Sweeney Tanks in 2nd Week of Release — Page 3

And I agree with that. But the film is a faithful representation of that story. It is about someone who kills people. By nature, not appropriate for children. It should not have been lightened up just so children could see it. The subject matter itself is not kid-friendly. I wouldn't let a 12 year old see it, either. Blood or not, the subject matter is scary. But you wish it had been less of a service to Sondheim's work so you could take your kids. That's fine. And that is also why you're "not here to dispute," as you put it, or really, concerned about, the matter of artistic value and interpretation.

---

Updated On: 12/30/07 at 07:54 PM

"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)."

Wow, as a writer you want your fair share. Does the producer side of you bitch-slap the writer side of you and tell you to buzz off? Let me tell you what the writer's fair share is going to be - it's going to be the same thing that they could have gotten a month ago. They'll hold out till Feb and then it will be over. And like the stagehands everyone will be very conciliatory and say how they both got what they wanted, but in the end it will be very close to what was on the table a month ago. And so it goes as it's always gone.

And yes, I'm a writer, I'm a director, and I'm occasionally a producer (although I try not to be).

I'm glad you think the studios will be happy, but at this particular moment in time, I think they know they will be losing money on this film, and I think they don't really care.

SPOILERS*********************************************************

You are not alone in questioning the blood. Not because it was "too much", but beause it looked glaringly fake most of the time. The Beggar Woman's death at the end was perfectly staged, and the Judge's death would have been much more effective if we hadn't already had enough Hammer-style tomato soup thrown at us.

Imagine how much more effective it might have been during "Johanna II" if the camera had never left Sweeney's face as he sang--if the actual killings had taken place below the film frame, and we'd only heard the death-sounds and perhaps seen a few drops of red hit Sweeney's face. Or if we'd seen the process once from the customer's point of view, including going down the chute at the end? Touches like that would have been truly scary AND funny, and would have helped to make the story really work on film. When we're asked to see basically the same bloody lawn-sprinkler spray five times in a row, we stop reacting.

---

I don't know how you could have made it PG-13. How do you lessen the gore for the story of a man who (in the stage version at least) slits people's throats and makes them into pies?

---

I think you're partially right, b12b. I hate horror movies. I scare easily, I don't like blood, and I'm fairly squeamish. I couldn't handle Burton's Sleepy Hollow when I saw it in theaters. Granted, I was pretty young, but the heads started rolling and I just couldn't watch. There's something about the way the gore was presented in Sweeney that it wasn't bothersome to some generally-squeamish people. I don't know enough about film to put terminology to what that is, but it's something in the art of it. Is it a little gratuitous at times? Yes. But, IMO, it makes the story what it's meant to be. Unsettling, dark, etc., etc.

Okay, and basically, saying that Burton should have sacrificed what he thought was right for the story so kids could see it, when kids should be seeing it at all is a discredit to Burton's choices. It would have been a compromise to what he thought was right for telling the story. How is saying you would prefer that compromise not taking away value from what he chose to do? Have your opinions, by all means, but at least own up to having them. Sweeney kills people. People die violent, ugly deaths. Whether you see it or not, it is very clear how this man murders people. If there were less blood, the subject matter would still not be appropriate for children. Period. You appreciate what he's done in one breath, and wish it were different in another. You're completely contradicting yourself. Yes, as a business choice, it would have made more sense for it to be PG-13. That's perfectly, logically clear. That's not the point I'm contesting.

---

Updated On: 12/30/07 at 08:19 PM

Wait... do you all remember that "Jaws" was rated PG!?!

And the most haunting and memorable death of ALL was the first one. Chrissy. And we didn't see a thing, except for her horrifying, flailing body being pulled around by an unseen "monster" beneath the waters.

It turned many a stomach, and caused many a nightmare. Including MINE.

And that movie made a buck or two, so I heard.

---

I'm not sure that PG-13 would make that much of a difference. Rent was PG-13, and the rating didn't help the box office that much.

And there have been plenty of scary movies that were rated R that was full of teenagers - (Scream, anyone?). I know there were a ton of teens in the last Sweeney showing that I went to, and I'm sure some weren't 17. If teens want to see an R-rated movie that bad, they will. At least the R- rating does discourage parents from taking their children because parents take kids to just about any movie now days. An R-rating MIGHT make them think twice.

I also agree that the gore/blood was much more artistic. I can't stand watching hospital television shows, but the blood and gore in Sweeney doesn't bother me because it IS theatrical rather than realistic.

---

OK i know im gonna get slated (since people already seem to think i want the film to fail because i have an opinion)

BUT

The numbers are not good

1st, slasher films which have been released on the same amount of screens have made more than this film (Thats slasher films with no names in)

2nd It does not have to make $50 million back, that is just the production budget.In reality it is looking at making at $70 million back, something it is not going to do at the box office.

3rd, This wide release will be whats on the lips of the suits at the studios, the film has under performed so they wont release it as wide as planned.

4th It makes no difference if it does or does not get Oscar nods, in its SECOND week it has dropped to number 8, the film will have fallen out of the box office by that time.

5th a studio would not predict the film to make $50 million domestic when it needs to make over that to break even.Big studios dont make films for arts sake, they make them for money.

Its wide release will only keep sweeney in the top 10 for a week or so more lingering at the bottom.The film is out there for people to see and those who want to see it will have done already.

I LOVE sweeney and cant wait to see the film, but you have to be realistic, its not doing well, the suits will not be happy with its performance and it will probably fail to make its budget back

I know that sounds harsh but some people on here seem to be in some strange denial or something.

Just be thankful the reviews were strong and it will probably do well on DVD

---

Must you always speak in unfounded hyperboles, Yankee?

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....

There are so many things wrong with this one sentence. The blood/gore direction was taken in the original production of Sweeney, when they invented a razor to spurt blood when he killed people. The throats were slit on the stage to the best of the special effects abilities, so of course they were going to slit them in the movie as well.


defygravity2, this is what you need. But don't be surprised when the movie ends up being only 5 minutes long.

http://www.cleanflicks.com/privacy.html

---

I agree best. The thing that freaked me out was ***SPOILER***** the body of the Beadle on the floor of the bakehouse.

---

hermionejuliet---You have a great point about a PG-13 rating on a musical film. It might not have helped it out at all.

But would it have been possible to release an effective and thrilling "Sweeney Todd" with a lesser rating than R?

Yep. It would.

---

defygravity, why can't you just show your kids the tour DVD?

---