Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

Page 176 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
1
0
thehog said:
I've seen the movie. With the other 4 people in the theatre :rolleyes:

Wrote my summary on the forum.

But ticket sales wise it's been a flop and declining.

I don't thing people are "wrong" when saying they enjoyed a movie or not. It's up to the individual.

Am I wrong because I didn't like Titanic? Or Avatar?

I don't think the movie will recover its budget. It will loss maker for Sony and Gibney.

I loved his Enron movie though.

Oh, you are living in America now? It has only been shown in the US, a few times in Italy and a few times in Portugal.

The Sony people I talk to do not agree with you. They have been very happy with the performance, the overwhelmingly positive critical reception, and or course the award nominations. They expect it will take the normal trajectory of a documentary, slow start at film festivals, award and publicity, larger release, HBO, DVD etc

It launched in 5 theaters. Comparing it a film that opened in 1,563 theaters is not exactly an honest comparison don't you think?
 
Race Radio said:
You might want to actually see the movie.

BAFTA and the critics say you are wrong. Sony is very happy with the performance in it's so far limited release. You do realize that comparing a movie that have been out in only limited release, only in the US, for 2 months with one that was released in thousands of theaters, world wide, almost two years ago can be considered manipulating the data right?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_armstrong_lie_2013/#contentReviews

You did note the word "domestic", yes?

That is for US release only. A doco about Chimpanzees in the US only made $28m compared to Gibey's $345k domestic and about to drop off the listings.

That's what's known as "qualifying the data", right? :rolleyes:

I looked through your link of critics. Who are these people?

24mz050.jpg
 
Nov 11, 2011
85
0
0
Race Radio said:
Oh, you are living in America now? It has only been shown in the US, a few times in Italy and a few times in Portugal.

The Sony people I talk to do not agree with you. They have been very happy with the performance, the overwhelmingly positive critical reception, and or course the award nominations. They expect it will take the normal trajectory of a documentary, slow start at film festivals, award and publicity, larger release, HBO, DVD etc

It launched in 5 theaters. Comparing it a film that opened in 1,563 theaters is not exactly an honest comparison don't you think?

and Canada, just for the record.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Is Cookson afraid of what Monkeymouth, Hog, Knaggs, Stapleton et al will tell and hence did not bother to contact them or is that for the UCI commission to decide?

The latter. One could hardly call the commission independent if the UCI decided who it could speak to.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
1
0
thehog said:
You did note the word "domestic", yes?

That is for US release only. A doco about Chimpanzees in the US only made $28m compared to Gibey's $345k domestic and about to drop off the listings.

That's what's known as "qualifying the data", right? :rolleyes:

I looked through your link of critics. Who are these people?

24mz050.jpg

Math is not your strong point is it?

You are comparing a move that has been out for close to 2 years with one that has been out for 2 months. One that was released on 1,500 screens to one that was released on 5. One that was designed to develop via word of mouth and the Award circuit with one with a muti million dollar ad campaign.....the only thing they have in common is both star a guy with a mouth like a monkey
 
Race Radio said:
Math is not your strong point is it?

You are comparing a move that has been out for close to 2 years with one that has been out for 2 months. One that was released on 1,500 screens to one that was released on 5. One that was designed to develop via word of mouth and the Award circuit with one with a muti million dollar ad campaign.....the only thing they have in common is both star a guy with a mouth like a monkey

Truth be told whether the movie is any good or not is up to the individual who sees it.

It hasn't had strong ticket sales as you stated and there's a reason for its limited release. Sony and the cinemas didn't think it would be a winner.

That's ok but considering the topic was the greatest fraud to occur in sporting history you'd think it could gather more bums on seats. It did not. If the movie was able to hold weight it would have had a bigger release schedule and grown.

Perhaps the test audiences gave it the thumbs down?

In any case ticket sales wise it's been flop. And that's with you trying to pump it up into something bigger than it is.

Keep up the marketing. I hope you get a per click payment for your posts ;)
 
His is the review I wrote after I saw the movie.

It's not bad movie. But not sure I'm a good judge as I knew so much detail on Armstrong going in. A person who only knew the feel good story may enjoy it more.

thehog said:
To the movie first up. It was made for the Comeback. What unfolded in 2010 spoilt the script for Gibney. You can tell that. Also its clear Armstrong is playing the narrative for this documentary to that front. Forcing his anti-doping drug tests to be filmed etc.

Then then story changed. Sadly the movie misses the events of 2010 and how it all unfolded. It really is all about 2009 which Gibney had the footage to. Which of course was all BS.

Nevertheless there are some interesting parts. The way you're able to see Armstrong from his early years to 2009 and drawing parallels on the sort of person he is. What struck me was he his sinister laugh. It was almost redneck after shootin' some buffalo type laugh. It actually scared me. Whenever he did someone over or reminisced about it he'd laugh with that awful giggle.

