EQUILIBRIUM discussion - Page 19

I agree that EQ is getting the shaft. But, the question for me is 'why?'. I can somewhat understand the Imposter excuse, but the buzz EQ had was enormously bigger than Imposter's so it still falls somewhat flat.

Why does Dimension not see the quality in films like Equilibrium? Are their people just poor judges of quality? Are they putting to much stock in the homogenized marketing drones that business schools are churning out? Is it too political?

Ok, so I lied...give me my soap box back... wink

If anyone wants to use EQ's second week numbers for the per screen average these would be misleading. The showings were cut down to 1 or 2 a day in almost every theater it played in. This makes a big difference when manipulating the numbers.

LOL

Actually, it had 1-2 shows per screen FOR OPENING WEEKEND!

The last week it was out, it was down to a single show in every theater in Miami. The Tuesday that TTT came out, it was only showing one show in a single theater for the rest of that week.

Thanks for bringing up that detail. It only makes the studio look even dumber.

i hate to go off topic.. but why do some local websites in montreal show EQ as opening on April 25?? (was originally posted as dec 6, before the website changed it)
do teh studios have a wider release scheduled?

I would say all of the above. I don't think most Execs are actually film enthusiasts themselves (I could be wrong). I feel they are out of touch with most of their audience. To paraphrase a line from Kate & Leopold, "They are sucking the life out of American cinema."

Mindless action is well received but give us a thought provoking, philosophical one that slightly glamorize guns (ohhh that Gunkata!!!) and they don't know what to do, especially Disney. I believe that if some other studio had handled this film it would have received better results.

I didn't know that...very interesting. So the opening week numbers are misleading as well. A "per showing" average would result in more accurate numbers but who's looking for accuracy??

</strong>

Oooohhhh pleeeeaaazzzeeeee!!

I've seen countless trailers with no scheduled release date. The Phonebooth is only one example. Started seeing that one in early 2002 and couldn't find a date for it until the end of summer.

You don't have to have a date pinned to show a trailer and every filmgoer who has sat through endless trailers knows that!!

BTW, Happy New Year to you too. I have to hand it to you. You had guts posting here!! wink

Now!!! About that cameo???? wink

In my town, after the 1st weekend (3 shows/day), EQ only played twice a day during the day, no evening shows (I actually had to take off work to go see it again).

So, if there really is a "backstory," what is it really? So far all I've heard is bogus stuff.

Helena, thanks for being brave and stirring things up, now, who can tell us the REAL reasons why EQ was dumped?
~zazu

thanks a lot Helena
maybe ill finaly get to see it instead of reading about it at CHUD

wooo

Hey, road trip to Canada to see it in a theater again!...I wonder if it will get any marketing there...it's all up to you foodi!

Oh don't tempt me!! I wonder if I could sneak outta here for a few days. I hear Canada is lovely that time of the year...

I'd be interested to see what Kurt had to say to our new friend Helena.

Helena mentioned My Big Fat Greek Wedding. The handling of this film was very different. It was given a chance at the Box Office.

1. Time was given so word of mouth could spread instead EQ was pulled almost the second week. Every single person I've shown the trailer to on my computer has wanted to see this film but couldn't. In fact, the demographics are wide...female, male, teens, housewives, business men, people in the film industry...not one has expressed a non interest. Everyone of them was stunned that they hadn't even heard of the film.

2. Equilibrium opened in the top 20 markets. Ok, I buy that but why did we here in LA get it in about 75-100 theaters while other people had to drive 2 or 3 states over. I had about 20 theaters showing it within an hour of me.

3. MBFGW opened in April, EQ shoved into a spot in December during Oscar sweeps with major titanic films either in the theater already or looming on the horizon. Of course those films would gobble up the screens. That's like putting a new TV show up against Friends and then blaming the show if it fizzles.

