The Bombs Of 2013

[CaptainJackSparrow]

In that case, I have to ask whether you actually read your own posts and use common sense to work out when something could inadvertently be read as an insult. Because something likelike that is incredibly easy to mistake as a personal attack.

And you should have the decency to now call someone elses work crap.

[rukaio101]

And you should have the decency to now call someone elses work crap.

Oh please. I've had my work called crap before. I've called other peoples work crap before. If Films doesn't have thick enough skin to withstand someone calling his work crap, then he shouldn't have posted it (and I'd note that he's been acting a lot more mature about the whole thing than you have). There are always going to be people who dislike your work. I at least had the courtesy to point out what specifically was wrong with the article instead of just blindly insulting it. Many people wouldn't do that. And when I did call it crap, I only did so because you had pissed me off (for which I already apologised to Films).

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Just because other people have called your work crap doesn't give you any right to call his work crap.

[rukaio101]

Just because other people have called your work crap doesn't give you any right to call his work crap.

Well done for completely missing the point of my last post. That took quite a lot of skill.

 

My point was that, if you post something you've written on the internet then there are always going to be people who dislike it and will say so in varying degrees of harshness. And if you can't take it then you shouldn't be posting your work in the first place. 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

But we are in a much more "civilized" forums (besides BKB and Squaremaster). One shouldn't expect their work to be called crap on this site. We are not on IMDB.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Gingy

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Hopefully a mod can delete our argument.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Gingy

[rukaio101]

But we are in a much more "civilized" forums (besides BKB and Squaremaster). One shouldn't expect their work to be called crap on this site. We are not on IMDB.

It doesn't matter where you post it. If you post something on the internet then you'd better be thick-skinned enough to withstand criticism. If (and when) someone calls my work crap, I don't get all whiny and start a pissing contest. I ask them why they think that and then, once they explain, either accept their criticisms and try to use them to improve or, if I think the criticisms are wrong, use logical arguments to explain that.

 

Honestly, you might as well just ask for a swear ban if the word 'crap' annoys you so.

[Ozymandias]

rofl

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Rukaio, I am done arguing with you. If you want to argue more, send me a PM, but chances are I will ignore it.Also, you can make fun of me here:http://forums.boxoffice.com/index.php?/topic/8812-sum-up-an-entire-users-set-of-posts-in-a-few-words-dont-get-yourself-in-trouble/page-43#entry1059879Films, what do you think will be next years flops? I think Teenage Mutant Turtles will be one.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Gingy

[Plain Old Tele]

Guys guys guys... [a] if you say you invite criticism, you have to expect that some will be harsh (even if constructive). That being said, it's possible to critique without necessarily being harsh. In the meantime, why don't we move on from the Gingy/rukaio mud-wrestling?

Edited October 14, 2013 by Telemachos

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Sorry, that won't happen again.

[Ozymandias]

[Plain Old Tele]

I'm no copy-editor, but for what it's worth, here's my 2 cents:

 

Star Power has been absolutely useless this year and does literally not exist [though films like Gravity, The Heat and Identity Thief counteract this point]. (Why counter one of your basis statements in your first sentence? Either leave it for a rebuttal/followup later or lose entirely. Arnold Schwarzenager and Sylvester Stallone's star power drove The Last Stand [which also had Johnny Knoxville] and Bullet To The Head to respective grosses of 12M and 9.4M. Both films also got terrible reviews (you're drifting off-topic a bit, since you're discussing star power but briefly switch to reviews only to return to star power again the next sentence) with Bullet To The Head just getting past a 2x multipliler with The Last Stand failing to get past a 2x multiplier (you end up talking about multipliers when the first half of your sentence was about reviews and/or star power). My suggestion would be to move the multiplier bit to the end of the previous sentence, where it can (correctly) relate to the final grosses of both films. You’d think a film starring Hugh Jackman, Naomi Watts, Emma Stone, Halle Berry, Kate Winslet and Richard Gere would make a lot of money and you wouldn’t be mistaken either. But Movie 43 took a paltry 8.8M at the US box office with over 50% of its gross coming from opening weekend. This unique idea failed like hell.

