Will Angelina Jolie do ‘Bride of Frankenstein’ in the wake of By the Sea’s failure?


I’ve never seen Bride of Frankenstein, so I have no feelings about the idea of present-day Hollywood remaking the 1935 film, which starred Boris Karloff (as the monster) and Elsa Lanchester (as the bride). Do I think it’s a bit unoriginal to do a remake of a film that is widely considered to be a classic in its genre? Sure. Do I think the endless remakes are tedious in general? Of course. But if they’re going to remake it, at least they’re going to try to do it right. Apparently, the whole reason Universal agreed to finance Angelina Jolie’s By the Sea was because they wanted to maintain their relationship with her so that she would agree to star in a remake of the Bride of Frankenstein. I could totally see that. THR did a detailed analysis of the financial failure of By the Sea and why Universal agreed to waste $40 million on Angelina’s vanity project. You can read the full piece here. Some highlights:

Universal did Angelina a “favor” & people are lying about the money. Donna Langley (the head of Universal) wanted to maintain her “relationship” with Angelina so much, that Langley agreed to the cost of By the Sea. THR also writes: “But now the studio stands to lose as much as $40 million on By the Sea, according to two knowledgeable sources who place the film’s budget at closer to $25 million than the $10 million Universal insists it cost (and the marketing expense at $15 million). The film grossed $185,000 from 126 theaters in its second week of release and has amassed a paltry domestic haul of $313,000 so far. One source scoffs at the $10 million figure, noting that Jolie Pitt’s directorial debut, In the Land of Blood and Honey, a Serbian-language war film with a no-name cast, cost $13 million.” Also: Brad and Angelina reportedly took $1.5 million each for BTS, plus a backend (which will not be coming).

Angelina fought with Universal’s marketing. A source tells THR: “Universal wanted to sell it as something sexy, but she wanted it to be sold as a European art house movie… Every trailer and TV spot was cut by her or her group.” Sources are still bitching about the poster, which apparently should have had Angelina and Brad’s faces on it (but instead had two hats).

Universal will parlay BTS’s failure. They’re basically going to guilt Angelina into signing onto Bride of Frankenstein because they’re going to lose “tens of millions of dollars on By the Sea.” So either Universal will guilt Angelina into signing on to Bride of Frankenstein or “a long-hoped-for sequel to Wanted. Either of those films could end up raking in far more in profits than Universal will lose on By the Sea.”

And in the end… THR wonders aloud if studios should even finance these “favor” films anymore, citing the success of a handful of self-financed films, like Magic Mike. A source says: “The need to do favors doesn’t make sense anymore.”

[From THR]

I have no idea why people want to make a sequel to Wanted. Spoiler: Jolie’s character dies in the end. I mean, I guess the bendy bullet could have just messed with her head a little bit, and God knows I enjoyed the surprising combination of James McAvoy and La Jolie, but I think it’s time to bury the would-be Wanted franchise. Now, Bride of Frankenstein? I could actually see that. I can see Angelina in the wig already, can’t you?



Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

122 Responses to “Will Angelina Jolie do ‘Bride of Frankenstein’ in the wake of By the Sea’s failure?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Locke Lamora says:

    I’ve only watched Wanted because of McAvoy, but the film was pretty bad. No sequels needed.

    • Naya says:

      I feel like Michael Bay and Brett Ratner were asked to submit all the ideas they realised were too dumb to put in a movie and those ideas basically ended up becoming the script for Wanted. Having said that, her character could absolutely return. This is the movie where broken bones and bullet wounds were healed by dipping the victim in a bathtub of goo. No, its not magic or witchcraft, its just a special bathtub of unexplained goo…..that allows the writers to hit the reset button at will.

      • V4Real says:

        I loved Wanted as well as Salt. I love her in those types of roles.

      • Suzy from Ontario says:

        Or there’s always the long lost twin that suddenly shows up… I loved Wanted. I know it was ridiculolus (I mean, the Loom of Fate?) but I still loved it. James McAvoy was incredible. The switch from him at the beginning of the movie to how he was at the end? At the beginning, you couldn’t even imagine him as a badass, but he totally was at the end. Goes to show how much confidence and how you carry yourself can affect your attractiveness! I would go see a sequel for sure, and I would love AJ in Bride of Frankenstein. She’s be perfect!

