Comments on: Jennifer’s Body Opens To Less Than $7 Million

By: liz

liz — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 01:55:58 +0000

Just a really really bad script. sorry diablo but that was awful.

I only went to see it coz my male friends wanted to see megan fox. Im not her fan and i dont think she has a lot of talent but most people (by people here i mean horny guys) that i know went to see her.
I wonder how bad it would have done without megan…

By: Ty

Ty — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:14:22 +0000

Heh.

Megan Fox should be in the next SAW.

By: Jake

Jake — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:44:23 +0000

It’s a pity, because I think that this is probably the best role for Megan Fox yet. Partly because she actually looks natural while doing it. Almost like she kinda knows what she’s doing. Not saying she actually does know what she’s doing, but the role works for her.

For some reason, she’s good at playing a sassy, men-eating seductress.

By: Gigan300

Gigan300 — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:13:31 +0000

She won’t lick you because shes a sexist who finds men to be “dirty”, and she feels “safer” with girls. Megan Fox is just the greatest practical joke in the history of Hollywood.

By: Shelly

Shelly — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:07:13 +0000

Wont go see this pathetic, stupid movie ever! They seen how popular Twilight was and tried to do another vampire movie. Forget it Jennifers Body you will never be Twilight or anything close. The Twilight Series has morals and is a movie young teens can go to, on the other hand this movie is crap! It just goes to show what the public really wants is good, clean movies! I dont think Megan Fox will win any awards for this one. Her body just cant buy these ratings hmmm?

By: Jeremy K.

Jeremy K. — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:16:01 +0000

Oh, and by the way, I’m not trying to say Jennifer’s Body would have been neither a hit or a financial success. However, I do think if the economy was better and the movie was released around halloween that it would of probably hit in the teens or maybe twenties opening weekend. Make it PG-13 and that would of been even more guaranteed.

Bet the next Saw movie will hit up near $30~40mil if not more opening weekend because it’s a proven franchise and people like to see horror movies around Halloween. I highly doubt that will be any better than Jennifer’s Body. The first Saw I thought was great and quite original, but every sequel there after has been awful.

By: Jeremy K.

Jeremy K. — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:57:47 +0000

To be honest, I don’t think being the “highest grossing summer” really eliminates a poor economy playing a part in a movie like Jennifer’s Body doing poorly. It was the highest grossing summer because of movies like G.I. Joe, Transformers, Terminator: Salvation, Harry Potter, Up, and so on and so forth being released that are guaranteed cash cows that people will one way or the other find the funds to go see. Lesser known IPs and/or new IPs are more than likely going to be hurt because people are not going to want to spend their hard earned money on something that is as of yet tried and true. I’m highly budgeted at the moment, but I did not let that stand in my way of seeing Transformer 2 and Terminator.

You might say, “but District 9 came out, and look at what that new IP accomplished!” My retort to that to that would be several things, but the one that stands out the most is how publicized that movie was about being backed by Peter “Lord of the Rings” Jackson. Even though he did not direct the movie, that name sells. Not to mention all the hype about oh-my-god-this-movie-is-directed-by-the-guy-that-Jackson-wanted-to-direct-Halo!

This year was so highly grossing because so many big named titles came out that people were not going to allow the opportunity slip buy at seeing in theaters because of low funds.

To say that I can’t blame the economy is already proven wrong by me alone. I would love to see Jennifer’s Body, 9, and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs in the theaters, but I am holding out and saving that money to ensure I have money for movies that I have high hopes for; like Avatar.

All it takes is one person that is not seeing a movie due to financial crunches to make it a fact that the current economic climate plays a part in a movie doing worse than it might have had the economy been better.

And no, I did not say the economy was 100% responsible. I just asked if possibly it and timing of the release could have played a part in the movie doing poorly. Just as before that I asked if changing the cast could have changed the outcome.

By: SlashBeast

SlashBeast — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:55:59 +0000

True.

By: Austin

Austin — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:14:06 +0000

I agree, for the most part, but on the other side you have George Lucas wringing godawful performances out of Oscar-caliber actors like Liam Neeson, Natalie Portman, and Ewan McGregor. While I think proper attribution to an actor’s ability (or lack) is appropriate, I don’t think we can write off the director completely.

Having not seen the film, however, I cannot render a verdict in this case.

By: Anti-Septic

Anti-Septic — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:16:48 +0000

I didnt go see it as I consider most Horror type movies Rentals. Lets be honest, how many Horror movies open huge anyhow? I am sure John can give me the statistics on that?

I think this movie had two things going against it as well, Everyone knew there was no nudity in this film and they were pushing it hard, almost deception! Also, there seems to be a 50/50 crowd when it comes to Diablo Cody, you either seem to like her or hate her. I find that strange but oh well.

I will see this when rental comes out.