Feedback:
BOP Answers Its Mail
By Calvin Trager
October 4, 2004
There's a saying, "Beware of those who ask for feedback". It means people usually only want to hear the good things. Most people want to play it safe, keep doing the things they already know how to do. Reinforcement is a critical element to taking the easy way out; tolerance of mediocrity begets mediocrity. The problem with that little scenario is, where's the growth? Where's the satisfaction that comes with improvement, achievement?
Well, we at BOP love all the feedback, good and bad. We're all about continuous improvement, knamean? And there's no doubt that sometimes we are going to follow our own muse, even in the face of negative feedback. But having said that, we're also not afraid to embrace good suggestions, as we've shown throughout our tenure here. For that we say thanks. Thanks for helping make BOP the kind of place we can be proud of, and the kind of place you can be proud of, too.
Here then is some selected feedback and response from June 24 - July 12, 2004:
Anonymous feedbackers get no header love:
Can you re-display where the quote was from? I mean right now you have a quote and then where yesterday's quote was from. Can you re-display the quote from associated to the movie previously also? I forget what the quote was.
More fun with the quote of the day from the Dailies? I know it's you, Bob. You aren't fooling me with the "anonymous" shtick. Well, you may have won the war, but look who wins the meaningless battle that takes place after the war is over. Namely, me: Calvin "Petty" Trager. Currently the attribution to the quote appears in the next edition of the Dailies, and that's the way we like it, and so that's the way it's gonna stay. I would recommend some ginkgo biloba, or that you simply click back to yesterday's news to refresh your brittle, failing memory. Thanks for the feedback.
Bill is into peace, love, and naked hippies:
Just wanted to note, when you were talking about the top documentary hits at the box office, where does "Woodstock" come into the picture? Didn't it make a fair amount of money when it was released in 1970?
Hey: Records from that era are spotty at best, Bill. Woodstock did grab some decent coin back in the day. If the totals I found after a cursory Google search - $33 million - are to be believed, Woodstock is second all time behind F9/11. Adjust for inflation from way back to 1970, and you've got an even bigger number.
However, I have to note that Woodstock generally isn't included as a "real" documentary for record purposes, as concert films and IMAX format docs like Everest (roughly $100 million) are typically excluded. I saw one list of the top five highest-grossing documentaries of all time that showed Hoop Dreams ($7.8 million) at number five, with Woodstock nowhere to be found. This makes your point interesting but largely irrelevant - kind of like the '60s. Thanks for your feedback.
Jorge tabs Mr. 3000 as an early, early Oscar contender:
Is there any way that you can start earlier with the Oscar Tracking column? With Joan Rivers gone, I'm pretty sure that the Oscar sponsors are very worried with the imminent lost of viewers for the next event. Unless they decide to have Michael Moore as the host for the next Academy Awards ceremony, I think they need all the help they can get from ya guys... if that can help in any way.
Interesting thought, but starting earlier than we start would serve only to annoy our readers by listing films and performances that have no chance of actually winning. And we already have Les Winan and Survivor commentaries, so the reader annoyance quota has unfortunately been filled. Of course, now that it is October, and not July, we actually are prepping the debut of Oscar Tracking, so hang in there for a few more weeks. Thanks for the feedback.
Arsi hands me an unopened can of worms:
Ever thought of creating a forum for this site ?
From time to time we kick around the notion of creating a forum for BOP's readers. We usually end up concluding, however, that it would be significantly more trouble than it is worth. Perusing other sites that have forums generally reinforces our conclusion. If you've got something to say, you're stuck with me. Thanks for the feedback.
Brian pursues trivia:
F 9/11's performance in its first weekend was amazing. But what stands out to me is that it took in 20+ million with only 800 screens! A couple of questions came to my head after seeing those figures. 1) Was it the first film with under a thousand venues to break 20 million? 2) When was the last time a film took first place over the weekend without 1000+ venues?
I can tell you're a busy man, Brian, so I will get right to the point:
1) Yes. Now in distant second is The Original Kings of Comedy with $11 million on 847 screens.
