Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/08/20/kevin-spaceys-new-movie-make.html
…
5 Likes
14 Likes
Kinda sucks for basically everyone else involved in making that film.
44 Likes
This seems like a terrible movie that got no marketing and it just happens to have Kevin Spacey in it. How can a movie with Ansel Elgort and Taron Egerton not have a car chase and think it’s going to make money?
9 Likes
Sometimes excellent movies get no publicity. If this had opened in my backyard, I couldn’t have gone to see it - because I never heard of it before today. Do you know it was a bad movie, or just assume it must be, if it has a bad man in it?
7 Likes
I did say it “seems” like a terrible movie. I based that off of the Metacritc and Rotten Tomatoes scores as well as the plot synopsis. I don’t care if Spacey is in it or not I was trying to say I think it tanked because it was a bad movie that no one cared about.
5 Likes
So only like 3 arthouse theaters had shown it?
4 Likes
Not so. It primarily tanked because it has an exposed serial sexual abuser in it, whose presence tainted the entire project.
14 Likes
The fact that the film only made $500 is not a signal that Spacey’s career is over.
Make no mistake, his career IS OVER. But this is not a demonstration of it, from an “audience acceptance” point of view.
Truthfully, you’d have to work very hard to NOT market a film in order for it to tank that hard. There are enough trolls in the world, and enough people who would likely say “You know what, I’m just going to see it on a whim” to bring it over $500.
What this means is that the film was intentionally shitcanned. It was produced, and then sold to no theaters and marketed to no audience, so that it would purposefully fail and disappear.
It was done so that the other actors would not have the stain of appearing high-profile film alongside Spacey on their resume. If they’re smart they immediately booked something else to fill in their IMDB page so people gloss over it.
The film was intentionally tanked. It made 500 more dollars than the studio wanted it to.
24 Likes
It got no marketing BECAUSE it had Kevin Spacey in it. The only reason the studio released it at all was for the sake if all the non-Kevin-Spaceys involved in the movie.
8 Likes
I saw the 1987 made for tv movie at the time, and thought it was pretty good. Starring Judd Nelson.
If you can find a DVD copy that is…
4 Likes
Currently hovering at 11% on Rotten Tomatoes, for whatever that’s worth.
4 Likes
10 Likes
You think most people seek out obscure movies, and then check to see if any of the cast are abusive before going? I must be an outlier.
3 Likes
I don’t see the relevance of your question to what I wrote. This movie seems to have tanked not because people didn’t seek out, but more because it wasn’t marketed well at all, because it has an exposed serial sexual abuser in it.
5 Likes
True, but at least they’ve all been paid. And the banks/investors that bankrolled it can write it off.
8 Likes
The power of advertising. Imagine how much less shit we would consume without advertising and marketing.
12 Likes
I would think those are two different things. You think the executives weigh the actors’ sins before designing the advertising campaign? I suppose it’s possible.
1 Like
They don’t usually weigh such “sins,” I imagine, but given that these sins have been so widely exposed that they’ve destroyed Spacey’s career and tainted anything he’s publicly associated with, I’d imagine that in the case of this movie, they did weigh them before spending money on an advertising campaign.
5 Likes
Sexual abuse has been going on in hollywood for 100 years and the news media has not seriously tried to expose it until recently. All of the incestuous relationships between entertainment and news businesses probably had a lot to do with it. Too many “open secrets” to count.
2 Likes
