I think you're making a lot of assumptions here, most that aren't true. Comedic taste isn't related to age, gender, or going through any "phase". And really, comparing Tucker to Andrew Dice Clay? Their styles and approaches were/are POLAR opposites. Out of the roughly 500 people that attended each premiere screening, you think the the 3-6 usually weird/homeless willing participants that Bill made fun of to some capacity are what sunk this movie? Seriously? Come on folks; there were a number of mistakes made in the production/marketing/distribution of this film, and an overwhelming number of factors working against it even without that, as Biscuits talked about at length on the old board. But things like Bill Dawes as the MC, or the economy were either non-factors or actual positives. nettdata- He stated the goal was to beat Wedding Crashers at $209 million, and in a bet he made with some guy, he went for Juno-like figures at $100+ million domestic.
Some time back he said he gave that to a third party to post but at this stage it seems a bit pointless and I doubt he will. Especially given all that's occurred since the movie tanked. With regards to the movie, here are my thoughts. I lurked on the TTMB almost since it started and followed everything Tucker for quite a while. I bought the book in an airport, liked it, and gave it to a friend who also liked it. I lost interest in Tucker as a character over the last couple of years - really when this movie first started rolling. Nonetheless, I cut work about a week after the movie came out and saw it in downtown Seattle. I was literally the only one in the theater. My impression was that the movie was fair to poor. I understand some people loved it, some people hated it, but I really think most people came away thinking the movie was fair. That was why it never generated word of mouth. People don't recommend movies that are just fair. The people that loved it did recommend it but that group (mostly existing hardcore fans) wasn't enough to put butts in seats. Marketing mistakes, Darko screwing up, Tucker pissing off too many people, blah, blah, blah. The reality is the movie just wasn't good enough to generate its own momentum.
Didn't he later claim that it would be the top grossing R-rated film of all time? Or was that just a goal that was set.
March 25, 2008 I'll pop the champagne when the box office numbers start coming in on the opening Friday, and we are projecting at a 25 million dollar opening weekend. http://www.quotabletuckermax.com
I never said that was their goal, I said that was the result. I'm sure the goal was for all these videos to go viral and the premiere tour to spark the word of mouth. I have a feeling Tucker's entire marketing plan hinged on the fact that he thought this was a great movie. Now, looking back at a decent but not great movie, its hard to see the motivation behind their decisions. But, put yourself in his shoes three months ago with what he thinks is a great movie, and a very limited marketing budget (and this is completely ignoring the distribution issue, they are two separate things). Putting the movie in front of a lot of eyes and producing videos at each stop to put on youtube for people to spread around all of a sudden doesn't sound like the stupid idea it seems like now, does it? They still bet way too much on the premiere tour, but without more knowledge and knowing the budget available, its really hard to say what could have been done differently in terms of marketing (other than what I've already said). Their gamble was that the movie was good enough to snowball and reach the tipping point through people seeing it and recommending it. It obviously wasn't. In the end, I think Tucker started believing his own myth a little too much and his hubris got him. And as for all the talk about Dawes and Tucker being assholes. Yes, they are. But they are also funny. Did they go overboard on the tour sometimes? Yes. But, I just ignored it and laughed at the stuff I found funny. Interesting question about DVD marketing. I honestly think this movie is overall sunk though. I doubt any investors will put major money behind this after seeing is box office performance, and as others said, to be a DVD hit it needs to be highly rated by the masses (24% by RT critics, 61% by the community). I know 61% is near what office space was, but my gut feeling is still that this doesn't have the legs to become a cult classic. It had the potential, but I think there were too many errors along the way to make up for.
Actually, Bill was one of the coolest things about going to the premier tour. Everyone in line knew what he was doing on camera and as MC, but in between, when he was just hanging out talking to us, he was a super nice, funny guy.
I agree. (Although with respect to what his investors will do, this is where I always have to have someone re-explain to me the concept of "sunk costs".) Tucker's prediction of selling 5 million DVDs is ridiculous. I guess between 100k and 200k. I do, however, have a question for the much younger demographic that populates this board, and is the target audience for DVD sales: Will you buy or rip? Since we do not have access to the RMMB boards I cannot cite you chapter and verse, but it is my strong recollection that Tucker wrote in favor of free distribution of content via the internet and criticized "old media types" for their anachronistic views of intellectual property. Will his target demographic view this as an invitation to freely share his movie in electronic form?
Are you serious? Of course comedic taste is related to age, gender, stage of life, the whole deal. This is the whole basis of movie marketing. Small kids aren't going to find the same things funny as teenagers, and young adults, middle-agers and old people. I don't know many teenagers who are going to laugh at pregnant women talking about having babies. Things I found funny as someone in college I think are ridiculous now. No, but to me it was indicative that if they were trying for 4 quadrant appeal, they were going to fail dismally. After following the blog etc. I had big hopes for this movie. Tucker's talk of potential multi-quadrant appeal sounded good to me. I think I slipped out of the 'young male' quadrant a few years ago. Then I saw the preview, and was very disappointed. I watched a few of the videos, had a few chuckles, and came to the conclusion that the entire marketing strategy seemed geared towards young males. Fine, that's their strongest area, but how did they expect it to get to the other 3 quadrants?
