MovieChat Forums > Frank (2014) Discussion > Oh so VOD was a strategy not b/c Frank w...

Oh so VOD was a strategy not b/c Frank was a FLOP???lol...

posted 10 years ago by LenaAFoster
30 replies | jump to latest

http://www.indiewire.com/article/frank-starring-michael-fassbender-in- a-mask-hits-vod-early-heres-why-20140905

. Here'sÂ another of the old "I just think the audience is getting more selective" excuses to justify why FRANK, Fassbender's big comedy that seems nonsensical and disjointed and nails across the chalkboard annoying, has not gotten a lot of public attention and $$$$ patronage.

He went on Colbert and did the talk show circuit. The director had people wear masks in the film festival audiences. This was supposed to be the GIMMICKY GIMMICK to end all brilliance in the world. What happened???? He's a huge star. Don't people just want the honor of staring at such a glorious mortal God wearing a trash can on his head for 2 hours????

Leave it to Fassbender's PR team to try to spin it like the lack of wide successÂ was by intentional design and just an innovative approach to film making and distribution.

Blair witch was that. Frank is just a flop. So pretentious..... And the guy says that they have this movie with the biggest star EVER. Like he's a deer in headlights trying to figure out why this hasn't gone global like the Macarena. Well, because the trailer sucks. The concept sucks. It looks nonsensical from the trailer. With mediocre acting, bad jokes, and a dumb hipster story line. That's why....duh....notice Fassbender is hiding? Hahaha hahaha hahaha....

Lena

Above intended as free speech opinion written with pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice

[–] billypilgrim-249-462536 10 years ago

What?

[–] mechajutaro 10 years ago

Here'sÂ another of the old "I just think the audience is getting more selective" excuses to justify why FRANK, Fassbender's big comedy that seems nonsensical and disjointed and nails across the chalkboard annoying, has not gotten a lot of public attention and $$$$ patronage.

Cheer up, Lena: It would have had to enjoy something more than the barbarically menial(here in da States anyway)release that it's been granted thus far to have gotten ANY public attention.

[–] twilliams76 10 years ago

Lena wrote that "without malice". RRRRRight.

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy this odd and quirky film about mental illness, music, creativity and narcissism.

It was "art house" from the get go. I don't think YOU get that. Could you really expect this to play in megaplexes across the US?

You haven't even seen it yet ... but please tell us all about the mediocre acting etc. that you've gone on and on about.

You took away all of your attempts at credibility by insulting acting you haven't even watched and insulting a story you presume to know all about. Nice try ... but FAIL.

[–] LenaAFoster 10 years ago

Lena wrote that "without malice". RRRRRight.

Oh, you think when I write things in the realm of opinion about public figures, I assert them as fact with some sort of color of inside knowledge to assert those facts as true, instead of merely opinion?

Oh dear. I gather you didn't ACTUALLY look that term up to know what it ACTUALLY means. Oh, you think it means with a mean spirit or hate? You think when you need to prove malice in slander suits if you are a celebrity, the courts just expect you to prove the person said something out of a negative motive, meanness, or hate? RRRRRReeeeeeeally??? Oh dear....

You must get your education about slander from the nonsensicalpedia written by Hominin. She's equally as clueless on what that word means in that context as well.

You want me to show you an EXAMPLE of rrrrrrreally bad acting? What I used to decide the movie had bad acting and was a PASS for me? Oh, that's EASY... This (theatrical trailer)

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4288654361?ref_=ttvi_vi_1

Exactly, what region of America was Frank supposed to come from? Irishsota? Celticopilis? What is that? An Irish Fargo accent attempt? If he's going to pretend to be American, he's got to at least make an effort to learn English. Especially since it's supposed to be his native tongue.

What other actor from the British Isles FAILS so often at a normal unexaggerated American accent? And why was he even American? And how did this dirt poor American band end up in the middle of England?

Really dumb movie. It may be art house. But if it was made for $5,000,000 of New Mexico taxpayer money, I assume the filmmakers felt more people than to get $420,000 would show up to this ridiculous looking film. No...I'm not going to endure an ENTIRE film to judge it when the trailer gives me enough information to convince me it is NOT worth my time.

And, it looks like the movie going public is on MY side on that one.

Lena

Above intended as free speech opinion written with pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice

[–] twilliams76 10 years ago

His accent? He is a person wearing a mask creating a persona. His accent is something he's come up with on his own.

Your criticisms aren't valid. Sorry. You haven't taken the time to see this so your mind will continue jumping to conclusions.

That is your right.

