Grindhouse: Box Office Flop

[horatio616]

15 million in two weeks. Not promising for Grindhouse 2. The running time is what killed it. That and, I'm assuming here, the negative word of mouth on Death Proof. I'm a big Tarantino fan, not as big as many, but big, and I barely made it through Death Proof. He had me in the beginning, with the girls in the bar, but that second group was particularly obnoxious and annoying. The chatty scene in the diner pushed me to my breaking point.

As Jonathan London so eloquently put it on the latest episode of Geekscape, "Tarantino sure likes to hear himself write!"

The Weinsteins are considering splitting the movie in two, but given the additional cost, I don't see it happening. Although I would love to see Planet Terror and the trailers again. Planet Terror was spectacular and the trailers too, especially "Don't".

I hear rumors that there's going to be a straight-to-DVD 'Machete'.

[conorkilpatrick]

I think the running time had a lot to do with it but also, really, this movie is not for most people. I feel like - maybe - 10% of the movie going audience would understand what they were trying to do and/or enjoy it.

I loved it.

[404error]

I went to go see it over the weekend and it wasn't that bad. I found that the first feature film "Planet Terror" was much better then the Tarientino directed movie "Death Proof". I enjoyed them both though. I don't know why more people aren't going to check this film out. I think the approach they took to the movie style was a good choice.

[fred]

here's the thing - my kids keep getting sick and I haven't been able to get out to see it

If I could just help, at $15,000,020 - not such a flop

[horatio616]

I think the running time had a lot to do with it but also, really, this movie is not for most people. I feel like - maybe - 10% of the movie going audience would enjoy it.

I loved it.


I think you're right, but the same could be said for Kill Bill. I really think what killed it was previews of Rose McGowan's machine gun leg. I think that put it in people's minds that the movie was going to be too over-the-top, even though in the context of the film it totally works. I've watched the tv trailers with 'lay people' and as soon as they saw the machine gun leg they dismissed it as stupid.

I loved the movie too, up until the second group of girls were introduced. Their conversations bored the hell out of me and you began to hear people shuffling in their seats at that point.

[mister-s]

First of all, we all like to hear ourselves talk/write. That is why we post on the internet and talk on podcasts and all that. I think that that is poor criticism, and I usually agree with Jon over on Geekscape.

Second, lots of dialogue is a Tarantino trademark, IMO. What would Pulp Fiction have been without the diner scenes? I think the problem was that the talking was unexpected, and rightly so. I really liked the Tarantino "half" but it would have been better served if it came first in sequence.

[jimski]

One theater here in town is showing them as two separate movies, though I think you get to see both for the price of one ticket. Or maybe not.

I have seen every movie Quentin Tarantino ever made-- I saw Four Rooms, you understand-- and just about all of Robert Rodriguez's ouevre. We registered for Kill Bill for our wedding. But I took one look at this thing and on an immediate, primal level, something in my brain started going, "Ugh, no. No! Absolutely not!"

Maybe that midwestern conservatism I've always been warned about is starting to kick in, but after Kill Bill and Carla Gugino in Sin City, maybe I've just officially reached my quota for how many women I can watch these two men graphically mutilate. "The machine gun leg makes sense in the context of the bubbling genitalia" is, let's just say, not what they should put on the poster to draw in the skeptics.

Plus... how long is it going to be before these guys make a second film? They're as bad as Kevin Smith. A retro pastiche of style-over-substance moments that pay tribute to bad movies I never saw in theaters that closed before I was born 1,000 miles away, featuring appalling scenes of violence (usually against women) punctuating long, apropos-of-nothing stretches of pop culture-referencing dialogue and featuring one of the director's favorite faded stars from a bygone era. I understand the working title was Every Quentin Tarantino Movie Ever.

You know what was interesting about grindhouse movies?: they didn't cost $70 million. There are film students right now with grand epics in their heads, fresh, unique visions, forced to slum it on hand-me-down DV because it's all they have access to, and then they turn on their televisions just in time to hear Quentin on a talk show going, "Yeah, it's great! We added scratches to the film; reels are missing; we really spared no expense to make it look like shit." Magnificent. You're the next Orson Welles.

[comhcinc]

i refuse to look at box office numbers i think that is a big problem with this country we are more concern with what is popular instead what is good. i don't ever think this stuff needs to be reported

[horatio616]

I got this nugget off of a review from the Washington Post by Stephen Hunter.

Tarantino's movie, "Death Proof," is so narratively simplistic that to describe it is to ruin it. Let's just say it's a car chase movie fused with a women's acting workshop and leave it at that.

If you want, you can read the rest here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040501361.html

[horatio616]

i refuse to look at box office numbers i think that is a big problem with this country we are more concern with what is popular instead what is good. i don't ever think this stuff needs to be reported

Really? What other barometer should we use to measure "goodness"? Being "good" doesn't pay the light bills!

[conorkilpatrick]

Really? What other barometer should we use to measure "goodness"? Being "good" doesn't pay the light bills!

Did you like it? Then it's "good".

My only conern with box office numbers is that if a film I like does well then that means more flims like it or by those filmmakers (and the opposite if a film I like does poorly). Other than that, I don't care. I'm not making any money off of them.

[comhcinc]

Really? What other barometer should we use to measure "goodness"? Being "good" doesn't pay the light bills!

acording to your logic the best film out now is disturbia, the best song is Give It To Me by Timbaland Featuring Nelly Furtado & Justin Timberlake and the best book is . I HEARD THAT SONG BEFORE, by Mary Higgins Clark.


i refuse to be a sheep.

[kwok_talk]

acording to your logic the best film out now is disturbia, the best song is Give It To Me by Timbaland Featuring Nelly Furtado & Justin Timberlake and the best book is . I HEARD THAT SONG BEFORE, by Mary Higgins Clark.


i refuse to be a sheep.


I think that’s a bit idealistic. Sure, the box office #s and $s aren’t everything, but they are somewhat indicative of popularity. Grindhouse may be a “good” movie (which is entirely subjective) that sucks at the box office, but there are also tons of “good” movies that make tons of money. Just b/c everyone went to see Schindler’s List (I just picked that one out of the air) doesn’t diminish its “goodness.”

“There are two types of people: Those who want to be like Barbie, or be the opposite of Barbie” – I heard that somewhere before. Someone refusing to do something just b/c others are doing it can be just as much a “sheep” as the people they are trying to not conform too.

[horatio616]

“There are two types of people: Those who want to be like Barbie, or be the opposite of Barbie” – I heard that somewhere before. Someone refusing to do something just b/c others are doing it can be just as much a “sheep” as the people they are trying to not conform too.

I don't like the idea of someone being insulted because they like or dislike a certain type of art. "Snobbery" if you will. I haven't seen Disturbia, but it might be good. I think Timbaland is pretty cool too. Box office is what determines if more of something is going to get made, not "goodness".

[jaflanagan]

I had so much fun at this movie it was absurd. Go with a bunch of friends, and have fun. I was in the shittiest of moods when I got to this movie, and we were stuck up in the front doing the weird head tilt thing to see it, and it won me over. For 3 hours +, it went pretty fast.

BTW, as far as mutilating women...everyone got mutilated pretty equally. And Deathproof was very much a feminist revenge fantasy. Other than that, the car chase/stunt work is about as good as I've seen in a while, and there's no digital effects happening either. So pure.

But no, it's not for every one. But it's a ton of stupid fun.

I'm not worried about the box office, so much. This movie will make its money on DVD, but then again, the experience will pale in comparison to the theater experience, for this one at least. But really, I don't need this to do well so that others will be made in its image. This will just become some cult movie that folks will quote for years, and college students will discover for themselves in 20 years. I love that.

