John Carpenter has a few financial flops on his hands that grow favorability as time moves on. The Thing for example.
I wonder if he ever considered that his movies tend to build an audience years after they leave the theaters.
Either way, It's pretty cool that his movies tend to age well in concept.
John Carpenter and Walter Hill both seem to have this happen with their films. I was literally thinking about this the past few days so it's funny you posted about it.
But Carpenter specifically, films like They Live, Fog, Prince of Darkness, even Big Trouble in Little China, they all seem to have found their audiences after they left theaters. It's interesting how that happens.
Have seen ghost of mars? If not ... keep it that way. Soooo badd lol.
But yea the thing and big trouble rule
financial flops on his hands that grow favorability as time moves on
Thats the sign of a great movie!
one that dumbass audiences dint get at first , but then people realise how good they are
The more of them a director has the more proud they should be.
Studio execs wont see it that way though 🤣
Big Trouble in Little China!
good example right there.
Peak Carpenter aged well, he does have some stinkers in his filmography though.
Box office isn't indicative of quality, just of what the majority of the average viewer goes out to see (but as Studios are businesses, they care about the money obviously). Same as those Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB ratings imo (but that's another topic altogether).
Maybe his movies were just weird enough not to be able to attract a large audience at time of release. Probably marketing, release dates and distribution play a role. I was always under the impression that he was more of a cult guy, not really a mainstream guy (maybe I'm wrong).
Home video, cable, and now streaming are probably large contributors for his longevity. When I was growing up we had a VHS of Starman, I remember seeing Prince of Darkness and Escape from L.A on cable (L.A. was on all of the time, and everytime I'd watch it, and it was the coolest when I was 11/12 lol). As time went on, I liked his style, I sought more of his stuff. Some are faves, some I don't care for all that much.
I honestly think he's a niche filmmaker, mostly liked and praised by movie people. And a lot of his movies are on the cynical side, which... most people might like more optimism and happy happy feelings in their movies.
I don't know what his feelings are about his movies finding their audience as time goes by, but I think he would've liked if they _were_ more financially successful, because that would've brought more opportunities and bigger budgets. The man never did get to make his Western :(
Closest he has is Vampires.
shareTotally agree. I love a lot of his movies, some are even legendary by any standard.
He made a few stinkers but he's one of the first directors I think of when people talk about great 'cult/genre/niche' movies.
His greatest hits still rock hard and he's a personal favorite.
Too bad about that Western, I imagine it would have been a very Sam Peckinpah style bloodbath and pretty damned good.