LA Times article today, describing the "depression" occurring in specialized film. Folks, it's a disaster that, combined with the strike, is going to mean that two years from now the equivalents of most of what are considered Oscar contenders this year are not going to get made, at least for theatrical release:
Art-house depression As audiences get more choices for movies every weekend, highbrow specialty movies -- especially the ones without big stars -- get plastered. By Patrick Goldstein Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 6, 2007
IF you were looking for a die-hard art-house moviegoer, you couldn't find a more reliable patron than Michael Barker. On almost any Friday night, the co-head of Sony Pictures Classics is out seeing a smart, thought-provoking film, usually a picture made by one of the studio specialty film divisions that have supplied adult moviegoers, not to mention Oscar voters, with most of their favorite attractions in recent years.
But something has gone horribly wrong in the specialty film business. Movies are dying left and right, with even the modest successes doing half of the business they used to do. What's worse, this isn't just a two-month slump. This is a real art-house depression. You have to go back to the fall of 2006, when "The Queen" and "Babel" were released, to find a specialty-division drama that made as much as money as a forgettable piece of fluff like the Jessica Alba comedy "Good Luck Chuck."
It would be unfair to blame the disaster on the movies themselves, which are no better or worse than before. The real problem is that there's too much money pouring into Hollywood, much of it what the industry calls "dumb money," money from equity funds, real estate tycoons and deep-pocketed investors eager to cash in on some of the razzle dazzle of the movie business. Hardly a week goes by when I don't find myself at lunch with someone who's just secured enough loot to make a slate of 20 movies from some hedge fund or equity financier.
When there's that much easy money floating around, it's inevitable that bad choices get made, especially because many hedge funds need to spend their money within a certain time frame, putting them in a position of asking the dumb-money question: "Whaddya got?"
Everyone wants to make a good movie, but when the marketplace is jammed with new movies every weekend -- 14 of them opened in L.A. last Friday -- the bar for what moviegoers consider good is suddenly a lot higher, and it's that much harder to cut through the clutter. That high bar won't hurt a crowd-pleaser full of star power, like "American Gangster," which opened strongly this weekend. But the highbrow specialty movies, especially the ones without big stars or strong entertainment value, are getting plastered.
As Picturehouse chief Bob Berney put it: "It's scary out there. Mondays [after the weekend box-office results have arrived] are brutal -- nobody wants to even come into work." What's happened? After all, just two years ago the specialty audience was flocking to see such challenging fare as "Crash" and "Brokeback Mountain." For one answer, let's go back to Michael Barker and find out why, on a recent Friday night, he found himself at home -- gasp -- watching TV.
"Iopened up the New York Times, and the best review in the paper was for 'Friday Night Lights,' so I told my wife, 'Let's stay home and watch it,' " he says. "There's something especially compelling about TV right now. The reviews in the big-city papers have been a lot better for the new TV dramas than for the movies." Barker isn't alone. When I was at a recent dinner party populated with the kind of people who could handicap the Oscar race in their sleep, no one was talking about movies -- everyone was marveling over the final episode of "Mad Men." In days past, it was HBO that had the spotlight shows for discerning adults. But now virtually every cable network has a cool, critically beloved show with good buzz, whether it's AMC's "Mad Men," TNT's "State of Grace," Lifetime's "Army Wives," FX's "Damages" or Sci Fi's "Battlestar Galactica."
"There's definitely a creative shift going on," says producer Bruce Cohen, who with his partner Dan Jinks has made the transition from daring filmmaking -- they produced "American Beauty" -- to fresh TV, in the form of "Pushing Daisies." "There are a lot of series on TV right now that are breaking the mold. It's absolutely raised the bar for anyone thinking about going out to see a movie on Friday night."
This burst of original programming has been accompanied by a growing popularity of serialized dramas on network TV, shows far more likely to have fans hooked on seeing every episode than the old police procedural shows. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do the math. If a big chunk of educated, upscale consumers are caught up watching "The Closer," that's a big bunch of time subtracted from being out at the multiplex, especially with TiVo and video-on-demand making it easier than ever to watch TV when you want to.
All this time-shifting raises the bar for movies another notch. As Barker put it: "There are 16 movies opening every week, but you can't TiVo any of them." These new series not only have the kind of alternative vibe you get from indie movies, but they also seem more in sync with the mood of the country than the bleak dramas tanking in the theaters. At a time when many Americans are depressed about the horror of Iraq, brooding over the economy and worried about America's place in the world, they seem less eager to embrace movies that offer more grim tidings.
