comment #1

dggunz says ...

I was really happy with this film, regardless of the shaky morality of the story. Very entertaining, and one of the few films I'd like to see again in the theater.

I'm also amazed at how many people I know, who wouldn't normally go to a film like this, are going and coming out happy.

Really sorry this one didn't work for you, Jeff.

comment #2

loyal says ...

I think Mason's total for Inglourious Basterds is off. With 4 day estimates, it should stand at around 94m

That'll leave 13m before it passes Pulp Fiction.

comment #3

markj says ...

I don't get why people compare today's box office to a film released 15 years ago in only 1494 theaters. Basterds is playing in 3358 theaters.

comment #4

great scott says ...

Friggin' Eloi are at it again.

comment #5

loyal says ...

The entire industry does it, from the bottom up. There are few ways to measure the success of a director's filmography. Box office/ticket sales and critical acclaim/awards.

Doesn't matter if the film is 5 years old or 25 years old. Case in point, ET is still Spielberg's highest grossing film. Any successful film he has released since is measured against it.

comment #6

Mr. F. says ...

Loyal: I think Mark's also talking about inflation... while it's not a perfect way of comparing box office, it's better than the current method. I do wish the industry got with the program and accounted for that.

comment #7

lazespud says ...

Such is the influence of Jeff on my thinking that I pretty much had decided not to see this thing because of the relentless onslaught of the all-mighty gruver. I ended being invited by my brother a week or so ago, and I loved the thing. It was terrifically entertaining and at times purely brilliant.

Eventually I went on rotten tomatoes to see what others thought and found out, despite what Wells seemed to imply, that Basterds is Tarantino's best rated movies since Pulp Fiction. In fact it's basically tied with District 9 as the best reviewed movie of the second half of summer. Cumulatively it was better reviewed than Jackie Brown, Kill Bill 1 and Kill Bill 2, as well as death proof.

Of course Rotten Tomatoes doesn't really rate the passion of the critics in their praise, but it seems to me that it's aggregate score counts for SOMETHING...

My sense with this thing was that there was a small but select group of crickets and commentators who smelled blood with this thing and were ready with their knives out. They probably didn't anticipate other crickets, like Jim Emerson, passionately embrace the movie with 10,000 word thumbsuckers after the hater critics already felt they'd killed the thing. And they certainly didn't anticipate that the thing would have actual legs at the BO.

Right now it's looking to probably be their biggest worldwide hit (not adjusting for inflation).

comment #8

lazespud says ...

Speaking of Box Office --

There's a couple things to account for when comparing things today to back in 94, or any other year. One is to factor in the home video market. There was a VHS market in 94 when Pulp Fiction came out, but nothing like the offerings today. So a really accurate picture of a film's financial success would factor in home video, and of course the hidden giant, TV rights.

Adjusting for inflation is also critical... If you go to the boxofficemojo site you'll find that the monster hit of last year, "The Dark Night" is actually only number 27 on the all time domestic list, behind movies like The Graduate, and Thunderball.

Another factor that no one seems to account for is population. in 1939, for instance, there were 130,000,000 americans. Gone with the wind has made, adjusted for inflation, 1.45 billion dollars in the US alone. But since 1939 the US population has slightly more than doubled. One could argue that GWTW would have made about 3 billion domestic if you adjust not only for inflation, but population. That's six times a big of a success as the Dark Night.

And of course the biggest current factor typically left out in evaluating Box Office, is worldwide receipts. There was a time when it was somewhat negligible, I guess. But nowadays the foreign BO is typically always going to be bigger than the domestic, so it's a wonder why they only report domestic on Entertainment tonight, etc.

Sometimes people wonder why Brad Pitt makes so damn much money, and they'll point to the sort of weak domestic BO of his movies. But even soft american releases are monsters across the globe: Benjamin Button: 125M domestic + 205M Foreign, Oceans 13 115M Domestic, + 200M Worldwide, Troy did 135M domestic and was considered a big failure, but the thing pulled in 365M foreign. Such is the focus on domestic receipts that a half billion dollar movie is considered a failure...

comment #9

Rothchild says ...

"My sense with this thing was that there was a small but select group of crickets and commentators who smelled blood with this thing and were ready with their knives out. They probably didn't anticipate other crickets, like Jim Emerson, passionately embrace the movie with 10,000 word thumbsuckers after the hater critics already felt they'd killed the thing. And they certainly didn't anticipate that the thing would have actual legs at the BO."

That's a bingo. That's exactly what happened.

comment #10

cwratliff says ...

GWTW is certainly a much bigger hit when you account for inflation, but it also didn't have as many things to compete with in the marketplace of entertainment as the average movie does today. I remember in the not-too-distant past when a hit movie would linger in theaters for a really long time. Now, if you don't see a movie in its first few weeks, you might miss it!

