X-Files I Want to Believe - Bombs?

[ethsnafu]

Laran,

You are correct on the promotion issue which was, and I say it with respect, an absolute disgrace. The promotion in the UK was appalling which is why, in my opinion, the movie dropped from the Top Ten in its second week and failed to even reap one single million on its first weekend. What mystifies me is that discussion threads on this board identified this as problem months before the film aired so either arrogance or incompetence is to blame in explaining why not one single trailer for this aired on any mainstream UK channel, why promotion began on low ratings shows hours before the film was aired or why the promotional special was scheduled to air when the world and its wife as in bed.

Best wishes,

Eth

[4th Horseman]

Hey Laran...you wont get an argument with me about the fact that "money is money"....putting yourself in the role of a Fox exec, you dont give a hootenany where the money comes from. Boy, we sure have beat this topic to death haven't we???

4th Horseman

[Guest ZeusFaber]

Laran,

You are correct on the promotion issue which was, and I say it with respect, an absolute disgrace. The promotion in the UK was appalling which is why, in my opinion, the movie dropped from the Top Ten in its second week and failed to even reap one single million on its first weekend. What mystifies me is that discussion threads on this board identified this as problem months before the film aired so either arrogance or incompetence is to blame in explaining why not one single trailer for this aired on any mainstream UK channel, why promotion began on low ratings shows hours before the film was aired or why the promotional special was scheduled to air when the world and its wife as in bed.

Best wishes,

Eth

On the plus side, that probably means the promotional costs were fairly negligible, thus being less to recoup.

I suppose these things can sometimes balance themselves out, in that if you spend an absolute fortune on marketing and promotion, you can virtually "buy" an audience, but thus a huge amount of the money you make from that audience goes to balancing the books on everything you spent promoting it. Conversely, if you spend hardly anything at all on very little advertising, you end up with a much smaller audience, but far less to write off on the promotional budget.

Clouds and silver linings, etc.

.

[ethsnafu]

Dear Zeus,

I enjoyed your post and thank you for taking the time to open my eyes to aspects of the production process I had not considered. Given the state of affairs I concur that a conservative approach to promotion may well allow this movie to make more profit given the small deficit it began with. Much of my ire rests not with the production team anyway but with the UK's schedulers who for reasons known only to them made the decisions they made. I cannot logically deduce why ITV would go to the expense of producing a special and then scheduling it at such a appalling hour. Given that most of their evening viewing is chock full of repeats one would assume an original offering was worth better treatment. If they did not view the special as a potential ratings winner and considered it one that could easily be slotted into such a time frame with little detriment then why bother to make it at all?

All said and done: it is what it is and no amount of lamentation can change it but I felt the UK's reception to this movie was poor and given that the X-Files was a staple offering of the Beeb for a number of years it was a shame that they did not pick up the trailer thus guaranteeing a much larger audience than that generated by Bravo and Dave.

Never mind I guess,

Eth

[Guest Laurent.]

Hey Laran...you wont get an argument with me about the fact that "money is money"....putting yourself in the role of a Fox exec, you dont give a hootenany where the money comes from. Boy, we sure have beat this topic to death haven't we???

4th Horseman

Hahaha we sure did! We'll probably never know how everything balances out anyway (considering production budget, promotion, b.o. percentage of the theater, etc. )...

P.S. hootenanny?! I had to look that one up!

[Guest ZeusFaber]

I cannot logically deduce why ITV would go to the expense of producing a special and then scheduling it at such a appalling hour. Given that most of their evening viewing is chock full of repeats one would assume an original offering was worth better treatment. If they did not view the special as a potential ratings winner and considered it one that could easily be slotted into such a time frame with little detriment then why bother to make it at all?

All said and done: it is what it is and no amount of lamentation can change it but I felt the UK's reception to this movie was poor and given that the X-Files was a staple offering of the Beeb for a number of years it was a shame that they did not pick up the trailer thus guaranteeing a much larger audience than that generated by Bravo and Dave.

