Re: Underperformed? According to WHOM?

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The View Askew WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Kevin at on April 30, 2004 at 15:51:30:

In Reply to: Underperformed? According to WHOM? posted by GoShawty*Its ya Birthday* on April 30, 2004 at 14:27:53:

: --You've been saying all along that you're less concerned with
: Box Office than with people actually liking the movie and taking
: meaning from it. Well we can safely say it "performed" that!

True, true. However, it would've been nice to be seen by more people in the theaters.

Again - this ain't about box office. This is about asses in the seats. And most of the asses wrote
shitty reviews instead.

: Even Larry King said, "If you don't like it, you don't have a pulse" and
: I think of him as a serious news personality rather than a gossipy type.
: As in he's not faddish.

True dat.

: Long post short, I can understand your disappointment in a perceived
: underperformance if you're listening to certain heads of certain companies.

No, they've actually been cool at Miramax. Harvey said "This movie should've done at least fifty,
and we know exactly why it didn't."

: But if you're staying true to what you intended to do, you should be happy.

Very true. More on that in the coming weeks.

: --Again with this schtick?

Dude, always. You KNOW I love drama.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The View Askew WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]