2) Never. Further, only two such films in our database have taken second place (The Original Kings of Comedy in August 2000, and the re-issue of The Exorcist in September 2000, which earned $8.2 million on 664 screens - what, nobody thought to book two more? It's The Exorcist for crying out loud).
Thanks for your feedback.
Alan dishes on Tobey, Jake, and Spidey:
In the Forecast column by Reagen Sulewski, the parenthetical that Tobey Maguire was replaced by Jake Gyllenhaal for a time is incorrect. According to Sam Raimi (I can provide you audio of him saying this if you'd like), he was told that strenuous stunts could leave Tobey paralyzed. Not willing to risk that, he contacted Jake and explained the situation, offering him the part; however, Tobey's people responded explaining that the intitial warning was not from a medical assessment. Sam had Tobey examined and determined that paralysis was a remote possibility, although pain was likely. He says "pain is good for an actor" so he was satisfied that Tobey could continue in the role and he explained all this to Jake, who was fine with it. Sam also points out that, although he technically offered the role to Jake, Jake never accepted it and things never got beyond the conversation stage.
Kind of splitting hairs there, Alan, but we accept your clarification. I mean fine, Jake never donned the Spidey suit, but it sure seems like Wardrobe knew his size. Thanks for the feedback.
Joe shows his soft side:
I really appreciated your underappreciated list. With the exception of "Big Trouble", i agreed with your choices, especially the top 10. Might also be nice to add to the Iron Giant listing a bit of trivia - according to imdb, Ted Hughes wrote the original story for his kids, to help them get over their mother (Sylvia Plath) committing suicide. Always adds a bit of emotional resonance to the story for me. ... .joe
Joe, is it getting dusty in here or what? Pass the Kleenex. Also, thanks for showing the love for my personal favorite project that BOP has ever done, BOP's Favorite Underappreciated Films. Finally, you should know we're putting the finishing touches on a new list project that will be ready next week. Thanks for the feedback.
Erik gets ahead of himself:
Hi, Erik [edited], We were wondering if you could list our film on your site. We have listings on IMDBl.com Yahoo! Movies, MSN Entertainment and many others. Please view our site @ www.marilynsman.com Thanks for your consideration! -Erik
Here's some free advertising, Erik. When your film gets a US release date, you can be sure we will add it to our release schedule. Good luck, and thanks for the feedback.
Steven doesn't understand that cinema has no room for politics:
Regarding the Independence Day Weekend Forecast: Praise of moore's 911 was certainly not "near universal." Reviews from the liberal media trumpet it, while the conservative media points out that it is a one sided, patched together and out of context story (not documentary). Maybe reality is somewhere in between?
With all due respect, Steven, eff the liberal media, and eff the conservative media. What we were pointing out is that Fahrenheit 9/11 has an 84% fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes, and so the praise from film critics is nearly universal. While I personally wouldn't call 84% nearly universal, you get the point. We're a movie site. The statement was made outside of a liberal/conservative/political context. If you have an axe to grind, call O'Reilly. Thanks for the feedback.
Tazzy never misses a David Copperfield special:
Hi. Love your site. I'm somewhat confused. F. 9/11 added twice as many screeens and made aproximately the same money as it did last weekend and yet your site says it dropped 12%. Is my math off or am I not getting it. If you add 2X the screens and make the same money, didn't the box office drop by about half? Please explain...and use small words. Thanks. Tazzy
It's not smoke and mirrors, Tazzy. What dropped by nearly 50% was Fahrenheit 9/11's per screen average (PSA), which shows how much money the movie made for each movie theater that showed it. However, that's not how box office revenues are typically reported. A movie's total revenues earned for the weekend are what counts, independent of how many screens it occupied.
For most wide releases the distinction is immaterial, as the 3000+ plus screens it occupied in week one of release are comparable to the 3000+ screens it will occupy in week two of release. For smaller films that don't open as wide as possible, like Fahrenheit 9/11, screen count from week to week has a larger impact.