      • Naya says:

        You are in luck then. Bathtub of goo will heal her bullet head wound and sequel occurs. Or they could do a prequel covering how she joined the ancient band of assassins. I’ll wait for someone to post the camera copy on Youtube myself but it will be a box office hit anyway.

      • iheartjacksparrow says:

        I thought it was a bathtub of magical milk.

        And there’s two mistakes that I always focus on whenever I watch the film: Angie has boots with high heels when she’s standing on the wall, and after she jumps on the train she has boots with flat heels. The second is when Wesley is writing the code on the glass, if you look up and to the right the code is already written (probably a second take and no one thought to clean off the writing from the first).

  2. MrsBPitt says:

    Has anyone on Celebitchy actually seen By The Sea? Is it as bad as the critics are saying?

    I would love to see Angie play the bride of Frankenstein….That would be awesome!!! But, I thought she said By the Sea would be her last acting job…

    • Maya says:

      She actually said there some roles she wants to do before quitting.

      I personally would love to see her continue to act and also direct – she is one of the best actresses out there.

    • Goats on the Roof says:

      My husband and I bought tickets the first weekend it was released. We ditched partway through to get food. It’s…not good.

    • Andrea 1* says:

      @mrspitt I have actually seen by the sea and while its not everyone’s cup of tea….. Its actually a good movie… I actually didn’t want to say anything about it on CB because people would say Im biased because an a fan of both of them while it wasnt a perfect movie it was well done and you wouldn’t even guess the story line from the trailers they put out of the movie… Angie’s character was highly unlikeable and brad was good in it.. And by the way the chemistry between them is as solid as ever…. I don’t want to give too much away but the problem I had with the movie was the pacing and it was boringly long.. If I am to the rate it I’d give it 3.5 out of 5. She is improving as a director now that’s my honest opinion…
      Kaiser was very wrong when she called it an ego bath…. That is far from the truth… May people are jumping on the movie even without seeing simply because of what the critics were saying about the movie. And I also feel they were overly harsh on the movie. By the way the movie should never be put in the same league as gigli as they have nothing in common and it wasn’t that bad…
      There are so many articles on the “failure” of this movie and its getting tiring already…..
      I don’t know if LAK has seen the movie I want her honest review on the movie… She usually tells it like it is.

      • eva says:

        Yep, she doesn’t stand a chance of having her films critiqued without bias, the knives are out even before she starts filming. People like Kaiser writing articles about how bad it’s going to be even before released, some fan, at least let them release the film before slagging it off.

        They said at the start this was not to the majority of film goers taste, so never expected big numbers. It was a film they wanted to do, but never get offered, how hard is that to understand.

      • Louise177 says:

        @Andrea and Eva: I agree. I can’t believe how happy the media is that BTS didn’t do great. Even this site has posted how bad the movie is and doing everyday since the movie’s release. It’s bizarre. I’ve never seen anything like it. From the start Angelina and the studio said it was a small, personal film not a blockbuster. But for some reason the media is trying to portray it as a big movie with Oscar nominations. A lot of movies lose tens of millions and just get a blurb in the boxoffice roundup how it failed. Yet everybody is writing full articles about BTS and claiming Angelina will be forced to do movies to pay back the studio. None of this happened when Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Lawrence’s movies had an even more limited release and went dvd/tv.

    • MarthaB. says:

      I saw it and I wrote about it here a week ago, and, of course my oppinions were slammed by people who didn’t even see it. I thought it was vulnerable, daring, erotic and smart and I obviously liked it. I hope, at some point (DVD, Netflix) people will give it a try – they will be surprised.

      • Andrea 1* says:

        @Marthab wow thanks for your honest opinion I didn’t want to say anything too because people here already made up their minds even without seeing it… And I agree with you that if it gets a DVD and Netflix release its going to surprise alot of people.
        @eva I agree with you completely…. She didn’t stand a chance… I believe if she had marketed the film talking more about the movie and not more on her family and health issues then maybe the movie might have done better. That’s my opinion anyway.

