Chicken Little Has Become The New Emperor
If you don’t understand why I get so nuts about this stuff, take a look at the L.A. Times story today.
Horn and Abramowitz do more appropriate hedging on stupid stats than most
April 30, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
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
Dave, quick question. What film in the past 10 years hasn’t front loaded? It is the only strategy that has been employed.
no conspiracy dave. for every one of these doom and gloom stories we have endless pieces about what films are breaking past records. joe schmoe don’t read more than 3 sentences in any article so i think the general perception is that everything is okay. film aint dead. yet. most banks go off actual data and not lazy journalistic pratices methinks – otherwise my bank woulda believed all those ‘pot o gold in backyard tales’ a few years ago, when i needed a mil.
Frontloading has increased significantly with the arrival of DVD sell-thru. The window was once a year… then six months… now its about 10 weeks at its shortest and about 15 weeks on average.
If one movie is frontloading, it affects the others and the dominos start to fall.
Titanic – the ultimate non-front-load – was less than a decade ago. An occurance like that is almost unthinkable today… not because business sucks, but because even the flops do business in a marketing-first environment. (see: Hide & Seek, Sahara, Racing Stripes, etc.)
I wrote a lot last summer about how marketing had reached its zenith. Revenues have been maximized. It’s not theatrical that people should be nervous about.
My favorite example is My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
Out in theatres in May 2002, declared “word of mouth sensation” by August 2002, sitcome spin-off January 2003. Off the air by May 2003. The movie that was once the nice little surprise no one had ever heard of became the over-exposed annoying glip no one could get rid of.
Opah!!!
Pirates of the Caribbean:
Opened with a not-too-shabby but hardly groundbreaking $46.6m during a busy summer. Finished with $305m, a non-frontloaded 6.5 multiplier.
naaah.
there’ll be no run on the banks unless the numbers on all releases bomb badly all at the same time for weeks and weeks. and yes, JBD is correct in saying the data is what counts. Bank finance people don’t read entertainment fluff because the writers don’t understand anything about how money really moves (or doesn’t). Backers just have an eye on their “loan” and if they are going to get it back or not, by any means necessary.
I don’t think the avg person even cares/notices Anything about “how healthy the box office is today”. People want to know important life-affirming info, like if and when Lindsay Lohan gets her chest back or if Tom Cruise managed to Really Kick it to new OT VII.
I can see why flops want to get the dvd out quick. I personally like the lag time of about six months.
Pirates might be the last movie to have big legs. But it still opened at 50 million. The last movie I remember with legs was “Something About Mary”. Neve rhit number 1 yet plugged on and on and kept going.
Think things are bad here in the US of A? Consider this word from Italy, courtesy of Variety:
ROME — Italian B.O. dropped a dramatic 17.8% to e253 million ($307 million) between January and mid-June compared with the same period in 2004, which was a bumper year.
Admissions fell 18% to 42.7 million in the same period, according to Cinetel, which compiles national box office data.
Highlighting the plunge, “Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith” has pulled in a mere $9.7 million in five weeks — among pic’s poorest takes worldwide. “Batman Begins” opened last weekend at $1.94 million, about half what Warner Bros. was expecting.
Those numbers are all fine and go. Yet, what’s the reason behind them? I give all sorts of props to Poland for going out of his way to EXPLAIN situations. That most entertainment journalist do not. Why are the Italians not going to the box office? That story alone does not explain neither jack or the bowel movement associated with jack.
“What film in the past 10 years hasn’t front loaded?”
“Titanic” — see above
“There’s Something About Mary” — opened 7/15/1998, hit #1 in its 8th week, played through Halloween
“The Sixth Sense” — opened 8/6/1999, was #1 for 5 weeks, played through Y2K into that winter
“Shrek” — opened 5/16/2001, increased its box office in its 2nd week, played into October
“Greek Wedding” — opened arthouse/upmarket on 4/18/2002, started to go mainstream in June, went wide in August, played into early 2003
Very well thought out and written, David!
Anyway.
Onto the non-frontloaded list you can add the original Matrix. That started out with a very un-Earth shattering $27mil on its way to $170mil and a sequel that made over twice that (let’s not mention Revolutions OKAY?!)
