RichWS Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Movies 30 years ago also played on about 700 screens. A Chistmas Story. Played in 924 theaters, maximum. And movies played twice as long with less competition. You're calling out a small teen drama in limited release for not making big money. It's so bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Toymaker Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Give a break ... People really are comparing the what the hell Perks with The Shawshank Redemption, the NO.1 film on IMDB TOP 250 ? Yes, people will go to such idiotic lengths to prove that Perks isn't a flop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Toymaker Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 And movies played twice as long with less competition. You're calling out a small teen drama in limited release for not making big money. It's so bizarre.Not really. I am just saying that by it not making much money, not many people would have seen it, therefore it will not be remembered. But as we're here, it's grosses, even PTA, is not impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
druv10 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I'm glad you enjoyed it.What did you think of the three leads? I found them phenomenal.The reason, I checked it out was Emma. She was absolutely tremendous in it, hell all 3 were great. Like I said, a very well acted movie. I hope it gets nominated for BP. I went with my fiance, we both thought Emma made a great transition from Potter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichWS Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Oh! So if a movie doesn't reach a level of money that's acceptable to you, that movie is never again seen or enjoyed by anyone. It can't be discovered and find a big audience and a great deal of money on DVD. In the future, it'll be thrown in a vault while Expendables 2 is getting its third re-release (cause we must teach to tomorrow's youth about the saggy greatness of older Stallone).I haven't seen Perks or Expendables 2. I'm not saying Perks will become a big cult classic. I think you're picking on a small film that nobody had any great box office expectations for whatever weird reason. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceroll Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Whenever I respond to Algren's posts... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Perks is great and is holding well. THL is great and found a huge audience on DVD/instant download (one of the most watched movies ever on Netflix, Amazon and iTunes). Any other questions? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayumanggi Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 What is PERKS budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieGuyKyle17 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I feel if we are going to compare this movie with anything it should be with Little Miss Sunshine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deep Wang Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Came out 25 years ago. Adjusted total: $63m. Came out 18 years ago. Adjusted total: $53m. Came out 30 years ago. Adjusted total: $48m. Perks of Being a Wallflower. Came out this year. Adjusted total: $7m. Not really the same thing at all. You clearly missed the point. I am merely stating the fact that you can't say a movie sucks based on it's gross. Those movies didn't make any when they first came out and I am sure there were many people like you that shit all over them because other movies made more than them. The point is, you never know what movie will catch on and find a life of its own. Will Perks be one of those? It is way to early to tell. In 1980, SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT 2 made $66m and RAGING BULL only made $23m. Which one of those movies is still talked about today? In 2012, EXPENDABLES 2 has made $300m and I know for a fact that in 32 years there will be something else that has made a more lasting impression despite making far less money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bk03 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 You clearly missed the point. I am merely stating the fact that you can't say a movie sucks based on it's gross. Those movies didn't make any when they first came out and I am sure there were many people like you that shit all over them because other movies made more than them. The point is, you never know what movie will catch on and find a life of its own. Will Perks be one of those? It is way to early to tell. In 1980, SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT 2 made $66m and RAGING BULL only made $23m. Which one of those movies is still talked about today? In 2012, EXPENDABLES 2 has made $300m and I know for a fact that in 32 years there will be something else that has made a more lasting impression despite making far less money. The Master,Looper,Moonrise Kingdom,Cabin in the Woods all made less the TE2 and more people will be talking about them in 10 years. Movies like TE2,RE5 and MIB3 all did well but no one will be talking about them in 5 years, MIB3 isn't even 6 months old and it's already been forgotten 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tower Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 In 2012, EXPENDABLES 2 has made $300m and I know for a fact that in 32 years there will be something else that has made a more lasting impression despite making far less money. Probably, but we don't know that it will be Perks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Give a break ... People really are comparing the what the hell Perks with The Shawshank Redemption, the NO.1 film on IMDB TOP 250 ? I agree that Perks shouldn't be compare to Shawshank but using that IMDB #1 as your reason is seriously laughable, that movie has no right to be at the top of any serious movie watcher's list. It's practically shameful, a top 100 movie for sure, and a case could be made for top 50, but over the likes of citizen Kane, All Quiet, Most of Hitchcock's films, Kubrick's films, and the list goes on, it's shameful that Shawshank is #1 over these films. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 what kind of Sat. increase did Argo have at your theater? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BK007 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 At least some zing is back on the board. I haven't been around much but it hasn't been very entertaining.Also, it's not shameful Shawshank is #1. It's IMDB and it's the fucking Internet.I haven't seen Citizen Kane, but for example, I know baumer feels it's horribly overrated and awful.So, really, no list is going to satisfy everyone, and just because a film is older does not necessarily mean it's more worthy of being better, a common mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTF Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 (edited) It's amazing to me that people still argue with Algren...much like talking to BKB about Batman or TA, it's a no win situation. Edited October 21, 2012 by FTF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 It's amazing to me that people still argue with Algren...much like talking to BKB about Batman or TA, it's a no win situation. Maybe they just want to keep the forum alive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 (edited) At least some zing is back on the board. I haven't been around much but it hasn't been very entertaining.Also, it's not shameful Shawshank is #1. It's IMDB and it's the fucking Internet.I haven't seen Citizen Kane, but for example, I know baumer feels it's horribly overrated and awful.So, really, no list is going to satisfy everyone, and just because a film is older does not necessarily mean it's more worthy of being better, a common mistake.It's the fact that to anyone with some taste in fine films I could name easily 50 films that I think objectively that are better acted, made, written, directed, and click better and at least 100 if not 200 or more films I've personally liked better than Shawshank.Only reason Shawshank is up there is because it's the least decisive. I don't know anyone who doesn't like the film, but I also don't know anyone with Shawshank in their top 5, and maybe even top 10. But with other films like Three Colours, and Amadeus, and All Quiet they all hav their fair share of detractors despite the fact the people who like it like it much more than Shawshank. Edited October 21, 2012 by riczhang 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deep Wang Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 what kind of Sat. increase did Argo have at your theater?No idea, I'm off this weekend. My best friend is in town and we have just been hanging out and watching a ton of movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 No idea, I'm off this weekend. My best friend is in town and we have just been hanging out and watching a ton of movies.Ah, OK, enjoy yourselves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
