Box office
I've been reading about the struggles at the box office; overall, the revenue for the movies has been dropping from week to week. Let's forget for a second that ticket prices for everything except certain afternoon and early evening showings have skyrocketed, artificially inflating profits, and talk about the real problem; the quality of the films and the way they're rotated in and out of theaters--as it regards KC in particular.
Let's recall KC's rise to stardom in The Untouchables. Folks, that movie made $76 million in the United States (That's from the Internet Movie Database). In fact, KC's "hot streak" (1987-92) included only three films (out of eight he made) that crossed the $100 million mark in the United States: Dances With Wolves, Robin Hood and The Bodyguard, and of those three, Dances With Wolves never hit #1 in a single weekend. That suggests different rules were at work in the late 80s and early 90s; an element called "word of mouth." That's how The Untouchables and No Way Out became recognized as good movies, and how Bull Durham, Field of Dreams and Dances became immortals. Those films stayed in the theater for months.
For all the criticisms of KC, he was never one of the $100 million dollar babies in cinema; throughout his career, it's been the exception for him rather than the rule.
DVDs have replaced those long stays in the theater, and if that's the case, they should factor into the overall official tabulation of "box office." If that's the case, every movie KC has made has made a profit except for The Postman and 3,000 Miles to Graceland." Instead of going to the theaters, the people who would otherwise have seen movies like "Thirteen Days" and "Open Range" in theaters have been renting them or buying them in DVD form.
But the best experience of watching a movie (certainly true of a western with great vistas, like Open Range) is still in the theater. If ever there was a movie that should have been able to linger in the theater from word of mouth (which was there), that one was it. The same is true of The Upside of Anger. Instead, Disney and New Line just left them in wide release long enough to make profits, then yanked them for the high-octane fare, which, surprise, surprise, suddenly isn't giving those studios the same bang for their bucks as OR and TUOA did. That's bad business, folks; taking out two high-quality movies to put in junk.
These days, very few quality movies get a chance to latch onto word of mouth and linger in theaters, unless there are big stars with proven $100 million track records (Sandra Bullock is in Crash, which has been successful this year), or big producers (Tom Hanks and his wife produced My Big Fat Greek Wedding) are involved. Since KC doesn't have that $100 million string, he won't get that chance. But as we see from his career, studios aren't looking at the whole picture with him.
Let's recall KC's rise to stardom in The Untouchables. Folks, that movie made $76 million in the United States (That's from the Internet Movie Database). In fact, KC's "hot streak" (1987-92) included only three films (out of eight he made) that crossed the $100 million mark in the United States: Dances With Wolves, Robin Hood and The Bodyguard, and of those three, Dances With Wolves never hit #1 in a single weekend. That suggests different rules were at work in the late 80s and early 90s; an element called "word of mouth." That's how The Untouchables and No Way Out became recognized as good movies, and how Bull Durham, Field of Dreams and Dances became immortals. Those films stayed in the theater for months.
For all the criticisms of KC, he was never one of the $100 million dollar babies in cinema; throughout his career, it's been the exception for him rather than the rule.
DVDs have replaced those long stays in the theater, and if that's the case, they should factor into the overall official tabulation of "box office." If that's the case, every movie KC has made has made a profit except for The Postman and 3,000 Miles to Graceland." Instead of going to the theaters, the people who would otherwise have seen movies like "Thirteen Days" and "Open Range" in theaters have been renting them or buying them in DVD form.
But the best experience of watching a movie (certainly true of a western with great vistas, like Open Range) is still in the theater. If ever there was a movie that should have been able to linger in the theater from word of mouth (which was there), that one was it. The same is true of The Upside of Anger. Instead, Disney and New Line just left them in wide release long enough to make profits, then yanked them for the high-octane fare, which, surprise, surprise, suddenly isn't giving those studios the same bang for their bucks as OR and TUOA did. That's bad business, folks; taking out two high-quality movies to put in junk.