It's no coincidence that many of the movies that are under-performing, including "Into the Wild," "In the Valley of Elah," "Rendition," "The Assassination of Jesse James . . . " and "Lust, Caution," are long on running time but short on uplift.
"When we did psychographic research into what women 18 to 49 wanted, what we got back was that they're looking for stories that offered hopefulness and relevance in their lives," says Lifetime Network entertainment chief Susanne Daniels. "I haven't seen all the fall movies, but judging from the marketing, those qualities seem in short supply. When you're looking for something hopeful, well, that's not 'Gone Baby Gone.' "
This is not to say that good TV is killing specialty movies, only to say that if something is ailing movies, you can no longer diagnose the problem by looking at movies alone. "The Kingdom," a much-hyped action thriller aimed at young men, had a hugely disappointing debut in late September. Was the problem simply bad marketing? Or did a lot of the movie's core audience stay home to play Halo 3, a wildly popular video game that hit stores three days before "The Kingdom" opened?
The specialty market used to be a nice little niche business. But today it's just as much of a Big Event business as the summer blockbusters in the sense that there's only room for three or four movies to break out each fall. If a film doesn't get spectacular reviews, a growing segment of the adult audience will simply put it in their Netflix queue and watch it at home on their flat-screen TV.
WHAT we have now is a specialty business in dire need of reinvention, from the kind of movies that are made to when they're released (even if that means some executive will have to break the news to some filmmaker that his movie isn't Oscar worthy enough to merit being released at the height of award season). The one studio model that has consistently worked is Fox Searchlight's, which has found a cozy niche with irreverent, indie comedies, notably "Sideways," "Napoleon Dynamite" and "Little Miss Sunshine." But the flooded marketplace is putting stress even on Fox's model. The studio's recent comedy "Waitress" made less money than any of its predecessors, unable to stay in theaters long enough to push its gross past $20 million.
You don't need a business degree to know that every over-saturated market eventually has a shakeout. All the money pouring into movieland has created a Gold Rush-style environment in which too many films are being made without having a good reason to exist. Sooner or later, the laws of gravity will return. Hollywood has always been a Darwinian business, especially in the sense that whether you're making a high-minded drama or a cheesy comedy, it behooves you to answer the question: Who's the audience for this movie?
It's a question that hasn't been asked enough lately. And until people come up with a good answer, the specialty film business is going to be full of a lot of misery and heartache.
Originally posted by RichT315: Did you hear that? That's the sound of Reese Witherspoon and Halle Berry's box office clout deflating...
Um... Halle Berry never had box office clout.
And Witherspoon can always get it back. It doensn't end with one movie.
It definitely hurts their "A-list status" though, and coupled with the recent Nicole Kidman-Jodie Foster drama, it only adds fuel to the fire of that studio head who didn't want any more female-led movies.
Say what?
First of all, neither "Things We Lost in the Fire" nor "Rendition" are female led films. One's a co-starring production, the other is an ensemble piece.
Halle Berry doesn't HAVE A-list status. Didn't I just say she's not a box office draw? She's been in no significant films recently. She's hardly a go-to girl when a leading lady is needed. She's not A-list.
People tend to confuse "media darling" with "A-list actress". Not the same thing, although of course one can be both.
And anyone who thinks one film is going to hurt Witherspoon's status is harboring a serious delusion. There are several factors that hurt A-list status. Several years of bad career choices is one, public scandal is another. If Witherspoon has another hit, it will be as if "Rendition" never happened.
you know i am a huge fan of Halle Berry and have in the past defended her; but the truth is she never was a box office draw, i'm not sure any movie she was the lead in was a box office hit... but she definetly is an A-Lister--- she's one of the biggest movie stars around... and I'm not sure anyone would blame Reese as the reason why Rendition failed... i think that has more to do with timing and a subjcet matter that middle america doesn't want to hear about right now...
Congrats to Kathy Griffin on her second consecutive emmy win!
