comment #1

Colin says ...

Why get bent out of shape for Entertainment Weekly and USA Today? Those publications are created by people to focus on the lowest common denominator: Transformers, Wolverine, Twilight etc.

comment #2

lazarus says ...

I don't think the ghost of Tarkovsky would join that posse. Doesn't seem like his style.

And even if he did, the others probably wouldn't want to keep waiting around for his slow-tracking ass to catch up.

comment #3

Eloi Manning says ...

"Wait...they have A Serious Man in tenth place following the unseen Invictus, Nine and The Lovely Bones"

At least one of these will be shit or at least underwhelming, so I'm sure A Serious Man will sneak in there somewhere.

But Basterds is nailed-on, guaranteed, and the Movie Gods are pleased about that even if you aren't.

comment #4

MikeSchaeferSF says ...

Karger's Oscar-preview article in the new EW is easily the silliest they've ever done. He calls An Education a "long-shot" for a Best Pictire nom, for one example.. EW used to be a go-to mag for well-considered articles about stuff like that. They've really surrendered to the Eloi.

comment #5

Terry McCarty says ...

Presumably the herd of critic-lemmings are looking at BASTERDS' box-office when making these prognostications. At this point, I can envision the new STAR TREK on the List of Ten as well.

comment #6

btwnproductions says ...

It's based in part I'm sure on NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN hitting the jackpot two years ago. Too soon (and MAN is an odd film).

comment #7

says ...

I'm bored with 2009. Bring on the 2010 films, please. Here's an interesting one: Very NSFW!

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/11/05/the-killer-inside-me-sales-trailer-michael-winterbottom-does-sex-and-violence-and-desperation/

comment #8

Colin says ...

Granted no has seen Inception yet, but does anyone think the Academy rewards Nolan's Inception for snubbing TDK?

comment #9

HarveyLime says ...

Even if Nine or Bones disappoints, it would still need better-than-average Coen business to break through. I'm talking at least O Brother numbers.

Trek won't make it. If anything, District 9 had more positive buzz coming out of the summer. If they're going to include one genre film to keep the fans at bay, that'll be it. Still, there are no Dark Knights that would really justify these extra slots.

comment #10

rory taylor says ...

you know what, i thought basterds was wonderful. yeah i may not watch it again and yeah hurt locker was magnificent but i havent enjoyed 2.5 hours in a cinema as much this year.

comment #11

longrunner says ...

Godfrey - Thanks for posting that link to footage from The Killer Inside Me. That's probably my favourite Thompson novel and I am thrilled to see the adaptation looks excellent!

comment #12

Chase Kahn says ...

"Inglourious Basterds" is the "A Serious Man" for the Eloi.

comment #13

drbob says ...

The Dark Knight was not snubbed; it was deservedly ignored.

comment #14

Colin says ...

Says you. The Reader, and Slumdog Millionaire found a way in despite being fair inferior films to TDK, The Wrestler, Doubt and WALL-e.

comment #15

Colin says ...

*far inferior

comment #16

says ...

longrunner--Your welcome. I knew Affleck would kill in this but what surprises me (or perhaps the better word is shocks?) is the strong performance given here by Alba. I hope people don't write off the film when they hear her name is attached to it.

comment #17

says ...

* you're

comment #18

Josh Massey says ...

Benjamin Button getting recognized is a sure-fire sign there should be less nominations, not more.

Anyway, the oft-mentioned Oscar title that baffles me is The Lovely Bones. Not getting that at all.

comment #19

the400blows says ...

When will Jeff realize that A Serious Man was not that great of a movie? As a matter of fact, it was boring as hell. Well, I guess this will get me banned from this site.

comment #20

btwnproductions says ...

BONES was a huge, and much beloved, bestseller, which counts for something (not that huge, much beloved bestsellers automatically become huge, much beloved movies).

comment #21

nemo says ...

Hell, forget about writing off The Killer Inside Me because of Jessica Alba. People will write it off because of Jessica Alba and Kate Hudson.

I hope Michael Winterbottom knows what he's doing casting those two.

That cannot possibly be a trailer they're really thinking of using. It's over 5 minutes long and it gives away pretty much the whole movie. But it does look good. Thanks for the link.

comment #22

Drew McW says ...

Of course it's not a trailer.

When was the last five minute trailer you saw? Never.

It's a promo reel from AFM this week, used by Wild Bunch to help secure distribution deals.

It wasn't meant to be seen by the public, which is why it reveals so much, although you still haven't really seen anything from the film's second half. It's not as spoilery as it seems.

comment #23

Doug Pratt says ...

Isn't Nine going to be just a gussied up version of Ghosts of Girlfriends Past?
And wouldn't it be amusing if Nine gets nominated for Best Picture and 9 gets nominated for Best Animated Film?

comment #24

Dan Revill says ...

