NOW to their iPods.<<<

The baby boomers (I'm one. Me Me ME! Sorry. Boomers are used to a lot of attention. )  have been characterized as having had such an impact on society because of their sheer numbers, that I don't know that they will be irrelevant until the last of them shuffle off their mortal coil.

And before that happens, someone may make a lot of money from shrewd investments in mortuary and funerary services -- and before that, in residences and health care for older people. And no doubt the real estate market will be greatly impacted by their comings and goings.

As far as younger people seeming passive, some may just have been raised to too great an extent by electronic babysitters.

I'm done now, too, with this topic. 

I think you have hit the nail on the head, Cam.........and, it's about time the entertainment industry discovered the impact baby boomers have on THEM   . I just read that the only movies to do well this weekend were the art house films  hmmm  I never thought of "Milk" or "Doubt" as arty films . They appeal to a different demographic, an older, and/or more educated group who would prefer good dialogue in a film than high bullet/body counts. With the economy in a crisis, it seems the only ones with any money to spend are the older folks who were taught how to manage money, and that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is..ie: creative loans, low initial credit rates, etc. ....

signed ME, another baby boomer.....speaking in general terms. 

MOB... I'm afraid I'm one of the baby-boomers treasured by the industry because I don't tend to download things I want to keep. I buy them!

Of course, the media conglomerates which stand to make money that way are glad that some of the older demographic put their money out. But they still court the younger crowd who have no qualms about downloading & file-sharing because the younger demographic creates a more favorable buzz (and maybe because they can sell BUZZ to advertisers on websites? ...Oh, I hope I can soon resume looking at sites which feature Flash on my computer at work.).

Sorry. Did I get roped back into the topic? *forgot my earlier vow* Or is there no recognizable topic anymore? 

*edited to add my little bead icon* Hmm. There probably is a way to make it show up in my posts by default without my remembering to put it there every time...... Not that it matters a lot...

[frank]

The general public was always going to be a tough sell- especially at Christmastime.  The real audience for this was fanboys- a demographic that isn't necessarily dependent upon things such as misery indexes.

However, what they do respond to is negative buzz- something this film had plenty of ever since Thomas Jane dropped out.  So while Lionsgate did make an effort to market to the intended audience, they never really made one to counter the buzz.  Even the positive reviews reflected this fact, as most of them began with statements like, "I really thought this was going to suck...", "I'd read nothing but bad things going into this film...", etc., etc.

Fanboys also tend to be more savvy about release dates than the general public.  So when something is slated for the weekend after Thanksgiving or bumped to the middle of January, they know the studio is dumping it.  Couple that perception with a belief that the studio doesn't respect the source material, and the results can be absolutely fatal.

And the latter is crucial when catering to fanboys.  If they believe the studio doesn't respect a property, not even a million dollar marketing blitz can save the film (ie. Batman and Robin; Catwoman; etc).

[Camamar]

Thanks for sharing that, frank. That helped me to understand better, I think.

[Nomad]

This guy has it right!

WITH BOX-OFFICE attendance off by 3.5 percent this year, it's fair to say Hollywood's not getting any fatter.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't need to make some New Year's resolutions. Here are five ideas to get the industry rolling again.

1. More comedies, please. Audiences have spoken. We will flock to your comedies, no matter how bad they are (Yes, I'm talking about you, "What Happens in Vegas"). This is a year when "Fool's Gold" and "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" spent something like six weeks at the top of the box office. "Yes Man" (as of this writing) is the most popular movie in America, following on the heels of "Four Christmases" and "Madagascar 2." I'd rather have a sinus infection than see "Mamma Mia," but I get why others loved it.

These are lousy times, and we don't want to go to the movies to feel lousier. In "Stardust Memories," aliens put it to Woody Allen this way: "You want to do mankind a real service, tell funnier jokes."

Allen took his own advice. He stopped making movies about treacherous Brits killing each other, and made a movie about gorgeous people making love and drinking sangria in sunny Spain. "Vicki Christina Barcelona" was his best movie in ages.

In this environment, no wonder Judd Apatow is a hot ticket. There's great advance buzz for Apatow regular Paul Rudd and his new comedy, "I Love You, Man" due out early next year.

2. Stop making so many depressing movies. Enough already with the end of the world. "The Day the Earth Stood Still (also known as the Day Keanu Reeves' Face Stood Still"), "City of Ember," "Hellboy II," or "The Happening." M. Night Shyamalan's "Happening" was picked in a Moviephone poll as the year's worst, which is harsh. I saw movies that were far more awful, but I sympathize with voters who want more from a summer movie than a contagion of mass suicide.

Shyamalan is going the action-adventure route with a screen adaptation of "The Last Airbender," and I say hooray for that.

3. Stop hiring Paul Haggis to write James Bond movies. Who's idea was this? Who looked at the Bond franchise and said, "We need more of that 'Crash,' vibe, that 'In the Valley of Elah' thing that Haggis does so well."

Girls, martinis, one-liners. Is that so hard? Are you really telling us that Bond's most meaningful opposite-sex relationship is with Judi Dench?

We don't need Bond to expose the corruption of major intelligence services while somebody follows him around with a hand-held camera. We've got Jason Bourne for that.

4. Stop with the sadism. The action movie and the horror movie are nearly dead, destroyed by writers and directors who think that action and horror are torture and mutilation. Five is enough "Saw" movies. And let's give up on "The Punisher." It didn't work with Dolph Lundgren, it didn't work with Thomas Jane, and it didn't work with Ray Stevenson. Three strikes and you're out.

I saw one pretty good horror movie last year, a Scandinavian vampire story called "Let the Right One In." It's about a vulnerable, bullied boy who's seduced by a monster he mistakes for a protective child. That's what makes it horrifying, not the blood that goes with it. Hollywood's already at work on a U.S. remake; let's hope they get it right.

5. $20 million worth of special effects is not the same as an ending. What a disappointment to see that the best Spielberg and Lucas could come up for grand finale of "Indy 4" was a trite CGI image of a spaceship, or whatever the hell it was was, coming out of the ground.

Steven, George, there's a reason "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight" kicked your butts this summer. They invested in story and character. *

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/features/columnists/20081226_Gary_Thompson__Listen_up__Hollywood__This_critic_is_sick_of_your_bad_flicks.html

Now we just need to see Ray in the lead of a "serious" romantic comedy.  And if he can do it accessing all that Titus Pullo charm, all the better!

[Camamar]

Yes, Nomad!

PLEASE, film makers! Ray is SO much more than a big strong hunk of a man.

*phew*

Seriously. He is a wonderful actor, intelligent and charming and funny and romantic!!! Just re-watch Rome and you can see SO many facets of a man in him.