Grindhouse

[JonnyFrag]

All I can say is, I'm glad I got to see it in the theaters while it was still playing as a double feature. Couldn't care less whether the two movies come out separately as a reissue, don't care how it's released on TV/DVD (though, on DVD, there's enough room for the 3-hour double feature version) -- as long as you can see it once as a double feature, it doesn't matter how it's released in the future. I got to say, though, it'd be great if they put out another double feature every year. It would definitely make me want to get down to the theater more often, if I got the same kind of viewing experience with Planet Terror/Death Proof.

The DVD release just HAS to be a double feature.   There is no way they can release these in two DVDs.   

Personally, I prefer to buy DVDs, watch them at home with my own brew, on my own plasma set, pause them when I need to and not sit in the theater next to some mouth breather.   

I said I'M SORRY!  I have a deviated septum....

[BBQ Platypus]

I found this interesting post on the Rotten Tomatoes forum:

You might want to look up Saw's and especially 300's box office numbers before looking stupid. There is a reason there are 3 saw's and its not couse it's good.

"Before looking stupid"? Is that right? (What's with all the infantile insults on this site anyway?)

Patrocal99, don't know if you're aware of this but horror films are extremely profitable because they serve a niche whose audience behaves very differently from that of most genres: they are more prone to repeat business by the same rabid fans*. For another, horror films tend to be very low budget, which means there can be a greater return on investment from far fewer tickets sold, which is what generates sequels. (*Not that it's a horror film, but based on many posts in this thread, GRINDHOUSE fans are already going to see it again which has increased the disappointing take though not the audience size.)

So, SAW doesn't have to be a true blockbuster to gain a greenlight on sequels. (Same might've been true for GRINDHOUSE had it been made on the cheap.) If the same 3 million people see the movie half a dozen times, you've got a hit on your hands. Making more SAWs is smart business, if not good filmmaking, but it says nothing about the millions more movie lovers who have never and will never see a SAW installment.

As for 300, likewise it is experiencing a lot of repeat business though with a large initial audience, and is a success because of it. But it has a classic story which should have produced a true blockbuster, but, no, the filmmakers chose to be overly violent and salacious in the execution. And millions more people could see what is a breakthrough visually, but no, the unwashed masses -- who don't want to sit next to their kid during a sex scene, or who can't stomach ultra-violence -- aren't worthy evidently. The filmmakers left out millions more potential ticket buyers in order to satisfy themselves and a serve a "cool" niche. They could have had a visually stunning BRAVEHEART on their hands which could've made twice the box office and amazed and entertained millions more people (which is more important to me).

So like Metafact, you are missing the point patrocal99: those MILLIONS MORE movie lovers are staying home because movies that they would like to see are not considered hip enough to be made, despite the evidence that movies for the mainstream do even better than SAW or GRINDHOUSE or whatever niche film. (No one's saying here not to make the niche films.)

Look, I love movies. The majority of Americans love movies almost as much as their cars! But the vast majority are staying away from the theaters, not because they prefer it that way, but because they are being driven away in droves. Today most in Hollywood seem to be looking for a way to please that the same "cool" small niche which they mistakenly think is a far larger pool of people. Everyone is trying to out-shock, out-twist, out-do everyone else in an effort that will capture 18 to 24 year olds, males especially, but few others.

That small fraction of movie lovers will not keep the motion picture industry thriving. While that niche might currently be the largest block of regular movie-goers there's a reason for that -- and it wasn't always so.

And Hollywood's Groupthink is the reason. It needn't be so. Hollywood can continue making SAWs for you. But that's gonna satisfy a miniscule percentage of the film-going populace. Same is true of making more BROKEBACK MOUNTAINs and any other film that will only satisfy a niche market.

It's not freakin' rocket science (and it's generally not art either).

Didn't mean to offend but seems ppl like you are on some witch hunt.

i just though it is ilogical to blame what would become one of the biggest grossing movie of the year (300) for the imaginary drop in overal hollywood grossings...Don't stay home jusy couse the movie you want to see is not considered hip. Go and contribute your $10 to it.

