What was the highest-grossing independent film of 2008?
"Milk?" "Slumdog Millionaire?" Woody Allen's "Vicky Christina Barcelona?"
How about a Christian-themed movie called "Fireproof?"
If you're surprised, the idea that ABC's "Nightline" would not only point this out, but also do a segment on Friday evening dealing with the rise in faith-based films from what they referred to as "Godlywood" might be even more shocking (quotes from article at ABCNews.com follow, video of segment available here):
Hollywood can be hard to predict, but given the choice between last year's Woody Allen film, "Vicky Christina Barcelona," Sean Penn in "Milk" and a Christian film called "Fireproof," starring aging teen idol Kirk Cameron, not a single industry insider saw this dark horse coming.
"Fireproof," a Christian-themed film straight out of "Godlywood," buried them all as the top-grossing independent film of 2008. [...]
While the Cannes Film Festival has celebrities, like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, the Independent Christian Film Festival in San Antonio sports a large cash award for its top movie, which is $101,000. "The Widow's Might," a 101-minute film written and directed by 19-year-old John Moore of Kaufman, Texas, won the award in January. As for "Fireproof," it's the story of a fireman's battle to save his marriage, and was the shot heard across Hollywood. Opening in theaters in late September, the film earned $33 million at the box office in 2008 on an almost unheard of $500,000 budget.
The film's 2008 gross revenue even beat out the Academy Award-winning "Slumdog Millionaire," which opened in mid-November.
"We were all sort of pinching ourselves and laughing and watching it as it did so well," said Cameron, star of "Fireproof" and former star of TV's "Growing Pains."
While the box office profits speak for themselves, the making of "Fireproof" is a story in its own right.
The film was written and directed on a shoestring budget by the brothers Alex and Stephen Kendrick, who are pastors in Albany, Ga. Other than Cameron, the entire cast was made up of church members -- and everyone worked for free. The Kendrick brothers say God told them to make the movie.
Apparently, more faith-based films are on the horizon:
Whatever the content, Hollywood likes a winner. The Samuel Goldwyn film company, more accustomed to big stars like Russell Crowe and Julia Roberts, is the first major studio to embrace Christian films. "Fireproof," then a dark horse, was their release in collaboration with Christian film company Provident Films, and the genre of Christian film is on the horizon.
"It's an underserved audience," said Meyer Gottlieb of Samuel Goldwyn Films. "You know, you can say Christian or faith, that Hollywood is not serving that audience the level it should be serving it, and it's a huge audience. So, I think there are great opportunities, and I'd like to release one or two Christian films a year, or faith-based films a year."
Imagine that.
Kudos to ABC for this segment.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This has to be driving the
June 8, 2009 - 12:55 ET by gmaniac1This has to be driving the liberal athiest absolutely mad. Good for Kirk Cameron and he is becoming a loud voice for Christianity.
When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!
Temporary
June 8, 2009 - 13:00 ET by cvgbuckeyeIt is wonderful to see this but I have bad news. According to the Gospels and for example towards the end of Matthew:
"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold......
As we near the end, things will become worse and worse for Christians. Simon Peter's Rooster will crow and crow. Sad but true.
Unbelievers are spared these thoughts though, aren't they!
Jesus stated that we would
June 8, 2009 - 13:12 ET by gmaniac1Jesus stated that we would become martyrs for following Him and He was right. However, that doesn't mean we fear the oppressors and shy away from our faith. Christians are always challenged (i.e. trials and tribulations) and like any good thing, it takes a lifetime of hard work to achieve.
When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!
Anyone actually see this
June 8, 2009 - 13:08 ET by Another Dead KennedyAnyone actually see this movie?
I saw it...
June 8, 2009 - 13:17 ET by adfishIt was a great movie (despite the small budget). It felt a bit like a "B" movie at times, but in spite of my prejudice going in, I was really moved by the message--inspiring.
Wow--I had no idea it grossed that much at the box office.
It was a tremendous and
June 8, 2009 - 13:27 ET by balboaIt was a tremendous and unexpected hit, considering its humble beginnings. Of course, Slumdog has gone on to make almost $120 million more in 2009, while Fireproof has stayed pretty much where it finished 2008.
I'm all for films that appeal to all kinds of audiences. We'll see how this continues in 2009.
So does this mean you saw
June 8, 2009 - 13:46 ET by Another Dead KennedySo does this mean you saw the movie?
Nope. Not my cup of tea.
June 8, 2009 - 14:13 ET by balboaNope. Not my cup of tea.
