#2 on IMDb's 'Worst 100 Films' yet...
...it has currently grossed six times its estimated budget. Hardly a flop!
Paul
On a 500K budget. It's not saying much.
Time wounds all heels.
MovieChat Forums > Saving Christmas (2014) Discussion > #2 on IMDb's 'Worst 100 Films' yet...
Sure it is. It's a critical flop and a popular flop. The fact that it made three million on a $500K budget is meaningless. By that logic, "Birdemic: Shock and Terror" is a masterwork because on a budget of less than $10K it made millions. It's also remembered and still seen to this day while "Saving Christmas" is regulated to the scrap heap of time.
Besides, Kirk Cameron asked people to fudge the numbers on this and vote it up on both here and Rottentomatoes in order to make it look better. Shame how he failed and if anything saw what the Streisand Effect is first hand as the votes for this inevitably plummeted.
Of course now his name has been dropped from the movie and it's no longer "Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas", but just "Saving Christmas". They realized that if anything his name there was actually hurting the movie more than it was helping.
We must understand the word "flop" differently. Floppage refers to pure box-office performance relative to budget (unless you want to be specific and stick the word "critical" in front of it). It has nothing to do with reviews or anyone's estimation of quality. Objectively, Saving Christmas was not a flop is just plain wrong. Assuming your numbers are correct, whatever "Birdemic: Shock and Terror" is wasn't a flop either.
That doesn't mean it's a "masterwork." "Flop" and "masterwork" are not antonyms; they're not even related. It's entirely possible for a "masterwork" to flop (Citizen Kane and It's a Wonderful Life "flopped" in their initial theatrical runs). Likewise, I can't stand the Transformers movies, but they ain't flops.
I say this not as a defender of this movie . . I can't imaging voluntarily spending a minute of my time on Earth watching this hot garbage . . but it, in its own small, dim-witted, preaching-to-the-choir way, was a decent "hit."
-------------------------
I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.
A critical flop is still a flop regardless of how much money it brought in. Having said that though I agree that it wasn't a flop in the literal sense because it made money but it was still savaged by critics and the majority of people didn't see it. This is why I specifically said in my post that it was a critical and popular flop.
And it can hardly be called a financial success either as the gross was only three million. They saved money by filming this in somebody's home and hiring friends and family of Kirk and the director.
Had they gone the studio route and hired actual actors then it would have barely made back it's budget.
No its just an awful film in every way.
shareDepends on your goals I guess. If your professional goals aspire no higher than "make money." Then sure, good for you. If you value things like integrity, quality and professionalism, then it sure is one of the biggest flops ever. Also, it may be hard to get future work when you have "Saving Christmas" credited to your name.
shareIt made money because it had a built-in audience of conservative evangelical Christians who buy into the lie that there's some sort of "war on Christmas."
However, even a lot of those turned on the movie and were offended by Cameron's mangling of the Gospels and open endorsement of materialism...not to mention the fact that it's a very poorly made and unfunny movie, and very obviously an ego trip for Cameron.
"Value your education. It's something nobody can ever take away from you." My mom.
They believe in the opinion that there's a war on Christmas. If you truly believe something then it is not a lie.
shareIf you truly believe something then it is not a lie.
It's not a lie to you. But simply believing something does not change it's truthfulness.
For example if you truly believed that Elvis was still alive and you took a polygraph test, that would show up as being true but it has no effect on whether the man died or not. You opinion does no affect reality.
So these people may believe that there's a war on Christmas but there's no actual evidence that there is. Get it? share
What kind of crack are you smoking, CapnKaos. There is tons of evidence of the war on Christmas. Although this film does a very poor job or presenting any of it or of suggesting ways to fight it.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" – Gilman
But this movie never touches on the so-called "War on Christmas" so your comment is a non-sequitur.
Besides, as the other person pointed out, believing in something doesn't make it so. I can truly believe you're a magical banana with hands...but does that make you a banana? Of course not.
Besides, so many Bible scholars and Christian leaders have pointed out the lies and misinformation that Cameron spreads in this movie. Any decent, thoughtful Christian who cared about the Bible and their faith would have nothing to do with this drivel.
"Value your education. It's something nobody can ever take away from you." My mom.
Nickelback has sold millions of albums. Does that mean they're one of the best bands of all time? Successful doesn't mean good. The list of worst films has nothing to do with how much money they've brought in.
share