Budget: $44 million
Box office: $61 million
What went wrong? It needed to make at least $100 million to be profitable (movie theatres take 50% + marketing costs). Django made over $400 million.
Why'd it bomb so hard?
I can't imagine Tarantino has to struggle to get his movies funded. You'd think that the success of Django will have bought him several mediocre box office vanity projects before he needs to worry.
If PTA can keep making the films he wants to make surely Quentin can.
For the poor performance of Hateful Eight I'd say the concept was a harder sell and there was also an element of genre fatigue. My first reaction to hearing he was making a western again was disappointment.
Also the trailer looked bad and it doesn't have any box office drawers in the the cast.
except western isn't exactly an overused genre. now if he made a zombie movie or a capeshit movie I could see genre fatigue. I suspect people are beginning to realize that QT either only cares to or is only capable of making the same type of flick he always has.
Jackie Brown is far less pleb enabler and even that movie did good business...not a blockbuster but made a lot of money back. The only thing that may turn casuals off in this movie is the apparently senseless violence against the woman in the beggining and also the very few locations and big ammount of dialogs for such a long movie
If the movie was 2 hours long it would've been an average and easily digestible movie
Will 2016 be the year that he snaps?
How can we save him?
more like free press,
and i don't think that his audience loves the cops anyway
basically he released the film too close to star wars' release and people may be getting tired of his schick
I don't have a problem with Westerns, I just thought Tarantino was repeating himself doing another Western right after Django. The settings for his movies have been all over the place starting with Kill Bill.
After having watched the movie it's a non issue for me since it was suitably different to Django in format.
It's true that at the time the split was between 25/50% of ticket sales going to the theater but since the internet the industry changed in a much better and efficient way than let's say the music industry, who wouldn't let go of the old fashioned way of their business.
Ticket sales account for less than 15% in terms of revenue for movie theaters. Since 2010 they make most of their money the same way everybody else does: ads. I won't go into detail but if you know about how ads basically run the world now, then you know how movie theaters make money. And when talking about Star Wars which is 90% marketing...
All of his characters are Samuel L. Jackson variants to some extent, but I would say this was one of his best performances. I thought he really brought the character to life and I saw him as Major Marquis Warren rather than Samuel L. Jackson in a cavalry uniform.
Does Samuel L Jackon make any effort for anybody but Quentin? I only see him play real characters in his movies. Everything else is Danny Trejo level "and meme man, as himself" type crap.
>That's because he's too deep into his wannabe Pynchon phase
You mean the one Pynchon adaptation he did?
>he should be making something like Boogie Nights again.
You mean IMDB sensibility shit?
They've already won, 60 million bucks, 20 million profit and it's brand new. Wait till it matures and ends up on tv, ppv, hbo and blu-ray
The movie could be total crap and it'll still sell
It's his least interesting movie (not counting Hard Eight because who gives a fuck about that) Tarantino level "movie buff" masturbation. The capeshit infant leagues compared to Inherent Vice.
This film honestly felt like a reset button to me. Yeah he's done this genre before but he went with casting actors he hardly knew along side actors that aren't very famous but that he likes working with. It seemed like a work of experimentation but also a bit of a call back to when he was not so famous to be expected to work with A listers only. I think this anon is right. >>64913029 and his next films are probably going to be on par with pulp fiction and django in success and quality.
It'll run in theatres until end of February. Then it'll have oversees releases. Then it'll come out on Blu-ray.
I don't think they are worried.
Also, you're a pleb. Hateful Eight is one of Tarantino's best work dude. Much better than Django which is basically nigger empowerment bullshit.
>I can't imagine Tarantino has to struggle to get his movies funded.
For real though - did he witness Harvey Weinstein committing a murder back in the '90s, or something? Tarantino can literally just shit out a script, and Weinstein will greenlight a $20-70 million budget and studio distribution without a second thought. It's true that he's never had a big flop, but he's not exactly blockbuster-tier either, and I can't think of any other current American filmmakers who get their weird personal visions funded/supported this easily. Director/studio relationships like this just don't exist anymore. Somebody definitely owes somebody a huge favor
>As if that's a bad thing?
Among the worst things a motion picture can be. It is the reddit approach to cinema. Giving your audience a nice little upvoting pat on the head for being le cool movie buff and understanding all the little homages and references. Anti-art.
Real cinema makes no concessions towards audience enjoyment. I saw both Boogie Nights and Inherent Vice in theaters. Boogie Nights ended in applause. Inherent Vice had 75% of the theater walking out before the end. That's how you know Boogie Nights was pandering schlock and Vice was challenging art.