I do agree that ITV's scheduling of the movie special was rather woeful and pointless. Shame about that, even though I rather loathed the style in which is was presented.

As for the trailer, it would have been a fair sight cheaper for Fox to have bought advertising time on the likes of Bravo and Dave than ITV1, but I still can't deny that it would have been a thrill to see it there.

[4th Horseman]

Its often been said word of mouth is the best advertising. You can spend till your blue in the face, pumping up a movie, claiiming its the best thing to come around since sliced bread, but if the "word on the street" is negative, all that money will have been spent for nothing. You can only fool the general public so much. Word of mouth, especially for a movie hampered by a low budget is critical. I truely felt that the overwhelmingly negative reviews received by critics kept this movie from becoming what it was intended to be, especially here in the U.S., not affecting the hardcore Philer, but most certainly those who were "looking for a movie to fill up a boring Sunday afternoon"..and if you dont believe me, if you try hard enough, you will remember a time in the past when you were swayed either negatively or positively by something you had read about a particular movie..i know i have..."I've heard this movie isnt very good, lets go see something else"...the key word in that sentence is "heard"....usually that means a combination of both word of mouth and printed reviews...

I dont care if Spotnitz and Carter claim it was a "stand alone" movie, requiring no previous knowledge of the X-Files mythos. You just cant escape your heritage, and if honesty were the key word for the day, most people find the X-Files a pleasant memory, a "ghost" from their past if you will...When John Q Public opened his morning newspaper a while back and saw the article that a "new" movie with Duchovny and Anderson was being made, and then saw them standing in strategic positions so that their shadows formed an X, what else were they supposed to think??? Claiming it was a seperate entity and then tying in directly back into the psychology of what you are telling people they dont have to be familiar with is confusing to most people. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too....to gain one thing, you have to sacrifice another....

In the end, the studio got what they wanted. They claim IWTB was made for the Philer, and the $$ reflect it. Its obvious that with 3/4 empty theatres, even on the opening weekend that only the most hardcore fans were going to see the movie. Yet even those fans, even the ones on this very board, cant agree on the merits of the movie. So then i ask you, WHY WAS IT A STANDALONE?? Seems to me, since only the most adrent fans plopped down their hard earned $$$, it should have been a direct tie in to the origional mythos...it looks like they tried to please everyone and wound up not pleasing anyone (with the exception of a few)....

just my opinions...

4th Horseman

[Guest Laurent.]

Well said 4th.

Personally, I think the X-Files is a better franchise with IWTB than without. It's a good movie and I'm glad they were able to make it. I'll try not to ponder too much about what could've or should have been and what will be.

What I find confusing is all the harsh reviews it received. I can understand how non-fans would not want to go see this movie; some call it the worst film in years.. I've never seen such exaggeration in professional critics. John Kenneth Muir (who loved the movie) posted a comment about this in on his website:

Monday, August 04, 2008

The Truth is Out There...

Entertainment Weekly has a fascinating post today from Whitney Pastorek about X-Files: I Want to Believe and the rising tide of critics and fans who have been defending this quality movie from the ludicrous and mean-spirited reviews it's been facing.

Here's a snippet:

...I sure as hell have been shocked by the dismissive, occasionally vicious beating it's taken from critics. My hometown Houston Chronicle, for example, gave it one star and called it "stupid, lackadaisical and schlocky." My mother, on the other hand, walked into an H-Town multiplex on Wednesday, and walked out calling the movie "wonderful."

So, what's going on? Are my mother and I just that stupid, lackadaisical and shlocky when it comes to our taste in movies? I'd like to think that's not true. And there are complimentary, thoughtful reviews from the likes of Roger Ebert, Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek, and John Kenneth Muir to reassure me we're not crazy. More likely, I think this introspective little movie fell victim to a number of traps...