These days, very few quality movies get a chance to latch onto word of mouth and linger in theaters, unless there are big stars with proven $100 million track records (Sandra Bullock is in Crash, which has been successful this year), or big producers (Tom Hanks and his wife produced My Big Fat Greek Wedding) are involved. Since KC doesn't have that $100 million string, he won't get that chance. But as we see from his career, studios aren't looking at the whole picture with him.
posted by FlaFan @ 2:17 PM
11 Comments:
At 1:35 PM,
Anonymous said…
Something else to consider:
I'm of the belief that there are too many variables resulting from "box office" based on $$ taken in. Tickets today cost more than those of even 10 years ago. For instance, Untouchables would take in more $$ today based on the same number of tickets sold than it did when released. That same formula applied to Kevin's other movies would push many of them over the $100 million mark, and give him the same chance to market his films as those who may have started making movies after he did, and who are among the $100 million club of today.
I'm not drawn to the theater by many movies outside the ones he makes because I simply do not think they are carefully crafted. I prefer movies that are strong on character and story, that save action for when it's necessary to further that story instead of using it as an "attention" getter. Because I know he feels the same way, I know my theater dollar will be well spent when I see a movie he has chsoen to participate in - behind or in front of the camera.
I'd prefer to see other movies in the theater as well. As you say, the vistas of an Open Range lose something in the translation to the small screen. However, until more attention is paid to quality, I'll continue to wait for the DVD on most of the non-KC films I see.
I think a better way to rate a movie's box office success would be to consider the number of tickets sold. That way, it doesn't matter if they are full price, matinee or student/senior discount. It's the bodies in the seats that tell how many are coming to the theater, which is what the industry needs to consider so they can rebuild box office strength that has been eroding this year.
Also, I totally agree that DVD rentals and sales should be included in the "box office" because so many do wait to view in their home theaters, which have taken on the large screens and surround sound features that make films seem almost as if you are at the theater.
Still, seeing a good film in a theater on the big screen with others who are also enjoying adds immeasurably to the total enjoyment of the movie.
The industry moguls - and bean counters - need to wake up. If they want bigger box office, they should pay attention to the filmmakers, like Kevin, who have the vision of the film, and not sacrifice that vision in an attempt to make money quickly then pull them from theaters to dip into the DVD market.
Bottom line:
Good films should be the first priority. Better box office will result - "if you build it" [a quality movie - and leave it in the theaters for the word to get out], - "they WILL come."
One last food for thought:
The extras are a BIG factor for me when I look at DVDs, so how does that affect the validity of using them in "box office" tabulations?
At 2:06 PM,
Anonymous said…
On the subject of Box Office I would like to clear up a popular misconception. Nearly every time Kevin's name is mentioned by the media something is said about "Waterworld" being a bomb that lost money. If they would bother to check they would find it has a worldwide gross of over $255,000,000!!
Merri
At 7:48 PM,
FlaFan said…
Regarding the question of how the extras on a DVD affect the box office: They certainly should, because they now affect many of the contracts big-name actors negotiate to make their movies, because they know that their behind the scenes stuff and even some of their bloopers will make the movie, not to mention those asked to record a commentary. I've seen snatches of stuff about it, but not a real good article yet about how those things get negotiated. I'll be on the lookout.
At 9:00 PM,
Jan said…
I rather buy the dvd because it cost to much to go to the theaters and by the time I spend money on the ticket, food, it cost just as much as buying the dvd and sometimes less. So it all evens out either way. Besides I watch the Kevin in the movie in private.
At 8:27 PM,
FlaFan said…
Here's something from the Boston Globe about this issue. The title speaks for itself:
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2005/06/26/are_the_movies_dying/
At 8:28 PM,
FlaFan said…
All right, let me just try this:
Are the movies dying?
By Ty Burr, Globe Staff | June 26, 2005
Let me rephrase that. Are movies the way we have understood them for several generations -- as suspenseful and/or comic and/or soul-altering shadow plays shared by large audiences in theatrical settings -- in their red-star end stage? {bull} Don't dig the grave just yet, but, yes, they probably are. {bull} This is more than standard, cyclical hand-wringing. Movie theaters are enduring their worst slump in two decades: Despite such recent opening-week successes as ''Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith," ''Mr. & Mrs. Smith," and ''Batman Begins," summer box office is down 10 percent from 2004, and the year as a whole is down 7 percent. True, a little movie called ''The Passion of the Christ" skewed last year's figures, but grosses have been dropping for three years now, and, worse, after you adjust for inflation, it becomes clear that attendance is down even further, anywhere from 8 to 10 percent depending on who's talking. {bull} People are simply not going to the multiplex as often as they used to. The question is not only why but whether the trend is reversible or if it's part of a much larger cultural shift in the way we entertain ourselves. Results of an AP-America Online poll released this month strongly supported the latter, with 73 percent of respondents saying they prefer to watch movies at home and only 22 percent saying they would rather go to a theater.
