Reading about the two recent $200 million flops (“Battleship” and “John Carter” made me wonder-how do studio heads decide on what to gamble on? Do they do audience sampling, or do any kind of elementary research?
I remember reading (in a biography of John Belushi), that the movie “Animal House” was a gamble-the studio didn’t invest all that much money, but they were not entirely sure that the movie would become a hit. The did a test screening when the film was completed, and were relieved to find that the audiences loved it.
So, when you are investing $200 million in a film, would it not be prudent to pay a market research firm to test the waters?
BTW, the two films mentioned are losing money right now, but can the studios expect a small profit (eventually) from foreign sales and video rentals?
I did watch the “Battleship” trailer on YouTube-it looks incredibly bad.:smack:
Surprisingly based on the amount of money involved it seems a lot of Hollywood is basically based on trust, get your name known as a sure thing and you can get anything bankrolled. See Nolan and Inception(smash hit) or Whedon and Dollhouse(smash flop).
As for John Carter the director believed everyone was familiar with the source material, he was wrong and the marketing of the film totally failed as a result.
Well, John Carter cleared $200mm in the foreign markets for a box office total of $280mm or so. Very similar story for Battleship, which looks like it may do even worse domestically but did slightly better overseas; it’s also at about $280mm including foreign right now and will probably make another $5-10mm before it’s completely out of the theaters. On the other hand, you also have to include marketing costs, so both movies are almost certainly still in the red. Actually in the red, not just Hollywood Accounting in the red. Even with DVD/BR sales and selling the rights to ensure that FX can show each movie 28 times a week in 2014, they still might not hit break even.
The other thing to keep in mind is that, if you’re investing in a big Hollywood movie, you aren’t really pushing for break even: that’s tying up a huge amount of capital without making any money off of it, other than the tax writeoffs once you prove that you actually lost $100mm (whether you did or not). So even if each of those movies somehow makes back exactly what they cost to make, there’s still opportunity cost to keep in mind.
The making of movies is not based on asking the audience what it wants. That’s because it’s not very reliable: it’s impossible to describe a film concept in such a way as to give it justice. Sometimes it may sound better than it is; other times it may sound worse than the final version, and it does not cover many of the elements that make a film successful. The best you can do is to mention the director or stars, but that’s just a sign of their popularity, which the producers already know (and a popular actor/director does not always lead to success).
Once the film is complete, there sometimes are test showings. These have been around for decades; I remember reading an account of the test for Gone With the Wind, a film that was kept under wraps. But they were nervous about letting it out without getting an audience reaction, so they ran a sneak preview without even telling them the title of the film until it was shown on the screen.
But film marketing departments know their job. Sometimes they misfire, but they know from the past what type of films apply to which demographics and market accordingly. For John Carter, they were overruled by the director who, as mentioned, thought everyone knew how John Carter was, and also had final approval for trailers, leading to ones that did not excite the audience.
Battleship was probably going to be a loser from the get-go, but lamer concepts had gone on to be big hits.
People give Michael Bay a lot of shit, but his films make money. Even The Island, his least performing film made like $40 million. Blowing up stuff isn’t that easy otherwise anyone would do it.
A lot of it is done backwards from traditional market research, in that:
They start with their typical consumer (for Hollywood movies, it’s a male, under age 25)
They already know what that consumer likes (hot chicks and lots of explosions)
That can be extended into a franchise if successful (so neither the hero nor the villain can actually die)
And sold overseas (not too heavy on dialog, meaning more hot chicks and explosions)
With a pretty good idea of which producers can successfully deliver that kind of product . . .
At that point, it’s not so much market research as it is assembling the pieces.
Ok…I have a GREAT idea for a movie…a sorta Ed Wood type flick (about a transsexual who switched sexes and now wants to switch back-call it “Glen or Glenda …or WTF?”).
I go see a Hollywood exec with my script, and tell him how great the film will be.
I show how neat the concept is, and how it fits in with the zeitgeist, etc.
How far would I get?
Nobody buys movies based on ideas. They buy scripts or reputations. If you don’t have either you won’t even make it through the door.
The screenwriter William Goldman had a famous saying about this: “Nobody knows anything.” Meaning that despite all the market research and advance screenings that studios do, fundamentally nobody knows why one movie is a hit and another one is a flop.
True. In 1997, Titanic was going to be a disaster, a $200 million costume drama with an ending as telegraphed as any ending can be. The actors were trashing the film and Cameron in the press, somebody (likely sick of the production) spiked some clam chowder with PCP, and 20th-Century Fox sold the worldwide rights to Paramount for $60 million (oops - the film actually grossed $1.2 billion outside the US).