It wouldn't be surprising, but it'll be disappointing if 9 gets nominated for Best Animated Film. What a pretty piece of crap.

Inglourious Basterds still is the best film of the year for me. Thoroughly enjoyable and well made. A Serious Man and Hurt Locker follow close behind though. Still, I don't think Basterds would sneak in if there were only five slots this year. Then again, you never can tell...

comment #25

DeeZee says ...

Terry: Basterds doesn't have a box office, because it cost too much, and the profits ended up being split between two companies which are going through bad quarters. That's why TWC is still going down soon. Plus, unless the Academy feels sorry for not giving Marathon Man a "Best Picture" nom, there's no chance of IB being on there.

comment #26

Rothchild says ...

Marathon Man?! Hahahahahaha. Oh, DeeZee. You rule. The best part is he still doesn't realize two companies also split the cost.

comment #27

DeeZee says ...

Roth: Um, no. Universal just paid for distribution, not budget. Still isn't saving them,though, if they're considering being bought out by Comcast.

comment #28

Uncle Milty says ...

DZ

Basterds had great box office. You can spin it however you want, but it made a ton of money.

You were the one that said nobody, I repeat nobody, though it would make more than 40 million. IT did quite a bit more than that.

Why would anybody take your oscar prediction seriously when you've been so far off on all of your other predictions with this film?

comment #29

Gordon27 says ...

When 'Inglorious Basterds' gets nominated for Best Picture, DZ is going to deny that it did.

comment #30

DeeZee says ...

Milty: It did better than expected, but it still didn't make a profit here, even though Pitt should be a bigger draw after 'Button. And the fact that Jeff doesn't believe IB's going to get nominated proves that it's a long shot. Hell, it's not even considered the likeliest contender on the lists where it's included.

Um, what else? QT's only Best Picture nom thus far has been Pulp Fiction. And I'm guessing the main reason was because Travolta was in it. The other reasons are that the members either don't (openly) watch the grindhouse flicks which inspired his later stuff, or they don't like the misogynist nature of his later stuff, or both. And let's be honest here. If a more original dark director like Peckinpah never got a Best Picture, why would QT have a chance?

Gordon: I admit I was in denial about Titanic winning Best Picture, but if IB gets it, they might as well nominate Saw VI. Anyway, my bet is Watchmen's going to have a better chance at earning the nom, because it'll make up for TDK, because it has that opening montage, and because that sucker had a better demo which would boost ratings.

comment #31

K. Bowen says ...

A Serious Man is 2001 A Space Odyssey reimagined as a Jewish domestic black comedy set in the sixties. It's quite good.

comment #32

jbf81 says ...

Inglorious Basterds is about to cross the 300MIL mark this weekend, if that doesnt prove Brad Pitt box office power I dont know. He is in the best moment of his career and this film is a HUGE hit for him.

comment #33

Uncle Milty says ...

"It did better than expected, but it still didn't make a profit here, even though Pitt should be a bigger draw after 'Button. And the fact that Jeff doesn't believe IB's going to get nominated proves that it's a long shot."

It made a profit here. And they do get the money from the world wide gross as well. So it made a huge profit, no matter how you spin it.

I think you have a problem with simple math. Is this the part where you inflate the P + A to make a point?

I don't think Jeff's opinion, emphasis on the word opinion, proves anything.

"Um, what else? QT's only Best Picture nom thus far has been Pulp Fiction. And I'm guessing the main reason was because Travolta was in it."

It is a fact that Pulp Fiction is his only best picture nom. It is also completely irrelevant.

And yeah, it had to have been because of Travolta. Nearly every movie he made before and since Pulp Fiction has been a best picture nominee.

Oh wait...

"If a more original dark director like Peckinpah never got a Best Picture, why would QT have a chance? "

Tarantino has already been nominated once, as you mentioned. So your arguement is dead in the water.

"because that sucker had a better demo which would boost ratings. "

Basterds made more money domestically and world wide than Watchmen.

Young people aren't more likely to watch because Watchmen, which was a dissapointment, is nominated. Basterds is the more popular film, the much better film, and will be the nominated film.

comment #34

DeeZee says ...

jb: It doesn't prove his box office power, because Troy made more money, and Button didn't do anything in the U.S., even though it had a friendlier rating. Pitt's only a draw, as long as his movies don't come off too "intellectual". For some reason, other than Eyes Wide Shut and Magnolia, Cruise is a better bullshitter in that arena.

comment #35

DeeZee says ...

Milty: "It made a profit here."

Not if you count P+A.

"And they do get the money from the world wide gross as well. So it made a huge profit, no matter how you spin it."

And it made half a profit for both companies at best, not counting whatever Pitt gets paid, which is probably not going to be cheap, either.

