MovieChat Forums > Solomon Kane (2012) Discussion > Is there truely any reason to put in in ...

Is there truely any reason to put in in theaters....

posted 12 years ago by jakobus77
10 replies | jump to latest

I mean I would have loved for the movie to get a sequel, as it only made $20 million worldwide on a $45 million budget, but really the Weinsteins are giving this a theatrical/video on demand release which really means this is going to be put in a few hundred theaters nationwide and thats it.

I mean seriously lots of movies get the Theatrical/VOD treatment nowdays and they get paltry releases at best. So technically releasing this in theaters will probably wind up costing them money in the end.

I enjoyed the movie a lot and bought the bootleg over a year ago at a Comic Convention, and would have loved to have seen in theaters then, but to release it 2 years after the fact is just kind of dumb.

[–] MrClintToris 12 years ago

Its going to theaters? This is like Tucker and Dale vs evil this movie has already been out for a few years now and you can get it on the internet thats how i saw it last year.

Avengers 7.5/10 Unthinkable 7.5/10 Game of Thrones 100/10

[–] piazzollachick 12 years ago

Having bought the Region 2 DVD, I like it well enough to go see it on a big screen in September. I'll probably also buy a US BluRay when that becomes available.

There are still a lots of fans of S&S, Howard, and/or Purefoy who have been waiting to get a chance at a good copy of this movie.

[–] movie_fan59 12 years ago

"...and bought the bootleg over a year ago..."

One of the reasons it's harder for movie makers to make money is because of exactly what you did, so you questioning the business decisions of the Weinsteins when you're part of the problem rather than part of the solution is kind of hypocritical.

Jules Winnfield: "I'm sorry, did I break your concentration?"

[–] SixtiesAmethyst 12 years ago

{{{{STANDING OVATION}}}} I 100% agree with you!!

[–] AnimeBunker 12 years ago

Or perhaps the distribution company is the larger part of the problem, by making the movie all but unavailable for 3 years.

[–] jakobus77 12 years ago

"Or perhaps the distribution company is the larger part of the problem, by making the movie all but unavailable for 3 years."

Exactly I wanted to see the movie, but it was not available in the States for legitimate rental or purchase, I was not going to go out and buy an expensive Region 2 DVD player just so I could turn around and buy a Region 2 DVD.

[–] saruman_stoilov-1 12 years ago

When they stop paying actors 20 mil + per movie i'll stop downloading movies illegally.

[–] HetaAnma 12 years ago

I am 100% against piracy, but this movie has been finished for 3 years. We should have gotten a SK franchise, but instead the movie gets a tiny limited release. It's very poor how they handled this. I don't blame people for trying to get it another way after this many years.

[–] ihatebeing19 12 years ago

I don't mind them putting this out in the cinemas if they have changed the end and taken out the ridiculous cheap looking cgi demon that completely ruined a surprisingly decent film.

I guess the hope from the film makers is that it might reach a few more people and there is an outside chance it might take off better this time and still spurn a deserved sequel.

[–] gallifreyent 12 years ago

I could (probably am!) be wrong, but this might also make it eligible for US-based awards. It's not the kind of movie that usually garners acting awards, even though the cast is a strong one. The technical and genre awards might include them. It's the kind of film I'd rather see on a theater screen, but didn't mind paying ten bucks to watch at home. For sure, I'd rather see this at our local 'plex than fake political documentaries and preachy trash that always end up in this farm community.

SK seems a likely entry for SFF festivals and cons, as well.

~If you go through enough doors, sooner or later you're gonna find a dog on the other side.~