Clerks, honestly, what do you think?

That reminds me of what they did i think last academy awards, where they put a guy in a theater and had people ask what movies they saw. Most people hadn't seen the aviator or million dollar baby but thought taht White Chicks was hilarious.

Obvious editing there, but I still thought it was kinda funny, because it is true in some cases that the worst film rakes in the most cash.

I mean, the Fog, anyone? I actually sat through that movie. I contemplated getting up six times, which is four times more than I've ever contemplated that in a movie.

How terrible the Fog was. The effects even blew.

And yeah, John, again, I see where you're coming from. I hated the lead in Dogma. Big time. I like alan Rickman in pretty much anything, and the angels were fun at times, but it was really the religious debate that is obviously kevin going back and forth in his mind is really what did it for me, because that's exactly my views of religion.
 
I do not have a religious background so I am sure it was lost on me ! (Catholicsm)

True about White Chicks. I think there's a interesting line between Box Office Reciepts and Critical Acclaim.

Look at some of the films in 2005's Top 50

10 Mr. & Mrs. Smith
11 Hitch
12 The Longest Yard
16 The Pacifier
17 The 40-Year-Old Virgin
24 The Dukes of Hazzard
27 The Ring Two
36 Herbie: Fully Loaded
39 Bewitched Sony

These are films I cannot fathom even being seen much less in the Top 39

Yes films like these are languishing on the list

41 Cinderella Man
62 Syriana
66 Brokeback Mountain
70 Munich


I mean I know SW - SITH has a massive geek following; but let's face it, the last 2 sucked hard and SITH was like icing on SUCK. Still, it was number 1 on the year at 380 Million ? Monster In Law is 22nd on the year ? Dukes of Hazard at 24th ?

Yet we get Good Night and Good Luck at 99 ? WTF ?

john_mcenroe.jpg


You cannot be serious!
 
Well you can't exactly take box office as an objective standard - I mean "Good Night and Good Luck" didn't get anywhere near the release of a movie like "Hitch" - so of course it's not going to bring in as much at the box office.

Then there's the fact that a higher budget film is probably going to bring with it a higher marketing budget.

It's quite possible that some of the films in the top half of the list actually made much less money than films in the bottom half. (for example - napoleon dynamite)

We can't just look at it as volume - you have to take into account the other factors and look at the big picture - of course then we're quickly getting into math, and well....
who want's to do math?
 
John_Hudson said:
Still, unsettling numbers at times.
Click to expand...

I agree - in fact for a long time I used to use the following phrase as a response
to my wife everytime she would complain about someone's stupidity:

"White Chicks was number one at the box office"

It quickly got shortened to simply - "white chicks"


Cut off on the freeway?
"How can people be so stupid!"
"White chicks"

Unhappy at work?
"You're not going to believe what my boss said today"
"Oh yeah? White chicks"


You get the point.
:thumbsup:
 
GenJerDan said:
The dialog...? That's how we talk there. He just wrote down the kinds of things he heard around him.
Click to expand...

Thats part of being a a great writer. I love Clerks even though its technically flawed you can say that about a lot of directors first films. The fact that it is mostly one big master shot makes it all the more remarkable to me. Dogma is statement about his upbringing, like a lot of writers he's drawing on his life for subject matter. I hated Citizen Kane though its a technical marvel.(doesnt mean Orson sucks). I just don't like it.

I like movies like "Jersey Girl" and "Chasing Amy" perfect masterpieces, no enjoyable YES. I think Kevin is writing his generation, his world, what HE knows and is improving his abilities behind the lens. He had enough sense to have Tarantino and Rodriqez screen Clerks II. If you make enough movies your probably gonna make some that suck and some that don't.

Blair Witch is no where near as good as Clerks and made 150 million proving that box office means nothing unless your invested in it. For a guy who mortgaged his future(on his credit cards) Clerks is a wonderful little movie that had remarkable success.
 
Horse, I agree about the Evening with Kevin Smith being the funniest thing he has done, but even that is a bit too self-indulgent. It's great if you are a fan of his films, but uneven if you aren't. Dick jokes wear thin after a while.

I never understood why Clerks made such a big splash. Was there so little going on in the cinematic universe at the time? I think Kevin is a funny guy; mostly in the way every high school has a guy that cracks people up, but that doesn't mean they are destined to be a stand-up-comic. I'd love to have him over for a few and shoot the poo poo. He's a capable writer (Chasing Amy proved that) But he spends too much time trying to be clever in the same way I also see Tarantino doing it. (Prepare for Rebuttal from Hudson). His dialogue sounds like conversations trying too hard to sound like real conversations.