"It is a fact that Pulp Fiction is his only best picture nom. It is also completely irrelevant. "

Um, it's totally relevant, because that was the peak of his career, and he hasn't done anything new or noteworthy since then. And in fact, people have been forced to defend his later work in some form or another, because they don't want to admit he's a hack.

"And yeah, it had to have been because of Travolta. Nearly every movie he made before and since Pulp Fiction has been a best picture nominee. "

No, they haven't all been Best Picture noms, but he was the biggest name on the marquis with a lead role, so that does make a difference. Pitt's already got his Best Actor nom for 'Button, so he'll probably have to work a little harder to impress the voters the next time.

"Tarantino has already been nominated once, as you mentioned. So your arguement is dead in the water. "

Yes, but, as I pointed out, those were different circumstances. PF was more "mainstream" by Academy standards, and everything else he's done since then has been either pseudo-artsy or dependant on obscure movie references.

"Basterds made more money domestically and world wide than Watchmen. "

Perhaps, but once again, Watchmen hit a wider demo, and ties in more with mainstream pop culture
than Basterds.

"Young people aren't more likely to watch because Watchmen, which was a dissapointment, is nominated."

You kidding? The geezer Academy finally picks a movie they liked enough to pay for in 3-d, and it might have a chance to win?

"Basterds is the more popular film, the much better film, and will be the nominated film. "

Dunno about more popular, since Watchmen got people to buy the book who normally don't read graphic novels. IB had a more recognizable actor than all of the ones in Watchmen combined, and he still couldn't come up with a higher domestic take than that flick. As for "better" films, that's clearly subjective, but I will say that most people would prefer Jack Earl Haley's performance over that of Eli Roth.

comment #36

Rothchild says ...

This is just about as classic a DZ moment as we're ever going to witness:

He said Watchmen made more domestically than Basterds AND it was in 3-D. Both are wrong. He's about to explain why he was right. I'll grab some popcorn for this.

If QT made Watchmen DZ would have said, "I liked it better when it was Corman's Fantastic Four."

comment #37

Uncle Milty says ...

"Not if you count P+A."

Yes, even if you count p+a.

"And it made half a profit for both companies at best, not counting whatever Pitt gets paid, which is probably not going to be cheap, either."

It made a profit. And last time I checked, that's not a prerequisite for getting a nomination.

You said you think Watchmen could get nominated and it was considered a major bomb.

"Um, it's totally relevant, because that was the peak of his career, and he hasn't done anything new or noteworthy since then. ."

Basterds got great reviews and made a ton of cash.
Huge success.

"No, they haven't all been Best Picture noms, but he was the biggest name on the marquis with a lead role, so that does make a difference."

This comment doesn't even fit with your previous comment.

"Perhaps, but once again, Watchmen hit a wider demo, and ties in more with mainstream pop culture
than Basterds. "

Prove that it hit a wider demo. I'm not going to look it up, but I want you to prove that. Otherwise, I'll assume you're full of shit. Now, I don't want you to use your bullshit wordplay to prove it. I want numbers.

"You kidding? The geezer Academy finally picks a movie they liked enough to pay for in 3-d, and it might have a chance to win? "

I don't even know what this means. Which I'm sure was your intention.

"Dunno about more popular, since Watchmen got people to buy the book who normally don't read graphic novels."

Basterds made more money. Therefore, more popular.

"IB had a more recognizable actor than all of the ones in Watchmen combined, and he still couldn't come up with a higher domestic take than that flick."

Basterds did have a higher domestic take than Watchmen. And worldwide. And Watchmen also had a budget twice the size of Basterds and still made far less money worldwide. And we know Watchmen spent a shitload on p+a.

"As for "better" films, that's clearly subjective, but I will say that most people would prefer Jack Earl Haley's performance over that of Eli Roth."

That is also subjective.

comment #38

Gordon27 says ...

DZ, Point #1: "even though Pitt should be a bigger draw after 'Button."

DZ, Point #2: "It doesn't prove his box office power, because Troy made more money, and Button didn't do anything in the U.S., even though it had a friendlier rating."

It's not just me, right? Those points are completely contradictory, and neither one proves the point that he's trying to prove, which is that 'Inglorious Basterds' lost money, and anyway it only made money because Pitt was in it.

The other thing I wanted to point out; everything DZ says is bullshit, but when he says "I'm guessing", that's when even he knows it's complete and total shit.

comment #39

taikwan says ...

Despite the unintentional attempts of derailment, DeeZee contributes to the discussion.
Folks here respond as if he personally attacked their senior thesis.

comment #40

Gordon27 says ...

"PF was more "mainstream" by Academy standards"

Yes, a crime movie which is basically three short stories is more Academy-mainstream than a war movie which has higher box office. Obviously.