KDW ~ you are starting to sound like balboa with your inane
June 8, 2009 - 13:30 ET by pahubersnippets you think are commentary.
Yes I saw the movie with my wife.
I bet this just eats you up, doesn't it...lol
I bet I sound like a lot of
June 8, 2009 - 13:59 ET by Another Dead KennedyI bet I sound like a lot of people who you don't agree with. My only point is that before people get too excited about the success of this movie, a simple question of who on this site actually saw the movie. I would think first and foremost that the members of this site are the target audience.
Now while I'm at it I'd like to make another point. Granted the movie was made for $500K or so, but let's ask the obvious - what would the movie cost if they had actually paid the crew? It's one of those mysterious numbers like when they claim a housewife's salary would be $127,000 a year if she was paid for all the work she does. I would like to see a budget for this project and calculate a true cost of production. Can you tell I work in the financial sector of Hollywood?
PS: I don't care how much money this movie makes, nor how successful it is. Like you, I see the movies that interest me, and not the movies that don't. Fortunately anyone with a camera can make a movie, and the public gets to judge its success in ticket sales.
"I bet I sound like a lot
June 8, 2009 - 14:05 ET by pahuber"I bet I sound like a lot of people who don't agree with."
- No, not really.
- Your typical cynical snippets concerning anything Christian are showing up for all here to see. Balboa will do this on a daily basis to cast doubt. Seemed very similar to his.
"My only point is that before people get too excited about the success
of this movie, a simple question of who on this site actually saw the
movie. I would think first and foremost that the members of this site
are the target audience."
- One of many audiences. What is your point, specifically for stating this? What difference does this make to enhance your point?
"Now while I'm at it I'd like to make another point. Granted the movie
was made for $500K or so, but let's ask the obvious - what would the
movie cost if they had actually paid the crew? It's one of those
mysterious numbers like when they claim a housewife's salary would be
$127,000 a year if she was paid for all the work she does. I would
like to see a budget for this project and calculate a true cost of
production."
---------------------------------------
*** We are talking about the highest grossing independant film, KDW. **
- Not the cost of production.
This seems to be a diversion from the point I was making. Is Night Line also in error for pointing this out, as well? It seems that by doing this you are ignoring the entire point of this story.
- My point with you is that this is eating you up.
"Can you tell I work in the financial sector of Hollywood?"
- Great, but you still need to see that the point is highest grossing independent film.
"PS: I don't care how much money this movie makes, nor how successful it is."
- Pardon me, KDW, but it certainly sounds like you do lest you would not even comment on this thread.
"Fortunately anyone with a camera can make a movie, and the public gets to judge its success in ticket sales. "
- Indeed, but good luck with the highest grossing independent film title.
Don't confuse the facts here
June 8, 2009 - 14:29 ET by Another Dead KennedyDon't confuse the facts here - it's the highest grossing indie film of 2008. Many, many indies have made much more. While $30M is a huge deal for this movie, it is considered a failure by most accounts when the production costs are truthful. If this movie had cost $15 million to produce, $30M box office is not considered a success. Figure in distribution and promotion, and the fact that the theater gets half of the box office, and the movie is a failure. Now, if you'd like to include the hidden production costs of not paying the crew, and things aren't so clear now, are they?
- Your typical cynical snippets concerning anything Christian are showing up for all here to see.
Find one quote. I dare you.
"Don't confuse the facts
June 8, 2009 - 15:06 ET by pahuber"Don't confuse the facts here - it's the highest grossing indie film of 2008."
- That was my point. The only one trying to confuse the facts is you, KDW.
"Many, many indies have made much more."
- Perhaps, is that relevent to this discussion? If you believe so please tell me how and why? I mean other than you downplaying the success of this film in 2008. If you are going to do this please provide the grossing films amount that have outperformed Fire Proof. I mean you made the statement so you might as well provide the data.
"While $30M is a huge deal for this movie, it is considered a failure by most accounts when the production costs are truthful."
- My goodness, KDW, this really has your panties in a bunch, doesn't it. LOL
- Gross is the take in and that is what is being measured.
- Net is after expenses.
Can you ascertain which is supposed to be discussed here and now? Why do you wish to detract from Fire Proof's success, KDW?
"If this movie had cost $15 million to produce, $30M box office is not
considered a success. Figure in distribution and promotion, and the
fact that the theater gets half of the box office, and the movie is a
failure. Now, if you'd like to include the hidden production costs of
not paying the crew, and things aren't so clear now, are they? "
- You wish to discuss NET and not GROSS, again.
