The Hot Blog

I didn't hear anything bad about the film, I just had no interest in seeing it. Boxing films aren't that interesting to me.

Has there been anyone that have been saying the film is bad and should be avoided?

Can't they just accept that they made a film that doesn't have a wide appeal?

I think it is one of the top three or four films so far this year, but it just felt like it was released at the wrong time. It should have opened smaller and platformed. Million dollar Baby did that and look what happened to it!

Patrick: From time to time, people on this blog have complained about platform releases, and have insisted that movies should open everywhere at once, so everyone, everywhere, can see them at the same time. Unless I'm mistaken, you are the first person who's ever argued in favored of platforms here. Mind you, I think you're entirely correct.

u can't platform a release with a budget as high as cinderella and a star like crowe. this wasn't some vanity piece.

I think all movies should platform. The multiplex rules now, so plenty of room, why not. May make people anticipate movies more and not be put off by the ominous second-third week drop.

I also think reactions to trailers should be taken more seriously in the thimble-sized think tank that is pre-release market testing. If people boo a trailer all around the country, then a Wide release might be a big mistake until trailer and or editing of a movie is rethought.

Paying movie patrons should be able to ask for their money back if they request it before the halfway point of ANY movie. If a movie fails to grip in the first 45 min of a 100 minute story, then it probably sucks. badly.

People wouldn't ask for their money back if they were really enjoying themselves up to the halfway point. I've paid to see a beloved movie more than once.

The bigger problem in the money back guarantee risk is that often the endings suck so badly it sours the build-up to the end point. You want your money back but you did stay til the end. Maybe you can get a Gift Bag in those instances. That would soften the blow to my cranium. "The end of the movie sucked but I got this cool skinny tee, man".

For the protrayal of Max baer I would have asked for my money back, no question, for Cinderella Man, also for the quite evident avoidance of the Joe Louis issue and the devil's deal of pilfered purse earnings--it was evident by half-way through that this subject would not be broached at all. REFUND.

This is a dumb convo since this has no chance in hell of ever happening. Platforming. It died in 1976 and won't come back.

I would think it gauche to demand money back,though on a handful of occasions I've simply snuck out of one theater and into another. Although I can think of three movies so excruciating that psychic protest compelled me to fall asleep ("Guilty By Suspicion," "The Bodyguard" and "Legends of the Fall"), but that was towards the end of the years when I felt compelled to see nearly everything that came out, I've since developed a much better advance gut for what I'm going to like or not (though I was truly shocked at how dismal "Legends" was); but very little anymore seems like it won't play as well, or well enough, on video, and a rental's a fifth of the investment of a New York ticket.

Lester: What color is the sun on your world? Does the word "platform" mean the same thing there as it does here? Because here, platforming still occurs. Most recently, with the Oscar-winning "Million Dollar Baby."

I would have asked for my money back. Didn't care for it at all.

Hey Joe, what was the last movie with a budget like Cinderella Man to platform? Yea. I can't think of one either. It is a dead thing. Oh sure they will still do it for smaller flicks. Movies that will get blown away if they try and open big and lose a lot of money. And the sky is blue here.

That's a good question Lester. What was the last movie with a platform release that had a budget comparable to Cinderella Man?

i can't think of one movie that platformed with a budget like that and the star power cindy has. u just can't platform big movies like this when u need to make as much money as u can

According to the New York Times filmography of Sam Mendes, Road to Perdition was a platform release because it opened on fewer than 1,800 screens and eventually expanded to over 2,300. But I'd have to disagree with that.

Lester: You didn't say anything about budgets in your original posting. You said: "Platforming. It died in 1976 and won't come back." Now you're coming back and saying something different. Using the same contorted logic that has been applied by some other posters here, this obviously means you're a bleeding-heart leftie. That, or a racist.

BTW: I'm sure that my quoting you will upset those people here who don't like to read quotes. That's life.

Just wondering: does anyone think the Oscar/commercial success of Million Dollar Baby hurt Cinderella Man?