The easiest explanation for the slump is that the movies have gotten lousier, and, indeed, almost half the AP-AOL respondents agreed with that sentiment. It's hard to dispute when you're limping from the combined onslaught of ''House of Wax," ''A Lot Like Love," and ''The Longest Yard." Oddly, Hollywood feels comfortable with this argument since it implies that better movies will fix everything. The studios are certain they can do that, as long as ''better" means bigger and noisier.
Nostalgia aside, though, movies aren't really demonstrably worse than five years ago, or 10, or 20. (This argument stops holding water when you get to 1939.) Spring 2005 also brought us ''Sin City," ''Kung Fu Hustle," and ''Cinderella Man," big-screen experiences that do what they set out to do with skill and creativity. In our selective cultural memory we forget not only the terrible films that came out when we were young but also the endless reels of mediocrity. They weren't all ''Chinatown," Jake. Many of them were ''Freebie and the Bean." Never heard of that one? I rest my case.
Another much-bandied argument is that going to the movies is less pleasurable than it used to be. Now we're getting somewhere. When my wife and daughters and I head to the multiplex to see the latest Pixar or ''Fever Pitch" or what you will, the experience is often about everything but the movie. It's about costly tickets, snacks priced at three times the market rate so the theater owner can cover his ''nut," 20 minutes of aggressively loud commercials and coming attractions, followed by a print unspooling with a big green gouge in it while two morons in the row behind us talk about somebody named Denise. In the early 21st century, that's entertainment, and that's a problem.
Granted, you have to feel for the theater owners; film exhibition is a hard business with a nasty profit margin, and the studios hold most of the cards. Expensive popcorn and commercials can sometimes mean the difference between solvency and a dark screen.
But -- and here's the nub of the dilemma -- why should we put up with it when the home-viewing experience can be as good, if not superior? Why shell out $40 for sticky floors when you can buy the DVD for $20 and watch it on your plasma TV with Dolby 5.1 surround sound? Or punch it up on-demand for $4.95 and pause whenever you need to run to the kitchen? The medium has evolved, as mediums do, in the direction of ease and efficiency. If there's still a reason to go to a movie theater -- call it communal dreaming -- exhibitors are chipping away at it to make their weekly payroll.
Worse, with the gradual shortening of time between the theatrical and home-video ''windows" -- once it was a year before you could rent a copy; now the norm is four months -- there's little incentive to see a movie early. Hollywood doesn't care, since the studios make almost three times as much money from DVDs than from movie theaters; while the box office has been sagging, DVD sales and rentals have increased 676 percent since 2000. In effect, the big-screen version now functions as an ad to raise brand awareness for the home-video release.
You can still get teenagers and college kids into theaters if you promise sensation and star-wattage; for the under-30 crowd, going to the movies remains an accepted social event. A lot less than it used to be, though, because competition is fierce. The multiplex is one diversion out of many, including the Internet (usage up 76 percent in five years) and video games (up 20 percent). Now that TiVo and other digital video recorders have broken the shackles of television's programming grid, it's possible to stay home and catch that episode of ''Gilmore Girls" you missed. Or you could just illegally pirate films off the Net.
As for grown-ups, the film industry has by and large written them off. This may be a smart business move -- most of my peers are too exhausted to do much beyond popping in a Netflix movie and falling asleep 30 minutes later -- but it leaves filmmakers and audiences with depressingly few options. In the Hollywood calendar, there is Academy Award season and there is the rest of the year, with the Oscars continuing to represent the industry's lip service toward quality product. It's worth noting that the major studios no longer bother with straight-up dramas and awards bait, leaving such films to boutique wings that know how to turn a movie out cheaply. Even then, profits are rare.
