« May 2005 | Main | July 2005 »
June 29, 2005
Whose Access Is It Anyway?
In my e-mail box, I just found a Forbes Newsletter proclaiming "First Review: War Of The Worlds."
The author is Variety's Todd McCarthy. Variety shares ad space on the Forbes page.
And my reaction is shock.
Why?
Because Variety is now trading on its industry status, which has allowed it to bully studios in the internet era into at least maintaining parity with internet sites and often into early screenings (they saw WoTW weeks before The New York Times). But it's no longer just for editorial advantage and prestige. Now it is a direct, undeniable commerce issue.
And I say, "Foul."
If the studios go down this road publicly - which is to allow to slide by the backdoor deals with the "fan site" AICN - there will be no high ground by which to do business with other outlets. If Variety can use a "First Review" claim (which is not true, btw) to its financial benefit, isn't it directly damaging to The New York Times not to have that access?
Now, it might be a fluke. Embargo rules were all over the place on this particular movie, worldwide. Toes were stepped on and for one of the first times, a lot of people who don't usually care complained.
But if it isn't... is "First Review" is worth more than prestige and attention, but actually financial upside... the spiral will speed up and pirated previews - including test screening reviews - will not only become morally acceptable, but lionized by regular folks in a way they are not already.
Posted by poland at 08:16 PM | Comments (45)
Too Funny Not To...
Image by Banterist.com, Found via Defamer
Posted by poland at 07:48 PM | Comments (27)
Cinderella Guarantees Your Slipper
If you haven't read the story...
But is it like a restaurant? How much of your food do you eat before you start demanding the manager? How much would you have to dislike a movie before asking for your money back?
I can't imagine ever asking for my money back based on quality. I was not the biggest fan of Cinderella Man, but I respect that I paid to see something that people worked hard to make and put real blood, sweat, and tears into. I feel free to criticize, but withdrawing my money would feel like me trying to get something for nothing and I couldn't do it.
Could you? Would you?
(Didn't Brian Grazer see S.O.B.? Make Cinderella Man into a musical and re-release it!!! Russell singing "In My Own Little Corner." Paul Giamatti as The Fairy Godmother. It's a sure smash!!!)
Posted by poland at 07:14 PM | Comments (60)
June 28, 2005
What Would Be Funniest?
A. A major release being sent to a web site for repeated viewings with no embargo while the entire NY media was forced to sign paperwork holding to a Wed. embargo date
B. One of the trades hiring an aging gossip columnist
C. A company hurt by the premature release of CG images on a huge film releasing CG images prematurely on an even bigger film
Posted by poland at 11:51 PM | Comments (58)
Three Legs... You're Out!
Read.
React.
Posted by poland at 05:26 PM | Comments (171)
Trailer Chat
Go!
Posted by poland at 08:38 AM | Comments (116)
June 27, 2005
The Slump Redux
I spent a lot of time on Thursday and Friday trying to get all of my numbers to work... then I took two days off (thinking about it endlessly) and then I figured out my mistake. Somehow, in dealing with Excel, I left Shrek 2 off the 2004 numbers. And fortunately, I could smell it, even if I couldn't see it. So with that fixed...
It is in The Hot Button, about to go up, but the punchline is... studios are about even for the year, indies are way down (about $390 million), and the holdover dollars from films released last year is actually ahead this year by around $100 million.
So for "Hollywood," The Slump is non-existant.
For indies, the slump is beyond Passion of The Christ... even with no major winner to suck out business, the indies have not found films to match last year without Passion, much less with it.
And as weak as this year's Oscar slate was perceived to be at the box office, the Fockers more than matched Return of the King's holdover and the Oscar dollars for Milion Dollar Baby and Sideways in particular made it a good Oscar holdover year.
Posted by poland at 08:19 PM | Comments (40)
June 26, 2005
Something For Y'All To Chew On
Here is the number I have... if anyone wants to scream about it somehow being wrong, go for it. This has been lingering since Thursday and I admit, I am a little anxious about somehow having missed something.
According to my calculation, the major studios and their divisions opened 89 movies, grossing $3,080,207,993, as of June 17.
As of June 18 last year, the same studios released 94 movies and to June 18, grossed $2,778,780,593.
So the studio business is, but this calculation, up by $301,427,400 this year.
The flip side, of course, is that the true indie sector is down by $399,938,032 with 149 release this year versus 161 to this date last year.
So outside of emotional takes on "The Slump," what do you think about the details?
