Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Post your theories here on why you think "Walk Hard" bombed...

This is topic Post your theories here on why you think "Walk Hard" bombed... in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005331

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-06-2008, 07:42 PM:

At the top of my list would be this nauseating one-sheet:

Next is John C. Reiley. Oh wait, that's the same as Reason #1, see above.

There are others. The name of the movie for one thing.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 01-06-2008, 07:49 PM:

With the poster they tried to do the same thing they did with 40 year old virgin and Knocked Up. It just didn't work here because (a)John C is a well known actor, unlike the other two at the time of the movie coming out (b) nobody wants to see man nipples!

Also the movie was just not funny, it falls under he same headline as Epic Movie, Scary movie franchise, and the upcoming Meet the Spartans. Bad movies trying to make fun of Good movies *For the most part good movies*

[ 01-06-2008, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-06-2008, 07:55 PM:

The one-sheet appears to be an attempt to parody the album cover for "The Best of The Doors".

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-06-2008, 08:37 PM:

People may have thought it was a biography of a real person named Dewey Cox -- and they never heard of him and thus don't give a shit, so they stayed home and watched their "Walk the Line" videos again.

Or maybe people are getting suspicious of movies with tag-lines that say "From the guy who brought you...." I know I am.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-06-2008, 08:59 PM:

From the studio that brought you 'Garfield' doesn't seem to have hurt 'Alvin and the Chipmunks' [puke]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-06-2008, 10:15 PM:

Movies which have taglines similar to "from the people who brought you xxxx" usually can't stand up on their own. That's why they need to reference some other shitty movie. I've barely even heard of Superbad or Knocked Up (I don't watch TV so I can't see movie advertisements, and when I do watch TV I mute the commercials 100% of the time).

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-06-2008, 10:25 PM:

What Joe said. I've never even heard of this picture, much less that it tanked. [Wink]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-07-2008, 12:28 AM:

So then what we need to be doing at the theater level is advertising "from the movie theater that brought you Ratatouille..."

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 01-07-2008, 12:47 AM:

Maybe the Mayor of Comedy's (as Judd apatow is described) time is up or starting to go bland. Comedy films seem to go in cycles... Mel Brooks ruled in the late 70s... The Zuckers in the 80s... Adam Sandler in the late 90s... etc. Or maybe it's just that John C Reilly can't open a film.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-07-2008, 01:47 PM:

I'll go with the latter. especially a half-naked latter. [eyes]

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 01-07-2008, 02:35 PM:

I think its John C that can't open a film. I don't think Apatow is the problem at all, if you haven't seen the trailer for Forgetting Sarah Marshall go check it out. Thats the next one in line for him and it looks great.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 01-07-2008, 03:44 PM:

Joe,
I STRONGLY advise you to watch Superbad.
Unlike some of the other "comedies", this one is funny.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-07-2008, 04:23 PM:

When I helped out at my old theater over vacation, one of the guys put it this way:
They didn't really seem to know who they were targeting for the movie. They have it be a silly spoof so the kids might like it but then they have it be a spoof of something the kids were likely to have not even watched. Then they make it rated R which kills the chance of the kids of even seeing the damn thing.

So the only people who are gonna watch it are the mature people who don't give a shit about this kind of a spoof.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-07-2008, 04:44 PM:

One of customers that walked out (about half that bought tickets walked out on it at our place) summed up the problems with film this way "That movie sucks". It is really hard to make money on a film that sucks!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-07-2008, 05:18 PM:

Dude, many movies that make lots of money suck.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-07-2008, 06:49 PM:

quote: Adam Martin
The one-sheet appears to be an attempt to parody the album cover for "The Best of The Doors".

I'm sure that's correct. I don't think very many people got the reference.

Maybe if they got the beads right...and used a better looking actor (maybe Jason Patric 15 years ago) the joke might have come across.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-08-2008, 12:59 AM:

quote: James Westbrook
Joe,
I STRONGLY advise you to watch Superbad.
Unlike some of the other "comedies", this one is funny.

I watched the first 15 minutes or so and then stopped. The characters were extremely lame and there was not one funny moment. There also didn't seem to be a story of any sort, just two teenage dipshits preoccupied with sex. Yawn.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-08-2008, 01:19 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Dude, many movies that make lots of money suck.

I'd say more than 90% actually.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-08-2008, 09:29 AM:

90% of people are idiots.