[six-gun]

acording to your logic the best film out now is disturbia, the best song is Give It To Me by Timbaland Featuring Nelly Furtado & Justin Timberlake and the best book is . I HEARD THAT SONG BEFORE, by Mary Higgins Clark.


i refuse to be a sheep.

Mary Higgins Clark could write Wonder Woman!

[comhcinc]

I think that’s a bit idealistic. Sure, the box office #s and $s aren’t everything, but they are somewhat indicative of popularity. Grindhouse may be a “good” movie (which is entirely subjective) that sucks at the box office, but there are also tons of “good” movies that make tons of money. Just b/c everyone went to see Schindler’s List (I just picked that one out of the air) doesn’t diminish its “goodness.”

“There are two types of people: Those who want to be like Barbie, or be the opposite of Barbie” – I heard that somewhere before. Someone refusing to do something just b/c others are doing it can be just as much a “sheep” as the people they are trying to not conform too.

i think you are missing my point. i think too often a movie's success is dependent on how much money it made. you've seen the ads on tv "number one comedy in america" we best so much of our judgment on whether something is popular or not instead of worrying if it is good or not.

i understand the companies that make these films are concern about money i just don't think we need to be.

[horatio616]

Did you like it? Then it's "good".


Real World/Road Rules Challenges are good!

[jimski]

i think you are missing my point. i think too often a movie's success is dependent on how much money it made. you've seen the ads on tv "number one comedy in america" we best so much of our judgment on whether something is popular or not instead of worrying if it is good or not.

I keeping thinking "Scary Movie 4" as I read this subthread. I agree in principle that Jay Leno's ratings don't make him better than Dave and Nightline.

On the other hand, to continue the TV (poor) analogy, I'm tired of ending every six-month period wondering if the shows I like are ever coming back. (Veronica Mars, are you still out there?) The dollars don't matter to the art!... unless you like Ant-Man. When the things I like succeed, I get more of the things I like. That's why box office tallies are the last pure democracy in America.

(The candlelight vigil for "Andy Barker, P.I." is in Forest Park this weekend.)

The people who do see Grindhouse seem to like it a lot, and they're people I trust. (I'm buying Robin, aren't I?) I just feel like I may have seen the little man behind the curtain where QT is concerned.

[kwok_talk]

(The candlelight vigil for "Andy Barker, P.I." is in Forest Park this weekend.)

When I saw that iTunes was selling the entire season for download BEFORE the first show had even aired, I figured that show wasn’t staying around long.

[acomicbookgirl]

here's the thing - my kids keep getting sick and I haven't been able to get out to see it

If I could just help, at $15,000,020 - not such a flop

I haven't seen a movie in 3 weeks... :( Oh well.. Maybe this week will be the week...

[conorkilpatrick]

The people who do see Grindhouse seem to like it a lot, and they're people I trust. (I'm buying Robin, aren't I?) I just feel like I may have seen the little man behind the curtain where QT is concerned.

Honestly, it's worth the price of admission for the fake trailers and Planet Terror alone. You could walk out after intermission and be satisfied.

[horatio616]

Honestly, it's worth the price of admission for the fake trailers and Planet Terror alone. You could walk out after intermission and be satisfied.

I'd almost go again just to see the trailers, especially "Don't". I've heard you can see them on youtube but I haven't tried looking yet.

[kwok_talk]

I'd almost go again just to see the trailers, especially "Don't". I've heard you can see them on youtube but I haven't tried looking yet.

I saw Thanksgiving on YouTube. That was messed up and funny. But messed up.

[jaflanagan]

Honestly, it's worth the price of admission for the fake trailers and Planet Terror alone. You could walk out after intermission and be satisfied.

But if you leave before the car chase, you're blowin' it.

[conorkilpatrick]

But if you leave before the car chase, you're blowin' it.

And Kurt Russell.

[horatio616]

But if you leave before the car chase, you're blowin' it.

I didn't think it was worth the wait, honestly. I've seen 50 Jackie Chan movies. Impressive stuntwork, yes, but nothing groundbreaking.

[jurassicalien]

It's always kind of enjoyable to watch those people who say "That looks stupid" spout off and go on and on, no matter what you say.

1"Grindhouse, pft dumb."
2"I might go see it."
1"Gun for a leg? That's stupid."
2"Okay, don't come with me."
1"Why would you make that?"
2"I gotcha, don't let it get to you, you don't have to go."
1"I hope that movie fails!"
2"Why?"
1"Cause it's stupid!"

[jaflanagan]

I didn't think it was worth the wait, honestly. I've seen 50 Jackie Chan movies. Impressive stuntwork, yes, but nothing groundbreaking.

To follow a theme, I thought it was real good.

Jackie Chan movies annoy me.

[horatio616]

To follow a theme, I thought it was real good.

Jackie Chan movies annoy me.

Then you must be excited about Rush Hour 3! He's an acquired taste, like Coca Cola Blak.

[jurassicalien]

Then you must be excited about Rush Hour 3! He's an acquired taste, like Coca Cola Blak.

Ratner on the scene! Quick everyone, throw your rocks!

[itsbecca]

It's always kind of enjoyable to watch those people who say "That looks stupid" spout off and go on and on, no matter what you say.

1"Grindhouse, pft dumb."
2"I might go see it."
1"Gun for a leg? That's stupid."
2"Okay, don't come with me."
1"Why would you make that?"
2"I gotcha, don't let it get to you, you don't have to go."
1"I hope that movie fails!"
2"Why?"
1"Cause it's stupid!"

You have captured my frustration exactly! Just because you don't personally like a movie doesn't mean it sucks, anyone who sees it should die and it should fail and the filmakers should be shot. I liked Deathproof.... so just... just suck on my toe jerks.

[paper]

Loved Gringhouse. Preferred Death Proof over Planet Terror. That Filmspotting podcast Labor mentioned in the podcast thread had me nodding like an idiot. I agreed with everything those guys said about the two films. That said, I totally get why people thought Death Proof was frustrating. To me, the payoff was worth it. Planet Terror was fun, but didn't offer the same kind of visceral reaction.

The trailers were, in fact, the best part. Followed closely by Death Proof, and then Planet Terror. A good time was had by all.

[jimski]

You have captured my frustration exactly! Just because you don't personally like a movie doesn't mean it sucks, anyone who sees it should die and it should fail and the filmakers should be shot. I liked Deathproof.... so just... just suck on my toe jerks.

I don't know where it comes from, but something happens to people more and more now... they make the leap from "Ugh, I don't like that!" to "how could anyone like that?" to "using what I remember from the high school debate team, I will prove to you that it isn't possible that you like that." As if the other person is going to say, "I can't argue with that; I'll throw the DVD away as soon as I get home."

It's a trap I've certainly fallen into in the past (The Matrix used to make me turn into the Hulk) but I like to think I stepped back from that precipice.

[horatio616]

I gladly accept anyone's opinion that Death Proof was good, but, just speaking for myself, I was begging for death. I usually don't do this, but I was rooting for the bad guy to get away. I guess it wasn't all bad, because at least I'm still thinking about it days afterward, which is more than I can say for most movies. Too bad it's not doing better b.o. because wouldn't you love to see Grindhouse 2 with a Don't/Thankgiving double-bill?

[fred]

Not to bring up a subject that for all intents and purposes came and went but I just saw Grindhouse tonight and it was AWESOME. I loved every minute of it. I agree that Planet Terror was better than Death Proof but not much. I enjoyed the hell out of that one too. I do have to say that my wife hated Death Proof though so I guess it's just one of those movies.

Machete and Don't were awesome

[alexg]

For some reason I've lost all interest in seeing Grindhouse, which is too bad since I know that it's really a theater experience. I don't think my wife could deal with the blood/violence tho...

[fred]

For some reason I've lost all interest in seeing Grindhouse, which is too bad since I know that it's really a theater experience. I don't think my wife could deal with the blood/violence tho...

