I really wish they would stop doing musicals as a few screens for a few weeks and then wide release later. Just put it out in all theaters at one time.
Am I alone in hoping for a PG-13 video/DVD option? I truly wish that the blood/gore direction had NOT been taken. (NOT the forum here-I know...) I could have drummed up at least a dozen more ticket sales in my little world if the movie hadn't taken the R rating path.
I am convinced this movie would have done much better with a PG-13 rating.
**sigh**
Broadway Star Joined: 10/27/07
Also the movie hasn't even opened overseas yet. Trust me, we have nothing to worry about financially as of right now.
Broadway Star Joined: 10/27/07
Also the movie hasn't even opened overseas yet. Trust me, we have nothing to worry about financially as of right now.
"I truly wish that the blood/gore direction had NOT been taken."
It's a musical about a barber who slits throats. What did you expect??
I truly wish that the blood/gore direction had NOT been taken.
The man slashes throats and kills people. What other direction should it have gone in?
ETA: Priest beat me to it.
I didn't need to actually see the throats being slit on the big screen to get the idea of what was happening. I was hoping for the little red light to shine on the characters once they were killed off....
Burton said to the studio heads that he would not even do the movie if it wasn't given an R rating. Thank god!
Sondheim also had said: "The bloodier, the better."
And by no means is this movie 'tanking'.
i was hoping for the little red light to shine on the characters once they were killed off....
so this would mean that this post has had its throat slit by johnny depp?
Because abstract and theatrical is the way to go on film.
I don't typically go for blood and gore, but I felt Burton's handling of this was extremely effective. The blood itself didn't look look real enough to bother me, but as for service to the plot, showing it was the right kind of realism.
(Cute puppy!)
I think it would have been a little on the lame side if it hadn't been as bloody/gorey as it was, and I probably would have been pretty disappointed, personally.
I normally hate bloody movies, but I couldn't see Sweeney being done in any other way on film.
Obviously, you did not get at ALL the way Burton and his collaborators approached the material or what they were going for.
Without the blood, the movie would have lost a substantial amount of its power.
Not to mention that it is exactly what Sondheim wanted.
but wouldn't it have been so much more powerful with some red lights? and maybe a synthesizer.
They should've just filmed the John Doyle production and stuck it in theaters, you guys. That would've gone over so well with the general movie-going population.
why did they feel the need to cheapen the material by making a movie at all?
clearly this is all about sondheim's legendary greed.
Obviously I am kidding about the light (funny, Papa), I just don't think people should complain about low ticket sales. Combining blood, gore, and a musical makes for a smaller target audience. My two younger kids know the songs from this musical, but they were not going to the theater to see it with me.
Gosh, that Sondheim. Greedy!
Yes, it makes for a smaller audience, but I applaud Burton for approaching this with artistic integrity -- a virtue that is shrinking in the film industry. He told the studio point-blank that this was going to be rated R or it wasn't happening, and he got what he wanted. Frankly, I don't think it's a story for kids, period. What, if you didn't actually see the blood, you'd think it was okay to expose small children to a story ABOUT killing people and putting them into pies? Burton should have abandoned his intention to do right by Sondheim's work so his movie would be child-friendly? Sweeney is not for little kids, period. And I'm sorry, but I'm glad he didn't back down on his integrity for the sake of little kids.
I heartily agree, Emcee!
I'm not trying to act all know-it-all, but as a working film writer and producer in Los Angeles, I can pretty well guarantee that the studio is happy with the money that "Sweeney Todd" has made so far and the future prospects look good. It's not a youth-oriented subject, doesn't have any hot teen stars or showy, sexy musical numbers. It's a solid piece doing solid numbers and, as Variety says, will have a stellar life on DVD. (And as a WGA member, that hurts to say until I and my posse get our fair share).
yeah the subject matter is definatly not kid friendly, unlike Hairspray and Enchanted. If they hadn't included the blood and gore, the violence would've looked Disney-fied (where people get hit with arrows and guns and knives, and then in the next shot the wounds are magically gone).
Perhaps you should change the misleading title of this thread. I know it gets people's attention, but it is inaccurate.
Seriously, it's a total falsity. If it tanked (which any sensible analysis would say it didn't), it tanked in its first weekend. Its second weekend was nearly identical.
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/21/07
Not to mention it's not even playing everywhere; it's not coming to theatres around me until January.
I am not talking about young kids. I will not be taking my 11-12 year old to see it. As a matter of personal preference, I wish it had been less gory....I am fine being all alone in my preference, and I am not here to dispute artistic interpretations. I was merely commenting that the movie would make more money with a PG-13 rating.
Videos