I take back part of my last post; when DZ says "it's a fact", that also means he's making it up. Pretty much anything he says means that he's making it up.

comment #41

Gordon27 says ...

taikwan - the fact that he derails conversations frequently by bringing up Tarantino means that, when Tarantino comes up, he's going to be on-topic. It's the old "broken clock" theory.

comment #42

Uncle Milty says ...

Gordon,

It's not just you.

You're also right about which film was more mainstream. It's worth noting that at the time Pulp Fiction was released, Sam Jackson was not a movie star and John Travolta's career was in the dumps.

Not a mainstream movie at all.

comment #43

DeeZee says ...

Roth: Sorry, I was in a hurry. I meant significantly higher.

"If QT made Watchmen DZ would have said, "I liked it better when it was Corman's Fantastic Four."'

If he made Watchmen, I'd have said I liked it better when it was the Cronenberg A History of Violence. Or maybe the Punisher with Thomas Jane. Or even Kick-Ass.

Milty: "Yes, even if you count p+a."

If you count P+A, it only broke even here.

"You said you think Watchmen could get nominated and it was considered a major bomb. "

Technically, so was Benjamin Button. But as you pointed out, that's not a prerequisite for getting a nom.

"Basterds got great reviews and made a ton of cash. Huge success."

Huge success for one company. Minor success for two companies. And it's still not new or noteworthy, just because it's getting a free pass.

"This comment doesn't even fit with your previous comment."

Actually, it does fit, since QT's continued to cast low-rent talent since PF, which is partly why his later material suffers so much. [Forster's stiff as a board; Thurman's an over-acting soccer mom; Dawson and Winstead are totally out of place in Death Proof; and Laurent, Groth, Kruger, and Wuttke come off like bad parodies, rather than realistic portrayals of the characters of their eras.]

"Prove that it hit a wider demo."

http://beat.bodoglife.com/entertainment/watchmen-big-box-office-hit-72572.html
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007604.html?categoryid=1082&cs=1

"Basterds made more money. Therefore, more popular."

It made more money, internationally. But Watchmen had more buzz, more public interest, and more impact. Basterds is already a throwaway forgotten by 'Wild Things.

"I don't even know what this means. "

I'm just explaining the mentality of people who normally avoid the Oscars.

"And Watchmen also had a budget twice the size of Basterds and still made far less money worldwide."

It made less money world-wide, because it focuses on aspects of comic books unique to American pop culture.

"That is also subjective."

It won't be, if you were to conduct a survey.

"You're also right about which film was more mainstream. It's worth noting that at the time Pulp Fiction was released, Sam Jackson was not a movie star and John Travolta's career was in the dumps."

Jackson was slowly building his rep, though. And Travolta's association with 70s kitsch was clearly used as a selling point for PF at a time when 70s pop culture was making a comeback. So maybe PF wasn't mainstream in the same sense as Forrest Gump, but it was mainstream in the sense of being more high-profile than the average dark comedy.

Gordon: My point is that Button did well enough to give Pitt a wider audience outside of the tent-pole stuff and the R-rated thriller stuff, but it didn't make as much as it should have, when you compare it to Troy. And the fact that IB only did slightly better than PF's non-adjusted domestic, in spite of his stronger star power, shows he has a ways to go to be considered truly bankable.

"Yes, a crime movie which is basically three short stories is more Academy-mainstream than a war movie which has higher box office."

The crime movie doesn't rely on torture porn or obscure references to black-and-white silent and sound movies.

comment #44

Uncle Milty says ...

"If you count P+A, it only broke even here."

Nope.

"Technically, so was Benjamin Button. But as you pointed out, that's not a prerequisite for getting a nom. "

Exactly. You've contradicted yourself. Your initial rationale for Basterds not getting a nomination was that it wasn't seen as a hit. Hard to keep your bullshit straight, ain't it. Tee hee.

"Huge success for one company. Minor success for two companies. And it's still not new or noteworthy, just because it's getting a free pass."

Most other opinions say differently. And Watchmen wasn't a hit for even one company.

"Actually, it does fit, since QT's continued to cast low-rent talent since PF",

You continue to alter your point on this. I'm not going to respond until you return to the original point you were attempting to make.

I saw nothing in that article proving that Watchmen hit a wider demo than Basterds. In fact, Basterds was not mentioned in that article. The other thing not mentioned in that article was that Watchmen eventually came to be seen as a box office disaster.

Nice try, kid.

"It made more money, internationally. But Watchmen had more buzz, more public interest, and more impact. Basterds is already a throwaway forgotten by 'Wild Things."

According to Box Office Mojo Basterds made more domestically and also worldwide. By far. It also had a much smaller budget, half the size.

Watchmen may have had more buzz initially, because of all the advertisement. But it was a flop, overall.
I'm not sure how a movie that made far less money had more public interest or more impact. That's one of those things you can't prove, you're just saying it. All evidence to the contrary. Tee hee.

