No way does twitcher hold a tantamount portion of the substantial onus for INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS’S new record breaking and outstanding box office success. NO WAY. In any other era, pre or post Internet, there would be commensurate profit at the box office. The only difference is people would be talking to each other to communicate it’s greatness. There would be smiles, sighs, and breathless physical exclamations punctuating the exchange of ideas. Writers would be sharing their writings in newspapers and books. Giving credit to twitchy or any other social networking site, is just like crediting trailers or billboards for a film’s success. Actually, it makes even more sense from a certain vantage point, to credit billboards and movie trailers for a genuine and important, but all the while, supportive instead of primary contribution, as their format has still frames from the film, or intended authorized art from the film involved, and a certain level of artistry that is required and preplanned critical to the understood, and, established expectations. Not to in any way devalue the hard work involved by the great people who gave their time and energy and creative capabilities to the film’s affiliated websites, but the level of the twitter hype is inaccurate and overblown in it’s assessment of where, and why credit is due. Many different skilled laborers contributed to the pre, during, and post production and marketing, without ever being mentioned in isolation by their specific craft, as responsible for the great box office triumph. If other newer/recent tech enthusiast methods are to be singled out with praise, then certainly the editors, costumers, cinematographers, location scouts, dialect coaches, lighting experts, actors, assistant directors, make up artists and many, many, other various essential creative contributors deserve equal, at least, credit coming from a more grounded or balanced perspective. In light of the tremendous achievement at the box office announced on September 21st 2009, if we are not listing ALL the folks in the credits, then simply :
The credit belongs, solely to Mr. Quentin Tarantino, and the stellar quality of his visionary trailblazing on the contemporary silver screen. PERIOD. Mr, Tarantino has waited since 1994 for the triumph of September 21st 2009 - let’s be honest and give credit where credit is truly DUE.
RhythemSiren is Inglourious Basterds your favourite movie of alltime? Because nearly all of your posts on the forums have been about how obsessed you are about with Basterds.
RythmSiren, I don’t quite get your point. True, twitter didn’t make the movie. But you can make the best movie on earth yet if nobody goes see it, it fails. The Weinstein’s use of social media marketing was very clever and worked to create the amount of hype needed to get people to see it (again and again).
Basterd101,
You got it ! I wrote in the very first thing I posted here that it had become my favorite of all time the first time I saw it. Are you saying it’s not your favorite ever ? How is such a thing possible?
Going to see it again, tonight…I really love film, and have seen other films this many times in the theatre, but they were not nearly as great. Great art is rare.
I try to enjoy/support it while I can. A run in the theatre is like the blink of an eye in a lifetime, and for all you Tarantino fans reading this right now, think about how much more possible it is for the films to get made and into theatres in style, when there is a dedicated show of support via repeated viewings and word of mouth? Aside from the sheer joy, and learning involved in seeing it as much as possible in the theatre, purchasing movie tickets is voting in a sense - your voting for what filmmakers/film companies you want to have the most power to create the art you will be watching for the next twenty years. If we don’t show up now, we can’t complain when were forced to pick among poor quality offerings of the future. I have been incredibly let down by so much of the total CRAP that passes for entertainment recently. I didn’t feel euphoria about very much of it. Well, post INGLOURIOUS, that’s changed. I’m grateful, and I want to see more of this happening. The bigger a success this film is at the box office, the better quality films we will get in general, as other filmmakers strive to compete with the higher bar that’s been set. What other writer/director is doing this in the mainstream, besides Quentin Tarantino ? Few.
I also just selfishly hope to see Tarantino - and his chosen film company with nothing but ease in their long and illustrious future of filmmaking. Is that p.c. on this board?