 

Another film that opened in January along with The Last Stand and Movie 43 was Broken City. A Crime thriller staring Russell Crowe and Mark Walhberg- sure hit, but the general audience had something else in mind. The film grossed a paltry 19.7M after an 8M 3 day opening. This is fine, but move it into the previous paragraph, since it's a continuation of star power (in front of the camera. Though it’s not always that the star power is the person in front of the camera. In Peeples case, it was producer Tyler Perry who’s whose name was even in the title. But in a tough May weekend with 2+ 50M weekends [Great Gatsby and Iron Man], there was no room for this in the crowded marketplace. The film opened with 4.6M and like all Tyler Perry movies, the film made 50.3% of its total on OW as the total was 9.1M. This also proves that star power behind the scenes cannot always secure and an audience. Going back to ensembles, (why go back? move The Big Wedding earlier, to the rest of your "star power in front of camera" section.) The Big Wedding featured Robert De Niro, Susan Sarandon, Diane Keaton, Robin Williams and Amanda Seyfried. It was released on the 26th of April which in my view looked like a good weekend choice [Think Like A Man earned over 90M the year before] but the films pretty terrible marketing [apart from that You’re Next viral poster] (lose this bit, as that poster was promo-ing You're Next; you're just confusing the issue here) and dreadful reviews [7% on Rotten Tomatoes] meant the film opened to 7.5M before finishing with just over 21M. Other Wedding movies such as 27 Dresses and Bridesmaids earned more in their opening weekends and Bride Wars [which wasn’t a massive success itself] opened to only a tiny bit less than TBW final total. Star ensembles also don’t give you guaranteed box office success.

 

Another early year bomb was Magician comedy The Incredible Burt Wonderstone starring Steve Carell And Jim Carrey. Most people’s expectations for OW had this pegged around the 18M mark but it opened horribly to 10M before finishing a quick run with 22M. This film also continued Olivia Wilde’s streak of bombs. (this is more of an editorial comment on my part, but they hardly sold the film on her account and it doesn't really help your main argument. It's more of a snippy comment than anything else. But again, IMO.) Moving away from early year to a recent bomb, Runner Runner. Again, tracking had this Ben Affleck [his first since Oscar-winning Argo] and Justin Timberlake film [major music return this year] at a disappointing 11M. Though after Gravity’s major over performance, this film died with a 7M opening weekend and is on track to finish with just 20M. (In general, this paragraph doesn't really add much -- it may be worth it to reduce it to a quick one or two sentences and combine it into your earlier grafs. Something like "Two more films -- one from spring, one from fall -- illustrate that star power is almost meaningless these days. Burt Wonderstone starred Steve Carell and Jim Carrey, but only managed etc etc while Runner Runner featured Ben Affleck and Justin Timberlake front and center but yet only grossed etc etc.")

 

Another reason for the film’s failure was the marketing. The anemic trailer made you feel like you’ve seen this film 100 times before and there was no reason to go again. This film shows that even a recent Oscar- winner can’t guaranty good box office numbers. Star Power is just not strong any more as these and many other films have proven over the past few years [unless it’s Gravity]. Marketing seems like a major, significant reason why all these films failed. Surely it's worth commenting on more than one sentence at the end of your category. In addition, after mentioning marketing, you jump right back to star power again (and then contradict yourself by offering an exception to the rule.) If you're going to bring up Gravity (and/or other examples, save them for the end and spend some time pointing out how WB/etc managed to overcome these issues and made them work to their advantage. Otherwise, just ditch it.

Now it’s time to move onto the next category which is………. UNNECESSARY SEQUELS.

 

First up is The Last Exorcism Part 2. WHY THE HELL WAS THIS MADE. The first one took an average horror total of 41M and was very front-loaded [50% total in OW] despite quite good critical reviews [72% on Rotten Tomatoes]. You just answered your question. It made a good chunk of money off a very low investment. This one was being in March which looked like a bad release date [in my view should have been January, maybe October but definitely not March]. When the reviews started coming in absolutely terrible at 16% on RT, this looked like it was in a lot of trouble. And it was with a 7.7M opening and closing quickly with a 15M total, this project should not have happened. Why not? You're looking at numbers in retrospect. It was a horror film, which traditionally offers a great chance to make plenty of profit with very small budgets. As soon as the first one turned a profit, there was every reason in the world to make a sequel. Not to mention, with a $5m production budget, this wasn't a bomb at all. It made triple its production budget domestically.