"It made less money world-wide, because it focuses on aspects of comic books unique to American pop culture. "

In other words, I'm right and you're wrong.

"It won't be, if you were to conduct a survey."

Can't prove that unless you conduct the survey and provide us with the results. Until then, it's subjective.

"maybe PF wasn't mainstream in the same sense as Forrest Gump, but it was mainstream in the sense of being more high-profile than the average dark comedy."

It wasn't mainstream at all. I lived in the suburbs at the time, worked at a suburban neighborhood theater. All of my friends had seen Speed, True Lies, Forrest Gump and all the other expected films that year. None of them had even heard of Pulp Fiction until it had been in theaters for several weeks and I eventually got them all to go see it.

In big cities Pulp may have had some pre-release buzz, but not in the so called fly over states.

"The crime movie doesn't rely on torture porn or obscure references to black-and-white silent and sound movies."

I went to see Basterds with my wife, brother, mother in law, sister in law, and her boyfriend. Not a one of them has seen a torture porn film, a silent film, or many black and white films beyond the obvious (Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, etc...).

They all loved Basterds. Loved it.

comment #45

Gordon27 says ...

"My point is that Button did well enough to give Pitt a wider audience outside of the tent-pole stuff and the R-rated thriller stuff, but it didn't make as much as it should have, when you compare it to Troy. And the fact that IB only did slightly better than PF's non-adjusted domestic, in spite of his stronger star power, shows he has a ways to go to be considered truly bankable."

Your point is gobbledygook that expressly disproves the point that you were initially trying to make, that 'Inglourious Basterds' owes its success to Brad Pitt's star power.

Similarly, your links don't actually prove *anything*. For 'Watchmen', you have an outdated blog entry linking to a Nikki Finke posting in which she says that the studio is telling her (without numbers) how well the movie is doing; the title of the link being "Watchmen to do $70 mil opening weekend?" So, the only information in that article is blatantly inflated by the studio.

On the other hand, the 'Basterds' link is a verified source (Variety) quoting actual numbers, and saying that 'Basterds' is doing better across the demographic lines than expected; 42% of the audience was women and 70% was over 25.

"The crime movie doesn't rely on torture porn"

Ah, so the movie where people are scalped off camera is torture porn, but the movie where a man is anally raped on camera (after being hit by a car, on camera, beaten by a professional boxer, on camera, and almost choked to death, on camera) is not? Wait, which is the one where a man's head is blown apart on camera and the lead character spends the next ten minutes with an eyeball in his afro?

"Forster's stiff as a board"

My favorite part about DZ is when he states his opinions as if they're commonly accepted facts; he does this all the time, especially when talking about Tarantino. Robert Forster's Oscar nomination speaks for itself on the subject.

"Laurent, Groth, Kruger, and Wuttke come off like bad parodies, rather than realistic portrayals of the characters of their eras."

Here's the thing; I was going to point out that you didn't see 'Inglourious Basterds', but that doesn't even matter; you have proven time and again that you don't like Tarantino, and had already spent months before the movie came out talking about how bad it was, so it would be pretty stupid and futile for you to actually see it (I suppose that would make it right up your alley). But my point is, why do you bother pretending that you have an objective take on the situation? You have already shown that you hate Tarantino so much that you can't admit that 'Pulp Fiction' is a more influential movie than 'Jerry Maguire'. With that level of blindness, of course you're going to hate the performances in 'Basterds'. You already decided to do that before you saw the movie. (I don't mean to suggest that this is true of everybody who criticizes the movie; the point is, you're the *only* person in the world who criticizes the movie half as harshly as you do; even the people who dislike it acknowledge that a lot of people like it and don't have any reason to care enough to hate it.)

comment #46

Gordon27 says ...

"It won't be, if you were to conduct a survey."

In DZ's mind, the fact that he can imagine the outcome of a survey that has never existed is sufficient proof to justify making a statement.

comment #47

Gordon27 says ...

I can't find anything with detailed demographics on 'Watchmen', presumably the studio didn't want to own up to how bad it did. However, here's a link showing opening night sales, 70% male, 65% 18-34, which is to say, not very diverse:
http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/midnight-shows-of-watchmen-selling-out/

And here's the early tracking info about how women and men under 25 aren't interested:
"Rival distribution executives said the tracking surveys show that "Watchmen" holds remarkably strong appeal among older males but less interest among teenage boys and men in their 20s, and still less passion from women of any age."
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:R8QsLhdw5toJ:articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/03/business/fi-watchmen3+watchmen+surveys&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

comment #48

DeeZee says ...

Gordon: The first link was for the midnight showing, which does not represent who saw it across the board. And the second link is speculation from rivals, so of course it's going to be negative. Nice try, though.

comment #49

Gordon27 says ...

DZ - they're the ONLY publicly available numbers. You can say anything you like to try and explain them, but what you have proven that you can't do is cite any numbers that contradict those.

comment #50

DeeZee says ...

