Grindhouse to split into 2 seperate releases

Jack Daniel Stanley

Jack Daniel Stanley

Moderator
Staff member
FROM IMDB TODAY:

Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein is planning to re-release Grindhouse as two separate films - after the double-bill flopped at the box office. The film, a double-feature directed by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez made just $11.6 million in its opening weekend in the US. Producer Weinstein is disappointed - and thinks Tarantino's Death Proof, starring Kurt Russell, and Rodriguez' Planet Terror, with Rose McGowan, will perform better on their own. He tells PageSix.com, "I don't think people understood what we were doing. The audience didn't get the idea that it is two movies for the price of one. I don't understand the math, but I want to accommodate the audience."

Shame. A 3 hour Non Family movie released on Easter weekend is bad timing. It's not something you will go see with your 7 year old niece, and likely not with most grandparents, or those relatives who are much more conservative than you and your brood. Also, for people with families it can be hard to squeeze in a 3 hour movie with your other holiday weekend commitments and still have time to read the paper or sleep in or do your taxes.

But audience reviews have been a near unanimous rave, with a few saying that Tarantino's dragged, but that it, and the double bill still rocked.

Though 4th at the box office, it has a highest audience approval rating on Fandango, for example, with a "must go" while the top 3 box offices hits only earned the second highest rating of "go".

I've thought that word of mouth would pull it up in coming weeks. I'm sure they can't re-release it for at least a couple of weeks so maybe there is still time for word of mouth to catch on before they split it and keep them from fixing what ain't broken.
 
Last edited:
Shaun Patrick said:
I thought this was just speculation. It's an awful idea.
Click to expand...

Looking at the wording of the article again: "planning"

I guess it could still be speculative, or a publicity stunt to drum out all the cinefile purists to go see it NOW before it is split, or to just get further word out there that it is in fact TWO movies for the PRICE of ONE.
 
It's stupid and defies the point. Thats what us filmbuffs think. However, when you think about about it, we always knew most of it's profit would come from DVD. The general audience wont want to sit through something that they wont even understand (obscure references, respect for the crude classics). So if anything, they can split the two up themselves or stop it and watch it later. I guess for Mr. Weinstein, it's going to up the profits if he splits it up for them........I'm just glad I saw it the way it was intended. Everyone go catch it the right way while you can!
 
The problem here is not Hollywood so much as it is the market. Let's see, perhaps the most gory, raunchy, mainstream movie(s) ever released and it is homage to a genre that was only appealing to a sub-culture to begin with. It didnt do $30mill opening weekend? DUH!

I actually have inside info on this and they are indeed talking of a separate releases as the prints will be paid for as this was always the plan overseas. Bottom line, they spent WAY too much friggin money on this pet project. Production budget was almost $70million and P&A pushed the total number to over $100,000,000. These are movies that should have been made for $10mill each MAX...



ash =o)
 
Too bad most people don't understand QT. RR is what he is and it ain't good movie making. It's his motivation. He is the star of the under-produced movie doing its most at the box office. On the other hand QT is a star at dialogue. I can't think of another writer that can do what QT can with dialogue. Watch Jackie Brown and learn...
 
They had Q on the Kevin and Bean show on KROQ this morning and he was talking about that... man, that guy can talk!
 
AshG said:
The problem here is not Hollywood so much as it is the market.
Click to expand...

Blaming your customers when you make a product they don't want is a good way for a company to go bust. The real problem, as you say later, is that they spent tens of millions of dollars to make a 'homage' to movies that probably cost tens of thousands.
 
If Grindhouse ends up losing money it is still a good thing, the film industry needs to start doing things like this again. All we get is sure fire bets that will make its money back and milk the customers with a crappy product. We need more risky films and we need more of the "big boys" to take risks on films like these.
 
Phil Maker said:
Yeah, and we need the auto industry to start making electric cars. Good luck.
Click to expand...

hahaha

I think splitting the movie into two is a great idea. I'd pay to see Death Proof again. Maybe this way they would extend some scenes. I also wouldn't have to sit through Planet Terror.
 
Bad idea if the split it now after everyone knowing they were released together they will lose more money. I was planning to see it with my wife's brother next week but if they go through with this crap I'll wait for video. You can't make people expect something and then take it back. It's like Jack Stanley said Easter weekend duh... It doesn't take an Einstein Weinstein!!!!!
 
I have enjoyed both QT and RR's movies over the years but I could not bring myself to watch Grindhouse in the theaters. I hate most of the 70's B movies and I am not going to pay to see an homage to that. I loved Kill Bill and Dusk till Dawn (first part more than the second) but Grindhouse is just one step to far.

I will likely watch it on DVD though.
 
jpeck said:
If Grindhouse ends up losing money it is still a good thing, the film industry needs to start doing things like this again. All we get is sure fire bets that will make its money back and milk the customers with a crappy product. We need more risky films and we need more of the "big boys" to take risks on films like these.
Click to expand...


There is nothing risky about spending $100,000,000 on a pet project! That is just STUPID. What Hollywood needs to do, is take that $100,000,000 and make TWENTY movies like Napoleon Dynamite, Little Miss Sunshine, Memento, etc. etc. etc.

Grindhouse was a fun nostalgic romp but I left shaking my head wondering how anyone with half a brain thought the mainstream would actually get it.



ash =o)
 
Ash, I agree with you. But all the studio executives have some business model that says making money on those types of movies is impossible. Which begs the question, how did Napolean Dynamite make so much money?

I think their argument is, regardless of what a movie costs, in order for everyone to know about it, you have to put up 50 mil to market it (that's just what it costs to have nationwide awareness these days) so they feel a lot better about that 50 million dollars going towards some movie with movie stars and effects than they do some quirky little comedy that may or may not catch on. At least, I think that's their argument.
 
Apparently they're talking about making these grindhouse events every couple of years, switching the directors around. Maybe this could wind up being a very successful franchise, obtaining revenu that-a-way
 
This is a publicity stunt. It doesn't make any sense otherwise. It's desperation at its finest and, ultimately, very sad. Harvey Weinstein says that the reason he's doing this is because people were walking out of the movie after the first film, not knowing there was a second film, and then getting upset about it when they found out they missed the other film. So.... ummm... how that led to an 11 million dollar opening weekend I'm not sure (they still paid for the movie, right?). Harvey's excuse is that they didn't explain the Grindhouse concept correctly and that the audience didn't know what was going on.

Ummmm... I have not seen a single ad that hasn't said, "Two movies for the price of one." Who doesn't understand, "Two movies for the price of one"?? I mean, it's pretty obvious. And his solution to that is to split the movies up?? So now that the audience REALIZES that they were indeed SUPPOSED to get two movies for the price of one, they learn that they're now only going to get ONE movie for the price of one?? Something sound off here to you? Oh, but wait! If you really want to keep from confusing your audience, here's an idea. Market your movie as two movies for the price of one. Then four weeks later, rerelease both movies individually, after the buzz has worn off, and the average customer has been confused to death. Yeah, that ought to pack'em in.

I want to give Harvey the benefit of the doubt here and say this is a publicity stunt to get people in the theatre (buy up all the "old coke" before "New Coke" hits the shelves). Because that would be smart. However, Harvey is starting to smell a little bit like desperation, and desperate people do stupid things. Like rerelease movies four weeks after their release.

Man... talk about a disaster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top