From: seanc130@hotmail.com   
      
    wrote   
      
   > I could argue your point, but I won't! You have your opinion about the   
   > movie, and I have mine.   
      
   Pussy!   
      
   #8^P>~~~   
      
   > What I will argue is what you said about Fox   
   > promoting the movie. They gave away tons of 'Free' tickets to see the   
   > movie. ( I received two myself.) And I saw a lot of previews for the   
   > movie on TV, and in print.  How much more promoting does a movie need?   
      
   What?? I never heard of any of these things. I glimpsed an ad on TV only   
   maybe a dozen times over the course of like 4 months -- and never heard or   
   saw anything else, anywhere, ever. And from what I've read, it's a general   
   consensus that Fox's promotion was pathetically anaemic and ineffective. You   
   are the first person I have ever heard claim otherwise.   
      
   Even if there was more advertising than I was aware of, it's still not as   
   much as they should have given it. Look at the massive campaign they rolled   
   out for 'Fringe' -- you practically couldn't watch anything on TV, or go   
   online, or read a magazine without them screaming and pounding it into your   
   brain that 'Fringe is coming!!! Made by the guy from Lost!!! It's a lot like   
   the X-Files!! We're even cutting the commercial breaks shorter because we   
   REALLY REALLY WANT YOU TO WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'   
      
   I'm not saying 'Fringe' didn't deserve all that. (I don't know yet whether   
   it will live up to the hype -- I'm liking it quite a bit, but it HAS only   
   been 3 episodes so far, so I'm reserving final judgment.) But if they could   
   go so balls-out for a show whose main selling point was its similarity to   
   XF, why couldn't they be bothered to put forth a little extra effort to   
   promote a movie that actually WAS the XF (the show that, by the way, was   
   essentially the show that [along with The Simpsons] carried the entire FOX   
   network in its early days, when it was a weak new channel that could easily   
   have gone the way of UPN and the WB)?   
      
   Even if they achieved basic competency with their promotion -- which I don't   
   believe they did, but I could be misinformed -- that's not what the movie   
   deserved. It deserved at LEAST as much of a high-visibility campaign as   
   'Fringe' got.   
      
   And you definitely cannot argue that when they decided to put IWTB out at   
   the same time as 'Dark Knight', in the middle of the 'summer blockbuster'   
   season -- and with ads that fooled many into thinking it was going to be   
   such a 'blockbuster' action sci-fi film -- they essentially stabbed and   
   disemboweled *any* chance the movie had of making a real splash, either   
   financially or culturally, and then set the intestines on fire and fed them   
   to a swarm of Liopleurodons[1] in a feeding frenzy.   
      
   The simple, unforgivable assholery of those decisions on scheduling and   
   promoting totally outweighs anything they might have done right.   
      
   > If it appealed to the X-Files fan base as you say how come it only took   
   > in $21 million  in the US? That is about $9 million shy of the budget   
   > for the movie. The first X-Files movie had a budget of $80 million, and   
   > it took in around $85 million in the US alone.   
      
   I don't get your point. I think we have different ideas of 'The X-Files fan   
   base'. The genuine fan base to which I was referring -- the kind that many   
   of us here in this group belong to -- has NEVER been all that large,   
   relative to the general population. XF was very 'big' and 'trendy' for a few   
   years there, between about seasons 4 and 6 especially, but the overwhelming   
   majority of the 'fans' of that time were 'plastic X-Philes'[2]. They watched   
   the show because it was on a bunch of magazine covers, and then when Mulder   
   and Scully didn't start kissing each other every other scene they got bored   
   and wandered away to the next popular 'item'.   
      
   *Those* are the ones with the big numbers, and all the money -- the ones who   
   came to the show late and left early, and never actually understood what it   
   was even about. If the movie had been 'Hollywoody', it's precisely *those*   
   people who would have gone, and would have loved it, and it would have made   
   tonnes of money. But it wasn't. It was the kind of film that goes right over   
   the heads of most of those people, who therefore took their money next door   
   to throw it away at a hundred viewings of the new Batman, while the hardcore   
   X-Philes, like most of us in this group, went multiple times and ultimately   
   felt pleased that CC and the crew remembered us and tried to make the movie   
   worth our attention.   
      
   That's precisely *why* it didn't make much money -- because its primary   
   appeal was to the small audience of genuine X-Philes, not to the big   
   audience of pop-culture mavens and moviegoers who just happen to have liked   
   XF for a while in the late '90s when it was hot watercooler talk. *Those*   
   people have the money, and they give it to big 'Hollywood' movies, not   
   movies like IWTB.   
      
   > Sorry but I am not a member of the movie going public. In fact, the   
   > X-Files movie (I saw it twice by the way) was the first movie I have   
   > seen in a theater in over a year. I may not be an overly obsessive fan   
   > of the X-Files, but I am a fan. I watched all nine seasons on TV, and I   
   > own all of the DVD sets. Plus I have a huge collection of X-Files   
   > magazines, books, comics, and trading cards, etc. I am a big fan of the   
   > X-FIiles but I guess I am not a fanatic about all things X-FIles.   
      
   Well, I said 'I might be wrong'. Whaddaya want from me??  #8^P>~~~~   
      
   But seriously. I know you're a lot bigger fan than most of those folks in   
   the mainstream. I just don't think you're quite totally 'tuned in' to the   
   wavelength of the hardcore Phile community. I'm not saying your criticisms   
   of the movie aren't valid -- I'm just saying that I honestly think that most   
   of the Phile community has been a bit more positive in their attitude about   
   it than you have expressed. Not even that they'd necessarily disagree with   
   you on any specific criticism -- just that they have focused more on the   
   thrill of seeing Moose and Squirrel again than on the film's flaws. It's   
   more a matter of emphasis than outright argument.   
      
   > What I   
   > mean is just because you put an X-FIles label on something, (this movie)   
   > that does not mean it is great.   
      
   Well, duh. The last time I tried to watch 'Hollywood A.D.', I couldn't even   
   finish -- about halfway through, I said, 'fuck this', and switched to   
   another episode. (Well, after briefly fast-forwarding to the scene near the   
   end where Scully says the word 'tickled', and watching that. And then   
   rewinding and watching it again a few times.)   
      
   I don't think I ever even said the film was 'great'. I think my exact words   
   were, in fact, that it was 'not the greatest thing ever'. But, on the whole,   
   it was exciting just to feel like a Phile again, and I'm willing to forgive   
   its flaws -- because they were just not severe enough to make my whole,   
   general, summed-up, considered, final opinion more negative than positive.   
   It's not like it was as bad as 'The Rain King'. I'd actually put it   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)