Christ, people, Dawes was hilarious. Don't throw him under the bus; it's already a bit crowded. Tucker and Nils' "the funny" was what hurt the tour, IMO. Not only did they berate their fans, they made it the centerpiece of each tour spot writeup. Often, the videos were just an afterthought in the writeups. BIH traveled all around the country and showed the film to thousands of fans, and how was it memorialized? By kneecapping the people who came to see it. If it weren't for Dawes, that's all we would have had. So please don't knock him. On that note, I would have liked to see more of Tucker and Nils, and maybe Dawes, making fun of each other. If you're going to call out a girl for being fat, then don't forget to mention that Nils isn't exactly Michael Phelps. If you're going to make fun of the way someone speaks, or their accent if they happen to be from Mexico, then at least knock on Tucker for having a nasally voice with a lisp. While you're at it, make fun of Dawes' haircut (all I could think of). You splash those in with making fun of the audience, which is fine if done in moderation, and all of the sudden you're sitting around the table with these guys busting each other's balls. That would have been worth the price of admission.
I don't know about the other stops, but at the Cambridge, MA showing, Tucker and Nils DID make fun of Dawes' haircut, saying it made him look like an old lesbian. Unfortunately he didn't fire back. Probably thought it wasn't a good idea to rip on his boss.
Fuck you fanboy. I think the movie failed because Dawes looked like Ellen and Ellen has never made a blockbuster movie. The only people who think that she is good are dykes and jews. Which one are you, traitor? Focus: I thought Bill Dawes was hilarious. I didn't like the movie but I'd buy the DVD if it included a ton of Dawes interactions as extras.
I didn't like this movie. I thought it came from the Wal-Mart "story-by-numbers" film kit. "What's that" you ask? You fancy yourself to be a deep, reflective thinker who is filled with a sense of nostalgia whenever you look back on the turmoil, whimsy and angst of your "twentysomething" years? You say you've always had an unfulfilled yearning to make a film if only you had an inkling of originality or creativity, or better yet, some kind of reliable recipe to follow? Well we have just the item for you! The K-Mart Film Kit comes with 5 easy to assemble pieces, along with a foolproof overarching theme: one day a bumbling bunch of guys realize they are not satisfied with their life and maybe a change is in order, and sets out seeking said change via that most reliable cinematic cliché of self-discovery - the road trip! The enclosed brightly-colored, shrink-wrapped, ready-to-assemble pieces include: Self-absorbed lead character (who comes with a story arc for added irony), the Troubled Mysoginist (who falls in love in the end for added irony), The Pussy Whipped Friend (added without irony for addition pain), The Stripper With The Heart of Gold (yet a stripper who's a good mom - you know, to give her "depth") and Bitchy Wife (who understands it all in the end - you know, to give her "depth"). String these pre-formed elements together with a catchy indie-folk-emo-pop-whiteboyrap soundtrack, pepper with inane and hackneyed dialogue that tries way too hard (and fails miserably) to be witty and/or meaningful, add a few talented actors (e.g. Matt Czuchry, Swimfan and TheStripperGirl, who despite their heroic efforts are hamstrung from the start by a horrendously inept script) and top it all off with the requisite (yet mundane) "Grand Revelation"(TM) at the end, and voilà! Your very own alt-Hollywood film to treasure and enjoy with your friends, guffaws, tears and back-slapping sure to ensue all around! I felt this movie was done via paint-by-numbers. There is little originality, a bad (and unoriginal) plot followed by an even worse story about redemption that has no place in a Tucker Max story. Tucker's story is not about redemption whatsoever, and even in the end his version of trying to redeem his character came off as insincere and empty as any of the characters he's written. I'm not enough of a fan of Tucker Max to really care about his cult of personality so me watching the film was about as blank of a canvass as you could get. I've read his book, thought it was funny in parts but was about 100 pages too long. I thought this film was about 100 minutes too long as well. This film is basically 1) Wedding Crashers 2) The Hangover and 3) My Best Friend's Girl that are all sewn together to make one retarded man-child Frankenstein of a picture. While I felt his book was original, I also felt that the script was anything but. Even the shit scene seemed like it was lifted from a low budget Troma movie. I felt this movie would have been better had they done a few more passes on the script or at least had gotten a professional to write the project.
Tucker had a stickied thread on his board where he not only specifically advocated the downloading of music, but also invited people to share their favorite methods of pirating music online. The thread exploded. I really doubt his fans are going to go to the trouble of buying the movie. The only possible scenario is if the demand for a pirated version is too low for the movie to catch the attention of the top movie distribution groups. If so, then there might not be a high-quality .avi available on isohunt for quite a while, and that might spur people to buy the movie.
