MovieChat Forums > Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) Discussion > A movie that indicates what's wrong with...

A movie that indicates what's wrong with Hollywood.


It seems all we ever hear anymore is how Hollywood can't catch a break, sales are down, nobody's going to the movies anymore, and these "Record Years" we're always hearing about are the result of a dozen or so tent pole films, usually relying heavily on franchise appeal, and they all have mega sized budgets to go along with their massive grosses.

But, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies shows what is wrong quite nicely. It's a movie that has zero appeal to anyone, and it's pitiful 5 mil opening weekend shows this.

First, there are no movie stars, except the girl that played Cinderella and let's face, no one cares who played Cinderella, they went to see the character, not the actress. The same way no one cares who played Thor (why Chris Hemsworth's movies keep bombing), no one cares who played Alice in Wonderland (can't even remember her name but her career has definitely gone nowhere), and nobody cares who played Superman (quick, name two other Henry Cavil movies!).

Second, the movie doesn't know its audience. The title sounds like a joke but there's no humor in the trailer. The title also suggests a horror movie but the PG-13 rating and total lack of scares in the trailer also kills this idea, sort of why Victor Frankenstein disappeared without a trace from theaters a couple months ago. So what's left, an action movie with no real appeal to male audiences, the main demographic an action movie should court? All the leads are female but are also conservatively dressed, not a good way to reach the young male audience the PG-13 rating implies they were shooting for.

Third, the advertising was weak. I don't really know what this movies about, and frankly the average moviegoer isn't familiar enough with Jan Austen's novel to assume knowledge of the original source material, let along already know the plot of the cult novel on which this film is based. All I really know is that zombies are attacking the Victorian era (you'd think there'd be something about that in the history books, wouldn't you?) and for some reason, a group of young ladies of the day inexplicably trained in Matrix style kung-fu are best equipped to stop them.

Forth, no respect for the directorial process. I have no idea who Burr whatsit is but I am certain that he, like most directors working in film today, has no vision and, frankly, no business directing movies. He probably knows how to work a camera, knows how to kiss studio ass, and, more than likely had the family money to get his foot in the door. Seriously, where are the Coppolas and the Tarantios of our day. I can't think of more than two or three directors to emerge in the last decade with anything resembling a strong vision or a remarkable, ever expanding body of work.

So, everybody enjoy the next ten Star Wars films, the third reboot of the Terminator franchise, and the ever expanding superhero universe because at this rate, we don't have much else to look forward to in our movies. I guess we'll all just have to stay home, save our money, and watch T.V. if we want actual storytelling from talented people.




Batman Vs. Jurassic Park, releasing 2018. Sadly, it's not that far fetched.

reply

Nice post, you're so right.

reply

Immortals
The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

reply

Are you inferring that U.N.C.L.E. was a poorly made film? Or that it was poorly advertised and most people sadly won't see a movie if they don't see a hollywood 'A list-er' in it's credits?

If you mean the latter then I agree with you.
PP&Z is suffering from a similar conundrum, while it wasn't nearly as good as the movie mentioned above, it definitely deserves better ticket sales then it's currently receiving. I can't understand why the masses are so fickle and why hollywood doesn?t promote better. Film IS dying out as an art form and it's a crying shame. :/

reply

I agree - it's as though most people can't be bothered to look at anything that doesn't have a big-name star in it. I learned ages ago that big-name stars do not guarantee a great movie (see "The Avengers" from 1998), and that films with actors you've barely heard of can be fantastic (like "Ex Machina" this past year). Re: The Man from U.N.C.L.E., I thought it was an excellent film and I enjoyed it far more than most of the films I saw last year, even though I didn't expect to.

I found most of the OP's complaints really ridiculous, except perhaps that the marketing was weak. Regarding the film not knowing its audience, I would counter that the film knew its audience - fans of both period and zombie films, sense of humor a must - very well, but perhaps the OP was not sharp enough to realize what the film was actually aiming for? I will admit that this might be a smaller demographic than "teenaged boys looking for blood, explosions and titties", but it is a defined audience. As for the competence of the director, I'd certainly rather watch P&P&Z again than sit through Tarantino's "The Hateful 8" one more time. So there's that.


Cum simioli e culo meo volent.

reply

The OP asked for 2 Cavill films other than MOS, that poster named 2.




Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

reply

I was just answering OP's request to name two other Henry Cavill movies

reply

The Count of Monte Cristo
Stardust




Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

reply

Back when Natalie Portman first optioned the rights to Grahame-Smith's novel, it was reported in the press that she intended to star in it herself, despite being well beyond a credible age to portray a 20 year old. Would you have preferred her in teh lead role?

reply

Back when Natalie Portman first optioned the rights to Grahame-Smith's novel, it was reported in the press that she intended to star in it herself, despite being well beyond a credible age to portray a 20 year old. Would you have preferred her in teh lead role?
Lily James looks young enough to portray a 20 year old. She is actually 28.

So, when exactly did Portman option the rights? She is eight years older than James. If she optioned the rights eight years ago, or even six years ago, the idea of her portraying a 20 year old wouldn't be incredible.

reply

The thing is : There are too many movies being released every year and frankly, most of them flop and bring nothing new to the table. Even these big studio movies are a *beep* bore to me. Most of them anyways. It seems like the only person that is allowed to create an original blockbuster and be successful at the same time, is Christopher Nolan. And surly, if a big gamble fails, the studios make sure to not make the same misstake again. Which is why we're at the current state of movies.

