Movies that had Great Initial Success and, then, Chirp, Chirp, Chirp

[LizzieMaine]

That picture did really well for us -- it was, I think, our fourth or fifth highest-grossing film of the past eleven years -- but the problem was, what do you do for a followup? Make a faithful pastiche of a creaky 1929 early talkie, complete with booth-bound camera, Vitaphone sound, and two-color Technicolor musical inserts? I'd pay top dollar to see a picture like that, but I can't think of too many other people who would.

 

[Fading Fast]

The Artist (2011) drew a lot of attention upon release, but I don't hear it named-checked very often nowadays. A black and white silent film in 2011 was a pretty unique item so there was plenty of attention, but there are Chaplin films (among others) that worked much better within that format that are still available.

I enjoyed that film and would gladly watch it again. Which gets me thinking, the way I normally watch a film a second (3rd, 4th...) time is that it shows up somewhere like HBO, TCM, or is promoted when Netflix or Amazon Video first add it to its library. I rarely go looking for a movie to see a second time (sometimes I do), but do keep my eye on the aforementioned content providers (and others), but "The Artist" doesn't seem to pop up on them, or, at least, isn't aggressively promoted or highlighted when there.

So the question is why? Clearly the producers want to keep making money from the film, so I assume they've tried these outlets and it hasn't been popular? Or is it one of those crazy cases where the owners are fighting amongst themselves so the "rights" are tied up and the movie doesn't get shown until that gets settled? It is kinda odd that a very popular movie like that seems to have completely disappeared when there are so many secondary outlets in need of content.

 

[Benzadmiral]

Another one that made a big splash on its release was The Blair Witch Project. I've never seen it, but it was all the rage in '98 or so. Now it doesn't turn up on lists of "Best Halloween Movies," does it?

 

[skydog757]

One reviewer stated something to the effect: "I could have eaten film and puked a better movie". Again, Blair Witch had a gimmick; they were one of the first to really utilize the internet for advertising and there were "rumors" that the film really was lost footage.

 

[Zombie_61]

One reviewer stated something to the effect: "I could have eaten film and puked a better movie". Again, Blair Witch had a gimmick; they were one of the first to really utilize the internet for advertising and there were "rumors" that the film really was lost footage.

The initial advertising campaign for The Blair Witch Project was brilliant in it's simplicity--post a little footage on the Internet with a few simple "Hey, has anyone else heard about this?" comments to sell the "found footage" premise, let people "discover" it, then let word-of-mouth do the rest. And, for the most part, it worked. I talked to people three or four years after it had been released, and they were still somewhat "freaked out" by it because they still hadn't heard it was fiction.

It wasn't flawless, however. For example, a week before the movie opened the Los Angeles Times jumped the gun and ran an article about how it was advertised that explained in no uncertain terms that the movie was indeed a complete work of fiction. And about a month before it opened the Sci-Fi/SyFy Channel aired a "documentary" that "explained" what the "found footage" allegedly represented, but the credits at the end of the documentary left no doubt that the movie was indeed populated by actors playing their respective roles.

 

[Fading Fast]

I remember the, for the time, incredibly successful advertising campaign of "The Blair Witch Project" - you couldn't not hear about it.

We watched it months later on DVD, so knew it was just a movie, but still though it was good, decent - not super or incredible, but a reasonably well-done - "scary" movie. That said, as noted by Benzadmiral, it hasn't had much of a presence at all since.

A similar thing happened to the Bruce Willis movie, "The Sixth Sense," which got a lot of hype when it came out - and was a decent but not fantastic movie - but I haven't heard boo [] from it since.

 

[Zombie_61]

...A similar thing happened to the Bruce Willis movie, "The Sixth Sense," which got a lot of hype when it came out - and was a decent but not fantastic movie - but I haven't heard boo [] from it since.

I think the problem with The Sixth Sense is that it seems brilliant on the first viewing, but once you know the "twist" it doesn't hold up as well on repeated viewings because you can see how M. Night Shyamalan has manipulated both the story and the audience. Then you watch his next movie, Unbreakable, and realize he's a one-trick-pony who seemingly can't produce a movie without some sort of gimmick. From that point on it's difficult to enjoy his movies because you know you're watching a bait-and-switch setup, and you spend your time waiting for the "twist" to be revealed.

 

[Benzadmiral]

I remember the, for the time, incredibly successful advertising campaign of "The Blair Witch Project" - you couldn't not hear about it.

We watched it months later on DVD, so knew it was just a movie, but still though it was good, decent - not super or incredible, but a reasonably well-done - "scary" movie. That said, as noted by Benzadmiral, it hasn't had much of a presence at all since.

A similar thing happened to the Bruce Willis movie, "The Sixth Sense," which got a lot of hype when it came out - and was a decent but not fantastic movie - but I haven't heard boo [] from it since.

The "I see dead people . . ." line is still being parodied, I think. And the central surprise concept was done also in a few other movies around the same time -- I joked then that it seemed we had a whole new subgenre in the ghost story film.

 

[Fading Fast]

⇧ Agreed and I liked the way "The Others" handled it - less kitschy, more visceral and thoughtful.

A later version "The Awakening" also handled it well I thought.