December 6 , 2004

This was a rather blasé weekend at the box office, as expected, but a new trend has begun care of Sony's Jeff Blake, and it might be a new answer to the current "what to do?" of Oscar hopeful releasing.

I was actually quite surprised that Closer's 476 screen launch was as singular as it is, but looking back at the last decade of holiday/ awards season openings it is. We have all been used to the notion of December releases opening small and then widening to take advantage of awards and award nominations coming in through early January. Miramax's use of the method was the most accomplished, as they opened films at Christmas, expanded through January and launched wide after getting Golden Globe wins or Oscar nods. Chicago was the last great use of this strategy by Miramax - in the last Oscar season to end in March instead of February. That launch was on 77 screens before going wider, not passing 400 screens until after the film had $20 million in the bank.

On the flip side, Gangs of New York opened on more than three times as many screens as Closer did this weekend and grossed just $1.6 million more (based on the weekend estimate), or 18% better.

It seems likely that if Closer had chosen to open on 1500 screens, like Gangs of New York, it would have done more business than Gangs did. But how much better?

Better enough to make up for the cost of opening on another 1000 screens? Better enough to create the perception that the film had done the proverbial, "well enough to be in the Oscar race?"

Probably not.

So welcome to MARS… the Middle Awards Release Strategy. It's not really limited. It's not really wide. (Is 1500 screens even wide these days?) It's an accommodation to the gods of the season.

The only historical awards season release pattern that matches MARS' 500 screen start is Universal's pre-Thanksgiving comedy plan, first used by Love, Actually and this year by Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason. Love Actually opened on 476 screens on its way to 1714 screens, $60 million domestic total and little awards attention. Bridget 2 opened on 530 screens, went to 2473 screens and will probably total out at $43 million domestic… and no awards attention.

There have been a few unsuccessful "middle" releases in the past. DreamWorks opened Amistad on 322 screens, Miramax threw out Woody Allen's Celebrity on 493 screens and MGM dragged Flawless onto 478 screens. But these are old stories from an old Oscar schedule.

There is now an absolute oddity in the season in that if you open in December, the only nominations likely to be influenced by box office are the Oscars. All of the critics groups, plus HFPA and BFCA, are well on their way to seeing all of the films and making all of the decisions before there is any box office history at all for these films.

The seven Oscar-hungry December releases that could be hurt by perceived weak box office are The Aviator, Closer, Lemony Snicket, The Life Aquatic, Million Dollar Baby, The Phantom Of The Opera and Spanglish.

Three - Aviator, Aquatic & M$B - are going exclusive in their first weekend… under 10 screens.

Only two are going wide - Snicket and Spanglish.

And two - Closer and Phantom - are going MARS.

Aquatic is currently scheduled to go wide before the end of the year. Aviator is scheduled to go to 1600 screens before the month is over. M$B should go wide sometime in January.

Closer is scheduled to get to 1000 screens before December ends, but Phantom isn't opening until 12/22, so it's late for a pre-nomination-close expansion.

But five of the seven movies are taking protective positions with their release patterns this month. The question is, which one will be most effective?

I would like to believe that the movie is all that matters. But this just isn't the case. There are four more box office weekends before New Year's weekend ends. Where do I think the December films need to be, based on their distribution choices, in order to be seen as "successful enough?"

The Aviator - $35 million
Closer - $30 million
Lemony Snicket - $80 million
The Life Aquatic - $40 million
Million Dollar Baby - $2.5 million
The Phantom Of The Opera - $25 million
Spanglish - $60 million

A few December titles (Beyond The Sea, Hotel Rwanda, A Very Long Engagement) don't seem to be box office dependent for their awards push. Either voting audiences will fall in love utterly with these titles and associated performances… or not.

And as long as I am in the process of doing this, here are a few January 3 landmarks for other contenders…

Finding Neverland - $25 million
Kinsey - $15 million
Ray - already there
Sideways - $20 million

The funny thing is that the only film whose strategy I really doubt is that of The Phantom of the Opera, which would appear, based on the massive cult for the stage musical, to have the most box office upside of all the Oscar contenders.