Posted by poland at 06:45 AM | Comments (36)
June 25, 2005
Early Friday Boxoffice Estimates
1. Batman Begins - $8.4m
2. Betwitched - $8.0m
3. Mr. & Mrs. Smith - $5.1m
4. Land of the Dead - $4.4m
5. Herbie: Fully Loaded - $4.1m
6. Madagascar - $2.2m
7. The Longest Yard - $1.7m
8. Star Wars: Episode III - $1.6m
9. Shark Boy & Lava Girl - $1.1m
10. Cinderella Man - $1.0m
Not much analysis right now (I've heading to a screening of Rebound), except to say that you could easily see Herbie jump into the 3-spot on Saturday.
Posted by poland at 06:15 PM | Comments (130)
Do You Think...
... there is a good reason for the Elizabethtown trailer being cut like any dumb studio romantic comedy instead of accentuating the fact that this is a Cameron Crowe film?
Addition, 6:52p, Fri - My guess is that you who are responding are not refering to the trailer, linked above, but the "internet preview," which has all the Crowe earmarks and looks wonderful.
Posted by poland at 01:13 AM | Comments (43)
June 24, 2005
Armond White Says...
... Nora Ephron is "perhaps the most inept director in Hollywood today."
Is she? What other candidates should be considered?
Posted by poland at 12:36 AM | Comments (107)
June 23, 2005
Adding "No Guests" Injury To "Wait Til 29 Hours Before Release To See The Movie" Insult
This went out to professional journalists, regarding the Monday screening of War of the Worlds in non-LA/NY markets. Oy!
"Greetings!
Just a few reminders about the upcoming WAR OF THE WORLDS screening this Monday, June 27 - we appreciate in advance for your cooperation!
Absolutely NO GUESTS - we will have a reserved section for press and it is for press only. Even if you do not plan on seating in the reserved section, there will still be no guests allowed. Everyone (except for press) entering the theater will need a physical ticket.
We have been asked to increase security measures at the theater. This means everyone will be go thru the wanding process, and no one will be allowed to bring in any purses, handbags, backpacks (anything that remotely resembles these items), no cameras, tape recorders, cell phones, picture phones, etc...
We think you get the idea. We are strongly suggesting you leave all these types of items at home. However, if you choose to bring them, we will have a place for you to check them and all items will be kept in a secure, locked area during the screening and returned immediately following.
Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause and again, we greatly appreciate your cooperation.
Thank you very much."
Posted by poland at 11:26 PM | Comments (62)
Rules Were Meant To Be Broken... A Little
Posted by poland at 08:52 AM | Comments (22)
So Far...
Nothing I've seen in the Bewitched spots is as funny as the TV show was...
Posted by poland at 05:22 AM | Comments (18)
June 22, 2005
Chicken Little Has Become The New Emperor
If you don't understand why I get so nuts about this stuff, take a look at the L.A. Times story today.
Horn and Abramowitz do more appropriate hedging on stupid stats than most – “Compared with last year, box-office receipts have been down every weekend since late February; the last time comparable business was off for such a long span was in 1985.” But this doesn’t make up for the idiocy of the “Worst Slump in 20 Years” bullshit. If this was the first report, it would get a pass. But why can’t anyone acknowledge that this stat is as relevant on its own as saying “Baseball Player X has had fewer hits in every game for the season” without pointing out that he is still hitting .330 because he hit a massive .370 the season before.
They have a chart in the L.A. Times story, clearly pointing out that this “slump” comes after the three highest grossing first half-years in the last decade (and I believe, in history) and still has the industry performing better than in any year prior to 2002. But they don’t make that point in the story.
They repeat something I’ve been saying for a long time... front-loading the box office is, ultimately, dangerous. And they quote Lucy Fisher saying something that has been a mantra for more than a decade – “...By Friday night, except for Academy[-Award-type] movies, your fate gets cast."
They quote Dan Fellman, logically explaining how stupid all this heavy breathing is. But still, they can’t help throwing out unexplained idiocies like that War of the Worlds, “would need to be almost a "Titanic-size" hit to make up the lost ground.”
That is factually true, since Titanic grossed “only” $600 million domestic and Spider-Man 2 grossed $374 million domestic, so the $226 million differential is about what the current “slump” is. However, it is emotionally deceptive since the phenomenon of Titanic, in the end, was worldwide and the film grossed about 2.2 times as much as Spidey 2 on that stage. If WotW did “Titanic numbers” this would automatically be the biggest, most profitable movie year in history by a long, long shot.
Moreover, War of the Worlds vs Titanic or even Spidey 2 is not the issue. The “make-up” can only come from Charlie & The Chocolate Factory AND The Bad News Bears AND Stealth AND The Island, etc... at least this summer.
Why don’t ANY of these stories want to acknowledge that it isn’t just The Passion of The Christ, but the second highest grossing domestic film of all time, Shrek 2 and not-too-shabby #8 all-time, Spider-Man 2?
"Although the final accounting for 2005 releases cannot yet be determined, their domestic runs indicate the prospects are decidedly dim.”