Also bringing Braveheart when talking about violence... The violence there was much much more graphic than in 300. I still remember Gibson spliting the helmet of that soldier and his head spliting like a melon, or the english taking his guts out... i loved it. you prefer to take your kid to that?

You make a valid point re: BRAVEHEART. It did have graphic violence, but nothing compared with GRINDHOUSE and 300. However, your comment did remind me of the fact, no, I wouldn't take a kid to Mel's movies either. But I can assure you that most people admire BRAVEHEART for the excellent filmmaking and the traditional, moving story, not for the violence.

However, "ppl like you"?

Come on, talk about a witch hunt. My argument has been based on facts, not imagined bogeymen. As I have suggested, the majority of movie lovers in America are being underserved, and though box office did have a minor uptick after the low of 2005, the trendline since the late 60s has been a long slow slide south. And before anybody trots out the lame excuses that the industry did in 2005 about iPods, XBoxes, and home entertainment (did movie lovers sell their iPods, XBoxes, and DVD players since then?), spare me.

People like me, if you want, stay home because there is little that serves the mainstream market and our tastes. And even when they try they fail; it seems they can't resist throwing in things that are offensive in light of mainstream mores. If a mainstreamer buys a ticket to GRINDHOUSE, they get what they deserve, but when they see a PG or PG-13 comedy or so-called family film? WhenI go to some sushi bar, I shouldn't be surprised to find raw fish and wasabi on my plate. But if I go to McDonald's I'm gonna be damn pissed if somebody in the kitchen throws wasabi on my burger.

That's how it is for most people, but mainstream movie lovers have actually had to learn to deal with "wasabi" on everything. And since Hollywood loves it on everything, and since we movie lovers still go despite the "wasabi," Hollywood thinks we must love it on everything too. We don't. We scrape it off our memories and savor as best we can the taste of everything else.

Hollywood doesn't get that mainstream America made SOMETHING ABOUT MARY a hit because it was a funny romantic comedy -- no, they think it was because Cameron Diaz slicked cum into her hair. Article after article at the time patted the Ferrellys on the back saying, "See, we knew that would put us over the top!" As I said in an earlier post, we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils. After a while, the industry itself forces new behaviors on us. If we shell out our $10 for a ticket to see 300, Hollywood takes that as a vote for more ultra-violent comic book adaptations. "Not only does America love wasabi, they love sushi too! See how out of touch you are, flyoverland!"

Polls tell us that the vast majority of Americans would prefer to see movies in the theater, not at home. Yet, more and more people stay at home year after year, have done so in ever greater numbers since the late 60s. Why? Believe me when I say this, it is because at home you can see movies you already know won't suddenly throw in something completely offensive, or because you can fast-forward through those parts. Don't know if you're aware of this, but there are a couple of companies making millions by editing the latest movies for offsensive or gratuitious content, much to filmmakers' chagrin.

So, again, I am not saying STOP MAKING GRINDHOUSES! STOP MAKING SAWS! STOP MAKING 300s! Hey, eat all the "sushi" you want. I even eat it sometimes. But what I am saying is that Hollywood is not serving the majority in America who don't like sushi and don't even want the wasabi, or don't want it on everything. If Hollywood would only recognize this as the old guard once did, Hollywood could double the box office, reverse the decline in attendance, and make more money by which they could make more of ALL kinds of movies.

The old guard in the Studio System weren't paragons of morality in their private lives, nor were the old stars. But they had a respect for the mainstream American audience, and the business sense to satisfy MORE consumers rather than cater to consumers who shared their personal tastes primarily.

So, patrocal99, are you not aware that Hollywood now only has about 5 movie studios? That there are half as many movies being released each year? That the remaining Studios are laying people off and cutting their production slates further? Why would that be the case when the majority of Americans still want to go to the movie theaters? It doesn't add up does it. Nope, because you are wrong statistically. There isn't plenty to go around, and what's left has too much "wasabi" for mainstream audiences. Some still venture out and shell out the bucks, but year after year fewer do.