      • Cee says:

        This movie should be on Netflix or similar. Studios should look at streaming services as money opportunities. I rarely go to the movies anymore unless the film looks to be worth the trip and money.

      • Zwella Ingrid says:

        I’m willing to see it. I am always willing to give the benefit of the doubt to any movie that critics slam, as I rarely agree with them.

    • EM says:

      By the Sea is the inferior version of ‘Boom’ [Richard Burton & Elizabeth Taylor].

    • OTHER RENEE says:

      I won’t see it because I hate watching depressing films, not because of bad reviews. Time Magazine gave it a very positive review.

    • Chaucer says:

      Mr. Chaucer and I caught it the other night. It was really, really bad. As an angeloonie, I have severe secondhand embarrassment for her.

      I will commend her bravery. As someone who writes, it’s really scary to put your work out there. She seems to be handling the criticism well, and I hope that while she might learn and grow from it, she probably shouldn’t write another movie for a while. It’s a big, difficult project to undertake and she was sorely unprepared, I think.

    • Alyce says:

      I saw it and it was boring. Too long and a whole bunch of nothing happening. The acting wasn’t great either, especially Angelina (maybe she needs a unbiased director to draw out her best performance?) And, for the record, I’m Angelina/Brad/Jennifer Anniston neutral. The whole triangle thing happened when I was in high school and I never really cared. I like both Friends and Tomb Raider, if that cements my neutral status 😜

    • kate says:

      I got free tickets to a preview screening over the weekend (I’m not in the US). It was bad. I’m a huge fan of the classic European films BtS was trying to homage, in theory I should have liked it. But it was just awful. Honestly the only good thing I can say is that the cinematography was pretty good. At the theatre people were walking out, falling asleep…it was playing at an arthouse theatre that mainly caters to fans of European films, so this was the ideal audience, and they definitely weren’t feeling it.

      The story is weak (people started laughing at the end when the reason for Jolie’s extreme malaise and marriage problems was revealed), the acting is poor (Angelina’s just straight up awful, it’s one of Brad’s weakest performances, and the support cast is just ok), and frankly it’s just a chore to sit through. I’m fine with films where nothing much happens, but they have to be very well written and acted, and BtS is neither. The writing is really the weakest element. I thought ItLoBaH was badly written but I gave it a pass assuming a lot got lost in translation. But now I just think Jolie’s a bad writer.

      If you think you might like to watch Jolie mope around for a couple of hours, it’s a nice enough film to look at.

    • Josephina says:

      It was a good movie. There are good reviews out there now that others have seen it.

      Angie seems to be aware of the voyeurism in her life. In the movie she and Brad are spying on the couple next door similarly, like the way the public wants to have access her and Brad’s intimate life.

      In the movie Vanessa tries to befriend the newlywed wife, not for the purposes of friendship but only to get to know her enough to use information to hurt her and her husband Roland (played by Brad) later. She admires the newlywed wife but she is also jealous of her.

  3. Maya says:

    Will Fassbender do another movie after Steve Jobs massive boxoffice flop? Will Johnny Depp do another movie after his continues flops? Will Sandra Bullock do another movie after her recent flop? Will Meryl Streep?

    Why is Angelina being singled out as if she is the only one who had a flop this year? She already has Maleficent 2 and Salt 2 acting roles and currently directing First they killed my father, Africa next year and then Catherine the Great story she bought the rights for (not sure if she is going to act or direct or just produce that one) – thank god Hollywood and general public sees the true talent and power this woman has.

    As for THR and their pathetic hit piece on By the sea – well first they claimed there was no money spent on promotion and now they claim it was 15 millions? It seems to me these wasteless and male chauvinist sites are increasing the budget and promotion spending on daily basis to justify their attack on Angelina.

    Glad many real people are calling out on them for this chauvinistic and mysogynist behaviour towards this woman.

    Angelina will be great as Bride of Frankenstein but she won’t do it unless there is a story behind this character.

    • Esmom says:

      I’ve heard plenty of discussion in the media about other flops, I don’t think she’s being singled out at all.

      • lucy2 says:

        You’re right, she’s not being singled out. I keep seeing that argument over and over here, despite it simply not being true. There have been a bunch of A-listers who had big flops this year and there has been plenty of coverage of all of them.