Editor!!!! Don’t they mean “accounting for 2005 films already released? It’s an unimportant mistake... unless you are writing a story suggesting that there is a year-long slump that will be hard to overcome. At that point, it is a horrible mistake.
There is a serious conversation here. I do see most of this coverage as trend hopping. (Marketplace, on NPR, combined the AMC/Loew’s merger as part of the fallout from the “slump.” And how can I blame them when major outlets are sloppily hyping this minor story?) But the issue of how the film industry will protect its revenue stream in years to come and the acknowledgement, albeit for the wrong reasons, that DVD can’t save every day... a story which is still being way underanalyzed.
Scariest of all, the best way of turning a lie into the truth is to repeat it often enough... especially when the lie speaks to an uncomfortable feeling the public already has. And that is what I fear is starting to happen with this story now. No one is going to skip War of the Worlds or King Kong because of these trend stories. On the other hand, this is where a Dan Glickman falls short of Jack Valenti. Someone needs to rally the troops and help them pull their heads out of their asses instead of letting the media push a non-story closer and closer to the tipping point.
It can happen. But if it does, it will be a industry-wide tragedy that no one seems to have thought much about. Everyone has a right to their money, but unfounded fear can cause bank runs that create real crisis. And the analogy is not joke.
Posted by poland at 12:25 AM | Comments (59)
June 21, 2005
Box Office Evolution, Pt. 1
So you can comment...
The Slump Isn't Real, But Change Is, Part 1
Posted by poland at 06:39 PM | Comments (51)
Hide & Go Seek Blockbuster Numbers
Well, at least we know what Sam Rubin thinks!
There is a minor skirmish in the Critics Wars this summer, as Steven Spielberg and Paramount has made the decision to go 2004 and to sit on War of The Worlds as though it was an egg in need of a lot of protection.
Well, kind of.
And that’s where the skirmish lies.
If you work for the Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek, EW, Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, you have already had a chance to see the film last week, whether you are a critic, feature writer, or arts section janitor... or friend of same.
So as Newsweek’s Sean Smith played tonsil hockey with Uncle Steve two weeks early and the film toured the globe, squirt-mics and all, the critical community waited.
And as of last night, if you are a junketeer, you have had your chance to see the movie in New York.
So this morning, we got Sam Rubin NOT reviewing the film on a live feed from New York, though he did let us know that the controversy will be that the film is only a PG-13 when he considered it much too strong for young kids – “a horror film,” specifically – and that it is not his cup of tea because he doesn’t like being scared every few minutes and... no one on the planet cares what Sam Rubin thinks of any film any more deeply than that.
Meanwhile, in Los Angeles the film will screen for everyone else in the crappy little Chinese 6 (“The Chinette”) two days before opening next Monday.
Of course, this comes on the heels of Warner Bros taking the extreme opposite tack with the endlessly praised Batman Begins, showing it early on the lot, screening twice to full houses at the premiere house in town, the Village in Westwood. Later, the studio actually requested that pretty much everyone run their reviews early for the film... and almost everyone did.
And Star Wars – Episode III... pretty close to the same deal. Junketeers went first, but within days, there were screenings for the rest of the critical world and embargoes were left flapping in the wind.
This is unlike last year, when paranoia and fear on everything but Shrek 2, Potter 3, and Spidey 2 was the rule, coming to a head with Fox burying The Day After Tomorrow to great effect.
So the sensibility has become, more clearly than ever, if its big and good, it screens... if its big and sucks, it hides. Until this week...
Truth be told, it is probably going to be a non-factor in the grosses of War of The Worlds. And critics were pretty much a non-factor on Star Wars and Batman.
So what’s the problem? Why piss people off? Is it going to help? Only if your movie sucks. Is it going to make it one small bit harder for critics to relax and enjoy your film? Yeah. Will critics and writers take it out on the movie? Unlikely.
In fact, the only real thing that can be taken from all this for those of us who are waiting a few more days to see Dakota Fanning scream a lot is that a guy as powerful and respected as Steven Spielberg is not above playing games and showing disrespect to any media that isn’t, essentially, paying to play.
Of course, this is the same Steven Spielberg whose studio pulled Michael Bay and his first act of The Island out of the editing room to show off to everyone who was willing to turn out at The Academy two months before the films release. Of course, Steven answers only to Steven. But it does make you scratch your head.
Worrying about seeing a film a week earlier or later also boggles... but the question is, forever, what is the upside and what is the downside. And for as little as it matters, the upside of hiding this film, assuming it is as good as Sean “Puffy” Smith thinks... I don’t see it.
Posted by poland at 05:54 PM | Comments (51)
June 20, 2005
It's Monday...
What do you folks want to talk about?