Hncapie is a total let down. Just reading the auto cue written by Lance. He and Lance kept up with the "We doped conservatively" BS.

Armstrong claims he rode clean in 2000 on Hautacam after he decimated Pantani. Said no EPO and the one transfusions for the entire race came later. You just sit there and go riiiiiiighhhhht.

I found the most interesting character was Ferrari. He's the sorta guy you would want to invite home to meet the family. There a nice shot of him at home in 2009 watching the Ventoux stage with 1980's handheld stopwatch in hand.

Of the footage of 2009, Contador is a badass as has been said before. Bruyneel tells him in Spanish not to attack. So Contador just goes and forces Kloden to be dropped. It was brilliant.

The other part is Armstrong is on the whole a truly bad person. You just see it in his eyes. Even now he's plotting. He's not sorry in the slightest. You can see he still believes in time he'll be remembered at a 7 time winner.

Per Armstrong, jail etc. That's another story. I think he missed the memo that the world has changed. Enron, Wall St etc. - trying to crush people to win doesn't work anymore.

Let's see.

And some other details of the movie I'm not sure how true from around the time the movie came out posted in the Clinic.

Here's the backstory of the documentary.

Frank Marshall, who is a huge producer in Hollywood, was a fan of Armstrong. He was contacted by Armstrong's posse about making a movie. He went and took the rights to Matt Tolmach who was President at Sony Pictures at the time and who is a huge cyclist.

Tolmach bought the rights to Armstrong's story and development started. Matt Damon, Toby Maguire, Jake Gylenhaal and others were considered for the main part. Some of them took up biking, bought 16K rigs and got dropped like horse poo.

It became clear to Marshall/Tolmach that it was difficult to develop a film based on a person who was still alive and active. Then he retired and it project kinda did, too.

Marshall was a huge lanceboy who never really believed the allegations, but certainly was fully aware of them. Tolmach, on the other hand, is a cyclist who, though infatuated with Armstrong (and, as is usual in his business, with celebrities in general), had doubts. In fact, most people who know him would probably say, he knew deep inside, but chose to overlook it, because he knew that audiences wanted the hero story. He also liked being friends with Armstrong, liked riding in team cars during races, liked going to training camps.

Both, Marshall and Tolmach were often guests at the TdF, TdC, TdG etc. They went to fundraisers for Livestrong as well.

When Armstrong told the producers he was going to try a comeback they thought it would make a good documentary. Armstrong thought so, too. They went after and got Alex Gibney as the director. Gibney really knew nothing about cycling. That said, the idea was to make a uplifting, inspirational movie.

It was only when the **** hit the fan for Lance, that they shelved the documentary. Then, at some point, Armstrong told them that he lied and that he was thinking about coming clean. This happened while Marshall/Tolmach were at a fundraiser in Austin. There was talk about changing the movie and coming clean in the documentary, but the timing didn't work. So they decided to make the movie, now about Armstrong lying. They went and filmed the Oprah interview, did a post-Oprah interview etc. It's all in the movie.

The point is that Armstrong was involved in the 'new' documentary from the beginning and he is financially profiting from the movie, still. It is no coincidence that Armstrong is doing tons of interviews just when the movie comes out.

Gibney I have the least issue with in all this. The project didn't originate from him. He's a hired filmmaker who knows nothing about cycling and was handed an opportunity that then had to be changed into something else. I don't think his heart was ever really in this project.

Marshall and Tolmach on the other hand are the real hypocrites in this. They were fans, lanceboys, but probably knew it wasn't all kosher. Then, when things went wrong, they made the decision to change the movie and make it about the lie they believed in, but knew wasn't true. Now they might be nominated for an Oscar.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
1
0
thehog said:
Truth be told whether the movie is any good or not is up to the individual who sees it.

It hasn't had strong ticket sales as you stated and there's a reason for its limited release. Sony and the cinemas didn't think it would be a winner.

That's ok but considering the topic was the greatest fraud to occur in sporting history you'd think it could gather more bums on seats. It did not. If the movie was able to hold weight it would have had a bigger release schedule and grown.

Perhaps the test audiences gave it the thumbs down?

In any case ticket sales wise it's been flop. And that's with you trying to pump it up into something bigger than it is.

Keep up the marketing. I hope you get a per click payment for your posts ;)

Clearly you do not understand the movie business or you would not have compared it to a mas release movie with a multi-million $$$ add budget.

So far, even with it's limited release, The Armstrong Lie has out grossed Taxi to the Dark Side. Alex won the Oscar for that movie. There are multiple ways a documentary can make money and it often takes time.

Sony is happy, the critics and audience have been very positive. Not everyone will like it but the vast majority have.
 
Race Radio said:
Clearly you do not understand the movie business or you would not have compared it to a mas release movie with a multi-million $$$ add budget.

