Birth of a Nation | Fox Searchlight | Sundance Grand Jury Prize. ONLY DISCUSS THE MOVIE AND BOX OFFICE IN THIS THREAD.

[filmscholar]

On 10/6/2016 at 2:24 AM, TalismanRing said:

 

New Yorker: “The Birth of a Nation” Isn’t Worth Defending

Nate Parker’s retelling of Nat Turner’s rebellion does not succeed as art or as propaganda.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/the-birth-of-a-nation-isnt-worth-defending

 

Beware spoilers since it's a review as much as an opinion piece on everything going on around it.

 

Some of these reviewers aren't hiding their bias it's pretty sad he believes this is an objective piece.   LOL @ Bringing up "Django" which is a lot more cartoonish compared to "Birth of a Nation" because the tone of it being a blaxplotation/western style.   Half the people writing about Nat Turner now said nothing about him previously, now they are all experts, lol.  He calls the film "Propaganda" as if Black Liberation films are the norm.   Lastly this idea of "Histocial Inaccuracy" is laughable.   EVERY SINGLE BIO PICTURE has been proven to be historically inaccurate but now all the sudden "Birth of a Nation" is held to rules other movies aren't.   Again double standars and bias everywhere.   Anyways fantastic film, better be 4 to 6 nominations easy.  

Edited October 8, 2016 by filmscholar

[Jason]

Posting this NY Times article here not to detract from the historical significance of Nat Turner (quite the contrary), but because I think it's worth sharing and this seems to be an appropriate place:

Nat Turner Was Far From Alone

 

Quote

As long as there have been slaves, there have been slave rebellions.

Spartacus famously led a mutiny against Rome in 73 B.C. It ultimately failed. The 1839 uprising aboard the slave ship Amistad, a long-overlooked revolt and trial, received the Hollywood treatment in the late 1990s.

The film was notable for the director Steven Spielberg’s decision to tell the story from the viewpoint of its main African character.

Similarly, “The Birth of a Nation,” having its theatrical release on Friday, puts Nat Turner, who led an 1831 insurrection in Virginia, at the center of the tale. Turner led a group of 70 armed slaves and free blacks in an uprising that killed about 60 whites. He was captured and hanged, and some of his body parts were kept as mementos by whites.

Few Americans beyond historians can claim thorough knowledge of slave rebellions, considering the scant mention they receive in standard classroom curriculums and in popular culture. At the same time, the efforts of white abolitionists have been extensively covered.

But scholars have documented organized, sometimes-successful efforts by the enslaved in the Americas to break the chains that bound them: about 300 revolts. And there were likely hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller acts of resistance that we will never know about.

 

[Nova]

This film isn't getting any nominations. Controversy or not. It's currently sitting at 69% on metacritic and 79% on RT. A good film but nothing Oscar worthy in my opinion especially when several films from Venice and Toronto have stole its thunder. 

[filmscholar]

I find it funny that people in this thread tried to tell me "There was no agenda", Yet I've read 7 headlines from serveral Hollywood publiications saying "Birth of a Nation is A FLOP".   Are you kidding me?  7 million Dollar Budget makes 7 Million and it's a Flop?  It opened higher than "12 years a slave" as well.  Meanwhile in the same headlines "Girl on the Trian" is doing great?  24  OW off a 45 Million Budget?   As someone who's studied box office for over two decades these headlines are so agenda diven and misleading to the public it's laughable.  

 

"Birth of a Naiton" is an independent film.  Since when do we give "Blockbuster" Standards to Indy films?   Didn't "Hurt Locker" bomb?  Did that stop it's Oscars prospects?   I've had enough of people trying to deny the clear agenda being played out here.  I'm done talking about it but these headlines expose that there is an agenda against this movie.   At most the headlines should read "Met expectations" but they are saying flat out "Flop" which is false beyond belief. 

Edited October 10, 2016 by filmscholar

[trifle]

3 minutes ago, filmscholar said:

I find it funny that people in this thread tried to tell me "There was not agenda", Yet I've read 7 headlines from serveral Hollywood publiications saying "Birth of a Nation is A FLOP".   Are you kidding me?  7 million Dollar Budget makes 7 Million and it's a Flop?  Meanwhile in the same headlines "Girl on the Trian" is doing great?  24  OW off a 45 Million Budget?   As someone who's studied box office over a decade these headlines are so agenda diven it's laughable.   "Birth of a Naiton" is an independent film.  Since when do we give "Blockbuster" Standards to Indy films?   Didn't "Hurt Locker" bomb?  Did that stop it's Oscars prospects?   I've had enough of people trying to deny the clear agenda being played out here.  I'm done talking about it but these headlines expose that there is an agenda against this movie.  

 

I don't think I've read those 'flop' headlines although I think I saw one article saying it wasn't doing that well.  But it was purchased for $17.5 M plus there was marketing.  So from Fox's point of view, that was the budget, not whatever it cost Parker to make.

[filmscholar]

52 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

I don't think I've read those 'flop' headlines although I think I saw one article saying it wasn't doing that well.  But it was purchased for $17.5 M plus there was marketing.  So from Fox's point of view, that was the budget, not whatever it cost Parker to make.

 

Even then how is it underperforming?  People are masking their personal views of Parker to mis represent it's box office numbers.   I study numbers period.   7 Million OW against 17 M is very similar to "Girl on the Trian" 24 Million OW against 45 Million. Yet the headlines read much differently.  Mind you it actually made what it made against some competition.  Plus the film is "R-rated" which limits it's audience already.   One is a major film with a major budget, the other is an Indy film.   People need to learn to seperate their personal feelings and report the facts.    Also let me clarfy it wasn't all hollywood publications, some are the big papers like NY Times etc.    Also "Birth of a Nation" PTA was actually very strong when you look at the Top 10.  
 

