RANTING & RAVING

There has been a huge transition in the world of entertainment lately.  Much of it has been driven by the dot-com crash, forcing television and print to reconceptualize their approach to the bottom line.  But more is going on, as the combination of an expanding cable/satellite universe and the internet is creating a niche world, in which consumers/viewers are getting used to having exactly – and I mean exactly – what they want. 

And then there is the movie business…

The long strokes are easy to lay out.  Silent shorts as sideshows, two-reelers, silent features, sound, color, road shows, select talent being paid by the film, the end of the studio system, the late 60s-early 70s, Jaws/Star Wars tent poles, home video, Disney’s 7 year re-release pattern, Batman shortens the video window, the year of three $200 million budget films (Titanic/Batman & Robin/Armageddon).  

That brings us up to three years ago.  Things continue to change, but the transition – and I think there is a massive one afoot – is, as of yet, unclear.  The $200 million budget film is dead.  Even though Titanic made massive amounts of money, grossing more than double any other film in history, it was a fluke and everyone – except perhaps for whomever is going to bankroll Jim Cameron’s next movies – knows it.  Armageddon made over $500 million world wide and barely made a profit before video, directly causing Michael Eisner’s fiscal restraint on Pearl Harbor, which turned out to be prescient.  And Batman & Robin was one cause of the massive culture change at Warner Bros. that started long before the AOL merger. 

The tent pole concept is also dead.  Studios make big summer and big winter holiday movies, yes.  But studios, while they still have somewhat distinct personalities, spend so much on marketing on so many movies during these peak periods, that the movies themselves become too blurry to raise an eyebrow, much less a tent.   The Patriot and The Perfect Storm were considered the key summer films of 2000… yet both were somehow considered box office disappointments, though both passed $100 million and The Perfect Storm actually got to $183 million domestic.  When it came to the Top Five for the year, the summer was over before Memorial Day Weekend, with Gladiator and Mission: Impossible 2 as the only two films to make those heights.  But even then, was either a tent pole?  Did Chicken Run have anything to do with Gladiator?  Did M:I2 have much to do with the fate of Shaft?  What did Scary Movie do for Miramax/Dimension?  Right… nothing outside of its own profit.

Video has changed theatrical distribution like Vietnam changed Lieutenant Dan… the legs are gone.  Not only has opening weekend become an obsession, but the runs after a strong opening are getting briefer and briefer.  So opening weekend becomes even more important.  So the tricks to make that opening weekend happen get grander and grander.  But more and more often, the dollars expended to break through opening weekend aren’t paid for by the opening… even a successful opening.   As you may have read here before, the ability to generate opening weekend box office equal or greater to their fee has been the basis of setting salaries for movie stars in recent years.  If you get paid $20 million and you open under $20 million, you will start seeing your salary drop quickly.  If you open consistently over your rate, you are the biggest movie star in the world.  (Last year’s Top Ten openers?  Cruise, Clooney, Carrey, X-Men, Willis, Gibson, Murphy, Scary Movie, Charlie’s Trio, Hanks.  Also, Julia Roberts opened a March drama to $28 million… Mel Gibson also had a $33 million opener and Harrison Ford did $30 million.) 

My question is this: If movie stars are held accountable for their salaries, hired as the ultimate movie marketing tools, shouldn’t the marketing campaigns themselves be held to the same standard?

Simply put, the entire domestic gross of Pearl Harbor will not cover the costs of marketing the film alone, much less the budget.  But it isn’t necessary to look at such a showy example. This summer has been remarkably superstar light.  Maybe it’s because with marketing costs so high, the value of “another $20 million” is diminishing.   Of the Top Ten Openers this year, Pearl Harbor, The Mummy Returns, Shrek, The Fast & The Furious, Cats & Dogs, Scary Movie 2, A.I. and Save The Last Dance all went out there and opened without $20 million-plus names.  But only five of the titles are among the Top Ten grossers of the year so far.  And, of those, only two (Shrek and The Fast & The Furious) are going to go into profit on domestic release dollars alone.

Now, domestic release may be only 20 percent of the overall income of a film.  The money is in video.  But where does that put us as an industry?  If theatrical release and the tens of millions spent on it every weekend just a big ad for the video release?  Is it sensible to spend $50 million on marketing a film just to get a $100 million domestic return, breaking even on marketing without a dime heading towards the cost of production?  Is this now the brass ring?  Only six summer releases so far are even going to get to that $100 million domestic mark!  A lot more have spent more than they will make in rentals domestically chasing the ghost.  

So are movies getting worse because of all of this?   Well, kind of.

I would suggest that the quality of movies is suffering not because of the multi-nationals not caring or because people are shallow.  I would suggest that the cost of competing in the marketplace is forcing people who might otherwise prefer to be less obsessed with commerciality to focus on little else.  Miramax bought a great film, In The Bedroom, at Sundance this year for around $1 million.  It will cost at least five times that to get the film into the marketplace if it’s got a chance to generate any real business.   So… how angry can you get at Harvey Weinstein for thinking commercially?  You want to know why movies like Freddy Got Fingered and Dude, Where’s My Car? get made? Because they are niche films that can be sold to a very specific target group for a reduced amount of money.  You want to know why Confessions of A Dangerous Mind can’t seem to get financed?  Because it will cost more to market the film than to make it and no one is quite sure how to sell it. 

