I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell

Based on the many contemptible reviews of this movie, I have to admit that my interest is piqued. I am now much more likely to rent it for the same reason I rented M. Night Shyamalan's "The Happening": to see if it's really that bad.

 

Bill Dawes has a new blog (they must really be shutting most of Rudius down), and a post that pretty much sums up the movie pretty accurately.

http://laughfactory.com/blog/billdawes/2009/10/12/the-end-of-the-road/

 

Well this thread hit the shitter pretty quickly. What the hell mods? There are a ton of posts that are off topic or based on speculation, yet they aren't deleted. More importantly, they aren't funny. I'm not against bashing Tucker, but this thread seems like it's a rumor mill from IMDB. I'd love it if the mods banned people who can't stay on topic.

What gives?

 

Okay, based on the above statement (permission) from Chater this afternoon, I just saw this yesterday and though it's the TINIEST bit flame-y, I will not comment on it but just post the link of director Ben Stiller appearing on Extras. Come to your own conclusions.

 

I've held off posting on this thread, because I haven't seen the movie, and I wasn't certain I had much to add to the discussion. After reading all of the posts here I realized I actually have quite a bit to add, namely - why exactly didn't I (or 307,000,000 other people) go see this movie?

The easy answer is that I'm out of the target demographic. Twice the age of his target audience, and tied down with a bunch of typical middle class obligations, I'm the person marketing departments around the country ignore. Except -

I've been hanging around here for 5 years now. I lurked for a year or two, and joined in early '06. I bought multiple copies of Tucker's book, handed them out as gifts, told all my friends about this hilarious book I'd read, and how this Tucker guy was making a movie that was sure to be one of the funniest things on film. My wife commented at times that she was a RMMB e-widow. I've followed every step of the IHTSBIH process, lined up buddies to go with me, I've got disposable income, and there were certainly theaters within easy driving distance.

So why didn't I do my part and fill Tucker's coffers?

The movie didn't open in theaters a reasonable distance from me until the third week. If it had opened close by during week one, I would have been there. But . . . I saw the trailers, and nothing in either of them made me want to drive two hours and pay $36 for parking to go see it. And by the time the movie was in theaters, some unexpected things happened.

The first was that the reviews from relatively objective reviewers, who weren't drunk and being given swag bags, were awful. But most importantly, I watched the clips that Tucker posted of two bar scenes, and they were, well . . .flat out boring.

Both were simply strings of one liners. I thought the jokes were flat, but my one overriding impression was the thought "Who actually talks like that!?" There was no real conversation or personal interaction - just characters spewing, again, one liners at each other like the gunfight at the O.K. Corral.

After all of the discussion about how "realistic" this movie was, those clips were anything but realistic. Seriously, I've done the college thing, been in a fuckton of bars and clubs, with wise-ass buddies dealing "comedic sniping" with the best of them, been in crazy situations in bars from from Barrow, to Laramie, to Tampa and lots of places in between, and every line of dialogue I saw just seemed incredibly staged.

I will buy the DVD. Tucker has provided me with years of free entertainment, and I owe him at least that much. I will even, most likely, buy his upcoming books. But go out and see the movie and drag my friends with me? No thanks, I'll pass.

 

I know this was a couple pages back, but I wanted to make a quick point regarding that interview with Czuchry and Tucker... I think much of the discomfort was caused by how fucking annoying the "interviewers" were throughout the whole thing. Their overly rambunctious laughter and terrible jokes made Tucker uncomfortable-- torn whether or not to rip on them, or smile and promote his movie.. Czuchry's discomfort wasn't too pronounced, he is just obviously a nice guy who would rather not hear about Tucker's views on midget.