Then the movie came out, everybody and their date went to see it, won 11 Oscars, and the world has forgotten that the film was largely written off in the community prior to release.
What? Mom, Pop, Junior, and Sis aren’t massive fans of a book series that started in 1917 and which wasn’t close to the author’s greatest hit so he was surprised when it failed?
Really?
And nobody saw a problem that the last name of the male lead is Kitsch and the studio was Kitsch Central, Disney? Really?
The way to sell a movie in Hollywood is to compare it too successful movies. New ideas don’t sell because there’s no way to tell if the audience will like it. But if your new idea as described as Titanic, but it’s a train, it might sell. If it’s decribed as Gone with the Wind, but it’s the Vietnam War, it might sell. Of course the selling happens before the movie is made. You’re selling the idea to a producer. What comes out at the end may be something else entirely. Part of the sell, or soon after, will be the casting, and then you want the stars that draw audiences. Then, as the movie is made, and before it’s released, insiders review, and make recommendations. It may be re-cut, new scenes shot, even a new director brought in just for the editing process. Then it will be shown to test audiences for further reactions, prompting changes, and affecting the way the movie is marketed. But at the start, everybody’s guessing based on similar movies and the reputations of the people involved.
The foreign market is one of the things that hurt John Carter. It’s not a well-known figure in most of the world, and the marketing campaign didn’t really take this into account.
A Night at the Opera wasn’t quite test-shown, but they took it as a play around the country to let them tune the jokes. So this is not a new concept.
A movie based on a Disney ride sounded like a pretty lame idea also. Until it wasn’t.
Nobody else did this even at the time. It was unique to the Marx Brothers, who themselves only did it twice. Way too expensive. It was done only because the Marxes were A-list stars who needed a major comeback.
Showing completed movies to unsuspecting audiences was the only commonplace. That dated well back into the silent era.
When I attended the small liberal arts college in Westwood, CA, we Bruins were frequently approached by people giving out tickets to movies that were not quite finished, some needing lost of special effects, etc. These would be shown anywhere from in a theater in Westwood (there were at least 16 screens at the time) to one on campus, to one in Culver City, etc. The point was that there would be people watching to see audience reaction.
The one needing the most work that I saw was “Strange Brew” about the drunk brothers from SCTV. Lots of unfinished special effects. We were shown Conan the Barbarian in finished form with the producer, Rafaella DiLorentis (sp?) (Dino’s daughter) there asking and answering questions. I asked her to please cast Orson Welles as the Baron in the upcoming Dune movie she and her dad were producing. She indicated that they were trying. Obviously didn’t work.
John Carter actually led foreign box office for two weekends, and then Hunger Games knocked it to 2nd…$209 cumulative really isn’t bad. I’d put the weight of failure on $73M domestic box office.
If it’s a comedy, they show me a clip and ask me what I think. If I tell them it stinks, they release it and it becomes a hit.
Or at least it seems that way. 
The spouse and I did one of those survey things for a market research firm at the mall awhile ago, and they showed us extended clips from “Horrible Bosses” and asked us a bunch of questions about it. We both indicated (independently of each other) that we thought it looked like the dumbest thing ever and would fail miserably.
Either they showed us bad scenes, they redid it between the survey and the release, or I’ve lost some respect for my fellow moviegoers.
That’s been my experience. There was a market research firm at one of the malls I used to frequent, and I was asked to participate in movie surveys a few times.
I want everyone to know that those horrid comedies in the 80s were NOT my fault. Especially “Problem Child”.
The Haunted Mansion?
There is no “one way” a film gets made and distributed. Of course, just about any film can get made, getting distribution is the hard part.
A lot of it is number crunching.
Take Battleship…
What if we get Liam Neeson?
Well there is a handy database and the amount each and every Liam Neeson film ever grossed is in there. How much it opened it at, how much it did and even the grosses of every individual theatre. They take into account what the film was rated. Liam in a R rated film does this, Liam in a Pg-13 does that. The can do the same for any actor, or writer or director. The can do this by type of film. Action films rated PG-13 released in the 3 weekend of May do this much. They look and see what has been announced as release dates. They know MIB3 is memorial day so they won’t go there. They know Avengers is early May so they won’t go there.
They do market research by showing the film and seeing what part the audience responds to, what they liked about it and they hit that up in their ads. But that is only after a film is made. Before the film is made, it is making a guess. That’s why it is very hard work to do that. Guess right now what audiences will want to see a year from now.