Posted by poland at 08:45 PM | Comments (72)
June 18, 2005
Early Box Office Analysis
The 3 Rings movies, the 3 new Star Wars movies, both Matrix sequels, both Jurassic sequels, the “2”s of Spidey, Shrek, Toy Story, Potter, MIB and MI, plus ID4, The Grinch and Jesus Christ.
This is the entire list of films that did better on a Friday after opening on Wednesday than Batman Begins did yesterday.
That said, the final domestic grosses on those films range from $139 million for Matrix Revolutions to $441 million for Shrek 2.
My point is... slow down the assumptions a little, one way or the other.
Similarly, three of the 10 pictures that opened better than Batman Begins on a Wednesday never hit $200 million. At least nine films that opened “worse” on a Wednesday than Batman Begins ended up over $200 million.
Manage your expectation.
If Batman Begins is only $20 million ahead of Mr. & Mrs. Smith after their first weekends, why will BB be reported as soft while everyone marveled at MMS? (P.S. A 50% drop for that film is not a big problem or unexpected.)
And really, the first person who reports that BB was “soft because of the Katie Holmes controversy” gets a smack! (Of course, there would be some value, I think, in having an actress in the role who adds more to the film and who has some street cred... you would have believed Rhada Mitchell and her sex appeal easily matches or surpasses Ms. Holmes’.)
And now, time for me to admit... this weekend is NOT going to surpass last year’s analogous weekend.
Batman Begins will outdo Dodgeball (though even being close means something odd all unto itself) and Mr. & Mrs. Smith can come close to last year’s opening of The Terminal. But after that, there is a sharp drop from last year. Not only was weekend 3 of Potter 3 still at $27 million and Shrek 2 at $22 million, but there were five more titles (making nine in all) that came out of “this” weekend with over $10 million. This weekend, there will be no more than three such titles... maybe just two.
If Holmes/Cruise did have any effect on this weekend, it may well have been a dampening effect on Universal’s ability to get traction for the counterprogramming of a Hilary Duff movie opposite The Bat.
The other thing to note weekend-to-weekend is that last year’s number this weekend was not only drive by big success at the top that Badagascar and The Longest Yard can’t match, but a lot more June carboloading. Of the nine $10 million weekend grossers last year, five were in their first or second weekend... and of the other four, two were Shrek and Potter.
And now time to eat some Sith shit... it is going to drop around 50% again this weekend and the $400 million domestic mark is quickly falling out of view.
This forces me to admit something else... I have spent so much time arguing against the idiotic “DVD is killing theatrical” crap out there, that I have forgotten to stay with my traditional theme about the short window and the danger of frontloading theatrical. Mea culpa. I’ll be going back to look at some of what I wrote in the last few summers and hopefully refresh my thinking.
But first, some blackjack...
Posted by poland at 08:03 PM | Comments (147)
June 17, 2005
Why Does It Make Me So Sad?
Tom Cruise is acting like a guy who walked into the casino, won huge, and is on a losing streak. The smaller the stack gets, the more desperate he is to play bigger and bigger amounts to get back the winnings he has "lost."
Unlike a gambler, Tom Cruise is beyond the point where he will go home broke. But does he know that?
This is instructive about a guy like Tom Hanks as well. The heat has faded a little. And what does Hanks do? Whatever the hell he wants. You don't see him making tabloid noise or co-starring in Superman Returns (or whatever it will be called) or seeking the most commercial things he can, even if The DiVinci Code might be very commercial.
Anne Thompson compared the publicity efforts on Cruise's and Brad Pitt's behalf. But there is nothing magical about the Pitt effort... just good, solid publicity management. But the biggest factor is not the publicist, but the actor. Pitt seems not to care very much. He's not a gambler. He won the lottery (genetic and otherwise) and he seems to be enjoying the ride. He appears to have taken Troy as seriously as Snatch... and on he goes. He makes some clearly commercial choices, but in the end, choosing to play pocket pool with Angelina Jolie is not a hard decision.... well, insert pun... and insert pun on the word "insert." See how easy it is to build a Pitt story?
A 40-year-old man marrying a 24-year-old less than two months after they met is desperate. There is no other appropriate word. It doesn't matter if you are Tom Cruise or if you have a movie coming or whatever else.
Listening to a report of their engagement, at a press conference a reporter floated the question of whether they got engaged at the Eiffel Tower and they confirmed. Fuck! There is no way that was not a set up. The reporter was told and given the opportunity to ask the question, rather than Team Cruise sending out a press release. Double fuck! The reason so many people think it's movie promotion is that it has all the hallmarks of something so obvious that it can only sustain for a few months, like a movie promotional scheme.
