Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

David Duchovny Blames Dark Knight \\nfor X Files Bombing.

David Duchovny has blamed the new X-Files film's disappointing box office performance on The Dark Knight.

The X-Files: I Want To Believe opened with an unimpressive $10 million in ticket sales last weekend, which Duchovny put down to having to compete with the Batman sequel.

He said: "I'd prefer if it was a huge hit, but there are mitigating circumstances. We happened to open on the worst day in the history of cinema - the second week of Batman. The only thing worse would be to open with Batman and nobody would've done that."

Duchovny suggested that the movie still has a chance of turning a profit because of its relatively small budget.

"We're competing for the same audience with what they're saying will be the highest grossing film of all time," he said. "What saves us is that we only cost $29 million to make. We're a small movie masquerading as a blockbuster."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5208/09/2008

I blame the smoking man.

by Anonymousreply 108/02/2008

"The only thing worse would be to open with Batman and nobody would've done that."

Mamma Mia! is he for real?

by Anonymousreply 208/02/2008

The fact that word-of-mouth is that it's a boring waste of time, and the reviews really suck, is more likely the problem.

by Anonymousreply 308/02/2008

And Mamma Mia made 27.8 million. Your argument fails, Duchovny.

by Anonymousreply 408/02/2008

I'm still planning to go see it.

by Anonymousreply 508/02/2008

I'm still planning to go see it.

by Anonymousreply 608/02/2008

Don't, R5. It's a piece of trash. I actually walked out of it. I haven't walked out of a movie in about 15 years.

by Anonymousreply 708/02/2008

Yeah right, it's BATMAN'S fault. Actually it's just a crummy movie not many people want to see, except for a few nutty Duchovny or Anderson fangurls. Poor David; he wanted this movie to be a hit SO much.

by Anonymousreply 808/02/2008

so he doesn't blame the facts that Batman had a storyline, real actors and real director?

THen in his world, I would agree

by Anonymousreply 908/02/2008

I am a bit puzzled how this argument always comes up when one movie fails. Does the average movie audience member only choose to watch (or buys a ticket for) one movie per month or year?

by Anonymousreply 1008/02/2008

They should have waited till November during indie/Oscar season so they wouldn't have any competition.

by Anonymousreply 1108/02/2008

Duckovny seems to have little awareness that he's just a pretty boy who lucked out. I feel sorry for poor Gillian having to tip-toe around that artificially inflated ego. Well at least this will probably be the last time.

by Anonymousreply 1208/02/2008

The only thing that would make the X Files film have a lower box office is if Tea was the female star.

by Anonymousreply 1308/02/2008

They should have paid Darin Morgan whatever he wanted for a screenplay. Ten years on, you better have a sense of humor about your damn self.

Note to Arrested Development: put your best writers on it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1408/02/2008

Big openings are crucial these days R10. It is very unusual for a movie to build up by word of mouth as used to happen. The first weekend is IT. So studios and distributors will try to open movies which appeal to different demographics on the same weekend: a romcom for the ladeez and an actioner for the guys. They would not have had Iron Man and Dark Knight open at the same time as they appeal to the same group: young males. X Files, however, doesn't appeal to anybody.

by Anonymousreply 1508/02/2008

Duchovny should stop whining and go back to cruising the check out girls at Whole Foods.

by Anonymousreply 1608/02/2008

He should stop complaining, most of the fans are crazy about it. It had those x-files twists and turns that I always enjoyed. This weekend it will pass 29M worldwide and will be making a profit. It reminds me of watching BBM do box-office.

by Anonymousreply 1708/02/2008

I hate to say it, but this movie would have been a lot better if Meg Ryan had played Mulder.

by Anonymousreply 1808/02/2008

I heard the movie is lousy and doesn't deserve to be a hit. But I think he has a point. As mentioned by R13, it was a big mistake to open along with another sci-fi like movie that was prone to be a blockbuster and made for the same audience. That's why you cannot compare them with Mamma Mia (and its audience). Or see it this way: If Batman had opened in September, a lot more sci-fi fans would have gone into X-Files just because it would have been the only movie for them that weekend. The one glass of (stale) water in the desert. You'd drink it, if it was the only drink available that weekend.

by Anonymousreply 1908/02/2008

FOX fucked up the marketing of this film. Hardly anyone who isn't an online fan of the show knew about it. Casual viewers and the general public were unaware. FOX also underestimated The Dark Knight's reach across the genre to attract X-Files fans. Also, if you were expecting a blockbuster with aliens and explosions, you were disappointed. What you saw was an intimate film with very little CGI. Duchovny's right. Had this film opened in early October, box office would have been better.

by Anonymousreply 2008/02/2008

It still stinks, r20.

by Anonymousreply 2108/02/2008

R4, in all fairness, he did say they're competing for the same audience as Batman. Mammia Mia's audience? Not quite the same.

Still, they should've waited to release this piece of shit.

by Anonymousreply 2208/02/2008

There is a middle ground between mindless explosions and gaudy use of CGI, and using CGI intelligently to create a sense of wonder. Just because a film uses CGI sparingly, doesn't mean it's artistically superior to any movie that uses it more. An X-Files movie that barely uses CGI sounds more cheap than anything.

by Anonymousreply 2308/02/2008

R16, more info, please.

by Anonymousreply 2408/02/2008

I wasn't implying lack of CGI makes the film artistically superior. Those are your words. One of the reasons viewers are unhappy with the film is because it wasn't what they expected, i.e. a summer blockbuster.

by Anonymousreply 2508/02/2008

"They should have waited till November during indie/Oscar season so they wouldn't have any competition. "

No, it should have been a TV movie on FOX.

by Anonymousreply 2608/02/2008

Yes but that is always the implication, R25. The lack of CGI is always played up as an artistically superior choice, and compared to blockbuster movies that spew out their CGI obnoxiously with their gargantuan budgets. There's a middle ground where CGI can be quite artistic, and if any movie should skimp on it, it's hardly one based entirely supernatural phenomenon. They just did it on the cheap.

by Anonymousreply 2708/02/2008

"And Mamma Mia made 27.8 million. Your argument fails, Duchovny."

He's right and you're wrong, as usual. "Mamma Mia!" was a counter program with a completely different audience. "X Files" isn't, Movie Release 101. Fox fucked it up and whoever OK'd that opening weekend will be fired. No matter how bad it is, it should have opened in October.

by Anonymousreply 2808/02/2008

If only the X-Files movie could have come out when there were no other movies showing.

by Anonymousreply 2908/02/2008

If it was a better movie it would have made more money. The reviews were terrible. I was going to see it (and I'm not even a fan of the TV series), but once I read all the negative reviews I changed my mind.

by Anonymousreply 3008/02/2008

At this point they should be going for the core fans. Which means they should have advanced the conspiracy. Tell us about the aliens and the government cover up. There are plenty of scary movies, but I want Krycek and Skinner and the Lone Gunman.

by Anonymousreply 3108/02/2008

Hey, asshole at r28:

He said: "I'd prefer if it was a huge hit, but there are mitigating circumstances. We happened to open on the worst day in the history of cinema - the second week of Batman. The only thing worse would be to open with Batman and nobody would've done that."

Nobody, he said. Not "nobody except a a counter program with a completely different audience." [bold]Nobody.[/bold]

by Anonymousreply 3208/02/2008

Despite what the delusional fangurls on this thread say, the movie is a bomb. It is NOT a hit. Nobody wants to see it...except X-files fangurls, and there aren't many of them left. Actually it seems like nobody wanted this movie to get made in the first place (except Duchovny). TEN YEARS lapsed since the first one. It took forever just to get a script ready. The movie looks cheap; it IS cheap. There's no originality in movies anymore; hence this movie sequel to a movie based on a dead tv series.

by Anonymousreply 3308/02/2008

This was easily one of the most homophobic movies I've ever seen. I was incredibly shocked and disappointed by that. Most X-File's fans would be too- read their remarks online. everyone was horrified by the anti-gay associations.

by Anonymousreply 3408/02/2008

Gillian is the problem on the set, not Duchovny. He's normal. Her sense of entitlement is unreal.

by Anonymousreply 3508/02/2008

You're still wrong reply 32, as usual.

by Anonymousreply 3608/02/2008

This was easily one of the most homophobic movies I've ever seen. I was incredibly shocked and disappointed by that. Most X-File's fans would be too- read their remarks online. everyone was horrified by the anti-gay associations.

