Dr.Jonesy said:
So you're making an excuse for their reason to give a standing ovation? You're grasping at straws.
We point out data or an event, and you give reasons as to why they aren't sincere, which isn't showing us any data back but it's just you trying to cheapen it. Sorry, that doesn't work!
"Indiana Jones received louder applause going in than he did coming out".
"Judging by the reception at Cannes, the fourth Indiana Jones adventure will not be remembered as the best in the series".
"Fans at the early afternoon showing [...] cheered and clapped wildly at an announcement that the screening was about to start. [...] The applause at the end was more subdued".
"Some industry observers wondered whether the fact that all the film’s main actors – Ford, Cate Blanchett, John Hurt, Ray Winstone and Jim Broadbent - as well as director Steven Spielberg and and co-writer George Lucas were flying to Cannes was a sign that the film needs all the support it can get".
"[The audience was]... cheering as the curtain went up and singing along to the famous theme tune. By the end, they could muster only polite applause. The feeling among many Cannes critics is that this fourth outing has failed to recapture the old Indiana magic".
No, man, I'm not grasping at straws at all, sorry. It's just that I read while you don't.
Above, I posted some quotes from random articles I found now by searching on Google. The reaction at Cannes was not shining gold as you pretend it to have been. Face it. Type the words "indiana" "jones" "cannes" on the internet and see for yourself.
Obviously, a good number of the news headlines were centering more on the overall sense of excitement and trepidation, 'cause headlines are always written with the intent to catch a readers' attention.
But even in those articles that most tried to emphasize the alleged positive audience reaction, you will not find
any reports of complete and indiscussed enthusiasm about the film. Because there was no enthusiasm about it at all. Only a lukewarm and tepid acceptance.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what you wrote I tend to think you are assuming that a standing ovation means overtly acclaim for something. In that case, well, let me open your eyes, 'cause world doesn't work that way. At Cannes, fact is that pretty much EVERY film receives a standing ovation, even just as a sign of respect for the actors and moviemakers involved.
With this premise, good movies are usually applauded for ten, twelve, fifteen minutes or more. Kingdom was applauded for merely 3 minutes. At the time it premiered, I also found some news claiming that the film was even
booed by some at the festival. And that is something that
rarely happens.
Dr.Jonesy said:
You're right. People buying the film after they've seen it in the theater does not prove anything. I'll even reckon that most Batman fans who bought "The Dark Knight" were just buying something related to the franchise no matter what. And who knows how false that data is with all the sales of people buying more than one copy??
C'mon, man...
"aspects one should investigate"??? This is DVD sales...not a statistic on teen drug use. The only reason you think it should be investigated is because it does not blatantly come out in your favor.
Again, I'm not exactly an expert in the home video sales field, because I sincerely don't give a #### about that. But by doing a quick search on Google, I found out that Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull came 9th overall in the DVD film sales of 2008. This, in spite of the fact that it was the
second highest box office hit of the year.
During 2008, Kingdom on DVD was
doubled by The Dark Knight, that came out in the same format only some days before the beginning of 2009. Just a couple weeks were sufficient to DOUBLE the sales of the second best box office hit of the year, that came out
two months before.
The Iron Man film, that scored
eight in the box office records list of the year and came out on DVD only some days before Kingdom, sold over 3 millions of copies more in the exact same time span.
Another interesting fact is that Kingdom was surpassed by National Treasure, a film that could be seen as its direct competitor, because it belongs to the very same genre, archeological action/adventure for family.
National Treasure had roughly half the box office gross of Kingdom, and was by far a much less important and prestigious film, yet it sold more.
Regarding the fact that the data could have been distorted by collectors who bought multiple copies, don't worry, I perfectly know that the percentage is unlikely to be high. But now that I had the curiosity to take a look at the official data, mind if I try to make an estimate? Follow the steps with me.
I noticed that Raiders, Last Crusade and Temple Of Doom, all sold around a million copies during 2008 (one fifth of the total sales of Kingdom). Films that were already available on DVD since 2003. Films that are very likely to have been owned ALREADY by the vast majority of casual fans, in 2008. Well, you surely concur that a fifth of the sales of their brand new and over hyped sequel is just one hell of a lot. So, now, if I said that
at least around one million of the copies sold by Kingdom were the result of die hard fans and collectors who just buy anything related to the franchise, and possibly multiple copies of it, to me it wouldn't seem unrealistic at all. And this would mean for Kingdom to drop even out of the top ten, after having been an enormous box office success at the time of its release.
Not exactly an impressive performance if that was the case, uh?
Long story short, if you just look at numbers and make your assumptions without analyzing the contexts, that is your problem, not mine.
Damn, this should be by far the longest post I've ever written... ever...
