W. Semi-flop?

[sfmarine]

Looks like the budget was 25 million and it's only made

Total US Gross $24,231,628

I saw it....I was impressed by Brolin. I'm just surprised it did so bad. I like Oliver Stone's work so I'll probably get it on blu-ray. It's out of the theatre so we'll probably have it available sometime in March. Anyone else planning on picking it up?

[quexos]

Haven't seen it yet but I plan to see it. I've always been impressed by Oliver Stone's work. Especially JFK.

Now about W, you gotta take into account that the masses won't really care for a movie on what is probably the worst president in your history. Maybe that explains in part the figures.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by sfmarine

Looks like the budget was 25 million and it's only made

Total US Gross $24,231,628

I saw it....I was impressed by Brolin. I'm just surprised it did so bad. I like Oliver Stone's work so I'll probably get it on blu-ray. It's out of the theatre so we'll probably have it available sometime in March. Anyone else planning on picking it up?

I saw it and mildly enjoyed it. Actually, even though the release near the election was intentional, I think it may have hurt it at the Box Office.

[plowmanjoe]

i heard it was just a bad movie. i can easily see why people wouldn't be interested.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by quexos

Haven't seen it yet but I plan to see it. I've always been impressed by Oliver Stone's work. Especially JFK.

Now about W, you gotta take into account that the masses won't really care for a movie on what is probably the worst president in your history. Maybe that explains in part the figures.

??????????????????

Please replace that with definately.

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by quexos

Haven't seen it yet but I plan to see it. I've always been impressed by Oliver Stone's work. Especially JFK.

Now about W, you gotta take into account that the masses won't really care for a movie on what is probably the worst president in your history. Maybe that explains in part the figures.

I enjoy Stone's commentaries. He's very informative especially when it comes to history. He did get accepted to Yale. JFK is one of the favorite Stone flicks..It's really close with Platoon.

[Crim122]

I am not surprised at all and I really enjoyed the film itself, but the general population does not want to see something about Bush...hell they want to forget he exists.

[King Leonidas]

I think they shouldve waited at least a year after Bush was out of the White House. Give people time to get used to a new president, then release a film based on him...and not while he's still in office. Try and let people forget about him, then release it , people are just too tired of Bush at the moment to see a movie about him..

[MyBlu-rayBrotherEd]

I'm gonna get fried for this, but here it goes.....


I disagree. I did not see the movie because I am tired of all the "Bush bashing" coming out of Hollywood and the mainstream media. Stone obviously doesn't like President Bush, so I will not support him by watching this movie. I think he did a good job with the cards he was dealt. The president is only 1/3 of our government, there are another 2 branches that share in the blame of where we are today, not to mention things that happened while President Clinton was in office.

I can understand the view that people are tired of politics after the way to long election that just took place. That may be another factor as to why people did not see this movie.

And yes, I said Bush bashing.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by sfmarine

Looks like the budget was 25 million and it's only made

Total US Gross $24,231,628

I saw it....I was impressed by Brolin. I'm just surprised it did so bad. I like Oliver Stone's work so I'll probably get it on blu-ray. It's out of the theatre so we'll probably have it available sometime in March. Anyone else planning on picking it up?

it's not out of theaters. it's still playing in theaters and is in the top 20 movies for the weekend. it made a little less than eagle eye this weekend and eagle eye was no. 10. this movie hasn't flopped or semi-flopped yet. what i don't get is how in less than a month we're getting eagle eye on dvd and blu-ray yet the movie is still playing at theaters and was in 10th place at the box office last week.

[cembros]

Originally Posted by ed4246

I'm gonna get fried for this, but here it goes.....


I disagree. I did not see the movie because I am tired of all the "Bush bashing" coming out of Hollywood and the mainstream media. Stone obviously doesn't like President Bush, so I will not support him by watching this movie. I think he did a good job with the cards he was dealt. The president is only 1/3 of our government, there are another 2 branches that share in the blame of where we are today, not to mention things that happened while President Clinton was in office.

I can understand the view that people are tired of politics after the way to long election that just took place. That may be another factor as to why people did not see this movie.

And yes, I said Bush bashing.

agreed, i wouldnt watch that garbage if you paid me

[WyldeMan45]

It wasn't what a thought it be, from the director of JFK and Platoon, I was expecting something much more controversial but the problem is Brolin is just way too likable. My biggest problem with this movie is you like Bush way too much because Brolin makes him way to fun to watch. A few days after I saw this movie, I read an article about Richard Dreyfuss' appearance on the View, Dreyfuss who plays Cheyney in the film had some similar things to say, so I tracked it down, here's what he said:

"Richard Dreyfuss, who portrays Vice President Cheney in Oliver Stone's George W. Bush biopic W., has faulted the film for making the president appear "shockingly empathetic." Appearing on ABC's The View Tuesday, Dreyfuss made it clear that he was unhappy working with Stone on the film, despite the fact that he and the director share similar political views. "You can be a fascist even when you're on the left," Dreyfuss remarked. W., he maintained, was only "6/8 of a good film." (It was not clear why he represented the fraction in eighths.) What was missing he said, was "us -- because we were all terrified of our own president." For that reason, he added, "I question whether the film will have any historic legs."

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by WyldeMan45

It wasn't what a thought it be, from the director of JFK and Platoon, I was expecting something much more controversial but the problem is Brolin is just way too likable. My biggest problem with this movie is you like Bush way too much because Brolin makes him way to fun to watch. A few days after I saw this movie, I read an article about Richard Dreyfuss' appearance on the View, Dreyfuss who plays Cheyney in the film had some similar things to say, so I tracked it down, here's what he said:

"Richard Dreyfuss, who portrays Vice President Cheney in Oliver Stone's George W. Bush biopic W., has faulted the film for making the president appear "shockingly empathetic." Appearing on ABC's The View Tuesday, Dreyfuss made it clear that he was unhappy working with Stone on the film, despite the fact that he and the director share similar political views. "You can be a fascist even when you're on the left," Dreyfuss remarked. W., he maintained, was only "6/8 of a good film." (It was not clear why he represented the fraction in eighths.) What was missing he said, was "us -- because we were all terrified of our own president." For that reason, he added, "I question whether the film will have any historic legs."

Yeah...anyway...

The nature of the beast that is called "screenwriting" is the idea of protagonists and antagonists. Just as Stone turned Nixon into a sympathetic tragic hero in Nixon, the same forces turned George W. Bush into a sympathetic figure in his W biopic.

The reason the film is a failure, though, is that the American public has been bombarded with this type of material since 2002 and its old hat. Why pay $8.50 to see the same president-bashing you get for free -- daily --on The Daily Show, MSNBC, CNN and NPR?

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by quexos

Haven't seen it yet but I plan to see it. I've always been impressed by Oliver Stone's work. Especially JFK.

Now about W, you gotta take into account that the masses won't really care for a movie on what is probably the worst president in your history. Maybe that explains in part the figures.

You should give it time, I would like to point out that during his time in office, Abraham Lincoln was considered by many to be the worst President they ever had.....What will they say about W in 100 years...

[JJ777]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

You should give it time, I would like to point out that during his time in office, Abraham Lincoln was considered by many to be the worst President they ever had.....What will they say about W in 100 years...

Completely agree.....there's Harding, Grant, Carter.....the list goes on. Say what you will, but he pulled us out of 9/11 and we have not been attacked since (we'll see how long that will last). I also agree that he's been a "spendaholic" along with everyone else. I have an idea: let's get rid of every congressman/woman and senator....and start all over....they are a major part of the problem too.

Oh, and I did see the movie. Josh Brolin was great. I thought Bush was portrayed as a "lost soul" that bumbled around all the time. Also, I thought the most telling part was the portrayal of his cabinet. It seemed like this was the worst part of his administration (according to the movie).

[jasontkelley1746]

Originally Posted by quexos

Now about W, you gotta take into account that the masses won't really care for a movie on what is probably the worst president in your history. Maybe that explains in part the figures.

I think that is what made it a good movie.

[fatediesel]

I think there were numerous problems that don't really have anything to do with the quality of the movie. First, it was released near the end of the election season when most people were sick of politics due to being bombarded with ads/stories having to do with the election. Second, republicans/Bush backers didn't want to see a movie they assumed would be an attack on Bush due to Stone's anti-Bush views, even if that didn't end up being the case. The democrats/Bush haters didn't want to spend 2 hours watching a movie about a person they hate.

[mj23007]

Maybe it flopped because it was totally fictional. Who wants to watch a movie made about a great president, that was written by some guy who probably never spent a single day in the white house. It also probably flopped because most people believe that W did a pretty darn good job, considering the mess clinton left. So I am sure glad it flopped, down with liberlaism.!

[mj23007]

Please replace definately with STFU!~

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Yeah...anyway...

The nature of the beast that is called "screenwriting" is the idea of protagonists and antagonists. Just as Stone turned Nixon into a sympathetic tragic hero in Nixon, the same forces turned George W. Bush into a sympathetic figure in his W biopic.

The reason the film is a failure, though, is that the American public has been bombarded with this type of material since 2002 and its old hat. Why pay $8.50 to see the same president-bashing you get for free -- daily --on The Daily Show, MSNBC, CNN and NPR?

Because it wasnt a "bashing". I went to see it because the reviews said it was even handed...and it was. It focused more on his relationship with his father than on his presidency. It wasnt a Michael Moore type bashfest.