I'm very unsqueamish and there were a few 'recoil in horror' moments for me

[keithm]

Really? I thought that Deathproof was a thousand times better. And with the fact that I loved Planet Terror, that's really saying something. The way Deathproof ended was completely contradictory to the whole grindhouse concept, but I thought it was brilliant. It's just such a great twist on the slasher conventions and conveys a really great theme about empowerment. I could see why people don't like it, and if the dialogue wasn't so great I would agree that it drags.

[fred]

I thought it was great too but I think the prevailing sentiment earlier was mixed

[keithm]

For some reason I've lost all interest in seeing Grindhouse, which is too bad since I know that it's really a theater experience. I don't think my wife could deal with the blood/violence tho...


I wouldn't worry too much about it. The gore in Planet Terror is intentionally corny looking. And while some the scenes in Deathproof were brutal in their intensity, they're not neccessarily gorey or overly violent.

[paper]

Would anyone's opinion of Death Proof have shifted if the group of girls from the beginning had switched with the group from the end?

[k-dizzle]

Would anyone's opinion of Death Proof have shifted if the group of girls from the beginning had switched with the group from the end?
I think everyone is over thinking this film just a bit. I loved both movies for what they were and I think they came out as the directors intended them to be, fun movies that entertain you. I was thoroughly entertained anyway.

[fred]

Would anyone's opinion of Death Proof have shifted if the group of girls from the beginning had switched with the group from the end?

my opinion doesn't really need to improve but this would hurt it in my opinion
I liked the second group more

[paper]

That's interesting. A lot of people dislike the second group. It's really two very different halves in that film. I love the atmosphere of the first, and I love the velocity of that final action sequence. I didn't mind the dialogue scenes nearly as much as some people, but I didn't love them either.

I love Rosario. I do. But that haircut...

"Gulp."

[fred]

you see for me, I was a bit on the edge of like/dislike during parts of the first half but went firmly into the like camp in the second half.

Another thing, it really was like two distinct movies. I understand that the first part was necessary to make the second seem not as excessive. I will say though, that the length of time devoted to established that Mike The Stuntman was a bad guy was the only mistake/genuinely questionable thing in it. I think that he could've killed them quickly and came off just as bad.

For me, the dialogue in the first half was amusing but it was EXCELLENT in the second half. I love the interaction between the two stuntwomen.

[paper]

I think the pacing in the opening segment is pretty crucial to the reversal in the final act. Mike's development in the beginning is so creepy, and it keeps you guessing. I liked the care that went into that.

Loved all the stuff in that bar. So atmospheric.

[fred]

that's also true. I didn't consider that

[darron]

Paper, I'm with you on Rosario. She is one of the three loves of my life.

I'm curious as to which move you guys liked Rose McGowen in more? Now I only saw the last half of Planet Terror (the theater effed up), so my opinion is probably a bit skewed, but I absolutely adored her in Death Proof. I really genuinely liked that character.

[paper]

She's sort of vapid, but quie attractive in Planet Terror. Notably the opening.

[darron]

She's sort of vapid, but quie attractive in Planet Terror. Notably the opening.

Damnit...which I didn't see. I didnt see the Machete trailer either. I'm bummed.

[paper]

Damnit...which I didn't see. I didnt see the Machete trailer either. I'm bummed.

For you, Darron, anything (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpKfN3V-44k).

[fred]

Paper, I'm with you on Rosario. She is one of the three loves of my life.

I'm curious as to which move you guys liked Rose McGowen in more? Now I only saw the last half of Planet Terror (the theater effed up), so my opinion is probably a bit skewed, but I absolutely adored her in Death Proof. I really genuinely liked that character.

I liked her more in Planet Terror. I think the woman with a machine gun leg concept is grossly underused in the cinema.

[mikegraham6]

haven't seen this yet and its the running time that's keeping me away. I love both directors and i hear one has zombies (YAY ZOMBIES!) but non of my friends wanna see it and 3 hours felt long even in a movie i really liked (my butt falls asleep) i guess i;ll have to wait for DVD, but i haven't heard any negative word of mouth, i'll probably end up buying it without even having seen it because the talk has been so positive

[fred]

the only time I ever go 3.5 hours without smoking is when I'm asleep
so I understand the apprehension but I sucked it up and went and
I didn't even notice the length really

[mikegraham6]

its really more that it turns off my friends, im not one to see a movie by myself so if they aren't down, then its that long wait until the dvd release i guess (maybe i can talk my pops or my brother to go see it with me:rolleyes: )

[darron]

the only time I ever go 3.5 hours without smoking is when I'm asleep

Ditto. The only time I ever want a smoke while I'm at the movies is if the flick is boring/bad.

[keithm]

Damnit...which I didn't see. I didnt see the Machete trailer either. I'm bummed.


It's a real shame that you didn't see Rose's opening dance scene. It's easily one of the most sultry dances sequence caught on film.

[horatio616]

It's a real shame that you didn't see Rose's opening dance scene. It's easily one of the most sultry dances sequence caught on film.

Hmm, when I saw it I kept thinking about how bad of a dancer she was. Had she been in a real strip club, the other dancers would have remarked how amateurish she was. Ahem, not that I know how they dance. I have a friend who's been to them before.

[horatio616]

if the dialogue wasn't so great I would agree that it drags.

I love the F word. For real. However, if I would have heard "motherf***er" on more time I would have lost it. Ugh.

[horatio616]

Would anyone's opinion of Death Proof have shifted if the group of girls from the beginning had switched with the group from the end?

Hmm, I liked the first group much more. Planet Terror didn't lost me until the second group hit the diner. Really, if you would have been in that diner trying to eat and there was a group of obnoxious people practially yelling and saying f*** every other word, how annoying would that be?

[conorkilpatrick]

Hmm, I liked the first group much more. Planet Terror didn't lost me until the second group hit the diner. Really, if you would have been in that diner trying to eat and there was a group of obnoxious people practially yelling and saying f*** every other word, how annoying would that be?

You've never been to a diner in New York City.

[horatio616]

You've never been to a diner in New York City.

Seriously, that's on my to-do list. Last time I was Chicago I ate at every dive I could. Haven't been able to eat a patty melt since though.

I think we may have gotten to the root of why I disliked "Deathproof" so much. I'm ultra-sensitive to obnoxious people in movie theaters and restaurants.

[paper]

Deathproof is fantastic.

It needs to be said, because I've had to listen to people bash it for the past week in film classes. The dialogue was a bit off in that scene, a bit self-aware, but that does nothing to detract from the ride. It really earns that final sequence.

[fred]

Maybe everyone knows this already but according to IMDB Machete is being made into a full length movie for a 2008 release

[bentcorner]

I didn't go see it for the simple fact that it's three and a half hours long. That's too long for a movie. I don't want to sit in a theater chair for that long. Especially when I know it will be on DVD in probably three to four months. Less then that when you concider how much money it's lost. They are going to put this out on DVD as soon as they can to take advantage of the marketing from the theatrical release.

I can go to Circuit City or Best Buy and buy the DVD for $13.99 and watch it on my HD widescreen 42" tv while sitting my my recliner. It will look better at home. It will sound better at home. I will be more comfortable at home. It will be cheaper at home.

It used to be the case that I wanted to see a movie at the theater because it looked and sounded better then anything I could see at home. That's not the case any more. My home equipment far exceeds what is in the mall multiplex. Now I only go to the theater when I cannot wait to see it on DVD. Like 300 or Hot Fuzz.

[alexg]

I wish I had multiplex quality gear...I don't.

But I still didn't see Grindhouse. Just couldn't get into watching two violent movies in a row...just where I am right now.