One can only hope… :laugh:
Sabastian,
Like i said in what I wrote initially, I don’t want to devalue any of the great people who gave their time and energy and creative capabilities to any of the film’s affiliated websites – all of it is worthwhile in my book if it’s genuinely serving the film – my only complaint is on the day Inglourious Basterds surpassed Pulp Fiction at the box office, - perhaps we shouldn’t rush to pat the most recent tech fad on the back when truly, the genius of the motion picture itself drew the crowds. The guts, nerve, courage and perseverance of the visionary talent of Quentin Tarantino — doing what no one else could even imagine, much less manifest, just might deserve maximum recognition, on a day like that.
Sometimes, the best man wins.
(Not, the best advertisement.)
Dare I say this aloud ?
If (name your favorite social networking format here)
had not been invented,
it would have done as well.
If art is food, that feeds our hearts, minds, spirit and humanity, there are many other ways to
communicate to each other, as we must to survive, what foods are nutrient rich and nourish and what’s poison. Hundred monkey theory? Butterfly effect?
Survival of the fittest?
What?
Have we evolved beyond evolution?
The cream will sometimes, still rise to the top.
We have not left gravity behind yet. Or whatever
dynamic brings cream to the top…
Pulp Fiction somehow managed very well without the hype, without the twitcher.
The ‘hype’ reaches some more than others. Hype does not reach some at all.
It quite possibly scares a whole other, probably minor, invisible demographic away. Some people I talked to, had to be persuaded by me, to seriously consider seeing it. They didn’t want to, based on some aspects of the hype. But they all adored it after seeing it. I’m not taking anything away from those that gave something. I just see who gave the most power to it’s success and he wrote it, directed it, cast it, imagined it, promoted it, and hopefully will win best director, best screenplay and best picture for it…
This film is bigger than any hype could account for. I don’t just mean in terms of box office. Just wait five years from now, ten years from now. See how it’s viewed in retrospect. Mark my words…it never needed any hype.
Sabastian,
Pardon my gut reaction, and perhaps overkill reflex to reading one sentence in the news regarding Quentin Tarantino having surpassed his earlier glory with Pulp Fiction, and then reading a whole paragraph about the glory of twitter alongside it. Shouldn’t it be the other way around ?
Personally, I wanted, on that particular day to celebrate the film and film maker. Since that achievement means so very much to one party, Tarantino, and really nothing to Twitter. Twitter didn’t even exist from the point in time being gauged in the milestone. It had already been in the news (twitter) during the whole run of the film. Since Twitter had nothing to do with Pulp Fiction, and that was what the news story was centered around…it just seemed crude to me, to mention it again, on a day that is a personal best for Tarantino — and since Twitter has no affiliation with Pulp Fiction — well, on that particular day, with that particular comparison, the milestone has one man’s name on it.
The man involved with both films, Quentin Tarantino, The Weinsteins were involved with Pulp fiction, so them too, and others in Tarantino’s core team. Of course I respect and value the film’s vehement advertising for playing it’s crucial part. I’m also incredibly enamoured of Christoph Waltz and Melanie Laurant and August Diehl,Til schweiger, Diane Kruger, and others…but once again, they were not involved in Pulp Fiction, so have nothing to do with that specific record breaking achievement. They certainly were major players in the film’s quality though, and I’m completely compelled by each of them to now seek out all their German speaking films just to get more exposure to their talents.
I intended no disrespect. I just had this very emotional reaction to what seemed disrespectful of the creator of the film. Perhaps I’m over protective, or over reacting? I don’t know. I genuinely believe that in the top news story about Tarantino’s accomplishment on September 21st 2009, the majority of the words ideally would be about Tarantino. I just assumed I wouldnt be the only one who felt this way.
It wasn’t a story solely about Basterds. It was a story about breaking the record set by Pulp Fiction.
Hope this clears up any confusion caused by my earlier post. Your free to change the title to something less caustic if it’s coming off that way?
Thank you for your feedback. 
RhythmSiren
Good lord. :-</E>
hehehe
im glad to see that u liked IB so much…but maybe u should try to think a little bit less about it for a while, u seem a little obsessed hehe
I like the enthusiasm.
