Why Did No One See Flags Of Our Fathers?

John Campea 33 Comments

Flags of our Fathers has just completed its fourth week in theaters. The film cost $90 million to make… and up to this point, a film that a LOT of people were talking and buzzing about has only pulled in $30 million. This movie is positioned to be about a HUGE financial loss for Paramount.

So here we are again. A movie with a solid and multi Oscar winning director (Eastwood), a named cast, good buzz, solid reviews and a theme that always seems to work… and almost no one went to see it.

So the real question here is… why? Why did this film flop so badly? Why did no one go to see Flags of our Fathers? More specifically… why didn’t YOU go to see Flags of our Fathers?

Create Free Polls

Comment with Facebook

About John Campea

View all posts by John Campea →

You may like these posts

33 thoughts on “Why Did No One See Flags Of Our Fathers?”

  1. i went to see it – mostly cause i’m a history buff –
    though i specialize in the holocaust for research –
    my dad was on pelieiliue and said all his bodies were
    killed on iwo – i don’t like seeing GI’s get blown
    up – let alone marines but i went and am disappointed nobody
    was really interested – but the topic is heavy – death on iwo
    and if you check out what people are seeing – its the comedies and
    these stupid family people take their dum kids to kiddie flicks –
    the young hardly know vietnam yet alone anything before that

    i liked the credits that showed true scenes and the actual combat guys – i was moved by that

  2. The $90 million tag includes the costs of Letters from Iwo Jima ($15 million) & likely the advertising costs of Flags ($20 million). Any figures of $150 million are complete & utter fantasy & should be treated as such. As for the film it’s a truly fine piece of work, thoughtful, complex & extremely well made. Like many of Eastwood’s films it will stand up as the years go by which means those idiots who didn’t get it the first time because they wanted 2 hrs of battle scenes will hopefully, finally, understand what Eastwood was doing here. Obviously the younger crowd isn’t supporting the movie & I guess the lack of big stars (SPR had Tom Hanks & even though he was much too old for the role & Flags is anyway a vastly better film than Ryan, his commercial appeal is undeniable), add to that a general sense of fatigue with greatest generation stories & marketing which failed, all of those contributed to spotty box office. It’s a shame since Flags is one of the best movies of the year but ultimately it won’t matter. As time goes by people will look at Flags anew & it’ll take its place as one of Eastwood’s best movies. There’s always a chance that Clint’s Letters from Iwo Jima companion piece will make a splash & reignite interest in Flags. Especially if either movie picks up nominations & awards. I certainly hope so.

  3. There was a lot of hype (apparently it cost $90 million to produce but they’ve spent another $60 million on advertising & promotion) but i saw it & in my opinion if it wasn’t a Clint Eastwood film it wouldn’t get the attention it’s received. There are so many characters & storylines that it’s oddly detached from its subject matter. The editing’s confusing & makes the film feel emotionally flat. The script isn’t great – some of it’s really cheesy. The ONLY truly great thing about the film is the performance by Adam Beach who portrays Ira Hayes. He’s outstanding.

    As for the lack of Black American presence, i understand that there were, in fact, Black American soldiers at Iwo Jima & this was made known to Eastwood & others. Refusing to include Black American extras in the film is just stupid & insulting to those who served.

    I really wanted to love this film. Sadly though, audiences are right to stay away.

  5. I’m not into war films at the moment. They don’t do it for me anymore (I used to love them before I actually joined the military; go figure). I didn’t see Private Ryan or Blackhawk Down either. I am looking forward to Bond, though!

  6. I thought nobody saw it because all the right-wing radio talk show hosts said it was not the pro america film it claimed to be. That it was more left-wing propaganda from Hollywood. I’ll wait to see it on DVD…..maybe.

  7. None of the above.

    I think I’m going to have to back up most of the int’l friends here. Marketing and/or scheduling. It may be good counterprogramming to some of the other films released around the same time. It might have been better if it were released, say, a month froom now. It should also be said, with the exception of ‘Mystic River’, most films directed by Clint are much, much sweeter if he shows up somewhere.