(As an aside, I began in this thread by saying critics have fostered much of this. Audience's have been trained to give critics too much influence, which has affected America's ticket buying patterns. I am actually surprised, to a degree, that the critical acclaim didn't bring more non-QT fans into the theaters for GRINDHOUSE, but the promos laid it all out there, which many ad campaigns do not. I mean come on, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN's never mentioned that it was about 2 gay cowpokes cheating on their wives; no, the ads said it was "the most romantic movie in a generation" and showed Heath and Jake gazing in slow motion at their pretty wives. Talk about misleading.)

Anyway, only someone who has lost touch with America would greenlight $53 million for GRINDHOUSE, imagining that mainstream Americans would make this film a blockbuster. (Some have assured us that GRINDHOUSE will eventually make its money back. Hot dog! Almost all films DO after they leave the theater. But that's not the point: Weinstein, QT, and RR all thought that people would line up everywhere. They didn't, and only a blind man would think they would.)

For decades now Hollywood has been accused of only caring about making money. Yet, for decades now they have made many more R-rated films than G, PG, or PG-13 films -- even while these are 17 times more profitable historically than R-rated ones. If they are in it just for the money, then why would they make 7 times as many R-rated films historically as the others? And rather than make more of the ones most Americans want, they coerce the MPAA to change how they rate films, so what would've earned an R ten years ago now gets a PG-13 or better.

So, it's not a witch hunt, patrocal99. It's a view backed up, not by my perceptions, but by stats, box office, and polls.

BY THE WAY, I came to this thread on Rotten Tomatoes because I wanted to read why fans like GRINDHOUSE, but all I got was grief and a few "Grindhouse freakin' rocks and people are retarded if they don't know it's art!" Maybe it is, but that has never been my point.

In other words, he's saying that movies more in touch with mainstream values will make more money.  He's not calling for censorship or making any kind of moral judgements here - I happen to think that he's right (although I don't share his disdainful view of this and other R-rated movies).  I think there's a substantial section of the American public who are getting tired of the growing cynicism among some elements of society.  Although it's true that people are more desensitized and cynical than they were 40 years ago, the "silent majority" (if I may dust off that old demographic cliche) still exists.  Studios will make more money and will gradually be able to release more films per year (the number has been declining in recent years), so they can still make ones that appeal to geeks like us.  Hell, Sam Raimi has shown us that it's possible to make movies that do both.

You have to admit that at least some of the lighter fare that will get released will be good, and the stuff that isn't just gives us more riff fodder!  Everybody wins!

(By the way, I consider Batman & Robin to be largely responsible for the decline in decent PG & PG-13 movies).

[ScottotD]

I see things from almost the exact opposite perspective, in my opinion there are too many 'traditional values' (although I understand your meaning I've always found that term unsavory) or 'nice' movies and niche (which I assume in this conversation refers to films with violence and/or swearing) films are few and far between.  Although as you point out Rami has shown you can in fact make one, in the style of the other.  It just seems that studios have realized, possibly through DVD sales is that there's a large market who'd rather scoop out their eyes with a spoon than see Reese Withersoon fall in love (or indeed would rather see someone's eyes scooped out with a spoon).

I find this a specious argument anyway, if you don't want to watch Grind House or 300 then don't see it.  If you'd like to watch it but can't handle the violence then unless you can get one of those ridiculous companies that edit films to make them 'family friendly' to hack it up then that's your loss.  You don't see me whining  because Catch and Release didn't have any zombies in it.

Again we enter the 'movies I don't like are not art' debate.

[gbeenie]

He's also trotting out the lie touted by the "family values" crowd about G-, PG- and PG-13-rated films being SO much more profitable than R-rated ones. There's no evidence to support that claim, yet it's a standard trope employed by the "culture war" types. Social conservatives had better hope that the "culture war" is a figment of their own demented imaginations; because if there really IS a "culture war," they've already lost it.

[Bob]

You don't see me whining  because Catch and Release didn't have any zombies in it.

Juliette Lewis is close though.....

[BBQ Platypus]

I'm not advocating any kind of law change - or change in anything, really.  I don't appreciate you lumping me in with the alarmist "ban everything that offends me" crowd.  I happen to LIKE these kinds of movies.  I have no   I'm just questioning the economic wisdom of a major studio spending $53 million (not including marketing) on releasing a niche film, however good it may be (which, in this case, is damn good).  Like you, I am skeptical about the existance of a catastrophic, irreconcilable "culture war."  But to argue that there are no regional or class-based differences in cultural preferences is simply absurd.

Did either of you actually READ that guy's post?  He's definitely NOT asking filmmakers to censor themselves - nowhere in the post does he advocate cutting or censoring these kinds of intentionally violent films.  He just advocates the making of a larger number of quality lower-rated movies for the sake of money.  Granted, his numbers on the number of R-rated movies released compared to other ratings fails to take into account the changes made to the ratings system (such as the introduction of the PG-13 rating).  He also brings up that "rating creep" thing (which closer investigation reveals to be a load of bullshit).  But at no point does he come off as a prudish, moralizing social conservative trying to force his way of life onto others.  Rather, he's suggesting that because large areas of the country tend to follow more conservative social values (which I am not entirely in favor of, by the way), major movie studios would do well to realize the financial incentive in catering to this demographic.

He's also trotting out the lie touted by the "family values" crowd about G-, PG- and PG-13-rated films being SO much more profitable than R-rated ones. There's no evidence to support that claim, yet it's a standard trope employed by the "culture war" types. Social conservatives had better hope that the "culture war" is a figment of their own demented imaginations; because if there really IS a "culture war," they've already lost it.

How does citing actual box-office figures constitute lying?  I don't really see how you can come to that conclusion.  You're right in one regard - these statsitics, although true, are often abused and misunderstood by moralizing "family values" types.  G-rated films tend to have a pretty stable, non-fluxuating audience of families with young children (with the exception of a few Pixar films).  Movies with a PG rating are a bit of an enigma - they often do WORSE than G-rated films because they are usually geared toward a slightly older audience (who subsequentally dismisses them as mere kiddie fare).  However, the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises are two of the most financially successful movie franchises of all time, and they are mostly or all PG-rated.

What cannot be argued, however, is that PG-13 movies have, on average, tended to be FAR more profitable than R-rated movies.  (So really, Middle America isn't really all THAT moral).  According to IMDB, out of the top 100 highest-grossing movies of all time (within the U.S., since we're talking about American culture), only 7 of them carry an R-rating, and only two of these are in the top 50.  None are in the top 10.  Although R-rated movies tend to do better overseas, PG-13 films still have an edge on them in the international market.  (It should also be noted that different countries follow different ratings systems, virtually all of which make more sense than the MPAA).

If that doesn't convince you, here's a link to the combined box office earnings of every movie released since 1995, sorted by MPAA rating (it's a chart, so it's hard to post here):

http://www.the-numbers.com/market/MPAARatings/

What's particularly worthy of note is that despite the fact that in the last 12 years there have only been about half as many movies released with a PG-13 rating as there have been with an R-rating, PG-13 movies still hold a 15% advantage in total market share.

This essentially comes down to whether Hollywood can have the ability to appeal to a broader audience while still maintaining the crucial teenage demographic that constitutes much of its audience.  After taking a good look at the numbers, I've decided that the answer to this question lies between the two extremes.   My suggestions are twofold:

1. Release more quality PG-13 films.  I'm pretty sure Hollywood is starting to pick up on this.  If they don't, they're morons for ignoring obvious market forces.

2. Slightlly reduce or change policies regarding R-rated movies.  They are FAR too restrictive of teens in general - seeing as how teens are the lifeblood of the movie business, it's absurd that an 18 or 19-year old can only accompany ONE minor to an R-rated movie.  It doesn't even matter if a minor's parent(s) approve of them watching the movie - they have to actually watch it WITH THEM.  It's not enough for them to just accompany them to the theater.   What sucks is that more and more of the big multiplexes are actually enforcing this stupid, allegedly self-imposed, one-size-fits-all rules.  These ratings were meant to give families (particularly those with young children) an idea of which movies to allow their kids to see.  Stop wasting your time keeping 16 year-olds out of R-rated movies.  This is ESPECIALLY retarded for the movies that aren't "hard" R-rated movies.


In the end, I think the "moral value" Americans are really clamoring for here is the idea that movies were made to entertain.  The industry is starting to take itself WAY too seriously (cough, cough - George Clooney) - even when it comes to joking about themselves.  Outside of message boards like these, most people go to the movies for no reason other than to have a good time.  They're looking for movies like Raiders of the Lost Arc, Die Hard, or (whether they realize it or not) Road House.  You know, movies that are lighthearted (at least in their underlying message) and, most importantly fun.  I don't think that ALL movies should take this approach, but hey, who doesn't like a little Die Hard every now and then?  The success of 300 and Ghost Rider are, in my opinion, indicators of America's hunger for upbeat, fast-paced, action-oriented fluff (although the recent re-boots of the Batman and 007 franchises also suggest that they're open-minded for a serious action film if it's well-made). *

Obviously, they should still continue to make arthouse films and wide-release Oscar bait - these movies are good and they have an audience.  And niche films do have their place.  But one thing is for certain - Hollywood needs to get a grip on understanding and respecting the moviegoing public.  Contrary to what the "culture war" blowhards might tell you, there IS a lot of common ground out there.



* Yeah, I know, there are other kinds of mainstream movies...like *groan* romantic comedies...but they don't tend to be blockbusters.

[RandyMistie]

Does this look infected to you?

[gbeenie]

I don't really take issue with anything you've said, BBQ. My point of contention would be with the post you quoted, which puts forth the attitude that, "Well, we're the real mainstream in America, and the industry should conform itself to our wishes." The thing that most of the people with that sort of attitude fail to get is that there is no more "mainstream" culture; technology has allowed people to tailor their entertainment choices more and more in accordance with their own preferences. His assertion that movie attendance is down because Decent Upright Americans like himself are offended by what's on the country's movie screens holds no water whatsoever. The fact is, the entertainment pie in America is being cut into an ever-increasing number of slices, and slices like outside-the-home movie-going are, naturally, gonna be smaller than previously. For the O.P. you quoted to so cavalierly dismiss the dramatic shifts in American culture over the last forty years in favor of his belief in his own haughty state of offense is disingenuous, at best, and self-aggrandizing, at worst.

[BBQ Platypus]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say the mainstream no longer exists.  It's just nowhere near as all-encompassing and pervasive as it used to be.  These days the mainstream is more of a plurality rather than a majority.  Technology has definitely played a role.  But I think that the film industry seems to be overestimating the extent to which the country has changed.  My major motivation behind posting that quote was to inspire a bit of debate about what the fairly low box office of this movie means in the context of moviegoing demographics.

[pyro]

2. Slightlly reduce or change policies regarding R-rated movies.  They are FAR too restrictive of teens in general - seeing as how teens are the lifeblood of the movie business, it's absurd that an 18 or 19-year old can only accompany ONE minor to an R-rated movie.  It doesn't even matter if a minor's parent(s) approve of them watching the movie - they have to actually watch it WITH THEM.  It's not enough for them to just accompany them to the theater.   What sucks is that more and more of the big multiplexes are actually enforcing this stupid, allegedly self-imposed, one-size-fits-all rules.  These ratings were meant to give families (particularly those with young children) an idea of which movies to allow their kids to see.  Stop wasting your time keeping 16 year-olds out of R-rated movies.  This is ESPECIALLY retarded for the movies that aren't "hard" R-rated movies.

I've always found that weird...  My dad went to drop off me and a friend to see Jackass at a theater at the mall (we were only about 15 I guess when the first one came out) and he was going to buy the tickets but they refused to let us in unless he was in there too even though he wasn't even the parent my friend.


