THE KNOW-IT-ALLS OF OAK STREET

It amazes me how the know-it-alls (the self-proclaimed oracles) feel fit to judge why a movie flopped. 

The latest, infuriating example relates to David Robert Mitchell's time-travel/dinosaur picture, The End of Oak Street. Know-it-alls claim that its lackluster, ticket sales are due to the following: It's too violent/gory for general, family consumption or it's too carefree for its own good, working off the ol' sappy, Amblin strand. Others claim that the two aesthetics clash: a recipe for melodramatic disaster.

Hmmm. How are these explanations viable if a large number of people didn't bother to see the movie? Could basic word of mouth be the cause, but then word of mouth implies that a hardy sum of people saw the movie to besmirch it.  Also, would it not underperform more so during its second week than at its outset? 

Here's a radical notion: Oak Street got lost in the shuffle, since Spider-Man: Brand New Day and The Odyssey remain the big, box-office draws. In other words, maybe it's more the timing that's hurt Oak Street and not its execution. (If one may recall, in 1982, Blade Runner, The Thing and Tron were considered flops, though that was only because they were released among E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Poltergeist, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, The Road Warrior and Rocky III, all of which had secured the spotlight, along with consistent audiences.) 

Ah, but the know-it-alls know better than me. They've nailed this one, even though I bet most haven't even seen the movie. They've most likely relied on clips and pre-publicity nuggets to form their uninformed opinions, but that's more than enough for the know-it-alls to spout off. As always, logic isn't part of their clumsy creed. They know because, well, they know!