Milty: "Nope."

At best, it made a little more money than it cost, and that's about it. But it would be considered a bomb, if not for the WW sales.

"Your initial rationale for Basterds not getting a nomination was that it wasn't seen as a hit."

Actually, my original rationale was that Basterds appeals to lower-brow sensibilities than even the Academy is willing to appease for ratings. The fact that it's a non-hit which made its money back is a different issue.

"Most other opinions say differently."

I don't know anyone who considers it new or noteworthy, just because they like it.

"And Watchmen wasn't a hit for even one company."

It made its money back, and boosted ancillary sales, which is probably what the suits at the company were expecting, if nothing else. IB wasn't able to save Weinco or Universal, though, and it's supposed to be more profitable.

"I'm not going to respond until you return to the original point you were attempting to make."

What? That Travolta was the reason for PF being nominated? And why not? The guy certainly had more of a legacy than the guy behind Reservoir Dogs and True Romance.

"In fact, Basterds was not mentioned in that article. "

It was in the second article.

"The other thing not mentioned in that article was that Watchmen eventually came to be seen as a box office disaster. "

Only by people who think that it's guaranteed to make the same dough as Wanted.

"I'm not sure how a movie that made far less money had more public interest or more impact. That's one of those things you can't prove, you're just saying it."

Again, people were already buying the graphic novel months in advance. And for all its talk of bombing, viewers are still interested in

"In other words, I'm right and you're wrong. "

You're right on the international side.

"Can't prove that unless you conduct the survey and provide us with the results. Until then, it's subjective."

If I ever bother with a blog, I will.

"In big cities Pulp may have had some pre-release buzz, but not in the so called fly over states. "

But part of the flick's success if the way the country embraced it, regardless of its "niche" appeal.

"I went to see Basterds with my wife, brother, mother in law, sister in law, and her boyfriend. Not a one of them has seen a torture porn film, a silent film, or many black and white films beyond the obvious (Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, etc...).
They all loved Basterds. Loved it."

Well, I'm not surprised. Low expectations=high appreciation. AMPAS obviously has the same problem with high-brow stuff, but the members do expect these genre flicks to give them something a little more emotionally satisfying than movie references and gore.

Gordon: "Your point is gobbledygook that expressly disproves the point that you were initially trying to make, that 'Inglourious Basterds' owes its success to Brad Pitt's star power."

Oh, it does. It's just not as big as it could be, domestically, considering his star power.

"So, the only information in that article is blatantly inflated by the studio."

The opening weekend seemed to match the inflated stats.

"On the other hand, the 'Basterds' link is a verified source (Variety) quoting actual numbers, and saying that 'Basterds' is doing better across the demographic lines than expected; 42% of the audience was women and 70% was over 25."

Which means that there were actually less younger women who saw it, which means that Watchmen did do better across all demos.

"Robert Forster's Oscar nomination speaks for itself on the subject."

That probably had more to do with his career as a whole than that movie.

"You have already shown that you hate Tarantino so much that you can't admit that 'Pulp Fiction' is a more influential movie than 'Jerry Maguire'."

I didn't say more influential, just more talked about by movie-goers when it came out than PF. PF was part of a film geek hype-fest which eventually fell flat on its face when those same fanboys started supporting trash like the Blair Witch Project and Serenity. Jerry Maguire helped boost demand for Cruise's transition into more dramatic projects and paved the way for more low-key, non-fart joke comedies, like The Bucket List, to be accepted by the public. No major studio would be funding Wes Anderson movies, if not for Jerry Maguire. Pulp Fiction's only legacy is a bunch of talky gangster movies which don't do anything original, because the directors consider that original.

"even the people who dislike it acknowledge that a lot of people like it and don't have any reason to care enough to hate it."

Um, are you kidding? The people who don't like IB have been clear about why they couldn't stand the flick. The people in the pro-IB camp are just trying to delude themselves into thinking that QT is finally doing something different from PF, when it's the same fucking thing he's been doing for the last 17 years, but in Europe. Christ, no one tries to pretend Paul Anderson's doing anything different wtih RE 3.

"DZ - they're the ONLY publicly available numbers.

Except they're not, as my links noted.

comment #51

DeeZee says ...

Sorry, missed one.

"And for all its talk of bombing, viewers are still interested in those director's cuts months later. Does anyone who's not a QT geek still really care about the Kill Bill Bloody Affair thing at this present time?"

comment #52

Uncle Milty says ...

"At best, it made a little more money than it cost, and that's about it. But it would be considered a bomb, if not for the WW sales."

Nope. It's considered a huge, and surprise, hit.

"ctually, my original rationale was that Basterds appeals to lower-brow sensibilities than even the Academy is willing to appease for ratings. The fact that it's a non-hit which made its money back is a different issue."