A good point about the VHS market of 1994. I remember when Pulp Fiction first came out on tape, it was almost $100 since it was initially "priced for rental." Hard to believe how quickly things change.

comment #11

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

That's some strong Kool-Aid you guys are sipping when it comes to this film.

"Holding up well"? Not with another 48% Friday to Friday collapse. The third weekend always tells the tale and in IG case it's not that rosey.

To put it in perspective, for the opening weekend, more people watched a SUMMER REPEAT of "How I Met Your Mother" than wanted to see the film.

comment #12

Rothchild says ...

That's not a collapse. Your math is retarded.

comment #13

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

"To put it in perspective, for the opening weekend, more people watched a SUMMER REPEAT of "How I Met Your Mother" than wanted to see the film."

Yeah, but How I Met Your Mother is free and beams directly into their living rooms.

comment #14

Jonah says ...

"That's some strong Kool-Aid you guys are sipping when it comes to this film.

"Holding up well"? Not with another 48% Friday to Friday collapse. The third weekend always tells the tale and in IG case it's not that rosey.

To put it in perspective, for the opening weekend, more people watched a SUMMER REPEAT of "How I Met Your Mother" than wanted to see the film. "

A nearly 3 hour long talk fest that is largely in subtitles.

It's going to make 100 million. I'm not going to do the research, but how many heavily subtitled 3 hour films have made 100 million in America. I'm guessing not very many.

Seems to me you've drank the anti-Tarantino Kool Aid. My guess is it tastes bitter.

comment #15

le corbeau says ...

"Such is the influence of Jeff on my thinking that I pretty much had decided not to see this thing because of the relentless onslaught of the all-mighty gruver."

That's the scariest thing I've ever read.

"Imagine-- the whole world wired to Jeffrey Wells' ass!"

comment #16

le corbeau says ...

Meanwhile, Lazespud's good twin is right. No movie will ever do the kind of box office in terms of tickets sold that Gone With the Wind or, for that matter, Star Wars did. Star Wars played first-run for over a year-- and then got a reissue two years later that was one of the top 25 grossers of its year. Now all those repeat viewings happen at home.

comment #17

DeeZee says ...

For a movie which is supposed to be doing well, it still hasn't stopped Weinco from laying off more people.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118008150.html?categoryid=18&cs=1
Methinks the high budget(for a QT movie) and the split profits killed off potential revenue for IB, and that it'll just end up breaking even at best. Tee-hee.

loyal: I thought JP beat ET's box office. Or are you adding inflation? If that's the case, wouldn't Jaws beat them both?

spud: Or maybe the dissenters are just tired of sitting through the same homage movie from QT, when they've pretty much seen the original and better films he's ripped over the years. And even the flicks which apologists argue that he "improves" upon still have a sense of their own life, while QT's movies always end up being an over-priced stage re-enactment of his favorite moments we're familiar with by now without his help.

And I'm not sure when Troy was ever viewed as a failure. No, it didn't make the big bucks here like it did WW, but for an R-rated 2 1/2 hour Brad Pitt movie, it's pretty huge. Plus, considering the studio released Alexander that same year, it's a blockbuster in comparison.

As for Pitt, yeah, he's hit-and-miss, but his name probably makes up for it on home video. Fight Club is a good example of it. Button cost more than it was worth, though, even if it was profitable in the end.

Deathtongue: True. Kill Bill would have been viewed as a disappointment, too, if they didn't cut it into two pictures. But by Weinco and August standards, I guess it's a hit.

Jonah: Not many "niche" movies have Brad Pitt as a draw. Again, compared to Troy, it's a disappointment.

comment #18

Rothchild says ...

It's like Christmas morning whenever DeeZee pops up in a QT thread. I'll let someone else take it from here. I hope this thread gets over a 100 comments.

comment #19

Jonah says ...

"Methinks the high budget(for a QT movie) and the split profits killed off potential revenue for IB, and that it'll just end up breaking even at best. Tee-hee."

Still has more than doubled your prediction.

"And I'm not sure when Troy was ever viewed as a failure. No, it didn't make the big bucks here like it did WW, but for an R-rated 2 1/2 hour Brad Pitt movie, it's pretty huge. Plus, considering the studio released Alexander that same year, it's a blockbuster in comparison."

You are insinuating that Troy did well in the states. It made 133 with a budget of 175. Add in P + A and you're looking north of 200.

IB has done 80 on a budget of 70 and is still earning.

Troy was a bigger hit world wide, but was a flop in the states.

"Jonah: Not many "niche" movies have Brad Pitt as a draw. Again, compared to Troy, it's a disappointment."

Refer to what I said above. World wide, yeah, Troy was the bigger hit. In the states it was a disappointment whereas IB has been a pleasant surprise.

