<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Was this just marketed badly? Is that it?]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Secret of My Success</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>nivrehs</strong> — <em>15 years ago(November 07, 2010 10:40 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Because NO ONE I know (old and young alike) has ever heard of this movie. Most films have a "Reception" section on their Wikipedia page - all this one has is the plot. The rating is a sad 6.1 on IMDb, and barely anyone has discussed it.<br />
So, what was it? Aside from the over-the-top '80s synth instrumentals and recycled power ballads that drowned out the dialogue in some parts, what else was there that really suffocated this film into obscurity?</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/204724/was-this-just-marketed-badly-is-that-it</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 17:41:18 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/204724.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:50:37 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Was this just marketed badly? Is that it? on Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:50:43 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>tpcorless</strong> — <em>12 years ago(January 02, 2014 09:20 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I remember this movie being very successful when it came out.  I was only 11 but I remember the audience enjoying it.<br />
I think it's a pleasant film, nothing more really.  It's not as good as Back to the Future, which is now considered a classic.  I think "Secret" capitalized on MJF's success but it doesn't have that enduring appeal that some of his other films have.<br />
Something like Cocktail is just as forgettable but Tom Cruise was arguably a bigger star and the Cocktail soundtrack was huge so it had more of a presence.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1725874</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1725874</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:50:43 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Was this just marketed badly? Is that it? on Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:50:42 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>richard.fuller1</strong> — <em>12 years ago(December 14, 2013 07:11 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I was 21 when it came out and while I didn't frequent movies anyway, I remember it was just about the time of Michael J. Fox overkill. He did Back To the Future to Teen Wolf so now seeing him do the Wall Street deal, he and it was an overtried, overused formula.<br />
I recorded it earlier this week and am watching it now and the opening music, his voice, his explanation of just going to New York, all the beautiful women turning and looking 'at him', it was massive overkill.<br />
I think it was comedian Rich Hall who compared all the Tom Cruise movies around this time as all being virtually the same, from Top Gun to Cocktail and whatever else there may have been.<br />
I remember this movie being promoted with the scene of MJF in his briefs flexing his muscles when the elevator opened. This scene was used to entice people to see it.<br />
Yea, I would say that was bad marketing, if the movie actually has something more going for it.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1725873</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1725873</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:50:42 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Was this just marketed badly? Is that it? on Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:50:41 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>JHollis</strong> — <em>13 years ago(June 29, 2012 05:07 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_in_film" rel="nofollow ugc">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_in_film</a><br />
7th highest grossing film of 1987!<br />
<a href="http://www.nrab.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow ugc">www.nrab.blogspot.com</a></p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1725872</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1725872</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:50:41 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Was this just marketed badly? Is that it? on Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:50:40 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>SPaS</strong> — <em>13 years ago(June 27, 2012 04:21 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Well, I remember this well enough. Actually a friend from my class saw it on the movies and recommended it. I missed it, but rented it, and saw it lke 5 times with my friends. Good stuff back in the day.<br />
Wikipedia says it made well over 100 million internationally back in 1987, so it was a huge success. But the previous post made a good point: this falls in between "so good it's bad" and "true 80s classics" movies. Also, against Wall street the yuppie - thing is kind of twisted and nowadays definitely outdated.<br />
Movies like Explorers, Innerspace, Adventures in babysitting and Miracle on the 8th street get found out easier because they have names like Spielberg, Dante and Chris Columbus attached to them. And I won't even mention John Hughes here.<br />
Secret of my success must be one of the biggest "forgotten" blockbusters of the 80s. It's as easy to miss as, say, My science project, Real Genius and D.A.R.Y.L. - but those movies didn't make 100 million dollars.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1725871</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1725871</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:50:40 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Was this just marketed badly? Is that it? on Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:50:39 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>zziiyy</strong> — <em>13 years ago(May 29, 2012 12:33 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">This was a very popular movie, and Michael J Fox a bankable star at the time.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1725870</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1725870</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:50:39 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Was this just marketed badly? Is that it? on Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:50:38 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>indisposedinmymind</strong> — <em>15 years ago(November 16, 2010 09:10 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Believe it or not, this was a pretty popular film in 1987.  It made something like $60M at the U.S Box Office.  That may not sound like much these days, but it was enough to put the film on the top 10 highest earners of that year.  I think maybe the reason some people have forgotten about it, was because it was such an unashamed film of it's time.  It perfectly sums up that "Greed is Good" ethos of the mid-late 80's, without being the damning cautionary tale that Wall Street was.  As a result, that film has developed a classic status, because it perfectly summed up what happened to a lot of those people in the real world, where as this film is a bit more Disney-fied.  At the same time, it isn't quite bad enough to obtain "camp classic" status in the same way a lot of other 80's movies have.  I think its a testimate to Michael J Fox's charisma and huge popularity at the time, that this did as well as it it.<br />
Obviously, you're not a golfer!</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1725869</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1725869</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:50:38 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>