David O. Russell Responds To Backlash Over Uncharted Movie

Remember the days when we couldn’t bitch and moan on the internet about every little bit of information that was released about a film? I miss them.

Fans complaining that something isn’t in the spirit of the source when they plainly know nothing about it is the biggest pain in the ass that the internet has produced.

Let the creative people do their thing. Make up your mind when you’ve seen it. End of.

Otherwise you end up with Twilight. Their fans demand absolute loyalty to the books and have therefore destroyed any chance of anyone doing anything remotely interesting with it.

says the guy with four paragraphs of bitching………………

I’m not quite sure what you meant by “Even the massive budget and big stars of Prince of Persia to prevent a flop.” (Perhaps an additional verb or clause might have avoided the sentence fragment. But I digress, on with the main point.) By WHAT standards does Prince of Persia merit being deemed a “flop?” I’ve yet to get how so many people want to yell “it’s a flop” when there doesn’t seem to be any LEGITIMATE reason for making such a statement.

Is a film a “flop” because it fails to meet a certain level of critical acclaim? Certainly, THAT might be reasonable IF it applied to ALL movies, regardless of genre. Critical acclaim, after all, is something not typically given to films in the SF/action-adventure genre. (By that measure, in fact, almost EVERY SF/action-adventure film would merit “flop.”)

Or is it, more likely, a failure to reach a certain monetary level? If that’s the case, what IS that level? What’s the measuring stick? Well, I’ve got an idea of a good measuring stick and something that might help dispel the notion of “flop” when it comes to certain films.

ALL films have a “production budget” and this makes for a decent guide for a film’s box office take to meet in order for the film to be a hit or a flop. According to BoxOfficeMojo, Prince of Persia had a production budget of $200 Million. Now, its domestic box office take (that generally means US and Canada) was only $90.76 Million, and if that had been the ONLY revenue generated, then the film could rightly be deemed a “flop.” The only problem is that the film was widely distributed overseas (aka “foreign release”). According to BoxOfficeMojo, the film’s foreign take was $244.39 Million which would qualify the film as a “hit” (since that take exceeds the production budget). Adding the two sets together, the film’s worldwide box office take was $335.15 Million which means the film made a 67.5% profit (even allowing for a HUGE advertising campaign–which isn’t usually counted in the production budget–the film still managed to break even).

If you want to talk “flop,” try Jonah Hex. A production budget of $47 Million; a worldwide box office take of less than $11 Million (with the domestic box office accounting for almost 97% of the worldwide take).

Or try Scott Pilgrim. A production budget of $60 Million; a worldwide box office take of less than $48 Million.

Or The Wolfman (last year’s del Toro/Hopkins film). A production budget of $150 Million; a worldwide box office take of less than $140 Million.

Honestly. Waaaaay too much attention is paid solely to the US/Canada box office unless, of course, the film was developed, produced and filmed in a foreign country. In that case, there’s NEVER any expectation of a film’s being a “hit” or a “flop.” (Alternatively, there are the “small” films–whether it’s something like The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity or The Kids Are All Right–when the film is made or bought for a mere pittance. In such a situation, the film’s status as “hit” or “flop” only matters if the film’s eventual box office take exceeds the amount of money spent on it. The first two examples were major box office hits while the last one, which has made a 400% profit over its production budget, has yet to be seen as a “hit,” though it certainly is not viewed as a “flop.”)

While I’ve used BoxOfficeMojo for the figures, that site is certainly as prone to a domestic box-office take myopia as nearly everyone else in the US. (You’d think that a site that includes a worldwide box office total and a breakdown of foreign marketplaces would be less likely to be so myopic in its view of what constitutes a “flop.” The site’s review of the “Big Botches of 2010″ highlights Prince of Persia, Knight & Day and Gulliver’s Travels, all of which exceeded their production budgets when the foreign markets are included.)

Who had plenty of interesting thoughts to express… unlike yourself.

The point a lot of people are missing is that Russell is using the name of the game to promote his movie, which seems to have only partial ties to the source material. Would you like a movie of Batman where he was a government employee,no cape and was loaned equipment to do his tasks of taking down crooks? Does that sound like Batman? No. Or Indinana Jones is a modern day currator of a large museum which terroists are trying to steal a magic artifact from it? Does that sound like Indianna Jones? No.
Does the discription of what Russell’s movie sound like Uncharted? No. You are basically filming YOUR story and adding the name recognition to lure people into watching it. Bait and Switch.

And before someone complains, i have never played the game, nor do i even own a console that can play it. But if i buy a book or watch a movie based off a source material, i want it to at least BE that. The fans of the source material have a right to angry.

I don’t know, I agree. It’s the same problem I had with Red – the movie itself was fine, but it wasn’t Red. If you want to make a movie about a bunch of international art thieves then go ahead and do that, but why use the Uncharted license?

Haha, ok so Twilight is probably not the best example! But to be fair I did say “remotely” interesting…