So a gay character can never be a villian? That makes no sense.

by Anonymousreply 3708/02/2008

Please don't drag me into this. Can't a girl get a paycheck these days?

by Anonymousreply 3808/02/2008

I didn't know that the X-Files had come out. I've only seen the trailer on TV twice in the past month.

by Anonymousreply 3908/02/2008

I saw it today and it's along the lines of one of the more boring X-Files episodes. The dialogue is trite, and I think both actors basically phoned in their performances. The psychic priest is spooky, but ultimately it's a stupid story about gay Russians making Frankenstein monsters. There is a reason it's bombing: it's not very good.

by Anonymousreply 4008/02/2008

There is no appeal to the judgment of the box office. Duchovny knows that, which makes his pathetic attempts to excuse the bad reception of the film twice as pathetic...

by Anonymousreply 4108/02/2008

I think Roger Ebert summed it up best:

The X-Files: I Want to Believe

July 24, 2008

By Roger Ebert

"The X-Files: I Want to Believe" arrives billed as a "stand-alone" film that requires no familiarity with the famous television series. So it is, leaving us to piece together the plot on our own. And when I say "piece together," trust me, that's exactly what I mean. In an early scene, a human arm turns up, missing its body, and other spare parts are later discovered.

The arm is found in a virtuoso scene showing dozens of FBI agents lined up and marching across a field of frozen snow. They are led by a white-haired, entranced old man who suddenly drops to his knees and cries out that this is the place! And it is.

Now allow me to jump ahead and drag in the former agents Mulder and Scully. Mulder (David Duchovny) has left the FBI under a cloud because of his belief in the paranormal. Scully (Gillian Anderson) is a top-level surgeon, recruited to bring Mulder in from the cold, all his sins forgiven, to help on an urgent case. An agent is missing, and the white-haired man, we learn, is Father Joe (Billy Connolly), a convicted pedophile, who is said to be a psychic.

Scully brings in Mulder, but detests the old priest's crimes and thinks he is a fraud. Mulder, of course, wants to believe Father Joe could help on the case. But hold on one second. Even assuming that Father Joe planted the severed arm himself, you'll have to admit it's astonishing that he can lead agents to its exact resting place in a snow-covered terrain the size of several football fields, with no landmarks. Even before he started weeping blood instead of tears, I believed him. Scully keeps right on insulting him right to his face. She wants not to believe.

Scully is emotionally involved in the case of a young boy who will certainly die if he doesn't have a risky experimental bone marrow treatment. This case, interesting in itself, is irrelevant to the rest of the plot except that it inspires a Google search that offers a fateful clue. Apart from that, what we're faced with is a series of victims, including Agent Dakota Whitney (Amanda Peet) and eventually Mulder himself, who are run off the road by a weirdo with a snowplow.

Who is doing this? And why does Father Joe keep getting psychic signals of barking dogs? And is the missing agent still alive, as he thinks she is? And won't anyone listen to Mulder, who eventually finds himself all alone in the middle of a blizzard, being run off the road, and then approaching a suspicious building complex after losing his cell phone? And how does he deal with a barking dog?

I make it sound a little silly. Well, it is a little silly, but it's also a skillful thriller, giving us just enough cutaways to a sinister laboratory to keep us fascinated. What happens in this laboratory you will have to find out for yourself, but the solution may be more complex than you think if you only watch casually. Hint: Pay close attention to the hands.

What I appreciated about "The X-Files: I Want to Believe" was that it involved actual questions of morality, just as "The Dark Knight" does. It's not simply about good and evil but about choices. Come to think of it, Scully's dying child may be connected to the plot in another way, since it poses the question: Are any means justified to keep a dying person alive?

The movie lacks a single explosion. It has firearms, but nobody is shot. The special effects would have been possible in the era of "Frankenstein." Lots of stunt people were used. I had the sensation of looking at real people in real spaces, not motion-capture in CGI spaces. There was a tangible quality to the film that made the suspense more effective because it involved the physical world.