And while it’s gross may not have been as hight as some of the others mentioned, I’d like to throw the original “Miss Congeniality” that opened to $10mil and finished with $107mil…
Or what about “Scream”, which opened to $6.3mil and ended up grossing $103mil.
…man, Scream is the best.
On a completely different note, did anybody else realise “Constantine” ACTUALLY made $75mil? I for some reason thought it stopped at $60mil… $75mil sounds pretty damned good to me.
every report was that titanic was a gigantic bomb. obviously not the case and had tremendous legs and momentum and caught the moment.
I’ll admit it. I was one of the people who saw Titantic three times.
Reporters look for facts that fit their conclusions. Journalists reach the conclusions from the facts.
Is the box office in a slump? While attendence has been down for the last couple of years, it has always been compensated by higher ticket prices. This year however, nothing is compensating for the now standard lower attendence numbers. This means that the easiest barometer of a film’s success, Monday morning figures, show a slump and so everyone is jumping on this story.
I propose that the industry has been in a slump for a while. Attendence has been going down for some time. Costs have been going up for ever. That is what constitutes a slump, not some Monday morning number that by itself doesn’t mean anything.
There is a silver lining here though, DVD and international theatrical sales, which have been steadily increasing. The real trouble will come when they slow down.
Audience patterns should also be taken into account. In the old days, five people might go see a John Wayne or Doris Day movie once. Today, kids go see a STAR WARS or X-MEN picture five times. The number of tickets sold remains the same, but the number of actual movie-goers has shrunk dramatically.
I like the baseball comparison. This is a blip. A little losing streak. Talk to us in December if its taking a beating.
I think it is the front-loading that is doing the box office in. I remember when going to a big movie on opening night was a big deal. There were lines around the block and every seat was filled. But now you can go see virtually any movie and the seats are half filled. I saw Star Wars this year on Day 2, there were at least one-thirds of the seats available, I saw Batman Begins last Wednesday, opening day, about half full, I saw Herbie at a sneak preview, 25 people in the whole theater. I miss event movies feeling like events.
u went to batman opening night and u didn’t feel like u were at an event? and seriously how many event movies a yr are there? three?
I’m not sure what Batman Begins screening you were at Patrick, but I went to see the movie on the Saturday after opening Wednesday in a theatre where at least a half dozen screens were showing the film. The theatre was packed and there was a healthy applause – an ever rarer occurence – when it was over.
Maybe he lives in a town with a population of 500. Who knows. But I know I was in Manhattan and saw it on Wednesday (packed) and again on Sunday (soldout).
Nope I live in a big city. but apparently no one goes to the movies here. Funny thing is, all the art houses are always packed!
What city is it? Frisco?
Nope much colder than there!
Anchorage?
Nope
I really don’t care but I do think your from Anchorage.
No it’s in the main 50 or whatever they call it.
The lower 48. The mainland. And why can’t you just open up and say it?
who gives a rats where this guy lives? its obviously a boring town if they can’t get anyone in a theatre on opening night
Actually there is way more to do here than go to the movies. We have the second most live theaters per capita (New York is # 1) and we are the most literate state according to some poll that came out recently.
i’m clapping for u and ur unknown state. huge ovation coming
Why such sarcasm whenever I try to engage in conversation? Yeesh. I live in the upper Midwest. It just seems like every time I go to a “big” movie it’s never sold out at all. I saw Spiderman 2 on opening night last year and over half the auditorium was empty at a 7:00 show. Of course, it was playing on like 5 screens, around the clock. But I think that’s what the probelm is. with movies on so many screens starting out, they burn out really quickly.
what about number of releases per year? are we seeing any shift there? Is the market being flooded? forcing distributors to frontload to fend off next week’s releases? Let’s face it frontloading is happening in the indie world as well (last years open water, and more recently lords of dogtown). Anyway on a side note: in 1997 I spent about $1200 on theatrical releases. Last year however, that number dropped to less than $200. What happened? Prices started going up a few years back and it changed my perception of the value of the whole experience. About 2 years ago I started using the “gift certificates” purchased directly from AMC and my “appetite” dried up because the discounted certificates require you to wait 10 days after openning. At first that was kind of tough to stomach but now it’s an afterthought. Nowadays dinner and a movie means going out a nice place and coming back home for some netflix.
peace out
Minneapolis is a weird place. Definitely not as many filmgoers per population as other similarly sized cities. But boy they love their Prairie Home Companion!!