You see, let me help you here, KDW. Nightline actually got this one right in that many people went to see a movie in 2008 that out grossed many other movies in 2008 as an independent film. Hollywood gauges success and failures by naming the gross (amount taken in for the weekend) and not the NET you are so fixated on right now.
You are the one so confused that you have to bring in expenditures to somehow convolute the issue. We are talking GROSS, ok?
Fire Proof was a huge success and Hollywood should take notice... unless, like newsweak, they listen to their inner demons.
Ok, KDW. Here you go.
June 8, 2009 - 15:17 ET by pahuberpahuber: - Your typical cynical snippets concerning anything Christian are showing up for all here to see.
KDW: "Find one quote. I dare you. "
-------------------------------------------------
Ok, here goes.
"Anyone actually see this movie?" You began this thread with this treasure.
"Does that mean he violated his union pledge to only work on union productions? "
- Another of KDW's non-topic cynical treasures. Thought this was about the movies success...lol Not whether someone violated a union contract. You see KDW, you move so fast and slippery it's hard to pin you down.
It's about gross receipts.
Says nothing about
June 8, 2009 - 15:39 ET by Another Dead KennedySays nothing about Christianity, nor "typical cynical snippets." Try again.
This topic involves as Christian movie and I provided you with
June 8, 2009 - 15:58 ET by pahuberyour usual drool.
Busted again, KDW... you must be getting used to this, huh.
Oh my god! I feel so
June 8, 2009 - 16:10 ET by Another Dead KennedyOh my god! I feel so stupid. Here I thought I'd been debating an adult this whole time. Now that I realize you're nothing more than a child, I understand where your reasoning comes from - inexperience.
Once again I challenge you to find one single instance when I have placed judgement on Christianity. I know you'd like this debate to be about religion. Sorry, it's about the financial success of this type of film, and questioning whether it can go mainstream.
"Oh my god! I feel so
June 8, 2009 - 17:03 ET by pahuber"Oh my god! I feel so stupid. Here I thought I'd been debating an
adult this whole time. Now that I realize you're nothing more than a
child, I understand where your reasoning comes from - inexperience."
I am not surprised you resorted to this manner of discussion so quickly, KDW.
"Once again I challenge you to find one single instance when I have placed judgement on Christianity."
~ Stop: Reality Check Time w/ your host : ) pahuber ~
pahuber's quote to KDW in its entirety:
-----------------------------------------------------
pahuber:
- Your typical cynical snippets concerning anything Christian
are showing up for all here to see. Balboa will do this on a daily
basis to cast doubt. Seemed very similar to his.
-------------------------------------------------------
You bit: Gee how did I know that you would bite...lol
-------------------------------------------------------
KDW:
"Find one quote. I dare you. "
-------------------------------------------------------
I gave you two of your snippets as direct illustrations.
Let's compare quotes side by side shall we... just for fun.
pahuber: - Your typical cynical snippets concerning anything Christian
are showing up for all here to see. Balboa will do this on a daily
basis to cast doubt. Seemed very similar to his.
KDW's interpretation of above quote:
"Once again I challenge you to find one single instance when I have placed judgement on Christianity."
I said your typical cynical snippets concerning anything Christian...like this movie. Like your first comment that started the entire debate... actually, that seems to be your MO of late.
Let's continue:
"I know you'd like this debate to be about religion. Sorry, it's about
the financial success of this type of film, and questioning whether it
can go mainstream."
Wrong on both counts.
- It's not about "the financial success of this type of film"... you brought this colossus of stupidity into the argument. I flat out reject this for a discussion on an indie film. Who lacks what?
I said your typical cynical
June 8, 2009 - 17:11 ET by Another Dead KennedyI said your typical cynical snippets concerning anything Christian..
No. Anyone on this website - please provide a link of mine to back up this argument.
As for you, pahuber. I'm done. You obviously feel the need to win this argument, so I concede. Do you even read my comments? I know what I'm talking about here because it is my profession. And I couldn't care less if you get it, because it makes no difference to me. At this point I'm simply making the same argument over and over again. Go back to arguing about Christian Rock. It's obviously something you're passionate about.
You're wrong. Gross versus
June 8, 2009 - 15:33 ET by Another Dead KennedyYou're wrong. Gross versus net has everything to do with this. If a movie costs $300,000,000 to produce, and makes $275,000,000 at the box office, which turns out to be more than any other movie makes that year, it is still a failure.