Posts: 16942 | Location: Rhode Island, USA | Registered: July 28, 2002
1 Bee Movie $ 26,000,000 -31.6% 2 weeks $6,592 PTA $72,214,000 total 2 American Gangster $24,319,000 -44.2% 2 weeks $7,950 PTA $80,679,000 total 3 Fred Claus $19,230,000 DEBUT $5,337 PTA $19,230,000 total 4 Lions For Lambs $6,710,000 DEBUT $2,215 PTA $6,710,000 total 5 Dan in Real Life $5,872,000 -25.4% 3 weeks $3,025 PTA $30,678,000 total 6 Saw IV $5,010,000 -51.6% 3 weeks $1,725 PTA $58,086,000 total 7 The Game Plan $2,410,000 -38.7% $1,115 PTA $85,414,000 total 8 P2 $2,200,000 DEBUT $1,032 PTA $2,200,000 total 9 30 Days of Night $2,100,000 -43.9% $1,696 4 weeks $1,238 PTA $37,358,000 total 10 Martian Child $1,750,000 -48.2% 2 weeks $866 PTA $6,013,000 total
Thoughts: - So glad that "American Gangster" didn't plummet *too* far, I loved it. - Surprised that "Fred Claus" didn't do a tad better. I was expecting "Elf" type numbers - Not surprised at all that "Lions for Lambs" flopped. I honestly think it it had gotten glowing as opposed to abysmal reviews it would have at least doubled that. This film's audience is the type that really pays attention to critics. - So happy that "P2" bombed horrifically, it looked beyond insipid. - Happy and surprised to see how "Dan in Real Life" is holding on
Originally posted by RichT315: Did you hear that? That's the sound of Reese Witherspoon and Halle Berry's box office clout deflating...
Um... Halle Berry never had box office clout.
And Witherspoon can always get it back. It doensn't end with one movie.
It definitely hurts their "A-list status" though, and coupled with the recent Nicole Kidman-Jodie Foster drama, it only adds fuel to the fire of that studio head who didn't want any more female-led movies.
Say what?
First of all, neither "Things We Lost in the Fire" nor "Rendition" are female led films. One's a co-starring production, the other is an ensemble piece.
Halle Berry doesn't HAVE A-list status. Didn't I just say she's not a box office draw? She's been in no significant films recently. She's hardly a go-to girl when a leading lady is needed. She's not A-list.
People tend to confuse "media darling" with "A-list actress". Not the same thing, although of course one can be both.
And anyone who thinks one film is going to hurt Witherspoon's status is harboring a serious delusion. There are several factors that hurt A-list status. Several years of bad career choices is one, public scandal is another. If Witherspoon has another hit, it will be as if "Rendition" never happened.
you know i am a huge fan of Halle Berry and have in the past defended her; but the truth is she never was a box office draw, i'm not sure any movie she was the lead in was a box office hit... but she definetly is an A-Lister--- she's one of the biggest movie stars around... and I'm not sure anyone would blame Reese as the reason why Rendition failed... i think that has more to do with timing and a subjcet matter that middle america doesn't want to hear about right now...
Okay, Boidiva....
Let's take it from the top?
A movie that Halle Berry was the lead in that was a box office draw?
Let's see.....hmmmmmm, no,she wasn't in those X-Men movies. And she sure wasn't in that Bond movie.....
Yeah, yeah, you're right. Halle Berry, aside from flaming out in recent years, also has the added distinction of NEVER having been in a successful movie.
Originally posted by RichT315: Did you hear that? That's the sound of Reese Witherspoon and Halle Berry's box office clout deflating...
Um... Halle Berry never had box office clout.
And Witherspoon can always get it back. It doensn't end with one movie.
It definitely hurts their "A-list status" though, and coupled with the recent Nicole Kidman-Jodie Foster drama, it only adds fuel to the fire of that studio head who didn't want any more female-led movies.
Say what?
First of all, neither "Things We Lost in the Fire" nor "Rendition" are female led films. One's a co-starring production, the other is an ensemble piece.
Halle Berry doesn't HAVE A-list status. Didn't I just say she's not a box office draw? She's been in no significant films recently. She's hardly a go-to girl when a leading lady is needed. She's not A-list.
People tend to confuse "media darling" with "A-list actress". Not the same thing, although of course one can be both.
And anyone who thinks one film is going to hurt Witherspoon's status is harboring a serious delusion. There are several factors that hurt A-list status. Several years of bad career choices is one, public scandal is another. If Witherspoon has another hit, it will be as if "Rendition" never happened.
you know i am a huge fan of Halle Berry and have in the past defended her; but the truth is she never was a box office draw, i'm not sure any movie she was the lead in was a box office hit... but she definetly is an A-Lister--- she's one of the biggest movie stars around...