    • Locke Lamora says:

      Because neither Meryl nor Sandra nor Johnny wrote, directed and starred in their movies. With their spouse. It’s not the same thing at all.

    • Goats on the Roof says:

      No one is gunning for Angelina. She made a terrible movie. That people are discussing it, considering her name is all over the credits, is only natural.

    • mia girl says:

      Maya – we all know how much you respect this woman for her strength. Why are you casting her as the victim in this scenario then? She took a creative risk and I’m sure it was satisfying on many levels for her. She accomplished something and managed to get a studio to pay for it just on the power of her name and stature alone. This is a woman in a position of strength.

      The fact that the industry is pointing out and analyzing why this film did not resonate with most critics and U.S. moviegoers is just business. IMO she is not being singled out because she is a woman. Like many others before her, she is being singled out because she had a flop. And it’s a trifceta flop because she wrote, directed and starred in the film.

    • Goo says:

      Once again, Maya, this is not about Depp, Bullock or Streep. So, please stop with your, “but, but, buts”.

      • jessia says:

        This person loves to trash others stars to make Jolie look good. fact is, Jolie delivered a huge flop and is to blame for it. By the Sea couldn’t even do well under limited release. I think this flop will hurt her directing career at least. She will be fine as an actress but directing is not her strength at all.

      • Maya says:

        Oh look – I have my very own stalkers who stalk my comments on every single thread….

        Critizing me for attacking people but they themselves attack me constantly – hypocritical much?

      • Josephina says:


        You are on point, as usual.

        Gross numbers are reaching 1 million in sales worldwide. It is picking up and it is more of a European movie than an American one.

        I like the subject matter. The movie moves slowly and may lose the attention of those used to the insta-quick gratification feeling that most Hollywood movies churn out.

        The scenery throughout the film is bresthtaking.

    • Santia says:

      Simmer down. It’s really not that serious.

    • MooHoo says:

      The THR article wasn’t just about By the Sea – it was a commentary on these “special” projects that actors push on studios and the studios fund them so that they can maintain their relationship with the stars. The report also mentions several other bombs.

      I don’t think Angelina is being singled out at all but she is a big star and earns vast amounts of money and not much of her work has been all that great for a long time, either as an actor or director.

      Vanity projects cost a lot of money and take away resources that could be put to use on better vehicles, perhaps for new writers/directors/actors. Hollywood is producing so much dross at the moment between this kind of flop and the super heroes movies. Most good creativity is going into television. Thank heavens there is some vehicle for good entertainment.

    • mildredfierce says:

      Jolie Pitts credits By the Sea creditS: four credits total
      Sandra Bullock Our Brand is Crisis credit
      Not a comparable argument. Spin, Centrifuge, Justification of only delusion.

  4. Abbott says:

    I liked Wanted. Who knows, maybe McAvoy’s character brings her back from the dead and now she’s free of her Fraternity vows. Or maybe it just looks like she’s dead but really she was just hiding under a dumpster (or whatever).

  5. Jenni says:

    She should play Corpse Bride.

  6. Esmom says:

    It makes sense that the studio would make a deal like that with her. But Bride of Frankenstein? I’m not sure that would get a huge audience either.

  7. lucy2 says:

    I’m surprised Universal is trying to reboot their Monsters films, because the last few movies with Frankenstein’s monster or vampire themes haven’t done well.
    I think the idea of a “favor” film is still fine, if the favor only cost a million or two, that’s not a lot to put out and there’s a good chance of recouping most of it. To spend $10+ million (or up to $40 mil as this is claiming, ouch!) and not have any input into the product is foolish.

    • Zwella Ingrid says:

      Exactly. You can’t remake classic, iconic movies. period. Actually, name one remake of any movie, of any kind that is good? I can’t think of any, but definitely not a classic movie. I am so sick of Hollywood’s lack of creativity. They literally can’t seem to come up with one original idea.

      • doofus says:

        I’ll add John Carpenter’s The Thing. so wonderfully creepy.

        but Zwella, your point is good…very rarely is a remake any good.