[jaflanagan]

I can go to Circuit City or Best Buy and buy the DVD for $13.99 and watch it on my HD widescreen 42" tv while sitting my my recliner. It will look better at home. It will sound better at home. I will be more comfortable at home. It will be cheaper at home.

I would beg to differ in this one instance. 99% of the time, I'm right there with you, but this was made to be a theater experience. The film doesn't look or sound good to begin with, so the quality is a nil. The point was to make it like going to a shitty theater in the 70's.

I thought exactly like you about the 3 hours, but then the time flew by.

I really think this won't translate as well in home viewing, which is too bad, but part of it's charm.

[bentcorner]

I really think this won't translate as well in home viewing, which is too bad, but part of it's charm.

Why wouldn't it translate well for home viewing?

I read that they got the idea for this move because Tarantino would have these parties at his house where people got together and watched bad movies from the '70's.

[fred]

I would beg to differ in this one instance. 99% of the time, I'm right there with you, but this was made to be a theater experience. The film doesn't look or sound good to begin with, so the quality is a nil. The point was to make it like going to a shitty theater in the 70's.

I thought exactly like you about the 3 hours, but then the time flew by.

I really think this won't translate as well in home viewing, which is too bad, but part of it's charm.

I agree. I have a pretty good setup at home. I have a 57" Wide HDTV. This is a theatre movie though. It needs to be 30 feet tall. It's not made for your hdtv and surround sound, as nice as they may be.

[bentcorner]

I agree. I have a pretty good setup at home. I have a 57" Wide HDTV. This is a theatre movie though. It needs to be 30 feet tall. It's not made for your hdtv and surround sound, as nice as they may be.


Yeah, I don't really get that. Movies these days always look better at home then they do on the theater screen. Are movie screens really 30 feet tall? They don't ever look that big.

Five years ago I would have agreed with you. Movies always looked better on the big screen. Now, not so much.

[fred]

most of the time these days, you're right

this one feels like a big screen movie though

as for the actual height I'm not sure. I always sit close so it may seem larger to me even than others.

[bentcorner]

most of the time these days, you're right

this one feels like a big screen movie though

as for the actual height I'm not sure. I always sit close so it may seem larger to me even than others.

So should people not bother with it on DVD? I was planning on picking it up the Tuesday it comes out. If it's not watchable at home, now I'm not sure.

If this movie cannot be enjoyed on DVD, it truly is a flop. At this point, DVD will be the only thing saving it.

[conorkilpatrick]

This movie is meant to be seen in a theater with a large crowd. It is designed to recreate a specific theater experience. I can't imagine that the slates and trailers would play the same way at home.

[conorkilpatrick]

Are movie screens really 30 feet tall? They don't ever look that big.

Most theaters I go to the screens are at least that big. If I go to the movies, I GO TO THE MOVIES.

[jaflanagan]

I think you missed the point of what I was saying. The film itself is all degraded and scratched, and the soundtrack is scratchy and messed up, like an old film print. When projected in a movie theater, it makes sense. I think the effect won't be as much fun at home. It's not supposed to look or sound good. Rather it's supposed to look and sound like a film reel that's been traveling around and been beaten up.

People will buy it on DVD, and it'll be plenty good, but it won't be the same, because it was made to be a theater going experience.

Either way, it flopped. But I think that's because people either just weren't interested, or didn't know what it was. But those of us here who saw it at the theater would probably all recommend that it's the best way to see it.

[bentcorner]

This movie is meant to be seen in a theater with a large crowd. It is designed to recreate a specific theater experience. I can't imagine that the slates and trailers would play the same way at home.

But I thought it hasn't been playing to large crowds.

[fred]

he's right - good at home and great in the theater

[fred]

But I thought it hasn't been playing to large crowds.

in my experience, it isn't being shown in many theaters here anymore but it's packed in the ones that are showing it

[bentcorner]

Most theaters I go to the screens are at least that big. If I go to the movies, I GO TO THE MOVIES.

When I go to the movies, it's at the mall multiplex. I don't know if the screens are that big.

[conorkilpatrick]

But I thought it hasn't been playing to large crowds.

That's irrelevant to what I said. It was meant to be seen in a movie theater with large crowds. Just because large crowds aren't going doesn't change that fact.

[bentcorner]

in my experience, it isn't being shown in many theaters here anymore but it's packed in the ones that are showing it

I would think that if the screenings were packed, theaters would add more screens. If screenings were packed, it wouldn't be losing money. Last week it averaged only $950 per screen. That's pretty low. It's had a fairly wide release too. It was shown in 2,629 theaters.

[bentcorner]

That's irrelevant to what I said. It was meant to be seen in a movie theater with large crowds. Just because large crowds aren't going doesn't change that fact.
I guess I don't understand. Aren't all movies meant to be seen in a movie theaters with large crowds?

[jaflanagan]

Uncle! I'm OUT!

[fred]

I would think that if the screenings were packed, theaters would add more screens. If screenings were packed, it wouldn't be losing money. Last week it averaged only $950 per screen. That's pretty low. It's had a fairly wide release too. It was shown in 2,629 theaters.

that would be why I said that it was my experience - I also heard it from a few friends. I have no idea what it's doing nationally

[horatio616]

Isn't it funny how movies have changed? Hollywood is making films that ramp up the pacing because today's audiences have shorter attention spans, but then overplot the movie with too many twists and turns. The end result is a LONGER MOVIE, which kills its box office. If I were a studio, I would never release a three-hour popcorn movie. Look at past history: Pearl Harbor, King Kong, Superman, and now Grindhouse have underperformed, not because they were bad (well except Pearl Harbor), but because people didn't want to sit in a theater for that long.

Spider-Man 3 is going to clock in at over two-and-a-half hours because the story is juggling four villains and two love interests. I can't believe studios aren't taking the hint that people want their summer blockbusters shorter.

Say what you want about Brett Ratner and X3, but you have to appreciate the economy of his vision. That was a short and fast (if arguably forgettable) movie. That's why it kicked the shit out of Superman Returns at the box office, despite everything Superman had going for it. It succeeded in part because Ratner knew what the audience wanted. That's also why Ghost Rider succeeded in spite of the fact that it pretty much sucked.

Hollywood needs to reign in its directors and tell them to keep it short and sweet!

[horatio616]

I would think that if the screenings were packed, theaters would add more screens. If screenings were packed, it wouldn't be losing money. Last week it averaged only $950 per screen. That's pretty low. It's had a fairly wide release too. It was shown in 2,629 theaters.

You can't add more screenings for a 3 hour movie. It's pretty much 7 o'clock and that's it. You won't take down Wild Hogs, which you can show twice a night and replace it with Grindhouse, which is only shown once. In addition, if the only showings are at 7, then you're totally eliminating the people who only want to go to the movies at 9. A lot of people haven't even had dinner by 7.

I bet the Weinsteins are kicking their own asses that they didn't insist that it be cut into two movies a la Kill Bill. Bet the movie kills on DVD, though.

[comhcinc]

do people really think that? wow.

[conorkilpatrick]

You can't add more screenings for a 3 hour movie. It's pretty much 7 o'clock and that's it. You won't take down Wild Hogs, which you can show twice a night and replace it with Grindhouse, which is only shown once. In addition, if the only showings are at 7, then you're totally eliminating the people who only want to go to the movies at 9. A lot of people haven't even had dinner by 7.

At every theater I've seen here, Grindhouse has a 7 and a 11 o'clock showing.

[fred]

we've got 10 or 11 oclock showings too

[jaflanagan]

It used to be that a double feature was considered a bargain, not a burden, at least from a consumer point of view.

I like long movies, as long as there's merit. The Lord or the Rings movies were all box office successes, regardless of their length. Braveheart was 3 hours. The Godfather movies all clock in at well over 2 hours. They're all shooting for that epic movie to win the oscar, so studios take the risk on it

Not so much with Grindhouse, but you get my point.