4. MBFGW's marketing cost 19 mil, still waiting to find the numbers for EQ and you can bet it wasn't 19 mil!!!

A superficial, feeble attempt was made by the backers to support this film. Placing it in a situation that it couldn't possibly flourish then blaming the film itself or even Bale is asinine.

Equilibrium is destined to be a cult classic with or without the studio/production company/distributors help. Once this film gets out to the public the lid that has been kept on it will be blown. Mark my word, Wimmer's name will be known along side those of Cameron, Scott, Lucas, Wachowskis, Rami... Filmmakers who had dreams and passions but had to fight the studios, start small, and ended up with unexpected, timeless classics.

As I stated at the IMDB board (Sundance-30) when Preston cool, calmly, blasts away the screen with, "I'm coming", I'm sure this is Wimmer actually announcing his own introduction and I'm anticipating the ass kicking!!

Helena,
Thanks for posting. Between a successful DVD (1.8 million sounds like it will take time) release and broadcast rights, EQ WILL do fine.

I feel the disconnect between us is that you see this film as a product to be sold. Which it technically is, but as a film fan, I believe that attitude is destroying the film business. What I see when I watch EQ is a very skilled film, among the best I have seen all year, that I could see doing mid-$50's business with a decent campaign. And by decent campaign, all I mean are trailers. Just trailers.

As for actors, you chose 3 specific actors who have visibility among a certain demographic. Not one of the three have near the ABILITY of Christian. You clearly think he is not that talented. Based on other posts, I translate that to "not that commercial". His choices are not based on becoming a star, but on working on decent films. He must have some skill to be chosen by Spielberg as a child actor in a dramatic epic. I do take offense at your belittling of the man, his work, and this specific performance. Sorry he's not as marketable as Vin. At least he can actually act, which should still count for something, but apparently doesn't.

DiCaprio was EVERY execs first choice a few years ago. While I agree he is capable of ACTING John Preston (he is extremely talented), he would not have had the physicality...Bale could rip him in half.

As for the lifespan of EQ, it will be a film remembered in 10 years. xXx won't. Hell, Blade II won't. It might not seem so at the time, but it will.

I have seen few films three times in the theaters since 1990: Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Lion King, Braveheart (BP), Titanic (BP), TPM, and FOTR/TTT. Oh, and EQ. In a two week time. The film is special and just needs an audience. The DVD will kindly provide that.

And I'll mention Below. It was on screens for one week, with NO advertising. It had GREAT buzz, but it was unceremoniously dumped. Even with a PROVEN genre director, David Twohy, also known as the guy who MADE Vin (and who is making the Riddick trilogy...at Universal). Helena, I really do appreciate your insight here. I thank you for your guts and time. But in the draconian business world, the truth is that a product CAN SELL ITSELF. The customers are not THAT stupid. EQ is a great, CROWD PLEASING "product". The ball was dropped. I only blame Dimension for the lack of posters and trailers. And they are clearly at fault, as they own the product.

Take care,
Chuck

I just had another thought, since EQ received little to no marketing dollars was Christian Bale suppose to campaign for this film out of his own pocket (hotels, flights...)??

The more I think about the excuses the more illogical and absurd it becomes....I really need to stop thinking!! wink

Helena, I repeat my question from before.

If we're to go by your logic, then WHY would Dimension give "They" a 1,600+ screen release - actually ADDING 8 screens the second week despite a weak opening - with well-in-advance and comprehensive theatrical trailers/TV advertising?

It had even LESS marketable stars than Equilibrium, a no-name director, and equally bad reviews for the few critics that DID watch it.

I don't recall any of the stars or director that film helping to market it in any way, shape, or form, yet it got a MUCH better treatment than Equilibrium did.

What's your take on that?

Helena, can you help me out with a few questions:
1) Are you saying that Bale, et al, were asked to promote the film and refused? I've seen some great interviews Bale did for other films, so I know he has done it in the past. He seems to be very professional. There must be more to the story in this case.
2) So who are the "Producers" in this case, who forced a Dec release in the US? I read somewhere that there was something in the international distribution deal that required a theatrical release in the US first. So, looking at the list below, who really has responsiblity for releasing/marketing the movie the right way? (including convincing the actors it's the right thing)

Company credits for Equilibrium (2002)

Production Companies
Blue Tulip [us]

Distributors
Bac Films [fr]
Dimension Films [us]
Highlight Film [de] (Germany)
Miramax Films [us]
RCV Film Distribution [nl]
West (Russia)

Special Effects
Digital Firepower [us]

Other Companies
Creative Cafe sound editing and design

</strong>

Where? There's not even REVIEWS for the movie in most places?

No Ebert review. No mention of the movie in any way, shape, or form on Rotten Tomatoes.com. NOTHING. It just came out and died.

Same for interviews. Kurt probably did more to help out EQ simply by being here on CHUD than Robert Harmon did to promote "They." I've never seen an interview with a single cast member of the film either.

Ok....EQ had good word of mouth and test screenings.

Dimension open it on 301 screens.

"They" had nothing and virtually wasn't screened for critics or the public and it opens on 1,600+ screens and then they ADD 8 screens the second week?

This is why your financial/lack of promotion explanation doesn't fly.

Same studio. Another genre picture. No name stars at all. No buzz. No good word-of-mouth. And yet Dimension gives it the golden treatment, while fucking EQ over.

They lost MUCH more money on "They" due to extra prints and promotion. That's at least an etxra $35 million lost on "They" when it only made $11 million more than Equilibrium did.

Just as a quick note, I'm starting to see some very obvious parallels between Kurt Wimmer and Sam Raimi.

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Dedicated Fan Base (okay, perhaps rabid is more apt here)
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Underpromoted films that achieve a cult following
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Shows a great talent for improvisation under a strict budget
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Masterful at directing action

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So don't worry, Kurt. You'll be directing the new Teen Titans movie in no time, which will put you into the limelight for years.

Ok, you've mentioned that the decision to open in December was a decision made by the producers.

If Dimension/Miramax was interested in re-releasing Equilibrium during the slow Jan/Feb/Mar period, would that be entirely within their rights, or would they have to get the approval of the producers?

I can't understand anyone agreeing to that date unless the alternative is to never let your film see the light of day. It could be similar to what happened to Family Guy, which FOX offered as a sacrificial lamb to NBC and CBS on the 8pm Thursday time slot. If the alternative was getting the show pulled off the airwaves, that's not much of a choice, right?

I'm still not buying this...I've seen it done with other films many times before.

It looks to me like someone didn't want this film seen...hmmm
~zazu

OK Helena,

You've come here to offer a different perspective yet one of your main points from your very first post was to blast EQ's PSA in comparison to other movies that received much larger ad campaigns. Not only have we blown holes in that reasoning but we've also uncovered that these opening numbers are misleading due to the fact that the film was not playing at full screen time capacity in many theaters on its OPENING WEEKEND. Is this Bale's fault?? Were the powers that be only relying on Bale fans to "Bale" out this film?? (Sorry!! Bad pun!! I know!! wink )

Why??? Is there a fear that it might be and the train was missed??? Have you seen its rating yet at IMDB??? Have you read viewer reviews... Hundreds of them across the net and these are the people that DID get the chance to see it. Blade Runner was also not seen in its day for what it has now become.

Here is a review from a guy who saw Equilibrium because he bought the wrong ticket...

You industry people give little credit to film enthusiasts. If this film ever gets wings and flies it'll be because of the wind from the basic moviegoer and not how many magazines I sell.

I have a film industry question...aren't there often contractual obligations for an actor to assist in marketing their film?? If Bale broke a contract would not then he be in danger of a law suit?? Was this contractual aspect overlooked by the studio/distributor??

From a professional/legal stand point this seems very odd.

Ooopppsss.....did I miss my prosium interval again???

Hey Helena, how exactly were you involved with Equilibrium?

Helena,
Bale alone could not "sink" a film. He ain't nearly big enough. And what does he have to gain, especially after RoF did so poorly (although I bought a ticket). If you are insinuating that the lead actor wanted the film dead (and I don't know if you are...just deducing), I need much more concrete reasoning. It doesn't make any sense. And I pride myself on being a fairly reasonable fellow.

Your continued input is appreciated. Even in spite of Bale (whose performance is KEY to the film's fanbase...it's not just the action we've discussed here), the film should have been a success. Or it should have been given a chance.

Look, I am not complaining. I got to see it. Three times I just want to ensure that Kurt Wimmer MAKES MORE FILMS. I want to ensure I'll get a decent DVD presentation that I can treasure. I want to provide feedback.

The film is NOT that dangerous. It is a thinking filmgoer's movie. It is very violent, but it is well-done and NOT incendiary. It is a film about choice and life, not death and fascism.

We go on what we know, Helena. We don't believe anybody because of who they are or where they work. We work things out. Some of what you have said is clearly true. Some of it does NOT make any sense at all. I am just trying to work out why I can't see this film for the next few months, and why most of my friends won't see it until they buy or rent it.

That's all,
Chuck

But the film needed Bale as the actor. Of that, I am certain.

Here's my thought:
-Knowing that a movie really CAN BE marketed without the actor, since I've seen it done before, (and I don't hear any of the actors proactively badmouthing it either, which has happened with other films that had a more "normal" release).
-knowing that the director wanted it seen, for sure!
-then it's down to the producers, and/or the distributors...If they wanted it seen, then they wouldn't let an actor's unavailability stop them.
-my conclusion is that there is something "personal" going on with some guys with big egos (that don't care about losing big $), that we may never know (until 10 years from now.)
I'm angry at them for screwing with my viewing pleasure...I'd like to know who they are, so I can screw with them!
~zazu

Because we've seen it done countless times before.

um....actually....according to people on this very forum and posts already made here it wasn't in their area. Your baby is being messed with.

Are you sure??? Ford hated that film and still does.

Ooopppsss....is it showing!!! wink

Well said! Amen!

Come to think of it I did see Bale talking about the film on a short spot on TechTV. Maybe its just my imagination. Huuuummm...could be interviews from when the film was being made. Why aren't those being used more??

Where do you get that Ford hates Blade Runner? I know he hated his voice over for the original theatrical version, but I believe I heard something about a year ago about Ford discussing with Ridley Scott the possibility of doing a Blade Runner 2. I'm guessing that "possibility" went nowhere, but it doesn't sound like a man who hated the original.

Exactly!!!

Well, being that marketing expenses up until this point are negligible, and several prints have already been made, is it inconceivable that they could go ahead anyways with a Feb-Apr re-release?

Well ok, But you have to understand, all this "apparently" stuff is all just a rumor until actors say something.

.....And even if they did refuse to do press, To me it would've been very easy to go and promote the thing without the actors (and it has been done before). Actors not participating in Promotion might hurt when there are big names, but EQUILIBRIUM doesn't really have any.

The studio spent the money to make the film, not the actors. In the end the studio will suffer the most. the actors already have their paychecks, so why would the studio just give up?

Seems stupid to me, but what do i know..........

I thought I heard him actually state that in several interviews. Maybe I missunderstood but then my mind could be going. wink

who has the most to lose? The people that put up the money, correct?

You are splitting hairs and playing a numbers game. Sunday is part of the Weekend Box Office tallies and you know it. The PSA numbers are misleading even if only Sundays screens are off. I repeat, it was not playing to full capacity during its opening weekend!!

Ok, here is the original post by Gioman from page 14

And to top it off, how would anyone in their right mind expect people to show up for Fri/Sat shows, if there was no trailer played in the weeks ahead, no poster at the theater or ad in the paper, i.e., no one would even know it was playing, unless they found it by accident (like me).

I have a stupid question....Does an actor need to promote a trailer or a movie poster? I go to the movies 2 or 3 times a week saw nothing, heard nothing. Pleeaaazzzeee!!! I'm not buying it!!

Only caught Equilibrium because I was waiting for it. Actually went to the video store in the summer and asked about it because I stumbled upon it at IMDB (they still had an old release date). Looked interesting. They were clueless.

Only reason I got the chance to see this marvelous film was because I'm an avid Ebert and Roeper viewer. Thank goodness I didn't miss that one week!!

I have to say, you got me there. If I had been busy on that particular Sunday and missed that one show, I would have missed a film that I had actually been waiting for. I wonder how many other people did??

My hubby wanted me to wait for the following Friday so he could see it with me but my passion for films won over my passion for him. (ooopppsss!!! SMACK!!! wink ) And I'm sure glad I did though!! Never expected it to be pulled so fast!!

Well, it can't be the actors negotiating for the release date, so it must be the producers...
Is this how it went:
Producers screwed up release date leading to
Unavailable actors (or actors who were mad at the producers),
Leading to no time to prep campaign in marketing department,
Leading to release with virtually no marketing, Leading to poor results,
Leading to movie disappears at BO.
I'm back to blaming the producers. If Bale didn't like his performance in the film, or didn't have fun making the movie, and that's why he declined interviews, then he's less of a man of character than I thought he was, but I still feel that there must be more to the story.

I'm in marketing for a different industry, and in my industry there is no shortage of ego-driven suits, that are happy to place the blame on the "talent" when the root cause is really their own poor management decisions. I bet that's what happened here, too.

Hall of shame (unless someone can convince me otherwise):

Produced by
Sue Baden-Powell .... co-producer
Jan de Bont .... producer
Lucas Foster .... producer
Andrew Rona .... executive producer
Ninon Tantet .... associate producer
Bob Weinstein .... executive producer
Harvey Weinstein .... executive producer

After discussing this situation with my teen sons, they too remember interview clips with Wimmer, Bale, and Diggs used on TechTVs spot for the film. Ironically it aired on Sunday Dec. 29 after the film had already been pulled from the theaters. So why weren't those interview tapes used to promote the film more?? Who knows??

Oh my....that's the most reasonable explanation I've read so far!!! Thank you. Maybe I was wrong about the railroading....huuuummmm...could it be it was just poor management???

I would much prefer that it was a dark, sinister plot born out of fear of the political/religious message in the film, or Harvey was sleeping with Christian's wife...(yeeeew, yuck), or that the Weinstein's have so much money and other big films on their plate that they really just didn't give a shit, or Jan de Bont is so jealous of The Wimmer's talent that he would undermine this effort... but it was probably more boring than that. 20 years from now, when he's Sir Christian Bale, maybe he'll tell us what really happened in his best-selling autobiography.

Also, I noticed that some of the producers were on BELOW, too...any connection? e.g., they just don't know what they're doing..

Regardless, I'm going to start saving my money for a road trip to Canada in the spring.

I thought that was what you were saying...the "studio" (is that the same as the "producers"?)are blaming the "talent" (Bale) for the poor marketing effort. Maybe I don't have the players straight.

You're right about the industry/public blaming the "talent" (directors/actors) when a movie bombs, and it's clear that that is not always a fair assessment.

Yeah, I wondered about that, too, e.g., saying Preston was listening to jazz music. How could anyone who was really watching miss that it was classical? Or how about movies.com not including the positive reviews of well-known critics, like Ebert? it just doesn't compute

Can I hitch a ride?? wink

OOOOh, we're narrowing it down! Shame on the shorter list!
Sue Baden-Powell .... co-producer
Lucas Foster .... producer
Andrew Rona .... executive producer
Ninon Tantet .... associate producer