Go ahead and respond with a few lengthy paragraphs. This appears to be your life (or so reveals your message board history).

Have a good one!

[–] LenaAFoster 10 years ago

Well, turns out most of the movie viewing world agree with me. As they have ignored it. Last week they added 23 theaters and the revenue average plummeted to less than 1/2 the week before. An amazing accomplishment. LOL. How do you add 20+ theaters within the normal 6-8 weeks run aaaaaaaaand cut your viewing average in 1/2? Has ANY film EVER done so poorly?

Oh, it must be "strategical.". The bank they are making through VOD? Oh dear.(sarcasm intended)

My criticism is of course valid. I saw the trailer. That's what trailers are for. To help people decide. I doubt seriously his accent changes outside the trailer, he no longer wears that dumb bobble head, and suddenly he no longer sounds like a goat and the music is actually good in the film time not included in the trailer. They may compel.People through forced taxation to fund cra.p like this beforehand, but they can't (yet) force people to sit through an entire movie before they write it off as ridiculous and bad.

What is so bizarro, is how Lenny Abrahamson and Non Roncom (Jon ransom, Jon Nonfun, et al), ie, the filmmakers, were actually so stupid to think the public would like this POS crap. How blindingly arrogant. So much so that they made little masks for people in the audience to wear at Sundance. A GIMMICK...no doubt they thought it would be the craze that swept the nation.....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qprj9_mav9w/UtqJApLwbII/AAAAAAAAJwU/Aa6Cj63i A9s/s1600/frank+audience.jpg

It's an insult to the movie going public. People are not idiots. They want good stories. Not nails across the chalkboard gimmicks stuck to an arrogant and narcissistic actor who clearly thinks a large majority of humans on this Earth 1. Never saw a pen/is before he showed them his floppy during Shame 2. Never saw one as awesome as he obviously thinks his particular one is 3. Will do anything or give anything to be able to see his brilliant presence on film even if he does everything in his power to turn them off.

My criticism is not only valid. It's the one representative of most people passing on this film. I He's going to suffer ongoing increased flops, I predict. He's pissed off too many women. Those were his fans. LOL.

Above intended as free speech opinion written with pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice

[–] patrick_bateman_90029 10 years ago

People are not idiots. They want good stories.

Then explain why "Transformers: Age of Extinction" is the highest grossing movie of the year. (somebody PLEASE ask her this)

The movie going audience of today IS stupid for allowing these sorts of franchises to linger on and not for looking for the films they should be seeing. In the 70s, we had directors who actually gave a damn and challenged the Hollywood studio system to make real movies that last today because they it was time:

Woody Allen - "Love and Death", "Annie Hall", "Interiors", "Manhattan"
Robert Altman - "M*A*S*H*", "McCabe & Mrs. Miller", "Nashville", "3 Women"
John Carpenter - "Halloween"
Francis Ford Coppola - the first two "Godfather" films, "The Conversation" and "Apocalypse Now"
Brian De Palma - "Sisters", "Phantom of the Paradise", "Carrie"
Bob Fosse - "Cabaret" and "All That Jazz"
Stanley Kubrick - "A Clockwork Orange" and "Barry Lyndon"
George Lucas - "American Graffiti" and "Star Wars"
Sidney Lumet - "Dog Day Afternoon" and "Network"
Terrence Malick - "Badlands" and "Days of Heaven"
Roman Polanski - "Chinatown"
Martin Scorsese - "Mean Streets", "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" and "Taxi Driver"
Steven Spielberg - "Duel", "Jaws", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"

Even the foreign directors like Buñuel, Bergman and Truffaut found ways to challenge the audiences and give them something new to look forward to.

[–] iretos 10 years ago

The truth is that a good movie is a good movie, no matter how much money it earns and this should be clear once and for all. Most of the movies I personally love most are "little" movies, some of them didn't even hit Italian theatres, some of them weren't even released in dvd in Italy. One title among many, "Tyrannosaur", wonderful English movie of 2011, I think, I was only able to see in streaming, probably the only movie I ever saw in streaming. Fassbender himself (sorry Lena if I quote him), asked which is the difference between X-men DOFP and Frank replied that a movie like X-men allows to make one like Frank. And the people who want to be challenged by something new, something different, are surely more than we think.

[–] LenaAFoster 10 years ago

and Frank replied that a movie like X-men allows to make one like Frank. And the people who want to be challenged by something new, something different, are surely more than we think.

Sounds like he's LYING through his teeth. There are plenty of published articles that the $5,000,000 used to make FRANK was put up by refundable tax credits. And, that film is listed on the New Mexico film commission office website.

There was NO other reason to duplicate SXSW (or whatever) in New Mexico which is supposed to be Texas, unless they got a sweet pot o money' as the New Mexico office calls it, from the taxpayers of New Mexico. Katie Holmes is now trying directing. She is no more getting private money to start her career as a "director" than this film was financed exclusively on the strength of private funds. It wasn't even a secret that the reason it went to New Mexico was refundable tax credits (which are just free money tax grants to pay for Fassbender and the other actors time).

You are either trying to mislead or cloud the issue accidentally. I believe you are trying to do so intentionally. Michael did NOT go make X-Men DOFP and make such a great showing that all kinds of PRIVATE money came rolling in as a result of his grand performance that he was just offered bags and bags of PRIVATE money to do FRANK. That sounds like a huge lie to me (in my opinion, and I'm entitled to believe he is lying). And, DOFP was funded in a very huge way by CANADIAN TAXPAYER MONEY. So, it sounds like Fassbender is being a wolf and trying to pretend like these movies he's involved in are getting financed through private funds, when he is very well aware of the fact that he is a parasite off of the backs of taxpayers and their hard earned money.

And the people who want to be challenged by something new, something different, are surely more than we think.

Pulp Fiction was new, different, and actually GOOD. Inglorious Basterds by Tarantino, was new, different, and actually GOOD. Frank's trailer does not lend to any indication that it is anything but extremely stupid in plot, music, dialogue, delivery of acting, and theme.

Just because it is new, different does NOT mean it is GOOD. And, this movie has BOMBED. And, at least Fassbender can rely on his pretentious narcissistic attitude that his brilliance is just too awesome and overwhelming for the ordinary masses and it takes the special elite (all 5 of them...LOL :)...) to appreciate his special skill as an artist.

Oh no...poor Mikey...he's running out of GIMMICKS to keep the attention of the masses. Let's recap...

1. Showing everyone his peen... CHECK..
2. Starting a fight between black and white fan girls...CHECK
3. Inciting conversation by supporting slave rape and suggesting it is unrequited love...CHECK
4. Trying to get press by announcing he wants to get high...CHECK
5. Showing off a rumored Hollywood escort...CHECK

Snake. Oil. Salesman. Eh?

Lena

Above intended as free speech opinion written with pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice

[–] LenaAFoster 10 years ago

And, I bet Macbeth, Slow West and even Assassin's Creed (which I bet he's not going to be a part of in the end) have been DELAYED in an attempt to smooth out the Fassbender FLOPS over time.

He had the poor showing with the Counselor. Where he was the lead. Now this one. Where he's the lead. When he's the CLEAR movie lead, the movie FLOPS at the box office. Blood Creek. Flop. Jane Eyre. Flop. Counselor. Flop. Fish Tank. Overwhelming Flop. Shame. Flop. Oh, Shame was looooooooooved by the critics. But, pretty much ignored by the public.

It took 7 months for 12YAS to do well. And almost the entire focus of FSL to get that movie attention. If 12YAS would have been given a normal run of 6-8 weeks like most studios give films (and would not have given it extra special treatment) 12YAS would have FLOPPED as well, because I believe it hadn't even doubled its budget by that time. Doubling a budget is a common rule of thumb to generally test success.

By contrast, the Christian film God's Not Dead, made for $2,000,000 made its budget back in 1/2 day, more than doubled its budget in 1 weekend, making $9,000,000 the first weekend. Then it made $60,000,000 box office for a 30 x return on investment. Then, in the first week of DVD sales they had 300,000 orders for another at least $6,000,000 only after the first week of DVD sales (ie, 33 times its original investment)

Ironically, critics gave Frank a 92% Rotten Tomatoes score. It earned $420,000 before being forced into DVD as a flop. Earning not even 10% of the TAXPAYERS money wasted to make this ridiculous film. Critics gave God's Not Dead a 17% Rotten Tomatoes score. Yet, the film has made 33 times its budget. And audiences were at 82% because someone gave it a 0. Which means most people in the audience actually loved it. Atheists are on boards panning it.

I'm okay with what the critics do. Their arrogance and nerve is eventually weeding out guys like Fassbender who don't care about whether the audience is entertained. And every dishonest review these critics issue, just undermines their credibility and they will eventually be a thing of the past as well. No one listens to them now anyway, but at some point, maybe they will stop flooding the internet with their ridiculous "if I give a favorable review, can I come to your opening" biased opinions.

Lena

Above intended as free speech opinion written with pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LenaAFoster 10 years ago

I was just at a fast food restaurant. Arby's. And they asked if I wanted to donate $1 to FEED hungry children in America. I said "of course" before they said I would get $2 off our bill.

I am DISGUSTED that there are HUNGRY children in America while our legislators give $1,500,000,000 of TAXPAYER MONEY Away to the greedy gluttonous pigs of Hollywood to fill their overflowing bank accounts to make useless nonsensical movies like this.

If you think that's funny, then that's your problem. There's something really wrong and twisted about you in my opinion. You have to wonder what life could have done to someone to make them so cold. That's your problem. Not mine.

Lena

Above intended as free speech opinion written with pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mechajutaro 10 years ago

Christian film God's Not Dead.... made its budget back in 1/2 day

Kudos to them; it's destined to remain on the minds of all those who sat through 3/4 of a microsecond after exiting the auditorium.

I am DISGUSTED that there are HUNGRY children in America while our legislators give $1,500,000,000 of TAXPAYER MONEY Away to the greedy gluttonous pigs of Hollywood to fill their overflowing bank accounts to make useless nonsensical movies like this.

You're reviling then doesn't just extend to an offbeat comedy that supposedly the public has no yearning to glimpse, but to the ever-so-cited "masses" aka. nearly everyone you share the planet with, eh? Refreshing to read.

[–] LenaAFoster 10 years ago

You're being too vague, cutesy and coy. I'm not getting your point. Is this some sort of point where the whole world is responsible for the hungry, therefore we should all be willing to prioritize taxpayer funds to give it to gluttonous pigs in Hollywood? Who knows what point you are making. It's unclear. But, perhaps you are now feeling sorry for legislators who I am criticizing now as well. And, yes, I am slamming elected officials for wasting our taxpayer money, and throwing us all under the bus while fangirling over idiots like Kevin Spacey, who is more than willing to lobby them to get his $18 or so million in Maryland while teachers, the poor, the military injured go without, etc. I make no apologies for that little bit of free speech there.

And every person I talk to in the real world about this is just as mad as I am. I talk to a lot of people who are engaged in tons of consumer boycotts of lots of things as a result of ridiculous unfair preferential tax policies made by selfish legislators who are busy trying to fund their next campaigns with corporate money without regard to the best interest of the taxpayers or the longevity of our country.

And, actually, $1.5 billion could feed a lot of starving children in America. I don't retract that point. I don't see any reason why Rhiannna needs to wear a 300,000 Swarovski crystal dress which no doubt cost $1,000,000 or more to a fashion event.

If you don't like my favoring the feeding of children over Hollywood gluttony, then you can shove it straight up your @ss.

And, if you don't like Christian films, then you can do the same.

Lena

P.S. Just my opinion... I'm certainly GLAD that you are GLAD to know how I feel...

Above intended as free speech opinion written with pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice

[–] mechajutaro 10 years ago

You're being too vague, cutesy and coy.

Coy, eh? If "shrinking from familiarity" and "reluctance to commit" are now synonymous with aversion to the crass and bombastic( ex. "....But, perhaps you are now feeling sorry for legislators who I am criticizing now as well. And, yes, I am slamming elected officials for wasting our taxpayer money, and throwing us all under the bus while fangirling over idiots like Kevin Spacey, who is more than willing to lobby them to get his $18 or so million in Maryland while teachers, the poor, the military injured go without, etc. I make no apologies for that little bit of free speech there.

And every person I talk to in the real world about this is just as mad as I am. I talk to a lot of people who are engaged in tons of consumer boycotts of lots of things as a result of ridiculous unfair preferential tax policies made by selfish legislators who are busy trying to fund their next campaigns with corporate money without regard to the best interest of the taxpayers or the longevity of our country. ")in all it's incarnations, then yup, you've exposed and discredited me for all times.

.... I don't see any reason why Rhiannna needs to wear a 300,000 Swarovski crystal dress which no doubt cost $1,000,000 or more to a fashion event.

Crestfallen to report the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Maoist China( currently striving to possess their cake whilst devouring it also. Takers as to how swell this ultimately works out?), countless caudillo ridden Republics south of our own border, etc. etc. have all followed the above tip several times over. Utopia never quite entered.

If you don't like my favoring the feeding of children over Hollywood gluttony, then you can shove it straight up your @ss.

And, if you don't like Christian films, then you can do the same.

Ladies and gents, boys and girls: The unparalled class and grace nearly exclusive to the contemporary Christian homesteading in the grand ol' USofA on glorious display in the above entitled. Feast your eyes.

[–] LenaAFoster 10 years ago

Peyote???? a/k/a mescaline....

Side effects....

Psychological Effects

Vivid mental images and distorted vision
Synesthesia: perception of seeing music or hearing colors
Altered space and time perception
Joy, exhilaration, panic, extreme anxiety, or terror
Distorted sense of body (users can feel either weighed down or weightless)
Heightened sensory experiences (i.e. brighter colors, sharper visual definition, increased hearing acuity, more distinguished taste)
Difficult focusing, maintaining attention, concentrating, and thinking
Loss of sense of reality; melding past experiences with present
Preoccupation with trivial thoughts, experiences, or objects
Highly adverse reactions ("bad trip"), including frightening hallucinations, confusion, disorientation, paranoia, agitation, depression, panic, and/or terror

Lena

Above intended as free speech opinion written with pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice

[–] mechajutaro 10 years ago

That was some wicked peyote, honeypumpkin, so discombobulating an aftershock to jettison it's user not just off a board but onto an entirely different topic to which she remains intractably transfixed.

[–] mechajutaro 10 years ago

More seriously though, Lena: What propelled you from the God's Not Dead boards into steady screeds against all things Fassbender and a barely even limited release tribute/parody of Frank Sidebottom? Cab't help finding this an odd segue.

[–] patrick_bateman_90029 10 years ago

She just REALLY has it in for Fassbender, which has been clear as daylight since the first time she showed up at the boards for "12 Years a Slave". She'll claim she's trying to bring Hollywood's corruption and states' catering to said productions to the front but notice how it's the movies starring (or nearly starring) Michael Fassbender (if she hadn't blocked me, I'd tell her off on her crap regarding Jim Jarmusch's "Only Lovers Left Alive" that she brought up a few weeks back).

Personally, I can understand being mad at the world and wanting to change it for the better but I'd be more inclined to believe her if she wasn't exclusively fixated on Fassbender.

[–] LenaAFoster 10 years ago

Personally, I can understand being mad at the world and wanting to change it for the better but I'd be more inclined to believe her if she wasn't exclusively fixated on Fassbender.

. Interesting how I'm constantly being accused of exclusively focusing on Fassbender by folks who go no where else but to where he is....it is this exemplified

Shrodinger's Cat (or in this instance.... Schrodingleberry's Cad)

Schrödinger's cat is a famous illustration of the principle in quantum theory of superposition, proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. Schrödinger's cat serves to demonstrate the apparent conflict between what quantum theory tells us is true about the nature and behavior of matter on the microscopic level and what we observe to be true about the nature and behavior of matter on the macroscopic level -- everything visible to the unaided human eye.

This situation is sometimes called quantum indeterminacy or the observer's paradox: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that the outcome as such does not exist unless the measurement is made. (That is, there is no single outcome unless it is observed.)

You only think I am always here because you and the zombies are always here.

Lena

Above intended as free speech opinion written with pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice

[–] patrick_bateman_90029 10 years ago

So much for your putting me on ignore.

I've checked your posting history (as I don't doubt others have, given your notoriety) and yes, you're on the Fassbender board - and "Frank" - at an almost obscene degree (and when you're not there, it's "God's Not Dead"). I enjoy his work as an actor, but if you check my posting history (and we know you have given your trying to twist my words on the "God's Not Dead" board), I'm not on here 24/7. There are other actors, filmmakers and works I enjoy just as much.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LenaAFoster 10 years ago

It's not a segue. Are you into panendeism?

Lena

Above intended as free speech opinion written with pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mechajutaro 10 years ago

Are you into panendeism?

What about any of my posts agitates such a suspicion? Without a trace of facetiousness anywhere in reach, I yearn to hear your reasoning in this regard. To your question: all who've endeavored to demonstrate "panentheism" being anything more distinct than a variant of pantheism having met with abject failure thus far, I must plead innocent on this count.

[–] LenaAFoster 10 years ago

I did not spell it wrong. Not panentheism. Panendeism.

Above intended as free speech opinion written with pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice

[–] mechajutaro 10 years ago

I did not spell it wrong. Not panentheism. Panendeism

Effects of that peyote are not only powerful but tenacious as well. My initial response:

To your question: all who've endeavored to demonstrate "panentheism" being anything more distinct than a variant of pantheism having met with abject failure thus far, I must plead innocent on this count.

Neither your spelling nor meaning were ever in question. Having been a sport in regards to your query, I would appreciate a response to mine in return: What prompted your suspicion ("Are you into panendeism"?)to begin with?

[–] Filmfanatic11 10 years ago

Indie film distribution is changing. VOD doesn't have the stigma it used to. Just look at Snowpiercer.