So far, even with it's limited release, The Armstrong Lie has out grossed Taxi to the Dark Side. Alex won the Oscar for that movie. There are multiple ways a documentary can make money and it often takes time.

Sony is happy, the critics and audience have been very positive. Not everyone will like it but the vast majority have.

It matters not per my understanding of the movie industry. Ticket sales don't lie. I gave one example. In the top 1000 documentaries linked I provided there are several examples of films on limited release outselling The Armstrong Lie.

(Link: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm)

I'm not being funny here but do you have some personal involvement or being paid by the producers?

You appear to be oddly pushing the film beyond just Internet forum musings. If you have an agenda then I think it would only be fair to declare any personal interests. You've become a little David Walsh-esque in your postings.

To the movie; Tickets sales are poor. Sony may well be happy as originally they had the "Comeback 2.0" on their hands with Armstrong likely to win a 8th tour. That movie would have killed it at the box office. So the fact they were able to resurrect he film after the downfall and get some return on investment is good for them. It's not a total dud but $345k is small change.

It's clearly not a Blair-Witch sleeper hit. It's not going to grow in fact it's in total decline.

Come T&R there will be new information on Armstrong/UCI etc. and the movie will offer little even in retrospect. The fact that Armstrong is still bullsh1ttjng in the movie will mean it's not going to grab anyone future state.

Tyson, Senna, Kings are much better insights into the athlete.

I don't disagree; Some may like the movie, some may not. It doesn't make me "wrong" because I didn't like the movie. The film missed out on the whole "Landis / Lance takedown" and could only rely on its original footage.

And when did we only rely on "critics" for movie approval? All those fake quote on cinema advertising can be nauseating.

Those events from May 2010 to the Reasoned decision were compelling. The movie missed all of that because they didn't have access to the key players. Which in my own personal opinion makes the movie "flat".
 
Race Radio said:
Oh, you are living in America now? It has only been shown in the US, a few times in Italy and a few times in Portugal.

The Sony people I talk to do not agree with you. They have been very happy with the performance, the overwhelmingly positive critical reception, and or course the award nominations. They expect it will take the normal trajectory of a documentary, slow start at film festivals, award and publicity, larger release, HBO, DVD etc

It launched in 5 theaters. Comparing it a film that opened in 1,563 theaters is not exactly an honest comparison don't you think?

I was in London for New Years and it was being advertised there. For a guy with a big LA crush you should know this info.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
1
0
JRTinMA said:
I was in London for New Years and it was being advertised there. For a guy with a big LA crush you should know this info.

Yup, it opens January 31st in the UK. It appears some in the UK have already seen it....or are pretending they have
 
mewmewmew13 said:
"Toned and healthy" …erm
he has a beef jerky look on his legs/lower arms and not all that impressed elsewhere …:p

drivel..
'after TWO CHILDREN she can keep her amazing figure"..

who wrote that sh**

It's the Daily Mail. Or the Daily Fail as it's known :)
 
Race Radio said:
It is finished, should be out in a few months. Same guys who made Senna.

One of the producers worked on Senna, that's all.

Problem I have with films like this is they take about two years to reach all corners of the globe unless you happen to be in the right time/place to catch a screening or festival. Not sure if it's intentional or they just don't understand digital distribution.
 
Of COURSE the general public would prefer to watch a documentary about monkeys than one about cycling...unless they put the monkeys in lycra and got them to pedal a unicycle. Goes without saying doesn't it?

So lets stop this line of interaction shall we??

cheers
bison
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
sittingbison said:
Of COURSE the general public would prefer to watch a documentary about monkeys than one about cycling...unless they put the monkeys in lycra and got them to pedal a unicycle.

circusmonkees6.jpg


tumblr_mubvw1CkMF1sfyszho1_500.gif
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
1
0
Ferminal said:
One of the producers worked on Senna, that's all.

Problem I have with films like this is they take about two years to reach all corners of the globe unless you happen to be in the right time/place to catch a screening or festival. Not sure if it's intentional or they just don't understand digital distribution.

Agreed, the long life cycle of documentaries can make them hard to see. It can take years before they finish their theatrical release and head to DVD.

The good news on the Pantani doc is the rights for Australia and NZ have already been sold. They have an international distributor already signed. It should be launched in the UK before the Tour.

The US is a different story. Our best hope is Netflix streaming. They streamed the Senna film for a short period then pulled it as they decided to do a cinematic run. It is up there now
 
Jan 20, 2013
238
0
0
Small films like the Armstrong lie, Room 237 (Shining 'doc') and this Pantani doc that is apparently happening have huge distribution problems. Give us access, since no one can catch the extremely limited screenings, so we can pay for a download or let us wait an extra year for a dvd release which - always - results in a download a la pirate bay. They need to accept that it is 2014 and that many people have no time for delayed access.

Instant access - I'll pay. Make me wait, your loss. I'm impatient, marginally selfish. That's just how it is.