> > > So how come Superman is bombing at the box office after a good first few days?
> >
> > Three words: Captain Jack Sparrow.
>
> I don't buy it. Well, it's a factor, sure, and Pirates is currently swiping a few million of what Superman would have made. But the bad buzz on Superman and underperforming box office started last weekend. (Of course it's hard to sell an argument that such a moneymaking film is underperforming, but the fact is that Superman Returns was the most expensive movie ever made, and it'll be lucky to make 60% of what Spiderman 2 did. Warner Bros ain't happy.)
>
> The point I was really trying to make is that Howard's line of reasoning "flaws make people talk, and people talking sells tickets" doesn't fly with me. For a huge blockbuster like that, good buzz and repeat business is absolutely critical. If the buzz is all about how the movie screws one thing or another up, people wait for DVD in droves. And the hardcore fans aren't likely to go twice if something ticks them off.
>
> But even if the theory is sound, what filmmaker purposely includes flaws in his film? It doesn't make sense. Controversy, maybe. That'll get people talking, and in a less uniformly destructive way, too.

I guess you didn't notice my tongue in my cheek. Intentional flaws would be rather stupid. But there is a saying in Hollywood. "I don't care what they say about me, as long as they talk about me." I suppose bad publicity is better than no publicity at all.
Howard