Also I found it weird in the post you quoted from Rotten Tomato that he claims "Yet, for decades now they have made many more R-rated films than G, PG, or PG-13 films"....  That seems like an unfair comparison unless you're encompassing all 3 of the latter since it usually seems up in the air to me whether something gets a G or PG and that a PG-13 is usually just so someone can say "shit" at least once

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

"Well, we're the real mainstream in America, and the industry should conform itself to our wishes

my parents are basically sterotypical conservatives (except they both are highly educated) boring middle to late aged people so i use them as kinda a measuring stick for that so called mainstream.  want to know what movies my parents really liked from last year?  no.  well i tell you anyways

mom: saw devil wears prada about 5 times in the theater last year.  she rarely goes to movies.  so this was a big shock

dad: the new bond film.  he loved it.

on the whole i think its true the mainstream likes pg13 movies, and would like them to be made well too.  I dont know how anyone could make anysort of rational argument agaisnt it.  granted what i just did isnt a rational argument for my own position but hey whatever

In the end, I think the "moral value" Americans are really clamoring for here is the idea that movies were made to entertain.  The industry is starting to take itself WAY too seriously (cough, cough - George Clooney) - even when it comes to joking about themselves.  Outside of message boards like these, most people go to the movies for no reason other than to have a good time.  They're looking for movies like Raiders of the Lost Arc, Die Hard, or (whether they realize it or not) Road House.  You know, movies that are lighthearted (at least in their underlying message) and, most importantly fun.  I don't think that ALL movies should take this approach, but hey, who doesn't like a little Die Hard every now and then?  The success of 300 and Ghost Rider are, in my opinion, indicators of America's hunger for upbeat, fast-paced, action-oriented fluff (although the recent re-boots of the Batman and 007 franchises also suggest that they're open-minded for a serious action film if it's well-made). *

its clear coherent well worded.  congrats bbq

but should we take this as proof that the bizaar gibberish spewing bbq has turned over a new leaf?

[Edward J Grug III]

Boo!

'grindhouse split in two in U.S. ... Missing reels added'

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070410l.php

good thing I saw it before they fuck it up

GRRR!

At least you got a CHANCE to see it "right."

I am so angry about this! They've removed it from all of the coming soon sections on Australian cinema websites, so obviously we're not getting the "real version." I was so fucking excited about this movie and now I'll never get to experience it as it was intended.

I'm gonna go talk to my friend who works at the local art-house cinema in the next couple of hours, and see what he knows. If anyone's gonna show the correct version, it'd be them.

I wonder how long we'll have to wait until we get the seperated movies here.

SIIIGH.

[Quicksilver]

You know us people that saw the real version, now have an opotunity to see it again as a different movie(s) in theaters. Me kinda likey, sucks for the rest of you .....I'm sorry

[starfighter]

    On Thursday they announced what films are playing at Cannes this year and Tarantino's half of Grindhouse is playing at the expanded length of 110 minutes.  I'm not that upset that the films are being re-released separately here if that is what it will take to get them seen.  And both versions will end up on vid anyway.

       Has anyone experienced something that I've read of, where theater personnel have come into the theater before Grindhouse starts to tell the audience about the "missing reels" and "scratchy prints" experience since they had had too many customers come out to complain about these things after they've paid.   It just goes to prove that no matter how much promotion you do,  there will always be people who walk in without any idea of what they have paid good money to see.   I've left after sub-titled movies and heard people bitch about having to read the movie more than once.  This board is full of the kind of people who do know something about the movies we attend but there's tons of the other kind out there as well.

[Edward J Grug III]

    On Thursday they announced what films are playing at Cannes this year and Tarantino's half of Grindhouse is playing at the expanded length of 110 minutes.  I'm not that upset that the films are being re-released separately here if that is what it will take to get them seen.  And both versions will end up on vid anyway.

My problem is we don't get the option of seeing them as they were meant to be seen, the decision is being made for us. I'm for releasing them extended and seperately too, as long as I get to go see the "real" version first. Now I won't get to.

It's very shitty.