        Not sure how I missed it, but apparently they did a remake of Point Break? saw an ad last night, and they went from surfers who steal to finance their lifestyle of surfing around the world to “extreme athletes” who are essentially acting like Robin Hood to “fight the man” and enact wealth redistribution? and there are explosions and motorcycle chases and a bunch of other crap that was NOT NEEDED for the first one. almost like they combined the original with that Vin Diesel movie “XXX”. looks like a big pile of steaming POO.

      • BackstageBitchy says:

        Thomas Crowne Affair! That remake was the thinking woman’s porn, and the chemistry between Pierce Brosnan and Renee Russo was fierce. Maybe because the original wasn’t a well-known classic, it managed to really live on its own. But yes indeed that’s the exception by far. Remakes are dreck!

      • LAK says:

        Zwella ingrid: let’s see…..

        -Cape Fear (Original same title)
        -The Departed (Original HongKong series Infernal affairs)
        -A perfect murder (a remake of ‘Dial M for Murder’ which was a remake of ‘Sorry Wrong number’)
        -The Postman always rings twice (original same title)
        -Anna and the King (a remake of ‘The King and I’ which was a remake of ‘Anna and the King of Siam’)
        -The Hunger Games (a remake of ‘Battle Royale/Requiem’)
        -The Magnificent seven (remake of ‘The seven Samurai’)
        -King Kong ( 3 remakes – third remake was a dud)
        -The Mummy (remade as a franchise)
        -Devdas (original same title)
        -she’s all that (remake of ‘my fair lady’
        -10 things I hate about you (remake of ‘Kiss me kate’ which is a remake of ‘Taming of the shrew’
        -throw mamma from the train (remake of ‘strangers on a train’)
        - Dracula (all (good)versions before 1999 take their inspiration from ‘Nosferatu’)
        -Let me in (remake of ‘Let the right one in’
        -Roxanne (remake of ‘cyrano de Begerac’ in French, but there is also an earlier version in english)

        Etc etc and so forth.

        Yes, Hollywood gets it wrong many times, but they also get it right many times.

  8. NewWester says:

    Check out Dlisted, Michael K did a photoshop of Angelina as the Bride of Frankenstein. I actually thought it was real and she was already filming!

  9. Fa says:

    Not gonna happen her next project as actress will be Maleficient 2

  10. mia girl says:

    I don’t know about a remake of Bride of Frakenstein. I’m saying meh.
    None of the Frankenstein drama remakes have been very good and that includes my forever love James McAvoy’s recent turn. The movie doesn’t look very good (but I’ll still see it ha!)

  11. Square Bologna says:

    She’s definitely right for the Bride of Frankenstein.

    *ducks* ;)

  12. Jayna says:

    Bride of Frankenstein should be Helena Bonham Carter. Angie would be good, but my favorite would be Helena.

  13. Loo says:

    I never believed that 10 million figure, that sounds absurdly low for a film starring Pitt and Jolie and that has location shooting. I believe the 20 million figure with around 10 million for marketing added on to that.

    Sexism in media and Hollywood is prevalent but I disagree that all of the talk of By the Sea failing is just based on sexism. If anything Jolie gets an undeserved pass as a director from a lot of media outlets.

    • Artemis says:

      Most women don’t even get to direct, Jolie with no experience and no real skill for character development is actually privileged. She doesn’t face much direct sexism in that way. She isn’t denied any job opportunities like many other female directors.

      • jessia says:

        Exactly. She is actually privileged in a great way. She has no skills as a director yet was given 30 million to make a movie which bombed on top of that. Can you imagine a woman of color or no connections being given an opportunity like that?

      • Jayna says:

        This is true, in that the budget she received more than anything. But, hey, if she can get that kind of budget, why not? Men do it. More power to her. I think she doesn’t have the depth yet as a director, but I think she has proven she can direct by Unbroken,that even if not brilliant was a good movie.

        There’s some good indie female directors out there, making movies on small budgets. I just saw a 2009 indie film on Netflix this weekend, “Fish Tank,” made for 1.8 million. It was written and directed by Andrea Jarvis from the UK.

        It had Michael Fassbender in it, who was really good in his role. It was a fine balance he had to walk as his character and it was really perfect and showed his great instincts as an actor.