You missed the point. Of course people's sense of humor changes over time. However, you cannot make any definitive statements about what a person finds funny merely by the information that they're "a 20 year old male", or "a 53 year old woman". It's far too individualized. This is actually a consideration Tucker used to argue in favor of the future success of the movie, although, of course, it's a double-edged sword, and many college-aged students simply weren't in his wheelhouse, and disliked his style of comedy. So you basically just described "The Hangover"? Not only did I think it was funny, it's the highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time, at $276 million in the US alone. I also thought "I Hope they Serve Beer in Hell" was funny. It grossed $1.4 million. Lousy argument.
I wasn't comparing the styles and approaches of Dice Clay to Tucker, I was recalling my attraction to cruel humor when I was younger. I didn't relate comedic taste to age or gender, I related an attraction to cruelty (meaning behavior) with self-awareness (personal maturity). This is not about a person's attraction to a comedic style and tolerating the underlying cruelty, it's about an attraction to the cruelty, under the guise that it's all okay because it's just "a joke." A bully picks on the weak, not strong. You've singled out the weird and homeless as the targets. Outside of children, I imagine the homeless would be about the easiest pickings a bully could find. Perhaps you didn't mean homeless literally, but the suggestion is clear which type of people were targeted. Calling them willing does soothe the conscience, lest one consider that some appear willing because they're afraid to resist. I'll assume Bill never picked on a Marine, Hells Angel or similar during the tour, because as a general rule bullies don't insult, mock and belittle others to their face when they appear to be capable of defending themselves, verbally or otherwise. Of the 493-497 other people in the theater, it's probably true that some were enjoying the spectacle of seeing the weak be targeted. It's also possible others had their stomachs turn watching it happen, but had no desire to take on half the audience and the guests of honor. That said, neither Bill nor Tucker sank this movie. What did is the limited number of people who take joy in watching predatory behavior.
Did anyone else do a double take at that quotable Tucker Max site? I was surprised a) that someone took all that time to put those quotes together and even got screen caps for some of them and b) how bad it looks when you read it all at once. I guess that's the point though.
You know, I'm sure it seems like that, but let me tell you, that is SO far from the truth, it's not funny. It's really quite counter-intuitive. The homeless, by their very definition, are tough individuals. First of all, their living environment is, well, the environment. They live in the outdoors. That's tough shit right there. Secondly, they've got nothing to lose... because they already have lost it. You go at one the wrong way, and they'll snap and fuck your shit up. And we're talking zero to batshit-insane-crazy-fuck-your-shit-up in the blink of an eye. Hell, I've heard of more homeless people stabbing and mugging and beating people up than I have of gangs or bikers or military folks. So yeah, I'd say it takes serious BALLS to pick on a homeless dude. Especially when you mean "pick on" in the "include in an event instead of just pretend they're not there" sense. You see, they HATE being treated like any other person. They're kind of in that transvestite grouping, in that you think that because it's a dude dressing up as a chick, they'd be all weak and fragile and girly (I mean gurly) and stuff, when in actual fact it takes SERIOUS balls to do that. Never mind that they're probably constantly taking shit from everybody for being different, and are just on the verge of snapping. I've seen more guys get the shit beat out of them by pissed of trannies... But I digress. Please, do continue.
A lot of comedy is "cruel" by that designation. Richard Pryor was cruel. So were Lenny Bruce and George Carlin. Monty Python? It was disgustingly cruel to see some poor man be killed in a sketch by a British nutcase. The Chappelle Show was pretty fucking cruel at times. In terms of comedy films, "Cannonball Run" and "Blazing Saddles" both immediately come to mind as classics that were "cruel". So fine, you dislike eighty percent of the great stand-up comedians who have ever lived, and at least a fifth of the comedies ever made. I fail to see how that explains I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell's lack of success, or how Bill's one-liners (more mild than most things I've heard from Sacha Baron Cohen) make him "predatory".
Regarding the marketing plan, can anyone explain what the "revolutionary" marketing plan was? There was the bus tour which, yes, was original and perhaps unique (I don't know of another movie which did this). But what else was there? Some tweets, a few billboards. I know the budget was limited but surely that was known from the start and the marketing planned with that in mind.
Alright seriously everyone is being so fucking subjective about this when in actuality just think about the movie. I saw the trailers I read the blog I followed this shit from the beginning and the movie is just sub-standard. Period. There is nothing revolutionary about it and there was nothing that made people think that they had to see this movie. It's cool that Max let you behind the scenes in a way to see the process of making a movie but everything he said about the movie was complete bullshit and it's not hard to see that. So ya it failed in theaters and that's not very surprising but it IS pretty cool how he decided to shut down his message board and we have this place to actually voice our opinions whether they support him or not, because we all know at the old site it would just get deleted.