Troy was obviously geared toward being a box office blockbuster. IB was not, or they would've done away with the subtitles and made it all English speaking dialogue.

Troy also had help from Eric Bana and Orlando Bloom. This was before the world decided that Bloom was a waste of space.

comment #20

DeeZee says ...

Jonah: "Still has more than doubled your prediction."

That's nice, but it's still over-priced, so I still win the "QT is over" argument. Tee-hee.

"It made 133 with a budget of 175."

Again, it's another R-rated 2-hour+ movie, and it was up against Van Helsing. Gladiator at least had that Harrison Ford sub movie as its only threat.

"IB has done 80 on a budget of 70 and is still earning."

With P+A, though, it breaks even.

"Troy was obviously geared toward being a box office blockbuster. IB was not,"

That's bullshit, or they wouldn't have cast Pitt as the lead.

"or they would've done away with the subtitles and made it all English speaking dialogue."

They never emphasized the subs in the ads, and they wouldn't have mattered anyway, since they're only a small part of the picture.

"Troy also had help from Eric Bana and Orlando Bloom. "

Neither of whom have proven to be big draws.

comment #21

Rothchild says ...

"That's nice, but it's still over-priced, so I still win the "QT is over" argument. Tee-hee."

You're an autistic Chicken Little.

"They never emphasized the subs in the ads, and they wouldn't have mattered anyway, since they're only a small part of the picture."

3/4 of the dialogue is subtitles.

Please keep going, DeeZee. Do you really think QT isn't going to get his next big movie greenlit with no hassle?

comment #22

Jonah says ...

"That's nice, but it's still over-priced, so I still win the "QT is over" argument. Tee-hee. "

No, you really don't. He's coming off a huge hit. Everybody knows his career is back on track. Everybody but you.

"Again, it's another R-rated 2-hour+ movie, and it was up against Van Helsing. Gladiator at least had that Harrison Ford sub movie as its only threat."

No.

"With P+A, though, it breaks even."

It's not done yet. World wide it's already made a huge profit.

"That's bullshit, or they wouldn't have cast Pitt as the lead."

So by your rationale, putting Brad Pitt in your movie means you think it's going to be a huge hit. never mind that you spent several weeks back in December detailing how Jennifer Anniston was a bigger star than Pitt, this is still false.

Pitt starred in Jesse James, Burn After Reading, Babel, and Snatch. Nobody expected those to be huge blockbusters, even with Pitt's involvement.

Again, you were wrong. Take it like a man. Or a little girl. Whichever you might be.

"They never emphasized the subs in the ads, and they wouldn't have mattered anyway, since they're only a small part of the picture."

Clearly you haven't seen it if you think the subtitles are a small part of the picture.

"Neither of whom have proven to be big draws. "

Almost every mainstream movie Bloom has been in has been a financial blockbuster.

On the downside, Elizabethtown and I believe Kingdom of Heaven. Both of which came AFTER Troy.

On the plus side, do I really have to name his many hits. Bloom got the young girls into the theaters.

comment #23

lazespud says ...

Right or wrong, Bloom is barely given any credit for the monster hits he's been in. It's one of the reasons he is being jettisoned from the supposed new Pirates sequel. They just don't see that he had anything to do with the success.

In terms of Troy; my argument with purely that it was considered almost a moderate failure here, because of how much money it cost against it's relatively weak BO. But, as I pointed out, the thing made half a billion dollars worldwide, which is a giant success by any measure and should remind the Entertainment Tonight crowd to take a wider view.

Probably the all-time best example is the all-time best BO champ: Titanic. Sure it made 600M domestic; 100M more than number two "Dark Knight". But Titanic was an even more massive hit across the globe, bringing in an additional 1.2 billion. this was at a time when foreign BO would often add an addtional 30 to 35% to the BO, but in this case added an additional 60% to the already considerable BO.

So last summer when various pundits were talking about Dark Knight approaching Titanic's all-time record of 600M, I was thinking "shouldn't you be looking at the all-time Global Box Office?"

comment #24

cwratliff says ...

DZ, you forgot to mention that none of these facts about IB matter one bit, because explain Death Proof, right? And also, QT had an unsuccessful cameo in Margaret Cho's failed 90s sitcom, so he can never have success, not really, not ever, EVER!

But let's cut TROY some slack because it's such a big successful movie. Unlike IG, which only has success for reasons that apparently make it unsuccessful.

"Tee-Hee."

comment #25

DeeZee says ...

Roth: "3/4 of the dialogue is subtitles."

I guess QT upgraded since I last read the script.

"Do you really think QT isn't going to get his next big movie greenlit with no hassle?"

If it's too long, and no one bankable is attached to it, yes.

Jonah: "He's coming off a huge hit. Everybody knows his career is back on track. Everybody but you."

Probably because they said the same thing after Kill Bill.

"No."

