It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Sorcerer’s Apprentice should have picked another weekend. Woof.
“Inception” opening is very exceptional, since the film is a non-franchise original film.
It’s not just the marketing that can’t decide about the sorceress(es), actually; it’s the movie. They are in the first few minutes, briefly. Then, they both vanish until the last few minutes (which is a shame, because Alice Krige is looking amazing — as is, less surprisingly, Monica Bellucci).
The number will fall somewhere in between 55 and 60 mil. That’s a good number for a non-sequel/remake, probably lower than all the internet hype had conveyed in tracking estimates. If it holds well against Salt next weekend then it can get to around 230 mil domestic.
So im waiting for Inception to start. The trailer for The Devil comes on. Everyone seems to be into it. My wife says “this looks good”, and then it shows up on screen
From the mind of M. Night Shyamalan.
Laughter.
Laughter from half the audience. So much laughter that it made other people laugh. I’ve never heard an audience break out into laughter like that from the mere mention of a filmmakers name.
Maybe someone should recut that trailer without the Night reference.
I thought it was called Scorsese’s Apprentice and was another film with DiCaprio. (not really)
And speaking of DiCaprio, I caught Inception (flawed but certainly very worth watching. I spent a lot of time during the first part of the movie mentally checking off what works it borrowed ideas and visual cues from but then I spent quite a bit of time admiring its own cleverness and just taking in the set pieces. Then towards the very end the one movie one specific film I was thinking of was Solyaris. I don’t know if it’s been pointed out yet but it’s amazing how kindered some plot elements are.)
In some ways, I think I appreciate it more than Dark Knight. Memento still remains Nolan’s best film if for on other reason is because it’s the only film I can’t say would benefit from a move watertight rewrite)
I also saw Toy Story 3 – while certainly good and clever I think that Pixar needs to be a little more careful with trying to pack its every work with an emotional punch. Meaning I wish they didn’t feel that every single work needs that moment. What seemed very appropriate in Wally-E seemed… how should I put it… borderline in Toy Story 3. I won’t deny the mastery but it left a bit of a bad taste.
And here’s why: most of the emotion came not from the cruelty of children (even those children who were abusive to toys) but from the Bear. Think about it for a second. And think about that as a source of drama. There seemed a bit of disconnect between who he was and the role of children, or people in the movie (who, come to think of it, were almost secondary).
Still, like I said, I won’t deny the mastery. I will however, call MPAA idiots for giving this film a “G” rating. I just plain don’t get it.
That system is more ragged the Sunnyside Daycare.
Lastly, I saw Knight and Day – which was pretty much what I hoped it would be. That is to say it was enjoyable, oldfashioned good times at the movies. Both actors were a good presence and Mangold was solid at the helm. And while it ran out of steam towards the end, it wasn’t because of too much CGI (Sorry, Roger) but because of too much exposition. Too much FBI, not enough Paul Dano. Good use of Gotan Project though.
P.S. One more thing – I thought the use of Edith Piaf’s music in the movie was the funniest in-joke I’ve seen in quite some time.
rigged*
The link to Fantasia is not that clear for Sorcerers. I would never had made the connection without finally seeing the ad that links the two. Disney should have been doing that form the beginning, which the had not been doing in the tv ads.
ahhh….Disney should have re-released Fantasia last Xmas. It wouldn’t have made much money, but they could have used the time to let kids know who the sorcerer’s apprentice is and what the next concept was going to be.
Isn’t good W.O.M. worth anything anymore? I thought Predators was getting some decent reception from the average moviegoer and had some good critical reception as well, and here it freefalls like a Jason/Freddy revamp. What gives?
Also, Grown Ups is legging it out. positioning itself in the top tier of Sandler’s hits. Could settle between $150-$160M which is about $25M more than I thought it would do.
Also, I’ve been looking at the largest opening weekends for non-sequel/animated movies not based on other source materials and to the best of my knowledge, here’s what I came up with.
Avatar: $77M
The Day After Tomorrow: $68M
Bruce Almighty: $67M
2012: $65M
Hancock: $62M
Signs: $60M
Valentines Day: $56M (yeah this surprised me too)
So referencing the $55m-$60M opening for Inception, I’d be darned please with this number. But now it’s all in the legs baby.
