Craig's MovieBlog

David Poland Doesn't Talk About What Went Wrong With Grindhouse

He says he doesn't want to get into it, or does he?

For all of our deep abiding faith in the marketing genius of the Weinstein Bros, they simply don't have the tools they once had.  The theory was that QT & Rodriguez were living franchises ... and to some degree they are.  The same way $24 million was pretty damned good for a Kevin Smith Clerks sequel, $30 million to $40 million domestic gross for a grindhouse homage seems pretty reasonable.  Unfortunately, the movie they made was too expensive for that number to be ok. 

Again, a popular refrain: movies are too expensive to make, and if you're going to do something risky, keep your costs down.

300 hit the jackpot because it both kept costs low and had a fantastic marketing campaign - double bonus.

On a slightly separate topic, I think it's interesting that the last two movies that "disappointed" box office pundits were Snakes on a Plane and now, Grindhouse.  Perhaps there actually isn't a broad audience for tongue-in-cheek movies that say, "we made this movie badly on purpose."

More About 300, Film Critics, and the Box Office

Jeff Wells just posted an entry slamming Patrick Goldstein of the LA Times, who wrote that newspapers should hire some young Gen X/Y/Z/whatever writer whenever some big CGI movie comes out so that they can relate to it in ways that typical reviewers can't.

I don't want to discuss my agreement with Jeff's article (it's quite good - you should read it).  Frankly, if some stodgy paper wants to hire me so that I can explain Sin City or 300 to their full time film critic, I'd be fine with that.  I mean, do they really need help understanding why Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow sucked?

I do want to say once and for all, however, how frustrated I am about the continued mistaken belief that massive box office results on opening weekend equates to a good film (i.e. critics don't get it). 

I don't know how else to say this - opening weekend is a result of how good your marketing was... and nothing else.  And let's be clear: 300 had an AWESOME ad campaign.  The buzz was building on this film for months, with amazing trailers and a stylistic look and feel that told audiences that if they came to see 300, they'd see something they've never seen before. 

So, that's what happened.  The film opened on a over 3100 screens, so everyone who wanted to see it could do so, and about 10 million people paid $7 each, giving Warner Bros. their $70.8 million opening.  Congratulations to everyone involved.  Sincerely.  That's a ridiculously huge achievement, and it's now the biggest March opening of all time, and the 19th biggest debut ever.

However, please note that none of that had anything to do with whether the film was good or not.

I mean, did anyone ask those 10 million people whether they liked the movie or not?  I really liked the trailer (almost enough to make me see the film) but did I like the movie?  We celebrate one thing (the money collected from the audience before they see the film) as if it equates to something completely separate (one's satisfaction with the film).  This would be like paying for dinner first, ignoring whether the food was good or not, but after looking at how much money the restaurant made that evening, assuming that the food was fantastic. 

Why do we make this assumption when it comes to the box office?

Week two had a drop off of 54%, so about 4.5 million people were convinced to see it the following weekend, or went back for a repeat viewing.  My guess is that word of mouth either began to spread, or... there weren't actually that many people left who wanted to see the film.  Looking at other films that opened around $70 million, 54% is better than the 59% drop that The Day After Tomorrow had (an awful film), but worse than the 33% drop of Finding Nemo, 30% of The Return of the King, and 29% for The Incredibles (arguably very good films). 

[Let's not start comparing MPAA ratings, audiences, and seasons now.  I know they're relevant to any real box office discussion, but we're not really having a box office discussion now, are we?]

Look, I can't say whether 300 was good or bad.  I haven't seen it.  Just don't tell me that it's good BECAUSE it made $70 million opening weekend.  Don't tell me that critics are out of touch BECAUSE it made $70 million opening weekend.  Tell me that 300's print and media campaign were so freaking incredibly mind blowing that you (and 10 million other people) simply could not wait to see it.

That's what opening box office numbers can tell you.

Oh, how was 300, by the way?  Any good?