I would only call for an intermission when it gets to the 3 hour mark. Cuz of the giant beverages.

[horatio616]

At every theater I've seen here, Grindhouse has a 7 and a 11 o'clock showing.

Most smaller cities don't show movies that late. I saw it in Cincinnati and I had a hard time finding a theater that had a late showing. I ended up driving across the river to Newport KY.

[comhcinc]

It used to be that a double feature was considered a bargain, not a burden, at least from a consumer point of view.

I like long movies, as long as there's merit.

Agreed 100%

i just remember in the commentary track of bull durham, constner goes on a nice little rant about the length of movies. you should check it out. he saids something like:

i don't see why movies have to be so short. what does everyone have to do that they can't sit for alittle longer?

[comhcinc]

Most smaller cities don't show movies that late. I saw it in Cincinnati and I had a hard time finding a theater that had a late showing. I ended up driving across the river to Newport KY.

really? in huntsville al every theater has a midnight showing

[bentcorner]

You can't add more screenings for a 3 hour movie. It's pretty much 7 o'clock and that's it. You won't take down Wild Hogs, which you can show twice a night and replace it with Grindhouse, which is only shown once. In addition, if the only showings are at 7, then you're totally eliminating the people who only want to go to the movies at 9. A lot of people haven't even had dinner by 7.

I bet the Weinsteins are kicking their own asses that they didn't insist that it be cut into two movies a la Kill Bill. Bet the movie kills on DVD, though.

I think they can add more screens by simply staggering the start times. Movies are on a series of reels. I don't know how long each reel is (20 minutes?), but you can cascade reels from one screen to another.

That's what they did here when they showed Fahrenheit 911. They originally planned on showing it only on one screen. They quickly sold out. They had to stagger it to a second screen. Even then the theater I watched it in was completely packed. There wasn't one empty seat in the house. It was weird.

[conorkilpatrick]

If I were a studio, I would never release a three-hour popcorn movie. Look at past history: Pearl Harbor, King Kong, Superman, and now Grindhouse have underperformed, not because they were bad (well except Pearl Harbor), but because people didn't want to sit in a theater for that long.

I think there is a huge misconception on what is a hit and what is a flop.

Pearl Harbor
Budget: $135,250,000 (estimated)
US B.O.: $198,539,855 (30 November 2001)
Total B.O.: $450,400,000

King Kong
Budget: $207,000,000 (estimated)
US B.O.: $218,051,260 (31 March 2006)
Total B.O.: $547,051,260

Superman Returns
Budget: $270,000,000 (estimated)
US B.O.: $200,069,408 (27 October 2006)
Total B.O.: $389,569,408

[horatio616]

It used to be that a double feature was considered a bargain, not a burden, at least from a consumer point of view.

I like long movies, as long as there's merit. The Lord or the Rings movies were all box office successes, regardless of their length. Braveheart was 3 hours. The Godfather movies all clock in at well over 2 hours. They're all shooting for that epic movie to win the oscar, so studios take the risk on it

Not so much with Grindhouse, but you get my point.

I would only call for an intermission when it gets to the 3 hour mark. Cuz of the giant beverages.

Yeah, I guess the commercial AND critical success of LOTR has emboldened directors into thinking that they, too, can make the Citizen Kane of popcorn movies. Peter Jackson found out that LOTR is a once-in-a-generation phenomenon.

[bentcorner]

Most smaller cities don't show movies that late. I saw it in Cincinnati and I had a hard time finding a theater that had a late showing. I ended up driving across the river to Newport KY.

I watched Sin City in Cincinnati and I thought it was so ironic. Sin City in "Cin City"......

[horatio616]

really? in huntsville al every theater has a midnight showing


Yeah, but who but the fringe goes to a movie at midnight, especially a 3 hour movie? Even I, geek fanboy extreme, would cringe at that prospect.

[fred]

Most smaller cities don't show movies that late. I saw it in Cincinnati and I had a hard time finding a theater that had a late showing. I ended up driving across the river to Newport KY.

I live outside of Albany, NY which isn't even close to a big city and there are 3 places showing it after 10 7 days a week.

[horatio616]

I watched Sin City in Cincinnati and I thought it was so ironic. Sin City in "Cin City"......

I was nearly sexually assulted by two large drunk ladies in an elevator in a Cincy hotel after the movie. They were mid-forties and were two bills each.

[bentcorner]

really? in huntsville al every theater has a midnight showing

Even the non-Summer months? I think a lot of that has to do with child employment laws. Most of the theaters around here employ 16 kids. I don't know if you can make them work past midnight.

Huntsville might be different. They have actual rocket scientists that live and work there.

[comhcinc]

Yeah, but who but the fringe goes to a movie at midnight, especially a 3 hour movie? Even I, geek fanboy extreme, would cringe at that prospect.

they cut $3 off the ticket price. it's eough people to warrant them doing and there is usally anywhere from a half full to full i only see movies at midnight or midday.

[comhcinc]

Even the non-Summer months? I think a lot of that has to do with child employment laws. Most of the theaters around here employ 16 kids. I don't know if you can make them work past midnight.

Huntsville might be different. They have actual rocket scientists that live and work there.

yep all year long, and you might be right. so many of us techies work long hours that you can find a good deal of stores businesses open late. i have never thought of it that way

[horatio616]

I think there is a huge misconception on what is a hit and what is a flop.


That's why I said 'underperformed'. Those movies definitely made money. Grindhouse will make money too, just not right away.

[bentcorner]

That's why I said 'underperformed'. Those movies definitely made money. Grindhouse will make money too, just not right away.

Will it though? At first I thought it would make up for it's box office disappointment when it was released on DVD. Now I'm not so sure.

[comhcinc]

Will it though? At first I thought it would make up for it's box office disappointment when it was released on DVD. Now I'm not so sure.

oh i'm all over buying this on dvd

[conorkilpatrick]

Will it though? At first I thought it would make up for it's box office disappointment when it was released on DVD. Now I'm not so sure.

I'd be shocked if it didn't do well on DVD.

[mikegraham6]

My friends refuse to see it with me because of the length so im really looking forward to seeing it on DVD, i also think it will do really well on DVD

[horatio616]

Here's Weinstein's take:

Weinstein pointed to several reasons why Grindhouse did so poorly in theaters over Easter weekend. "Our research showed the length kept people away. It was the single biggest deterrent. It was 3 hours and 12 minutes long. We originally intended to get it all in in 2 hours, 30 minutes. That would have been a better time. But the movies ran longer, the [fake] trailers ran longer, everything ran longer," Harvey told me.

Another factor I didn't think of:

The Weinstein Co. wouldn't give the film to actual Grindhouses, or even the Grindhouse Film Festival, to screen and create buzz. That may be one reason the advance tracking on the film prior to Friday was only so-so. The hype seems to have been all Internet-generated, which is why New Line's Snakes On A Plane flopped.

The whole article is here.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/what-went-so-wrong-with-grindhouse/

[comhcinc]

the hype seems to have been all Internet-generated, which is why New Line's Snakes On A Plane flopped.

that isn't true. i was in iraq when that movie was coming out and all the magizines we were getting(FHM, Maxium, Playboy,etc,etc,etc) were hyping the hell out of it.

that movie flopped because it sucked

[bentcorner]

that isn't true. i was in iraq when that movie was coming out and all the magizines we were getting(FHM, Maxium, Playboy,etc,etc,etc) were hyping the hell out of it.

that movie flopped because it sucked

I think those magazines were taking the lead from the Internet.

[conorkilpatrick]

Another factor I didn't think of:



The whole article is here.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/what-went-so-wrong-with-grindhouse/

Here's an interesting take on the box office from Aint It Cool (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32230):

The Weinsteins to separate GRINDHOUSE here in the US?