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/10/birth-of-a-nation-box-office-flop

 

This headline said "Flops Hard" lol Really Vanity Fair?   

Edited October 10, 2016 by filmscholar

[trifle]

10 minutes ago, filmscholar said:

 

Even then how is it underperforming?  People are masking their personal views of Parker to mis represent it's box office numbers.   I study numbers period.   7 Million OW against 17 M is very similar to "Girl on the Trian" 24 Million OW against 45 Million. Yet the headlines read much differently.  Mind you it actually made what it made against some competition.  One is a major film with a major budget, the other is an Indy film.   People need to learn to seperate their personal feelings and report the facts.    Also let me clarfy it wasn't all hollywood publications, some are the big papers like NY Times etc.  

 

I can't speak to its numbers historically. I've only started watching box office. But my understanding is that they expect more from GOTT overseas, and that it underperformed against expectations as well, even if it may manage a profit in the end.  Personally, I expected it to open at $30M.

 

And it is a fact some wouldn't go see the movie because of Parker's past.  I'm a data point, myself.  You can never be sure what makes other people attend or not attend a film, but this one started on what seemed to be a snowballing effect, and seemed to hit a wall.  That's just my personal take.

Edited October 10, 2016 by trifle

[Kvikk Lunsj]

I really enjoyed the film but I hope Nat Parker does get Oscar attention.  I hope it gets tech award and actress awards.  But like Roman Polanski I would rather not see him win an Oscar. 

[JennaJ]

Nate Parker isn't winning any Oscars. I very much doubt he even gets nominated.

Same goes for the movie, really. I think Academy voters will steer clear. The controversy really killed off its awards potential.

[Porthos]

Oof.

 

 

 

A lot more where that came from on Bouie's timeline.

 

As for the elephant in the room:

 

 

 

I get the impression there's a lot of this floating around right now.

[filmlover]

On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 1:48 PM, filmscholar said:

 

Even then how is it underperforming?  People are masking their personal views of Parker to mis represent it's box office numbers.   I study numbers period.   7 Million OW against 17 M is very similar to "Girl on the Trian" 24 Million OW against 45 Million. Yet the headlines read much differently.  Mind you it actually made what it made against some competition.  Plus the film is "R-rated" which limits it's audience already.   One is a major film with a major budget, the other is an Indy film.   People need to learn to seperate their personal feelings and report the facts.    Also let me clarfy it wasn't all hollywood publications, some are the big papers like NY Times etc.    Also "Birth of a Nation" PTA was actually very strong when you look at the Top 10.  
 

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/10/birth-of-a-nation-box-office-flop

 

This headline said "Flops Hard" lol Really Vanity Fair?   

Because its overseas prospects are nil and Fox Searchlight won't see much of a return on their investment. That and the box office still guarantees that it's dead as an Oscar player after the controversy sank it.

 

On the plus side, it did manage to beat expectations and won't go down as another big Sundance acquisition that went nowhere. Remember Happy, Texas? Yeah, didn't think so.

[Nova]

Birth of A Nation isn't going to make much out of the states. Yea $7M isn't a catastrophy but it isn't good either. It was in the media for quite sometime and wasn't fairly hyped up. It was also supposed to get Oscar considerations and that's where it's bread and butter was going to be but that's not even going to happen. Essentially it was supposed to be the next 12 Years a Slave or somewhat similar and it's not even going to come close.

But in regards to OW, this doesn't compare to 12 Years a Slave because I'm pretty sure this opened in 2100 theaters and 12 Years a Slave opened in a whopping 19 theaters then expanded along with having fantastic WOM. 

[Frozen]

The women in the film support the boycott. 

 

http://www.vulture.com/2016/10/gabrielle-union-supports-birth-of-a-nation-boycotts.html?mid=twitter_vulture

[trifle]

5 minutes ago, Frozen said:

The women in the film support the boycott. 

 

http://www.vulture.com/2016/10/gabrielle-union-supports-birth-of-a-nation-boycotts.html?mid=twitter_vulture

 

After the opening weekend, of course (not that I blame her, it's her work product.) 

 

I have to say, though, if anyone has GAINED from this whole situation it is Union, whose name I didn't know before this, who has been classy throughout.

[Blankments]

The awkward thing about this movie is it's the type where I'd say "I can't wait to see what the star/director does next" but... yeah...

[filmscholar]

Box Office Mojo list it's budget as 8.5 Million.  It's made 12.3 Million after 10 Days.   The "Flop" headlines were false and agenda driven as "Birth of a Nation" is performing just fine for an independent release and these numbers should not affect it's Oscar chances at all.   So 25 Million Domestic get's it 3x's it budget.   

[ddddeeee]

Thank goodness this flopped. 

[filmscholar]

3 minutes ago, ddddeeee said:

Thank goodness this flopped. 

 

It didn't flop.   Now "Masterminds"?  Yeah and plenty of other films in the top 10 are underperforming based on budget.  

[dashrendar44]

2 minutes ago, filmscholar said:

Box Office Mojo list it's budget as 8.5 Million.  It's made 12.3 Million after 10 Days.   The "Flop" headlines were false and agenda driven as "Birth of a Nation" is performing just fine for an independent release and these numbers should not affect it's Oscar chances at all.   So 25 Million Domestic get's it 3x's it budget.   

What part of "Fox Searchlight bought this movie at Sundance for 17 Millions dollars" doesn't seem to register for you?

 

Once it cleans that bar, you're free to stand on your soapbox and claims conspiracy.

 

[CoolioD1]

i don't see it getting to 25m. 60% drop this weekend and i'm betting a bunch of theaters are gonna pull it on thursday.