No, you said because it wasn't a hit.

"I don't know anyone who considers it new or noteworthy, just because they like it. "

You wouldn't admit to it if you did, so this is worthless.

"What? That Travolta was the reason for PF being nominated? And why not? The guy certainly had more of a legacy than the guy behind Reservoir Dogs and True Romance."

And we all know you have to have a legacy to get nominated. And if you were right, why hasn't Travolta starred in many (if any) best picture nominees in the 15 years since Pulp? That's right.

"It was in the second article."

I don't see a second article. Next time, link the right article. You still haven't proved that point.

"Only by people who think that it's guaranteed to make the same dough as Wanted. "

This doesn't make a damn bit of sense and you know it. Watchmen was a bomb. No two ways about it.

"Again, people were already buying the graphic novel months in advance. And for all its talk of bombing, viewers are still interested in"

People have been buying the graphic novel for twenty something years. And the movie bombed, whether or not people were interested. It still bombed.

"You're right on the international side."

I'm correct on both sides. Basterds made more money domestically than Watchmen.

"If I ever bother with a blog, I will. "

Until that day I'm correct about it being subjective.

"But part of the flick's success if the way the country embraced it, regardless of its "niche" appeal. "

Doesn't make sense. Disregard.

"Well, I'm not surprised. Low expectations=high appreciation. ."

Most of us had high expectations. My mother in law had never seen a Tarantino flick and had no idea what to expect. She loved the film.

"Which means that there were actually less younger women who saw it, which means that Watchmen did do better across all demos. "

Yet somehow made far less money.

"Robert Forster's Oscar nomination speaks for itself on the subject."

That probably had more to do with his career as a whole than that movie."

Yeah, because if there was one guy that deserved a career Oscar it was Robert Forster.

"I didn't say more influential, just more talked about by movie-goers when it came out than PF."

Actually, you did say more influential. But even this statement about Maguire being more talked about is completely false.

"Jerry Maguire helped boost demand for Cruise's transition into more dramatic projects and paved the way for more low-key, non-fart joke comedies, like The Bucket List"

So Maguire came out prior to Born on the Fourth of July, A Few Good Men, Interview with the Vampire, Far and Away, The Color of Money, All the Right Moves, Taps, The Firm, and Rainman?

I'm assuming your mention of The Bucket List was meant as a joke. I'll take it as such.

"No major studio would be funding Wes Anderson movies, if not for Jerry Maguire. "

Prove the connection.

"Pulp Fiction's only legacy is a bunch of talky gangster movies which don't do anything original, because the directors consider that original."

Yeah, Pulp was great, but it inspired a lot of shit like Boondock Saints, which you fucking love.

"The people who don't like IB have been clear about why they couldn't stand the flick. The people in the pro-IB camp are just trying to delude themselves into thinking that QT is finally doing something different from PF, when it's the same fucking thing he's been doing for the last 17 years,"

This entire statement is untrue. Can't really argue against it because it's just pure bullshit.

comment #53

Rothchild says ...

DZ:

There was a budget, split down the middle between Universal and Weinsteins. Then the worldwide gross was split between the two of them. This distrubution fee nonsense is something you pulled out of your ass.

Your logic is fascinating in a padded cell kind of way.

Explain this:

BASTERDS cost 70. It made 300 million.
WATCHMEN cost 140. It made 185 million.

I look forward to it.

You also never tried to explain your comment about Watchmen being in 3-D. That's the best thing you've said in weeks.

comment #54

Rothchild says ...

Warner Bros. also spent more than twice as much to market Watchmen. Explain that, too.

comment #55

Rothchild says ...

"The two studios split the film's budget of about $70 million and will evenly divide its revenue."

From the Los Angeles Times.

comment #56

DeeZee says ...

Milt: "It's considered a huge, and surprise, hit. "

It's considered a huge hit world-wide. But it disappointed here.

"No, you said because it wasn't a hit. "

I said it was because of the fucking low-class content. I mentioned it not being a major hit on the side.

"You wouldn't admit to it if you did, so this is worthless."

A torture-porn remake of the Great Escape does not make it different from The Great Escape.

"And if you were right, why hasn't Travolta starred in many (if any) best picture nominees in the 15 years since Pulp?"

I'm guessing because he doesn't need to prove himself like QT.

"I don't see a second article. Next time, link the right article. "

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007604.html?categoryid=1082&cs=1

" Watchmen was a bomb. No two ways about it. "

A bomb means a movie doesn't even make half its money back, so I doubt it.

"People have been buying the graphic novel for twenty something years. And the movie bombed, whether or not people were interested."

Yes, but sales went up after the trailer. And the movie did well, given the expectations for an R-rated comic book adaptation. No one calls Road to Perdition a bomb, and that made less money than the usual Hanks stuff.