'Bee Movie' finds box office honey DreamWorks' feature stings competition By PAMELA MCCLINTOCKDreamWorks Animation's "Bee Movie" showed surprising sting in its second weekend, buzzing its way to the top of the domestic box and beating out holdover "American Gangster" and new entries "Fred Claus" and Tom Cruise-Meryl Streep-Robert Redford starrer "Lions for Lambs." "Bee," voiced by Jerry Seinfeld, declined just 32% to an estimated $26 million from 3,944 playdates for a cume of $72.2 million, according to Rentrak.
That's quite a honied victory, considering "Bee" opened at No. 2 the previous weekend behind the bow of Universal's "Gangster." It's not often that a movie moves up to the top of the chart in its second weekend.
In its second frame, "Gangster" came in No. 2, declining 44% to an estimated $24.3 million from 3,059 runs for a tasty cume of $80.7 million.
Warner Bros. and United Artists tried to stay upbeat over the less-than-stellar openings of "Claus" and "Lions," the first UA title released under Cruise and Paula Wagner's rule.
Starring Vince Vaughn, "Claus" opened to an estimated $19.2 million from 3,603 theaters, putting it at No. 3. Holiday family title is the first PG rated film that Vaughn has starred in. Warners said Christmas movies are a marathon, not a sprint, and that it expects "Claus" to play solidly through the holidays.
Still, inside the studio, execs had looked for "Claus" to hit the $20 million mark.
"Lions" struggled to find an aud, grossing an estimated $6.7 million from 2,215 runs. Directed by Redford, "Lions" came in 4th. It's the latest in a string of movies dealing with U.S. policy abroad and the war on terror that haven't been able to rally substantial box office grosses.
On the specialty side, the Coen brothers' "No Country for Old Men" made a strong debut. Film opened to an estimated $1.2 million from 28 theaters in key markets for a hefty per screen average of $42,912. A co-production of Miramax Films and Paramount Vantage, "No Country" is being distributed domestically by Miramax.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
Guess the poor reviews really did hurt Fred Claus. Although I don't think ads for the flick have been really selling the film too well by not showing its great supporting cast including Oscar winners Weisz and Bates.
But yeah, it underperformed. I can't believe the number of films this fall that have underperformed.
I don't see how UA can be that disappointed with Lions' numbers. Considering Rendition's premiere and Lions' poor reviews, this seems like a reasonable amount of money for this film to make.
Emmy FYC: Julia Louis-Dreyfus, The New Adventures Of Old Christine
Considering Rendition's premiere and Lions' poor reviews, this seems like a reasonable amount of money for this film to make.
Compared to expectations as of Friday - bad reviews, other recent films - there is some truth to that.
But the film won't top $15 million total US gross. The film rental will be around $8 million. The budget for it was $35 million + likely $15 p/a. That's a $42 million loss.
Foreign theatrical will be limited - why lose more money on ads and prints? And DVDs and other further revenues will otherwise be weaker than expected.
UA is going to lose $25-30 million on this. And there is no way they expected that.
Did people really expect more from Lions for Lambs? The film looked talky and unappealing to me and given the reception for Rendition I had low expectations for the opening.I also did not understand some of the $30 mil predictions for opening weekend for Fred Claus. I thought FC looked rotten and the marketing wasn't that good.
This is good news. I can't wait until it comes to my town. Most casual movie viewers are sleep on the Coen brothers; here's hoping "...Men" is the alarm clock.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: FishBiscuit,
Posts: 5247 | Location: Illinois | Registered: June 30, 2006
Originally posted by RichT315: Did you hear that? That's the sound of Reese Witherspoon and Halle Berry's box office clout deflating...
Um... Halle Berry never had box office clout.
And Witherspoon can always get it back. It doensn't end with one movie.
It definitely hurts their "A-list status" though, and coupled with the recent Nicole Kidman-Jodie Foster drama, it only adds fuel to the fire of that studio head who didn't want any more female-led movies.
Say what?
First of all, neither "Things We Lost in the Fire" nor "Rendition" are female led films. One's a co-starring production, the other is an ensemble piece.
Halle Berry doesn't HAVE A-list status. Didn't I just say she's not a box office draw? She's been in no significant films recently. She's hardly a go-to girl when a leading lady is needed. She's not A-list.