[quote=“RhythmSiren”]Sabastian,
Pardon my gut reaction, and perhaps overkill reflex to reading one sentence in the news regarding Quentin Tarantino having surpassed his earlier glory with Pulp Fiction, and then reading a whole paragraph about the glory of twitter alongside it. Shouldn’t it be the other way around ?
Personally, I wanted, on that particular day to celebrate the film and film maker. Since that achievement means so very much to one party, Tarantino, and really nothing to Twitter. Twitter didn’t even exist from the point in time being gauged in the milestone. It had already been in the news (twitter) during the whole run of the film. Since Twitter had nothing to do with Pulp Fiction, and that was what the news story was centered around…it just seemed crude to me, to mention it again, on a day that is a personal best for Tarantino — and since Twitter has no affiliation with Pulp Fiction — well, on that particular day, with that particular comparison, the milestone has one man’s name on it.
The man involved with both films, Quentin Tarantino, The Weinsteins were involved with Pulp fiction, so them too, and others in Tarantino’s core team. Of course I respect and value the film’s vehement advertising for playing it’s crucial part. I’m also incredibly enamoured of Christoph Waltz and Melanie Laurant and August Diehl,Til schweiger, Diane Kruger, and others…but once again, they were not involved in Pulp Fiction, so have nothing to do with that specific record breaking achievement. They certainly were major players in the film’s quality though, and I’m completely compelled by each of them to now seek out all their German speaking films just to get more exposure to their talents.
I intended no disrespect. I just had this very emotional reaction to what seemed disrespectful of the creator of the film. Perhaps I’m over protective, or over reacting? I don’t know. I genuinely believe that in the top news story about Tarantino’s accomplishment on September 21st 2009, the majority of the words ideally would be about Tarantino. I just assumed I wouldnt be the only one who felt this way.
It wasn’t a story solely about Basterds. It was a story about breaking the record set by Pulp Fiction.
Hope this clears up any confusion caused by my earlier post. Your free to change the title to something less caustic if it’s coming off that way?
Thank you for your feedback.
RhythmSiren[/quote]
I love that word caustic and I so rarely have the opportunity to use it in a sentence!
Twitcher was the one that was helped by association with a top notch production like Inglourious Basterds.
Not the other way around.
From an article that came out October 9th…
“Our research found a significant overestimation of the Twitter Effect,” Kevin Goetz, the president of OTX’s worldwide motion picture group, told me. “The number of people who use Twitter are only about 10% to 12% of all moviegoers. And when we asked people what was the most influential source of moviegoing word of mouth, Twitter finished last, at the bottom of the list.”
OTX did an online survey of nearly 1,500 moviegoers in mid- September, the bulk of the sample being moviegoers from age 13 to 49, the key moviegoing demographic group. When asked what was the most influential source for word of mouth, most respondents picked “family and friends and coworkers,” which scored 40%, followed by Facebook (31%), MySpace (9%), IMDB (8%), with Twitter and online message boards bringing up the rear with 6% each.
“The data suggests that all the media play for the Twitter Effect is really jumping the gun,” says Vinnie Bruzzese, the exec VP of OTX’s motion picture group. “It has an impact, but it’s coming much later on, not as initial reaction. There may be people with a lot of followers on Twitter, but the most influential people in terms of word of mouth are still the people you’re talking to every day – your friends and co-workers.”
The data offered similar results when word of mouth was broken down into more specific categories: very influential, somewhat influential and not at all influential. Friends and family still led the very influential category, with Twitter and online message boards ranking last. Bruzzese says that age wasn’t a defining factor either. "We didn’t see a teen effect at all. The teen numbers for Twitter weren’t substantially different, in terms of word of mouth influence, from the older age groups.
to read more about the facts of the underwhelming twitcher :
<LINK_TEXT text=“Archive blogs … -hype.html”>Is the 'Twitter Effect' on box office just big-media hype?</LINK_TEXT>