I think it's a horrible idea, of course, but it is an interesting rumor.

Nikki Finke, who has taken on the responsibility of challenging the whole concept and execution of GRINDHOUSE, got on the horn with Harvey Weinstein about the poor weekend.

Of course, he's not happy and his thought is to quickly recut the film, chop DEATH PROOF from PLANET TERROR, cut in some of the missing footage, and re-release them in the coming weeks.

I actually really like that idea... if they were going to do it in 5 or 6 months. Doing it now seems like such a panicked, knee-jerk reaction. I understand, from his point of view, but what did he expect to happen?

He blames the length, which surely had something to do with the box office, but know what's really to blame? Whoever decided to release it Easter Weekend. The concept of counter-programming always sounds attractive, but it hardly ever works. What did they expect releasing a 3 1/2 hour long R-rated gore-fest, celebrating exploitation films, on this family weekend.

People going to see movies last weekend were more than likely going as a family, taking the kids or the parents and grandparents.

If 300 had been released last weekend, it would have flopped, too.

I guess the question now is, should the Weinsteins cut their losses and pull the film, re-releasing them as two different movies in a few weeks or should they let it have its run as originally intended, potentially losing more money?

I just don't think cutting the movie at this point is going to help them at all, at least not in the US. You might get a return from the fans you already have to see the extra footage, but do they really think they're going to now bring in new people?

I can see the dilemma Harvey is in, but I'd suggest he take a moment to breath and really think this out.

I just had a conversation with Harry where an interesting bit came up about the way the Weinsteins marketed the movie.

They didn't spend any money on internet publicity. None. No ads on Rotten Tomatoes, no ads on IMDB, no ads on Drudge. They didn't even have a myspace page...

Harry's point was that Warners did the exact opposite with 300, which is why he wrote that story about the power of the internet back when it did huge business. Exit polls showed that 65% of the males that went to see the movie said they heard about it online.

Now, we geeks will have seen all that anyway, but I'm talking about the average joes out there that want to have a good time. That would see an ad on salon.com or yahoo or aol.

It's about awareness. Most Americans are online every day. Not everybody is watching prime time.

They did a huge publicity blitz for Grindhouse, with Tarantino and Rodriguez putting themselves everywhere talking about the movie, but that didn't raise the level of awareness needed.

I still think the counter-programming backfired for them... not for strictly religious reasons, but in terms of how people saw movies this last weekend. It was a family weekend. People went out to the theater as a family, with visiting parents or aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews... when you have a group like that, you're going to see the most safe movie for everybody concerned.

I don't know what the exact formula is, but we do know that 300 and Grindhouse were going after similar audiences. They had different release dates and different advertising strategies, but one was a huge hit and one underperformed.

[comhcinc]

I think those magazines were taking the lead from the Internet.

doesn't matter the fact that they was hyping it negates the idea that it was only internet based

[comhcinc]

It's about awareness. Most Americans are online every day. Not everybody is watching prime time.



man he completely had me until that line right there. it's just the opposite.

[mikegraham6]

that isn't true. i was in iraq when that movie was coming out and all the magizines we were getting(FHM, Maxium, Playboy,etc,etc,etc) were hyping the hell out of it.

that movie flopped because it sucked

I think the reason Snakes on a Plane did so poorly is because it didn't suck ENOUGH. it wasn't nearly as bad as it should have been

and is weinstein saying that internet generated buzz doesn't work? i dont think thats true, nonetheless an example to the contrary escapes me a the moment:rolleyes:

[mikegraham6]

Anyone know what they are going to do for the European release? it would strike me that a 3hr movie would be more well received over there, more avant garde approaches to cinema seem to do better in Europe

[jaflanagan]

man he completely had me until that line right there. it's just the opposite.

OK, but if you substitute "Most Americans" for "most of the potential audience for this film, it becomes a true statement. And I think that's what he had in mind.

[conorkilpatrick]

man he completely had me until that line right there. it's just the opposite.

Primetime network television viewership has been dropping for years.

[comhcinc]

OK, but if you substitute "Most Americans" for "most of the potential audience for this film, it becomes a true statement. And I think that's what he had in mind.

Agreed, but you can't tell me that doing something with WWE won't have brought iin some people


Primetime network television viewership has been dropping for years.
Agreed, but it is still alot higher than internet use.

[jaflanagan]

Agreed, but it is still alot higher than internet use.

Show me the stats on that.

[comhcinc]

Show me the stats on that.

that was harder than it sounded.


Percentage of households that possess at least one television: 99
Number of TV sets in the average U.S. household: 2.24
Percentage of U.S. homes with three or more TV sets: 66
Number of hours per day that TV is on in an average U.S. home: 6 hours, 47 minutes
Percentage of Americans that regularly watch television while eating dinner: 66
Number of hours of TV watched annually by Americans: 250 billion
Value of that time assuming an average wage of S5/hour: S1.25 trillion
Percentage of Americans who pay for cable TV: 56

LINK (http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html#tv_stats)

Internet Users,
Latest Data:211,108,086
% Population
(Penetration):69.9 %
LINK (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats2.htm)

you have to kinda look around for that data.

[jaflanagan]

Risen to the challenge. Badass.

[fred]

% Population
(Penetration):69.9 %


Is this percentage of people looking for penetration on the internet?

[comhcinc]

Risen to the challenge. Badass.

i use to be on a forum(the company went bust while i was away) that had a debate section. if you couldn't show source for your infomation, then it was discarded and you were openly mocked. good times.

[comhcinc]

Is this percentage of people looking for penetration on the internet?

no i think that is a little higher

[horatio616]

OK, but if you substitute "Most Americans" for "most of the potential audience for this film, it becomes a true statement. And I think that's what he had in mind.

I didn't see as many promos for it during March Madness as I thought. 300, on the other hand, was omnipresent. The awareness of Grindhouse among women, in my experience, was very low. I asked several female acquaintences if they were going to see it, and most didn't know what it was supposed to be about or had even heard of it. And these were the same women who were all over 300.

[horatio616]

I just had a good laugh. I saw an ad for Tarantino's Death Proof. They actually use the fact that it's longer as a selling point. Death Proof needed to be longer??? I can't imagine a more perfectly exquisite exercise in self-torture. Hopefully they extended that restaurant scene or that car chase. Wow, can't get enough of those scenes!!! If ever I thought a movie needed to be longer, it's that one!

(Can you tell my sarcasm meter is cranked up to 14?)

[itsbecca]

I just had a good laugh. I saw an ad for Tarantino's Death Proof. They actually use the fact that it's longer as a selling point. Death Proof needed to be longer??? I can't imagine a more perfectly exquisite exercise in self-torture. Hopefully they extended that restaurant scene or that car chase. Wow, can't get enough of those scenes!!! If ever I thought a movie needed to be longer, it's that one!

(Can you tell my sarcasm meter is cranked up to 14?)

So you don't want to see the lap dance?

[horatio616]

So you don't want to see the lap dance?

Nah, Tarantino probably has them talking through the whole thing, and who wants yapping during a lap dance? A lap dance is supposed to be quiet happy time.

Seriously, if DP had been two minutes longer, I would have slit my wrists with whatever was available at the time.

[paper]

Death Proof was awesome. You were bored because you had to sit through Planet Terror first.

[itsbecca]

Death Proof was awesome. You were bored because you had to sit through Planet Terror first.

I guess I disagree with both of you. I thought both were awesome, though Death Proof was better.

EDIT: Also, I very much want to see the lap dance.

[conorkilpatrick]

I guess I disagree with both of you. I thought both were awesome, though Death Proof was better.

EDIT: Also, I very much want to see the lap dance.

I thought Planet Terror was awesome. I really, really enjoyed the entire experience.

[esophagus]

Planet Terror was great. I wanted half my money back for Death Proof though.

