My sister saw it in Paris while she was on her term abroad. She said it was amazingly good, but I always take her movie reviews with about a pound of salt. She could be right on this one though. Focus: I consider Batman and Robin to be a huge flop despite its financial success, based solely on the number of careers it murdered. Alicia Silverstone and Chris O'Donnell dropped off the face of the earth despite both previously being labeled rising stars, and Uma Thurman would have vanished too if Quentin Tarantino hadn't performed some professional CPR in 2003. Even for Schwarzenegger, it marked the beginning of the end of his action hero career. (Though you could also say it was Jingle All the Way the previous year.) The only one to get out of it with any grace was Clooney, likely because he'd already been lined up for The Thin Red Line the next year.
It seems after Goldmember, Mike Myers stopped giving a rats ass about quality comedy films and started sucking every major motion pictures dick who gave him a script. The first major blow(job). I kinda like this movie nowadays, watching on TBS every now and then. You know for the "it's so bad it's good" reasons
Not sure if anyone butmy family and me saw this one back when Bill Clinton ruled the world, but Being Human with Robin Williams was so fucking bad that the theater we went to go see it in had put up notices that they were not offering refunds for patrons who thought it was a piece of shit. This was back when Robin Williams thought he could do anything. He was much better off as a coke head doing stand up in San Fran in his fucking rainbow suspenders.
I'd like to nominate... Motherfuckin' Snakes on a Motherfuckin' Plane which may not have been a huge flop, in financial terms (how much could that have cost to make?) but in marketing terms it was a huge disaster. The thing had HUGE internet buzz, but still nobody went to see it. It really proved how unviable buzz marketing and word of mouth really are, especially in terms of the internet. It's actually the crux of an argument I use a lot, you can't just rely on facebook groups/fan pages internet buzz to sell your stuff for you.
It actually cost a significant amount of money to make ($33 million production budget) and roughly broke even, or made a small profit by making $62 million worldwide, most of it in the opening weekend. That's probably a lot more money than it would have made otherwise. That is, the attention it received on the Internet saved it from being a major financial flop. No doubt, "Internet buzz" is not nearly as effective as Tucker thought, nor is it nearly as valuable as a bunch of other factors, but I think it was a positive factor in this instance.
[If this post is too long and/or off-topic, just say the word] Well said Samr. I agree with everything you explained wholeheartedly, and to expand on that note: I've seen the movie three times already, with three completely different groups of friends… 1. The first time I saw it at a premiere, and I liked it on the whole, but it was a letdown in terms of how much I laughed and just overall how funny it was. That being said, I still found it to be as enjoyable to watch as The Hangover--it made up for not having as many laughs by just being a fun, entertaining, and (maybe most importantly) refreshingly realistic comedy. Which to me is exactlylike the book--a lot of the stories I didn't necessarily think were "laugh-out-loud funny," but they were engaging and well-worth the read nonetheless. 2. Second viewing--Although I remembered most of the funniest lines, not only did I still find them funny, but I picked up on tons of other funny things that I didn't notice the first time because of it being overshadowed by audience laughter or just because it was more subtle humor. So overall, I thought the movie was even funnier the second time around. 3. Third viewing—This was about three weeks after the second one. Basically this time, I laughed my ass off harder than even the second viewing. I have no real explanation for why this was the case, but it’s true nevertheless. (On an unrelated note, one thing I did notice was this old, innocent, upper-class-country-club looking couple when I first walked in the theatre. Boy, are they in for a surprise, I thought. Hell, throughout the whole movie I could hear them laughing their asses off along with us—they were those “I know I should be offended by this humor, but I just can’t help myself, it’s too funny” type laughs.) --The only other movie that was like this for me so far has been The Big Lebowski, and to a lesser extent Office Space, but the movies seem so different to me I don’t know if you could consider them comparable, speaking strictly in terms of content. --It is worth noting that the majority of the 8 or so friends that I watched it with (the 2nd and 3rd viewings, not the premiere) thought it was better AND funnier than The Hangover. These friends ranged anywhere from hard partyers to temperate bookworms. The one thing they had in common--they all practically worshiped The Hangover before seeing IHTSBIH, and none of them had ever heard of Tucker Max or the book. In fact, me repeatedly telling them this fact was the the only way I could convince them to drive almost 2 hours to watch it. --One of these friends, even though he was laughing harder than any of us, was trying to pretend like he was offended throughout the