Yes, there are foreign and smart indie films -- movies that, outside of a Michael Moore-size fluke or random ''Napoleon Dynamite" explosion -- play to a tiny fraction of the moviegoing public. And there are savvy art-house theaters like the Coolidge and the Brattle and the Kendall and the West Newton that cater to a self-selective audience of informed culturati. With luck, such theaters will survive as shrines to an art form and to the best way to see it. Just as jazz started mutating in the 1950s from a commercial sound into music for cerebral iconoclasts, so too do the most creative impulses of American film now play to the converted in small, clublike settings.
By contrast, the larger arena of mass-market movies is on the verge of a profound morph, one whose dimensions we can only guess at. For a hint as to how that might unfold, consider the revolution pop music is currently undergoing -- a radical transformation not of content but of distribution and perception. Albums and their associated tactile pleasures are dead. With the rise of the iPod and legal digital downloading, songs are free once more of the album format and even of the individual artist, the way they were back in the Tin Pan Alley era. Your neighbor's teenage kid takes in music on an iPod Shuffle that functions as both a mobile jukebox and eternal soundtrack for the movie that is his life. My daughters consider liner notes, even photos of the band, distinct curiosities. An immediate, disposable, and startlingly pure relationship between listener and song has achieved primacy, one that trumps even the glory days of the 45 single and ''American Top 40."
Movies will evolve differently, to be sure, if only because we have to sit still to watch them. Also, one person can still make a song, whereas many people are traditionally needed to make a film. That is, unless you're Jonathan Caouette, the creator of last year's critically acclaimed ''Tarnation," who created a ''mix film" of his fractious life using home movies and an Apple computer. Again, technology proceeds in the direction of ease and efficiency, and the digital filmmaking explosion means we'll be seeing a lot more Jonathan Caouettes. Whether you think that's a good thing or not is very much beside the point.
How will ease and efficiency affect watching movies? There's one school of thought that foresees the IMAX-ization of every small-town multiplex. Others believe nothing short of lowering ticket prices and scrapping the commercials will bring audiences back. Still others are sure that the movement from mass audiences to small, fragmented group or even solo viewing is unstoppable.
George Lucas wants to see digital projectors in every movie theater in America, but unless he intends to personally bankroll the conversion, it's not going to happen soon. Which may be a shame; the visual warmth that is arguably lost when you go from analog projection to digital is offset by the potential expansion in content choice. Cheap, high-quality 3-D and live concert feeds are suddenly within an exhibitor's reach, and so is the as-yet-unexplored notion of theatrical movies on demand.
Think about it: Since you can theoretically download any film to a digital projector's server, why not program your own night at the movies, invite your friends, and split the proceeds with the theater owner? Pull your favorite classic out of mothballs, screen that underrated horror film, arrange a weeklong festival the way Amazon puts up user guides.
Or go Jonathan Caouette one better: Take that private epic you shot on digital video and edited on your iMac, and zap it straight to theaters. If the shadow plays of Hollywood aren't filling the seats, maybe our own flickering dreams will do the trick. Something had better, and soon, before a tipping point is reached, theatrical exhibition is suddenly no longer economically viable, and movie houses start blinking out. Entertainment formats and mass mediums can and do go extinct; the big screen could yet go the way of vaudeville, the art form it killed off.
But what could possibly replace it? How would movies make that necessary mass-market splash before fragmenting onto DVD, cable, and on-demand? More critically, what would we do as a society without the shared narrative experience? Since before we started taking notes and calling it history, human beings have felt a yearning to sit in a crowd of ecstatic strangers and be awed by the bigness of stories. DVDs and a $4 bag of M&Ms aren't going to make that need disappear, but they may unfortunately spell the end of the best way to indulge it we've yet invented.
Ty Burr can be reached at tburr@globe.com
At 8:06 AM,
Anonymous said…
He sure paints a bleak picture, doesn't he? He does make some points - ease and efficiency - to name a couple right off the top.
I confess - I have a low-end membership in Netflix. My motivation? Ease and efficiency. I get the movies without having to leave home. Online shopping? Oh to have founded amazon.com!!
I don't think people have lost their love affair with the movies. I for one am more involved and interested in the process since becoming a KC fan. But we are choosing a different way to watch that fits in better with the fast paced lifestyles we find ourselves trapped in.
