Shia LaBeouf's 'Man Down' Sells Only One Ticket in U.K. Debut - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52062085]I bet that Neil Breens Double Down would have done better if it was showed at the same cinema.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but Double Down is a masterpiece only eclipsed by Fateful Findings.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52062085]I bet that Neil Breens Double Down would have done better if it was showed at the same cinema.[/QUOTE] a decent but forgettable movie by a decently good actor vs one of the cringiest worst movies of all time with tg one of the worst actors. no shit would have done better

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;52060238]good lord what was the budget??[/QUOTE] $Daddy's Money.

This seems to happen a lot in the UK, I remember a Emma Watson movie that came out a couple months ago only made like 40 bucks in the UK.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;52062425]a decent but forgettable movie by a decently good actor vs [b]one of the cringiest worst movies of all time with tg one of the worst actors.[/b] no shit would have done better[/QUOTE] Damn, is Man Down really that horrible?

I mean I live in England and this is the first I've heard of this movie, I've seen absolutely no ads for it. Am I behind or was there just no ads for it? Either way this is hilarious

[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;52062613]Damn, is Man Down really that horrible?[/QUOTE] I'm more surprised that he insulted Neil Breen by calling him merely "decently good" instead of "greatest actor of the 21st century." [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pkLvfFZnPk[/media]

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;52061618]Also when did trying to shit on Shia become the next big thing? The guy is doing more for modern publicized art than anyone else.[/QUOTE] Look at who posted the thread.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52060232]Man Down, a war thriller with Shia LaBeouf, grossed just £7 ($8.70) [b]when it premiered in a single U.K. theater[/b] over the weekend, according to ComScore.[/QUOTE] Sorry Tudd you fucked up the bold lemme fix that for you. Another movie, Zyzzyx Road, had the same idea. They only played it once a day, at noon, for six days. The final box office gross for it was $30, making it the lowest grossing American film of all time. Two tickets were bought by the make-up artist and a friend for $10, and those were personally refunded by the lead actor. As well, the producers had to rent the theater for $1000 in order to do this, making it a net loss of $980. Man Down may have been a record low for the UK, but since it grossed roughly $450,000 internationally (plus $8.70 for the UK) I don't think it qualifies for the lowest box office gross ever.

thinking about it, publicity like this is bound to help the film even more seeing as I and many others didn't know it even existed before this supposed 'failure' that doesn't actually mean much in its full context

[QUOTE=Paramud;52062757]Sorry Tudd you fucked up the bold lemme fix that for you. Another movie, Zyzzyx Road, had the same idea. They only played it once a day, at noon, for six days. The final box office gross for it was $30, making it the lowest grossing American film of all time. Two tickets were bought by the make-up artist and a friend for $10, and those were personally refunded by the lead actor. As well, the producers had to rent the theater for $1000 in order to do this, making it a net loss of $980. Man Down may have been a record low for the UK, but since it grossed roughly $450,000 internationally (plus $8.70 for the UK) I don't think it qualifies for the lowest box office gross ever.[/QUOTE] I was just highlighting the interesting part of the article, but yeah what a "fuck up" if you think I am out to smear Shia or something else.

The amount made really isn't that interesting since you can make as little as you want depending on how you premier it. It's really only interesting if you're trying to make it seem like they were expecting a huge audience. The fact that they decided to intentionally tank the box office debut is more interesting to me. Job well done on their parts.

[QUOTE=Paramud;52062834]The amount made really isn't that interesting since you can make as little as you want depending on how you premier it. It's really only interesting if you're trying to make it seem like they were expecting a huge audience. The fact that they decided to intentionally tank the box office debut is more interesting to me. Job well done on their parts.[/QUOTE] So what did I "fucked up" on?

There is another showing tomorrow at the same cinema (which might be the last one) and looking at the booking screen now, it appears there is about a dozen tickets sold so that's an improvement. [QUOTE=MrBob1337;52062399]Isn't this just what happens due to old regulations or contracts requiring a physical release of some kind for a digital movie? Even if it was an awful movie at least a few people would have stumbled into it if it were an actual release.[/QUOTE] It grossing so little isn't unexpected for it only being on in Burnley considering Logan and Beauty and the Beast are out and the area isn't exactly brimming with cinema-goers especially ones for films such as this.

Maybe Shia is metagaming us all and this is just some scheme to garner huge publicity and groom it into a cult film.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52062825]if you think I am out to smear Shia[/QUOTE] is this the part we all >quote your post with smug pictures of pepe

[QUOTE=dai;52064082]is this the part we all >quote your post with smug pictures of pepe[/QUOTE] I actually like Shia as an actor and entertainer alot. If I choose to make fun of his method actor/liberal arts antics, I think I can do it while still liking him in a "Oh Shia" kind of way. Now for this particular story, I am not celebrating his film did awful. I would actually want to see it. Just thought it was worth posting.

His film didn't do horrible because, as other people have pointed out, it wasn't his film, and the fact that it made so little was obviously deliberate since they only played it at one podunk shack of a movie theater.

I hope Shia finds his niche, 'cause I've never seen him quite fit into a role. Except for Even Stevens. Hmm...

[QUOTE=Paramud;52064543]His film didn't do horrible because, as other people have pointed out, it wasn't his film, and the fact that it made so little was obviously deliberate since they only played it at one podunk shack of a movie theater.[/QUOTE] I kind of figured. So you going to explain how I fucked up or just admit you came off super aggressive for no reason?

[QUOTE=Dr.C;52060472]Well it was just one theater. I think that most box office bombs have very limited releases(not sure if a box office bomb is something that made no money, or something that lost a lot of money)[/QUOTE] I personally consider box office bombs to be movies that are released in theaters, and then almost immediately come out on DVD.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52064686]I kind of figured. So you going to explain how I fucked up or just admit you came off super aggressive for no reason?[/QUOTE] I'm not going to explain because it'll be the same post you responded to word for word. Strange to see you calling people out for not responding to a question though. Usually it's the other way around.

[QUOTE=Doozle;52061466]Why Burnley though? I imagine very few people outside of the UK have heard of Burnley I reckon a good number of people from the UK don't know where Burnley is[/QUOTE] Where the fuck is Burnley