|
>I mean Man Form Uncle had a B and Hotel Transylvania has an
>A, and Woodlawn has an A+.
People like all sorts of movies I don't. (I personally think an A- is selling this film short, but that's just one man's opinion.)
But CinemaScore is an accurate reflection of the sentiment of the normal moviegoing public who sees the films in question. People who are seeing this movie don't find it boring.
The problem is that not enough people are actually seeing it to make it a hit.
>>>The public probably doesn't care about the inaccuracies -
>>they
>>>might just think is a boring movie.
>>
>>The public doesn't think it's boring and it definitely
>doesn't
>>care about inaccuracies.
>>It's likely just the subject matter--
>>as people have noted above and elsewhere, the #1 thing I
>>encountered when trying to convince people to see it was
>>"didn't they just make this movie?"
>
>I guess I was barely aware of the Kutcher film - did that
>actually get marketed? I honestly saw no "real life"
>advertising for it and knew no one in real life who even
>mentioned the film ever. Maybe I need more friends who like
>the That 70's Show. (Looked at BoxOfficeMoj Jobs did open in
>2,381 theaters. I had no idea.)
>
>>Sorkin is loved in NY/LA, but outside of there, he needs a
>>star actor or director to carry the film to box office. His
>>name ain't enough to make something a success (see: Studio
>60,
>>or really even The Newsroom).
>
>I agree about the actors, but no actor's that people care
>about would have been any better. Leo Dicaprio can't act like
>anything else other than Leo DiCapario. Christian Bale would
>have adopted a dumb ass voice. Jennifer Lawrence is
>contractually obligated to be in the next 6 Bradley Cooper
>films. Not sure if any big name could have played him.
I agree on all of those fronts.
>As for Sorkin: I The American President, a Few Good Men, The
>West Wing, The Social Network and Moneyball were all hits.
All big name actors (well, West Wing had big names for TV), save for The Social Network. All were all intensely "feel good" movies/shows save for The Social Network too.
>I think your point may be applicable - only the Social Network
>didn't have a huge lead actor. But it made twice what Steve
>Jobs did on it's opening week.
>
I included "director" on purpose. Fincher's movies nearly always open to a healthy 15-25 mil and have serious legs (save for Fight Club, but the bombing of Fight Club has only made Fincher more popular). Steve Jobs opened beautifully in its limited NY/LA release, because Sorkin does have pull with those audiences, but it expanded relatively poorly.
We'll see if it has legs as Oscar season approaches, but Danny Boyle's movies rarely rarely do well over here. Even 127 Hours, one of the most life-affirming and feel good movies I've seen in years, couldn't catch on with flyover audiences.
On top of that, The Social Network had the benefit of the film coming out at the absolute peak of Facebook's popularity among young people. The Steve Jobs movie definitely isn't as timely in terms of its capitalization on subject matter, and combined with Boyle not being nearly as appealing to audiences as Fincher, and combined with no real "stars"-- I thought the film would make it to 50 mil or so, which would've made it a hit. I suppose if it develops legs and gets an Oscar season re-release, it could make it around there, but I doubt it. It's no doubt a disappointing b.o. turn...
... but I objected to the disappointing b.o. being associated with an audience care for biopic accuracy or an audience opinion that the film is boring. The people who aren't seeing it might think it's boring subject matter, that's true-- but people who are seeing it, for the most part, simply aren't feeling that way.
My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn
