# Grindhouse



## WayneLigon (Apr 7, 2007)

From Wikipedia:

_A grindhouse is an American term for a theater that mainly showed exploitation films [Films made with little or no attention to quality or artistic merit but with an eye to a quick profit, usually via high-pressure sales and promotion techniques emphasizing some sensational aspect of the product] . It is also a term used to describe the genre of films that played in such theatres. Grindhouse films are also referred to as "exploitation films." Grindhouses were known for non-stop programs of B movies, usually consisting of a double feature where two films were shown back to back. Beginning in the late 1960s and especially during the 1970s, the subject matter of grindhouse films was domindated by explicit sex, violence, bizarre or perverse plot points, and other taboo content. 

By the mid-1990s, they had completely disappeared from the United States._

I remember these kinds of films. Usually you can only find them in the bargain bin, if anyone has even bothered to put them on VHS or DVD. Usually only the ones that attain some sort of cult status even make it that far. Quentin Tarantino & Robert Rodriguez have recreatred that experience with their tongue firmly lodged in their cheek.

Two full length movies are shown: Planet Terror and Death Proof. There are trailers for 'Werewolf Women of the SS', 'Machete', 'Don't!' and 'Thanksgiving' that are just as horrific as the main features  

It really is a full recreation of the experience. The film is grainy and chobby, editited down by the makers, the studio, the theater, the theater owner's stupider brother, etc. Streaks, blobs and grit flash on the screen and the film even 'melts' at one point in Planet Terror, to be replaced with the dreaded 'missing reel' note. (If you've never seen a film literally combust while it's running, you've missed out). The action is totally over the top. There are no neat blood sprays; they use or recreate old-fashioned cheap-ass blood bags whick burst like water balloons. There is no part of the female anatomy that is overlooked. In fact, it's looked-over long. The plots are stripped bare of any characterization, distilled down to action, suspense, death, or cheesy speeches or cheap humor. And that's not a slam, it's _meant _ to be that way. 

I give it an A. And Rob Zombie _owes _ me 'Werewolf Women of the SS'.


----------



## horacethegrey (Apr 8, 2007)

Damn. I really wanna see this film, but lord knows when it'll show where I live. :\ 

I really want to see the rest of those faux trailers. The trailer for _Thanksgiving _ by Eli Roth was over the top, gross out, and incredibly disturbing. And it looked like it could have been made in the 70's. Brilliant stuff!


----------



## The_lurkeR (Apr 8, 2007)

Saw this last night with the girlfriend and we both enjoyed it.

Planet Terror was a great spoof of all those cheesy zombie horror movies I remember from childhood, dialed to 11.

Death Proof was very Tarantino'ish, which may be good or bad depending on your tastes. I liked it, but the slow build up felt a little long and indulgent.

The "prevues" were some of the best parts, and had the whole audience cracking up, especially "Machete" and "Don't!".

I'd give it a B+, or 8 out of 10. It's not something to put in any top ten lists, but it's a fun homage to those old movies.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 8, 2007)

The second part of this google video (warning: sound) has an interview with the directors. 


So, _that's_ why they call it a "chopper!"


----------



## Ibram (Apr 8, 2007)

Just came back from it... and it was awsome.

Planet Terror was the best of the two, very over-the-top.  Insane action and zombie slaying

Deathproof was good, but probably wouldn't stand on its own.  As was said above, its very much a Q-T movie.

There were also "previews" for other movies, like Machete and Werewolf women of the SS.

Thanksgiving would be awsome.


----------



## jonathan swift (Apr 8, 2007)

Eli Roth better make Thanksgiving or I'll cry. A lot.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Apr 8, 2007)

I want to see a full length (or at least another double feature) with Machete. That looked awesome.


----------



## jonathan swift (Apr 8, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> I want to see a full length (or at least another double feature) with Machete. That looked awesome.





I've already heard some rumours that they will in fact be making Machete at the least. I just need to keep my fingers crossed for the other movies now.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 8, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> I want to see a full length (or at least another double feature) with Machete. That looked awesome.




From an interview with Rodriguez over at AICN:

_"MJ: If there was enough fan support would you consider directing or producing some of the trailers into feature films?

RR: Oh absolutely, yeah! Machete! I'm probably gonna do a machete full feature cuz I've been writing that for a while and there's some really great stuff in it and people responded so strongly to the trailer that I thought 'oh, well now we have to.' And Danny Trejo calls us just about everyday wondering if we're gonna do a feature. I started writing Machete in '94 when I first met Danny."_

“They messed with the _wrong Mexican!”_


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 8, 2007)

Could someone compare Sin City or Pulp Fiction to Grindhouse for me -- level of violence, fun factor, etc.?  I enjoyed Sin City and Pulp Fiction, but am shying away from Grindhouse for some reason.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Apr 8, 2007)

Hm, let's see. Comparison wise, I'd say it's best to use both movies as a gauge, since it is a double feature.

Planet Terror (1st movie) vs. Sin City- Much more violent, and gruesome violence. It's all full of over-the-top gore horror, so if you don't like that, you might not enjoy this. I'm not a big fan of gore horror myself, to be honest, but this was so over the top and such an homage to the old horror films of the 60s/70s that I enjoyed it. The writing and acting was top-notch, too, so that helped. I'd go to see Grindhouse again just for Planet Terror alone, actually.

Death Proof (2nd movie) vs. Pulp Fiction- an apt comparison, as Death Proof is very definitely a Quentin Tarantino movie. It isn't terribly violent- though it has one or two places where it is so- it is very, very talky though. They could have cut out about half of it, IMO, and made a more solid piece. It has some really cool characters and interesting exchanges of dialogue, but someone needed to take QT's pen away, I think.

The trailers vary in scope, ranging from pretty violent but in a tongue in cheek way (Machete), to more suggestive (Thanksgiving and Don't!), and not very violent but odd (Werewolf Women of the SS).


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 8, 2007)

Speaking as an insane Rodriguez/Tarantino fan-boy:

Grindhouse a piece of crap.

edit: allow me to clarify.

1. The trailers were very, very funny. _Machete _itself was worth the price of admission,. I only wish I'd left after the first 8 minutes.

2. The rest reeked of indulgence and self-reference. Those boys have a long way to go before I see another film of theirs on faith.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 8, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Could someone compare Sin City or Pulp Fiction to Grindhouse for me -- level of violence, fun factor, etc.?  I enjoyed Sin City and Pulp Fiction, but am shying away from Grindhouse for some reason.




Oh that's easy.

To paraphrase Ryan Dancey: Grindhouse is twenty minutes of fun crammed into three hours.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Apr 9, 2007)

Here is my *Review*


----------



## DonTadow (Apr 9, 2007)

Two good movies, though the horror fan in me loved Planet Terror more and its homages to the classic. Anyone see that helicopter scene and thought of a certain LOTR director's lawnmower scene. 

Tarantino's movie was good but not as much, probably because I don't like car movies. However, my fiance loved it, (her being a sexy gear head too).  The dialogue was about the only thing I liked, but I think because it was so girl oriented I really couldn't get into it like pulp fiction.


----------



## jaerdaph (Apr 9, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> And Rob Zombie _owes _ me 'Werewolf Women of the SS'.




I loathe Rob Zombie's movies, but I so want to see this and really want it to be good.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 9, 2007)

Grindhouse was the most fun movie I've seen ever. Planet Terror was, in my opinion, a more entertaining movie throughout than Thunderbolt Death Proof, but the ending of Death Proof was a perfect way to end this thing. I mean, Planet Terror is a thrill and a hoot all the way through, but it ends with mock seriousness and love. Death Proof . . . hehehe. Punchpunchpunchpunchpunchpunchpunchpunchpunchpunchpunchpunchpunchpunch Fall YAY! THE END

Credits

DROPKICK!

*grin*

I screamed in joy.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Apr 9, 2007)

Not a 'dropkick' but a *Leg drop*....a smashing one.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Apr 9, 2007)

All you had to do, was switch to the other side (of the gene pool), then you wouild have gotten it.  


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> Two good movies, though the horror fan in me loved Planet Terror more and its homages to the classic. Anyone see that helicopter scene and thought of a certain LOTR director's lawnmower scene.
> 
> Tarantino's movie was good but not as much, probably because I don't like car movies. However, my fiance loved it, (her being a sexy gear head too).  The dialogue was about the only thing I liked, but I think because it was so girl oriented I really couldn't get into it like pulp fiction.


----------



## Insight (Apr 9, 2007)

*MACHETE!*


----------



## DonTadow (Apr 9, 2007)

The numbers don't look promising for a sequel. Only 11 million.  I really expected a bigger crowd for this movie.  I noticed that my theater, a mid afternoon matinée, was only a quarter full of people.  

I hope Tarintino and Rodriguez are rebels enough to make another movie regardless of how much it makes


----------



## Chairman7w (Apr 10, 2007)

I just wanna know if Rosario Dawson shows her Dawsons?


----------



## DonTadow (Apr 10, 2007)

Chairman7w said:
			
		

> I just wanna know if Rosario Dawson shows her Dawsons?



No, actually the lead in the first set of girls i found a bit sexier. Rasario's kinda tame in this one.


----------



## Insight (Apr 10, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> The numbers don't look promising for a sequel. Only 11 million.  I really expected a bigger crowd for this movie.  I noticed that my theater, a mid afternoon matinée, was only a quarter full of people.
> 
> I hope Tarintino and Rodriguez are rebels enough to make another movie regardless of how much it makes




Don't read too much into the opening weekend's numbers.  Easter weekend is historically bad for these types of movies.  People are at home with their families, doing church-related things, etc., and generally don't attend movies like this.  Expect much better numbers next weekend, as word of mouth about this awesome movie sends people back to the theaters.

oh... and

*MACHETE*


----------



## LightPhoenix (Apr 11, 2007)

*MACHETE!!!*

Zoe Bell is definitely my new celebrity crush.


----------



## Gunslinger (Apr 11, 2007)

I loved Planet Terror, it was pure adrenaline fueled fun.  Planet Terror...not so much (I didn't care for the ending, I like to root for the bad guys most of the time).


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 11, 2007)

Gunslinger said:
			
		

> I loved Planet Terror, it was pure adrenaline fueled fun.  Planet Terror...not so much (I didn't care for the ending, I like to root for the bad guys most of the time).




Yes, but what did you think about Planet Terror?


----------



## DonTadow (Apr 11, 2007)

Hey, I liked machete, but i really want to see Thanksgiving. I'd be interested to see an ole fashion slasher without so many special effects


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 11, 2007)

Insight said:
			
		

> Don't read too much into the opening weekend's numbers.  Easter weekend is historically bad for these types of movies.  People are at home with their families, doing church-related things, etc., and generally don't attend movies like this.  Expect much better numbers next weekend, as word of mouth about this awesome movie sends people back to the theaters.
> 
> oh... and
> 
> *MACHETE*




It was not Easter's fault.  That was never the audience for this film anyway.  It was a big weekend for movies, just not this particular movie.  This movie ranked FOURTH.  I mean, it ranked below the Ice Cube remake of a remake, "Are We Done Yet?", for goodness sake!

Actually, the odds are better than it will be yanked before next weekend.  The producer is talking about pulling the film due to the horrible numbers, adding back in deleted scenes, and releasing both films separately.

The numbers are not going to go up on the second weekend.  The sound bite "Grindhouse Tanks and the Box Office" is enough to scare away an awful lot of people who were iffy on seeing it to begin with, and is far more influencial than word of mouth.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 11, 2007)

I don't see how making back 1/6 of your cost in the first 3 days is a 'tank.' I'm seeing it again.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 11, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I don't see how making back 1/6 of your cost in the first 3 days is a 'tank.' I'm seeing it again.




It's a total tank.  There is a standard ratio for movies and percentage that they make after opening weekend (often called movie playability).  It was expected to make double what it made on this opening weekend, and expectations were set relatively conservatively.  This movie took one on the chin in a big bad way, by any measure.

Yahoo just declared it a bloodbath at the box office:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070409/film_nm/boxoffice_dc;_ylt=ApTyOoZvDUiEGpwK4m4cbOEwFxkF


----------



## DonTadow (Apr 11, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It's a total tank.  There is a standard ratio for movies and percentage that they make after opening weekend (often called movie playability).  It was expected to make double what it made on this opening weekend, and expectations were set relatively conservatively.  This movie took one on the chin in a big bad way, by any measure.
> 
> Yahoo just declared it a bloodbath at the box office:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070409/film_nm/boxoffice_dc;_ylt=ApTyOoZvDUiEGpwK4m4cbOEwFxkF



whose idea was it to release it on Easter Weekend? R rated movies aren't known for performing during this period.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 11, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> whose idea was it to release it on Easter Weekend? R rated movies aren't known for performing during this period.




The people more prone to be busy on Easter Weekend are also the people least likely to be the demographic for "R" rated movies.

There was a ton of competition for family films this weekend, but virtually no competition for "R" rated movies this weekend.  With the Thursday debut they were able to take advantage of the Good Friday holiday which made Thursday night seem like a Friday night.

It's not like "R" rated movies do badly on Easter Weekend as a rule.  "Inside Man" did quite well last year on Easter Weekend. No, sorry, it's not the R-Rating, and it's not Easter Weekend, that kicked this movie so hard.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 11, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The people more prone to be busy on Easter Weekend are also the people least likely to be the demographic for "R" rated movies.
> 
> There was a ton of competition for family films this weekend, but virtually no competition for "R" rated movies this weekend.





Unless you believe that some of the people who go to see "R" rated movies sometimes have to go with their families to family movies and that the more competition for family movies means even less of those people available to see "R" rated movies.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 12, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Unless you believe that some of the people who go to see "R" rated movies sometimes have to go with their families to family movies and that the more competition for family movies means even less of those people available to see "R" rated movies.




So you are of the opinion that this was somehow a special Easter?  That, despite "R" Rated movies doing fine, or even well, in prior years on Easter, this one they didn't?  That the studio didn't do their homework, and all their estimates were wrong for the weekend in general (as opposed to just for this movie)?

Come on...it wasn't Easter.

The movie didn't do well.  That's what happened.  There is nothing to blame other than the movie or the marketing.  It's not some mysterious outside factor.  People are not interested in seeing this movie as much as the studio thought they would be.  It's as simple as that.  People shouldn't seek out excuses just because they happened to like the movie.  I've found lots of movies I like that didn't do well in the theater, and it was because my tastes do not exactly mirror the tastes of the population in general.  For example, I like M Night movies, and a lot of people do not.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 12, 2007)

Who said anything about Easter?  (Not me!)  I haven't seen the movie, and I have no stake in it, so I can only base my unbiased opinions on the information available (information which came from you).

I get the feeling that you have some personal stake in this.  The movie did not do as well as expected and there are always reasons why.  I don't think it hurts anyone for a few posters to surmise the possible reasons.  To read your posts, one would have to believe that there are never any reasons and things just inexplicably happen. You can't possibly believe that.

Now, according to you, there were more than the usual number of family films released over this Easter weekend.  Seems reasonable to assume that might have something to do with any non-family film not doing well.  Certainly seems plausible.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Apr 12, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> So you are of the opinion that this was somehow a special Easter?  That, despite "R" Rated movies doing fine, or even well, in prior years on Easter, this one they didn't?  That the studio didn't do their homework, and all their estimates were wrong for the weekend in general (as opposed to just for this movie)?




Well, let's see (information from www.boxofficeguru.com):

Easter weekend 2006: 

1. Scary Movie 4 ($40.2 mil)
2. Ice Age: the Meltdown ($20 mil)
3. The Benchwarmers ($9.9 mil)
4. The Wild ($9.7 mil) 
5. Take the Lead ($6.8 mil) 

Easter weekend 2005:

1. Guess Who ($20.7 mil)
2. Miss Congeniality 2 ($14 mil)
3. The Ring 2 ($13.6 mil) 
4. Robots ($12.9 mil)
5. The Pacifier ($8.1 mil)

Easter weekend 2004:

1. The Passion of the Christ ($15.2 mil)
2. Hellboy ($10.8 mil)
3. Johnson Family Vacation ($9.4 mil)
4. The Alamo ($9.1 mil)
5. Walking Tall ($8.4 mil)

Easter weekend 2003:

1. Anger Management ($25 mil)
2. Holes ($16.3 mil)
3. Malibu's Most Wanted ($12.6 mil)
4. Bulletproof Monk ($8.7 mil)
5. Phone Booth ($5.7 mil)

Of all of those movies in the top 5 during Easter weekend, I don't see any (aside from Phone Booth) that are rated R (though I'll have to double check a couple). 

Doesn't seem like Easter weekend is a good one for rated R movies in general, nor (frankly) good box office weekends period. Now whether that has anything to do with familes taking kids to PG movies or not is debatable, and beyond my ability to discern at this point, but it does look like it's generally not a good weekend to open a rated R film (or, again, any film).


----------



## DonTadow (Apr 12, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The people more prone to be busy on Easter Weekend are also the people least likely to be the demographic for "R" rated movies.
> 
> There was a ton of competition for family films this weekend, but virtually no competition for "R" rated movies this weekend.  With the Thursday debut they were able to take advantage of the Good Friday holiday which made Thursday night seem like a Friday night.
> 
> It's not like "R" rated movies do badly on Easter Weekend as a rule.  "Inside Man" did quite well last year on Easter Weekend. No, sorry, it's not the R-Rating, and it's not Easter Weekend, that kicked this movie so hard.



INside man and grindhouse are two very different type of movies, one appealing to a more... sophisticated audience. Pus Inside Man carries the African American crowd whom reports show pay more money on movies than any other demo.  (Look at what movie was number 3).  

 Plus, I think Denzel was coming off of an oscar which hyped that movie even more.  Rosio is cute but she doesn't pull in the crowd that Denzel will. 

It sucks that movies have gone from art to big business. Filmmaking is loss


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 12, 2007)

Wow.  Okay, I give up.  You guys are right...the studio had no idea at all about what they were doing with their money.  It was just obvious to anyone that this movie would tank because it was Easter Weekend.  And as soon as a normal weekend hits, in 2 days, it will skyrocket.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 12, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Who said anything about Easter?  (Not me!)  I haven't seen the movie, and I have no stake in it, so I can only base my unbiased opinions on the information available (information which came from you).
> 
> I get the feeling that you have some personal stake in this.




Nope.  I have not seen it yet, but I plan on seeing it in the next couple of days.  I just think it's an interesting topic.  When movies do half as well as expected, I like to figure out why.  That's it.



> The movie did not do as well as expected and there are always reasons why.  I don't think it hurts anyone for a few posters to surmise the possible reasons.  To read your posts, one would have to believe that there are never any reasons and things just inexplicably happen. You can't possibly believe that.




I think it hurts when people make excuses about external factors.  It's a matter of bias.  I don't really care about this movie one way or the other.  But a lot of folks who do, seem to want to blame external factors.  I don't buy that.  I think the movie did poorly because people are not buying into the concept of intentionally replicating bad movies from the 70s. Or because of bad marketing.  Or because the movie was too long.

Some concepts work with the public and others do not, and I think this one did not work.




> Now, according to you, there were more than the usual number of family films released over this Easter weekend.  Seems reasonable to assume that might have something to do with any non-family film not doing well.  Certainly seems plausible.




Not to me.  Same number of family films as usual.  I was just saying that there was a lot of competition for family films, as usual for Easter Weekend.  However, that does not equate with R rate films doing poorly.

About half the nation celebrates Easter, and that is only one day of a three day weekend.  Another group (much less than half) celebrate good Friday.  But that still leaves lots of time to see a movie.  And people DID see movies this weekend, lots of them.  Just not this one.

You watch.  This movie isn't going to suddenly rebound this upcoming weekend.  Something went wrong with this film.  Maybe the advertising, maybe how long the movie turned out to be, maybe people are not buying into the concept.  But it wasn't external factors like competition or Easter.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 12, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> (. . .)





Well, I guess you must know something I do not.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Apr 12, 2007)

Grindhouse didn't do that much worse than Are We Done Yet? (less than $3 million difference) and AWDY was in about 250 more theaters. That, plus its R rating, plus the fact that it is 3 hours long(!)- twice as long as AWDY- I think certainly adds up to plenty of rationale behind its poor showing other than "it stank!" That three hours really does hurt it compared to the other films, financially. You can get a lot more screenings of the others in within that time frame.

The top grossing movie of the weekend was $22 million dollars- hardly a OMGWOW! showing. Easter is not a great weekend to open any movie, frankly, for whatever reason.

That said, Mistwell is right that its numbers are unlikely to go up this weekend- but that's pretty much par for the course. Very few movies equal or exceed their opening weekend numbers. I doubt it will get pulled so soon, or at least not any earlier than most films do nowadays. Feature box office life is incredibly and increasingly short.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Apr 12, 2007)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Not a 'dropkick' but a *Leg drop*....a smashing one.




It's actually an AXE KICK.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Apr 12, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> 1. The Passion of the Christ ($15.2 mil)
> 2. Hellboy ($10.8 mil)
> 3. Johnson Family Vacation ($9.4 mil)
> 4. The Alamo ($9.1 mil)
> ...




Passion of the Christ is rated R. A pretty hard R from what I heard, but the subject matter was relevant to the holiday...

Oh yeah...

They Frakked with the wrong Mexican!

*MACHETE*


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Apr 12, 2007)

I wonder whose idea it was to have an Easter opening anyway?  That said movies make more these days on DVD sales than in theaters, so I think this flick will make its money back sooner or later.


----------



## DonTadow (Apr 12, 2007)

I don't know about the dvd sales for this movie. It just feels so much like a Movie theater movie. I couldn't imagine seeing it at home unless I had a home theater.


----------



## Felon (Apr 14, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Wow.  Okay, I give up.  You guys are right...the studio had no idea at all about what they were doing with their money.  It was just obvious to anyone that this movie would tank because it was Easter Weekend.  And as soon as a normal weekend hits, in 2 days, it will skyrocket.



You are being somewhat obtuse. The stuido didn't walk blindly into a brick wall. 

We are well past the days when a movie's success or failure--or, to use a less nebulous assessment, _profit margin_--hinged entirely on its box office gross, and movie studios are well are aware of this even if the rest of the world isn't. Movies that are family unfriendly--namely, R-rated action and horror films--focus on cleaning up with DVD sales (and, to a lesser degree, pay-per-view and other secondary sources).  

In fact, we are quite likely well past the days when we can actually expect another Robocop or Total Recall to clean up in the theatres. In-your-face over-the-top violence was, for a small time, the stuff of summer blockbusters, but the studio has figured out a formula that says that the date-movie crowds and the family-movie crowds are where the money is, and while they may want thrilling action and adventure, they don't want to see lots of gore (in direct defiance of all those pessimistic cyberpunk projections about the desensitization of the American public). This is why Spider-Man is the new millenium's champion of summer blockbusters and The Punisher isn't. 

The day we aren't past, however, is the day where a movie can go the direct-to-DVD route without being written off as a shoestring-budget non-event. Grindhouse is an R-rated movie, it has a three-hour-and-twenty-minute running time, and it has a premise that was simply impossible to communicate clearly to the general moviegoing audience. Any one of those things hurt box office profits, and you can rest assured that none of these details were lost on the studio. But they know a big-budget movie still needs a widespread theatre release, so they do so and hope for lightning to strike. 

And you know what else studios know? More and more, folks are deciding that going to the movies is a lousy deal. They'd rather own the $30 DVD. This is where a long running time doesn't hurt your sells. It helps! So do things like "extended version" and "unrated" and "director's cut". Can you imagine how jam-packed the Grindhouse DVD will be? They'll be releasing new editions for years to come.



> You watch.  This movie isn't going to suddenly rebound this upcoming weekend.  Something went wrong with this film.  Maybe the advertising, maybe how long the movie turned out to be, maybe people are not buying into the concept.  But it wasn't external factors like competition or Easter.



Well, lightning didn't strike, but nothing went actually wrong here. Your outlook on this is just too short-term.


----------



## Felon (Apr 14, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I don't know about the dvd sales for this movie. It just feels so much like a Movie theater movie. I couldn't imagine seeing it at home unless I had a home theater.



??? So you don't have LotR or Star Wars on DVD?

That's exactly the kind of movie that does well on DVD...which probably has something to do with the DVD being released once you don't have the option of seeing the movie on the big screen anymore (clever little suckers, those movie industry people!).


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Apr 14, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> That's exactly the kind of movie that does well on DVD...which probably has something to do with the DVD being released once you don't have the option of seeing the movie on the big screen anymore (clever little suckers, those movie industry people!).




Agreed on this point. Especially since the option of viewing only parts of the movie (like, say, watching Planet Terror 5 times and never once watching Deathproof, or just skipping to the chase sequence) makes it all the more appealing to people like me.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 14, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> You are being somewhat obtuse. The stuido didn't walk blindly into a brick wall.
> 
> We are well past the days when a movie's success or failure--or, to use a less nebulous assessment, _profit margin_--hinged entirely on its box office gross, and movie studios are well are aware of this even if the rest of the world isn't. Movies that are family unfriendly--namely, R-rated action and horror films--focus on cleaning up with DVD sales (and, to a lesser degree, pay-per-view and other secondary sources).




Your insulting attitude aside, I do some work in that industry, as does my wife.  
Pay per view?  Are you kidding me?

I never said everything hinged on box office gross.  But a LOT does, when you go for a box office release like the studio did with this movie.  Studios do not make movies hoping to recoup expenses on DVDs, if they go for a wide release in the theaters for the movie.  There are significantly different strategies used for a direct to DVD release vs. a theater release, and in this case the money was spent and route taken was towards theater release.  Sure, they will make some DVD money, but that was not the plan, and it's not going to make up for all the money sunk into the box office release.  This movie is going to come out a massive negative for the studio.

DVD sales are trending down by the way, not up.  Movie ticket sales are trending up, not down.  You information on those trends may be a few years old.

There is no question at all - NONE - that this studio is extremely disappointed with how this movie did, and it is losing money.  That's not debatable, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact.  Weinstein himself said he is "[R]eally disappointed with the paltry opening" http://in.news.yahoo.com/070411/139/6eepb.html .  In fact, he just said (in addition to that disappointment): "We tried to do something new and obviously we didn't do it that well," See: "Even Weinstein says Grindhouse a dud". http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/202618 .



> And you know what else studios know? More and more, folks are deciding that going to the movies is a lousy deal. They'd rather own the $30 DVD. This is where a long running time doesn't hurt your sells. It helps! So do things like "extended version" and "unrated" and "director's cut". Can you imagine how jam-packed the Grindhouse DVD will be? They'll be releasing new editions for years to come.
> 
> Well, lightning didn't strike, but nothing went actually wrong here. Your outlook on this is just too short-term.




Again movie ticket sales are UP, not down. http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-04-01-box-office-2007_N.htm

And  DVD sales are trending DOWN, not up.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/29/analysts-predict-declining-dvd-sales-in-2007/

As far as this movie, it just dropped SEVENTY-FOUR PERCENT in the second weekend.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/disturbia-opens-no-1-on-friday-the-13th/

"Meanwhile, there was more bad news at the box office for Quentin Tarantino's, Robert Rodriguez's and Harvey Weinstein's double-feature Grindhouse. Not only did the Hard R-rated pic place only 11th its second week out, but The Weinstein Co.'s release dropped a whopping 74% Friday to squeeze out only $1.3 mil from 2,629 venues for a paltry new cume of $16.7 mil. Its per-screen average of just $494 meant the much-hyped movie was playing in near-empty theaters. The most it could make this weekend is $4 mil."

There is no way you can make lemonade out of that lemon.  Even the pessimists surrounding this movie didn't predict that big a drop in the second weekend.  This is a disaster for this movie.    It's already become a cautionary tale in the industry, with the new Harry Potter movie having it's run time cut because Grindhouse bombed so hard: http://www.dailyindia.com/show/133217.php/Fifth-Potter-flick-shortened-to-avoid-Grindhouse-fate

I know you think I have some dog in this fight.  I don't.  I wish the movie HAD done well, and I have nothing against this movie or it's creators, and I plan on seeing it soon (before they pull it from the theaters).  But I'm telling you, sometimes movies fail, and this one failed.  I'm not being short sighted in saying that, or uneducated, or anything like that.  This movie is bombing so hard it is making splashes through the industry.


----------



## Felon (Apr 14, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Your insulting attitude aside, I do some work in that industry, as does my wife.



I don't think my attitude has been insulting, but then again you probably don't think yours has been snide. I guess it's a push. 



> ...This movie is going to come out a massive negative for the studio...There is no question at all - NONE - that this studio is extremely disappointed with how this movie did, and it is losing money.  That's not debatable, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact....There is no way you can make lemonade out of that lemon....I know you think I have some dog in this fight.  I don't....This movie is bombing so hard it is making splashes through the industry.




I don't know if you have a dog in the fight, but you sure are cutting loose with the hyberbole full-blast. massive bomb, major disaster, spashes through the industry, and so forth. 

Bottom line: a movie that wasn't expected to make a great deal of money wound up making less. I'm curious as to what you think the studio's expectations for the opening weekend was. Throw a number out there for us. If you are indeed involved with the industry, then you should know how assiduously studios avoid an R-rating, and how significantly a long running time can impact ticket saltes. Kill Bill's $50 mil opening was considered a surprising success, and it had a low runtime due to the whole two-volume approach.



> And DVD sales are trending DOWN, not up.
> http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/2...-sales-in-2007/



That's a good example of your exaggeration right there. That article does not indicate a "trending down". All it does is take a report on Best Buy & Circuit City's 2006 DVD sales and makes a projection that 2007 *might* be "the first year in consumer spending history that DVD sales actually decline". So, looking at consumer spending history as a whole, DVD sales have apparently been doing pretty well.

And that article on Harry Potter avoding "Grindhouse fate" is so specious that it's kind of funny. A classic exercise in rumormongering. A movie got its runtime cut. Well, that simply has to be Grindhouse blowback because, y'know, movies almost never get their runtimes trimmed down. Note that the article's author, "our ANI correspondent" (gee, wonder why a real name isn't provided) states a correlary as fact ("What has movie bosses really spooked is the fate of 'Grindhouse', a three-hour plus double feature by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez which bombed at the box-office.") but doesn't provide any support for it. Yet some folks will still take it as gospel, then tell other people there's no room for debate or opinion because it's simple fact.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 15, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Bottom line: a movie that wasn't expected to make a great deal of money wound up making less. I'm curious as to what you think was studio's expectations for the opening weekend. Throw a number out there for us.




I don't have to, the studio did. The listed expectation was just about 100% more than it made on opening weekend, and from there you calculate about a 50% drop on each weekend thereafter, give or take.  Studio had expectations set at athe ballpark of Tarantino's two ''Kill Bill'' movies and Rodriguez's ''Sin City,'' whose opening weekends ranged from $22 million to $29 million (though they were talking on the low end of that, as usual being conservative).

So the movie made 50% of what it was supposed to make on opening weekend, and then 50% less again than it was supposed to make (a 75% drop instead of a 50% drop) on the second weekend.



> If you are indeed involved with the industry, then you should know how assiduously studios avoid an R-rating, and how significantly a long running time can impact ticket saltes. Kill Bill's $50 mil opening was considered a surprising success, and it had a low runtime due to the whole two-volume approach.




Yes, I know all of that.  Not relevant however.  I am working off of the standard numbers.  Which is the number of theaters, the ratings, the weekend, etc.. all of which goes into the listed expectation for a movie.  We don't need to guess.  This stuff has gotten down to a science for many years now.  You can look up expectations for a movie before it comes out now, and most of the time it is right one the money or really close to it.



> That's a good example of your exaggeration right there. That article does not indicate a "trending down".




Yes, it does.  If you sell X DVDs in year one, and you expect X-10% in the next year, , then trend is down.  The article doesn't need to use the word trend for it to be an actual trend.  



> All it does is take a report on Best Buy & Circuit City's 2006 DVD sales and makes a projection that 2007 *might* be "the first year in consumer spending history that DVD sales actually decline". So, looking at consumer spending history as a whole, DVD sales have apparently been doing pretty well.




Neither of us made any claim about if DVD sales over many prior years overall doing well. I said it was trending down, not up.  Your claim was that it was trending up, not down.  



> And that article on Harry Potter is so specious that it's kind of funny. A movie got its runtime cut. Well, that simply has to be Grindhouse blowback because, y'know, movies almost never get their runtimes trimmed down. Note that the article's author, "our ANI correspondent" (i.e. "anonymous rumormonger") states a correlary as fact ("What has movie bosses really spooked is the fate of 'Grindhouse', a three-hour plus double feature by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez which bombed at the box-office.") but doesn't provide any support for it.




I give up. Have it your way.  This movie will be known as a massive success for this studio, due to DVD sales which are increasing.  Besides, nobody cares about ticket sales, because nobody is going to the movies anymore.  Glad we have that all settled.


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 15, 2007)

Robert Rodriguez has not made a good movie since "El Mariachi".

Planet Terror was 20 minutes of good stuff made four times as long. . . Blech.

Deathproof was much better, but the diner dialogue was Tarantino at his self-indulgent worst.

I am glad I saw a sneak preview a few weeks ago and did not pay for the ticket.


----------



## Gunslinger (Apr 15, 2007)

Gunslinger said:
			
		

> I loved Planet Terror, it was pure adrenaline fueled fun.  Death Proof...not so much (I didn't care for the ending, I like to root for the bad guys most of the time).




[Edited to fix having mentioned Planet Terror instead of DP  ]

...and I hit quote instead of edit, what do you know


----------



## CrusaderX (Apr 15, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> There is no question at all - NONE - that this studio is extremely disappointed with how this movie did, and it is losing money.  That's not debatable, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact.  Weinstein himself said he is "[R]eally disappointed with the paltry opening" http://in.news.yahoo.com/070411/139/6eepb.html .  In fact, he just said (in addition to that disappointment): "We tried to do something new and obviously we didn't do it that well," See: "Even Weinstein says Grindhouse a dud". http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/202618 .
> 
> .
> .
> ...




Mistwell is right.  This movie bombed big time, and I can't see how anyone can spin this any other way.  

Ka-Boom!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 15, 2007)

And that's the way my luck runs...

I chose not to buy tickets online because the movie's doing so poorly, get to the theater, and discover it's sold out. 

Bleah.


----------



## Felon (Apr 15, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I give up. Have it your way.  This movie will be known as a massive success for this studio, due to DVD sales which are increasing.  Besides, nobody cares about ticket sales, because nobody is going to the movies anymore.  Glad we have that all settled.



Your right to complain about any else having an insulting attitude is hereby revoked.


----------



## Felon (Apr 15, 2007)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> Mistwell is right.  This movie bombed big time, and I can't see how anyone can spin this any other way.



Thanks for your comments. Next time I watch "Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back", I will think of you and the rest of the drive-by snipers at Poopshoot.com.

Sorry, but if the projection for an opening weekend was 22 million, and it only made 11, well that ain't much of a margin between "did OK" and "ka-boom". If only it had made a whopping two or three mil more, it would've just snuck as a "disappointment" I suppose.


----------



## Felon (Apr 15, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And that's the way my luck runs...
> 
> I chose not to buy tickets online because the movie's doing so poorly, get to the theater, and discover it's sold out.



They were just screwing with you, man. They figured they could just convert that theater into a giant-sized employee's lounge and nobody would notice....


----------



## hong (Apr 15, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Sorry, but if the projection for an opening weekend was 22 million, and it only made 11, well that ain't much of a margin between "did OK" and "ka-boom".




I dunno mang, that 11 million shortfall would buy a lot of D&D minis.


----------



## Felon (Apr 15, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I dunno mang, that 11 million shortfall would buy a lot of D&D minis.



Just stay away from the stirge and the Drizz't minis, and one could make out quite well.


----------



## Krug (Apr 16, 2007)

Down 60+% 2nd week, for a total gross of US$19 mil so far. Heard they plan to split the movies, which is advisable.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 16, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Deathproof was much better, but the diner dialogue was Tarantino at his self-indulgent worst.




You must have a vastly different take on what 'self indulgent' means. The diner dialog is what sets up every single one of the new characters and lets you know exactly what they're like.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 16, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> You must have a vastly different take on what 'self indulgent' means. The diner dialog is what sets up every single one of the new characters and lets you know exactly what they're like.




I just saw it a second time tonight. Even knowing what to expect, I found I enjoyed Planet Terror far more than Death Proof, until Kurt Plissken came on the screen and added a bit of danger and menace. You can establish characters with much less dialogue than what he used there. I think the excision of the lap dance scene hurt the movie significantly, but regardless, the flick's story was badly structured.

It was still fun as a collection of interesting scenes, but there was not a strong rising action.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 16, 2007)

Krug said:
			
		

> Down 60+% 2nd week, for a total gross of US$19 mil so far. Heard they plan to split the movies, which is advisable.




For the second weekend, down 74%:

http://www.news.cinematical.com/200...ls-out-of-top-ten-playing-to-near-empty-thea/


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 16, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> You must have a vastly different take on what 'self indulgent' means. The diner dialog is what sets up every single one of the new characters and lets you know exactly what they're like.




Of the negative reviews, most use that phrase as well.  I don't think he is using an unusual definition of self indulgent, he just has a different opinion than you I think.


----------



## DonTadow (Apr 16, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> ??? So you don't have LotR or Star Wars on DVD?
> 
> That's exactly the kind of movie that does well on DVD...which probably has something to do with the DVD being released once you don't have the option of seeing the movie on the big screen anymore (clever little suckers, those movie industry people!).



This movie just has little niches and special effects in them that pick up great on a grimy movie projector screen of about 90 ft.  My thought should have been that this is a better movie to watch at a theater, wheras LOTR and STar Wars are great anywhere (though slightly better at a midnight showing full of fans).


----------



## Felon (Apr 22, 2007)

Finally got out to see this over the weekend. Fun movie overall, although I can understand why many consider "Death-Proof" to be excessively self-indulgent on Tarentino's part. It's not even really what I'd think of as a grindhouse film. Heck, the one payoff scene we get wouldn't be possible without CGI.

Eli Roth's "Thanksgiving", however, was right on the money. Overexposed film, cheesy yet undeniably creepy synthesizer music--yep, hits all the marks.


----------



## DonTadow (Apr 23, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Finally got out to see this over the weekend. Fun movie overall, although I can understand why many consider "Death-Proof" to be excessively self-indulgent on Tarentino's part. It's not even really what I'd think of as a grindhouse film. Heck, the one payoff scene we get wouldn't be possible without CGI.
> 
> Eli Roth's "Thanksgiving", however, was right on the money. Overexposed film, cheesy yet undeniably creepy synthesizer music--yep, hits all the marks.



Yeah, I was hopin for more gritty cheesiness from the Tarantino movie.  It felt more like a short.


----------



## Felon (Apr 23, 2007)

Honestly, as much of a Quentin fan as I am, I doubt Weinstein could split the films and expect Death Proof to stand on its own. Maybe there are some deleted scenes...or maybe some scenes could be deleted.

Still, any disappointment aside, this will be one HELL of a DVD.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 23, 2007)

Report that planned splitting of Grindhouse into two films for re release has been ditched:

http://www.3www.cinematical.com/200...indhouse-for-u-s-re-release-abandoned-source/

Also, the marketing budget for Grindhouse was just revealed, which tacks on another $30 Million to the cost of this film, making it a $100 Million dollar film that will not even make 25% returns in the first four weeks of release:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article1672383.ece

Eee gads! It still could theoretically make it up in DVD sales.  But that's a long, unlikely road.  Even if it hits Napolean Dynamite DVD numbers in sales (which it won't), if you factor in the DVD costs, that would mean it still wouldn't break even...


----------



## freebfrost (Apr 23, 2007)

Who else is pre-ordering Machete???


----------



## Insight (Apr 24, 2007)

freebfrost said:
			
		

> Who else is pre-ordering Machete???




I'd buy it RIGHT NOW if I could!

*MACHETE!*


----------



## Sir Brennen (Apr 25, 2007)

Just saw this last night with my wife and a friend. Lots of fun. The obviously fake gore of _Planet Terror_ had me snickering. The magically healed broked wrist (_*that*_ made me wince) seemed deliberately illogical to stay true to the source material. The _Death Proof_ chase scene with Zoe on the hood had me tensed up the whole time. I laughed at the missing reels. I was even a little disappointed that Death Proof wasn't as grainy and streaky as some of the other parts of the movie.

But at the same time, I kind of understand why this movie didn't do that well. It was nostalgic for something which many people just hadn't experienced. The second review in Mistwell's links above said it pretty well: "And it’s true that there is something insufferably esoteric about the whole notion of Grindhouse." Alot of people, upon viewing even just the trailers, probably just didn't "get it." 

The movies were more spoof than homage, and while they did transcend their source material, that transcendence didn't rise to the level of the directors' other movies. But you can at least tell they had fun making Grindhouse, self-indulgent or not, and I had fun watching.

*"If you're thinking about messing with this SS Werewolf Mexican on Thanksgiving... DON'T!!!"*


----------



## Simplicity (Apr 26, 2007)

I liked both movies, but my wife and I refer to Deathproof as "The Ya-ya Sisterhood", directed by Quentin Tarantino.  I tried to get my wife to go see a really violent movie for my birthday, but I got tricked into watching a chick-flick!  Dang it!


----------

