« Snakes On McCain | Main | Not My Birthday »
September 02, 2008
First Do No Narm
When will the New York Times make the effort to make their movie coverage as well edited and considered as the rest of the paper?
Today’s latest embarrassment is Brooks Barnes’ summer wrap up, which is filled to the gills with misleading statements, conjecture posting as fact, and the kind of games playing with facts that should never be tolerated… but get a pass from most people because it’s the New York Times.
Let’s start with the entire premise of the piece, headlined “At Movies, Fewer Eyes, Bigger Haul.”
Here is a simple fact that is never mentioned. Ticket sales are not reported weekly. In fact, the only time the industry ever reports ticket sales is in the MPAA year end report… which doesn’t include the entire industry, but only the MPAA companies. All these people who get themselves quoted on ticket sales are making it up, based on history and projections of their own guessing. But here is the NYT, legitimizing the guessing (not unlike their unfortunate choice of building a story early in the summer based on an anonymous AICN “spy”).
Then we get into a parade of studio execs selling their success this summer. We get the pro-Paramount argument… but Barnes doesn’t do any math, figuring out how much the studio, said to have “reaped huge profits,” actually made. Yes, he points out the failure of The Love Guru… but he fails to note that the film may well have eaten as much of 20% of the money Paramount earned by distributing the three big hits that they had no profit stake.
Then there is WB, where Barnes adds marketing to the estimated cost of Speed Racer… something he doesn’t do to any other movie. (He also leaves out international, which brought the gross to a still sad $95 million… or the partnership of WB with Village Roadshow.)
Likewise, the only international gross mentioned in the entire piece is of Iron Man.
He also doesn’t get that The Incredible Hulk will lose money (not for Universal, but for Marvel), that every comedy this summer except for Step Brothers could well be sent to have underperformed because of the glut of comedies, that Hellboy II made about 30% more than the first… but also cost about 30% more to make and market, that while hyping Iron Man that Hancock made almost exactly the same amount as IM worldwide, and that Narnia II was disappointing compared to the first film but is nearing $400 million worldwide, amongst other gaffes.
None of this is life or death. But it is what reporters are supposed to do and what the NYT is supposed to be the best at doing. And it is not. A damned shame for a great news organization.
Posted by poland at September 2, 2008 08:47 PM
Comments
If it makes you feel any better, their sports reporters are often just as bad.
Posted by: RDP ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 2, 2008 10:57 PM
Keep telling it like it is, David. I really appreciate the site.
Posted by: TadAllagash at September 2, 2008 11:09 PM
MAX PAYNE AND K-STEW ARE COMING, and you better be careful OR YOU MIGHT GET OWNED.
The year isn't over, and the biggest haul is yet to drop. Wahlberg, Bond, and Twilight = 350 DOMESTIC EACH.
KNOW.
FEEL THE PAYNE.
Posted by: LexG at September 3, 2008 12:24 AM
Every time I read your all-caps posts, Lex.
Posted by: jeffmcm at September 3, 2008 12:31 AM
Look out, Batman, K-STEW is COMING FOR YOU and just might OWN YOUR RECORD.
DO NOT DOUBT THE STEW.
Posted by: LexG at September 3, 2008 01:34 AM
Care to actually add anything to the subject at hand, Lex? No. Very well then.
Is Sex and the City not a comedy? That surely made some coin and enough of it to be the highest-grossing comedy of the season. It is also a movie of which a sequel is a likelihood, yet wasn't mentioned alongside Wanted, Iron Man and Panda. And the comparison with The Women is one that will just get more frustrating when the latter isn't a hit.
Dave, even though the critical reception was the same and it ended up grossing just $2mil more The Incredible Hulk is the better movie. DUH!!!! It's just common sense.
:/
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at September 3, 2008 05:59 AM
i saw 'the women' last night...so wrong in so many ways...and the real crime is that now people will skip seeing the original because of what will be said of this....
on the up-side...meg ryan's lips seem to have gone back to normal....
Posted by: scooterzz at September 3, 2008 06:39 AM
The original "The Women" is not a great film by any stretch. Its social mores have dated horribly - the ending, with Norma Shearer welcoming back her cheating, unrepentant husband with open arms, is something approaching grotesque.
I'm no PC cop and I'm sure the new version is just as awful as you say, but let's be careful about overpraising the original in comparison. It's worth a look as a historical curiosity but is by no means the gold standard of its era. Just about everyone involved (Cukor included) did much better work in much better movies.
Posted by: MarkVH at September 3, 2008 06:55 AM
Whatever.
The best version is still Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, and ain't no one taking that away.