I'm still asking (what is nothing more than a rhetorical question since it can't possibly be answered) what the true costs are of producing this film. You can't call it a huge success and call on Hollywood to start making these films if the true cost isn't clear. Hollywood doesn't get by on favors and volunteers. It costs a lot of money to make a film. If this film was made and produced by a Hollywood studio, it may have cost $40 million. Therefore, $30M at the box office would be considered a failure. How can this possibly be argued?
Now let's talk about other indie success stories. Kevin Smith for example made a little film called Clerks for about $27,000 (plus favors and volunteers) and made 3.1M. So he was hired to write and direct another movie - Mallrats. It cost $6.1M to make, and grossed $2.1M. This is what I'm talking about. Just because a movie can be successful as an indie, it doesn't necessarily make a good model for future production.
KDW, again, being disingenous with the facts...
June 8, 2009 - 15:53 ET by pahuber"You're wrong. Gross versus net has everything to do with this. If a
movie costs $300,000,000 to produce, and makes $275,000,000 at the box
office, which turns out to be more than any other movie makes that
year, it is still a failure."
- Again, discussing NET. You just cannot help yourself with the success of Fire Proof. This is not Water World with Kevin Costner, KDW. You want to nitpik about who got payed what and who was in a union or not, etc etc... ad infinitum ad nauseum.
- Is that typical with indie films? Nope. You just don't like this film because of the message. We get it...
- While you are correct in pointing out how net works (after expenditures) we are of course discussing the gross receipts of a small productions success.
Now for more of KDW's smoke and mirrors: watch closely ~
"I'm still asking (what is nothing more than a rhetorical question since
it can't possibly be answered) what the true costs are of producing
this film. You can't call it a huge success and call on Hollywood to
start making these films if the true cost isn't clear."
- BS, Hollywood does this all the time. In fact, their failures seem to denote that they got this down to a science.
"Hollywood
doesn't get by on favors and volunteers. It costs a lot of money to
make a film. If this film was made and produced by a Hollywood studio,
it may have cost $40 million."
- How is this comment even relevent do our discussion of an indie film outgrossing all others in 2008? Why do we care?
"Therefore, $30M at the box office would
be considered a failure. How can this possibly be argued?"
- Because it is NOT a Hollywood film.
- Not supported with Hollywood currency
- Not promoted in anyway by Hollywood?
Hmmmm??? could that be a clue?
GROSS KDW GROSS KDW
Never mind. You obviously
June 8, 2009 - 16:05 ET by Another Dead KennedyNever mind. You obviously only care about the success of the movie, not the obvious statement made within the article that Hollywood should take notice. Isn't that the point of this article? To argue that Hollywood should be making this type of movie? I have already argued the questionable success of this type of movie. Blame whomever you'd like - you will not see a rise in production of these movies in Hollywood for one reason, and one reason only - it's difficult to estimate the kind of money it will make when the model is based on make-believe. That is, a movie made with volunteers does not convey the actual production costs of replicating such a success. Until a dollar amount is given to the cost of making this movie in Hollywood, they're not going to touch it.
It was a 500,000 dollar
June 8, 2009 - 16:14 ET by bassndudeIt was a 500,000 dollar budget. To put a price tag on a larger budget, would largely depend on the people in the movie. But then again, Hollywood has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on low grossing films. How many times have they spent 100,000,000 bucks on a film that grosed 25,000,000? Or less? Hollywood makes movies on a regular basis that are money losers. Why would they not make another? Perhaps, like Mel Gibson, they should take a chance. They might learn something.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Again, with all due respect
June 8, 2009 - 16:20 ET by Another Dead KennedyAgain, with all due respect (and how many times must I argue this?), this movie was made for $500K, but most people involved were not paid. Favors were called in, equipment and locations were donated. I'm asking what it would have cost to make this movie if the true production costs were included. There is no denying the success of this movie. But the article asks why Hollywood isn't making these kinds of films. If the true production budget was $40 million, and the movie made $30 million, there's the answer.
Its really a straw man
June 8, 2009 - 16:33 ET by bassndudeIts really a straw man argument, on this film. You could ask the same question about "The Passion of the Christ". Mel could not get any backing for that movie. Had to start his on company to release it. Hollywood said it was a non starter.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
You are spot on BassnDude! Boy do they hate Mel's guts for
June 8, 2009 - 16:31 ET by pahuberdoing that film and wiping their faces in his success.