And now, they have to get married, stay together for at least 10 years, and probably have some kids or Cruise becomes nothing but a public joke. Think it would be cynical to suggest there is a contract? There is no way that Tom Cruise got engaged without a pre-nup... none. And Katie Holmes is no Lisa Marie Pressley. She will never talk or even hint. And sadly, Li'l Katie is not half the actress Nicole Kidman is... so as a career move (outside of the millions she will walk away with before the age of 35), it's very Marion Davies/Susan Alexander Kane.
Anyway... I find it all very sad. This is, for me, completely analagous to "I love children... having them in my bed is an act of love." Once you are this deep in the water, all you can do is fight to justify your behavior... and the water just keeps getting deeper.
And let this mark the day that MovieCityNews got out of the Tom & Katie business. Our writers will write whatever they like in their columns and features, but this story has crossed some horrible line and it is time for any news outlet that doesn't want to be in league with something this cynical and ugly to get out. We will cover the movies and at some point, if there is a tangible shift in the story that matters, we will cover that. But until then, look for your "TomKat" headlines in the tabloids and Defamer, not on MCN. Cold turkey.
Posted by poland at 04:17 PM | Comments (116)
Bill Goldman Was So Right
If you have a little time and are interested, the good folks at Slate spent some column inches today touting an economic study of the film industry that defines the phrase "knowing everything and understanding nothing."
Okay, I take it back. They don't come close to knowing everything.
The study, "The Motion Picture Industry: Critical Issues in Practice, Current Research & New Research Directions," is here as a pdf file.
And if you can hear A.O. Scott spinning in his desk chair, it's not your imagination. Anyone who loves movies has to hate this absurd paper and anyone who wants to sell movies better be careful before they talk themselves into going this far into the "movies as product" hell zone... they might mock Pluto Nash, but it is the thinking that this paper suggests that actually does explain how that film got made.
What do you think?
Posted by poland at 04:05 AM | Comments (14)
June 15, 2005
CinderFella
The New York Times' No-One Culpa Story
Your thoughts below...
Posted by poland at 06:39 PM | Comments (82)
June 14, 2005
How Can They Say Eisner Has No Sense Of Humor...
... after he called his book "Kampf"
Now, if he went for "Mein Kampf"... well, that would have been genius!
Posted by poland at 09:17 PM | Comments (11)
Change To Commenters
EDIT - Turns out, we are having some registration problems... so until then, this move will be delayed... post free or die!!!
EARLIER - I decided to allow comments from unregistered commenters, but they will have to be "approved" first.
It seems like a lot of work for me, so I hope people will register so their comments go through automatically... but we'll see how it goes. At the least, it should stop the spam.
Posted by poland at 11:59 AM | Comments (8)
The Next Cog In The Trend Wheel
Let's start figuring out how Old Media journos will rationalize the box office success or failure of Lindsay Lohan in Herbie: Fully Loaded.
It doesn't matter whether the film does well or poorly when it opens in 10 days. Ms. Lohan is tabloid fodder and the prism that Old Media will choose to see it through is sure to be about her celebrity.
My Early Guesses -
If The Film Opens - There will be lots of features in "legitimate" papers about Ms. Lohan's travails and whether children should be exposed to her.
The opening will be used as proof that Pitt/Jolie tabloid buzz really did drive the opening of Mr. & Mrs. Smith.
(Note: Many of us who actually pay attention to marketing noted that Fox turned the corner on the movie with advertising many weeks back. And we should not point out that the film didn't open as well as, say, Scooby Doo and less than $6 million better than xXx.)
If The Film Flops - Out come the "parents fear Lindsay Lohan and her career is over" stories.
Lindsay's father becomes a lynch pin in the "violence issue" that also allegedly chased Russell Crowe's movie out of the marketplace.
(Note: Universal was very nervous about the numbers the movie opened to - days before the phone throwing incident - because they were under tracking... not because of the amount of money, but because of media perception.
Unfortunately for all of us, writers who don't hear about tracking very often don't understand how often it is wrong. It was low on Mr. & Mrs. Smith and high on Cinderella Man, which means... taa daa!!!... what we have always know... tracking is better at capturing info on older moviegoers than younger or ethnic moviegoers. But instead, it is being used to hype one and to attack the other. The idea that quoting tracking as a target when the number ends up a few million higher or lower is just plain stupid. And the greatest irony is that the people who are most irritated by the numbrs obsession of Hollywood jump on that numbers bandwagon whenever it serves their personal purposes.)
Posted by poland at 10:29 AM | Comments (39)
BACKLASH ALERT!!!
Is Batman Begins being so well reviewed before its release (with WB selectively setting embargo dates to allow Old Media to suck all the air out of the story) that a backlash is becoming inevitable?
(Note: I agree with the positive notices... but backlash is an emotional thing, not an intellectual one.)