…and maybe you’re just getting older, Joyfool. Old people don’t see as many movies.
I loved the cartoon at the end of today’s hot button! Says it all!
The Midwest scares me. Very much.
Hey, I clicked on the link for the Wedding Crashers in the mcn weekly mail tonight and clicked on ‘Quail Hunt’ from that site. Fun game. I’ve personally decided to help “frontload” this movie by going opening day. (oh yes, there’s a great soundtrack for it, but why no Me First And The Gimme Gimmes songs on it?? They’re the perfect wedding band)
One thing that is starting to piss me off about dvd’s is all the special editions (or whatever name you want to give them) that come out after the initial dvd. I have the first Hellboy DVD, then the 3 DVD edition of Hellboy. I have There’s Something About Mary and There’s Something MORE About Mary. And other sets like this. I now read that Dodgeball is coming out with another DVD version this summer. What should I do with the Dodgeball DVD I already have? If studios are going to start doing this with every movie, I may have to start holding off buying DVD’s until the ‘good’ versions come out. (This really began to aggravate me when the 2nd Bourne Identity DVD came out last year). I did buy the Superbit edition of Panic Room at Wal-Mart for $6.88 this week though (and I didn’t own the other dvd of it, so ha!)
I’ve never seen Titanic. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Do you REFUSE to see it?
Titanic is great! I still don’t understand why it gets bashed so much nowerdays. It’s not like it changed in the last 8 years.
I really think with the DVD thing that if you already have an edition and they bring out a new one you should check for the new special features. If all it is is a few featurettes you can just hire it out from Blockbuster and watch them.
And, how many audio commentaries do you need for any one movie?
But if the original DVD has nothing, or not much, on it say for example my American Psycho DVD I will most definitely be purchasing the new special edition.
But, seriously, if you wait for a couple of months in general the price goes down so it’s probably better to wait anyway. I know I’m waiting for The Incredibles to go down to $20 because all Disney DVDs do eventually. I don’t have $30 to spend.
Few things crack me up more than the rest of the English speaking people on this planet using “hire” instead of “rent.” Yes. I know they technically mean the samething. Yet, hiring something from Blockbuster just makes no sense in the American vernacular. Since we hire people, and rent things. The power of the English language! BOOYAH! Secondly, Camel, Titanic hatred in the US may be due to two things. 1) It being a fad: It stopped being a movie and moved in FAD territory. We our a culture that, usually, turns rather hardcore on things we consider FADs. 2) Teenage girls: Not only can the flick be seen as a fad. But it was a fad brought about by teenage girls. The same lot that brought us Britney, Xtina, Nsync, and the Backstreet Boys. Being a TEENAGE GIRL FAD. The quickest way to have people turn on something pop culture related in this country at least.
I am glad to see others complaine about multiple releases of DVDs. I think this is adding to lower box office because why should I go to theater to see a cut up incomplete version of a movie when i should wait to see the final version on dvd?
In his Hot Button column today, David Poland writes, “The mythology that watching a movie on your home entertainment system is the same as going to the movies must be stopped, if it can be.”
Really, what needs to be stopped is Poland’s incessant insistence that home viewing is a lesser experience than theatergoing. That’s right, it is a myth. Home viewing is BETTER.
Other than that he makes some good points. Except when he says what a bargain HBO is. Try telling that to common families struggling to pay tuition, mortgages, insurance, transportation, etc. HBO is not cheap. $13 or so dollars a month adds up and is an unnecessary luxury. Only an elitist wealthy person, or poor financial planner, would make that comment.
MG – “Poland” didn’t insist any such thing… quite intentionally.
The point I keep trying to make is that these are distinct markets.
Yes, for many people, watching at home is superior. For others, theatrical is superior. But again, not the point.
The point is that both markets must be embraced and encouraged, since it is the combination that allows budgets to be as high as they are. Those budgets will have to come down in the next few years regardless. But to emasculate either theatrical or home entertainment would throw the filmed entertainment into a depression that has not been seen since the late 60s.
But, but, but….watching a film with an audience in a theatre IS a better experience than sitting at home.