It didn't? Then BOM was lying to me?

"It's not done yet. World wide it's already made a huge profit."

A profit which it has to split, thus making it only average.

"So by your rationale, putting Brad Pitt in your movie means you think it's going to be a huge hit. never mind that you spent several weeks back in December detailing how Jennifer Anniston was a bigger star than Pitt, this is still false."

Pitt's the bigger star, but Aniston's the more bankable star, because she doesn't demand as much dough for her work. Pitt's the male Julia Roberts that way.

"Pitt starred in Jesse James, Burn After Reading, Babel, and Snatch. Nobody expected those to be huge blockbusters, even with Pitt's involvement."

Perhaps not, but they clearly expected good returns on those flicks.

"Almost every mainstream movie Bloom has been in has been a financial blockbuster."

Not because of him, though.

"On the downside, Elizabethtown and I believe Kingdom of Heaven."

Which proves my point.

"Bloom got the young girls into the theaters."

The young girls saw POTC for Depp and LOTR for the same reason as everyone else: the FX.

cwra: He can never have success solely on his name, anyway.

"But let's cut TROY some slack because it's such a big successful movie. Unlike IG, which only has success for reasons that apparently make it unsuccessful."

IB is successful, financially, in the sense that it's made its money back and a profit. But it's not successful in the sense that it offered enough original material that the audience would have seen it without Pitt, the references to other movies, and the torture porn.

comment #26

DeeZee says ...

RE: Last comment. In that sense, Burn After Reading is the bigger hit.

comment #27

Jonah says ...

"I guess QT upgraded since I last read the script. "

Your opinion on the film is irrelevant. You haven't even seen it.

"If it's too long, and no one bankable is attached to it, yes."

All signs point to you being wrong, again.

"Probably because they said the same thing after Kill Bill."

And his career wasn't dead after that either. He got to do his dream project, the Grindhouse double feature. It didn't connect with audiences, but he's come back strong.

"It didn't? Then BOM was lying to me?"

I'll respond to this when you start writing out the names of movies, websites, etc...

"A profit which it has to split, thus making it only average. "

Doesn't matter. They knew what they were getting into. Nobody is getting surprised here. Everybody involved is thrilled with how much the film is making.

"Pitt's the bigger star, but Aniston's the more bankable star, because she doesn't demand as much dough for her work. Pitt's the male Julia Roberts that way. "

She can't demand it because nobody pays to see a movie because Jennifer Aniston is in it.

"Perhaps not, but they clearly expected good returns on those flicks."

Everybody expects a good return. Stop trying to twist it. I'm smarter than you, and I don't fall for it.

"Not because of him, though. "

This might be the first true thing you've ever written. But he does help though, in certain types of films.

"The young girls saw POTC for Depp and LOTR for the same reason as everyone else: the FX."

I truly believe you spend a lot of time talking to young girls. But no, many of them saw these films because of Bloom. Prove otherwise. And if you bring up his poor track record outside of the Pirates films, I'll throw Depps entire box office career at you.

"cwra: He can never have success solely on his name, anyway."

Most can't. Which is why Spielberg casts Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise in his films. Scorsese casts Matt Damon and Leo. David Fincher gets Brad Pitt and Jake Gyllenhall. It's called packaging.

"IB is successful, financially, in the sense that it's made its money back and a profit. But it's not successful in the sense that it offered enough original material that the audience would have seen it without Pitt, the references to other movies, and the torture porn. "

Can't prove the first one, what references specifically, and there is no torture porn in the film.

comment #28

cwratliff says ...

"He can never have success solely on his name, anyway."

If this is what your argument has become-- if this is the definition of what a "washed-up" director is, a person whose "15 minutes" is up, then I finally understand.

I AGREE! Quentin Tarantino can never have a successful movie based solely on his name.

At least, it's not very likely. He will probably always rely on casting some recognizable actors, which will draw in audience members. He might, at some point, make a film with a cast of complete unknowns, but in that case, he will probably be making a film that has some kind of "hook", some clever or unusual angle that will make people want to see it. Or, at the very least-- let's say there's no recognizable names in the cast, and no unusual "hook"-- the film will have to get very good reviews across the board from critics, thus drawing in people who have read that the film is worth seeing.

He will probably never make a film that is successful based solely on his name. He will never make a film starring a cast of unknowns with no discernible "hook" and mixed-to-bad reviews that goes on to enjoy significant success based solely on the fact that a huge number of moviegoers thought, "well, it IS a Quentin Tarantino film-- let's go see it anyway."

Although if he does it on a shoestring budget, said film would probably make its money back, purely based on the QT name. But that's not huge success, is it?

The definition of a "washed-up" filmmaker.

comment #29

le corbeau says ...