Actually they hate Mel for
June 8, 2009 - 16:50 ET by Another Dead KennedyActually they hate Mel for his racist, sexist tirade and for driving drunk, risking the life of anyone on the road that night. Hollywood loves giving second chances. See: Tom Cruise
La-La-Land leftists were
June 8, 2009 - 17:02 ET by bigtimerLa-La-Land leftists were green with envy and despised Gibson long before that happened...they just kept mum about it for the most part.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
That is a baseless argument.
June 8, 2009 - 17:05 ET by Another Dead KennedyThat is a baseless argument. You have nothing to back that up. If Lethal Weapon 5 was released today it would be the biggest box office draw of the summer.
Wrong again, KDW. The movie reaction began the hating process
June 8, 2009 - 17:10 ET by pahuberwith Mel's movie success before his assinine rant.
NOT the other way around. You know, chronology matters here.
"Actually they hate Mel for his racist, sexist tirade and for driving drunk, risking the life of anyone on the road that night."
None would defend this other than to say that Hollywood probably loved this happening... but they hated him for the movie first.
None would defend this other
June 8, 2009 - 17:12 ET by Another Dead KennedyNone would defend this other than to say that Hollywood probably loved this happening... but they hated him for the movie first.
Certainly you have a way of backing up this argument. I'd hate to think it's simply what you "remember."
Ok, I will say this. Place my comment under common
June 8, 2009 - 17:26 ET by pahuberknowledge. You do not remember the brouhaha over this movie at all? It was considered, by some, racist against the Jews? Hello???
Someone pull KDW in from the pool.... he's flailing.
Sure there was controversy
June 8, 2009 - 17:37 ET by Another Dead KennedySure there was controversy with this film. All good art should have controversy. But Hollywood most certainly did not write him off until his DUI, when he showed how sexist and racist he really is. I saw it on the local news, as it happened 15 miles down the road from me. I imagine you saw it on TMZ?
It was all over the news...
June 8, 2009 - 17:47 ET by pahuberIt was all over the news... I just do not think anyone missed that. I totally repudiate what he said. He was hated before this happened because of his movies... I suppose you did not hear some of comments that his film was anti-semetic? To which I disagree with...I think it was an attempt to portray events as they happened and not to denigrate the Jews.
I certainly remember the
June 8, 2009 - 17:54 ET by Another Dead KennedyI certainly remember the protesting of his film, but I still say Hollywood didn't write him off until the DUI. I never saw the film, but I imagine there wasn't much wrong with it, given the huge box office success. His epics tend to do quite well.
KDW, ok let's switch gears to where you want to go...
June 8, 2009 - 16:29 ET by pahuber"Never mind. You obviously only care about the success of the movie,
not the obvious statement made within the article that Hollywood should
take notice. Isn't that the point of this article? "
- First, I do not think the legitimate success should be casually tossed aside and convoluted with costs of productions. Give the film the credit it deserves. After all, it is an independent film.
- Second, that is just a point made in the article and an excellent one at that.
Having said that I also think that Hollywood usually knows what will make money and what are risky films that may or may not work... and I would bet some films would be made for write offs in taxes.
The latest film with Lib Ed Assner made the top grossing over this weekend. Hollywood knows what will bring in families etc. It does not have to have overt Christian themes to make a good film that will draw Christians into the mix. Good morals no sex etc will typically bring in the populous...save shawn228 ; )
I do not think that Noel meant something with the direct message like Fire Proof be made with Bruce Willis & Demi M... that would just fall flat w/ these or other Hollywood characters. But Hollywood knows how to make money and they know what draws crowds...now they have to choose to keep making crap or at least throw a few more freakin' bones to us.
"I have already argued the questionable success of this type of movie."
Well, let's say you tried to argue that point. Quite unsuccessfully, at that. As an independent film leader in 2008 how do you define that as questionable success?
"Blame whomever you'd like - you will not see a rise in production of
these movies in Hollywood for one reason, and one reason only - it's
difficult to estimate the kind of money it will make when the model is
based on make-believe. That is, a movie made with volunteers does not
convey the actual production costs of replicating such a success.
Until a dollar amount is given to the cost of making this movie in
Hollywood, they're not going to touch it."
As previousely mentioned earlier on in this post I may only slightly agree with your point if you mean a direct Christian movie played by your normal run of the mill crappy hollywood elites.
That would indeed suck it hard.
However, again, I agree with Noel that Christian themes or moral themes have been absent from a vast majority of Hollywood movies for way too long now.