Isn’t good W.O.M. worth anything anymore? I thought Predators was getting some decent reception from the average moviegoer and had some good critical reception as well, and here it freefalls like a Jason/Freddy revamp. What gives?
Also, Grown Ups is legging it out. positioning itself in the top tier of Sandler’s hits. Could settle between $150-$160M which is about $25M more than I thought it would do.
Also, I’ve been looking at the largest opening weekends for non-sequel/animated movies not based on other source materials and to the best of my knowledge, here’s what I came up with.
Avatar: $77M
The Day After Tomorrow: $68M
Bruce Almighty: $67M
2012: $65M
Hancock: $62M
Signs: $60M
Valentines Day: $56M (yeah this surprised me too)
So referencing the $55m-$60M opening for Inception, I’d be darned please with this number. But now it’s all in the legs baby.
Je m’excuse
Did anyone else notice a little Jack (i.e. Nicholson) in DiCaprio’s “Inception” performance?
It never really occurred to me while watching the film, but seeing (and listening to) the clip montage on the Scott/Phillips show a lightning bulb went off in my head.
I’d have to see the movie again to see whether I was just hallucinating.
Granted, she seems to have inherited some dogs and is doing some interesting things in the online space, but have to say I’m none too impressed with MT Carney’s marketing skills so far. A “hipper” font was not really the ticket for “Prince of Persia.” As for inane ad copy like “It’s the coolest job ever!” (“Sorcerer’s”) and “She’s been grounded…like…forever!” (the upcoming “Tangled”), it’s one thing to target tweens, another thing to heavy-handedly pander to them, which the kids can see right through….
It’s funny… an $60m opening should never be sneezed at. But if you’re selling a spectacle – and they clearly were – not opening as well as 2012 or Clash… from the director of The Dark Knigtht… Is a bit disappointing… even if they knew it was coming. There is that thing, where there is so much talk, when it feells like a true phenom is about to happen. And this feels like a hit, not a phenom.
This happens a lot with geek-love movies. The Kick-Ass opening was about right. So was Snakes on a Plane. So was Watchmen. But expectations made them seem like they came up shiort.
I agree that Inceotion will have a good hold…. but not a shocking one. The 170s seem about right.
PS sorry about the typos
And Shillfor Alanhorn is The Hot Blog Name Of The Month.
And unless you have a super, super high concept idea, you have to sell The Movie or your dream of what movie people want to see. You can’t just lay on one idea.
David, the problem with Watchmen wasn’t its opening. It was it’s hold. The movie ended up with less than a 2x multiplier, which is somewhat uncommon.
Of course, the weekend #1 talks about it already being a dissapoitment with $55 million didn’t help matters any. Some films are less immune to this kind of talks then others. I distinctly remember that fairly early on the movie seemed to be perceived a box office failure. That despite the movie being, imo, quite good. I would argue that Inception has far too many online journalists wacking off to it for the to ever truly put in a bad light performance wise.
At the same time, when I see headlines like “The Director who can do anything” in regards to Nolan I can’t help but wonder if the monkeys who typed up the story have any memory of Nolan’s box office history up to that point. Yes, he’s the director of “The Dark Knight”. So far, that’s pretty much it.
Having said that, I think Inception will do more than $170 million. I know that it’s not a big gap but put me down for $185. I figure it’s gotta do better than ‘Shutter Island’ x 1.4 .
In terms of an opening-day gross for a live-action completely original property, Inception’s $21.6m is fourth, behind Avatar and the last two Emmerich disaster pictures. I’m pretty impressed with that. Assuming it doesn’t collapse or become a true phenom, $180-220 million seems a reasonable final number. Anything $220 million or above puts it in the top-20 of all-time for original films not based on any known property.
Engage MCWEENY STYLE!
“It’s funny… an $60m opening should never be sneezed at. But if you’re selling a spectacle – and they clearly were – not opening as well as 2012 or Clash… from the director of The Dark Knigtht… Is a bit disappointing… even if they knew it was coming.”
What spectacle? They were selling an awesome brain-screw of a movie. That’s what they were selling. They never sold a spectacle. They sold you something that messed with YOUR MIND! How often does this current audience want their minds toyed with? Not often.
