That's so true - Gigli was highly regarded as one of the best films ever and it only managed a meager $7,266,209 worldwide
excellent, must see
good, see if you can
average
disappointing, avoid it
That's so true - Gigli was highly regarded as one of the best films ever and it only managed a meager $7,266,209 worldwide
New Acquisitions:
TR Astrotrain, Skullsmasher, & Hardhead
Scouting For:
G1 Boxes & Cardbacks
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[COLLECTION] [CREATIVE] [MK COLLECTION]
HATRED FOR JAMES VAN DER BEEK RISING!
Still have some stuff for sale. Free pickup at Parra Fair
http://www.otca.com.au/boards/showthread.php?t=8503
I think you misread what I wrote.
There is no correlation between movie quality & box office take.
Good films don't always bomb, nor do they become box office hits.
Likewise, bad films aren't always hits.
Box office take represents popularity, not quality.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying bad movies. One just has to accept it. :P
New Acquisitions:
TR Astrotrain, Skullsmasher, & Hardhead
Scouting For:
G1 Boxes & Cardbacks
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[COLLECTION] [CREATIVE] [MK COLLECTION]
Marketing is what generates publicity.
Case in point: RotF. Director, writers, actors, producers have all called it crap. Reviewers called it crap. Most fans called it crap. Yet it still generated hundreds of millions. Why? Quality? Or was it marketed as the 'must see' movie that summer?
Good films will often make their money from dvd when word of mouth filters through.
New Acquisitions:
TR Astrotrain, Skullsmasher, & Hardhead
Scouting For:
G1 Boxes & Cardbacks
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[COLLECTION] [CREATIVE] [MK COLLECTION]
Blair Witch is a perfect example of marketing a movie to be a 'must see'.
The 'word of mouth' was generated by the studio themselves.
A quick google search will reveal quite a few movies that were initially promoted via word of mouth only (regardless if this happens to be the creators or fans) with minimal marketing dollars behind it and went on to have box office success disproving a definitive statement of 'there is no correlation between movie quality & box office take’. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with much of what you are saying, I’m only trying to make the point that it’s not as definitive as you’ve made it out to be
We’ll just blame Hursti for starting this
New Acquisitions:
TR Astrotrain, Skullsmasher, & Hardhead
Scouting For:
G1 Boxes & Cardbacks
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[COLLECTION] [CREATIVE] [MK COLLECTION]
You are referring to what are called 'sleeper hits'.
These films generally start off slow, but week by week, build up the box office.
Let's have a look at TF3's U.S. numbers (via boxofficemojo)
Jun 24–30 $64,765,347
Jul 1–7 $149,210,077 +130% (film opened on 29th June)
Jul 8–14 $67,574,828 -54.7%
Jul 15–21 $32,239,198 -52.3%
Those numbers show a dramatic fall. That is a sign of word of mouth working against a movie.
Below are the numbers for 'Avatar', a film which generated positive reviews (I haven't seen this either).
Dec 18–24 $137,094,001
Dec 25–31 $146,530,209 +6.9%
Jan 1–7 $96,916,087 -33.9%
Jan 8–14 $69,926,708 -27.8%
Jan 15–21 $66,330,413 -5.1%
Jan 22–28 $47,674,969 -28.1%
You can see that the box office actually went up in the second week, and the drop off wasn't as bad in following weeks.
And yes, we should blame Hursticon!