"Basterds made more money domestically than Watchmen. "

Only slightly more money.

"Doesn't make sense."

It's based on obscure movies you'd only see in arthouses and grindhouses, or on late night cable channels. But people "got" PF, anyway, because of how those flicks have become encapsulated in our pop culture as a whole.

"Most of us had high expectations. My mother in law had never seen a Tarantino flick and had no idea what to expect. She loved the film. "

Again, your mom proves my point. As for the rest of the clan, I imagine you had high expectations, based on what you liked about QT and Pitt, but low expectations on what you wanted from the movie.

"Yet somehow made far less money. "

Only 'cus of the budget.

"Yeah, because if there was one guy that deserved a career Oscar it was Robert Forster. "

So you agreed he sucked in Jackie Brown, too? :)

"Actually, you did say more influential. But even this statement about Maguire being more talked about is completely false. "

I said it had more of an impact.

"So Maguire came out prior to Born on the Fourth of July, A Few Good Men, Interview with the Vampire, Far and Away, The Color of Money, All the Right Moves, Taps, The Firm, and Rainman?"

Those were mostly big-budget high-profile pics, while Maguire was a low-budget high-profile pic.
And the ones which were low-budget which were successful had more to do with Cruise being used to sell anything back then, rather a concept which revolved around Cruise.

"Prove the connection."

Just look at Anderson's credits before JM.

"Yeah, Pulp was great, but it inspired a lot of shit like Boondock Saints, which you fucking love. "

I love Boondock Saints, cus it's not talky.

"This entire statement is untrue."

If it's not true, then why the walk-outs at Cannes?

Roth: They split the budget by trading off distribution and marketing costs in return. Anyway, I'm still wondering why you can't explain how IB being such a "hit" still forced TWC to lay off more people and Uni to consider being bought out by Comcast. Watchmen cost more and made less, but it's got word-of-mouth and ancillary sales.

comment #57

Rothchild says ...

"I'm still wondering why you can't explain how IB being such a "hit" still forced TWC to lay off more people and Uni to consider being bought out by Comcast. Watchmen cost more and made less, but it's got word-of-mouth and ancillary sales."

You just get dumber and dumber and dumber... Yes, BASTERDS is a bomb because it didn't make enough money to offset LAND OF THE LOST and the dozens of bombs at TWC. Did you spend the entire day trying to come up with that logic? Or does your craziness just spontaneously come to you?

comment #58

Uncle Milty says ...

"It's considered a huge hit world-wide. But it disappointed here. "

Nope. Even you said, a few months back, that nobody expected IB to make over 40 million (which was your prediction. It tripled that.

"I said it was because of the fucking low-class content. I mentioned it not being a major hit on the side. "

You're getting your stories confused.

"A torture-porn remake of the Great Escape does not make it different from The Great Escape. "

It's not torture porn and this comment by you doesn't relate to what was being said.

"I'm guessing because he doesn't need to prove himself like QT. "

This comment doesn't make any sense. Not going for it.

"A bomb means a movie doesn't even make half its money back, so I doubt it. "

And when you throw in p+a for Watchmen it probably didn't.

And I don't agree with your definition of what constitutes a bomb anyway.

"Yes, but sales went up after the trailer. And the movie did well, given the expectations for an R-rated comic book adaptation. "

First, prove that sales went up. Second, that still doesn't help the box office numbers. The expectations were for it to make a profit. It didn't.

"Basterds made more money domestically than Watchmen. "

Only slightly more money."

First time you've ever told the truth. Of course, IB also had half the budget of Watchmen, and far less in p+a.

"Again, your mom proves my point. As for the rest of the clan, I imagine you had high expectations, based on what you liked about QT and Pitt, but low expectations on what you wanted from the movie."

No, your point was that we had low expectations. My mother in law had zero expectations. None of us had low expectations.

"Yet somehow made far less money. "

Only 'cus of the budget."

Yeah, that's part of it. It also made far less.

"So you agreed he sucked in Jackie Brown, too? :)"

No, he was terrific. Don't try and change what you said. You tried to claim that Forster was given the oscar nom as some sort of career achievement.

"I said it had more of an impact."

No, you said more influential.

"Those were mostly big-budget high-profile pics, while Maguire was a low-budget high-profile pic."

Jerry Maguire had a budget of 50 million, 13 years ago. Hardly low budget. And higher than all but one of those movies I listed. Only ten million less than Vampire.

"Just look at Anderson's credits before JM."

Prior to 1996 Anderson was a young guy just out of film school. Anderson also didn't have any credits prior to Hal Ashby making Being There and Harold and Maude.

"If it's not true, then why the walk-outs at Cannes?"

And that proves that nobody really likes the film how? It doesn't, dumbfuck.

comment #59

luck says ...

We have all sufficient strength to endure the misfortunes of others.Wealth Trigger Review