Now if you want to go with disappointing, how about 77m a few weeks after a Twilight movie opened to over hundred millions. That film had a disappointing opening but it overcame it with the bump and legs. Inception, does not have the bump, but it should hopefully have legs because the audience may want to wait a week to see if it’s worth to sit through a brain screw. Again, it’s a disappointment if you do not grasp the advertising.
While 2012 did not have the bump, it’s a “LARGE SCALE KILL” film and LSK films get audience. Clash had the 3D bump. If you give Inception the benefit of 3D (and why didn’t Nolan shoot this in IMAX 3D? It already looks amazing. Why didn’t he think to add another level of amazing to this film?) and that BUMP, it opens to anywhere between 90 to 100m. Again, this opening is not a disappointment in a day and age where the supposed Barry Bonds of box office only opened to 77m and that film had 3D.
“There is that thing, where there is so much talk, when it feells like a true phenom is about to happen. And this feels like a hit, not a phenom.
“This happens a lot with geek-love movies. The Kick-Ass opening was about right. So was Snakes on a Plane. So was Watchmen. But expectations made them seem like they came up short.”
David, you just love attacking geeks. It’s like you were on the other side of a battle, the geeks won that battle, and you have to keep on prodding the side who clearly beat you. You are the Malcolm Reynolds of the online blogging/reviewing community. This also brings up the foolish notion that Snakes on a Plane had anything to do with geeks. Uh no.
That aside, who thought Kickass would open to anything more than it did? I had hope in Watchmen but Watchmen was made for me and not for everyone and that it made that much money from everyone, is a testament to marketing. Again, you act as if geeks where going on about Inception opening over the moon this weekend and we are not even sure it’s going to do 60. It could have a really good Saturday and get close to 70 and to everyone I follow on Twitter, that would seem to be a good thing. Why you think otherwise is a testament to your stubbornness as a browncoat.
“I agree that Inceotion will have a good hold…. but not a shocking one. The 170s seem about right.”
200m easy. Come on. 170s seems like you just going low to go low to stimulate discussion.
One extra thing, while I hate that film with the fury of 15 rather hungry chihuahuas, you have to admit that very few people talked of Avatar as being any special before it came out. Let alone a phenom and that’s what makes a phenom. If Inception captures the attention of the nation and leads to Nolan getting to the billion dollar club quicker than in 2 years then we can call it a phenom.
Until then, David, you just have to realize that when something this awesome and special comes along, people are going to talk, because it’s fun to talk about awesome films.
“It’s funny… an $60m opening should never be sneezed at. But if you’re selling a spectacle – and they clearly were – not opening as well as 2012 or Clash… from the director of The Dark Knigtht… Is a bit disappointing… even if they knew it was coming. There is that thing, where there is so much talk, when it feells like a true phenom is about to happen. And this feels like a hit, not a phenom.”
If it opens higher than Clash, a remake with an easy sell of spectacle and Greek mythology, will it make a difference? Not to mention that Clash had the added boost of 3-D to inflate the ticket prices and the OW box office. 2012 was sold as a sequel to Day After Tomorrow. These films are not as equivalent as you misleadingly suggest.
I monitor theaters in the Baltimor/DC/Norfolk area and it has more sellouts today than it did yesterday by a significant margin. If my region is representive of the nation as a whole and it was very accurate when Avatar had numerous sellouts, Inception will increase today most likely. For comparison, I can’t find one for a film that had midnights it opening Friday. Is that not the definition of a phenom, a rare or significant fact or event. At the moment, I project it will have approximately $21.6m/$22.5m/$19.7m for roughly a $63.8m weekend.
I have read your blog for about three years and it seems like you should be more hesitant at lashing out at others for hastily jumping to rash conclusions. Since you are doing the exact same thing after one day of box office totals, not really analyzing what the numbers mean at the moment. You can’t really, because you have no idea how this movie is being perceived after one day. You need to know how it holds on Saturday and Sunday. The numbers for the weekend could be in the low $50m or the low $60m range, for an OW multiplier of 3.4 or 2.8 according to your haphazard guesstimate. A movie that had an internal weekend multiplier of 2.3 would have an OW multi of 3.4, but a film that had IM multi of 2.95 would have an OW multi of 2.8? It makes no sense to reach a conclusion on final numbers when you don’t even know the OW #s. This movie should have very good legs with “phenomenal” wom and being an original film.