CWRatliff, although I admire your rebuttal by sledgehammer, actually Tarantino has released things solely on his name on video and done okay. At least, I don't recognize any of the stars of Switchblade Sisters or Mighty Peking Man...

comment #30

zap says ...

Unlike the rest of you, DeeZee is making a rational argument. You guys keep trying to prove that IB did well. You constantly point to all sorts of various facts that indicate IB could be considered a success.

DiZee beats you every time because s/he is making a point that none of you have addressed: QT is somebody who DiZee does not like. Deal with that, people. Grow up. DiZee already knows that QT can't make the type of movie that DiZee is happy to call successful.

Why don't any of you address that? Because you can't. Game, set, Match. DiZee Wins!!!

DiZee, would you be willing to make a list of directors who can't be successful? That would rock!

comment #31

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Valuable pieces of "wisdom" we have "learned" from D.Z. in this thread:

1. A movie isn't simply a "hit" if it makes a lot of money in the theaters. If more than one studio has to split the profits amongst themselves, suddenly the movie actually "bombed." Nevermind the fact that it has nothing to do with the budget, or even HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY SAW IT.

2a. It's fair to say a movie DIDN''T make a profit by including P+A costs, but EXCLUDING the fact that it's still making money in theaters (not to mention future video sales) IF AND ONLY IF it suits your argument.

2b. It's fair to say a movie DID make a profit by excluding P+A costs, but INCLUDING the fact that it's still making money in theaters and accounting for the fact that it will "make up for all of its losses on video" IF AND ONLY IF it suits his argument.

3. Brad Pitt is either the sole reason a movie was a financial success or a failure, depending on which one fits his argument.

4. BOM is an acceptable acronym for boxofficemojo.com, despite the fact that it's actually NEVER been used as an abbreviation on the internet before. Ever.

5. When all else fails, "tee-hee" is an instant argument winner.

6. (And boy, did I save the absolute best for last) Everyone just saw the LotR trilogy for the "fx."

Now Daniel (or whatever your fake name is), read that list back to yourself, and honestly tell me you're not one extremely silly fuck.

comment #32

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

DiZee is about right. I respond to him less and less these days, yet I still feel that same nauseous feeling after posting a reply.

He's a true merchant of ignorance.

comment #33

Jonah says ...

Zap,

Brilliant.

CitizenKaned,

The same.

comment #34

zap says ...

I think CWR has boiled it down to the core and I look forward to DeeZee's response. I imagine S/he will simply agree with CWR because, at this point, .......I mean...there isn't anything left to say.

CWR is right; QT will probably never make a movie that lacks any stars AND has nothing interesting about its story AND goes on to become a huge hit only because people can't resist seeing a QT movie. Right, Dee?

comment #35

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Oh, DiZe will always find a way to "disagree", trust me.

Despite the fact that there is def. nothing left to say, DiZe will keep coming back to this thread however long it takes for him/her/it to get "the last word," no matter how incoherent it may be.

Once my browser's history auto-filled in the URL and accidentally brought up an old HE thread. Dude had commented on it a full two weeks after it had originally been posted, and 5 days since the last guy in the argument had finally abandoned ship.

A psychotic dedication to making no sense.

comment #36

Rothchild says ...

Has everyone missed the giant bombshell of crazy he dropped?

"I guess QT upgraded since I last read the script."

He's read the IB script more than once.

comment #37

DeeZee says ...

Jonah: "Your opinion on the film is irrelevant. You haven't even seen it."

But I hear the movie's pretty close to the script.

"All signs point to you being wrong, again."

Look what happened when Fincher was allowed to do Zodiac after Panic Room. Never going to happen again in the studio system, unless you're Clint or Clooney.

"And his career wasn't dead after that either. He got to do his dream project, the Grindhouse double feature. It didn't connect with audiences, but he's come back strong."

No, he came back after nearly flat-lining. And it had nothing to do with him, which is why he barely survived this one.

"I'll respond to this when you start writing out the names of movies, websites, etc..."

Box office mojo.

"They knew what they were getting into. Nobody is getting surprised here. Everybody involved is thrilled with how much the film is making."

Everybody's thrilled, because that's the most successful movie for both studios all year. But what does that say about IB's success in general?

"She can't demand it because nobody pays to see a movie because Jennifer Aniston is in it. "

No one loses money putting Aniston in it, either.

"Everybody expects a good return."

Yes, and Pitt should have delivered, considering his record with that type of material.

"I truly believe you spend a lot of time talking to young girls. But no, many of them saw these films because of Bloom. Prove otherwise. "

No, the young girls go to Harry Potter for the guys, and they go to LOTR, because they like to see a fantasy series where Liv Tyler doesn't dress up like Princess Leia in 'Jedi and they have to be distracted by it for most of the running time. And I know this shit, because even Depp's Sweeney Todd and Wimbledon movie made more money than Elizabethtown,

"And if you bring up his poor track record outside of the Pirates films, I'll throw Depps entire box office career at you."

