Piranha 3DD straight to DVD

rybevrybev Posts: 1,900
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Sequel to surprise hit movie goes straight to DVD in the UK

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a357759/piranha-3dd-dropped-from-uk-cinema-release-heading-straight-to-dvd.html

Shame, as I do enjoy the occasional nonsense humans in peril movie.
Wonder if Shark Night 3D flopping has anything to do with this.

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 674
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Shark Night 3D looked terrible but entertaining.....
  • rybevrybev Posts: 1,900
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Shark Night 3D looked terrible but entertaining.....

    It was just plain terrible!
    Given the amount of screen time the sharks get it might aswell have been called "Night 3D" :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    Entertainment Film Distributors obviously don't like making easy money...

    The original made nearly £4.5 million, so even if the sequel only makes half of that, surely it would have still been worth releasing it in cinemas. Ridiculous decision.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 674
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    rybev wrote: »
    It was just plain terrible!
    Given the amount of screen time the sharks get it might aswell have been called "Night 3D" :D

    damn. i love sharks too!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,265
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Very Suprised by this :eek:

    Thought the 1st un was a crazy way over the top horror but it worked well and i really enjoyed it.
  • DEADLY_17DEADLY_17 Posts: 9,262
    Forum Member
    I dont understand it.

    didn't the 1st one do ok at the box office ? I actually enjoyed the 1st one alot more then i thought i would.

    This one looks just as funny, gory and good as the 1st one.
  • zwixxxzwixxx Posts: 10,295
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ^maybe if they'd done away with the 3D element, more people would have gone along.
  • D. MorganD. Morgan Posts: 4,166
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What a silly decision. :confused:
  • Ted CTed C Posts: 11,730
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Can't believe how naive some of you are being...you think that all of that money made from the box office goes to the distributor?

    Like any business, there are overheads, such as publicity, cost of making copies of the film for cinemas etc, plus the cinemas themselves have to get some of that money.

    There are other costs too I can't remember at the moment, but rest assured that money taken at the box office is certainly not pure profit for the distributors.
  • Slow_LorisSlow_Loris Posts: 24,845
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I suppose they hope to make more money from DVD sales?
  • Ted CTed C Posts: 11,730
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    gilesb wrote: »
    I suppose they hope to make more money from DVD sales?


    Which is true, because it's cheaper to release on DVD than cinema. Lower overheads, less publicity required etc.

    And anyway, 4.5 million is a very poor showing at the box office...films need to be taking upwards of 20 million to be considered even reasonably successful.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    zwixxx wrote: »
    ^maybe if they'd done away with the 3D element, more people would have gone along.

    I doubt that 3D is the problem. If anything, i imagine that 3D was one of the first films strengths (even if it was a 3D conversion).
  • zwixxxzwixxx Posts: 10,295
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ^but I heard some people stayed away cos the 3D price added ~$10 to the ticket price, so maybe they'da taken more money even with the cheaper 2D prices - but I guess we'll never know.
  • DEADLY_17DEADLY_17 Posts: 9,262
    Forum Member
    I think the 1st one was good in 3D it actually was worth seeing in 3D imo.

    I'll be buying it thought anyway since i liked the 1st one :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    zwixxx wrote: »
    ^but I heard some people stayed away cos the 3D price added ~$10 to the ticket price, so maybe they'da taken more money even with the cheaper 2D prices - but I guess we'll never know.

    Doubtful, i think it would have flopped if it wasn't for the 3D gimmick. For a film like Piranha 3D (and other 3D horror films like My Bloody Valentine and the last two Final Destination films) you tend to find that the 3D ticket sales are the majority over the 2D tickets. I definitely seem to remember reading that the 3D vs 2D sales for Piranha 3D were swayed quite drastically in the favour of 3D.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    Looks like the UK distributors have changed their mind, i saw a poster for this in my local Cineworld, released on May 11th according to IMDb (nearly a whole month before the US).
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,274
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CJClarke wrote: »
    Looks like the UK distributors have changed their mind, i saw a poster for this in my local Cineworld, released on May 11th according to IMDb (nearly a whole month before the US).

    Hurrah!! :D
    I was gutted that I might not see it on a large screen in 3D.
    Busey and The Hoff. Back where they belong!
    The first was a huge guilty pleasure for me.
    Pity they didn't get Kelly Brook back though. She could've played the twin sister of her original character or something cheesy like that...
    Yes I am sad... :p
  • Rincewind78Rincewind78 Posts: 2,198
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    surprised by this as well, though I thought the first film was utter crap - I heard it did really well for what it was!

    oh well.
Sign In or Register to comment.