But there seems to be a next step coming.  If Armageddon was the warning signal that huge commercial success could be had without equally huge profits, Pearl Harbor hasn’t quieted the alarm much.  Think about it.  The film will do between $400 and $450 million worldwide… and that still won’t put it in profit.  So what does Eisner say to Bruckheimer and Bay next time?  Is the “safe” figure $120 million?  $100 million?  The great irony of Pearl Harbor is that the ubiquitous and incredibly expensive hype is what will keep it in the red until video… but how do you make Pearl Harbor special spending “just” $70 million in marketing when you have The Mummy Returns and Shrek spending nearly $100 million in marketing before you’re ready to launch your movie? 

The Fast & The Furious… niche.  Cats & Dogs… niche.  Dr. Dolittle 2…. niche.  Legally Blonde… niche.  Etc, etc, etc.  

Something has to give.  Forget about there being too many films in the marketplace.  There’s too much money in the marketplace.  The good news is that the industry seems to have made some decisions without colluding.  As I just wrote… you’ve seen the last $200 million movie for a while.  But the bad news is that the death of the indie movement isn’t so much about the films or the studios buying up the indies and commercializing them, as it is the cost of marketing that keeps small films in the ghetto.  Memento is going to do $25 million.  That’s huge for an indie.  But it’s still less than Save The Last Dance opened with. 

Whoever gets back to making big profits on films that gross $40 million - $50 million will set the tone for the future.  Why do you think DreamWorks hired Mike DeLuca?  Make a movie for less than $30 million… sell it for less than $20 million… gross $50 million.  You’re still using your domestic release as bait.  But your return on that film is virtually the same as on the $60 million film with the $40 million P&A budget that made $100 million… with a lot less risk.  

Can we find a future in the past?  We soon shall see. 

READER OF THE DAY:  Reversed Bee Gee writes about Civilian Voices:  “I read the response by "The Back" to the comments made by "Not Peggy or Mama" with much delight.  How full of "the pot calling the kettle black" is this person?  Boy is that email full of inconsistencies!

*"Not Peggy" is taken to task for calling Legally Blonde her favorite movie of 2001 by the statements that her opinion is absurd and that Shrek is much better.  Yet, in the same breathe "Back" tries to make the point that it is all in the mind of the viewer.  Strike one for "The Back."  If you think that it is all in the mind of the viewer and doesn't really matter then you wouldn't call her opinion "absurd" and go on to try to prove her wrong.  In fact, you keep going and try to give at least 5 more examples of "better" films.  Do you see the inconsistencies here?

*"I don't mean to stomp all over a movie that is meant to be fairly breezy..."  Uh ... yes, you do!  "The Back," making statements like this and then proceeding to do just what you said you don't mean to do tends to just throw all your supposedly well-constructed ideas out the window!  In addition, the fact that you found that "political correctness" to be a "theme" of the movie and "addressable" and "unavoidable" somewhat frightens me.  In your words, "Get a grip!"  The fact that you seem to be saying that the "theme" of the movie is that a blonde woman is smart enough to succeed in law school may be taking the "analysis" of this movie too far.  Why can't a strong woman be Jewish, feminist and lesbian?  Do you honestly think the writers, director, actors, casting directing, etc., were really trying to say that this is always how it is?  Women such as this do exist at law school and in other venues, be they Jewish or not.  After your tirade on the stereotypes within the movie, it seems that you then try to back-up your initial point by trying to say something positive about the movie.  You end by talking about how the film is "unimaginative and largely unfunny."   Hello, have you heard of making a point, taking a stand, and sticking to it?  Oh, and I am not trying to "stomp all over" the movie, but your inconsistent and undeveloped ideas.

*"The Back" makes a big deal expressing how above making "immature, angry put-downs" he/she is and how "Not Peggy or Mama" "made her points but went on and on and then got "incredibly personal and nasty."  Hey, "Back" ... did you even read your email?  For example, you called her a bitch.   That seems to be "immature," "angry," "personal" and "nasty."  In addition, although your points were ill-expressed and not very well thought out, you, too, went on to get "incredibly personal and nasty."  Calling someone a bitch (which is highly original by the way) aside, how about these:  "I would suggest that NOT PEGGY OR MAMA take her niece out of the family section, or drama section, or comedy section, and make a beeline for the quality section."  "But real women getting all shrill and taking someone's opinion of a simple little comedy into full out personal attack, perpetuates the stereotype of women not being able to argue a point without getting in the way of reason."  So, she is an emotional, shrill bitch, eh?  Interesting....  Maybe it is just I, but that seems to be a pretty emotional response.

"The Back" needs to take lessons from  "PD Not NY."  "PD" had a point and stuck to the theme of the email -- basically "Legally Blonde" sucked and it pisses "PD" off that people like it.  Point taken.  Not that I necessarily agree with the views, but at least they were ones that had conviction behind them.  "PD" did not try to be a faux-intellect, like others ...  Oh, by the way, "The Back,"  that was supposed to be "personal and nasty."  I suppose this won't get posted so that you can "express an opinion" "without having to deal with [a] response."  Oh wait ... you were saying that about ....”

E ME:   War… what is it good for?