You can’t compete with the theatre experience. It is like being at a ballgame. Makes it that much better.
I agree. I can’t wait to see Land of the Dead with a crowd full of fellow horror geeks. It adds so much to the experience. Isn’t nearly the same at home.
I don’t even mind the 10 bucks for a ticket. I love the theatre time. Beats seeing it on tv.
i just hate the multiple releases of films on dvd. is there a need for them to keep making special upon special editions to take our money?
marketingguru, when you say the “home viewing is BETTER” — yeah, for what percentage of the US public that has home theatre? One of the things that bugs me about this discussion is the assumption that the great unwashed masses are all sitting out here with HD-TVs, etc.
Hey, we’re not! I have a 27″ TV and a home theater sound system, but it’s going to be many many years before I can afford what I really want: a widescreen tv.
Now if somebody can explain why they don’t even *make* square tvs in the UK, but only sell widescreens at a reasonable price–and we’re stuck with stupid square tvs.
Anyway, the theater experience is BETTER for me, at least for ‘event’ movies. I wait for DVD for things like Closer.
Wrecktum – I’m definitely getting older. I gotta to tune in the the oldie station to listen to Prince doin’ Little Red Corvette. That’s F*cked up! Is 33 old these days?
Bakednudel
When I lived in Europe i wondered why I had digital satellite and a widescreen giant TV years before pals & relatives in the US. One thing is the 0% interest and 0% down options in most EU countries. It was very inexpensive and warrantied for a long time.
But the stranger thing is that the cinema-going audience appears or appeared at least, to be Growing in parts of the UK and in Ireland(3-6% for most of the last few years)even though home entertainment is something that is invested in even before food and clothes. (Megaplexes have sprouted up absolutely everywhere there since 1998, and they have great multiple ticket thingies which work out to be about $5 per movie and are unrestricted.) I don’t know what the box office is for 2005 over there.
I can’t believe Dave Poland and Roger Friedman actually agree on something.
What do I agree with Shit For Brains on?
Certainly having a wide screen and a home theater sound setup would be nice, but I was referring more to the time convenience, low price, schedule control, and lack of uncontrollable distractions (ie cell phone chipings [and people answering them], Red Vine package crinkling, popcorn munching, ice shaking, sticky floors, commercials, translations [someone actually sat behind me once during “Titanic” translating the whole movie to their parents], etc.) Yes, in a best case scenario, meaning a $6-8 ticket, perfect manners, no interruptions, low-priced snack foods, then theatergoing has some benefits relating to the size of the venue and the collective experience. Unfortunately it’s been years since I’ve had that perfect experience.
You’re describing an experience that has never existed.
I’m not sure why I never saw Titanic, except to say it looked very boring to watch. A ship sinking for over 3 hours? Sink faster.
Going to a movie theater over home-viewing? What isn’t always mentioned is that a lot of the screens at theaters suck… they’re too small, or sometimes you can see distracting markings on the screen. I have a better picture on my flatscreen computer monitor than at a lot of theaters (and with my subwoofer, watching dvd’s is excellent). One good thing about going to a movie theater though is that you can spill popcorn on the floor and it doesn’t matter. No fun to do that at home. I will agree that going to a COMEDY is a lot better in full theater. And I don’t mind the commercials at theaters… they’re a lot better than the commercials on tv, usually. Courteney Cox can advertise Pepsi or Coke and I’ll happily watch every time.
ok maybe it was the clips i’ve seen with really corny dialogue. not the 3+ hours.
Sure, there are distractions at cinemas and there are lousy quality screens occasionally and the food and drinks are expensive but as a lover of the movie-going experience, nothing beats the cinema. Going in and sitting down and as the movie’s showing seeing everybody paying attention.
And I don’t know about anyone else but watching a movie in a cinema allows you do actually be more critical or praising of it. If I am watching a bad comedy at home at the end I’ll probably go “well… that one bit was sorta funny” but if you’re at a cinema and nobody is laughing along with you you don’t have to lie to yourself.
Watching funny comedies with a packed cinema is great. Same with horror movies!
But, yeah, some people who ACTUALLY HAVE upwards of $3000 to spend on a big widescreen tv with all the sound equipment and the general layout of their “home entertainment system” may enjoy that more but for now I currently cannot.