That doesn't mean that we don't get original and well made movies. They are still out there, there will always be good movies and bad ones, its just that nowadays we seem to get more of the bad than of the good.

And its also the fault of the general public to not watch the movies that deserve their attention, instead of the generic crap that we've seen a thousand times. People would rather watch spectacle instead of a drama dealing with a serious topic, even though it may be objectively better.

So basically, to change the state of movies or Hollywood, one must support the movies that are actually good. Remember: the studios make the movies audiences want to see, and if audiences want to see Transformers part 53, and it keeps making money, then the studios will keep making them. Thats the film-business...

reply

Hollywood would be a worse place if it wasn't for the B-movie, cinema would be pretty boring.

You don't have to be R rated, blood and guts to be a horror movie!!! This wasn't really marketed as horror movie or a comedy either. As it's based on a best seller there must be an audience for it, or just people like me you like quirky films, b-movies and something a little different.

no one cares who played Alice in Wonderland (can't even remember her name but her career has definitely gone nowhere)

That's not true, and her career was already in swing before she did Alice, not everybody wants to be in hollywood movies all of the time, she does a lot of work back home.


All I really know is that zombies are attacking the Victorian era (you'd think there'd be something about that in the history books, wouldn't you?)


Are you or real? this isn't a documentary, biopic or a history lesson it's a silly, over the top B monster movie. Lighting up you mardy pants.

everybody enjoy the next ten Star Wars films, the third reboot of the Terminator franchise, and the ever expanding superhero universe

Because they're the only movies people seem to go see.

reply

Yep, Mia Wasikowska's career is going great.

And the commenter you're responding to clearly doesn't know history or Jane Austen, unlike millions of others. Pride and Prejudice certainly is NOT set in the Victorian era! Austen was dead two decades before the era even started!

reply

I enjoyed the film and am hoping for a [american and super-star free] sequel.

reply

Victorian era? Try again. Queen Victoria wasn't even born yet in the year this is set.

reply

[deleted]

You're an American aren't you...

"the average movie goer isn't familiar enough with Jan Austen's novel "

No..the average AMERICAN viewer isn't familiar. And it's JANE..not 'Jan'. In the UK it's a well loved and well known piece of classic literature that has been adapted for TV on several occasions.

"All I really know is that zombies are attacking the Victorian era "

Ignorant git! This is set in 1813 during the reign of George III


"First, there are no movie stars, except the girl that played Cinderella and let's face, no one cares who played Cinderella"

No movie stars..no..but quite a few QUALITY ACTORS..you know, proper real actors with stage experience? One starred in Downton Abbey..One was Dr Who fercrissake! Charles Dance? Heard of him? Sally Phillips is a well loved comedy actress in the UK.

You remind me of the old joke : What's the difference between yoghurt and an American? Left long enough yoghurt will develop a culture!






reply

The OP no more represents the “average American” then Mrs. Bennet represents everyone in Hertfordshire. It’s a big country; there are a great variety of people here and many of us love Jane Austen.

reply

someone from the country that produced TOWIE is lecturing the rest of us on how stupid we are?

Look in the mirror...

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

reply

someone from the country that produced TOWIE is lecturing the rest of us on how stupid we are?


Yeah cos shows like Keeping Up With The Kardashians are real works of art. Didn't Americans invent the concept of reality TV?

Don't let anyone ever make you feel like you don't deserve what you want.

reply

Yeah cos shows like Keeping Up With The Kardashians are real works of art. Didn't Americans invent the concept of reality TV?


No, we didn't.

Survivor came to the US from Europe, as did Big Brother, Dancing with the Stars (=Strictly Come Dancing), American Idol (=Pop Idol), The Voice, etc. Every single one of these shows started in Europe and worked its way to the US and even Canada (as in Canadian Idol).

Yes, the Kardashians and Jersey Shore were conceived in the US, but none of these other inane shows that feature creepy narcissists and exhibitionists was.




http://currentscene.wordpress.com

reply

Your an American aren't you...


*You're*, not *your.*

You remind me of the old joke : What's the difference between yoghurt and an American? Left long enough yoghurt will develop a culture!


The Europeans are the aholes who ushered in the new wave of trash "reality TV" that swept American TV and the rest of the world throughout the '90s, so you shouldn't talk. Luckily, we got over that phase and wound up producing shows like House, Mad Men, Game of Thrones and Hannibal. What critically acclaimed shows are you all producing again? Oh, right--you're all watching the 1 millionth season of "Big Brother." 

BTW, if the English are so much more cultured than the Americans, how come they can't produce a singer that isn't ripping off/piggybacking off American music? Amy Winehouse got her entire shtick from Ronnie Spector (right down to the huge beehive and heavy eyeliner), and Adele is just imitating American black singers from the 1960s. All of your EDM artists (Chemical Brothers, for example) just ransacked old school rap records and repackaged them as "brand new." So what are you talking about when you talk about culture? You talk about Americans not having culture, and yet like a typical European, you say that while your own culture does nothing but rip off American music and pop culture, right down to the baseball caps that they wear.

---
Emojis=💩 Emoticons=

reply

No..the average AMERICAN viewer isn't familiar. And it's JANE..not 'Jan'. In the UK it's a well loved and well known piece of classic literature that has been adapted for TV on several occasions.


HAHAHA.

American women... unfamiliar with Jane Austen.

LOL, no. Every single American woman I know has either read or seen it. :P

reply