Wait. Isn't Joe supposed to typing this kind of comment?

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 01-08-2008, 10:03 AM:

I would have to say that my theory is this: Probably many people have never heard of Dewey Cox. Also, the poster didn't do it justice.

I like Brad's post that he made. [Big Grin]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-08-2008, 10:46 AM:

quote: Chad M Calpito
Probably many people have never heard of Dewey Cox.

Uh - dude. That's because he never existed until this movie came out.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 01-08-2008, 12:44 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I watched the first 15 minutes or so and then stopped. The characters were extremely lame and there was not one funny moment. There also didn't seem to be a story of any sort, just two teenage dipshits preoccupied with sex. Yawn.

Did you see the drawings at the end credits at least?

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-08-2008, 01:06 PM:

" Dude, many movies that make lots of money suck.

I'd say more than 90% actually. "

I'm not sure how you do the indent thing. I agree most movies are not filled with wonderful story lines, beautifully written and directed but the ones that make money the target audience do not say they suck. If the target audience think they suck then they don't hope to make money on it.

In point of fact saying that this movie sucks is probable giving a bad name to any other movie that only sucks or blows. I had teenagers walk out on the movie after their parents had come with them and walked out early in the movie. I never talked one customer that actually liked the film so guess you could say this film didn't even qualify to suck!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-08-2008, 02:22 PM:

quote: Ron Funderburg
I'm not sure how you do the indent thing.

E-Z instructions:

1. Copy the text you want to quote (highlight and press CTRL-C)
2. Click the REPLY button
3. Click the QUOTE button below the message box
4. This will give you two tags that look like this: [QUOTEx] [/QUOTEx] (I have put an "x" after the word quote so you can see what the tags look like...in real life you won't see the x's)
5. Paste the text in between the two tags (Put cursor at desired spot, press CTRL-V)
6. Type the rest of your reply where desired and click on ADD REPLY
7. Slap forehead and say, "Damn, it's so freakin' easy!"

Deciding whether a movie sucks or not is relative to a lot of things. For example, "This Is Spinal Tap" sucks as a documentary because it's all made-up stuff. But it's a classic comedy. Still, if today's teenage girls saw it, they would say it sucks because they don't understand the movie. So no movies really suck completely to everyone, except maybe "Howard the Duck."

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-08-2008, 02:40 PM:

quote:
E-Z instructions:

1. Copy the text you want to quote (highlight and press CTRL-C)
2. Click the REPLY button
3. Click the QUOTE button below the message box
4. This will give you two tags that look like this: [QUOTEx] [/QUOTEx] (I have put an "x" after the word quote so you can see what the tags look like...in real life you won't see the x's)
5. Paste the text in between the two tags (Put cursor at desired spot, press CTRL-V)
6. Type the rest of your reply where desired and click on ADD REPLY
7. Slap forehead and say, "Damn, it's so freakin' easy!"

Thats so freakin' easy (ouch my forehead hurts)

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 01-08-2008, 02:42 PM:

except maybe "Howard the Duck."

Howard The Duck is the greatest movie in the history of motion pictures. No other film truely captures the love between a girl and a duck as well as this film. You can say it quacks, but never say it sucks! [Wink]

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 01-08-2008, 04:29 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
So no movies really suck completely to everyone, except maybe "Howard the Duck."

There in lies the problem in defining what sucks. I absolutely love "Howard the Duck." I actually have a very hard time understanding why it is so universally loathed.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-08-2008, 05:34 PM:

quote: James Westbrook
Did you see the drawings at the end credits at least?

The credits come on after 15 minutes?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-08-2008, 08:32 PM:

No, there are just several thousand MORE drawings of dicks featured during the end credits. I am surprised that "feature" of the movie got such high acclaim.

Continuing further and further off topic, I think people hate "Howard the Duck" NOT because it is a bad movie, but because there were such high expectations of the man who created Star Wars. If "Howard" had been made by some no-name director it'd probably be a comedy classic.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-08-2008, 08:43 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
If "Howard" had been made by some no-name director it'd probably be a comedy classic.

