2008 at the Box Office - Page 10

Colin Jacobson · 02-15-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidPla

How can people be complaining about the cam look when that was the entire point of the film? It would be like hating Lord of the Rings cause it's fantasy? Without it, it's a run of the mil Godzilla movie which we already got 10 years ago. The point IS that it's all filmed on a camcorder.

The complaints stem from the fact that the style makes the movie literally unwatchable for so many people. The point of the film was to turn off mass portions of the audience?

Andy Sheets · 02-15-2008, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidPla

Without it, it's a run of the mil Godzilla movie which we already got 10 years ago.

I dunno, I wouldn't mind if someone tried to make a traditional giant monster movie that was actually good

DavidPla · 02-15-2008, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin Jacobson

The complaints stem from the fact that the style makes the movie literally unwatchable for so many people. The point of the film was to turn off mass portions of the audience?

But the reason people WENT in the first place (40 M worth) was cause of the "originality" of the concept. Giant monster movie filmed on a camcorder. Did it turn people off from seeing Blair Witch in 1999? How could people be turned off by that when it was being advertised as Blair Witch meets Godzilla.. people knew what they were getting when walking into that theatre. The reason it dropped the weekends after is because it was just a limited audience to begin with.

Malcolm R · 02-15-2008, 01:24 PM

I think they could have presented the same concept to the audience, then shot the film in a more steady manner. There's all sorts of suspension of disbelief when you're watching films. You don't have to go into outer space to make a sci-fi film. If they'd made it clear this was found footage by the plot, does it really have to prove it by technique, making the audience nauseous? If the picture actually didn't move that much, would people be disappointed?

Chuck Mayer · 02-15-2008, 01:45 PM

What I saw reminded me of Godzilla. But low rent Godzilla. "It's like the 1998 shitfest, but with even worse production values and no Jean Reno!"

Sweet!

TerryRL · 02-15-2008, 04:05 PM

Thursday Estimates

#1 "Jumper" $6.625 million
#2 "Step Up 2 the Streets" $6.600 million
#3 "Fool's Gold" $3.5 million ($28.9 million)
#4 "Definitely, Maybe" $3.1 million
#5 "The Spiderwick Chronicles" $2.3 million
#6 "Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins" $1.9 million ($20.2 million)
#7 "The Bucket List" $805K ($77.0 million)
#8 "Juno" $790K ($119.5 million)
#9 "The Eye" $750K ($23.1 million)
#10 "27 Dresses" $610K ($66.8 million)
#11 "Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: The Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour" $520K ($55.1 million)
#12 "There Will Be Blood" $370K ($27.9 million)

DavidPla · 02-15-2008, 04:21 PM

Why Step Up 2!!! WHY!?

Holadem · 02-15-2008, 04:36 PM

Why not. Looks like a fun dancing flick for teenagers. I am never gonna watch it (to the extent that one could affirm such a thing) but I would have been all over that if I was in high school...

You go into something like that for the dance moves, and at least reading imdb reviews, it delivers on that point (if apparently lacking elsewhere).

--
H

DavidPla · 02-15-2008, 04:47 PM

Dance movie fine.. there have been some good dance movies. Hell, I can even understand how the first Step Up did so well. but come on.. it looked absolutely terrible.. I don't even think it had anybody from the original either so I chalk this up as people will see ANYTHING with dancing in it at the moment.. even Meet the Spartans.

TerryRL · 02-16-2008, 05:32 AM

The early Friday estimates have "Jumper" holding steady at #1 with a haul in the neighborhood of $8 million. 'Step Up 2' was second with another $6 million-plus tally. "The Spiderwick Chronicles" jumped to third with about $5 million. "Fool's Gold" was fourth with about $4 million, while "Definitely, Maybe" rounded out the top five with close to $3 million.

Chris · 02-16-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

But the reason people WENT in the first place (40 M worth) was cause of the "originality" of the concept.

Totally disagree. I think a lot of people didn't know (or care) about the camcorder bit. It was an action film, and the scenes from the trailer had nothing to do with promoting that it was a camcorder; people watched a building blow up and the head of the Statue of Liberty come bouncing down the street as people ran away.

People assumed (rightly) that this was going to be a blow-them-up action kind of film done very differently and they were psyched. That's what I thought, that's what everyone I know thought.

In regards to Blair Witch, people knew what it was, also.. but it was marketted as a "what happens when a low budget documentary goes wrong.. and we find the film afterward". That was the whole concept, and people bought it.

But you can't say the same about a major feature where the prime thing shown in the posters and ads was a torn off Statue of Liberty head and a giant explosion.. that doesn't sell "this is REALLY low budget"... it screams: "this is a special effects monster film".

I think it a lot to the trailer to ID4 showing the White House blow up. People didn't know anything about the film, outside of the fact there would be some scenes where a giant alien ship would blow up the White House and the Empire State Building. Thus it was an effects film.

If someone had told me prior to seeing "Cloverfield" that I would need to leave the theater to vomit because of shaky cam, I probably wouldn't have went.