Consider the loss of the drive-in movie theater. In years gone by when I was a kid, before the arrival of in-home air-conditioning and even, heaven forbid, the advent of TV. Yep I remember when we got our very first 12" black and white. I still have it, by the way. Anyway ... what better way to spend a summer evening than to take the kids, in their jammies and head for the drive-in? A carload could get in for $1 on Wednesday night, popcorn and soda were $.25 each and the movies were family friendly.
OK not all moviegoers then were families - couples could go and neck in the dark. Moms and dads could go - and neck in the dark, after the kids had fallen asleep in the back seat.
They still had previews and "commercials" before the show started - heck they even had double features. The kids could go play on the swings before the feature started or even while it was playing. The world was a safer place then.
It wasn't only about the film - it was the total experience of people doing things together. That dynamic is missing when families isolate themselves from others by watching at home.
This is not only a problem with movies, but a general symptom of societal changes on a broader scale.
Case in point: The front porch has been replaced with the backyard deck, effectively isolating the family from their neighbors.
Years ago porchs were large and shady and often a gathering place where neighbors could chat on a summer evening after the dishes were done, the kids bathed and ready for bed. Maybe enjoying a bedtime snack outside as the sun made it's slow slide below the horizon.
We didn't have a large front porch, more of a small stoop, but it was the gathering place. We'd play hopscotch on the sidewalk and wave to those walking by on the sidewalk - who may or may not stop to chat for a minute. (By the way, where have all the side walks gone? - Who walks in the evening anymore?)
Nowadays, the front entrance is just that, often barely large enough for people to stand on while the door opens, and sandwiched between the garage and the side wall of a room extension. Instead, people spend time in their backyards, grilling off the back deck and away from the "prying eyes" of neighbors and passers-by.
What does this say about lifestyles today? We spend so much time in the "public place" of work that when evening comes, we want the privacy in the evenings we don't usually get during the day.
Anyway... I digress, as I often do. Back to the movies.
Where have all the drive-ins gone? They've become the multi-plexes, needed, IMO partly because Hollywood cranks out movies like a popcorn machine pops corn. Fast and furious, with seemingly in some cases little regard for quality. It's become quantity that counts because maybe they're trying to reach as many demographics as possible. Trouble is they don't appear to know which one(s) to appeal to.
I think they are dismissing a potentially profitable segment of the viewing public in ignoring the over 45 age group. This age demographic often has more discretionary, disposable income. The kids are often on their own, and time is also more readily available. Good movies made for this demographic would give them one more option to choose from in deciding how to spend their hard earned dollars.
The Upside of Anger is a great example of a movie made with this group in mind. We need more of them to help get that demographic back in the habit of thinking "movies" in theaters when they think of a night out.
I get this visual of studio execs runnning around like the Keystone cops, bumping into each other and getting in each others way, trying to figure out how to turn this disturbing trend around. Too much decision by "committee?"
In the golden age of film you had studio heads that were exactly that - the head decision maker. Right or wrong, they made the decisions and good movies were the result. Oh, to be sure, not all of them were good, but some really great movies came out of those days.
Some really classic movies have come out in our time too. The ones that have such as Field of Dreams, Bull Durham, Dances With Wolves to name a few of our fellas greats, were greenlit by studios - Orion in this case - with leaders of vision; Medavoy, Gordon, and the like. These were men who were able to see past or beyond or around the box office god that has reared its ugly head to the potential for greatness in the end product.
Hollywood needs more men and women of vision at the head of the studios. Leaders that are willing to step out on a limb with filmmakers of vision like Mr. Costner, and let them tell their story. I still believe the audience is out there for a good story. Sometimes it's hard to see the story for all the flash that surrounds it.
On the consumer side, it wouldn't hurt to lower ticket prices a tad, and concession prices too. It's easy to understand why families don't go to the theater when they can wait a few months for the DVD, with all the wonderful extras, and watch at home for less than the price of the tickets alone. Kind of like 4 people can drive from state to state for less than it costs for 1 to fly, but that's a whole different story.
One statement that really grabbed my attention in the article and got me to thinking is this one:
"In effect, the big-screen version now functions as an ad to raise brand awareness for the home-video release."
That's a scary thought - and these are mighty expensive commercials. I thought the previews were supposed to fill that function - to get more people in the seats for the coming attractions.