Did you patronize the opening of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest as just a hit when it opened moderately well in 2003? It seemed just like a hit the first few days, but people could tell in the way it held through its first five that it had the potential for $250m+. It went onto $306m and it was a phenonem in dropping 20-30% week after week.
Like any blogger, dave spins the numbers to work for his personal opinion. Eventually the numbers will tell their own story and his opinion will change or he will try to justify why these numbers are an anomoly.
Thats the very nature of prognostication.
Its like sports talk radio. At the beginning of baseball season i heard every talking head say after one month “the seasons over. Itll be the yankees and the phillies”. Cut to july. It could still be the yankees and the phillies, but the season is far from over.
I dont see how 50 to 60 million is a ball buster for Inception. It will clear 200 million.
If it doesnt, its obviously because Swisher was in a slump and aj burnett underperformed.
@Shillfor – Apparently the model for Naked (agency for which MTCarney) is that each office is lead by 3 principals. One brings the business smarts, another the creative edge, and the last covers the client relationships.
If I had to place bets, I’d say MT was the “client” person for the NY office based on her blog offerings. Given that Naked’s all about being “edgy”, maybe without a strong creative hand to balance her out she’s approving messages that are slightly tone deaf?
Er… “(agency for which MTCarney previously worked)”
I keep reading about the Piaf in-joke, but I actually think it’s more than that: a smart, subtle blurring-dream-and-reality touch that we can either notice or not.
DP: Thanks for the props on my handle. I needed a TypePad name to leave a comment on Patrick Goldstein’s Big Picture blog, and thought it would be the ultimate tribute to him.
I’m glad it’s not an in-joke:
I also liked Zimmer’s score a lot. At the Q&A I attended this evening, someone asked about the Edith Piaf song; Nolan said he had always had that specific song in mind, particularly because the first few bars are so distinctive… He felt this would be easy for the audience to recognize, so he could start messing around with it. Once Cotillard was cast, the odd coincidence of her and the song struck him, but he felt it was a bit of fate and a hint of good luck, so he kept it.
Posted by: Telemachos [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 13, 2010 12:05 AM
Attention West Coasters: The Saturday Night Live rerun tonight is the one hosted by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. And in the wake of Inception, his dance-up-the-walls antics in his “Make ‘Em Laugh” opening number seems even fresher and funnier than when the episode first aired.
re: the piaf music…nolan said it was in the script long before casting…..
…but it’s still like any movie “happy accident.” He had to think about it in a new light, based on the Cotillard addition, and I bet he was intrigued by the possibilities it suggested.
That’s a dismal number for “Standing Ovation,” but I can’t believe even that many people paid for that crap.
Poland, if you call one critic, Travers from Rolling Stone getting the word out early due to the double issue, as altogether destroying the review embargo, then…
Inception has serious talk. Very loud, very clear talk. Discounting the boatloads on Twitter, where it trends at the top (or is THE top?), everyone else wants to know what everyone else thinks about it.
I had to all but outright refuse many folks today for spoilers they were seeking out before seeing the flick tomorrow. This is really is a mixture of the Sixth Sense buzz, where the ending is talked about, and The Matrix buzz, where the visuals are being talked about.
According to you know who, Inception pulled in 62m over the weekend. After what happened last week with Despicable Me, I am going to go with Inception pulling in 70m. If they can make it plausible and with all that happened yesterday, I can see it happening.
we’re all talking about inception and that is cool … but the real game changer is THE KILLER INSIDE ME, a total deconstruction of film noir and home fatalte … “Winterbottom too makes a pronounced visual fetish of ass slapping, which in The Killer Inside Me ties into Ford
I have yet to see Killer Inside Me, but I’m pretty sure a sizable audience needs to see something for it to be a game changer. That said, the only thing Inception can really change is the budget of Nolan’s next non-Batman feature.
Sloan, if the next Bat film is in 3D, Nolan’s next non-superhero picture could have any budget he wants within reason. Seriously, that guy can spend the next 10 to 15 years being able to do whatever he can think of at 5:37 in the morning and turn it into a freaking movie!
That’s called clout IO. Despite his movies being great I wonder (as many seem to) whether they would be masterpieces with one last rewrite. Still it would be a fantastic thing for Nolan to be running free for the next 20 years delivering great films on a grand scale!
Wonder what Inception means for Dicaprio as a star. I mean, the guy is huge etc, but this (if it catches on/becomes a phenomenon) could make him emblematic no? Also, is it just me or does Tom Hardy look to be the breakout star?
IO, Last time a director thought he could do whatever he wants for as long as he wants (what’s more felt like he earned that right) – they closed down Zemeckis’ animation studio.
For everyone else, it’s STILL one for me, one for me, one for THEM kind of deal).
And re: Piaf song. Get it through your heads, people: whether planned or unplanned, to many it was still a joke. And that was neither bad nor good. Just funny.
And if Nolan really didn’t plan this, yeah, I can sort of see why he’d think it would add an “extra layer” or whatever.
Add the same time I will say this about the score:
It worked well but not because of Zimmer. Almost anything projected through the bass, like it was constantly done in the movie would sound just as well. What’s I’m saying is, the “thumping” is what made it work.
No, if anyone should get a pat on a back, that’s Mel Wesson, “the Ambient music designer”.
AE, yes I know it’s clout and asking a dude whose already fanatical about drafts to write another one, is a bit daft. Sorry but that guy already has some of the leanest scripts ever written and anyone who ask for another re-write is just being nit-picky to be nit-picky!
Pete, you are about as fun as a cat with a kidney stone. Zimmer’s score in Inception and Despicable Me are just tremendous. Shame on you sir! SHAME!
Chris: While watching Standing Ovation, did you ever find yourself thinking of JonBenet Ramsey?
IO, I bet you found his score for “Sherlock Holmes” tremendous too. Didn’t you?
And I’m plenty fun. I just happen to understand that it wasn’t just music that made Inception sound good. So, as you see, I am fan of Wesson’s.
My problems with Zimmer go back decades.
I can argue with you, mdana. Projecting worldwide on Friday, however generously and however many exceptions noted, is not a good practice.
I believe I was very cautious on Pirates 1. But the hum on Pirates was quite different.
And Tofu…. WB calls it an embargo break and didn’t know it was coming.
Pete, no, the Holmes score is very generic. While the Inception and Despicable Me scores are very different to what Zimmer has been doing recently. Also, once you include a Smith, I am there dog. I am there.
Actually, I really liked the score for Sherlock Holmes. I admit it: Anytime you work a zither into the mix, I’m pleased. The Third Man, The Ipcress Files…
i liked the score for sherlock holmes.
“I can argue with you, mdana. Projecting worldwide on Friday, however generously and however many exceptions noted, is not a good practice.”
I appreciate you responding. In regards to “projecting worlwide”, is that in reference to me or to you? If it was to me, I am unsure exactly what we are arguing. I didn’t really project anything beyond the domestic opening weekend and state it had the potential to have very good legs in that specific market. I based this on my interpretation of its ratings on IMDB, Yahoo, and Flixster, in addition to its surge on Facebook and Twitter. Anecdotally, my brother and friends in their thirties got texts all weekend from their friends recommending the film. I am a luddite and don’t do the whole texting on account of my unopposable thumbs. The amount of recommendations were abnormally high according to them. In addition, I noticed a very strong hold for this movie on Saturday compared to Friday for a movie that had a substantial amount of midnight showings. If the Saturday actual is higher than the Friday number, that will be a first for a movie that opened on a Friday with a substantial amount of midnight showings.
Now what this exactly means I am uncertain. It could just be that the movie is recapturing filmgoers preinclined to see it three weeks ago when tracking seemed to indicate a $70m+ opening. Similiar to a struggling politician recapturing voters at the last minute he should have locked down a month ago. Perhaps, those previously inclined were scared away by the last minute flurry of negative reviews that gave the mistaken impression that critics were more mixed in their reception of the film after the uniformity of early positive ones. Another possibility is estremely positive word of mouth has already started.
