« Later Weekend Analysis | Main | A Blogged Response To The "Christian/Hollywood" Story That Is Worthy Of Its Own Thread »
July 18, 2005
Keeping An Eye On The Times
Another trend story about a trend that isn't happening... even inside the story. The Passion of the Marketers
How does Doug Liman saying, "It's literally in there for no other reason than I thought, This is cool," suggest a trend piece about Hollywood trying to “mollify or entice an audience that made its power felt with last year's "Passion of the Christ"? Didn't he explicitly say that the only reason for "Jesus Rocks" clothing was because he thought it was cool?
Disney and Walden hired Paul Lauer – whose primary notoriety is being Mel Gibson’s lead publicist on The Passion of The Christ, a detail which Ms. Waxman seemed to miss completely – on The Chronicles of Narnia from the start of production. Perhaps the short vision here stems from Ms. Waxman apparent lack of knowledge that C.S. Lewis’ series of books are steeped in religiosity.
A Google search of “Chronicles of Narnia” and “Christian” brings up 607,000 responses. That includes a USA Today story about HarperCollins being pressured in 2001, long before The Passion of The Christ, not to take any of the Christian imagery out of reprints of the books.
Likewise, a rather irrelevant story about Stellan Sarsgaard being kept from cursing with the word “Jesus.” Does Ms. Waxman realize that any expletive version of “Jesus Christ” is automatically bleeped from network television, morning, noon and night… and has been for many years?
Then there is the non-story of Ray not being edited to placate church groups.
There is the non-story of Sony “partner(ing) with the Christian production company Cloud Ten Pictures to make the third installment of the "Left Behind" series," when in fact, Sony “partnered” on the first film in 2000, distributing the DVD and video. To be fair, home entertainment distribution fell to Ventura Distribution on the second film.
Sony is making The DiVinci Code, but not only did they say nothing about it, but it is a massive best seller, before and after The Passion of The Christ.
Yes, Hollywood marketers think about that sub-quadrant more now than before. But as a premise for a story, the story is that Hollywood is NOT chasing that audience, not that it is, which seems to be the tone that is being set by the story. (God knows Anne Thompson loves the "Why isn't Hollywood chasing old people?" story, which is analagous.)
Russell Schwartz said it best – “There's definitely more of an awareness, but it's just another group to be marketed to, albeit a very strong one, with incredible grass-roots tentacles."
End of story. Find real evidence or spike the piece.
Watch for copycat editors in your town emulating this non-trend trend piece.
ADDED, Monday - A very smart reader points out... "Shouldn't Waxman have pointed out that said specialized marketing apparently did nothing to boost those three films (Cinderella Man, Kingdom of Heaven and Christmas With the Kranks) at the box office?"
Posted by poland at July 18, 2005 10:35 AM
Comments
now its official. jesus is cool.
Posted by: bicycle bob
at July 18, 2005 02:09 PM
This is a total non-story. The part that struck me was Peter Sarsgard's anecdote about Flightplan, how he was told not to take the lord's name in vain. If you never read this story you would not know he said that until you had already bought your ticket.
How is forcing that line change going to appeal to Christian audiences? Are the producers planning on taking Flightplan around to various churches to sell it because there is seemingly nothing about that film that would have a hook for a specifically Christian audience.
Who cares if someone is offended after they bought their ticket. If someone was going to demand their money back because a movie character took the lord's name in vain he likely is such a zealot he would never have gone to the movie.
The supposed Christian audience is not of one mind on mainstream Hollywood. Most go to the movies like anyone else and are occasionally offended or disappointed as any audience. When a movie like Flightplan is modified in such a minor way it is catering to a vocal minority of christians who are easily offended and run to the first podium or camera to scream about it. When you cater to this minority you must understand that you cannot win.
Posted by: Kernan at July 18, 2005 02:29 PM
I'm glad that Hollywood is finally wakin up and realing that Jesus is a part of a lot of filmgoers lives. As a Christian I do like the fact that they are refusing to use the Lords name in vain.
Posted by: LesterFreed
at July 18, 2005 02:32 PM
Shouldn't the suits know that you can't pander to the Christian crowd? They won't buy the force fed crap and won't be pandered too. And they wonder why no one in the mainland trusts or believes Hollyweird.
Posted by: Bruce at July 18, 2005 02:38 PM
Are these writers that lazy? First nonexistent slumps and now this. Aren't there real stories out there?
Posted by: Terence D
at July 18, 2005 03:16 PM
I think most people are missing the point with all this religious stuff. I have worked in very liberal and very conservative churches over the years (as a pastor, educator, and youth director), and I think that this talk of offending Christians and catering to them with religious themes is a little off.
Christians go to movies. That's a fact. Many young, conservative Christians will even go to R-rated films, if it appeals to them. Obviously, there are some films, say The Exorcist, which actively professing Christians will tend to stay away from, but for the most part except for a small group that has no interest in movies (remember, there are non-Christians that have no interest in movies too) Christians tend to go to movies just like the rest of the population...they may just complain about sex/violence more.
So why did the Passion do so well, and why is the Narnia film going to be HUGE (potentially $300M+)? It's simply because it's based on source material that millions are already familar with and would like to see translated into a modern film. This isn't much different than the reason for Harry Potter's success or any major comic book film for that matter.
The only real difference is that with these films is because of the Christian community's reverence for the source material, the marketers can effectively utilize Christain communities (which are relatively tight and largely based on trust of their leaders) as a tool to get people into theaters. Christians would have seen The Passion even if Mel Gibson hadn't directly gone to churches to sell his wares...but by bringing the sell job to the church, Mel was able to get pastors passionate about it and they in turn were able to get people excited about it and wanting to shell out $10 NOW instead of waiting for the DVD...which is the popular response of most people (Christian and non-Christian alike) when they hear about an interesting movie.
Posted by: Eric at July 18, 2005 03:19 PM
Christians go to the movies? No way. Now I have heard everything.
Posted by: Terence D
at July 18, 2005 03:32 PM
I'm also curious to see how Narnia does. I think this one, more than any of the others being bandied about, has the most to gain from emulating Passion. And while I think it'll get a boost from religious parents who will have been informed through churchs, religious leaders, etc. that it's something they should take their kids to, it's also got a large potential audience from people who read the books and enjoyed them without recognizing the Christian themes (which is why I'm going).
I expect, as long as the trailers/ads continue to look good, this one will have a lot of crossover appeal and the possibility to really break out. (Of course, I also thought Hitchhikers was going to do Lord of the Rings money, so what the hell do I know.)
Posted by: Mike at July 18, 2005 03:52 PM
Waxman needs to do that little thing called "research". It would help if a journalist actually checked on things.
Posted by: BluStealer
at July 18, 2005 04:05 PM
Next week's headline ... JEWS GO TO MOVIES!
Posted by: oldman at July 18, 2005 06:25 PM
White People Go too! Many Hispanics also seen there!
Posted by: Bruce at July 18, 2005 06:32 PM
The notion that practicing-fully pledged Christians are a major force already in the media since PotC is ridiculous, this article is just a puffy little thing that notices more of the obvious stuff. Christians have been calling a lot of shots for awhile.
Like the example of the the word "Jesus" being replaced in a scene with something else that won't offend. This has been done on TV for years and I think is really prejudice.
You can't say "Jesus Christ", "Godamn" , "Holy Shit" on TV, Cable or Network.
But you can say "nigger", you can say "fag" and you sure as hell can say "bitch" on TV. Look what groups that is offensive too. But the reigious stuff is hands off.
Posted by: Joe E at July 18, 2005 07:11 PM
You can't say holy shit on cable? Denis Leary says shit about 500 times an episode on the excellent Rescue Me. I guess I never really thought if a "holy" ever came first or not.
Posted by: Stella's Boy
at July 18, 2005 07:13 PM
How did that blasphemer Robin get away with his Holys? Is Holy Toledo not so serious and does it depend what comes after the Holy? Is this a new-er thing re. censorship? Didn't archie Bunker use christ/god as an expletive? I can't remember, was too young.
Just wondering. i can't believe the stuff one can say/not say. Shows who the censorship bullies are, I guess.
Although I think 'bad language' may be reserved for a post 8 or 9pm watershed.
Can you say Jesus and christ in Europe? I thought you could, here I lived there so long I can't remember.
Posted by: Lota
at July 18, 2005 07:20 PM
Well there goes my lifelong desire to appear on American reality tv! I say "Holy shit" all the time.
...(I don't want to be on American tv)
I haven't read the article (the subject is sorta boring) but did they mention that specialist Christian movies like that Omega movie didn't even gross $10mil? Or... i don't think they did.
Christmas with the Kranks did good financially, didn't it? Like, $50m-$60m...?
Posted by: KamikazeCamel at July 19, 2005 09:20 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)