        But the star of the movie was a non-actress discovered arguing at a train station with her boyfriend. She was teenager Katie Jarvis. Her performance was really amazing in this gritty movie. I had no idea she had never acted before. The one scene with Michael Fassbender and her character was disturbing to say the least. It got great reviews, but only made $1.5 million at the box office.

        “The film is remarkable for its depth. It’s not drilling in a message about the hopelessness of poverty, nor is it stylising the lifestyle of those living on council estates.”

      • lucy2 says:

        Did anyone see Diary of a Teenage Girl? That was another good one, $2 million budget and made back $1.5, directed by a woman, Marielle Heller. It was her first film too, and I think she did a fine job with it, looking forward to what she does next.
        I will have to check out Fish Tank, sounds good.

      • Artemis says:

        I saw Fish Tank, it was disturbing, bleak and powerful. Michael was so HOT in that film but such a skeeve. The tension and build-up between characters was such perfection.

        I read up about that girl, Jarvis. Didn’t she get pregnant afterwards? I remember Michael praising her natural talent for acting, she blew him away and he hoped she would continue acting :) . So sweet.

        Those are small movies though. Jolie started with 2 films about war. Her first one wasn’t even successful yet she got to shoot ‘Unbroken’ anyway. No matter how hard she campaigned, any other woman wouldn’t have gotten the chance. Please if anybody is interested, read this article:

        “What struck me the most was how blatant and out in the open some of the discrimination was. Agents openly say, ‘I’m not putting you up for that because this guy won’t hire a woman director.’ The list for directing big films is five plausible dudes and Kathryn Bigelow. And Bigelow is not going to direct ‘Jurassic World.’ You can’t have a list with no women.” – Ariela Migdal


        Jolie fans need to stop with the sexism and discrimination claims, it’s ridiculous. They’re mad because one of the few high-profile female directors turns out to be just like any white male director: mediocre.
        And she is not the type to speak out about sexism either, she is very…diplomatic. She even said she herself, that she doesn’t focus on the negative (discussing or acknowledging Hollywood sexism) but rather on the positive (producing a film by a female director). How can you not use your power to fight along all the other female directors? She’s always absent when others are speaking out and it just highlights her position as a political figure rather than a subversive one. Not only is she not fun anymore, she’s also less rebellious.

    • mildredfierce says:

      In the Land of Blood and Honey was made for 13 million with no stars and all local crew with tons of tax breaks.
      Angie and Brad took home 1.5 million a piece for By the Sea. 3 million of 10 million budget. So physical budget was 7 million dollars. No way.

      In the movie industry it is sexy i.e. to claim bragging rights to stay under budget. In fact, if a director goes over budget or over schedule their movie by insurance laws can be taken over by the studio and finished without the director’s consent. Literally taken away from the director though the director’s name stays on the film. A nightmare for director.

      The 10 million budget was to save Jolie’s face and fit in ”itty bitty art house film” narrative Brad was pushing.

      No studio by the way is financing 5-25 million dollar movies right now. James Schamus the founder of Focus Features and former CEO talked on Tribeca FF this past April – that is virtually impossible in the current studio climate. This is the man who produced Brokeback Mountain, Milk, Lost in Translation and every other prestige art film at the Oscars in the last decade.

  14. Neelyo says:

    Bride of Frankenstein is an awesome film. Directed by James Whale, it is extremely clever and well told. Of course If there was a remake it would be bloated beyond belief and special effects would be used to distract from that will be a script pieces together from other, better films into a Frankenstein monster of a movie. Run, Angie!

    • tracking says:

      +1 Without an amazing script and director, the risk of ending up a caricature would be too great.

    • Zwella Ingrid says:

      @Neelyo & @tracking– You are both exactly right, and the fact is, there is no tale to be told. Even the original Bride of Frankenstein stretched the original story into an actual creation of Frankenstein’s bride. If I remember my reading of Shelley’s book, the refusal by Frankenstein to create a companion for his monster prompted the monster to chase him around the globe. The point of the book was more along the lines of the sadness and pathetic life of the monster who was rejected by everyone, and couldn’t meet anyone willing to communicate with him, befriend him, or love him, including his creator. He was a pitiful character, and after numerous rejections, became engaged with his creator who refused to create a friend for him, thus perpetuating his loneliness. So my point is, there is no story to be told about the bride from the original book and unless someone comes up with some amazing new work of fiction with a new story to be told, it will be more Hollywood hash bloating and screwing up a classic film.