For me it is too early to know what exactly is happening. Now long term legs for this film are a biggger question mark than I think even long term observers realize, because films released in the late July early August time frame don’t have great legs compared to films released earlier in the summer or in the Thanksgiving-Christmas time frame. Since 2000 for all films that opened wide released between July 15-Sept. 1, only The Wedding Planners had an OW multiplier of 6.2. Signs had the biggest OW multiplier of 3.7 for an OW $45m+.
Even with that caveat, I think $170m for its domestic total is absurdly low at the moment with the current information, unless there is something abnormally odd with this movie’s reception, that I am just not able to notice from the usual indicators. Worldwide lets revisit that when it opens in the majority of OS territories. I have no problem with you pointing out that it will not break even if you count the OS and domestic box against the production and marketing costs of $360m. I would like you to have more hard numbers to make that determination.
I was glad to see you upgraded your description of Inception’s opening from solid to strong which I think is a much more accurate assessment.
“I believe I was very cautious on Pirates 1. But the hum on Pirates was quite different.”
First off, thanks for not pointing out I typed the wrong POTC in my comment. I remember your assessment of TDK’s worldwide #s being extremely low in my estimation the first weekend. You got it right by the second weekend, although it read like you were being generous or optimsitic in your assessment.
“The Dark Knight does $600 million worldwide.”
http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2008/07/bat_bucks.html#comments
“The only $100 million-plus opening that has failed to gross at least $799m worldwide was X-Men 3: The Last Stand, which did $460m worldwide. The flipside for TDK is that the only comic book movie to do better than that is Spider-Man (all three) and Iron Man, which is going to do close to $600m worldwide. Batman Begins did $372m worldwide and even if it doubles its domestic gross, it would still have to double its gross internationally as well to get to $700m..”
http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2008/07/friday_estimate_79.html#comments
“For The Dark Knight to be the fourth film in history to crack $1 billion will be a big achievement
Mdana, why do they make movies for the 14 year old male and males in general? We buy more stuff and men in general just have a different view of existence that makes buying a lot stuff a lot easier. It’s also easier to sell tentpoles to 14 year old boys and males in general because we make those films big events in our lives. Outside of Twilight, name a very expensive film series that women mark on the calendar.
If you go with boys. You will get them to make that film a huge event in their lives, you will most likely get them to buy merch, and you can quite possibly get repeat business. That’s why dudes always win this debate and always will.
Zimmer has been knocking these scores out of the park.
IO: But attitudes and assumptions about demographics may be about to change.
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=144939
Joe it would be nice to think that there’s more money out there to get from older people but did they not do that survive a year ago that stated 50+ people rarely go to the movies? I remember there being heat on that thing but it sure does appear to me on my own personal level, that you rarely see older folks for most films. You may get them for an art house film or a kid film with the grand kids, but most of the time you do not see them if you are seeing something like IM2 or what not.
IOv2-
What else outside of maybe the HP series is even marketed towards or made for females? Part of the problem is guys are so wimpy at seeing a film their wife or gf want to see. Outside of Twilight, I am game for whatever she wants to see. I won’t see Twilight with my wife, just because I find it so poorly done. Which is another problem. Even on the tentpoles, they don’t spend as much on the product.
I think the major problem is just not making films older and female moviegoers want to see. My dad sees a ton of indie films, but only sees like Doubt or Mamma Mia (anything with Meryl Streep basically). He saw Shutter Island. I went to Date Night with him. Why should he see IM2? I wouldn’t even see it, and I saw IM. I found it much ado about nothing. I very much enjoyed Elf and Zathura, so it wasn’t like I thought Favreu wasn’t up for the job. Downey was good too, but I am just tired of superhero films. My major problem with the film was I just couldn’t identify with an arms dealer no matter how likable they made him.
IO: i think it depends on where and when you go to see movies. And no, I don’t just mean bargain matinees. As has often been noted on the blog and elsewhere: Folks over 40 by and large don’t feel the great urge to see everything on opening weekend. (Provided, of course, we’re talking about folks who aren’t film critics.) I’d be wiling to bet that if you checked out even something like Transformers 2 or 3 weeks into its run, you’d find a healthy percentage of 40-plus people in the audience.
Recent example that comes to mind: I saw Avatar a few weeks or so after its release and was (at 30) probably the youngest person there, and it was a full house.