Posted by Neil at 205.163.142.226 on November 18, 1999 at 12:53:53:
In Reply to: Re: Why Kevin sometimes doesn't mention Mallrats... posted by Lunch Box on November 18, 1999 at 12:40:39:
: See, that is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I'm sick of people calling it a failure, or a shortcomming, or a spot on Kevin's record. Screw that. The movie was great, and anyone who say's it was a flop...well, to be nice, they're just wrong.
It cost $6.1 million and made $2.1 million at the box office. That's the definition of a financial failure. It also defines a failure in the eyes of the industry, critics and the public at large. He doesn't have to sell the movie to MALLRATS fans.
: If I made a movie, and 500 people liked it, I would be the happiest person in the world. Kevin should be ECSTATIC about this film.
He does love the film. I'm not sure there's any reason he should be ECSTATIC about it's performance, although I'm sure he takes satisfaction in the fact that it's built a fan base on video and cable.
: The problem is that the studio pushed him into spending more than he wanted to in the first place (according to the MallRats DVD commentary). Look, I understand big business, and advertising, and kissing the critics ass, but c'mon... Mention MallRats one out of every 500 appearances.
He mentions MALLRATS sometimes.
: Also, I'm not buying into this "Kevin has no control at all" BS. It should be his call. It should *ALL* be his call. Believe me, if it doesn't end up on a movie poster, or commercial, it's because someone said "I don't think we should mention the one that didn't outsell Titanic", and Kevin said "Ok, then we won't". There's NO WAY that if he made enough of a stink, they could get away with it.
It takes a *lot* of clout for a filmmaker to take that much control of the way his films are advertised. I know he has input, which in itself is a very special thing for a director whose films have made as little overall as Kevin's have. I suspect that their low budgets, high profitability and high critical standing helped in that.
Basically, he refers to the other two for a variety of reasons. He refers to CLERKS a lot, because that remains the film he's most associated with. He refers to CHASING AMY sometimes because it was his biggest critical and financial success as well as being a tremendous leap forward artistically and came from him coming to a place where he really understood what he wanted to accomplish artistically.
MALLRATS is a kickass fun flick, but still really seems to have been something of a lark. A big fun comedy film with a budget. It's a cool flick, but doesn't represent anything to mention regularly on talk shows.