Alexander: DVD by February?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by One-Shot Scot, Dec 28, 2004.

  1. Tuesday, December 28, 2004
    By Roger Friedman

    'Alexander' on Life Support

    Warner Brothers is about ready to pull the plug on Oliver Stone's
    "Alexander."

    The $200 million movie has become a gigantic fiasco, the company's
    biggest since Kevin Costner's "The Postman" took in only $17 million.

    "Alexander," which stars Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie and Val Kilmer,
    has only grossed $33.9 million. The sad fellow took in a little over
    $41,000 during the holiday weekend on its remaining (and paltry) 232
    screens. That translates into $177 per show. Ouch!

    The remaining exhibitors who have had this dud are now entering their
    sixth week and will likely dump it. Expect an "Alexander" DVD in time
    for Valentine's Day, possibly with featured "extras," like watching
    Farrell get his blonde highlights - just kidding.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142718,00.html
    One-Shot Scot, Dec 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. One-Shot Scot

    TCS Guest

    Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as interesting as
    watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even bother trying to pull
    the special effects scenes together with a lame plot as thin as that
    of a porno mobie?
    TCS, Dec 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. One-Shot Scot

    kaydigi Guest

    "TCS" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as interesting
    > as
    > watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even bother trying to pull
    > the special effects scenes together with a lame plot as thin as that
    > of a porno mobie?
    >


    Never even heard of this movie
    kaydigi, Dec 28, 2004
    #3
  4. One-Shot Scot

    RichA Guest

    On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:40:25 -0600, TCS
    <> wrote:

    >Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as interesting as
    >watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even bother trying to pull
    >the special effects scenes together with a lame plot as thin as that
    >of a porno mobie?



    1. Americans don't care about history.
    2. Alexander was boring, unfortunately.
    3. CGI battles didn't hurt Gladiator.
    4. No one wants to go see a queer "hero."
    RichA, Dec 28, 2004
    #4
  5. One-Shot Scot

    Justin Guest

    RichA wrote on [Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:17:25 -0500]:
    > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:40:25 -0600, TCS
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as interesting as
    >>watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even bother trying to pull
    >>the special effects scenes together with a lame plot as thin as that
    >>of a porno mobie?

    >
    >
    > 1. Americans don't care about history.


    Not unless it's a history where Americans are the victors, even if not
    true.

    > 2. Alexander was boring, unfortunately.
    > 3. CGI battles didn't hurt Gladiator.


    Yes, they did. As did shakey cam

    > 4. No one wants to go see a queer "hero."


    Thus Achiles was less controversial in Troy.
    Justin, Dec 28, 2004
    #5
  6. One-Shot Scot

    RichA Guest

    On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:41:11 GMT, Justin <> wrote:

    >RichA wrote on [Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:17:25 -0500]:
    >> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:40:25 -0600, TCS
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as interesting as
    >>>watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even bother trying to pull
    >>>the special effects scenes together with a lame plot as thin as that
    >>>of a porno mobie?

    >>
    >>
    >> 1. Americans don't care about history.

    >
    >Not unless it's a history where Americans are the victors, even if not
    >true.
    >
    >> 2. Alexander was boring, unfortunately.
    >> 3. CGI battles didn't hurt Gladiator.

    >
    >Yes, they did. As did shakey cam


    Hurt, as in box office dollars.
    >
    >> 4. No one wants to go see a queer "hero."

    >
    >Thus Achiles was less controversial in Troy.
    RichA, Dec 29, 2004
    #6
  7. One-Shot Scot

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Justin wrote:
    > RichA wrote on [Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:17:25 -0500]:
    >> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:40:25 -0600, TCS
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as
    >>> interesting as watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even
    >>> bother trying to pull the special effects scenes together with a
    >>> lame plot as thin as that
    >>> of a porno mobie?

    >>
    >> 1. Americans don't care about history.

    >
    > Not unless it's a history where Americans are the victors, even if not
    > true.


    Well, I simply don't believe that. What of the preponderance of successful
    Vietnam War movies?

    A statement as general as "Americans don't care about history" is completely
    meaningless. Some Americans care about history, and some don't, just like
    any other cultural group and subject matter. The fact is, "Alexander" was a
    poor movie, and its box office receipts reflect that.

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Dec 30, 2004
    #7
  8. One-Shot Scot

    Mark B. Guest

    "Justin" <> wrote in message
    news:2go.com...
    > RichA wrote on [Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:17:25 -0500]:
    >> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:40:25 -0600, TCS
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as interesting
    >>>as
    >>>watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even bother trying to pull
    >>>the special effects scenes together with a lame plot as thin as that
    >>>of a porno mobie?