Depp's entire career has never been as high-profile as Bloom's until POTC.

"Most can't. Which is why Spielberg casts Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise in his films. Scorsese casts Matt Damon and Leo. David Fincher gets Brad Pitt and Jake Gyllenhall. It's called packaging."

Um, Spielberg made money on Schindler's List and E.T., with literally no stars(at the time). Scorcese's never been a director who makes money, anyway. And Fincher's in-between. He can make money on his stuff on DVD with his name, but not in theaters.

"Can't prove the first one,"

Sure I can. Just look at the title alone.

"what references specifically,"

References to other war movies?

"and there is no torture porn in the film. "

So nazis don't get carved up and beaten with a bat? News to me.

zap: None of his movies have interesting stories. They're just bad remakes of other stories.

Roth: Nope. Just once. That was enough.

comment #38

zap says ...

DeeZee: do you think the reason QT has been such a failure has more to do with his movies have boring stories or just not enough big actors?

comment #39

Mighty Kornholio says ...

^ Ritalin overdose?

comment #40

Jonah says ...

But I hear the movie's pretty close to the script.

You haven't seen the movie. Keep your trap shut about it.

"No, he came back after nearly flat-lining. And it had nothing to do with him, which is why he barely survived this one."

He didn't flat line. And it had plenty to do with him.

"Everybody's thrilled, because that's the most successful movie for both studios all year. But what does that say about IB's success in general?"

That it has already made back its budget plus some. World wide it's doing well. And they still have DVD sales to look forward to.

"No one loses money putting Aniston in it, either."

They don't lose money on Pitt either. Aniston is a B level movie actress. Friends is the most popular thing she will ever do.

"No, the young girls go to Harry Potter for the guys, and they go to LOTR, because they like to see a fantasy series where Liv Tyler doesn't dress up like Princess Leia in 'Jedi and they have to be distracted by it for most of the running time."

1...2...3...at least 3 incorrect statements in that paragraph.

" And I know this shit, because even Depp's Sweeney Todd and Wimbledon movie made more money than Elizabethtown, "

Depp made a Wimbledon movie?

None of that is proof, at all, of anything.

"Depp's entire career has never been as high-profile as Bloom's until POTC. "

Thank you for making my case for me.

"Um, Spielberg made money on Schindler's List and E.T., with literally no stars(at the time). Scorcese's never been a director who makes money, anyway. And Fincher's in-between. He can make money on his stuff on DVD with his name, but not in theaters."

They all rely on big stars to get them some box office. Spielberg could get by earlier in his career (Jaws, ET) but not anymore. They all use movie stars.

"Sure I can. Just look at the title alone."

It's not a remake.

"References to other war movies?"

I said "specifically" douche nozzel.

"So nazis don't get carved up and beaten with a bat? News to me."

It's not torture porn.

" None of his movies have interesting stories. They're just bad remakes of other stories. "

News to a lot of people that are smarter than you.

"Nope. Just once. That was enough. "

Except you didn't even read it once.

comment #41

Jonah says ...

Here is an oldie but a goodie by DZ. The discussion was Woody Allen hooking up with Soon-Yi.

"Actually, there was more controversy over his decision for him to play a blind director in Hollywood Ending, as Troma fans know that's the same gimmick in Terror Firmer. "

comment #42

frankbooth says ...

Is there anyone out there who still believes Dee Zee isn't really the real D.Z.?

comment #43

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

I hope it is. The prospect of there being more than one (are they like Gremlins? reproduce if you feed them Asian cinema after midnight?) is absolutely terrifying. The prospect of someone impersonating him that well is nearly as creepy in an entirely different way.

What's odd, though, is when this person/thing initially came back under DeeZee, he/she/it actually started speaking in actual paragraphs with a writing style that almost approached a real human's. I still disagreed with almost every point, but it was at least leaning in the general direction of coherence. That didn't last long, though.

So basically, I have no idea but something's fishy. In fact, something has always been fishy about the persona. I still really don't buy it, but how much time can one invest in pretending to be a sociopath before one actually fulfills that prophecy?

comment #44

DeeZee says ...

Jonah: "You haven't seen the movie. Keep your trap shut about it."

I've seen it in my head, and it's going to suck regardless of whether or not I see it in person, because QT is a hack.

"He didn't flat line."

The way the concept of IB was received indicated he was on flat-line.

"And it had plenty to do with him."

What did it have to do with him? It was his first movie dumped in August and the only reason it made money was because they emphasized Brad Pitt, "nazi scalps", and Hitler. Every other fucking movie of his would say, "From the director of" Pulp Ficton and/or Kill Bill, but they clearly were trying to avoid that connection, this time, because of Grindhouse. The guy is a wash-up.