Then again...maybe not. [Wink]

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 01-08-2008, 09:00 PM:

Mike the reason that Feature got such acclaim is that is was directed right at the core audience for this film, the college/High school kids. I can imagine most Adults would not find that part funny at all, but if you didn't find that part funny then you probably didn't find the movie that funny.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-08-2008, 09:27 PM:

If Gone With The Wind were released today exactly as it was originally I believe most of todays movie audience would say it sucks. It's an hour too long, just plain dull, very obviously fake outdoor scenes, so so acting except for Hattie McDaniels, crappy mono sound, at least it had an intermission which it would not have today.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-08-2008, 10:03 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
If "Howard" had been made by some no-name director it'd probably be a comedy classic.

The movie was written and directed by Willard Huyck, not exactly well-known.

Though I imagine you're referring to Lucas.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-08-2008, 10:16 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think people hate "Howard the Duck" NOT because it is a bad movie, but because there were such high expectations of the man who created Star Wars. If "Howard" had been made by some no-name director it'd probably be a comedy classic.

I thought Howard the Duck sucked ass primarily because it had very little resemblance to the comic book on which it was inspired. The comic book was actually pretty cool in a strange sort of way. The movie captured NONE of that.

Instead, George Lucas tried to treat Howard like he was some sort of cowardly, wimpy Ewok to appeal to the G-rated kids crowd. Yet he had anthropomorphic human female nipples applied to female ducks in the movie's early scenes. Just what the hell flavor of cocaine were people in Hollywood snorting in the mid 1980's?

The only part of Howard the Duck I thought was cool at all was the big bad monster Jeffery Jones changed into near the end. Everything else, especially the lame ass concert sequence at the movie's end, was just fucking embarrassing.

In some respects, I blame the phenomenal popularity of Ghostbusters and some of its crowd pleasing points on how Howard the Duck got sent onto such a stupidly wrong track.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-08-2008, 11:14 PM:

quote: Bill Enos
If Gone With The Wind were released today exactly as it was originally I believe most of todays movie audience would say it sucks. It's an hour too long, just plain dull, very obviously fake outdoor scenes, so so acting except for Hattie McDaniels, crappy mono sound, at least it had an intermission which it would not have today.

Bill, you are sooo on the money. Aside from MGM's brilliant marketing (it takes quite a bit of hutzpa to call your film the most magnificent movie of all time and then re-release it every seven years still making the same claim), what do you really have but some overblown, REEEEEALY badly acted soap opera?

It if weren't for the goose-bump-making, super Max Steiner score, I'd have given up on it after the first reel. When I actually had to run it for a week, I can truly say, it was the longest week of all time . Yah, the opening always was exciting.....got to do the curtains on the Selznick swinging sign logo and kick up the sound a bit for the opening credits and music, but it quickly deteriorated after that and became downright painful to endure everything up until the great Intermission buildup. We ran a medley of Max Steiner music instead of that horrendous organ droan that was stuck on for intermission music. Then you got to play with the light and curtains again, after which.....nothing but boredom until the great closing music....lights, curtain and a quick prayer of thanks to the cinema gods for it being over.

About the only emotion that I ever get out of it is an uncontrollable urge to slap Scarlet silly -- Vivien Leigh makes the character as annoying as finger-nails-on-a-blackboard. If I were writing the script, I would have a bunch of Yankee soldiers come along in the second reel and hall her off, have their way with her, then she’d never be seen again. Wait, I forgot….they need to come back and drag off Scarlett’s disturbingly freaky little kid too.

If it weren't for the roadshow aspects of it, it would be quite a sucky film, cept maybe for the fire. And of course EVERYONE's supposed to wet their pants when they reveal those "inside" Hollywood secrets -- like lots of the "people" in fall of Atlanta sequence were not actual people at all but -- gee willikers, ma -- dummies!! Wow...THAT must be the reason it's "the most magnificent film of all time!"

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-09-2008, 02:46 AM:

quote: Chad M Calpito
I would have to say that my theory is this: Probably many people have never heard of Dewey Cox.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Uh - dude. That's because he never existed until this movie came out.

Since we're in Award Season, I nominate Chad's post + Mike's reply as the best film-tech posts of the year. [Big Grin]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-09-2008, 10:57 AM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
Mike the reason that Feature got such acclaim is that is was directed right at the core audience for this film, the college/High school kids. I can imagine most Adults would not find that part funny at all, but if you didn't find that part funny then you probably didn't find the movie that funny.

Actually I thought the movie was hilarious overall, but the same joke repeated a thousand times with slight variations gets old.