MovieChat Forums > Taking Woodstock (2009) Discussion > why did this movie tank so bad?

why did this movie tank so bad?

posted 15 years ago by elgatony
7 replies | jump to latest

After the huge success that was Brokeback Mountain, it seemed like Ang Lee might finally have captured an audience that likes their movies mature, told at a certain pace and in the end be made to think about the movie long after it's over. That said, ten years ago Ang Lee spent $15 million to make Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and had a $127 million winner; in 2009 he spent $35 million on Taking Woodstock, which grossed just $7.5 million. Meanwhile, The Hangover — another no-star comedy about drugs and larceny, also costing about $35 million — was the year's top-grossing comedy.

So what happened? Was the movie that bad or are we tired of seeing the 60s generation pat themselves on the back again from being so cool yet giving us Bill Clinton and George W. Bush as representative leaders from their generation? And just who is this Demetri Martin anyway? I get that he has a show on Comedy Central but how and why was he chosen to be the poster boy for this movie instead of Liev Schreiber getting his part?

Gene (points at his armpit): Get a waft of that, man-stink. See if that doesn't moisten your gusset!

[–] JR541 15 years ago

This needed to be made in the 1990's for it to have a chance.

He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?

[–] Drunkdragon 15 years ago

In my opinion, because Ang Lee left out the most important thing about Woodstock- the music. I completely lost interest when I read one consistent point about this movie, and that was the fact that the music is pretty much absent. I like movies about almost any subject but when I watch a movie about Woodstock, I want some music. Why does Ang Lee keep getting such high acclaim? BBM was boring as hell, he f'ed up The Hulk, and then he makes Woodstock with no music? He sucks.

[–] elgatony 15 years ago

"This needed to be made in the 1990's for it to have a chance."

I thought the 90s was about trying to bring back the 70s, hence Dazed & Confused, Detroit Rock City, Jackie Brown, etc.

Gene(points at his arm pit:Get a waft of that,man stink. See if that doesn't moisten your gusset!

[–] JR541 15 years ago

It was. I probably should have said "No later than the 90's"

He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?

[–] fireandloosechange 15 years ago

stoncoaus, I just watched it and ITA. Even though Liev was only in a few scenes, he stole the movie IMO. I really missed hearing some of those great songs, but didn't get the pleasure. Back to Liev, the subtlety of his acting in this role deserved a supporting actor nod. The guy is grossly underrated. The movie in and of itself was a big disappointment.

[–] patrick255 15 years ago

Just because movie tanked at the box office, it doesn't mean it's bad. A lot of terrible movies did well at the box office. That doesn't mean crap! It just means how popular the movie is.

[–] rgcustomer 15 years ago

This wasn't Citizen Kane, but it was a good, average film. Certainly it was better than Hulk (2003) (and The Incredible Hulk (2008)).

But just look at the comments.

The main reason I see that this movie tanked was because it had the wrong title. If the word "Woodstock" wasn't in the title, then people wouldn't have gone into the film expecting to see Woodstock. (And good grief, if that's what they wanted, why didn't they go rent Woodstock instead? Isn't that thing long enough to satisfy anyone's lifetime need for Woodstock footage? But I digress)

It was also hurt (and The Hangover was helped) by homophobic audiences. The US, after all, is a place where people still vote to strip marriage rights away from gay people, so of course they'd prefer The Hangover's open bigotry to the tolerance shown in Taking Woodstock. The story is a true story (with minor changes) of one of the people involved in a small way in getting the White Lake location for Woodstock. Sometimes when people learn things about their heroes, they discover something bigoted about themselves.

I give it 7/10.