And the acting in Clerks was beyond horrible. Granted, you work with what's available, but if you are supposed to be pulling for Dante, find an actor who isn't so whiny.

Chasing Amy is the best film he has done, but it wasn't great. I liked Dogma, mostly for the Catholic jokes (I am one) But he's a tepid director that relies on scripts that seem more like first drafts than anything that has had any real effort spent on them.

That being said, I give him his due for getting where he is. He (as mentioned) knows he's no genius. He just has fun with it while it lasts...which probably won't be much longer.

But he's welcome here for a cocktail anytime.

EDIT: Oh my God. I know I've been gone a few months, but has this site gotten so PC that I can't type poo poo?
EDIT AGAIN: Yep. I guess it has. That is friggin sad.
 
OK there are a couple of things here that I think need mentioning and I'm nominating myself to mention them.

First of all, the fact that Kevin Smith can get QT & RR to watch his movie doesn't mean anything to me. The fact that QT gives it a thumbs up doesn't mean anything to me. We're talking about a guy who publically states that Shaft in Africa is one of the greatest movies of all time. I like QT's films, but his opinion isn't going to make me change razors or change my mind from thinking Clerks two is a bad idea.

Second, box office does mean something, and at the end of the day this is what it means... Once you go Hollywood if you do not lose the people you are working for money you will get to make another film. If you lose the people you're working for money then odds are, unless you have a very established track record, you won't get to make another film. That is all box office means. Bay, he makes people money, he will always have a job. Kevin Smith, he makes people money, he will continue to work until he no longer makes people money. Clerks 2, well, he could risking a lot with this.

For me the appeal of Clerks was always in its low budget approach, but please don't tell me it is a great film because the guy got a bunch of credit cards and built debt up to make the movie. That's bull. I guarentee you that there are members on this site who have built themselves into a mountain of debt just to get a DVX and do their projects. To validate someone's work because they were able to have a beacon score above 700 to get 30K worth of revolving credit doesn't make someone an artist.

Now, that being said, I still maintain that Clerks was an enjoyable film 10 years ago when it was released and has had a good shelf life. It is one of the few films that although I know what is coming next, I enjoy watching it unfold. I think it gives hope to those of us who do projects with our friends but dream of bigger doors openning. The best thing about Clerks though is that Smith got off his ass and made it.

As I've said, Clerks works in spite of its meager cinematography, lack of camera movement, lack of quality sound capture, and poor acting. Clerks works because it is a film that perfectly captures a moment in time that a lot of people can relate to.

Another thing, QT was blown away by the fact that Clerks 2 picks right back up and you realize that these are the same two guys. He seemed entirely enthralled by that. I guess when you're a Hollywood millionaire little things like that can fuel you for a while. I have a friend who likes to watch flies hump, he thinks that's the funniest thing in the world. That doesn't mean that I'm going to go out and see a movie about it though just because he says that it's good.
 
I agree with just about everything you said Yankee, except the second to last paragraph. I think the fact that it captures a moment in time is why it was successful, but I submit that it still doesnn't "work" in the sense of being a good film. I realize that I am splitting hairs, but there are some films that I like for various reasons; Spring Break comes to mind (don't ask), I guess they "work" for me, but they don't really "work" in the sense of being well developed, well shot, well acted, well written films. They touch a chord with me, and in they sense that are successful (meaning other people felt he same way and they made a lttle cash), but that's where the train stops.

Nobody has ever shown me anything well done in the snse of craft in Clerks. The writing is undeveloped, the direction is uninspired, and the acting is amateur.

It was fresh, in it's way, and Smith's method of financing fueled the hype. I like the guy, but even if somebody I knew here in Colorado made it and showed it at the local film club, I still wouldn't think it was very good. Without the caveat of his unknown, amateur status at the time, and the way he paid for it, the film doesn't really stand on it's own as a piece of quality filmmaking. If somebody with a name and rep had made the movie, would anyone have even picked it up for distribution? At least Evil Dead was scary.
 
That is a good point. What would be interesting would be to look at the freshman indie releases of directors who are now somewhere and compare what they created with what they had available. Obviously, in this situation money to do the project has to be taken into account.

Kevin Smith actually only spent $8,000 filming Clerks, the rest was on the soundtrack.
Evil Dead I know topped the $100,000 marker.
Pi was made for a flat $40,000.
Blair Witch was made for what? $30,000?


I'm sure that there are a ton of other examples, but I still think that there is something that works about Clerks. Now I want to sit down and study it and see if I can find an example of what works...
 
ravinesedge said:
i dont know if you knew this, and i'm not trying to be smug or anything at all just fyi after clerks 2 he isn't doing the jay and silent bob movie. he's going on to do some other things.. no idea what they are but this is the last jay and silent bob movie... again just fyi. so after this he's going to try and get away from the clerks stuff...
Click to expand...