Anyway in regards to the movie-- the general consensus which I agree with is that it is a solidly funny movie. It has pacing issues, plot issues, Drew is weird at times, we all know this and can see it plain as day. Think about when one of your friends writes a song that isn't as genius as he/she thinks it is.. it's hard for them to see it because they're so close to it. Multiply by a million when making a movie... ABOUT YOUR LIFE. Had potential.. shit bombed... I don't care how confident and happy you are, that will take a HUGE toll on anyone.

It's hard to give Tucker shit for what he was saying during the first couple weeks after release. I'm surprised hes alive and emotionally capable of doing anything at all.

 

Well, I missed my chance to see the movie. I was waiting for my friends to get off their asses and go somewhere besides the bar. I planned on just going by myself tomorrow but the last theater in my area where it is playing only has two show times and I have to work during both. Wonder if there is a bootleg floating around.

 

I thought the movie was hilarious, but I also knew what was coming up a lot of the time. Being that predictable, thanks to the book, was actually kind of cool. It made me feel like the time I'd invested in reading and supporting Tucker's writing paid off, like I had a connection to the movie that a regular viewer wouldn't.

Because of that experience I told my friends, none of whom even know who Tucker is, to go see it when it came out. None of them did, and it's because they didn't know it even came out. The marketing for the movie might have been revolutionary or "off the wall" but it simply did not do its job. It seemed like too much, or all, of the marketing was dedicated to hitting the hard partying, middle-class, college male. A demographic that was going to see the movie anyway.

Had gone outside of his traditional base the movie could have gained traction and seen some decent success. I don't agree with the people that say the movie sucked, it was funny. Certainly it didn't live up to the expectations that Tucker put on it but we can all take a little advice from Flava Flav; "Don't believe the hype". If you went in as a fan of the book it was funny, if you went in as a fan of Tucker you were disappointed.

 

I think the last 20 posts or so have reversed that (other than the one above that Nettdata deleted. I didn't see it, so if thats what you were referring to, just ignore me).

I think there's a distinct difference between discussing what went wrong with the decision making process and just flaming on Tucker or harping on things.

As for the marketing plan, I think there were two key errors:
1. They WAY overestimated the impact of the tour and videos/blog. They were well executed but didn't nearly have the reach that the powers that be thought they would. They were great for the hardcore fans (and by hardcore fans I mean both the fanboys and those of us who have followed him on the boards.) But other than that, most people were probably completely unaware of it, rendering it pretty ineffective.
2. Piggybacking on that lack of awareness of the tour, there were errors of execution with the MSM marketing plan and distribution. I didn't see the first ad for the movie (other than banner ads on Texts from Last Night) until the day AFTER the movie opened. And I live in NYC. Also, I think Tucker's plan overestimated the value of the controversy drummed up by the CTA ads. He took a page out of PT Barnum's book, but unfortunately the free publicity ended up shooting him in the foot because of the huge stigma it attached to the movie. I felt like the trailers were misused too. The green band trailer was pedestrian at best, and the red band trailer (which was MUCH better) didn't come out until it was too late to really use it effectively. Last, as others have said the distribution schedule made it extremely difficult for it to be convenient for people to go check out the movie without a concerted effort.

Most of all though, I think it failed because it was a movie that I believe didn't come close to living up to its potential. It was entertaining, but I am not sure how much of that is because I have been a fan since 2003.

I am not flaming Tucker with all this. I don't know who's decisions these were behind the scenes (his Darko's, Bob's, whoever's) but the fact remains that I think they were pretty big errors in the way the release was executed. And to his credit, Tucker admits (after the fact) that this was a release that needed to be done flawlessly to have a shot at success and that it just didn't happen.