    >>
    >>
    >> 1. Americans don't care about history.

    >
    > Not unless it's a history where Americans are the victors, even if not
    > true.
    >
    >> 2. Alexander was boring, unfortunately.
    >> 3. CGI battles didn't hurt Gladiator.

    >
    > Yes, they did. As did shakey cam
    >


    Gladiator did quite well in the theatre, in stark contrast to Alexander.

    Mark
    Mark B., Dec 30, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <cr01ue$ghn$>, Mike Kohary <> wrote:
    >Justin wrote:
    >> RichA wrote on [Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:17:25 -0500]:
    >>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:40:25 -0600, TCS
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as
    >>>> interesting as watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even
    >>>> bother trying to pull the special effects scenes together with a
    >>>> lame plot as thin as that
    >>>> of a porno mobie?


    >>> 1. Americans don't care about history.


    >> Not unless it's a history where Americans are the victors, even
    >> if not true.


    >Well, I simply don't believe that. What of the preponderance of
    >successful Vietnam War movies?


    >A statement as general as "Americans don't care about history"
    >is completely meaningless. Some Americans care about history,
    >and some don't, just like any other cultural group and subject
    >matter. The fact is, "Alexander" was a poor movie, and its box
    >office receipts reflect that.


    Box office receipts indicate a movie was not popular, not that it
    was a poor movie.

    Many films that are considered classics now died at the box office
    when they were first released. Those were in the days before
    every film had to be blockbuster and to be considered good had to
    be in the top-5 of boxoffice receipts.

    At one time a movie took months to make the rounds of the cities
    in the US - and now it's "everywhere at once". That can be both
    good and bad - depending on whether you judge a movie by how much
    money it makes, or what it's longevity is.

    Some films for the past few years have had big BO, but weren't that
    great in the overall scheme of things - and just sort of disappear.


    Bill

    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
    Bill Vermillion, Jan 1, 2005
    #9
  10. One-Shot Scot

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Bill Vermillion wrote:
    > In article <cr01ue$ghn$>, Mike Kohary <>
    > wrote:
    >> Justin wrote:
    >>> RichA wrote on [Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:17:25 -0500]:
    >>>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:40:25 -0600, TCS
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as
    >>>>> interesting as watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even
    >>>>> bother trying to pull the special effects scenes together with a
    >>>>> lame plot as thin as that
    >>>>> of a porno mobie?

    >
    >>>> 1. Americans don't care about history.

    >
    >>> Not unless it's a history where Americans are the victors, even
    >>> if not true.

    >
    >> Well, I simply don't believe that. What of the preponderance of
    >> successful Vietnam War movies?

    >
    >> A statement as general as "Americans don't care about history"
    >> is completely meaningless. Some Americans care about history,
    >> and some don't, just like any other cultural group and subject
    >> matter. The fact is, "Alexander" was a poor movie, and its box
    >> office receipts reflect that.

    >
    > Box office receipts indicate a movie was not popular, not that it
    > was a poor movie.


    Sure, I know that. But in this particular case, the two happened to go
    hand-in-hand. The public isn't always duped by poor movies, and they sure
    weren't duped by this one. The movie got bad reviews and poor
    word-of-mouth, and I think this time Americans simply listened and didn't
    waste their money. I don't think it has anything to do with the notion that
    Americans don't care for history in their movies, and there are several
    recent hits to disprove that claim.

    I'm not a Stone-basher, far from it. I love many of his not-so-recent films,
    and Platoon is an all-time favorite. But lately, he just seems to have
    "lost it". There's no other explanation - the movies he's making today bear
    little resemblance to the great films he was producing 15-20 years ago.

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Jan 2, 2005
    #10
  11. One-Shot Scot

    Omarichu Guest

    >>>>> 1. Americans don't care about history.
    >>
    >>>> Not unless it's a history where Americans are the victors, even
    >>>> if not true.


    Try to keep your seething jealousy in check.
    Omarichu, Jan 12, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tony Spadaro

    The lesson to be learnt from Darius Alexander

    Tony Spadaro, Sep 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    543
    Howard McCollister
    Sep 29, 2003
  2. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    452
    Doug MacLean
    Sep 7, 2004
  3. One-Shot Scot

    Alexander: A Huge Bomb!

    One-Shot Scot, Nov 28, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    1,015
    Stephen Cooke
    Dec 5, 2004
  4. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    443
    DVD Verdict
    Nov 3, 2005
  5. Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor

    REVIEW: "Operational Risk: Regulation, Analysis, and Management", Carol Alexander

    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor, Nov 5, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    548
    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor
    Nov 5, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page