My bet would be that Warner Bros. is looking at two movies for guidance. The first is Chicago, which had big stars but not the cult following. When Miramax rolled that film out, it had excellent per-screen averages over a few weeks with screen count ranging from 557 to 623. When the film finally went wide, tripling the screen count, the box office only went up 50%. Warners will certainly go there in time, but Chicago had time to grow and, indeed, it passed $100 million right around the time that nominations closed in late January. Phantom has just a couple of weekends to leave its box office mark before the Oscar matter is all but settled, one way or the other. Everyone else will have nominated or set winners before it even opens.

The other film they are probably looking at is Evita, which was and is still seen as a box office disappointment. The Lloyd Webber connection is there, obviously, though that film relied (mistakenly) on Madonna's box office allure and I would suggest a play that was far more complex to sell. Wearing the marketer's hat, give me melodrama over historical drama every time. Anyway, Evita had an $8.4 million weekend, its best, at 704 screens. When it expanded, the number actually went down.

One worries that WB is being a little too conservative with their film… especially in light of media elite attacks on the film. Does $25 million put up a big enough signal for the film?

On the other hand, there is a building sense that at least one of the major coast critics groups and one of the major pre-Oscar awards-givers may give the film critical cred ahead of any box office numbers coming in.

And keep this in mind… hitting the marks I suggest as the base is no guarantee of anything. Closer may well be the walking dead already, in spite of a solid start. Doing the number is not about being a winner in most cases. It is about not being perceived as a loser.

A great performance by Jeff Bridges in The Door in the Floor would be a serious contender for a nomination if the film was released on Christmas on 10 screens and never ever did more than the $3.8 million it grossed in July. But that number is hard to overcome in the big categories - though Todd Williams remains a writing possibility - five months and limited marketing dollars later. You can "it's Charlie Kaufman's highest grosser" all you want, but Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a Jim Carrey movie, and the only other Jim Carrey movies with similar numbers since Ace Ventura are Man on The Moon and The Majestic. Neither flew… and both had Oscar-friendly directors and writers in tow. My guess is that Charlie stands alone… maybe with Kate Winslet by his side, so long as the decision to take the film "comedy" for HFPA doesn't sink her with Academy voters.

If these examples are too art house for you, Peter O'Toole in Troy is an impossibility because of the domestic gross, even though the film is highly profitable after huge international numbers. And had The Last Samurai been a summer film, the same would probably have been true for Ken Watanabe last year.

See… this time of year, even a box office column becomes an Oscar column. Bring on freaking Ocean's Twelve and The Fockers already so we can think of something else!

READER OF THE DAY: S&M writes: "I write to you and request that you print at least part of this letter, not because I like seeing my words in print, but because you printed my original letter two years ago about the theatrical Daredevil and thus it would only be fair to let the same people see this one.

After viewing the 30 min longer version, re-rated R, which was released on DVD this week, I was both enthralled and heartbroken. THIS is the movie that should have been released. If you recall, I trashed the original with the same vitriol and for the same reasons you did. Let me say that as much as 80% of what we hated about the original is completely the fault of studio executives and whatever producer (whose name escapes me) rants about getting the movie out sooner on the featurette included. Consider this my mea cupla. To wit:

The action scenes - reedited to their original R-rated form, are now good, quality, well-lit, non-choppy fight scenes. They flow wonderfully, have long, wide, and fluid shots, and have a complete sense of geography. The choppiness that we complained about is a result of the MPAA demanded that their be less total violence in every major set piece, including important bits that held the fight scenes together. The opening bar fight is now a genuinely terrific action set piece. And most of the other fight scenes now flow with a genuine sense of skill.

The special effects - some of the CGI is still lousy, and they admit this. But now we know why. As well known, the movie started as a $50 million street-level movie. After Spider-Man succeeded, Fox demanded that they take extra money and spend that money on more CGI 'flying' effects. Of course, giving someone extra money months before release will give you rushed, lousy effects, as Richard Lester and the Superman 2 crew can attest to.

The dialogue - Well, several lines are still bad, but due to the extended time, the dialogue flows and lines that seemed to be blunt and expository now simply lead into better, detailed conversations.

The plot - Well, if you recall, I spent much of the original letter
complaining about giant plot holes and a complete lack of a middle act. Well, we now have a middle act, and 90% of the plot holes have been filled. A new subplot, involving a murder trial, both shows that Murdock IS a good lawyer, adds several terrific Matt Murdock character moments, and explains in detail the trail that leads the police to realize that Fisk is The Kingpin.