 

In addition to these good points, I think one of the biggest problems for the lack of theatrical success was this:
http://www.ihopetheyservebeerinhell.com ... l-success/

To be more specific, calling out the very people who you needed to make your movie a hit. That piece essentially said: "Would we like critical success? Sure. Do we care? Not at all." They are one of the most important marketing tools at a film's disposal, and BIH treated them like a redheaded step child. If there is one thing in common with Slumdog/Juno/Paranormal and any other indie/low-budget film that has had box office success it is nearly universal praise from critics. Granted, the subject matter of BIH was never going to be as feel good as some of those stories, but by trashing one of any film maker's most important sources of marketing, the critic, the film essentially shot itself in the foot right before it began the 100 yard dash of box office success. If you don't get out of the gate quick in the box office, you're done. BIH hobbled out of the gate and was put down before it had even finished. If BIH was a thoroughbred that could have won the Triple Crown then be put out to stud enjoying the rest of its life fucking and eating, it came up lame at the Derby and had to be euthanized before it even sniffed the Preakness or Belmont.

This all has little to do with the merits of the film, though it's obvious if the film had been better there might have been less fodder for all the negative reviews. A lot of people still care about what critics have to say, myself included. The first thing I do when I hear about a new book/film/video game I'm considering buying or going to see is check amazon/rottentomatoes/metacritic. That, to me, is equally important as is WOM from intelligent people I know and trust.

And I know, some critics were always going to bash this movie, but BIH didn't do itself any favors at all by encouraging them to trash it with the above post. You don't think journalists pay attention to this? Believe me, there is no greater way to make a journalist insecure than to tell him his once-important work is outmoded and irrelevant. And when it comes from a self-proclaimed internet celebrity/blogger (the scapegoat in the eyes of many journalists for newspapers' downfall), well that is like rubbing salt in the wound.

I can't speak for all critics, but back when Tucker posted that piece on the blog, I forwarded it to a friend of mine who reviews films for a major East Coast paper. His response? "Already read it. It's making the rounds among our ilk. For his movie's sake, he better be right. I sure as hell don't plan on doing him any favors." Maybe some critics brushed it off, and maybe most never even read it, but BIH definitely didn't help itself by essentially cutting off the head of one of its major marketing opportunities.

I don't know why BIH played its cards this way, but I think any of his who have been following Tucker for awhile saw it coming. In my opinion (this is not flaming Tucker, it goes directly to his movie's strategy), he went from being a smart businessman to someone more concerned with counter-culture themes, "sticking it to the man," being an "artist," etc. It wasn't just Tucker, either. All of the Rudius people involved in the film kept talking about BIH like it was something sacred, something that would be a game changer. Somewhere along the line the film's marketing strategy became more about changing the world and being revolutionary than about making a hit movie. That may have value on some levels, but from a financial standpoint, it's just plain stupid. Was BIH always going to piss off some critics? Sure, but it didn't have to throw gasoline on the fire.

This was a long post, but I think it needed to be said. I don't believe anyone else has engaged this avenue up to this point, so I hope we can discuss it here.

 

I wonder if those videos from the premieres did any good.
If I saw Dawes coming near me in a line I would say "Oh fuck, it's that asshole".

 

That is the one thing you missed. I think Tucker's post was addressed to critics as a profession. What I think he meant was he doesn't care if Siskel and Ebert give his movie two thumbs up (I know one of them is dead, but they are the most famous I can think of). The critics who's quotes you always see on the movie posters. I don't think he was referring to sites like RottenTomatoes that take aggregate ratings from members to give a movie a rating. I would classify those two quite differently. And in that regard, I think he's right. I think that major name critics don't have as much influence as they used to, and much more people put weight in what the multitude says on Rotten Tomatoes (especially in the target demographic of this movie). However, I don't think that it was smart to come out and rip them unnecessarily like that. I realize he was trying to comment on the state of the industry, but a blog post talking about the rise of aggregate sites and the fall of the major critic that was written less aggressively still wouldn't have gotten his point across, and not alienated a potential marketing outlet.

And again mods, I think I am keeping this along the lines of a discussion of the movie and the marketing strategy behind it, but if you disagree let me know and I'll change my post.