PTA just outgrew viewers like you. I'm guessing you're still just a teenager who came to his back catalogue late. There is still time for you to develop your taste and outgrow your juvenile pro-entertainment sensibilities.
yeah that story was fake. All of the dialogue in the film eluded to Jackson's character making up a story in order to kill the old guy. Not sure if you've seen the film or not kid. Not to mention, Tarantino castrates that nigger anyways. Literally get's his balls blown off. How fucking stupid are you?
I dunno man. Even Martin Scorsese still has to fight uphill to get a movie funded. NOBODY has a deal like Tarantino. The guy basically has direct access to Weinstein's checkbook.
>Among the worst things a motion picture can be. It is the reddit approach to cinema. Giving your audience a nice little upvoting pat on the head for being le cool movie buff and understanding all the little homages and references. Anti-art.
I'm not talking about little homages and references. I'm talking about being a student of the art and loving the art and realizing why it's made in the first place.
>Real cinema makes no concessions towards audience enjoyment. I saw both Boogie Nights and Inherent Vice in theaters. Boogie Nights ended in applause. Inherent Vice had 75% of the theater walking out before the end. That's how you know Boogie Nights was pandering schlock and Vice was challenging art.
Oh here we go. Another try hard telling us what's real cinema and what's not. Jesus Christ, you film students are insufferable. Only an underage film student who can't legally drink yet can go see two movies, one that ends in applause and one that has 75% of the theater walk out before the end, and conclude that the first won was the "bad" one.
>PTA just outgrew viewers like you. I'm guessing you're still just a teenager who came to his back catalogue late. There is still time for you to develop your taste and outgrow your juvenile pro-entertainment sensibilities.
Welp. This conversation's over. Trolled me good, bro. Trolled me good.
We live in a disgusting age of intellectual degeneracy. Where the capeshit video game flick is king. To enabling these audiences is a sign of a shill hack. To confront them, to break them, to send them running home, that is the sign of an artist.
>Welp. This conversation's over. Trolled me good, bro. Trolled me good.
There was nothing wrong or even inflammatory about what I said in that last part. Boogie Nights was the work of a technically skilled director who was still adolescent in sensibility. That's why it's his most accessible work. Over time he has honed his craft, found his own identity and became capable of producing more sophisticated cinema.
If you haven't yet undergone extensive cinematic training then I could understand how you'd enjoy Boogie Nights and dislike Vice and The Master. You're not yet equipped to appreciate them. This is not meant to be an insult, but words of encouragement. You can still mature and leave your childish things behind, your boogie nights, your video games. Don't cling to your past because of emotion. Never hold on to anything. Destroy emotion. Always step towards refinement. This is my life advice to you. In terms of both cinema and your existence in general. Never be afraid to burn what makes you feel good. It is only holding you back.
I'm not the guy you're replying to, but you're basically so far at the opposite end of the spectrum, that you've turned into exactly the type of consumer you're complaining about. You're just as easily duped and manipulated, you're just looking to be antagonized rather than entertained. You can't even admit the merits of a movie like "Boogie Nights," simply because it holds too much appeal for the "entertainment" crowd. You're like one of those guys on /r9k/ who doesn't want any woman that isn't an untouched virgin - once a movie has been "defiled" by the enjoyment of the "Reddit" masses, you can't even look at it again, no matter how good it is.
I'll bet you're the type of guy who recommends Von Trier and Haneke to his friends and family
It has a lot of things working against it, like it's poor marketing, repetative nature (another western after Django), and the fa t that it's releasing next to Star Wars.
It also doesn't help that it's not very good.
PTA is worth around $40-50 million. Are you shitting me? If he ever invested up to $20 million, he'd be fucked. Not to mention taxes as well. George Lucas, back in the 80s, invested everything he had for ESB and was $30 million in debt.
Point being, putting your own money in Hollywood films is retarded, unless it's a micro budget indie film.
>And it's a shame you won't realize it for another decade or two.
I can guarantee that I'm a decade or two older than you are.
If it was "good" in the first place then it never could have provided enjoyment to degenerates. You decide whether your film is going to be pro-art or pro-audience upfront. If you make a film that enables the anti-intellectualisms then you've failed to make quality cinema at step one. There is no defilement. If it was quality cinema in the first place then reddit wouldn't be able to get anywhere near it.
>You decide whether your film is going to be pro-art or pro-audience upfront
My point was, it's utterly ridiculous for you to draw a line like that to begin with, when there are so many great films that blur the boundary.
You're like a devout, Dawkins-worshipping, unquestioning preachy atheist who attacks religious people for the stupidity of "blind faith." You can't see your own hypocrisy
>when there are so many great films that blur the boundary.
There is less ambiguity than you think. All you need to do is look at the faces of the audience members to know which side of the art/entertainment dichotomy the film has landed on.