The true cost is what it
June 8, 2009 - 16:17 ET by bassndudeThe true cost is what it cost to make the movie. The budget was 500,000 dollars. That is the cost of the movie. What is it you dont understand? You cant ask the cost, and then say, "No, thats not right because so and so was not paid." If so and so was not paid, it is not relevent to the cost of making the movie.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Hey, if people want to keep
June 8, 2009 - 16:22 ET by Another Dead KennedyHey, if people want to keep volunteering their time to make these movies while the producers make another $30M, more power to 'em.
I understand what KDW is
June 8, 2009 - 16:23 ET by balboaI understand what KDW is getting at. In other words, is the economic paradigm (I guess?) that this film followed viable for future Christian movies? Should investors start putting serious money into these movies now, or is the profit an illusion because of those not getting paid.
But I thought only Cameron didn't get paid. It's not clear who did or didn't.
Regardless, the movie was a big success.
Oh dear lord, thank you for
June 8, 2009 - 16:25 ET by Another Dead KennedyOh dear lord, thank you for a voice of reason!
Thanks to you too, bal.
ROFLMAO! just priceless.
June 8, 2009 - 16:34 ET by pahuberROFLMAO! just priceless.
Pick yourself up, brush the
June 8, 2009 - 17:39 ET by Another Dead KennedyPick yourself up, brush the cheetos off your back, and settle down now.
KDW, it was made on a
June 8, 2009 - 14:25 ET by bassndudeKDW, it was made on a budget BECAUSE of the type of movie it is, and the people belived in the message. Sometime, your payment comes in other forms than "money". And for those who worked on/in the movie, I am sure the rewards were great. Not that you would understand that, it seems. The point is not how much it cost to make, but that it out did the other, blockbuster budgets.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
What I'd like to know is of
June 8, 2009 - 14:35 ET by Another Dead KennedyWhat I'd like to know is of that $30 million in box office, how much was paid back to the crew of the film who worked for free, or did the money just go into Kirk Cameron's bank account?
Kirk worked for free
June 8, 2009 - 14:47 ET by bassndudeKirk worked for free also.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Obviously there are a lot of
June 8, 2009 - 14:49 ET by balboaObviously there are a lot of details with the budget, who got paid what, but the movie was still way more successful that anyone thought it would be.
Does that mean he violated
June 8, 2009 - 14:54 ET by Another Dead KennedyDoes that mean he violated his union pledge to only work on union productions?
I doubt that any union
June 8, 2009 - 15:03 ET by balboaI doubt that any union people worked this movie.
Reality check, KDW. Krik is
June 8, 2009 - 15:10 ET by bassndudeReality check, KDW. Krik is not a member of the actors union. This is the firs acting job he has done sence the movie from the "Left Behind" books. Krik is a Christian. He left hollywood shortly after his "conversion" because it was not conductive to, nor friendly to, his Christian values.
Get a grip and stop with the moronic snippets.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Reality check? I'm sorry,
June 8, 2009 - 15:17 ET by Another Dead KennedyReality check? I'm sorry, was I denying something that needed a reality check? I asked what he benefited by doing this movie. If you read the article above, nowhere does it state that Kirk is no longer part of the Hollywood establishment. I believe all I did was pose a question.
KDW, get back and answer my post or are you going to slip
June 8, 2009 - 15:20 ET by pahuberaway into the dark again.
Movies are judged by GROSS receipts to determine their success and NOT NET.
You have been busted, again.
so what
June 8, 2009 - 15:35 ET by arkansaszippersWho cares if a bunch of christians flocked to see a movie like sheep. It's like christian rock - it sucks so bad, but it keeps selling, because christians will buy anything associated with christianity.
"Who cares if a bunch of
June 8, 2009 - 15:56 ET by pahuber"Who cares if a bunch of christians flocked to see a movie like sheep. "
Someone pushed the panic button...lol
Well, thanks for your characatures concerning Christians.
"It's like christian rock - it sucks so bad, but it keeps selling,
because christians will buy anything associated with christianity."
- uhuh... lol Your outlook on life really is ignorant.
Panic?
June 8, 2009 - 16:10 ET by arkansaszippersWhat panic are you talking about? Who cares if a bunch of christians want to go see a movie - what does that do for anybody?
And christian rock sucking has nothing to do with a life outlook - it's a fact. Christian is the suckiest music to ever exist - go on, tell me I'm wrong. Tell me something that even comes close to its inherent suckyness.
Snap! Score another one for me!!!!
"What panic are you talking
June 8, 2009 - 16:43 ET by pahuber"What panic are you talking about? Who cares if a bunch of christians want to go see a movie - what does that do for anybody?"
