Why did the film bomb - The Walk (2015) Discussion

[–] jdb922 9 years ago

I was caught off guard by the movie bombing. I predicted it to be a hit. It didn't stay in the theater long, so I didn't get to go see it until it came out on video. I was kinda bummed, because this would've been a great 3D experience.

It might have bombed because people may have perceived it as being somewhat anti-climatic. Not long before the release of this movie you had a guy walk the Grand Canyon in real life on TV (for free). A fake movie about wire-walking in comparison probably didn't seem like a big deal to most people.

Also, the impressive visuals and over-all grandiose of the movie was dampened due to the sad reality that the Twin Towers are long-since gone.

reply

[–] Blubonnet_Spearman 9 years ago

Pretty obvious. French aren't well liked in America, there were bad accents, it was annoyingly told, the effects weren't believable etc etc

reply

[–] ztraybllet 9 years ago

Yes, what the previous poster said.

And without getting too "political", I do know that the French were quite critical of the U.S. government after 9/11 (I don't mean to start a debate here).

Remember "Freedom Fries"?

Now there is a movie about a Frenchman walking along our beloved towers? Perhaps Americans didn't want it. And perhaps they thought, being a 'French' themed movie, that it would be critical of the U.S. again?

(this is all speculation of course, but it could be a point to consider). Then again I could be wrong (I'm known for getting things wrong ).

reply

[–] billymac72 9 years ago

I disagree. I really don't think Americans hold Pettit personally responsible for France's political positions. Americans actually love individual characters such as him. Besides, Pettit was quite enamored with America. Doesn't mean he agreed with America's political positions on everything, but neither do Americans themselves. Having said that, there's absolutely nothing political about the film or the way it was marketed.

I really think it had to do with the singularity of the story (which is a good one, don't get me wrong), and, most importantly, an overall reluctance to spend this much time with the Twin Towers. The reminder of 9/11, which is always there in a story like this, is indeed extraordinarily powerful to most people. I remember feeling this way about the documentary, initially. It was a great doc, for sure. But the reluctance was, do I pay money to spend time to make myself sad? There's cathartic sad, like with fictional romance, and then there's just plain sad. Now, having seen both the documentary and this film, I left neither feeling sad, at least in any of the ways I worried. But still, I can understand that reluctance. It likely translated to the ticket-buying public.

Oddly, this same phenomenon didn't effect all 9/11 films. "United 93", which I think did rather well, comes to mind. In that instance, I think many felt duty-bound to see it. It was hailed as being extremely realistic and I know I, for one, felt obliged to see what the passengers went through.

reply

[–] ztraybllet 9 years ago

I disagree. I really don't think Americans hold Pettit personally responsible for France's political positions. Americans actually love individual characters such as him. Besides, Pettit was quite enamored with America. Doesn't mean he agreed with America's political positions on everything, but neither do Americans themselves. Having said that, there's absolutely nothing political about the film or the way it was marketed.

I really think it had to do with the singularity of the story (which is a good one, don't get me wrong), and, most importantly, an overall reluctance to spend this much time with the Twin Towers. The reminder of 9/11, which is always there in a story like this, is indeed extraordinarily powerful to most people. I remember feeling this way about the documentary, initially. It was a great doc, for sure. But the reluctance was, do I pay money to spend time to make myself sad? There's cathartic sad, like with fictional romance, and then there's just plain sad. Now, having seen both the documentary and this film, I left neither feeling sad, at least in any of the ways I worried. But still, I can understand that reluctance. It likely translated to the ticket-buying public.

Oddly, this same phenomenon didn't effect all 9/11 films. "United 93", which I think did rather well, comes to mind. In that instance, I think many felt duty-bound to see it. It was hailed as being extremely realistic and I know I, for one, felt obliged to see what the passengers went through.

Great post.

reply

[–] Lord-Bigglesworth 9 years ago

They did a weird, limited release thing for it. IIRC, they only initially released it in IMAX and maybe other large formats for a couple of weeks. Then after a couple of weeks they tried expanding but demand had already fizzled out... or something. Not definitely a cause or anything but coulda been.

You'd feel cocky too if you were full of myself.

reply

[–] Alyse_MA 9 years ago

Well, I think the movie didn't do well at the box office because it's uncomfortable to watch someone doing something this dangerous as a stunt.

I wanted to see the movie but I was uncomfortable all the way through the actual walk between the Towers and I didn't even see it in 3D.

It was really dangerous and any misstep up there at all would have killed him.

There's a fairly close-up video of Karl Wallenda wirewalking between two buildings and falling to his death in 1978.

He was staggering a little on the wire with his knees pushing close together, then he tried to sit down on the wire but it just didn't work. He fell to his death. I first saw that video several years ago for some reason. It's haunting.

reply

[–] Ddey65 8 years ago

There's a fairly close-up video of Karl Wallenda wirewalking between two buildings and falling to his death in 1978.

He was staggering a little on the wire with his knees pushing close together, then he tried to sit down on the wire but it just didn't work. He fell to his death. I first saw that video several years ago for some reason. It's haunting.

I actually saw news footage of this in 1978. And I was 12 years old at the time. I didn't even know who the Wallendas were until that point. So yes, you hit the nail on the head over why it bombed.

reply

[–] Alyse_MA 8 years ago

I actually saw news footage of this in 1978. And I was 12 years old at the time. I didn't even know who the Wallendas were until that point.

Yeah, that footage of the man falling off the wire to his death is very haunting, even when you look at it while realizing that it happened decades ago.

So yes, you hit the nail on the head over why it bombed.

It's eerie for me now just thinking about those scenes in the movie.

He wasn't on a wire a few feet off the ground - his character was supposed to be at the roof levels of the Twin Towers with a long way to fall if something went wrong.

Thanks.

reply

[–] CarlsGoodEye 8 years ago

Concerning the missteps you were worried about... You realize this is based on a true story and in real life he didn't die?

reply

[–] Alyse_MA 8 years ago

It was really dangerous and any misstep up there at all would have killed him.
Concerning the missteps you were worried about... You realize this is based on a true story and in real life he didn't die?

If the real walker had taken missteps at the time, he would have died.

The people helping him would have watched him fall to his death.

The situation (even watching a movie about it decades later) was almost too creepy for me to stand even though I knew he had survived.

Towards the end of his "walk," he was joking around, too. He was going back and forth, back and forth, and taunting the police.

One misstep would have sent him to the ground.

It's just creepy and haunting, especially after seeing the video of a real walker who did fall from his wire and die by crashing into the ground below.

It's a creepy risk without a net or safety wire or parachute (or something).

It creeps me out just thinking about it right now, too.

reply