Which leads me to this question. Should more attention be paid to what is shown in the "trailers?" I for one think so. The trailer can make or break a movie. Who is responsible for deciding what appears in them? The director? The producer? the studio? I'm asking; I don't know.
I do know that they are frequently put together before the final cut of the movie is done, with music from other sources than that of the movie itself, with scenes that never show up in the final version. This can be misleading and off-putting to potential viewers.
Case in point - for me - was the Postman trailer. Let me start by saying that this has since become one of my very favorite Costner films, despite the panning it took when it came out. Also in the mix is the fact that it was released opposite Titanic - talk about poor marketing strategy, but that's a different thread here.
Back to Postman. In the days before I became a true Costner "fan", I saw the trailer and was put off by its violent tone, never realizing that putting an end to this violence was the hinge-pin upon which the story ultimately revolved. For me, there wasn't enough of the other story shown to balance what was shown, and I made the decision to stay away, to my everlasting regret. Thank goodness in this case for the home video which has allowed me to experience the power of this film and its message over and over again.
Question: did they choose the trailer content to pitch this as an action film rather than the character/journey study it actually is?
My point? Be more careful in the trailer content.
On the flip side, I also know that studios bring pressure to bear in areas where maybe they shouldn't. The filmmaker at this point has to choose his/her "battles" and fight the ones that are most important.
Ex: Kevin said re: one of the posters for Dances that showed Dunbar without his mustache. The studio thought Kevin without the mustache would "sell" the movie better than with it. Kevin felt that it should have been left on, but he'd asked for so many things already, and gotten them, that he yielded on this point.
There are so many variables in the mix for the tumbling theater attendance - you notice I didn't say box office receipts - there is no one easy, quick solution. There needs to be a real dialogue within the film community at all levels, from page to screen and everywhere in between, to get to the root of the problem and find a way to solve it.
Writing about it brings attention to the problem. What is needed next is folks in the proper places to start DOING something about it.
In closing, I'm reminded once again of Kevin saying he's not a marcher, he doesn't "do" causes. Rather, he's the go to guy who sees the problem and tries to find a way to fix it.
Hollywood and filmdom in general needs more pro-active, "go to" guys - and gals - to jump in the water and look for ways to fix it, then DO it.
At 6:44 PM,
FlaFan said…
I don't know whether KC and Jim Wilson had control over The Postman trailer, or whether that was entirely Warner Brothers' doing. Another trailer that may have let down the movie it was supposed to be promoting was the one for Dragonfly. It led people to believe it was more of a horror movie than the journey movie that it was as well. Universal released that film.
Something else that I think has hurt the movie experience; until about 15 years ago, most theaters had no more than 10 screens. Now you've got these 15 and 25 multiplex screens, and I think that's actually hurt matters, along with making theater lobbies like a funhouse, because movie lovers have to compete with all that noise, and the kids that go with it. One theater that comes to mind is the one where I went to see Open Range; the lobby looks more like Chuck E. Cheese than a theater.
At 11:59 AM,
Anonymous said…
"Six months gone and 2005 is looking like one of the poorest movie years in of the last two decades.
I'm talking about the quality of the films, not the so-called box-office slump. But, keep making mediocre movies and eventually audiences will stop paying to seem them."
The above statement is an excerpt from the article at this link:
http://www.kcchronicle.com/StyleSection/westhoff/295573331951469.php
which supports earlier statements in this thread. I still maintain if they "build [a good movie the people] WILL come."
However, I also think the movies should be left in theaters longer so they will benefit from word of mouth. Also, to repeat, DVDs shouldn't come out so soon after the theatrical release. Only serves to shoot themselves in the box office by putting them (DVDs) on the market that soon.
Enjoy!
At 12:02 PM,
Anonymous said…
oops - neglected to mention that The Upside of Anger was chosen by the writer of that article as one of the best to come out this year.
Two thumbs up!!
At 2:41 AM,
Unknown said…
It has always been a secret wish from deep in my heart to find an old single screen movie house and restore it. I would show the films (if I could find them) that I wished I had seen on the big screen but missed. (I would also demand rights to review my films in the local newspaper.) My grand opening piece would be Open Range.
Post a Comment
<< Home