movie…...because he was with his conservative, Asian girlfriend. To me that’s indicative of a movie that pushes comedic boundaries in ways that most typical Hollywood comedies don’t, and an integral part of the formula that results in a so-called cult classic. Anyhow, these are the reasons why there is no doubt in my mind that IHTSBIH has the potential to become a cult classic and a long-term success. If you can laugh harder upon the third viewing of a movie than upon the first viewing of a movie as successful as The Hangover (only speaking for myself though of course), then I don’t think there’s any argument as to whether the potential is there. The thing that I think could hinder this potential the most is a general lack of awareness among the movie-viewing population that this movie even exists. Office Space was a huge box office disappointment, but I’ve read that it being shown on Comedy Central tons of times helped fuel its popularity, which of course led to eventual financial success and status as a cult classic (see link below). Something similar to this could help IHTSBIH tremendously, although then there’s the issue that it might be much less entertaining if it had to be edited for TV audiences. I guess time will tell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_space#Legacy
Here's the thing; just because a film is very good, or very funny, does not mean it will be a success in any format, whether that be theatrical release or DVD. There are a hundred examples. I think that's what Tucker failed to realize. For all the talk of Hollywood being evil and "not making art", they only want to make sure they don't end up losing billions of dollars and their jobs. And beyond that, the comparison he made to "Office Space" was terrible; that film made $10.8 million in 1999 on a $10 million production budget, which factoring in inflation, is roughly 10 TIMES as much money as Tucker's film made. That's a gigantic difference, even if neither was a success. Also, while I thought Tucker's film was good, "Office Space" was legitimately great, and alienated fewer of the viewers. (Allowing it to be aired on Comedy Central, where I first saw it) Tucker's film, a hard R comedy that would lose a lot from its cuts, won't be aired on any of the networks. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but the correlation between film quality and its monetary success has an R value much weaker than 0.9 . That was one of the main points Biscuit made on the old board when he wrote that he hadn't seen the actual movie, but he didn't think it would matter. (And it didn't)
I hate to be a hater here. I mean everyone knows I think a lot of good things about Tucker. But I think if Tucker's movie had been very good - it would have been more of a success. I'd love to see IHTSBIH made with Ryan Reynolds or Justin Timberlake and directed by someone other then Bob Gosse with Tucker and Nils taking a much more background role after the writing was done. Tucker made a bunch of calculated risks to keep creative control and maintain brand strength if he succeeded. JT or Reynolds would have diluted brand strength dramatically. Maintaining Creative Control and finding a Director who'd work the way he wanted to meant he came out with something that I think was poorly directed and I think the post production could have benefited from having someone else more in control of the process. The script was good. Really good. But the end product just wasn't. I really wanted it to be something different - but ignoring everything except the 'art' of the film - I thought it looked, sounded and felt like a poorly funded indie. I know Tucker would hate being compared to Troy Duffy - but Boondock Saints was a fantastically made movie on a 6 million budget. Frankly, I don't see Tucker pulling $50 million on DVD. I'm not sure I see him making $5 million on DVD. I think if Tucker had been prepared to sacrifice some of the control, or allow his personal brand to be more diluted by casting someone else in the title role - he could have made a much better movie. I see why he didn't do those things - but he gambled and it just didn't pay. That said, I think calling it a flop requires a personally invested view from being around the old boards and knowing so many of the people involved in such an impersonal way. I just don't think the movie generated enough cultural awareness, or started with enough capital behind it to qualify it as a flop. I'd struggle to name any Kevin Costner movie that I don't personally consider a flop on Artistic grounds (other then Bull Durham, fair call). But I hear he's made some people a fair amount of money.
This, intelligent and legible, discussion on IHTSBIH is totally warranted and allowed. Just please don't let it derive into Tucker-hating, RMMB-mentioning, trite. Please.
That was probably my main issue with the movie. I loved almost all of the jokes and the dialogue in general. And I can understand not making it bright and "cinematic" looking to keep it realistic, but it was downright grainy, and this is not to mention the random changes in color tones. Plus, in several scenes (namely the bar scenes) the background music and noise drowned everything out. I mean, when the viewer has to struggle just to hear the actual words spoken by the main characters, that's just...inexcusable to say the least. I don't understand why or how they didn't fix that.
