So it doesn't seem to you in the remotest bit odd that, in a year in which because of not one but two major anniversaries the work of Charles Darwin got more publicity than in perhaps a century (something that plenty of book publishers cashed in on, let it be noted), the major movie about Darwin failed to achieve a front-line distributor?
That's just because "plenty of good foreign movies [. . .] don't get US distribution because they're not expected to be blockbusters"? So a movie guaranteed a year's worth of free publicity isn't expected to do at least passably well?
And let us not forget all the foreign movies that do get significant US distribution even though not expected to be "blockbusters"?
Elsewhere, I can recall you saying that (sight unseen) the real reason for the US distribution difficulties is that the movie's dull, or that the subject's unappealing. Are there any other possible things you want to throw at it rather than admit the slightest chink of possibility that distributors were wary of its subject matter? I am quite genuinely very puzzled about this. Did Paul Bettany once stand on your foot, or something?
Are there enough of them to justify the risk (from the sudio's perspective)? We'll see
As you well know, you are now rolling dice that are heavily loaded in your favour. The movie's US distributor is only a secondary player, so there ain't no chance that it's going to turn up in your friendly neighbourhood multiplex (I'm mightily pissed off that I'll probably have to travel miles to see it), and of course it's being released here months late to get maximum benefit of the publicity -- i.e., after the end of "Darwin's year".
Myself, I think there are various possible factors involved in the major distributors' shying away from this movie; not least on the list of possibilities is of course their extraordinary stupidity, as demonstrated on numerous other occasions. But there also seems to me a very reasonable chance that among those factors was concern -- justified or otherwise -- about intimidation. I find it astonishing that you absolutely refuse to consider that possibility.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-01-09 04:21 pm (UTC)So it doesn't seem to you in the remotest bit odd that, in a year in which because of not one but two major anniversaries the work of Charles Darwin got more publicity than in perhaps a century (something that plenty of book publishers cashed in on, let it be noted), the major movie about Darwin failed to achieve a front-line distributor?
That's just because "plenty of good foreign movies [. . .] don't get US distribution because they're not expected to be blockbusters"? So a movie guaranteed a year's worth of free publicity isn't expected to do at least passably well?
And let us not forget all the foreign movies that do get significant US distribution even though not expected to be "blockbusters"?
Elsewhere, I can recall you saying that (sight unseen) the real reason for the US distribution difficulties is that the movie's dull, or that the subject's unappealing. Are there any other possible things you want to throw at it rather than admit the slightest chink of possibility that distributors were wary of its subject matter? I am quite genuinely very puzzled about this. Did Paul Bettany once stand on your foot, or something?
Are there enough of them to justify the risk (from the sudio's perspective)? We'll see
As you well know, you are now rolling dice that are heavily loaded in your favour. The movie's US distributor is only a secondary player, so there ain't no chance that it's going to turn up in your friendly neighbourhood multiplex (I'm mightily pissed off that I'll probably have to travel miles to see it), and of course it's being released here months late to get maximum benefit of the publicity -- i.e., after the end of "Darwin's year".
Myself, I think there are various possible factors involved in the major distributors' shying away from this movie; not least on the list of possibilities is of course their extraordinary stupidity, as demonstrated on numerous other occasions. But there also seems to me a very reasonable chance that among those factors was concern -- justified or otherwise -- about intimidation. I find it astonishing that you absolutely refuse to consider that possibility.