"That it has already made back its budget plus some. World wide it's doing well. And they still have DVD sales to look forward to."

It's made its money and a profit, but it's still not going to do anything but put its production and distribution companies in the red for a particular quarter. It's not going to guarantee

"They don't lose money on Pitt either."

Didn't you yourself say Pitt's movies end up being major flops?

"Aniston is a B level movie actress. Friends is the most popular thing she will ever do."

You never know down the road. Again, people were trashing Jim Carrey the same way until The Truman Show.

"Depp made a Wimbledon movie?"

No, but I'm making a point that Dunst made more money for that flick than she did for Elizabethtown.

"Thank you for making my case for me."

What case? Depp has intentionally avoided big roles, which is why he's actually developed a following. Bloom can't do that, because he doesn't stand out as well as Depp.

"They all rely on big stars to get them some box office. Spielberg could get by earlier in his career (Jaws, ET) but not anymore. They all use movie stars."

He got by fine on Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, and even Transformers.

"It's not a remake. "

It's a remake of a title, at least.

"It's not torture porn."

Even though it's being billed as a "revenge" movie?

"News to a lot of people that are smarter than you."

If they're so smart, they wouldn't call his work original.

"Except you didn't even read it once. "

Yeah, I did, actually. I can't help that it sucks.

comment #45

zap says ...

DeeZee, would you please respond to my question?

I am just wondering if I am correct in asserting that you would admit that the reason QT can no longer make movies that are successes is has nothing to do with how well his movies might appear to be doing at the time? It seems like people can't get that about you.

comment #46

DeeZee says ...

Sorry, I meant "in the black".

zap: Sorry, I thought you were being rhetorical. And yes, I do assert that argument. His movies are only successful, nowadays, because they fit in with audience expectations, not because they stand out from the pack. I've always viewed the guy as unoriginal, but I think the reason older fans still embrace the RD/PF/JB days is because he actually did what he wanted with the material, rather than let the audience dictate what he thought would be popular. Again, Kill Bill only happened because of the Matrix and CTHD. If it got released prior to those flicks, it would probably have
bombed as badly as Carpenter's Big Trouble in Little China.

And as for your prior question, other directors who can't be successful by that definition are post-WOTW Spielberg, post-Transformers(or even Armageddon) Bay, post-TPM Lucas, maybe post-Inside Man Spike Lee, and post-Button Fincher.

comment #47

Jonah says ...

"I've seen it in my head, and it's going to suck regardless of whether or not I see it in person, because QT is a hack."

Your opinion doesn't count.

"The way the concept of IB was received indicated he was on flat-line."

No, not really.

"What did it have to do with him? It was his first movie dumped in August and the only reason it made money was because they emphasized Brad Pitt, "nazi scalps", and Hitler. Every other fucking movie of his would say, "From the director of" Pulp Ficton and/or Kill Bill, but they clearly were trying to avoid that connection, this time, because of Grindhouse. The guy is a wash-up. "

He wrote and directed the movie.

"It's made its money and a profit, but it's still not going to do anything but put its production and distribution companies in the red for a particular quarter. It's not going to guarantee "

Closing in on 100 in the states, 200 world wide.

"Didn't you yourself say Pitt's movies end up being major flops?"

Never said that. It's you that has flip flopped on Pitt. I said his name alone doesn't help a movie be a hit.

"You never know down the road. "

Yeah, sometimes you do. This is one of those times.

"No, but I'm making a point that Dunst made more money for that flick than she did for Elizabethtown."

You failed in making that point.

"What case? Depp has intentionally avoided big roles, which is why he's actually developed a following. Bloom can't do that, because he doesn't stand out as well as Depp."

That wasn't the topic being discussed. You tried to take it off the rails, and in doing so, made my point. Again, thank you.

"He got by fine on Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, and even Transformers."

Schindler's was a different case. The occassional CGI heavy movie can get by with several moderate stars. For most of his movies (Terminal, War of the Worlds, Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, Saving PRivate Ryan) he needs a movie star.

"It's a remake of a title, at least."

YEah, so it's not a a remake.

"Even though it's being billed as a "revenge" movie?"

So now a revenge movie is torture porn? Fail.

"If they're so smart, they wouldn't call his work original."

AS original as any other mainstreamish movies made these days. Kauffman is the only one close to being completely original.

"Yeah, I did, actually. I can't help that it sucks. "

You also can't help lying.

comment #48

Jonah says ...

"Every other fucking movie of his would say, "From the director of" Pulp Ficton and/or Kill Bill, but they clearly were trying to avoid that connection, this time, because of Grindhouse."

After thinkin about this, I realized it's an outright lie. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

First of all, every trailer I saw in theaters (at least 5-6 times) said something along the lines of:

"You haven't seen war, until you've seen it through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino"

Right in the middle of the trailer. Fail.