That's an interesting point I hadn't considered; yes, Tucker tried very hard to protect his brand, and have the movie fit the exact specifications he wanted. At the same time, he was taking a tremendous risk, believing that his vision was completely prescient, and that the success of the picture was assured. If the movie was going to be a hit regardless, it was the right choice. But since that was far from the case, and they needed to improve whatever slim chances an indie has of winning the lottery, it was the wrong decision. scootah, I'm not sure I agree with you that casting a major actor would have made any difference, (look at all the sub 2 million dollar grosses for films starring major Hollywood stars, but no P&A budget) but there's no question they screwed up with the director. The cinemaphotography and sound were very poor, partly due to having a director with limited work on anything except small-time indies back in the 90s, and partly by not having that guy participate in the editing process from the conflicts they had. Finally, I'm curious why Tucker thought that the movie was such a slam dunk in terms of viewer satisfaction; the severely biased premiere tour and audience tests couldn't have been it, could they? It was a severe blind spot in their calculations; movies, unlike art pieces, or even books these days, need an extraordinarily large number of people to see them in order for them to be profitable. Generating positive word of mouth means near-unanimous approval across at least one major demographic, something this film just didn't have from what I've seen. (Even on the old board) Ultimately though, everything above is a little besides the point. One doesn't have to dig for any reason why an indie failed. That's their natural fate. Rather, the question should be why does an indie succeed. In this case, it may have failed with everything above going perfectly, it only lowered its chances further by not doing them. Focus- "Around the World in 80 Days" was a huge flop; cost $110 million for the production budget alone, and made $24 million domestically, and $48 million in the rest of the world. Also ended the illusion that Jackie Chan was a hugely bankable star.
Caligula--1979 Malcolm McDowell Basically a big budget porno movie about one of Rome's worst rulers. Supposedly cost 15 million dollars back in '79. As much as I'm a fan of nudity in movies, it was getting distracting in this movie; I don't like seeing a bunch of cocks in damn near every scene. You get to see: -Real blowjobs -Real cumshots -a guy getting fisted on his wedding day -incest -a semen massage -a guy having his penis tied off, then forced to drink gallons of wine, then having his stomach cut open. -A really great lesbian sex scene I'm absolutely amazed that this movie was allowed to be made at all and released in theaters alongside family movies. Aside from the complaints, I have to commend McDowell; he does a great job of playing an insane megalomaniac. One refreshing thing was that since this took place in the first century, none of the women had shaved pussies. The female nudity is all top notch.
To be fair, the film was produced in the 1970's. Much like the first century, none of the women in the 70's had shaved pussies either.
I've always figured it was because the people on the net creating that buzz just downloaded the fuckin' movie for free, as the denizens of the world wide web often do. That, and after only a week of quotes and other shit that seeped into my real life as a chef, I had zero desire to watch that movie until a full three years after release. I remember losing my shit on one of my line guys because he wouldn't shut the fuck up about this movie, and as a result, ended his career at the restaurant as our bathroom attendant. Because of his incessant yammering, he worked three nights a week, three hours a night, cleaning the staff washrooms and handing fresh linen to any staff who finished using the facilities. FOCUS: Hulk (2003) Wasn't a major flop in the box office, but does hold the record for the largest second weekend box office drop for a film that opened at #1, with a -69.7% drop. [Source: IMDB] It also doesn't help that the movie just wasn't that good. I mean, it was bloody impressive for its time, considering the time and blood and sweat that went into CGI in 2003, but even that heroic effort doesn't change the fact that it was a terrible fucking movie.
Interestingly enough, that record has since been broken by the second Twilight film and the new Nightmare on Elm Street, which had -70.0% and -72.3% drops, respectively. I've always wondered; was the re-make they released a mere 5 years later, in 2008, any better?
I'm surprised by the second Twilight film having such a drop off. I always figured it would prompt several return visits from its loyal fans. However, I base that merely on personal bias and hearsay, so it's moot. Nightmare on Elm Street was passable, and a good time-waster, but Freddy had a bad case of "Batman Voice" and it really threw me off, which was a major gripe from nearly everyone I've spoken to who saw it. Bad word of mouth probably slayed that flick. Fucking awesome sets and music though. As for the Incredible Hulk, I think the 2008 version is an entirely different film, but I haven't seen it yet, or even read anything about it.
The 2008 version was a reboot to put it in the same time frame/ universe as Iron Man. At some point in the background there is a reference to someone from SHIELD going to Brazil to meet with Banner or Banner being in Brazil (I forget exactly) since that's how the 2008 version ends. Even if Edward Norton doesn't repeat his role we will likely see the Hulk again, probably in the Avengers movie or something. Samuel Jackson signed on to play Nick Fury a total of 9 times, so even after the likely Iron Man 3, Thor, Avengers, and Captain America movies there's still a few more to go in that universe.
For me, the most surprising flop was Snakes On A Plane. I genuinely thought that the internet buzz would make this movie a hit. It only made about half it's money back in the opening weekend. It ended up making only a few thousand $, and that's only in gross sales.
Are you kidding??? Even the net buzz was kind of a joke, everyone knew this movie was going to be crap.