Is the Apocalypse upon us? This article in the Times talks about how producers have discovered that thanks to social networking, marketing campaigns cannot fool the audience into wanting to see crap movies for very long.
Can it really be the end of talking animal movies and sequels for movies no one wanted to see the first time? Did Hollywood finally go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public? Are movies going to get better?
The top movie right now is Little Fockers. Fifth place is Yogi Bear.
While I hardly think this will cause a flurry of high-quality films to pour out of Hollywood, it is something to be considered.
It is true that in the past movie audiences would not bother to read reviews and just go see a film because “Star A” was the lead, or the trailers showed a cool action scene, or it is part 2 or 3 of a film that they know and liked. Those were the glory days for film marketing departments - create a trailer, show the name STALLONE in big letters, show five or six big explosions and a blond woman in a wet t-shirt = big bucks at the box office before people realized the film was crap.
Now, word spreads quickly on Facebook and other internet sources that a film sucks. Thus, even people who might normally have gone to see the film will believe what others are saying and avoid going to the film. Even if only 10% of potential movie goers change their minds and decide not to go, that can spell disaster for box office. It is getting harder for studios to sneak those horrible films out and get tons of money before people start talking.
On the flip side, a smaller film might have a better chance when suddenly everyone starts buzzing that it is a great film, even if there are no big explosions or big stars.
I have a good friend who does budgeting for films, and studios now are hedging bets and no longer throwing tons of money into a film, just because some name actor is playing the lead, or it is based off a hit video game/book/TV series. They have learned there is no easy formula for success and a $150 million budget is very hard to recoup unless it becomes a major hit and box office blockbuster. He told me that it used to be easy to get $100 - 150 million budgeted for a film, but now the magic number seems to be under $70 million, or even less, to ensure a film gets made - and that is for the big name actor projects. If there are no big names in the cast, budgets get really tight.
There will always be exceptions - I am sure James Cameron has a pass to increase his budget on the Avatar films. Also, I doubt anyone is going to complain if Peter Jackson spends an extra $10 million on sets for the upcoming, two part Hobbit film. Even Vegas odds makers would give those two guys better than even chances to make money off those film franchises. But the heydays of just throwing more money at a film project are pretty much over.
And that might look like good news, but as the Hollywood Reporter mentions:
“Fockers grossed an estimated $8.5 million from 3,536 theaters for a cume of $53.6 million. Film is still pacing well behind 2004 sequel Meet the Fockers.”
I believe I read that they expected the film to make over $60 just in the first weekend, so this cannot be great news for the studio.
So while it will probably make its money back, the fact that this film is not doing as well as the previous version will probably make it more difficult to do another Fockers film. Not that that would be a bad thing - but just to show you that top of the box office heap does not always mean a film is a success or will make its money back.
Thanks, DMark, interesting. Fockers is also the third installment of what has been a successful series. I don’t think Yogi Bear is exactly a hit, also.
Another factor, not mentioned, is that DVD sales seem to be tanking, which cuts a lot of revenue from a movie. This is the first year no one in my family got DVDs for Christmas (not counting a Nancy Drew movie from the '40s which cost me like $2.) Why bother when you have NetFlix and now streaming?
I think ticket sales are down this year in general, and would be down further if the studios weren’t able to extract a couple bucks more per ticket from people for 3D movies. At least that is how I remembered the Times story.