[paper]

I liked both. I just preferred Death Proof. I'm saying it probably suffered because it was the second feature in a very long screening experience.

[labor_days]

Paper has the right of it. Death Proof's only flaw was being screened after Planet Terror. DP is the much better film, artistically and stylistically.

[jgg0610]

Paper has the right of it. Death Proof's only flaw was being screened after Planet Terror. DP is the much better film, artistically and stylistically.
See I enjoyed DP much better than Planet Terror but I think Planet Terror accomplished what their stated goal was at the outset. It definitely had that 70's horror sploitation feel where Death Proof didn't. It felt just like any other QT movie.

[labor_days]

Hmm. PT (which I liked) felt very much like a cheeseball 80's B-movie. It succeeds on the level of being a fun tongue-n-cheek romp. Which is it's goal, of course.

The kind of b-flicks Planet Terror is trying to be were almost made to be laughed at in the first place. Your Cherry Darling comes off as an homage that genre archetypes. This is all well and good, mind you.

I think Tarantino nailed the goal of creating a 70's style b-flick that really thought itself to be serious cinema much more closely. Look at the directorial decisions Tarantino makes in DP and how he subtlety subverts the genre he's drawing from. It's ultimately a more satisfying and deeper film, I think.

[jgg0610]

Hmm. PT (which I liked) felt very much like a cheeseball 80's B-movie. It succeeds on the level of being a fun tongue-n-cheek romp. Which is it's goal, of course.

The kind of b-flicks Planet Terror is trying to be were almost made to be laughed at in the first place. Your Cherry Darling comes off as an homage that genre archetypes. This is all well and good, mind you.

I think Tarantino nailed the goal of creating a 70's style b-flick that really thought itself to be serious cinema much more closely. Look at the directorial decisions Tarantino makes in DP and how he subtlety subverts the genre he's drawing from. It's ultimately a more satisfying and deeper film, I think.
I see what you're getting at. I think this is one of those situations where we agree about 96% and it's the last 4% we're debating. DP felt very sterilized compared to PT to me. There was nothing grim and gritty about it, which there definitely was with PT and there definitely was to what they were paying an homage to.

[conorkilpatrick]

I think Planet Terror accomplished what their stated goal was at the outset. It definitely had that 70's horror sploitation feel where Death Proof didn't. It felt just like any other QT movie.

Bingo, on all counts.

[labor_days]

DP felt very sterilized compared to PT to me. There was nothing grim and gritty about it, which there definitely was with PT and there definitely was to what they were paying an homage to.

Yeah, I get where that criticism comes from as well. It's a pretty valid criticism considering Grindhouse's marketing and surrounding errata.

Perhaps, some of which may depend on the type of b-flicks one has in mind when going into Grindhouse. The sort of "murder doll" b-flick Deathproof subverts or the more Corman-esque send up of Planet Terror.

Me? I could watch Deathproof for an age.

http://img38.picoodle.com/img/img38/9/9/17/f_eliseelectrm_d892d66.jpg

http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/9/9/17/f_grindhousegm_3d1990f.jpg

[itsbecca]

Me? I could watch Deathproof for an age.

Here here. Though I think there's a glaring lack of Vanessa Ferlito (http://blog.invisiblevoice.net/wp-content/images/2007/06/deathproofshot2.jpg) in your post sir.

[paper]

Deathproof and Superman: Doomsday in one week? Yaaaaaaaay.

I agree with Labor's assessment. I think Planet Terror is the kind of B-movie a lot of people are accustomed to. The genre QT was paying homage too is more of a nice. It probably would have starred complete unknowns, but it isn't hard to imagine Charles Bronson in the Kurt Russell role.

[labor_days]

Here here. Though I think there's a glaring lack of Vanessa Ferlito (http://blog.invisiblevoice.net/wp-content/images/2007/06/deathproofshot2.jpg) in your post sir.

Becca wins thread. Everyone can go home. Nothing left to see here.

[aleks07]

For those lucky enough to live in or near Manhattan, check out the "Adult Shops" on 8th avenue or Kim's DVD opposite St Mark's Comics.

For some reason they both tend to get new release DVD's 2-3 weeks before the major retailers. I picked up Death Proof, Doomsday, Bug, Next and Wall St: 20th Anniversary Edition =) Only managed to get through the extras in Death Proof.. you won't be that disappointed!!

[doctor-colossus]

I'm a little torn as to whether or not to buy Deathproof.
I loved it, but I hate that it's being released separate from Grindhouse.
I want a Groundhouse DVD.
Not a Deathproof or Planet Terror Stand alone DVD.
And I really hate the Weinsteins.

[labor_days]

It's pretty remarkable that Planet Terror and Deathproof are so different stylistically and structurally. Yet both draw from the same cheaply made vulgar cinema of the late 70's & early 80's and the resulting aestheticization of violence.

We wouldn't have a Tarantino or Rodriguez if not for the grindhouse cinema on the whole. One can draw a clear line from that sort of cinema to your Kil Bill or El Mariachi. I don't simply mean from an inspirational standpoint either.

Despite the relative shoddiness of the films; grindhouse cinema (along with the 70's new wave) foreran the emergence of the independent filmmaker and auteur in the American cinema.

Rather or not Grindhouse succeeded commercially ultimately doesn't matter. Artistically, it's was a fairly gutsy and brilliantly executed project.

[paper]

Has anyone seen this behind the scenes art book (http://www.amazon.com/Grindhouse-Sleaze-filled-Exploitation-Double-Feature/dp/1602860149/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-1603915-8792944?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190113423&sr=8-3)? No preview unfortunately.

[horatio616]

Rather or not Grindhouse succeeded commercially ultimately doesn't matter. Artistically, it's was a fairly gutsy and brilliantly executed project.

It matters to the studio!

The moral of the story is don't spend 70 million (or whatever) to make a movie that looks like it cost 300K.

I had a great time at Grindhouse, except for the last half of Death Proof. The bar scene in DP was pretty good, but that second group of women, wow, were they annoying.

As much as I disliked it, I bought the DVD today, along with Superman/Doomsday. Why, you might ask? I have no friggin' idea...

[labor_days]

There has been talk and allusions to a Grindhouse sequel though. The movie was very well received critically and all the indie taste makers were buzzing about it.

Sometimes it doesn't matter if everyone gets a particular piece of art, only that the right kind of people do. See also: I Spit On Your Grave, Velvet Underground, The Bell Jar.

[horatio616]

There has been talk and allusions to a Grindhouse sequel though. The movie was very well received critically and all the indie taste makers were buzzing about it.

Sometimes it doesn't matter if everyone gets a particular piece of art, only that the right kind of people do. See also: I Spit On Your Grave, Velvet Underground, The Bell Jar.

I love I Spit on Your Grave as much as the next guy, but that movie shouldn't have cost so much. Overall, I enjoyed the experience. Hopefully we'll see a series of Grindouse Presents... videos. Hasn't Machete been rumored?

[kahunablair]

I love I Spit on Your Grave as much as the next guy, but that movie shouldn't have cost so much. Overall, I enjoyed the experience. Hopefully we'll see a series of Grindouse Presents... videos. Hasn't Machete been rumored?

Machete is more then rumored. It's being made.
At South by Southwest, Rodriguez announced that he would be expanding his trailer for Machete into a feature-length movie.[2] Rodriguez has said in a recent interview, "When I started doing the trailer and as soon as we started showing it to people they said we want to see this movie. Bob Weinstein even said that 'I want to see that movie.' So I thought we would probably make it then. If audiences respond to it the way I think they might then I think we’ll make it."[3] Tarantino has also said, "Robert pretty much has about 40 minutes of it anyway just from the trailers. True grind house I’ll give him 6 more days to finish it out. One of the things I love about it is well there is blaxploitation but in America there wasn’t a mexploitation. Machete is definitely a mexploitation film."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machete_%28film%29

[labor_days]

Was just about to mention Machete and the buzz over the faux-trailers before seeing Kahuna's post.