Posted by poland at 01:12 AM | Comments (105)
June 13, 2005
Reader Mail
I got this about... well, you guess what movie...
"Not all movies have to be about the meaning of life.
Not all books have to be about the meaning of life.
Not all conversations have to be about the meaning of life.
Over-analysis is an unhappy person trying to understand the meaning of life.
Does a Lion know the meaning of life? No. He is too busy being the king of the jungle.
Does a Sequoia know the meaning of life? No. It is stretching its way to the stars while the rest of us have to use zillion dollar rockets to get there.
Is a good football game about the meaning of life? No. But when my team wins I see things more clearly.
Do I go to the local cineplex searching for the meaning of life? No. I go there to dream about things I've never seen. Eat some popcorn, kiss my girl, and then dream some more.
Why? Because the meaning of life is life itself. If you are alive you mean something, whatever it is, good or bad, smart or dumb, but something...
P.S.
When we see something bad and think to ourselves that we could do so much better, isn't that a wake up call? Maybe we just have to take the challenge..."
Posted by poland at 06:06 PM | Comments (88)
How Do I Put This Gently?
BLECCCHHH!!!!
Posted by poland at 05:55 PM | Comments (40)
June 11, 2005
Early Box Office Analysis
1. Mr. And Mrs Smith - 18.6 m
2. Madagascar - 5.0m - off 38% Fri-Fri
3. The Longest Yard - 4.4m - off 49% Fri-Fri
4. Star Wars: III/R-Sith - 4.0m - off 44% Fri-Fri
5. Shark Boy & Lava Girl - 3.9m
6. Cinderella Man - 2.9m - off 51% Fri-Fri
7. Sis, Traveling Pants - 2m - off 44% Fri-Fri
8. The Honeymooners - 1.8m
9. Monster-In-Law .- 9m - off 53% Fri-Fri
10. Lords Of Dogtown - .7m - off 70% Fri-Fri
Number 1 With A Hail Of Bullets - Mr. & Mrs. Smith’s opening day number tags the final domestic total somewhere between $150m - $180m. And given Brad Pitt’s international draw, there is a very real chance that this film could outdraw Troy and Ocean’s Eleven worldwide and become Pitt’s first $500 million grossing picture. Scary, huh? (Especially if you’ve seen the movie.)
Now there’s always the chance that this film could be a 2 Fast 2 Furious or an 8 Mile and gross less than $150 million... but I don’t think so. In a thought that I kind of hate myself for having, the film is just not important enough to fail that badly. The flip side is that it won’t be an ID4 either, legging its way to $300 million-plus after a smaller opening day.
Sith continues to fall behind Shrek 2’s pace and will have to settle, it seems, for being the third, fourth or fifth highest grossing domestic release of all time.
More later...
Posted by poland at 09:23 AM | Comments (99)
June 10, 2005
Hello From Seattle
I came up here on Tuesday... still a big laggy from London and yet another hotel room... but beginning to feel a bit more in the zone.
Nothing has been so exciting in the last few days that it has screamed "Blog Entry" in my ear.
The idea that a major paper was once used again by a studio to push its agenda on closing a deal forward by falsely telling the paper that it was considering not doing the deal - all top secret sources, of course - wasn't enough to rile me up.
Mr. & Mrs. Smith wasn't bad enough to make me crazy (or to respond to the crazy guy who tried to get himself into a righteous furor over it). Haute Tension isn't good enough for the opposite. The Honeymooners was kept at an appropriate distance. And though Mir-ly-a-facade/Dimension was generous with Lava/Shark screening opportunities, I travelled through all of them.
Anne Bancroft's passing is sad in many ways. Mr. Brooks has been suffering with it in silence for a long while and they kind of informed friends a few weeks back. One wonders whether her exit from Spanglish, which was rumored in some quarters to be memory problem based, was directly connected to the illness... costing us one last bit of her magic.
Anyway... films here are good... festival good... mornings in the market good... sleep, not so good...
I'll try to visit more often this weekend.
Posted by poland at 08:30 AM | Comments (22)
Casino Entries
It looks like we may have to go to "registration only" for commenters so we can lose the spammers. If anyone has any objections, let me know.
Posted by poland at 08:09 AM | Comments (9)
June 08, 2005
Marketing Dollars
On Slate, Edward Jay Epstein writes:
"Consider the perverse logic of Hollywood: In 2003, the six major studios—Disney, Warner Bros., Sony, 20th Century Fox, Universal, and Paramount—spent, on average, $34.8 million to advertise a movie and earned, on average, just $20.6 million per title. Even if the studios had made the movies for free—which, of course, they didn't—they would have lost $14.2 million per film on the theatrical run, or what the industry calls 'current production.'"
What exactly does Epstein mean? Because it reads to me as though earnings per film average "just $20.6 million."