  15. Louise says:

    I’m pretty sure a lot of movies lie about their budgets. This movie will definitely lose money, and it hasn’t been well-received, so I think we can all (except for a vocal few) agree this was a bomb.

    I doubt they’ll make the same mistake twice, but they are only human, and don’t need fans making excuses for them.

    This movie didn’t do well. The Chanel advert was mocked. The leg was a meme/joke for a reason, etc.

    It probably won’t affect them long term, so there’s no need to be so defensive. (you know who you are)

  16. Catelina says:

    Wouldn’t shock me if this happeneD, but the idea doesnt appeal to me much.

  17. Candice says:

    Imo there is not much spend in promotion . The promotion start only like two before release and there were magazine interviews and one joint interview that’s was juat too short. Not that much ads etc. Its very small promotion.
    I think if they were promote it well from the get go and wasn’t released in award season and were in more available release from the start it would have brought much numbers. The problem is the critics doesn’t like a women perceptive unless its a certain way. No way it cost more than 20m at the most with everything.
    Also how is a limited release movie called a failure. They didn’t go comerical about it.

    • Jayna says:

      It’s a failure when it goes to 126 mainstream movie theatres and can’t get but a few people in them.

      YOu’re saying how can it be called a failure? Even on the ten limited release theaters, with two huge names and the initial promotion, you judge by how many show up and go to those theatres, which are in big cities by the way. Even on opening weekend in limited release, there was a poor outshowing.

      Then it goes nationwide to 126 theatres only about a week later and only makes for the weekend, three days, $193,000. That is a bomb that you can’t get around. And for that size movie she had more promo through magazine interviews and I saw commercials, etc., than other “indie” films ever get. There was much awareness about this movie. People weren’t interested and reviews weren’t good. Their star power drew far less interest in people seeing it than thought. The studio was banking on their star power being a draw. Even Angie talking about her nude scene didn’t draw people in. It will do better on DVD with such great cinematography in such a great location.

      Her movie isn’t the first nor will be the last that bombs at theatres. Many fantastic indies never get the publicity deserved that Angie got and never get the budget Angie got. So I don’t get the poor Angie. It happens. Like I’ve said Third Person, a small budget movie, shot by Oscar-winning director Paul Haggis, with an all star cast, including Liam Neeson, bombed critically and box office, bombed. Nobody was making excuses for why it bombed. The script and direction (both by Haggis) were dissected endlessly in reviews. A flawed character-driven small movie, with good parts and bad parts, can get an audience on DVD, that people just don’t want to spend at a movie theater. It takes great word of mouth, like for Still Alice, a $5 million indie movie, and Oscar nomination and win, that gets a small movie with darker subject matter doing decent in theatres. Her performance was brilliant, just brilliant.

      If you want to see a fantastic indie movie shot on a minescule, shoestring budget, in a beautiful foreign city, check out “Copenhagen” on Netflix by a director/writer in his directorial full-length feature debut.

      • lucy2 says:

        Cate Blanchett has that new movie Carol starting now, and it’s at 4 theaters and made over $60K/theater. That’s a solid showing for a little indie in limited release. For dramas like this, good reviews and performances will bring people in. Terrible reviews will make people save their money or go see something else.

      • jessia says:

        The movie flopped because Jolie has no real talent or skills as a director, Many of the reviews were saying she had no idea what she was doing. It has nothing to do with being a woman like her fans claim. She did a awful job and deserves the criticism for it.
        Also the box office is atrocious, even for a indie film. She thought it was get her to the Oscars but sadly I think this movie will be a Razzie dazzler.

      • Candice says:

        I’m saying considering the minimal promotion. They didn’t go big star about it. You know how even one big star promotion like. Let alone two. They didn’t plan it big from the get go and saying its small arty and expermental .