Kevin Smith said the exact same thing after J&SBSB. Then he made Jersey Girl and it tanked so he had to go back to the franchise and characters that made him famous in order to salvage his reputation.

I for one would still like to see the long fabled Clerks animated movie get made. I'm still a fan of the animated series and have commited the sole 6 episodes to memory.
 
Machinist, you have finally just described what Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino have in common, they are both full of fluff.

Kevin Smith has been talking for years about this Clerks animated film and even a Jay & Silent Bob Animated film. He has talked about a science fiction film that would have to do with comics coming true.

Tarantino on the other hand has talked about more Kung Fu films, the film about the Vega brothers, and about two hundred other films that he was going to make.

What they have in common is simple, they both come up with ideas and don't follow through on them!
 
TheYankee said:
What they have in common is simple, they both come up with ideas and don't follow through on them!
Click to expand...

How many of us have had a myriad of story ideas we never followed through with?

Smith has obviously followed through with 6 of his ideas - and is working on his 7th.
Tarantino has obviously followed through with at least 9 of his ideas - and is now working on his 10th (give or take).

Directors talk about possible projects all the time... it's impossible to make every movie.
Kubrick talked about Napoleon for most of his career - yet no one is accusing him of not having 'follow through.'

Personally I'm not a big fan of either Smith or Tarantino's movies - but to say they are unable to follow through with any of their ideas is a bit of a stretch.
 
TheYankee said:
Kevin Smith actually only spent $8,000 filming Clerks, the rest was on the soundtrack.
Evil Dead I know topped the $100,000 marker.
Pi was made for a flat $40,000.
Blair Witch was made for what? $30,000?


I'm sure that there are a ton of other examples, but I still think that there is something that works about Clerks. Now I want to sit down and study it and see if I can find an example of what works...
Click to expand...

Well the original outlay for El Mariachi was 5K if I remember correctly. I know they dumped a ton inot it afterwards to make it look and sound better, but that happens with every film under those circumstances. So if we use the marker of cost as some sort of reversed exponential factor, it gets my award for best indie film. Not just because of how little it cost to make, but because it works as an action film. There is some bad acting and some cliches, but I can watch that as a film and say it's pretty good without having to know the pricetag.

I thought Pi was well done, but I got tired of the grainy black and white after a while. Still, a good movie.

Blair Witch was scary in places, but mostly made me nauseous

Evil Dead scared the crap out of me the first time I saw it, and I watch at least every other halloween.
 
Kubrick talked about Napoleon for most of his career - yet no one is accusing him of not having 'follow through.'
Click to expand...

I will.

Kubrick that slacker! What's taking so long? I want Waterloo!


:evil:
 
The difference is, in my opinion, KS & QT are talking about these ideas in publications and promoting them like their next project. To compare it with the ideas I come up with while sitting on the toilet is unfair because: 1. I do not have the means of coming up with budget 2. I am not giving interviews to Variety about my next project.

I think the El Mariachi example is excellent. What RR did with his budget, means, and time frame is still incredible. I still believe that he is one of the most efficient directors working today, but he also came to Mariachi with a ton of experience. He had been shooting for what? 14 years? Maybe 13 doing his home movies and short films. The fact that he was able to make the leap to film and come up with a great project on a shoe string budget is impressive, though. How many of us feel that if we had $5000 cash, even with already owning our equipement we could do El Mariachi in that time frame and have it come off as well as RR made it happen? I don't believe that I could, but that says more about my ability or lack thereof.

Now, to bring this full circle, KS at least had an idea he believed it, went with it, and it worked out for him in spades. While it isn't as motivating as RR (KS had credit cards, RR got tests performed on him) the end products for both of their debut projects is extremely impressive. What appeals to me about KS is that you can see Hudson or anyone of us sitting down and writing a script we believe in, and just running with it. Clerks is like a DVXUser film, except I think most members here will move the camera more than KS did. He took something that he felt passionate about and ran with it. I respect that, and wish that I had the balls to take one of the feature scripts that I have sitting here and do the same. I don't though.

Maybe the best way for me to sum up my feelings about Clerks is that it was able to appeal to an audience because of its language routed in realism of life. Here are these guys in their 20's, they've dropped out of school or have school hanging over their heads, they date, they like to play hockey, and they have to go to these crap jobs they hate. Seems pretty universal to me and maybe that is why it appeals to me.
 
I would agree with that. Clerks does relate to a certain demographic.

I also respect KS for getting off his ass and doing something that most people only talk about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top