Of course, it involves a psychic world, too. And the veteran Scottish actor Billy Connolly creates a quiet, understated performance as a man who hates himself for his sins, makes no great claims, does not understand his psychic powers, is only trying to help. He wants to believe he can be forgiven. As for Duchovny and Anderson, these roles are their own. It's like they're in repertory. They still love each other, and still believe they would never work as a couple.

Or should I say they want to believe?

The movie is insidious. It involves evil on not one level but two. The evildoers, it must be said, are singularly inept; they receive bills for medical supplies under their own names, and surely there must be more efficient ways to abduct victims and purchase animal tranquilizers. But what they're up to is so creepy, and the snow-covered Virginia landscapes so haunting, and the wrong-headedness of Scully so frustrating, and the FBI bureaucracy so stupid, and Mulder so brave, that the movie works like thrillers used to work, before they were required to contain villains the size of buildings.

by Anonymousreply 4208/02/2008

Be nice, David.

by Anonymousreply 4308/02/2008

[italic]Duchovny should stop whining and go back to cruising the check out girls at Whole Foods.[/italic]

Girls? Are you sure?

by Anonymousreply 4408/02/2008

Spill it, R44. R42 forgot to mention that Roger Ebert gave the film 3.5 of 4 stars. Richard Roeper gave it a SEE it last week and this week said it's one of the three best movies on theater screens now.

by Anonymousreply 4508/03/2008

Ebert loves the fact that the movie toned down the CGI to give the great thespian Duchovny more of an opportunity to emote? Oh yeah, that really sounds like a recipe for success. Ebert's been one of my least favorite critics for quite a while now, and I never liked him nearly as much as Siskel.

by Anonymousreply 4608/03/2008

I was a MAJOR X-Files fan through the first seven seasons: watched every ep, discussed it with friends and online, saw the movie in theatres, met Cigarette Smoking Man (William B. Davis) when he came to my city for an X-Files thing, etc etc.

But everyone moves on from shows or movies that they love, otherwise you just live in a pathetic little bubble in the past, and normal people don't do that.

This movie is just many years too late, especially when you consider how crappy the last two seasons of the show were, which lost them a lot of fans.

And the trailer makes the movie seem terrible! Scully emoting" Don't! Give! Up!" is freaking horrifying, and not in a good way.

The only way this could have been salvaged, being released at this late a point, is if Vince Gilligan had written it. Vince wrote many of the best X-Files eps imo, including "Pusher", "Small Potatoes", and "Bad Blood" (hilarious one with vampires and Luke Wilson). Plus, he had a major hand in eps with The Lone Gunmen.

Or, of course, if they'd gotten Darin Morgan, a brilliant weirdo who wrote such awesome eps as "Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose", "War of the Coprophages", and "Jose Chung's 'From Outer Space'".

To sum up, this movie is more than a day late and a buck short, and is lucky to be making as much money as it is

by Anonymousreply 4708/03/2008

The trailer didn't to it any justice. It made it seems as thought it was about Aliens and not about what it ended up being.

I liked the film and thought both David and Gillian were good, especially Gillian. I hardly saw any advertisement and I didn't even know about it until about 1 week before it came out. Me, being a past hardcore fan.

A lot of things went wrong and I think David was half right. This will affect David more then it will Gillian. She's moved on (Emmy nom and theater) while David still can't break into leading man films.

by Anonymousreply 4808/03/2008

It was a good move. Roger Ebert became a fan after the first movie. It was in that review, he said 'Fight the Future' made him want to know more about what X-files was all about. I thought it was a good movie, basically.

by Anonymousreply 4908/03/2008

I'd really like to read what VOTN has to say about it.

by Anonymousreply 5008/03/2008

I want to hear more about DD being on the downlow. What do you know, R44?

by Anonymousreply 5108/04/2008

Nothing personally r51, it's just being implied via a blind item recently from that Entertainment Lawyer's website. Acting couple on the downlow (both), actually hate each other, have child(ren), rarely photographed together. Popular guess was David and Tea as they fit the clues best.

There's a thread about it here, major clue was that her girlfriend is antsy for her to come out (career could do with the boost) but his career couldn't take the "exposure".

That was all. :)

by Anonymousreply 5208/09/2008
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.


Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!