      • Artemis says:


        Using your kids for a high profile magazine photo shoot is pretty ‘big star’. Nobody else is doing this but her. And she had plenty of interviews other indie films simply don’t have (because magazines don’t care about them due to lack of star power).

      • Candice says:

        Pls they could’ve done many things than a mag interview with family picture.Thats something for fans since they rarely seen and they exist like that. We were saying when will the promo start even around a couple weeks earlier before release. It wasnt even this much until it debut at the afi Some how all seem to forget that.

      • jessoutwest says:

        Sorry Candice, like it or lump it Jolie has decided marketing for her movies should be personality based rather than story based. I wouldn’t say the cover of Vogue, Euro Vanity Fair (?), interviews with the Today show, People, EW, etc etc qualifies as no promotion. She tied in her family and the movie in every interview/promo. The fact of the matter is Vin Diesel is more of a box office draw than the Jolie Pitts. The horrid looking Last Witch Hunter has made many millions. People will watch him in anything. They have many devoted fans, just not as many as others. It may be time for re-evaluation for them. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.

  18. WILZ says:

    If it’s true about the remake of Bride of Frankenstein ,I hope they stick to the original story and not add a silly twist like they did with Maleficent.

    • Zwella Ingrid says:

      In the original Bride of Frankenstein, the bride isn’t even shown until literally the last 5 minutes of the movie. The bride almost screams once, then screams, then hisses like a cat, and the movie ends in the castle blowing up. This is mini cameo for Jolie if she would take it. Unless they would totally rewrite the script.

      • WILZ says:

        yeah I know but I was referring to the other movie where she sets herself on fire and dies,I know it wasn’t in the original but I hope they don’t change that into a happy ending like they did with Maleficent,I think they said they were sending a message to girls that true love’s kiss can be from anyone not just boys,and while this is a good message it’s not a reason to turn Maleficent into a cute wounded fairy who becomes evil for 5 seconds then regrets it.I’m afraid they’re going to do the same here.

  19. knower says:

    “Sources are still bitching about the poster, which apparently should have had Angelina and Brad’s faces on it (but instead had two hats).”

    This is my favorite line from the entire article.

  20. rice_bunny says:

    I can see her as Bride of Frankenstein just like how I saw her as Maleficent…and I think if the movie was to be made with her it would become successful, too (not as successful as Maleficent though).

    On another note, I hope she doesn’t do anymore artsy indie films because 1) most people are not into these types of film and 2) she does better in action/adventure type films…best to stick to that.

  21. maggie says:

    Judging by the color of her skin all she would need is the wig.

  22. JenniferJustice says:

    I would love for her to do a Bride of Frankenstein remake. None will ever be as good as the Robert DeNiro/Helena Bonham Carter/Kenneth Branagh remake, but it would still be good and I’d watch.

  23. CK says:

    I’d rather see a sequel to Mr. and Mrs. Smith. That’s the film that they should have made together.

  24. pwal says:

    The post has seemingly disappeared, but I read one earlier, decrying Angelina for not taking up for other female directors who are coming up the ranks. It really isn’t Angelina’s responsibility to do that. Sure, it would be great if she allowed herself to be directed by a woman, but then again, when she did try to assert a power that was probably stipulated with Cleopatra, her efforts were mocked, thanks to the Sony hacks.

    Hell no, she shouldn’t quit directing or writing. Although I haven’t seen BTS yet, due to having limited choices or chances to see it (i.e. having the option to go out of my home state to see it the first week and having to travel 55 miles to see it the second week), honest people can cop to seeing worst, whether on MST 3K/RIfftrax or from personal experience and most of the directors continue to direct with seeming disinterest in improvement. That’s not Angelina Jolie.

  25. LAK says:

    At least this remake reached for a film so old most people don’t remember the details. And by most people I mean OAPs.

  26. Shoshona says:

    I love angelina but by the sea was really a stupid move of her. I understand what she wants, but, she went into this artsy european film thing with absolutely no experience! She never made a movie like this so how can she even direct a movie like this? Movies like she wanted to do doesnt cost 10 or 25 million dollars. American blockbustermoviestars doesnt understand this i guess. She’s trying too hard. She doesnt give herself space to learn. She could fall over her own feed.