People tend to confuse "media darling" with "A-list actress". Not the same thing, although of course one can be both.
And anyone who thinks one film is going to hurt Witherspoon's status is harboring a serious delusion. There are several factors that hurt A-list status. Several years of bad career choices is one, public scandal is another. If Witherspoon has another hit, it will be as if "Rendition" never happened.
you know i am a huge fan of Halle Berry and have in the past defended her; but the truth is she never was a box office draw, i'm not sure any movie she was the lead in was a box office hit... but she definetly is an A-Lister--- she's one of the biggest movie stars around... and I'm not sure anyone would blame Reese as the reason why Rendition failed... i think that has more to do with timing and a subjcet matter that middle america doesn't want to hear about right now...
Okay, Boidiva....
Let's take it from the top?
A movie that Halle Berry was the lead in that was a box office draw?
Let's see.....hmmmmmm, no,she wasn't in those X-Men movies. And she sure wasn't in that Bond movie.....
Yeah, yeah, you're right. Halle Berry, aside from flaming out in recent years, also has the added distinction of NEVER having been in a successful movie.
Good call, Boi.
No, i said she wasn't a box office draw; i did not say she's never had a hit movie. there is a difference. The X-Men Movies were going to be hits no matter what, people that went to see those weren't going because it's a halle berry movie. The women has NEVER been able to open a movie on her name alone. never. that's what i'm talking about.
and she is definetly A-list. she's in the top tier of her industry, she can get roles because of her name, she's one of the most well-known celebs out there. she's an a-lister for sure.
Congrats to Kathy Griffin on her second consecutive emmy win!
Posts: 16942 | Location: Rhode Island, USA | Registered: July 28, 2002
and she is definetly A-list. she's in the top tier of her industry, she can get roles because of her name, she's one of the most well-known celebs out there. she's an a-lister for sure.
You really, really, REALLY don't know what 'A-list' means.
The definition of 'A-lister' is someone who can get a movie made simply by agreeing to sign on to it. That's all, the end.
One look at her imdb listing shows that since Monster's Ball she has NOT gotten the roles a true A-lister would recieve.
And - I gotta repeat this again? - being a well-known celebrity HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING A-LIST!
I don't think people realize where the term 'A-list' derives from. Do you know there is an actual list among the studios, and that's where the term comes from?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Smartguy,
I think this crap about it being the fault of women is so stupid and unfair. Look at what's happening now with the female AND male stars? Tom Cruise movie just flopped. George Clooney's flopped. Brad Pitt's flopped. the only major male actor who didn't was Denzel Washington for American Gangster. So every filmm starring a major a list actor has flopped. That pretty much throws the "blame it on all women" theory out the window and makes it look stupid. And atleast Foster's the Brave One Still opened number one and did better than these other huge flops which was only because of her. Look at what Kevin Bacon's film did business wise and what hers did. Same themes but it opened number one because of Foster. So this is just stupid. Kidman ono the other hand. Has never been a draw and has always been overpaid.
Originally posted by EternalSunshinegirl: And atleast Foster's the Brave One Still opened number one and did better than these other huge flops which was only because of her. Look at what Kevin Bacon's film did business wise and what hers did. Same themes but it opened number one because of Foster.
Sounds good, until you actually look at the facts. The Brave One had the SECOND-LOWEST number one opening of the year with only $13 mil. (Only Disturbia was lower.) After "Panic Room" and "Flight Plan" that was a very disappointing box office performance and no amount of spinning is going to disguise that.
Oh, and Clooney's flop "Michael Clayton" will probably have made more money than "The Brave One" in another week or two, and let's not forget Clooney's (and Pitt's) other flop "Ocean's Thirteen", which made four times as much money as "The Brave One."
Kevin Bacon is a star???? In whose universe?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Smartguy,
Disturbia did not have a lower OPENING weekend than The Brave One. Disturbia opened to over $22 million. Its second week at number one it grossed $13m, and its third week at number one it grossed $9m.
That may be where you got that it was the only film to gross less than The Brave One and still be #1. I think thats what you may have meant but I was just clarifying that Disturbia's ow was much higher than The Brave One's.
2008 Primetime Emmy Awards Congratulations to Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series: Jeremy Piven, Entourage
Posts: 2803 | Location: USA | Registered: July 27, 2005
