criterionforum.org

Barmy wrote:By the way, it looks like the film will struggle to make $15 million US B.O.

That clinches it: TNW made no money at the B.O., hence it's AWFUL!

Umm, I think it's a good film.

Barmy wrote:Umm, I think it's a good film.

Then why bring up its box office performance, which has no bearing on anything except popularity?

Box office results are not irrelevant in judging a film that is released through the Hollywood system, particularly one with two "stars". I agree that if some true indie film or foreign language film makes $100,000 or whatever, that is pretty irrelevant. My criticism of TNW in this thread focuses on the overall process of its presentation, which I feel was artistically demeaning. But I would have been less judgmental if at least it had struck a popular chord. But it clearly didn't.

Barmy wrote:Box office results are not irrelevant in judging a film that is released through the Hollywood system, particularly one with two "stars".

Who were the two "stars"? Colin Farrell and......Christian Bale? Christopher Plummer? Mozart? Wagner? Malick?
There was no way this film was going to be a box-office hit, any more than BARRY LYNDON was. Its commercial failure has nothing to do with its artistic merit.

Oops, 3 "stars" if you count Ben Chaplin.

$12 million is worse than not a hit. It is a barely discernible amount of money for a Hollywood pic. I really doubt the producer is happy with the B.O. They spent a fair amount of $ promoting this film. Remember when Q'Orianka was EVERYWHERE in the media a few months back?

Another complaint I have, by the way, is the PG-13 "battle" scenes. Another artistic compromise which did not "pay off", in my view.

Barmy wrote:Oops, 3 "stars" if you count Ben Chaplin.

$12 million is worse than not a hit. It is a barely discernible amount of money for a Hollywood pic. I really doubt the producer is happy with the B.O. They spent a fair amount of $ promoting this film.

I was happy with the film, so why should I care if the producers are happy or not? If they don't want to work with Malick again, that's their choice, but there will always be someone willing to invest in a Malick project if only for the prestige value. Why do you think Woody Allen still gets to churn out movie after movie even though MATCH POINT is the first movie he's made since HANNAH that actually grossed over $20 million? (source: boxofficemojo.com)

The New World becomes a cult film?

J. Hoberman in The Village Voice: http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0610,h ... 27,20.html

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting it. Of course, had the film done better at the B.O., these critics would have found some other film to go all culty over. TNW is one of the biggest B.O. bombs of the last year for a quality mainstream release (I'm not talking profit-wise, as the budget was small, but the fact that the $13 million B.O. is a joke). Hence the cult.

Barmy wrote:Of course, had the film done better at the B.O., these critics would have found some other film to go all culty over. TNW is one of the biggest B.O. bombs of the last year for a quality mainstream release (I'm not talking profit-wise, as the budget was small, but the fact that the $13 million B.O. is a joke).

Once again: WHO CARES????

I bet Terry Malick cares, among others. Don't filmmakers who make mainstream films in the Hollywood system want their films to be seen?

Barmy wrote:I bet Terry Malick cares, among others. Don't filmmakers who make mainstream films in the Hollywood system want their films to be seen?

But why should you or I care?

Barmy wrote:Don't filmmakers who make mainstream films in the Hollywood system want their films to be seen?

I've kind of forgotten if this has been addressed already, but does The New World really qualify as a mainstream film? I know the new cut was supposed to improve its box-office performance (and, yes, it was unsuccessful), but just because the new cut could perhaps be judged as "more mainstream" than the original cut, that still doesn't really make it a "mainstream film".

Malick's films always flop at the box office, and then grow in stature. It's never going to affect his ability to get films made, nor his ability to make them beautifully. End of story.

rs98762001 wrote:Malick's films always flop at the box office, and then grow in stature. It's never going to affect his ability to get films made, nor his ability to make them beautifully. End of story.

You are on notice, Barmy!

All right, I'll check back in to "eat crow" around 2015 when TM releases his next flick.

BTW, "Days of Heaven" made $3.5 million in the US, which seems pretty good for 1978.

Barmy wrote:BTW, "Days of Heaven" made $3.5 million in the US, which seems pretty good for 1978.

That translates to about $10.7 million today.

Here are the grosses of a few other major 1978 releases:

"The Swarm" - $10 million ($30.5 million today)
"Interiors" - $10.4 million ($31.7 million today)
"The Boys from Brazil" - $19 million ($57.9 etc.)
"Damien: Omen II" - $26 million ($79.2)
"Midnight Express" - $35 million ($106.6)
"Halloween" - $47 million ($143.2)
"Deer Hunter" - $49 million ($149.3)
"Heaven Can Wait" - $81 million ($246.8)
"Animal House" - $120 million ($365.6)
"Superman" - $134 million ($408.3)

Kirkinson wrote:"Damien: Omen II" - $26 million ($79.2)
"Halloween" - $47 million ($143.2)
"Superman" - $134 million ($408.3)

Malick vs. the Man of Steel, Michael Meyers, and Satan's child...

Methinks this fight be rigged.

-Toilet Dcuk

I cant BELIEVE Interiors made more than The Swarm. Such injustice!

Andre Jurieu wrote:I've kind of forgotten if this has been addressed already, but does The New World really qualify as a mainstream film? I know the new cut was supposed to improve its box-office performance (and, yes, it was unsuccessful), but just because the new cut could perhaps be judged as "more mainstream" than the original cut, that still doesn't really make it a "mainstream film".

Not to mention, I believe Hoberman points out that it was only released in 800 theatres which certainly didn't help its chances at a decent box office. Wouldn't a truly mainstream film warrant at least a 1,000 screen release? I know huge blockbusters get upwards of 2,500 to 3,000 screen releases.

Kirkinson wrote: That translates to about $10.7 million today.

Well, there we go. TNW has been a bigger box office success than DAYS OF HEAVEN was in its day.

Yay. Maybe there will be a sequel then?

Barmy wrote:Yay. Maybe there will be a sequel then?

For someone who supposedly liked the film, you have a really negative attitude, dang it!

All that really matters is how much money it gets in proportion to how expensive the film was. The Thin Red Line was by no means a flop--it got nearly 70% of its budget back in the initial domestic theatrical release. Between the international release, home video, television, etc., there's still plenty of room for it to be comfortably profitable, though it's by no means a runaway success.

Comparing The New World, which has gotten less than half of its money back in the US theatrical release, to Days of Heaven isn't really fair, since Days of Heaven would probably have gotten a much higher percentage of its returns in its initial US domestic release, and it was probably a much less expensive film, relatively speaking (much less ambitious, technically). More importantly, unless we know what its budget was, we have no real criteria for judging its financial success--comparing it to blockbusters of the same year is like comparing a small company to a large corporation purely in terms of revenue and trying to gauge their success without looking at costs/profits. In any case, The New World is unlikely to be a bomb at this point, since international receipts and DVD will probably make up the gap between cost and domestic receipts, but I doubt it will have made much money for its investors, which probably means he probably won't get another chance at making such an expensive film any time soon (though it was significantly less expensive than TRL--whether that was his choosing or the investors' choosing I don't know, though I'm guessing it was his, since he considered shooting on 65mm an option).

On the other hand, now that Stanley Kubrick is done, people may look to him to fill Kubrick's shoes, and be willing to let him play around with tens of millions of dollars without worrying too much about the returns for an individual film. It would help greatly to know where the money was coming from.

Stars will always be keen to work with Malick, and his name guarantees foreign interest, so the likelihood is that he'll never have too much trouble getting investors to underwrite one of his movies. Besides, not even the stupidest money-grabbing exec thinks that a TM movie is going to do STAR WARS business. His films never have, and never will.