Kingdom of Heaven failed financially due to bad marketing??

I have this movie sitting home. I'm probably going to watch it this weekend, but I was just wondering if anyone who saw the movie could weigh in on this. Is Scott that far off? Did you come out of the movie with a totally different view from what the marketing and trailers portrayed?

__________________
MY Myspace page
My Blog

Shop Smart. Shop S-Mart

My Reputation: Holy Crap, I'm Well thought of!!!?? I think we're going a little far here??

nope.
i knew it wasn't the great Scott i used to love so much anymore. i mean, tis far from bad, but since Gladiator...

__________________
We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

No, I don't think this is the case. The fact is that it was a pretty average film. It probably would have got less money if it was advertised as a political/religious film, as a. it wasn't much of one and b. most people don't want to go and see a political/religious film, they want an action film.


False marketing can damage films, though - Stigmata, for example, was marketed as a horror film when it really isn't, it is more of a religious/supernatural drama, and actually a beautiful (but not at all scary) film.

Scott's just looking for a scapegoat. The film was poorly edited, the shaky cam was headache-inducing, and they were so terrified of offending Muslims they decided it was safer to offend Christians.

Five or six decent moments might be enough for a shorter film, but stretched out over almost 2 and a half hours, it makes for a rather mediocre movie.

i always take these films as a history piece more than anything else...romance is always secondary...

i liked the film ...it's about a period of time that i am interested in, but i really don't think that the public was excited about, which is why i believe it did poorly....

Thanks for the input...keep it coming.

what exactly is offending Xtians there?
oversensitive?

I liked Kingdom of Heaven. And Scott is right, the primary theme is religion/politics. Honestly, I didn't know if I'd like it since Orlando isn't exactly the physical presence that Crowe is. But his part didn't require an unbeatable warrior. It was more about honor and bravery and doing what's right. And Bloom was fine for that. At one point, he gives a stirring speech to his outnumbered troops; and does it very well I thought.

The political/religious theme was perfect for what's going on today. The departure from pure action/romance was a welcome relief.

And while I thought the big battle/seige was a bit too long, I doubt we'll see a better re-enactment of such an event.

Personally, I liked Kingdom better than Troy or Alexander.

The mention of how Christians slaughtered the inhabitants of a certain city, whilst the Muslims portrayed spared their Christian counterparts. It's unrealistic to expect this movie to encompass the entire conflict, during which both sides committed their share of atrocities, but the film chose to display one side's misbehaviors more than the others.

If you want me to go into detail, I can, though Googling the concept will yield some pretty detailed dissections of the film.

Comments like these are why you get into so many verbal scuffles on this site. I suggest you keep the pithy jabs to yourself. If you can't, however, it'd help if you didn't accuse people of something you've become infamous for.

That isn't really saying much....

In order for a movie like this to be popular with the general public there has to be some one to cheer for. In this movie the Crusaders weren't portrayed as heroic characters.

Although the tone of the movie was much better historically than the typical Hollywood film it won't be a big hit. Most people go to the movies to cheer for something, not to learn.

__________________

"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."- Groucho Marx

Not that there was much to learn from this. Bloom's character's big insight into the crusdaes seemed to be "wouldn't it be nice if we all stopped fighting and just shared Jerusalem". You could learn that kind of thing on Sesame Street...

Yeah, I agree. It wasn't horrible. Liam Neeson saved it for me.

I honestly don't know much about Ridley, but I do know that I can't stand his brother Tony.

__________________

And we say to ourselves, "Well if that were in a movie, I wouldn't believe it."

www.myspace.com/randeath - me

www.myspace.com/animasana - my band

The concept that you are going to “Learn” anything about History in a useful and non-biased way from a blockbuster movie is laughable.

__________________
ispitonyourmovie.com

REVIEWS

Anonymous Last told me to drop in ...

What movie are we talking about here again?

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

ONLY 250 MILLION!?

Someone should call John Doe, we've got greed/envy/pride nailed with scott.

But unlike the victims in se7en, we won't have pity over a mutilated scott carcass. And yes, scott was meant to be plural!

Just saw the movie, sorry.

Anyways, I really excited about this movie (or somehwat, I should say), but then my friends saw it and said it was mediocre so I snubbed it off. If it was a truly awesome movie then my friends wouldn't bash it and I would see it, so marketing played no part in it.

__________________

Yeah I guess I was wrong........... Overseas sales helped slightly (heh). I actually liked this movie, but only because it was a needed fix I think. B- film. but in this day n age B- isnt that bad.

i disagree..you can learn a lot from a blockbuster film...if the film can get you to do research later on, then it has accomplished its goal...and i'm not only talking history here...

This is weird concidering that I talked to some people after the movie was over and they didn't like it because they thought it was going to be about God and everything else, when it was action. So I guess you have to look at these things differently and take them how they are.

I'm gonna jump in here with my opinion and I hope you take it as just that.I think you jumped on chicagofrog unreasonably..and I was thinking the same thing he posted.

The movie is actually spot on in terms of the violence committed. During those times, roughly 1049 and on, the Crusaders committed the most gruesome crimes known to man. In the first crusade: 60,000 to 100,000 thousand people died when Jerusalem was sacked. If you don't believe me look it up, my source comes from many but for consistency I'll say I'm using Wikipedia. Don't forget that at this time the muslims had been in control of Jerusalem for 400 years. And they were present in the region since before the spread of Islam (when they were just samaritans, arabs, and assyrians).

When the pope declared that he wanted the holy city back, there was a flurry of savage lords who literally picked up their lives and dropped in on the muslims in Jerusalem. It is well documented that when the First Crusade began, the muslims, not just in Jerselum, were not just massacred but torchered for fun and games.There are cases of children and women being torched in front of their husbands for a good laugh. There was pure hatred in the blood of those who supposedly came in the name of god and Jesus. Collectively the most elite of these became known as the Knights Templar, who had their own governing system within the ranks of the christian army.

When Saladin retook the city, he sparred every single child, woman, and man's life. And don't forget, his sister was brutally murderd by the same people he let live.

So I think your statement that the movie shows the christians as being not only more at fault, but also viscious and blood thirsty is absolutly correct. Because that is exactly how they were. That is history.

__________________

Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.