Well, quite easily it means that people wish to see something that brings hope and meaning into their life.
"And christian rock sucking has nothing to do with a life outlook - it's a fact. "
No, it is not a fact. Some may indeed 'suck', but then again you just want to put all of it into the 'suck' category? Really?
"Christian is the suckiest music to ever exist - go on, tell me I'm
wrong. Tell me something that even comes close to its inherent
suckyness."
- Ok, you are very very wrong.
Most of the music created today (not all) I would say really sucks. I listen to the oldies stations here from the 60's ~ 80's. I do not think their are very talented performers like there once were making music. Please do not misconstrue my comments here... there are some good songs, but too few and far between in my opinion.
As far as your outlook... it just seems like you just have a very poor attitude/outlook on anything Christian.
"Most of the music created
June 8, 2009 - 18:09 ET by goldbar"Most of the music created today (not all) I would say really sucks. I listen to the oldies stations here from the 60's ~ 80's."
Can you say "geezer"?
goldbar
June 8, 2009 - 18:17 ET by MrShyLook at the astounding output of those three decades, across the spectrum of popular music... all the great artists and songs, year after year.
You've got an argument that the '90's and '00's come anywhere near matching the previous three?
NOTE: even after including Mr. Shy, they pale in comparison.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
If I may, I'd just like to
June 8, 2009 - 18:24 ET by Another Dead KennedyIf I may, I'd just like to add that as much as music is seemingly lacking these past few decades, I think in 20 years we may look back and realize things weren't so bad. Remember how bad the 80s were? Synthesizers and Saxophones - it was awful! Now we look back with nostalgic eyes and yearn for another "Walk Like an Egyptian" or "Livin' on a Prayer." The 90s brought us Grunge, Alt-Rock, Punk 2.0, Hip hop, Gangsta Rap, Rap-Metal... As awful as it sounds on paper, there was still some pretty good music to come out of the 90s.
Christian is the suckiest
June 8, 2009 - 16:51 ET by PeskyDaneChristian is the suckiest music to ever exist...
Hmm... perhaps you'd like to put that into context. I'm sure fans of this one and this one would offer an intelligent counter-point.
Seems like some on this
June 8, 2009 - 17:12 ET by pahuberSeems like some on this thread can conjur up trolls faster than Satan can demons ; )
Have to admit, I'm curious
June 8, 2009 - 17:21 ET by PeskyDaneHave to admit, I'm curious to see if he's a good sport about that tiny little zing I just gave him.
I'll give you credit for
June 8, 2009 - 17:34 ET by Another Dead KennedyI'll give you credit for that one, but I think he was referring to Christian Rock, which inherently is an oxymoron. True rock-n-roll requires rebellion (sex, drugs...), and that is missing from the Christian variance of the genre.
Now, as far as the sound goes, there's nothing wrong with playing rock music with a positive message. There's plenty of room out there for improvement and variety.
...Christian Rock, which
June 8, 2009 - 17:48 ET by PeskyDane...Christian Rock, which inherently is an oxymoron.
You've got me there, big guy. Never big on the genre myself.
Please! You were being smug
June 8, 2009 - 15:32 ET by bassndudePlease! You were being smug and insolent. The smart elick attitude was evident. You could google Krik and find that out real easy. You were only called on your ignorance. Kirk is on Christian TV pretty regular and has guest hosted some of the christian talk tv. But that has been his income over the last few years.
BTW, Kirk would not kiss the woman that played his wife in the movie. In the closing scene, that is Kriks "real life wife".
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Secretly I think it's
June 8, 2009 - 15:35 ET by balboaSecretly I think it's because he couldn't believe his luck in marrying Chelsea Noble. :-)
OK, that was pretty funny,
June 8, 2009 - 17:19 ET by PeskyDaneOK, that was pretty funny, but to be fair, he did marry her when he was at the top of his game, and he pretty much had his pick of the hen-house.
Going back and forth on the success of this movie is pretty academic. Sure, it didn't approach block-buster status, but without a $10,000,000 ad campaign all we're left with is speculation.
As someone on this thread pointed out, it has a bit of B-flavor in parts. Overall, an above average movie. Haven't looked up the DVD sales, but imagine they aren't too shabby.
One thing's for certain, A hundred million dollars will not buy a good movie - consider the latest installment from the Terminator franchise.
This is a RED HERRING. A movies success is judged on GROSS
June 8, 2009 - 15:14 ET by pahuberwhen reported weekends are tallied and NOT NET, as KDW would like to believe.