I'll be a tad clearer next time for Mr. I Don't Get It Leydon, everyone. But since you avoid my questions about the subject at hand, its obvious you are conceding that you are wrong. Unless you have something smart alecy to say about how I worded this posting here and still don't get that platforming of most major releases, especially for blockbuster wannabee's just doesn't happen. And died in 1976.

You just can't platform a major release in this market. It really goes against everything nowadays. They have so much invested in the first few opening weekends that even if platforming was a better option, it would never happen.

and 1800 screens isn't platforming. I'd say it has to start under 750.

An interesting sidenote: Of all the "big" summer movies I have seen at sneak previews or on opening night, Cinderella Man was the only one that was sold out!

When I saw CM last week there were about four people present.

Goes to show that every theatre in every town in every state is different.

yeah but that was last week after it had been out a month, I am talking about opening weekend, which the studios seem to be obsessed with lately.

Once again, Les the Mess, you're adding stuff after the fact to your original posting. Now I'm beginning to think you are a racist leftie, perhaps with a deep appreciation for "The Honeymooners" (the film, not the TV show).

You keep harping on 1976 -- presumably, because you read in a book somewhere that "Jaws" (which forver changed release patterns) was released in 1975. So let me see if I understand this correctly. You want me to name a single blockbuster released since 1976 that was platformed? OK, if you insist: "Star Wars." Now, if you want me to name something more recent, I need to get a definition from you: Are we talking about movies that EARNED zillions of dollars, or only movies that COST zillions of dollars? Because if we're talking about COST, and COST alone, I would agree that it's hard to think of a movie that cost $100+ plus million to make that was platformed. (Mind you, I can think of a few that maybe SHOULD have been platformed, but that's an entirely different discussion.)But, then again, "Cinderella Man" had a budget of around $80 million, right?

I'm not trying to be evasive here, I just want to fully understand what you mean. Because if we're talking about GROSS, well, I'm sure some people on this blog could argue that "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" was a blockbuster.

Back to the question at hand: I think it's a nice gesture on the part of AMC, supporting a movie they apparently think is high-quality. But in general, it's a silly, bordering on stupid, idea. It pushes the populism-gone-insane idea that movies should please as many people as possible.

To ask for a refund after a movie -- if you stayed until the end, and I have little respect for anyone who walks out of a movie unless it's causing them physical or mentral distress -- you have to have one of two mentalities. The prevailing one, I would imagine, can be found in the type of person who considers anything playing in less than 800 theaters art-house wankery that "real people" can't enjoy; that is, they can't conceive of a movie whose goal isn't to be entertaining and likable (and probably affirming of their own personal, not particularly interesting, values). Bicycle Bob, for example, judging from previous posts mentioning (dismissing, really) "obscure indie movies," seems to be in this camp. Perhaps also Box Office Mojo's Brandon Gray, since I recall his many "Academy Awards are out of touch with 'the people'" asides/articles from Oscar season.

The other refund type would be those who allow snobbishness to overtake their understanding of an art form; I didn't like Cinderella Man, but I'd feel pretty churlish demanding my money back just because it wasn't hip or smart or edgy enough for me (not that those were my only problems with it, but, again, you have to imagine someone willing to ask for money back on what is inherently a gamble -- whether or not you will like a given movie).

If the *presentation* is poor, yes, by all means demand a refund; in fact, I think more people should do this when they encounter bad framing, schmutz on the lens, sound problems, etc.

But if you ask for your money back when you don't like a movie, what kind of a message does that send? That theaters should complain when studios provide movies that John Q. Yokel (or Jonathan Q. Pretentious Jackass) dislikes?

Further, if AMC is going down this questionable road, I'd love it if they made this offer for a genuinely under-promoted, little-known gem, not an $80 million ex-Best Picture contender that didn't quite connect. Does Corporate Giant #1 really need Slightly Smaller Corporate Giant #2 to give them a leg up?

Joe, why are you on the pro platforming team? It works for little movies and movies with zero expectations. But I doesn't work in a business model for real movies. Studio films. And anything with Crowe is a blockbuster waiting to happen. It has gone to the Hollywood grave just like ripoff studio contracts that last 10 years. It is the past. It is sweet that you're nostalgic but its unrealistic.