But that number is completely off.... unless what Epstein really means is that they earn an average of $20.6 million ON OPENING WEEKEND.
In 2003, Buena Vista released 19 films, grossing an average of $80 million, opening to an average of $16.7 million.
Warner Bros. released 20 films, grossing an average of $59.5 million, opening to an average of $17.6 million.
Sony released 12 films, grossing an average of $73.3 million, opening to an average of $20.4 million.
20th Century Fox released 16 films, grossing an average of $53.7 million, opening to an average of $17 million.
Universal released 14 films, grossing an average of $78.6 million, opening to an average of $25.1 million.
Paramount released 15 films, grossing an average of $40.5 million, opening to an average of $11.3 million.
By my count, those six studios released 96 films in 2003, grossing an average of $64.3 million and opening to an average of $18 million.
Of course, with rentals averaging $38 million or so, Epstein's general point has value... except that it completely misreads the significance of domestic theatrical. Revenue, like box office, is not as simple as using big gross numbers to read the whole thing.
Each studio does not spend equally... or get returns equally. DVD revenues are impacted by theatical and the marketing of theatrical.
Still, movies cost too much to market. That is true. But any choice to move in a different direction will have treacheries of its own. And a serious examination of how to change the system is not helped by big dumb headlines.
As for Epstein's thought that moving the DVD release date even closer to theatrical... "Well, captain... maybe if we move closer to the iceberg it won't damage the hull..."
Posted by poland at 12:07 AM | Comments (100)
June 06, 2005
Dear Hot Blog Research Team
I’m just getting to work on The Dove Foundation’s latest attempt to prove that studios should be making G-rated films. And I’d love some feedback from you all before I set my thoughts in stone.
For one thing, they say there were 23 G rated releases from Disney, 2000-2004. I count 15. What say you?
Emperor's New Groove
102 Dalmations
Fantasia 2000
The Tigger Movie
Return To Neverland
The Country Bears
Beauty & The Beast (IMAX)
Lion King (IMAX)
Monster's Inc
Princess Diaries
Recess
Finding Nemo
Brother Bear
The Young Black Stallion
Princess Diaries 2
Posted by poland at 06:55 PM | Comments (82)
Question of the Day
Is there a worse director in Hollywood to take over the reins of X-Men 3 than Brett Ratner?
And what will Salma Hayek play?
Posted by poland at 12:59 PM | Comments (152)
Jessica Alba in The Fantastic Two
Paging Tara Reid!!!!
Thanks to Reed Richards' genius, Sue Storm has a uniform that dissapears when she does... but apparently, it doesn't always reappear when she does.
Posted by poland at 12:56 PM | Comments (40)
June 04, 2005
This Is Why I Rip The NY Times
It is not A.O. scott's Job to be a box office analyst, but thanks in great part to poor reporting in his own paper, his Sunday column leads with a fact that is, in truth, a misstatement.
"For the third spring in a row, the box-office grosses and the number of tickets sold for first-run theatrical releases had fallen, data that provoked concern and speculation in Hollywood and in the industry trade papers."
The fact is that Jan - April 2005 is down from Jan - April 2004 by $205 million... or about 8.8%.
Jan - April 2004 was up $232 million from Jan - April 2003... or about 11%.
Jan - April 2003 was down $144 million from Jan - April 2002... or about 6%.
But the perception remains because of journalism that finds the answers that fulfill the hypothesis instead of asking the questions that simply offer the truth.
Don't get me wrong. It's not all great news. But now we are on to the really dangerous part. Tony Scott, a good and honorable man, is left spinning an opinion that is flawed in many ways, the biggest of which is the simple misstatement of the reality of the box office... led there by no less a source than the New York Times.
"From where I sit, not bad is very bad indeed. The commitment to meticulously engineered mediocrity suggests that the American movie industry, in its timid, defensive attempts not to alienate the audience, is doing just that."
Using the arbitrary “five years ago” as a base, the ten top movies released Jan-April in 2000 were Erin Brockovich, Scream 3, U-571, Rules of Engagement, Mission To Mars, Snow Day, Next Friday, Romeo Must Die, Final Destination and The Whole Nine Yards.
This year, it’s been Hitch, Robots, The Pacifier, Are We There Yet?, The Ring Two, Constantine, Sin City, The Interpreter, Guess Who and Coach Carter.
Okay... so Erin Brockovich was great. And there was no Oscar-hope movie this spring. But outside of that one film, would you really argue that there is a significant shift in quality? Sin City or U-571? Hitch or The Whole Nine Yards? Robots or Snow Day?
You tell me.
The reason I am so endlessly enraged by this “the box office is falling” argument is that it is, first, not accurate. But more importantly, it is a wish fulfillment from the world of critics and journalists. The media always is happy to tell Hollywood that the sky is falling. And it doesn’t matter than films that audiences want to see are making more money than ever... that documentaries are making more than ever in their history... that hardcore films like Sin City, like ‘em or hate ‘em, are getting major studio distribution...
Could Kingdom of Heaven have trumped Gladiator and all the other sword and sandal films? Some would say that it did, in every place but the box office. Did it pander? I don’t think so. But for even those who feel it failed, suddenly the popularity poll of the box office is being thrown around as a measure we should consider?
Kingdom of Heaven will trump Alexander’s box office by less than $20 million in America. Is it really that close in quality to last November’s disaster?
Does Sahara out grossing Crash by a similar amount make Sahara the more worthy film?
These are absurd questions... but they are the logical extension of these arguments. If you want to argue that audiences responded better to last May’s line up for good reason, you have to choose to embrace the idea that The Day After Tomorrow was a worthy draw. Sorry... I know no one wants to eat that idea... but you can’t pick and choose which reality fits your tastes.
The first $3 billion domestic summer ever happened in 1999. The next year it went down, then up, then up, then down, then down and now we are in 2005, looking at another $3.5 billion summer (the third ever) that will somehow be touted as a disappointment.
Trend desperation is an embarrassment when Entertainment Weekly suffers it. When it’s The New York Times... yeesh!
Posted by poland at 08:30 PM | Comments (86)
Early Box Office Analysis
More excitement for those Star Wars boo birds!!!
Third place!!! The horror!
Meanwhile, Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of The Sith is very likely to become the fastest film to gross $300 million domestically by the end of today (Sat), making the mark in just 17 days... faster than the second highest grossing (original run) film in domestic history, Shrek 2. It will also pass the original gross of Star Wars on Sunday, then chasing only The Phantom Menace and the total Star Wars gross (including re-releases) to become the high box office water mark for Star Wars films.
The gross is nothing less than remarkable.
Meanwhile, the whining about weekly grosses vs. last year will continue on Monday, as Cinderella Man, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and Lords of Dogtown shockingly (ha ha) will not match up with last year’s weekend-after-Memorial-Day release of Harry Potter III. This weekend will end up around $25 million behind the analogous weekend from last year.
Mr. & Mrs. Smith won’t be enough next weekend to overcome last summer’s analogous weekend, in which five films were over $20 million. But Batman Begins weekend, combined with MMS Weekend II, some strong holdover from the May films and a leggy Cinderella Man should break the run of “lost weekends.”
This weekend’s numbers look more like the last Star Wars year, 2002, in which there was no major box office release on the weekend after Memorial Day, with no one wanting to challenge the legs of Spider-Man and Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones. The $71 million that the top five films grossed that weekend led to a more aggressive approach the next year, as Universal launched 2 Fast 2 Furious to a surprising $50 million start. And last year, it was Potter.
This year, Cinderella Man will be the top newcomer. And don’t get caught thinking that it is disappointing. If the film comes close to the $20 million start that Seabiscuit got, Universal should and likely will be happy. As for Russell Crowe, Master & Commander did get to $25 million in its first weekend, but A Beautiful Mind never had a single $20 million weekend on its way to $171 million domestic.
Finally, by the end of the weekend, there is a very good likelihood that either Star Wars or Madagascar will end up winning the weekend, ahead of The Longest Yard. Both of the second weekend films will come up just short of $100 million after 10 days.
And if you want some perspective of just how bad the start of this summer was... the much pilloried Van Helsing last year grossed about as much in its fifth weekend ($2.4 million) as Kingdom and Heaven and Kicking & Screaming will on this, their fifth fourth weekends, combined.
Posted by poland at 04:43 PM | Comments (207)
June 01, 2005
The Latest In Tourist Attire or Eyes Wide Shut II?
Posted by poland at 10:38 AM | Comments (68)
Bootleg Art?
"Almost nobody owns a print of their favorite Hollywood movie. But pre-recorded, studio-issued sell-through videotapes feed the home viewer's illusory sense that they own and are watching a film. In reality what they've paid as much as $40 for is a small, cheap conversion of celluloid frames into video fields. Bootleg videos make no claims to be the film itself. They are commercial Video Art first, and a record of a film second. Each bootleg represents a limited-edition record of a movie from the subjective POV of an anonymous auteur, the man with the camcorder. The "worst" bootleg -- a blank tape -- is the ultimate minimalist video. And then there's the Holy Grail: the bootleg in which the surreptitious camcordist is recording at the moment that he's busted by a multiplex security guard and kicked out of the theater -- an inept studio movie that abruptly shifts gears to become a first-person surveillance documentary. Be assured that it's out there somewhere, and you can own it."
Posted by poland at 10:27 AM | Comments (4)