Also, the only person I saw out in support of the film was Tarantino. Saw him on Letterman and at least one other talk show and I've noticed him popping up on several podcasts promoting the film.

Doesn't seem like they're hiding the connection to me.

comment #49

DeeZee says ...

Jonah: "Your opinion doesn't count. "

My opinion's in line with critics who didn't like the flick, so I'd say it does.

"No, not really."

No one thought it was going to work up until the ad campaign.

"He wrote and directed the movie."

But it's still another war movie in the end, not a QT war movie.

"Closing in on 100 in the states, 200 world wide. "

And that's still only $50 million profit with P+A, which is actually smaller than his other flicks.

"Never said that. It's you that has flip flopped on Pitt. I said his name alone doesn't help a movie be a hit. "

No, I said that he's not that big, and that the only film, up until then, which he could specifically credited with being a success, was Troy. I guess IB ended up belonging to him, too.

"Yeah, sometimes you do. This is one of those times."

I'm sure that's what people once thought about Shyamalan, too.

"You tried to take it off the rails, and in doing so, made my point. Again, thank you. "

What point? That Depp's got more flops than Bloom? But Depp was clearly not aiming for the same box office as Bloom.

"You failed in making that point."

Not really. Bloom was a slightly more recognizable lead than the guy in Wimbledon, but Dunst still gets the credit for the takes of both of those flicks, given that Bloom couldn't hold up Kingdom of Heaven.

"For most of his movies (Terminal, War of the Worlds, Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, Saving PRivate Ryan) he needs a movie star."

That isn't most of his movies.

"YEah, so it's not a a remake. "

Remake of a concept, too.

"So now a revenge movie is torture porn? Fail."

It is when torture is the form of revenge.

"First of all, every trailer I saw in theaters (at least 5-6 times) said something along the lines of:

"You haven't seen war, until you've seen it through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino"'

But the emphasis was still on the war movie part. Before, the genre would not matter.

"Right in the middle of the trailer. Fail. "

The fact that it's in the middle and not, "The Sixth film from Quentin Tarantino", says I succeeded in that argument.

"Also, the only person I saw out in support of the film was Tarantino. Saw him on Letterman and at least one other talk show and I've noticed him popping up on several podcasts promoting the film."

Mainstream audiences don't listen to podcasts. And considering the flick was co-distributed by NBC Universal whatever, you'd figure he'd do a gig on the Tonight Show, if they had that kind of confidence in him.

comment #50

Jonah says ...

"My opinion's in line with critics who didn't like the flick, so I'd say it does."

You haven't seen it. They did. Your opinion doesn't count.

"But it's still another war movie in the end, not a QT war movie."

You haven't seen it. Don't know what you're talking about.

"And that's still only $50 million profit with P+A, which is actually smaller than his other flicks."

It's a huge hit, and it kills you.

"No, I said that he's not that big, and that the only film, up until then, which he could specifically credited with being a success, was Troy. I guess IB ended up belonging to him, too."

No, QT was the main reason for the success.

"I'm sure that's what people once thought about Shyamalan, too."

That's not even relevant.

"What point? That Depp's got more flops than Bloom? But Depp was clearly not aiming for the same box office as Bloom."

Which proves my point.

"Not really. Bloom was a slightly more recognizable lead than the guy in Wimbledon, but Dunst still gets the credit for the takes of both of those flicks, given that Bloom couldn't hold up Kingdom of Heaven. "

No, Dunst has been in too many flops to get credit. Bloom is more popular than her.

"That isn't most of his movies."

It's most of his movies over the last ten years.

"Remake of a concept, too."

It's not a remake. You need to look up what remake means.

"It is when torture is the form of revenge."

It's not though. Watch the movie.

"But the emphasis was still on the war movie part. Before, the genre would not matter."

You said they tried to hide QT's involvement. I proved they did not.

"The fact that it's in the middle and not, "The Sixth film from Quentin Tarantino", says I succeeded in that argument. "

Nope, they would've left it out entirely if they didn't want people to know it was a QT film. Most movies they don't even mention the director unless it's a big time guy.

"Mainstream audiences don't listen to podcasts. And considering the flick was co-distributed by NBC Universal whatever, you'd figure he'd do a gig on the Tonight Show, if they had that kind of confidence in him. "

He did Letterman, and Kimmel. And probably more, that's just what I saw. And podcasts are gaining in popularity.

Clearly nobody was afraid of promoting this as a QT film.

comment #51

Jonah says ...

"And considering the flick was co-distributed by NBC Universal whatever, you'd figure he'd do a gig on the Tonight Show, if they had that kind of confidence in him. "

Funny thing. I saw him on Jimmy Kimmel and David Letterman and Charlie Rose. But according to his IMDB page, he was on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien on August 25th.

Game. Set. Match. Bitch.