To answer dii's post, I don't think they did. I think they were great, but if you think about where they were available (youtube and the blog) they were very limited in their exposure. The highest they went was still short of 20k views. It was a lot of really good material that never made it out of one audience. No one outside of the blog and website (who were there for the most part before all this started, I would think) really had exposure to them. So, for the most part, they served to market to an audience that was already invested and committed to the product.

 

That's a fair point. No doubt "two thumbs up" doesn't mean what it used to. I think we're still mainly in agreement that alienating a potential marketing source from the get go, and then ignoring it completely was foolish.

As for the aggregate sites, who are the members contributing those reviews? At least for films, major critics for the most part. It's kind of like saying only the top of the pyramid is important to its structure. What happens when you start neglecting the base? It falls apart.

And I should have elaborated. I do use the aggregate sites, but they often only have little blurbs about the film. I'll look for a paper or critic I respect, and then click to read the full review.

Moreover, what happened to the "reviews" link on the website? I was excited when it was announced BIH would be posting all the reviews there, no matter how bad or how good. That was vintage, ballsy Tucker. It has, what, like 10 reviews -- mostly from no-namers, to boot. It's beyond disingenuous for BIH to trash critics in the first place, then say we're going to put up all the reviews that come out, and then select only a few here and there. By doing the latter, BIH was essentially saying I don't want the negative reviews to taint the marketing of my movie. Maybe that thought should have occurred to BIH before it trashed them.

 

The following relates to the marketing. You only think it's personal because it's true and it hurts.

I was trying to convince a friend to join the RMMB about two years ago. He said he'd think about it. The next time I met him he was at the computer. He said he wanted to show me something and loaded up the interview with Opie and Anthony. We watched it in silence and then he looked at me. "He mumbles, his voice is high pitched, he talks through his nose and he has a lisp. This fella is not even slightly cool." I didn't know what to say so I didn't say anything.

When I saw that he was giving talks in the run-up to the film's release I thought oh cool, he must have worked on his public speaking. Did he? It doesn't fucking look like it. He is a shitty public speaker. If I was on his marketing team I would have told him not to say anything at all at the premieres. And Dawes? I can't explain Dawes at all... It's like somebody asked Tucker if he knew any unlikable bullies to do the roving mike at the premieres and he rubbed his chin and said "Yeah, I know a guy."

 

Really? I'm not saying every single line he spoke was comedy gold, but he was still pretty damn funny most of the time. Are you sure you're not being a little too sensitive here?

Would you have preferred the Jay Leno "Jaywalking" route of asking a question, repeating the answer, and chuckling? Oh man, that would have been a hoot.

 

I am heading out the door, so BroadStParade, I have stuff to say about reviews, but not the time to write it right now.

However I do have time for a quick response to dii. I don't see how this applies to the marketing of the movie. Your friend decided not to join an internet message board built around an author....because of how he speaks. Think about that.

And as to your point about the tour, its not like the guy was giving extended addresses. Did you go to a premiere? I did. He goes up to the front, gets people to tell stories, makes fun of them, then answers questions afterward. There is no point in that where superb public speaking skills would have wowed the crowd. It wasn't an oratory, it was an interaction and Q and A session with a man most people there were a fan of and who was the main driving force of the movie they were there to watch. Any marketing person worth their weight would know that with this kind of audience, they would leave disappointed if they didn't get to see Tucker.

 

But dude, it's marketing. There's no such thing as too sensitive. They should have sent out hot chicks wearing tight clothes with the instruction: Be all things to all people. It looks like they handed Bill the mike and said hey Bill, go piss some people off.

I watched the New York one.
Remember when he made the guy eat shit off the ground? What the fuck was that?
Remember when he asked the girl what her favourite part of September 11th was? What the fuck was that?
Cause it's not fuckin' marketing. What was Bill's message? People who were affected by 9/11 should lighten the fuck up?
If people who were affected by 9/11 can't take a joke, then fuck 'em?

That's not fucking marketing man.

People are fickle dude. Tucker should have thought about that.