Similar phenomena can be observed in many other situations, as the "slow rollout" has become a textbook strategy for opening certain films. A recent example from last year is Love Actually. This film debuted over the November 7th, 2003 weekend, earning $6.9 million on 576 screens (PSA of $11,979). The following weekend it added screens, and increase its weekend gross to $8.7 million on 1,177 screens. This was seen as a very successful expansion, despite the PSA decline to $7,392. The film continued to expand in subsequent weeks, eventually grossing close to $60 million in the US, earning it modest hit status. Thanks for the feedback.
Denise knows Robert Redford when she sees him:
It is disappointing to see people refer to PIETER JAN BRUGGE'S DIRECTION AS 'SLOW AS MOLASSES AND A SNOOZER--IT IS UNFAIR SINCE THE MOVIE THEATRES IN NEW YORK CITY ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE MOVIE REELS THEY SHOW--I SAW THIS MOVIE TWICE--THE FIRST MOVIE HAD A CERTAIN HUE TO IT AS YOU MIGHT FIND THE GUYS ON THE STREET SELLING FOR $5.00---ROBERT REDFORD DID NOT LOOK LIKE ROBERT REDFORD IN THE FIRST SHOWING--IT LOOKED LIKE A POOR DOUBLE OF HIM AND DID NOT SOUND LIKE HIS VOICE AT ALL----THE SECOND SHOWING AT THIS SAME THEATRE SHOWED A MUCH MORE FIRED UP REDFORD, MORE INVIGORATED AND CERTAINLY SEEMED TO BE HIM AND THE QUALITY OF THE FILM WAS GOOD----THERE WAS NO HAZE OR HUE OVERTHE FILM QUALITY---IT IS UNFAIR TO BLAME THIS ON PIETER JN BRUGGE BUT RATHER ON THE UNITED STATES FRAUDULENT SHOWING OF MOVIES.
Denise, your well-considered opinion is only augmented by your choice of all capital letters. You are clearly not crazy, and I enthusiastically subscribe to your theory that there were in fact two versions of this film, the second one featuring, naturally, an all body double cast. Now, pursuant to our agreement, please release my dog. Thank you for your paranoid feedback.
Zima has a certain effervescent quality about her:
Why do you NEVER write anything about Luis Guzman???
To be fair, Zima, Luis Guzman has never written anything about us either.
To also be fair, we have written about him from time to time. Examples follow, in order of Google importance:
June 13, 2003 - Compulsive prognosticator Reagen Sulewski writes about Dumb and Dumberer, "Shame on Luis Guzman, shame on Mimi Rogers, shame on Eugene Levy, hell, shame on Bob Saget! You're all better than this. Any amount is probably too much for this film but it will probably eke out $8 million from people who will be really, really sorry."
July 8, 2003 - King of the TiVoPlex John Seal writes about Short Eyes, "The interesting supporting cast includes the debut of 20-year-old Luis Guzman (he doesn't speak, but his faux 'fro is repeatedly on display)."
November 18, 2002 - Obvious pseudonym John Seal writes about Hand Gun, "how can you go wrong when you have Seymour Cassel, Frank Vincent, Luis Guzman, Treat Williams, Michael Imperioli, and Paul Schulze all in the same film?"
November 4th, 2003 - president of the Luis Guzman fanclub John Seal writes about Punch-Drunk Love, "The film repeatedly stretches credulity, but is buoyed by a simply marvelous Watson performance (though her character’s motivation is utterly beyond me) as well as sterling support work from Anderson regulars Philip Seymour Hoffman and Luis Guzman."
Finally, in the Welcome to Collinwood movie listing, someone claiming to be Calvin Trager writes, "Unconventional yet extraordinarily gifted actors such as William Macy (Magnolia, Fargo), Michael Jeter (Del Delacroix in The Green Mile) and Luis Guzman (Traffic, Out of Sight) will join Rockwell and the beautiful female leads, Gabrielle Union (Two Can Play That Game) and Jennifer Esposito (Don't Say a Word) in this quirky heist flick."
The bottom line is, Luis Guzman is not the kind of actor that inspires reams of prose. However, as you can see by the above examples, BOP has nothing but respect for his talents. Thanks for the feedback.
Print this column