    Also, John, note the quoted budget also includes the film “Letters From Iwo Jima”, which was shot back to back with Flags.

  8. I wanted to wait for this film to come on DVD, because I have horrible experiences in the theater, but I really wanted to see it. So I saw it about 2 weeks ago, and I liked it. If you go in thinking you’re going to see Saving Private Ryan, you’re in for a big disappointment. Having read the book, I knew what to expect. I did like how the battle scenes were woven into flashback sequences, and used as points of reference for what was happening in present-day.

    That said, I wish the movie was in focus, and that it wasn’t delayed by 20 minutes because of technical issues, and no less than 12 trailers before the movie started. I also wish the old man behind me hadn’t fallen asleep an hour into the film and started snoring, but at least the sound of artillery shells going off drowned that out.

    God Bless DVD, my sound system, and my nice big screen. Home is where I have my best theater experiences.

  9. I DID se this movie and am grateful for the experience. But I do think that the non-linear storytelling style he used could have left some people confused.

  11. Giving Clint Eastwood’s most body of work as a director (Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River), I rather wait for the DVD. I would hate to spend $20 and come out of the theater feeling crappier than when I came in.

  13. No black characters in the film? Big deal. I think by this point there’s been enough civil rights for us to let this one go, hasn’t there? I do not believe it was intentional. In this day and age? Give me a break.

  14. Flags of our Fathers made an extra $20 it shouldn’t have this weekend, because when my family went to see Flushed Away, they gave us Flags of Our Fathers tickets. We didn’t notice till after we were in the theather or I would have said something.

  17. You know what? I recant a little bit. The fact that there are no images of black soldiers on Iwo Jima in the film is a bit disconcerting and unfortunate. Especially since many, many blacks took part in invasiona dnindeed, the entire war.

    I’m not ready to say it was deliberate racism on Eastwood’s part though. I think it’s just something that happened.

    ~Drewbacca
    MoviePatron.com

  21. Maybe because Paul Haggis is a talentless hack who should have his hands chopped off so he never writes another line of banal, inane, insulting dialog?

    Maybe because people aren’t really up for a war film right now? An overwhelming number of people just voted against the Bush administration, makers of a very unpopular and pointless war.

    Maybe Eastwood’s all-white cast — its refusal to acknowledge the many black soldiers who fought in that battle?

  24. I’m a huge history buff, and even more of a military history buff. I was pretty amped up to see this film, but in the busy hustle and bustle of life, just never had the opportunity to see it. Personally, my life is so hectic day to day, that I just don’t have the time. I think the last movie that I saw in theaters was Spiderman 2…

  25. I think people are a bit sick of hearing about war at the moment and want to go to the theatre to get away from real world issues, even though this is history.

    These kind of films I watch on DVD, when I go out to the theatre I go for up beat entertainment.

  27. I think people go to the theater these days to be entertained. The trailers made it look like a documentary, honestly, and not something even close to being entertaining. Clint Eastwood staring into the camera and telling folks to go see it came across a little like Charleton Heston doing an NRA commercial. Beyond the patriotic “rah rah” of the ads, I honestly couldn’t tell you what the flick was about.

    So I took the family to see Santa Clause 3 instead.

    ….

    ….. yeah, I know.

  29. I’m a huge Eastwood buff, and I still haven’t seen the thing. For me, it was mostly the casting. Despite “Crash”, I can’t stand Ryan Fillipe, and the rest of the young cast just looked terrible from the trailers. The trailers… now there’s something else I think is largely responsible for the poor turnout. The trailers make FOOF look a little like a “Classic Americana” type of film. I know it’s probably not – but that’s how it looks – like an old fashioned war flick with young actors that don’t appear to be able to carry the movie.

  30. People don’t want to see some moody drama when Borat is running around trying to lick Pam Anderson’s honey pot. Should have released it closer to Veterans Day weekend to catch the patriotic fever.

  33. Hey John – Speaking of Box-office, this week-end is going to have Happy Feet versus Casino Royale. Back when I asked, you predicted 45 Million for Happy Feet and 38 Million for Bond. You still agree?

Leave a Reply