Sometimes Hollywood can have major tragedy. Death of James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, and depending on how much of a conformist idiot you are, Michael Jackson. But sadder than any of these events, is when a horrible movie does well, and a fantastic movie does poorly.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World was awesome. If you haven't seen it yet, go see it, or at least add it to your Netflix queue. However, audiences didn't seem interested, and it's something of a bomb.
Vampires Suck was terrible. I haven't seen it, but I know that. I know because the film-makers haven't made anything remotely watchable. However, audiences were interested, and it's something of a hit.
Okay, not really a hit, it made about 12 million opening weekend, but it cost so little that it'll make it's money back. Scott Pilgrim on the other hand won't, here's why.
1. Marketing
Vampires Suck was marketed to Twilight Haters, of which there are many, promising to lampoon the much hated series. The advertisements were all clear about this. Scott Pilgrim was marketed as...well a movie...I guess. It set up a clear premise, but didn't give very compelling reasons to see it. Among its failings was the lack of inclusion of Edgar Wright's name in its ads. People respect his work, Hot Fuzz and Shawn of the Dead. If they had been mentioned, it would have done better. But the real problem is they came off as a typical hipster flick, and while not generic, certainly less than amazing.
2. Timing
Vampires Suck came out less than two months after Twilight Eclipse. That means, people have seen it and had a chance to hate it, but haven't yet forgotten it. Perfect timing. Scott Pilgrim, well...perfect timing was hard to find, and it probably would have been killed due to marketing anyway. But opening in mid-August against a film fueled by action stars didn't help anything. If they'd gone for a Fall release, like Zombieland it could have done much better, or maybe a spring 2011 release like Kick-A
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment