Had I a pint, it might have been worth the 4.50....

This was a terrible, terrible movie. I cannot describe how bad this movie was.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh. Did you not read any of the threads about it yesterday and earlier today?

no

I haven't been combing Texags this weekend. I've been knitting some new potholders.

The bad thing is, is that Hollywood bases a movie's success on how much money it makes the first weekend. Despite whether or not the critics or the public hated it or not. Since VH made about $54 million dollars this weekend (all due to mass marketing) we can all expect an even crappier sequel in the not so far off future.

The girls in that movie looked really good on the Maxim magazine I got last month -- should have just bought that magazine instead of the movie ticket.

quote:

---

Franchione later added of his 4-6 Aggies: “We all feel like (opponents) need to get their licks in while they can.”

---

Well, I went to go see it bc I had been horribly mean to my boyfriend. I felt that going to see Van Helsing was my sacrifice to prove that I was sorry.



BTW, HARRY POTTER PREVIEW IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was not that bad. Not as good as I had hoped, but not that bad.

I want my money back....

quote:

---

Since VH made about $54 million dollars this weekend (all due to mass marketing) we can all expect an even crappier sequel in the not so far off future.

---

Maybe not. It still has to gross another $150 million or so before it breaks even.

I think they planned on this being a trilogy before they even had any idea of how it would do at the box office.

Van Helsing rocked. You are all stupid.

Van Helsing did not rock.

It was a terrible movie with nothing going for it but special effects and the hotness of Hugh jackson.

He's hot, but not movie price worth.

That seems to be the trend these days.

Instead of making a really good movie that makes money by having it's viewer base increase and spread by recommendation and word of mouth they make a really crappy flick with some good action sequences which they use for the trailers and suck in as many first time viewers as possible. What a rip off.

quote:

---

It was a terrible movie with nothing going for it but special effects and the hotness of Hugh jackson.

---

WRONG

It was a terrible movie with nothing going for it but special effects and the hotness of Kate Beckinsale.

[This message has been edited by 92Ag95 (edited 5/10/2004 8:01a).]

The movie was entertaining. It won't be winning any awards, but I enjoyed it. Perhaps if Van Helsing had been a mother in search of his/her lost children, or fighting back against an abusive spouse, or in love but stricken with some terminal disease, or fighting the good ol' boy network, or hanging out with a bunch of other chicks at a boarding school, you might have enjoyed it more.

Sounds like mindless entertainment to me, which is exactly what it is made to be. Ya gotta learn to accept movies for what they are, not what you want them to be. You'll live longer.

For those of you who hated Van Helsing, or have no interest in seeing it, there's always Lifetime Movies or WE.

so basically, if you didn't enjoy van helsing, then you're a pathetic woman, correct?

Popcorn movie, get over it. If you couldn't that going into the movie, you are an idiot.

Don't be disappointed this summer when Will Smith in 'I, Robot' doesn't get your Best Actor weenie excited.

The film had some really good marketing. If it had as much substance as the website, it would have been 10 times as interesting as it was.

I've seen Kate Beckingsdale and Hugh Jackman act before. Neither did so in this film. the Frankenstein "monster" had more depth than any of the characters portrayed.

I went in keeping my expectations low and looking for 'mindless entertainment'....and it still came up short.

I was expecting summer fluff.

This didn't provide it.

I know it's cool to insult me, but I hated this movie and it has nothing to do with seeing women struggle against oppression.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since VH made about $54 million dollars this weekend (all due to mass marketing) we can all expect an even crappier sequel in the not so far off future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe not. It still has to gross another $150 million or so before it breaks even.

---

Not really, it also pulled in $51 million internationally, so it's already made back 2/3 of it's budget. Not bad news for the studio.

isn't that just total revenues? I thought the movie theaters took a cut of that as well as the other costs to put it into the movie theaters...

That's just revenues. And the cost of production of a movie usually doesn't include marketing costs, so it probably ended up costing more than $151 million.

The theaters don't make much off the first weekend's totals (that forces them to keep movies playing longer). The studios know that the majority of a movie's box office comes that first weekend, so they make sure they get the vast majority of the cut that week. A theater's cut gets bigger starting the 2nd week.

Van Helsing also most likely spent a ton promoting this film. VH didn't have any major tie-ins, like McDonald's (or MLB in Spider Man 2's case ), so their promotions budget was probably bigger. With this healthy opening, I don't think they'll have any trouble getting all their money back and turning a nice profit (especially on the DVD sales).

I haven't seen it yet, but I plan on it hopefully sometime this week. Next weekend, though, is "Troy." And I WILL be seeing that this weekend.