[kahunablair]

Was just about to mention Machete and the buzz over the faux-trailers before seeing Kahuna's post.

Well seeing as how it's usually you beating me to posting, I'm honored.

[paper]

Just noticed they play "Stagger Lee" in the bar scene.

[paper]

Proof was better.

EDIT: Also, I very much want to see the lap dance.

It does not disappoint. So you can all keep your Jessica Alba animated gif. Even the song is awesome.

[mikegraham6]

i watched deathproof yesterday and it wasn't bad, it really dragged on in the first act though, but it was classic tarantino dialogue so you'll get no complaints from me.
Question though, does it intentionally go black and white for about 10 minutes? i couldn't tell if it was a problem with my dvd or not.
also, where were the trailers everyone was so excited about? i was really looking forward to them and i couldn't find them on the bonus features disc :(

[paper]

It does go black and white. I don't remember that bit being in the theatrical cut, but I could be wrong. I actually prefer it without the additional scenes. While I'm of course glad that the lap dance is there for the viewing, I think the film works better without it. Its omission from the theatrical cut was a great gag. Same goes for the omitted scene from Planet Terror.

[conorkilpatrick]

also, where were the trailers everyone was so excited about? i was really looking forward to them and i couldn't find them on the bonus features disc :(

In between the two movies*! ;)

*Only saw it in the theater...

[mikegraham6]

In between the two movies*! ;)

*Only saw it in the theater...

SERIOUSLY!!!! what a rip! i was excited to see those! i would have seen the movies in theatres had it not been for the fact that none of my friends had any interest whatsoever to see it....


Bit torrent it is then.......

[esophagus]

In between the two movies*! ;)

*Only saw it in the theater...That was about the only reason I was going to buy either of the DVDs, or what put it over the edge anyways. I'm out.

[conorkilpatrick]

That was about the only reason I was going to buy either of the DVDs, or what put it over the edge anyways. I'm out.

I wouldn't even consider buying them unless they were back to back on one disc. It's a travesty that they're split up.

But I'd be shocked if the trailers weren't on one of the discs, that was like everyone's favorite part. Are we sure they're not?

[kahunablair]

I wouldn't even consider buying them unless they were back to back on one disc. It's a travesty that they're split up.

But I'd be shocked if the trailers weren't on one of the discs, that was like everyone's favorite part. Are we sure they're not?

When they announced the DVDs and the fact that they were going to split the movies up, I remember there being an uproar over the fact that neither disc was going to have the Trailers.


Edit: Here's Wikis version.
The DVD release of Grindhouse has sparked debate across the fanbase, with many being upset that the film is split instead of following the theatrical double feature release, and that the trailers have been omitted from both discs. Members of some internet message boards have called for a boycott of the DVDs[65][66][67]. An online petition has been started with keep the films together for a DVD release.

[mikegraham6]

I wouldn't even consider buying them unless they were back to back on one disc. It's a travesty that they're split up.

But I'd be shocked if the trailers weren't on one of the discs, that was like everyone's favorite part. Are we sure they're not?

maybe they will include it on the Planet Terror DVD but i searched the bonus disc of Deathproof and i couldn't find it anywhere

[labor_days]

I like having the option of just buying Deathproof. Planet Terror doesn't rate high on my re-watch list. But not having the trailers on either disc is indeed, a travesty.

What were they thinking?

[kahunablair]

I like having the option of just buying Deathproof. Planet Terror doesn't rate high on my re-watch list. But not having the trailers on either disc is indeed, a travesty.

What were they thinking?

They're thinking MONEY.

They'll get all of us that will buy the seperate discs, and then release the full Grindhouse Experience DVD. This way they can charge $30, because it has "Two movie and Trailers".

[mikegraham6]

They're thinking MONEY.

They'll get all of us that will buy the seperate discs, and then release the full Grindhouse Experience DVD. This way they can charge $30, because it has "Two movie and Trailers".
i HATE it when they do that......

EDIT: i was also surprised to find that Deathproof wasn't released in HD

[kahunablair]

i HATE it when they do that......

But the question is, Will it work? Are we all going to buy it?

[esophagus]

I like having the option of just buying Deathproof. Planet Terror doesn't rate high on my re-watch list. But not having the trailers on either disc is indeed, a travesty.

What were they thinking?
They could have easily just released a "Grindhouse" disc, and had the option of which movie on the money. On top of being lame, it has to hurt sales (which having both seperate will probably make up for), I've heard plenty of "Are you going to buy Deathproof?" "What's that?" "Grindhouse." "When does Grindhouse come out?" "Deathproof did." "Whats that?"

[mikegraham6]

But the question is, Will it work? Are we all going to buy it?
i wont, i have no interest in owning Planet Terror. I'll rent it, but Deathproof was the movie i wanted to see (oh ya, and the trailers, but 30 bucks for trailers? no way)

[labor_days]

At some point I'm going to end up owning Planet Terror. Le sigh, Hollywood. Le sigh.

[doctor-colossus]

Well I caved and bought "Deathproof".
And I'll end up owning "Planet Terror" as well.

As for getting the complete "Grindhiouse" movie...

Well, I usually despise bootlegs and the people who buy them. But if the supply doesn't meet the demand, then I'll have to pursue alternate avenues to feed my movie fix.

(Stoopid Weinsteins)

[mr-rockwell]

I like having the option of just buying Deathproof. Planet Terror doesn't rate high on my re-watch list. But not having the trailers on either disc is indeed, a travesty.

What were they thinking?

I personally love Taratino and the fact that he and Rodriguez had the gall to attempt to release two pictures with 'fake' (i've heard that at least one will be made into a full motion picture at some point) trailers on a single ticket was just plain awesome. To split them up goes against the whole spirit of the original release. The fact the Deathproof was much stronger is just unfortunate really.

[paper]

No one's mentioned that there would be a drop in quality if they were released on a single disc. Those Superbit dvds shrug off the extras for a reason. The best solution would be to have a 2 disc set, where the Deathproof disc was set to automatic play.

[esophagus]

No one's mentioned that there would be a drop in quality if they were released on a single disc. Those Superbit dvds shrug off the extras for a reason. The best solution would be to have a 2 disc set, where the Deathproof disc was set to automatic play.I'm guessing a few months after both come out we'll see a collection, and the trailers. And I'm sure it will be cheaper than whatever people paid buying them seperately. But they'll buy it too. I know I will.

[smaktakula]

I finished Death Proof the other night, and man!--I was unimpressed. I should start out by admitting that I'm not a Tarantino fan at all (although I loved Resovoir Dogs--great flick). There are a lot of folks out there whose taste I hold in great esteem who just love Tarantino, so I know he's got something going for him, but it's not for me.

However, of the Tarantino flicks I've seen, Death Proof has to be the very worst. And yes, I realize that as part of Grindhouse, this flick was supposed to be an homage to the old drive-in flicks of the 1970's. I appreciated the experiment, and liked some of the film techniques that were used. But the plot was so flimsy, and moreover, so mean-spirited that I just couldn't get into it.

The director spends 45 minutes setting up the story, ostensibly getting us to care about the characters, and then wipes them out without a thought, and then begins a second movie (of a sort), with all the violence and cruetly of the first-half, but without any of the character development.

Stuntman Mike could have been such an interesting character, and indeed, he was set-up well. I was intrigued. But by the end of the flick I found that there were no characters I could like or with whom I could identify. They all seemed to be vacuous, damaged characters with no redemptive possibilities.

'Course, that's just how the movie struck me. I imagine there were quite a few folks out there who really enjoyed it, and that's cool. I appreciated the experiement, but not the results.