Here's a GROSS number for
June 8, 2009 - 17:01 ET by Another Dead KennedyHere's a GROSS number for you:
Fireproof is actually #125 on 2008's top grossing films list. But it beat out "Be Kind, Rewind" so at least that's good, right?
OMG KDW... you are limping here now. Go have a Red Bull and
June 8, 2009 - 17:18 ET by pahuberlet's try again.
You are placing an indie film up against a Hollywood movie, again.
If you are trying to answer my previous question i thought it was quite clear that I requested it in comparison to other indie films. Anyhow, it doesn't matter...your point is quite hollow and flat.
For the layperson, gross
June 8, 2009 - 17:23 ET by Another Dead KennedyFor the layperson, gross numbers certainly sound exciting. For people in the industry it means nothing.
I would not go so far as to
June 8, 2009 - 17:29 ET by pahuberI would not go so far as to say it means nothing, but I understand what you meant.
Again, KDW, this is an indie film. Give it its due. Stop with the net game for this film allready...it's old and tiring.
I believe I've given it
June 8, 2009 - 17:44 ET by Another Dead KennedyI believe I've given it credit in a few different posts here, but if it makes you happy, I'll do it again.
I give Fireproof credit for its success, grossing 60x what it cost to make.
But in the real film world, a success such as this would be merely impossible to replicate, because the budget numbers are inaccurate, and when a movie makes this kind of money the first time around, those who donated their time, gear, locations, etc, will be asking for compensation the next time.
If this kind of success could be replicated, I would be selling my house to cash in on the deal. How else can you turn $500,000 into $30M in a year?
.
June 8, 2009 - 17:54 ET by pahuberSorry, double post
For that matter, it doesn't
June 8, 2009 - 18:04 ET by Another Dead KennedyFor that matter, it doesn't seem Hollywood pushes movies with religious messages of any kind. Christian, Jewish (don't they say Hollywood is run by Jews?), Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist - I think they're all ignored for the most part. I guess that's what the documentary category is for. I see movies for entertainment, a dosage of make-believe, to forget about what's going on in the world for 2 hours and just have some fun. I don't need to have my beliefs reaffirmed.
How about on an Adam Sandler movie budget?
June 8, 2009 - 17:52 ET by pahuberAgain, I just think you are trying to give reasons why they can't rather than why they won't.
You will not convince me, but goodluck...maybe you can convince somebody else on this thread.
Yep. Saw it twice. Very
June 8, 2009 - 14:20 ET by bassndudeYep. Saw it twice. Very good movie with a very good story. Very modern day, real life sort of adventure/love story.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I saw it, too
June 8, 2009 - 14:21 ET by ChaitealoverAs did quite a few people I know. It doesn't take a Hollywood budget to make a good film, it only takes a good story told by people who care about it.
Chai
We cannot expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism until they suddenly awake to find that they have Communism - Nikita Khrushchev, 1959
I'm a Christian and thought
June 8, 2009 - 14:27 ET by candidcameracatI'm a Christian and thought it was terrible. It had BAD acting and bad directing. So it definitely isn't art. Also, I don't know why the Christian message was in the film, since it had nothing to do with the story.
Your a Christian? Sounds
June 8, 2009 - 14:31 ET by bassndudeYour a Christian? Sounds like you missed the entire point of the movie. Not only that, but how you can say the story had nothing to do with the message in inane. The story was the message.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
It did so well because many
June 8, 2009 - 15:31 ET by goldbarIt did so well because many churches and Christian groups bought the house and the congregations attended for free. Our church hosted a free showing and while some enjoyed it, it did get some bad word of mouth reviews.
Netflix is on board with marginalizing conservative film
June 8, 2009 - 15:50 ET by carolina09I have a netflix account, and the service and the business is excellent. However, they are highly biased in their inventory and that might make for an interesting article here at NB. They add every leftwing independent documentary produced to their list, a huge list of gay indies, even those with obviously poor audience draw, but resists carrying anything conservative. They don't have "Media Malpractice" on their list, and for months and months had no copies of "Fireproof."
Netflix are just partaking
June 8, 2009 - 16:09 ET by goldbarNetflix are just partaking in a free market economy. As far as "Media Malpractice" goes, even the right-winged. Texas-based Blockbuster doesn't carry it and it only got a total of one review on Amazon with no comments, which proves it is a poor investment as a rental. If you really want to see it, help the company out that made it by BUYING it.