Frankly, I find this increasingly vocal (and publicized...) push back against the so-called critical consensus a fascinating thing. My own suspicion is that there are a number of folks writing today (and "counted" by Rotten Tomatoes as legitimate film critics) who boast very little understanding of film as art, film history, or even film techniques. The only thing they actually review are their own prejudices and expectations. People should object to ignorant, ill-informed reviews.

I sincerely hope the push back is the beginning of a trend...

[4th Horseman]

Laran...good post...Pastorek's response to a critical review in particular, while polar opposite of his mother's impressions, has to be looked at very carefully. On the one hand, he does make a good point about some who are responsible for offering objective viewpoints bringing with them their own prejudices, who do have very little understanding of art, etc..

On the other hand, how do we filter out those who WE FEEL should not be taken seriously? What are the guidelines and markers by which we determine if someone elses viewpoint is legitimate?? We tend to drop our anchors of security in the waters of those we feel a kinship towards, a common ground if you will. Read a GOOD review of a movie you liked and that person becomes an Einstein or a Steven Hawkings....read a BAD review and suddenly that person "doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground". See where i am going on this?? If Roeper had conjured up a negative review, some of us here would be curcifying him over an open flame...yet, because he AGREED with us, he is revered as "one with insight"...notice how the positive reviews were describe as re-assuring, complimentary, and thoughtful...whereas negative reviews are viewed as something just left of Satanic...so basically what this person is saying is "lets begin a pushback to where only positive reviews are read about the movie, because ANYONE who disagrees obviously doesn't know that they are talking about and are only bringing prejudices to the table"...

Rotten Tomatoes is a great source for independent reviews from a variety of sources..yes, it has its share of competent as well as irresponsible reviewers. But just because someone feels disdain for something i like, doesn't mean that person is lacking in intelligence or unfit to offer their opinions....I happened to peruse over the IWTB reviews on the site and, unfortunately, with the movie only receiveing a 32 out of 100 overall, i looked into the validity of some of the reviewers and, yes i did find some who are from some off-branch site that is fairly unknown. However, and it is a big however, there are multiple negative reviews from Top Critics from all over the U.S. from well known and reputable sites, Toronto Star, Oregonian, TV Guide, Philadelphia Daily News, USA Today, Sacramento Bee, and a myriad of other sites. And to balance out the fairness, there are positive reviews from some of the more responsible sites as well, San Francisco Chronicle, Salon.Com, Miami Herald, Arizona Daily Star, etc...so, with the facts in hand, unfortunately, no matter how hardcore fans try to spin it, and even factoring out reviews both positive and negative from the smaller, unknown sites, and factoring in the prejudices brought to the table both in favor and against the movie, the movie would still more than likely be judged in the negative...its just a cold hard fact that Philers such as myself are going to have to deal with...

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x_files_2/

Also, I smell a scent of hypocrisy as this Pastorek character is obviously bringing HIS OWN personal prejudices into the picture as well, as it is obvious he is an X-Files fan....there is a real danger here in obsession and i think its pretty apparent here that no matter WHO reviewed the movie negatively, this person would be more than willing to supply the kindling for the "burning at the stake".....

this person is obviously offended and taking it personally, translating the review of "stupid, etc" from someone they dont even know as a personal attack. There is something very disturbing about that, and in my opinion, this person has become what they interpret the reviewer to be, incompetent and petty

there are reviews of "The Mist" that claim it is childish and boring, but i dont take it personally, i actually loved the movie and dont give a crap about what others think. Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel had this to say about "The Mist"

"It's laughable, and not in the good way".

The monsters are an icky grab-bag of Hollywood horror. But mostly just digitally funny.

- a 1 star out of 5...

Pretty bad review, but i still watch with delight and just figure this person and i have different perspectives and tastes....he is ENTITLED to his opinion...

4th Horseman

[Guest Sheree Dawn]

as said in a previous post, I was a bit disappointed due to the lack of paranormal aspect. Otherwise, it was very good; loved the chemistry between mulder and scully.

I would have liked to have see some shadowy figure provide some sort of miracle cure for the sick child scully was treating though.

My theater was packed, so I thought it did well