I am now Les the Mess because Joey I Love The Honeymooners for some reason Leydon can't read. Does that make you a leftie racist? Quote me on that you jerkoff.

You don't platform a movie if you are looking to make money. You platform small movies that may be award worthy or just to fool award voters. It is a terrible idea to platform a potential money maker. Flat out terrible.

"Jerkoff"? Ah, more nasty language. You racist, Honeymooner-loving lefties certainly can be nasty little buggers.

Joe Leydon really hates Lefties. Stella's Boy you should be prepared. He is coming for you next.

Figures as much. The guy can't win a battle of ideas and has to resort to petty insults. if I wasn't so thick skinned I guess I would take offense. But I never let a dummy ever get me down. And I won't start now with this one.

Petty insults? Moi? Excuse me: "Dummy." "Jerk-off." THOSE are petty. Once again, more truth-twisting from commie racists. Stella's Boy, take note: Don't be associated with this crowd. It'll only besmirch your reputation.

What do you expect from Liberals? Solid discussions and worthwhile movement of ideas? You're kidding yourself.

Platforming is an essential form of release for particular films - and yes - it can apply to films that have high budgets. All films are potential money makers - and sometimes a scaled release is how you ensure that it becomes a potential money maker. Otherwise it can fail to find its audience, be overshadowed by ballyhoo etc. Two words - ALMOST FAMOUS. btw Star Wars took 6mths to overtake JAWS. 76 the end of platforming? I think you need to check # of prints for most films in the late 70s early 80s.

The 80's isn't todays market. Either is the 70's. It is feast or famine for most movies.

Can you imagine if they platformed Star Wars 3? Really fabulous business but you never know in Hollyweird.

It is essential for small films and award chasers. But it can't be done for really any other release.

Platforming is very, very difficult to accomplish simply in the maintaining and expansion of screen count. It works in peak periods when a slow period is coming and the film is essentially released wide after being released narrow (Christmas/January), but a film like Dogtown would never have gone up from 600 screens had they started there and the big expense is not the prints, but the advertising, which you need a lot of to even support modest releases.

You may recall that Sideways opened and gave screens up for two months before, esssentially, re-opening. Not a platform.

The new platform (outside of Dec/Jan) is the festival and college circuits.

"I would have asked for my money back. Didn't care for it at all."

I think it's pretty pathetic for people to be asking for money back for any reason other than bad cinema experience. If the screen was bad or some other factor came into play, fair enough if you think it warrents it (me and some friends wanted something from the cinema we saw Upside of Anger at because we could hear Star Wars from the next cinema - everything from the music to R2D2's screeches).

But if you watch a movie from beginning to end and demand your money back... BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T LIKE IT is just stupid. Who gives a flying fuck (sorry) whether you liked it or not - you paid for it, your watch it. You would know enough about Cinderella Man before going in to, well, know what to expect. If you didn't like that it was too depressing (?) or too sepia toned (?) then that's not the cinemas fault and they shouldn't have to give you your money back because you're a picky snob.

And I think that was essentially what Jesse was saying, but, whatever.

I'm fairly certain Lota's original ramblings on this thread were absolute drivel. I demand my TIME back that I wasted reading it. Oh, wait, I CAN'T.

I'm fairly certain the only reason "Million Dollar Baby" eventually got to $100mil is because of the Oscars. If it had "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"'s release I'm sure - positive reviews or not - it would not have reached that number.

And can we include "Chicago" as a recent platform success? I believe it started out at only a few cinemas and ended up making $170mil from a couple of 1000 cinemas. I may be wrong though.

My question is how this will affect box office estimates...will we see Cinderella Man estimated higher and then see how many rebates there were after the actuals come out?

its very pathetic to ask for ur money back on a well made movie like cinderella man. at least ask for it back if ur one of the 5 people who saw the honeymooners. thats worth it

Compared to 90% of movies out there, Cinderella Man is a classic. This is just bad business anyway because even if you love the film why wouldn't you get your money back?

KamikazeCamel: Yes, "Chicago" was definitely platformed. It opened on 77 theaters, then the next week went to 304, then 362, then 557, then 616, then 623, then expanded to 1,841 theaters in its seventh weekend.