 

Next up was Scary Movie 5, coming 7 YEARS after the last one was a box office hit but unsurprisingly a critical failure [37% which actually represents the second highest in the all rotten series]. Though added publicity with the casting of Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen did not help this series at all. Originally looking well positioned with the same spot as SM4, there was a chance this might do well but no one cared about another one. Critical reviews were the worst for this entry in the franchise with a disastrous 4% and it opened to a paltry 14M before dropping off quickly to 32M. This might have been successful if it was released about 4 or 5 years earlier. This is a much better example for your "unnecessary sequel" argument. I would lead with this one.

 

Next we have Kick Ass 2, a sequel to a film that sold ‘many copies on DVD’, amazing twitter buzz and the casting of Jim Carrey and his decision not to promote the movie adding more publicity. But online publicity doesn’t always translate into successful box office grosses as Dredd, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, Snakes on a Plane and the first Kick Ass demonstrated. This was another film with bad reviews [less than half of Kick Ass review total on RT]. Though, in a shock twist, the box office followed the same way as the reviews. The film struggled with a lacklustre 13M OW and fell quickly to a 28M total- a feat that Kick Ass achieved after 9 days. The small budget and ok overseas performance saved a bit of hope for Kick Ass 3 though [it’s not dead like a bunch of other films with already planned sequels which will be explained later]

 

The last film to fall into this category is…. very recent bomb MACHETE KILLS. The film was tracking for an 8M OW after the first Machete and Grindhouse both only grossed about 25M each. That total for Machete should have shown that a sequel shouldn’t have been made but it was another one that was green lit because of DVD sales. Again, you're defeating your own argument. Machete made 2.5x its production budget domestically (not a bomb), plus you point out that it sold well on DVD. Well, that means in the low-budget market place, it's a profitable little movie, which means they'll make a sequel. It's entirely justified, even if the end result turned out so lack-luster. Like SM5, this added Charlie Sheen, Mel Gibson and Lady Gaga among its cast and there was literally no competition apart from Gravity, Captain Philips and Cloudy 2. But bad reviews [30% on RT] and Gravity’s major over performance meant one film had to suffer [well actually two because of Runner Runner and probably 4 in my view because of Escape Plan and The Fifth Estate]. This sentence is just awkward: if you mean two openers had to suffer, then say two. Don't bother bringing up Escape Plan or Fifth Estate because they haven't opened yet and you're writing an article examining past performance, not extrapolating/predicting the future. MK opened to an awful 3.7M which was less than a 3rd of Machete’s opening and MK is likely to close with under 10M in its run. Only Paranoia and Closed Circuit had a worse OW in 2013 with CC playing at a 3rd of the theatres of MK. We will get to Paranoia and Closed Circuit later. Sequel’s shouldn’t be made for the sake of it as these 4 films have shown.

 

Just a general note about the "unnecessary sequel" section. I think you should scrap the "unnecessary" part entirely and focus more on your other central theses: star power doesn't mean much, poor and/or ineffective marketing, targeting the wrong demographics or assuming your target demo is bigger than it actually is.

 

There you go. My two (or three, or four) cents.

[Fancyarcher]

Technically both Bullet to the head and The Last Stand didn't get terrible reviews, compared to a lot of other Schwarzenegger and Stallone picks those films reviews were just okay.

[baumer]

IMHO, criticism is fine but when someone takes the time to write something, understand how much effort goes into it.  So don't be so hard on people.  If they take the time to write it and post it, at least appreciate the effort.

[#ED]

*Peaks and leaves*

[Plain Old Tele]

Or maybe "peeks"?

[grim22]

What the hell is happening in this thread???

 

Maybe this forum needs a columns sub-forum where people can post weekly or monthly columns.

[Water Bottle]

Guys guys guys... [a] if you say you invite criticism, you have to expect that some will be harsh (even if constructive). That being said, it's possible to critique without necessarily being harsh. In the meantime, why don't we move on from the Gingy/rukaio mud-wrestling?

 

I don't want to start something here but your use of BBC code in that post was crap.

 

 

What the hell is happening in this thread???

 

Maybe this forum needs a columns sub-forum where people can post weekly or monthly columns.

 

You mean like some kind of blog feature? Is there actual demand for one? If so, open a thread in the Help Desk.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Water Bottle

[Plain Old Tele]

WB, your constant criticism is annoying and all I can say is, your water is no longer hot, it's downright lukewarm. You need to dump yourself out or go stick yourself in the microwave or something.