Posted by: Ben C at September 3, 2008 07:48 AM
$35 million domestic is 350 million times more likely for Payne than $350 million.
That's sad regarding "The Women." September 12 looks to be a day of letdowns..."The Women," "The Duchess," "Burn After Reading," "Towelhead."
Nothing will compare to "Righteous Kill," a movie that will be treated according to its title.
Posted by: EthanG at September 3, 2008 09:13 AM
$350 million for a Marky Mark video game adaptation is the funniest prediction I've seen in a long while.
And I say this as someone who's played through both games, and is looking foreward to it (as much as one can look forward to a video game movie...).
But that number is just laughable.
And what the hell is K-Stew? Is that like some new post-Katrina gumbo dish?
Posted by: storymark at September 3, 2008 11:34 AM
It's KRISTEN STEWART. Know your facts.
Posted by: LexG at September 3, 2008 12:11 PM
I know (though I still couldn't care less about her). I just wanted to see how you took it.
Kinda dissapointing, really. You are usually so much more entertaining.
Posted by: storymark at September 3, 2008 12:32 PM
That headline on the NYTimes story is technically correct.
Thanks to ticket price inflation, record-setting grosses help mask the decline in actual admissions. Variety hinted at this in its seasonal roundup.
Don't forget that theaters can and do find other ways to pad B.O. figures. AMC now charges evening prices ($10+) after 4 PM on weekends in New Jersey.
Posted by: Chucky in Jersey at September 3, 2008 05:33 PM
Thats not really padding figures, they are bringing in that money. And I am sure the studios don't mind the fewer admissions if they make more money.
Posted by: hcat at September 4, 2008 02:11 PM
Chucky... how hard is this to understand.
THERE IS ACTUAL NO TICKET SALES STAT OUT THERE.
Just because the guess keeps getting misreported as fact does not make it so.
It may be so, but your confusion is exactly what my problem with this is. It's not whether it's true or not... it's that the "not" is a possibility and was not reported as such.
Posted by: David Poland at September 4, 2008 06:05 PM
DP, you can get the estimated number of tickets at your beloved boxofficemojo. Is it 100% accurate? No...so what? At least you get a rough figure for films released since 1980 or so.
Aka we KNOW fewer tickets have been sold than last year, just like we know TDK will have sold more tickets than any film this decade domestically....unless you're speaking strictly internationally. If you are, you have a very good point as tickets in some markets (China, some parts of Europe) have actually gone down in the last few years.
Posted by: EthanG at September 5, 2008 06:58 AM
I should have said ticket PRICES have gone down. Anyway...anyone have an early take on Summer '09? I think it'll take the record, whether or not this summer did. (final revenue appears to be down 0.1% compared to last year..either way there is NO WAY more tickets were sold)
Analysis of just next May:
1st weekend in May:
Hannah Montana and X-Men: Wolverine vs Iron Man and Made of Honor
Edge: 2009 slightly. If Hannah Montana's Concert flick is good for $65 mil domestic, a movie movie is good for $100 mil+. Xmen prequal is 250 mil in the bank
2nd weekend:
Star Trek v. Speed Racer and What happens in Vegas.
Edge: 2009
3rd:
Angels & Demons + Bruno vs Prince Caspian
Edge: 2009
4th: Terminator Salvation and Night at the Museum 2 vs Indiana Jones
Edge: 2009
5th:
Up (Pixar) + Drag Me to Hell vs Sex and the City + The Strangers
Edge: Tie. Pixar is always good for 200 million but this is the first time they haven't released a trailer at this point...
Gotta think 2009 is gonna be huge...
Posted by: EthanG at September 5, 2008 07:08 AM
Last post...promise. Is it crazy to think Tyler Perry might get the best critical praise of the week over the Coens' Burn After Reading, a reuniting of De Niro and Pacino and a remake of Cukor's 1939 classic "The Women." It's possible...his new film stars Kathy Bates, Alfre Woodard and the hugely underrated Sanaa Lathan. Watch out.
Posted by: EthanG at September 5, 2008 09:04 AM
As someone who kinda liked Meet The Browns, that wouldn't surprise me all that much. Still Burn After Reading is at 60%, and I can't imagine it's going to get trashed by everyone (some who don't enjoy it will force themselves to like it just because they think they should).
60% for a Tyler Perry movie would be most impressive. But of the four wide releases, yeah, I'd say Tyler Perry will probably place second in the critical derby with about 45%. Oh, and let's all remember to once again act shocked... SHOCKED when The Family That Preys tops the box office with $22 million.
Posted by: Scott Mendelson at September 5, 2008 08:41 PM
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.)