But that's because Nolan took on three Batman movies and made a fortune for the studio. They never would've financed "Inception" or "Interstellar" if he hadn't been doing a great job with Batman. Tarantino ONLY does personal passion projects, and I don't think he's ever even had a script turned down since his "Pulp Fiction" days. He's talked about some projects that never came to fruition, but it seems like if he actually finishes a script, Weinstein backs it, no question about it.
His financial track record is surprisingly solid, so I'm not saying it all has to be some kind of conspiracy. It's just a very unusual and shockingly lucky setup for a director like Quentin
My opinion doesn't matter. If a film pleases more people than it alienates then it has done more harm than good. If it alienates more people than it pleases then it is a positive force in the film world.
Not to mention that Weinstein is notorious for micro-managing his filmmakers, especially in post-production, and slashing down runtimes to marketable lengths. Even established auteurs with prestige get this treatment. Not Quentin, though. Quentin can write his least marketable film to date, and release a 3-hour cut with an intermission distributed on fucking 70mm film prints. Dialogue scenes running on into eternity.
I mean, come the fuck on. He HAS to have some kind of leverage on Weinstein. It just doesn't happen like this for ANY other director.
Because it came out during star wars mania. People going to see star wars 3rd our 4th time. Why is this allowed.
>It's just a very unusual and shockingly lucky setup for a director like Quentin
Because Pulp Fiction. You were probably still sucking your mom's tit when Quentin was banging feet and reeling in the awards.
>But that's because Nolan took on three Batman movies and made a fortune for the studio. They never would've financed "Inception" or "Interstellar" if he hadn't been doing a great job with Batman.
I said track record...
This confused me too, pulp fiction and django are on opposite sides of the quality spectrum in terms of his movies.
And to say his next movie will be as good as pulp fiction, thats a bold statement
This be the movie where he finally comes out.
Having him dub over and continue to talk about ( black cocks and white mouths) was his coming out party. Its clearer to the general public what gets his rocks off. Somthing tv has known for awhile. Just think of how he portrays rape in pulp fiction compared to hate8. Hes general getting off to this shit
>Poor cucktino wanted it to be empowering.
you can't win with the new safe space left. just look at modern universities. the most cucked self hating wannabe gangraped culture in the world and thats still not good enough for them.
I really liked it. I only wished they'd go more about exploring the area since they've made so much trouble setting lines to the horses and outhouse. That would actually bring the movie closer to The Thing, which got referenced at least one more time, by its score.
Which are used to different effects. Django was about empowerment, TH8 goes to great length to show us how corrupt and similar all the characters are, whites, blacks, mexicans, liars, racists, murderers. Especially Warren gets punished and (indirectly) called out on his bullshit.
I thought real art wasn't meant to care about the audience either way? It's surely possible that a director could not care about what entertains the audience and entertain them anyway by pure coincidence?
The film was just released here in Australia on Thursday. The 70mm version is playing for one week then its general release this Thursday. I was at the 9:45am session (The first session) and the cinema was pretty packed for that screening time. I can't imagine what the more favorable timeslots would be like. Plus Tarantino, Russel and Jackson are all in Australia doing promotional stuff. I think the movie will do quite well in Australia. It's not a failure just yet.
The first two weeks it is for most movies it is 50-60% to the studio, and the rest to the movie plex.
As time goes on more and more of ticket sales is kept by the movieplexes. Thus long running films like GotG that had steady sales one month into its run are actually quite good for the movieplexes.
They make more money selling popcorn, but it close to 50/50
>Why'd it bomb so hard?
>movie isn't very good
>released too close to Star Wars
>initial release in 70mm only
>leaked screener two weeks prior to release
>Tarantino statements about police
>banned in the UK
That Niggerdom shit is airing in mid february here in my country. Who the fuck thinks this is a good idea in the modern world where internet exists?
I've already seen it and I rate it Nigger rapes a white man/10.
I sure as hell would not want to pay money to see such sick and twisted juden propaganda and nigger pushing. I'm glad it is bombing. Tarantino just needs to come out already and tell Jackson that he wants to suck his big black dingus. He is obviously a sick man.
>decent man just trying to make a living
say it isn't so. say you don't dream about juicy, black, sloppy throbbing 10 inch dicks exploring your chocolate cave, hitting your prostate so hard you come within 30 seconds hands free
Tarantino is literally autistic. Any success he has had in film is because of the actors carrying the movie, not because of his screenwriting or directing.
Maybe people will stop giving him money now.
THE MOVIE WAS SHIT
SO BOMBS AS BOX OFFICE
END OF STORY
AND HOPEFULLY THE END OF CUKATINO AND ALL HIS NIGGERS, COCKS AND FEET FANTASIES