The romantic subplot - What was once the major driving force is now merely a subplot, and the film works better for it. The director has deleted the sex scene (which was added at the behest of executives), which changes the entire dynamic of their relationship and his feelings towards her. Becuase Murdock now leaves her in the rain, she is NOT the great love of his life, but rather another missed opportunity and messed up life choice.

The little details - Well, we now know that the trial scene in the beginning IS a civil suit, which explains why Murdock is there in the first place. We see more of Kingpin being 'the Kingpin'. And much more of Foggy and Ben Urich. In fact, every character, with the exception of Electra (who now has less scenes) and Bullseye (he has an extra scene, but he was pretty much complete to begin with), every character is richer, fuller, and integral to the plot. The film is a full 2 hours, 7 minutes, and thus has lots of room to breathe between brief action scenes, which is exactly how an action film should be.

Ok, I'll stop now, but I was truly shocked. Granted, this does not put
Daredevil in the realm of Batman Returns or Superman: The Movie, but it has turned what was previously my vote for worst film of 2003 into a solid B+ character-driven superhero drama. Heck, it makes more sense and has better more rounded characters than the highly overrated Spider-Man 2 (where Aunt Mae is the only character whose actions really feel character-driven rather than plot driven). I wrote this letter in a small way, as atonement. I spent many a comic monologue trashing the movie to my friends and family, so I should fess up at equal length when they in fact fix the problems that might not have been their fault to begin with. THIS is the movie we should have seen back in 03. It would have made $150 million and been a fan favorite. The fact that executives at Fox preferred a bad, short movie to a
good long one defies logic, but of course, that's nothing new.

Anyway, let me know if you get a chance to watch the new one, as I'm curious what a like-minded individual would think"

And this from SAMMY FIBS (longime reader & ROTDer and defintely not a Universal plant): "Well, I lucked into a screening of Meet the Fockers and I am happy to report that it is far superior to Meet the Parents (which I didn't think was all that good).

For me a lifelong, it is Dustin Hoffman steals the show and his chemistry with Streisand is a joy. Their work together has an underlying giddiness that you feel comes from the glee that they had working together. As for Hoffman, the filmmakers just let him go wild in this part and wild he does. Do not be shocked if he ends up with a Supporting Actor nomination for his work here. It is his best comedy role since Tootsie (Tootsie + Yentl = Gaylord Focker?)

Barbra really doesn't have that much to do in the story, but she does NOT play Barbra Streisand here. (It's really more about Hoffman and DeNiro anyway.) She is more relaxed on screen than she's been in a long time and you can see what a good time she had making the movie. Her Roz Focker is a complete characterization that is more hamish than the NY sophistos she played in her last two movies. The only time that I really was conscious that it was her was in a quiet scene with her and DeNiro when I thought "Wow! It's Streisand and DeNiro." In fact, EVERYONE is terrific here. Stiller playing his the hapless Gaylord "Greg" Focker being terrorized by DeNiro's former CIA Jack Byrnes with Gusto. He is every Jewish boy, embarassed by his parents kvelling over their shane totalla. (Back to Babs: her use of Yiddish is a hoot!)

Like Streisand, DeNiro seems to defossilize here and just have fun with his role as the uber uptight Jack Byrnes. Blythe Danner as Dina Byrna seems to have more to do this time around and her scenes with Streisand are standouts especially [SPOILER REMOVED]. It's interesting to note that Streisand plays a sex therapist who tries to help Danner improve her sex life and realizing an interesting parallel to when Streisand directed Danner in Prince of Tides. And kudos have to go to Terry Polo as Pam Byrnes for being able to more than hold her own with this formidable cast. She really comes into her own here. The twins who plays the Byrnes's grandson Little Jack, are fantastic and are not overly cute so as to seem gratuitous.

Yes, a lot of this movie is probably vulgar and cliched, but again, this cast lives up to its promise. A lot of credit has to go to director Jay Roach for handling three Oscar winners and three directors among his above the line cast. Tim Blake Nelson has a standout scene as a sherrif.

It is three hours since the movie ended and I still have a hangover from the laughter. You expect it to be the biggest hit of the season. After seeing it, I wouldn't be suprised if it ends up in the neighborhood of $200-$250 million. I can't remember laughing this hard at a movie since Stiller's There's Something About Mary."

E-ME: It's old home day at ROTD... do they know it's Christmas time at all?