I wish they gave this deal out for every movie. I'd never pay to see a movie.

I think that a return to the seventies model of platforming could help increase buzz about particular films but there is a point to be made that a film of a particular budget could be hurt by platforming.
A studio would have to be very certain about the buzz a film was creating if they were to platform. With Cinderella Man, I'm not sure if it would have worked because the buzz was very soft.
On a personal level I don't like platform releases because I live in Iowa and I can't stand having to wait for movies like Mad Hot Ballroom and Smartest Guys in the Room. If I had to wait for movies like CInderella Man I would be tearing my hair out.

I just saw "Be Cool" - had I seen that in a theater, I would have demanded my money back. But not from AMC; I'd have knocked on Travolta's door.

travolta should be donating his salary on that to people who paid 10 bucks to see it.

The money back thing may backfire, because as Blustealer indicated, some people will be corrupt about money, and, even if they enjoyed the movie, would ask for their money back. I think the halfway rule should apply, becasue i find it hard to believe that anyone would leave a movie they were really getting into, halfway through.

Maybe the answer re. platforming is to start bigger with event/blockbusters (1200-1800), but not go really wide unless they are turning over money by the 4th week. Even small platforms shouldn't ignore the heartland. I have friends who will drive 4 hrs each way to see a movie simply becasue there's nothing else for them to do. They'd see anything, if it was available, but often it isn't. So if a movie is opening, instead of opening only in 20 major cities in a few theatres each, it could be more inclusive, like opening in the biggest college town in the rural states where people are looking for something to do/see in the dog days of summer and winter anyway. Hell why not. Billy Jack four-walled across America and made a fortune versus how much it cost, but I suppose that is an exceptional case.

Time will tell if my ramblings are Absolute drivel, CK, perhaps I should be more terse. But it's stress. You try to work with hippees and keep your sanity. But I did find an artist though who even though she's a hippee and lives on a single track road in SIlverlake, she keeps to deadlines(!), is responsible about money(?!!) and isn't depressed (!!!).

So my posts are set to increase in quality.

Everyone would be getting there money back if that policy was put into place. You want to talk about slumps when that happens?

Do you guys really think the suits haven't crunched the numbers w/ regards to refunds? Come on, they've done their homework and have figured the free publicity that this stunt creates will more than compensate for the freeloaders. And w/ regards to the theaters - F*CK 'EM! They have no issue charging 10 bones per flick then they can take me asking for my money back after watching the final credits roll as part of the COST OF DOING BUSINESS.

peace out.

off topic - platform releasing can't work on blockbuster bait. The debt is too heavy to carry for an extended run. Besides we're in the era of "SHOCK & AWE" film releasing. Hit 'em w/ everything you got mentality!

"Be Cool" was unwatchable. Didn't Poland like it or am I wrong?

Thank you Anonymous for stating the obvious. Where would we all be without ya?

you're welcome lester.

who thought be cool would be good anyway?

I really liked Get Shorty. Travolta hit a home run with that one.

Travolta either needs a new agent or a new religion to follow.

Christ there's a lot of idiots on this website. Who wastes their time saying things like "I really liked Movie X. Actor X was great". If you're going to say something, how about some detail? Some personal opinion? Why are you wasting your life parroting advertising taglines?

How do they decide to give the money back? If this thing is based on the honor system AMC is screwed.

I'd be getting my dough back for every movie I saw. Why should I give it to them when i can get it back and see it for free?

I really liked Movie Y. Actor B was great.

Here's what I'm wondering (I haven't seen it discussed anywhere): Are the refunds for "Cinderella Man" factored into in its reported box-office gross? If not, "Cinderella Man" could potentially see an enormous bump in its calculated gross and ranking in the box-office standings. That would be an enormous boon for the movie as far as the public's perception of the film, which will help it on every front. It may sound crazy (and somewhat immoral), but it reminds me of what Prince did to pump up reported sales for his last album, when he gave it out for free to everyone who attended his concerts, artificially pushing it to #1 on the Billboard charts.

Who cares? This has just given the movie free publicity.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: