« Weekend Estimates by Klady - Joe, Julie, G | Main | Spoon Fed Criticism? »
August 09, 2009
Distribution On The Slow Roll
(500) Days of Summer is doing nicely in its expansion, but not shockingly. It passed previous 2009 top indie slow-roller-outer Sunshine Cleaning as well as the still-in-the-fight The Hurt Locker. Still, Searchlight took a little Sundance movie with mixed reviews and built that thing into a $30m to $35m domestic cash machine.
But please note... 500 Days is rolling out twice as fast as Napoleon Dynamite (dom gross - $44.5m) did 5 summers ago. And while no indie tried this approach last summer to a gross over over $6.5 million. (Brideshead Revisited - $6.4m dom, never over 501 screens).
This summer, we have a parade of these higher-profile efforts to build and roll-out, which seems to me to be reflective of the current distribution climate.
There have been 29 films released this year on 30 screens or less that have grossed $500,000 or more. From the biggest distributors, there have been 7 from Sony Classics, 4 each from Magnolia and IFC, 2 each from Focus and Summit, and 1 each from Fox Searchlight and Overture.
There have been 8 from small indies (or essentially self-distribution), the most successful being the 42West-driven Is Anybody There? with $2 million. From that group, the widest expansion is IAT?’s 165 screens. These are real successes in this market… but not my focus today.
Also not really looking for wider release patterns are IFC and Magnolia, which have had some really good footholds with films like Summer Hours ($1.6m), In The Loop ($689k and growing), and The Girlfriend Experience ($688k), but have not taken any of those films to as many as 60 screens. That’s not their business model. They are promoting for theatrical and VOD at the same time and not all their spending leans towards that VOD opportunity and they take the rewards of strong publicity efforts in the theatrical. (For my part, only one of the six films the two companies have released in this category have not had a MCN sneak clip or a DP/30.)
So… that brings us to True Indies Summit and Overture and Dependents Sony Classics, Fox Searchlight, and Universal Focus (as they were called when first launched). 5 of this groups movies, in this category, have done over $5 million… one for each company. Lowest high screen count was Whatever Works’ 353 screens… highest is (500) Days, which is at 817 and likely to grow some more. Is it a coincidence that they also represent the low gross of the five and the high? No.
The pattern is really clear. When expansion hits the wall, the movie hits the wall. Sometimes there is a week lag, sometimes not. But basically, this is what has happened. Sunshine Cleaning is the only example, of the 3 that are pretty much played out, in which the studio tried to continue expansion after a down week at the box office. It didn’t work and the loss of screens and box office continued the next week.
It seems to me that we now see a certain fait accompli nature to this distribution tactic. And in recent years, the notion of The Audience defining how this kind of distribution works seems to have become false. Either the studio is going to spend and fight to achieve expansion or they are not. Now, it certainly is possible for audiences to abandon a film and stop it in its tracks. But the lifting up of a film, not so much… in this category.
Was there more than $10 million in Away We Go? Probably. But it would have cost more money to find out. Not an insignificant amount of money, given the lack of box office stars in the film and the shot-wad of media hype in the first month of release. When the movie peaked at $1.7 million in Weekend 4, Focus had to decide. Do they give up, essentially, and escape with a breakeven film in the face of enough assured revenue from a Universal-driven post-theatrical market and perhaps some Euro-dollars or do they press the gas, through another $5 million on the fire, and try to find a wider audience?
On a smaller scale, Sony Classics faced the same dilemma with Woody Allens’ Whatever Works. The film was a relatively cheap pick-up. It got to almost a million bucks on 353 screens in Weekend 3. But the publicity was shot and the buzz wasn’t very strong, so do you spend into that soft situation when you know you can turn a decent profit by just going to DVD and ancillaries (powered by Sony Home Ent)?
Sunshine Cleaning maxed out in Weekend 4 with $1.8 million on 479 screens. With $4.7 million at that point, Overture had a happy pick-up experience. But was there a next level out there for this Amy Adams film? Well, the indie which had also overcome adversity with The Visitor, which never got past 270 screens and $725k in its 7th Weekend. So they tried. The next weekend was a 119-screen expansion and the gross dropped 4.1%. And they expanded again, by 44 screens… and the gross dropped 43.4%. Game over.
One thing worth noting… in all of these cases, the final domestic gross ended up being more than double the gross at the end of that peak weekend… as in, Sunshine Cleaning’s weekend peak was $1.8m with a $4.7m total, final total is about $12.1m… Whatever Works ($1.9m/$5m)… Away We Go ($4.1m/$9.4m).
And what does this mean for the films still working this tactic?
Well, this weekend, The Hurt Locker had its first drop. 35%. Expansion over. Last weekend’s end-of-weekend total domestic gross, $6.8m. 2.5x that number? $17m.
And (500) Weeks? Well, this has been the most aggressive and best funded limited-to-wider expansion this year. And it’s still on the way up. Is this the most commercial of these films? I would still argue not. But the one that is, The Hurt Locker, was never on a track that, by design, would lead to 800 screens, much less 800 screens in 4 weeks.
Thing is, it’s not my money. I don’t have to take the risk. But the way things work these days, if you have A Good Movie, then your chosen approach has a very good chance of defining your result… more than ever. How Much and How Fast tells you what your opportunity is.
As much as I like Amy Adams and Clifton Collins, Jr. in Sunshine Cleaning, the movie was a bit of a car wreck at Sundance. (And so was The Visitor, by the way, at Toronto.) Overture looked past that. They made the deal and they made a plan. And they planned to be up at 600 screens by Weekend 6… on the assumption that the film could go $200 per-screen or better at that point. (It’s obvious that if the film gets no Weekend 1 or 2 traction, you don’t keep expanding.)
Searchlight laid the foundation to be at 800 screens in this, their 4th Weekend. And again, had the movie not gone limited well, they would have pulled back. But the movie didn’t slaughter the planet at 27 or 85 screens. It did really well, supported by an oversized marketing and publicity effort that was in place to achieve the wider goal. The film had a very similar profile – in terms of publicity – to Julie & Julia, a much more expensive wide release.
Now… I have heard the “well, we couldn’t get on Letterman or Conan with these actors or writer or director” thing for years and it’s true. I get it. But again, the priming of the pump has a lot to do with how distributors define their landmarks. Zooey Deschanel is hip. Yes. But she isn’t Meryl Streep or Amy Adams or Nora Ephron. And yet, somehow, we have been treated to seeing her EVERYWHERE for the last few weeks.
It’s a big, challenging problem. And I think back, on a studio level, to fights I had about the hiding of Hellboy when the first movie came out and how they were making it impossible for non-fans to get behind the film. But in the end, the sequel, released by another studio and production overseer (not Revolution), did emphasize Hellboy and did have the benefit of the first film having been in DVD and pay-tv for years and the result… not very different. Universal really, really went for it on Hellboy 2. And the film was quite good. It wasn’t a problem with The Movie. But in the end, maybe there is just a limited audience for Hellboy… period. And going for it wasn’t the defining factor. (Or maybe the lack of theatrical pop for the first one kept it stuck in a narrow gear.) One doesn’t ever really know until the opportunity has been explored. And that almost always involves risk.
And so it goes…
Posted by dpoland at August 9, 2009 11:28 AM
Comments
It seems to me that there are so many variables at play here that almost any theory could easily be persuasively argued, and could just as easily be picked apart. Specifically:
The Hurt Locker could have made more money with a less WTF title.
Summer Hours actually over-perfomred, considering that, outside of the more discerning art-house devotees, no one in the US has heard of Olivier Assayas.
We'll never know with certainly just how much it helped the final gross, but Michael Caine's high visibility in the last two Batman movies helped Is Anybody There?
More people than you might suspect have no idea they have access to VOD movies. Seriously: they never check out all the stuff they have available on their cable menu. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say many if not most people who have the Retro movie channel don't know they have it.
Posted by: Joe Leydon ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 9, 2009 01:34 PM
It's funny (or maybe sad?) that Poland can write a detailed summary of indie grosses this summer and the word "Miramax" isn't mentioned once. How the mighty have fallen?
Posted by: Wrecktum at August 9, 2009 02:51 PM
Wrecktum: Talk about sad -- a movie by Woody Allen never expanded beyond 353 screens at one time. Of course, having said that, I'd have to go back and check to see how many screens some of his other recent films have claimed.
Posted by: Joe Leydon at August 9, 2009 04:13 PM
Joe, I really think the audience for that Michael Caine picture knew who he was before he made Batman Begins.
Posted by: Hunter Tremayne at August 9, 2009 04:19 PM
Actually, I don't think any of those ideas can be very persuasively argued, Joe.
Hurt Locker has done as well as any movie could with the limited marketing dollars. You want to blame the title? You mean, like Slumdog Millionaire? Or (500) Days of Summer being so different from Summer Hours?
The foreign argument for Summer Hours is that it did the business that is out there for those movies... period. Great reviews and limited competition made that relatively small number viable. What is a little shocking for me is that anyone would try to argue that $1.6 million is an "over-performance." It's about the same as Rudo Y Cursi and half of The Class. Did anyone know that Rudi y Cursi was the first American release as a director for Carlos Cuarón, brother of Alfonso, Oscar nominee, terrific screenwriter, and really good guy? Does anyone in the US except the even more rarified movie lovers know Laurent Cantet's work? ("From The Director of Time Out and Human Resources!!!")
And Michael Caine has been a worldwide star for decades and he makes a movie about being a loving and supportive grandfatherly figure to a kid. Do you really think they sold more than a handful of tickets to Batman fans, Joe? Seriously.
What all three successes had was a hook the drew interest. Summer and Anybody were always limited propositions and did quite well considering. Hurt Locker has done well enough for the LA Times to run silly ass-kissing stories about how right they got it... which is not nothing. But it isn't what I think it could have been.
As for VOD, where do you think I said people don't have access to it? It is a business model for two major indies. Obviously, it exists and is accessible. Not sure what your point is there. The piece was about rolling out distribution, which VOD-focused titles do not try past a certain point. That may be another column, but it was not this one.
Posted by: David Poland at August 9, 2009 04:29 PM
@Wrecktum: Miramax released "Cheri" this summer with half-assed promotion. When the trailer and print ads refer to "Academy Award Nominee Michelle Pfeiffer" the film becomes a Must to Avoid.
Posted by: Chucky in Jersey at August 9, 2009 04:44 PM
If they had films like Hurt Locker, 500 Days of Summer, Thirst, etc. on VOD, i'd pay to see them all. Especially living in a town where indepdent films show up for 1 week runs, if at all.
Posted by: anghus at August 9, 2009 06:14 PM
If Hurt Locker had had a major star in it, I think it could have been hugely commercial.
Also if it hadn't come on the heels of lots of really boring Iraq movies.
Posted by: LYT at August 9, 2009 06:58 PM
Jeremy Renner should already be a major star. The dude should freakin be Cap. I could care less if he's 5'11! CAP... NOW!
Posted by: IOIOIOI at August 9, 2009 07:07 PM
I think this'll put him well on the way. Industry people have seen it even if the masses haven't.
Look at the way HUNGER's Michael Fassbender seems to be in every other movie now.
Posted by: LYT at August 9, 2009 07:32 PM
Michael Caine is my favorite film actor. Of all time. I have been paying first-run admission prices to see his movies since before most people on this blog were born. And even I have no trouble believing that there are millions upon millions of moviegoers out there who are familiar with Michael Caine only -- or, at the very least, almost exclusively -- because of the Batman movies. (When GQ magazine -- not Details, but GQ -- ran an interview with him last year, the editors felt compelled to use this tagline: "Batman's Michael Caine." No, I'm not making that up.) Thus, I think Caine's exposure in the Batman movies helped -- not immensely, but at least slightly -- the box-office for Is Anybody There? I think some people -- again, not millions, but certainly thousands -- went because they were introduced to Caine in the Batman movies. I think others were reminded of Caine by the Batman movies -- and/or by the interviews he did for the Batman movies, and/or by the interviews he did for Is Anybody There that were assigned by editors who were reminded of Caine because of the Batman movies -- and they laid their money down, too. Yes, I believe Caine's involvement with the Batman movies helped Is Anybody There? There's nothing like being involved in a popular movie to help you gain attention for your next project, however different it might be. As Ralph Fiennes told me years ago: Because he was in Maid in Manhattan, an unusually large number of young women flocked to see him in a London stage production of Brand. Go figure.
Yes, I think Summer Hours over-performed. And I'm happy it did. Assayas did a lot of interviews for that film, and I would imagine that helped elevate the movie's profile. I can only wonder if the movie would have gotten any US play at all had it been the first feature by an unknown. I can only wonder if any many US journalists would have interviewed this unknown director. I am pleasantly surprised Summer Hours did as well as it did.
I think The Hurt Locker would have sold a lot more tickets had it been called Bomb Squad instead. Back in the 1970s, that's what it would have been retitled before airing on network TV. Just like Robert Aldrich's Too Late the Hero was renamed Suicide Run before it aired on ABC.
"As for VOD, where do you think I said people don't have access to it?" I don't know, David. Where do you think I said that you said this? All I said was: Many people who have it likely don't know that they have it. It'll be interesting to see what happens after a significant number of these folks are eduacted. For example: The Houston Chronicle weekly TV book recently ran a cover story on World's Greatest Dad, pointing out how the movie would be available on VOD weeks before the movie opens in theaters. I would be curious to see what, if any, effect that will have on the movie's box-office performance in Houston.
Posted by: Joe Leydon at August 9, 2009 07:35 PM
"When the trailer and print ads refer to "Academy Award Nominee Michelle Pfeiffer" the film becomes a Must to Avoid."
For you alone.
Posted by: Wrecktum at August 9, 2009 07:38 PM
Wow is it me, or are people really really desperate for an indie hit..and looking to a film that won't match "Kit Kittredge: An American Girl" from last summer as a platform release as the best savior? Yes I know that film didn't have exactly the best release pattern...
but 500 Days even isn't going to have the box office run of "Thank You for Smoking," from a few years back, in the magical indie year of Little Miss Sunshine, Inconvienient Truth and The Illusionist.
The Illusionist made almost $40 million after starting in August...and hasn't had nearly as much ink spilled on it to this day as 500 Days has in 3 months regarding its box office. All this thrashing and moaning for an indie breakout needs to stop...it will happen, once the right film comes along. Look at "Juno," which opened after a summer in which critics declared the platform release a thing of the past...
Posted by: EthanG at August 9, 2009 08:36 PM
This is why Ethan needs to post more, he brings up the Illusionist.
Very nice share, Joe.
Posted by: IOIOIOI at August 9, 2009 08:47 PM
I'm not trying to be completely dismissive here...but Imagine if "Thank You for Smoking" or even the 20 million indie grosser "Amazing Grace" came along now. Critics are craving that indie box office breakout at all costs haha.
Films like "The Illusionist" would be heralded as SMASHES in this climate...it's just pathetic. Indies will be fine...they need the right movies though. Good but not great rom-dramedies aren't going to cut it folks...and we all wish Iraq War movies could. But they can't. Hasn't anyone learned that in the last 4 years? Hurt Locker hasnt had a failure of marketing...au contraire it's done as well as it could.
Posted by: EthanG at August 9, 2009 11:14 PM
Again... Ethan G should post more.
Posted by: IOIOIOI at August 9, 2009 11:19 PM
"Hurt Locker hasnt had a failure of marketing...au contraire it's done as well as it could."
Surely, by the sum of reports from critics and filmgoers, The Hurt Locker should have been the sleeper event of the summer; but what happened instead was a virtual stillbirthing in the theaters. If that isn't a failure of marketing, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Hallick at August 9, 2009 11:31 PM
Really? Ever heard of Rendition, Lions For Lambs, In the Valley of Elah, Stop Loss, Grace is Gone, Battle for Haditha, Harsh Times, The Lucky Ones, or Redacted?
I would say "Locker" is the best of these films, along with "Elah" and I agree with Joe that naming it something like Bomb Squad might succeed somewhat. But break it past 15 million? That would never happen Period. "Ellah" had just as good reviews...at least acting wise...with a better distributor..and nothing. Americans just don't want this genre.
Posted by: EthanG at August 9, 2009 11:38 PM
Again, don't know if this pertains to today, but: During the US involvement in Vietnam, there was only one major studio production released that dealt with US forces fighting in Vietnam: The Green Berets. It was a money maker. It was, for all practical purposes, an upbeat film. All the great Vietnam War movies came years after the fact.
Posted by: Joe Leydon at August 9, 2009 11:47 PM
I was reading another blog the other day and the topic of the day was TimeCode, Mike Figgis' quadrant film from 2000. I mentioned that in it's brief five week run it made a smidge over $1mil. Today The Girlfriend Experience (comparing them basically because they're digital, experimental and "cool" by respected directors) has been out for 11 weeks and hasn't even made $700,000. I am sure there are any number of different reasons for that being, but make of the numbers as you will.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at August 10, 2009 02:47 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.)