Understanding the film business / Awards

[jo]

Are critic reviews becoming a key factor on what to see for moviegoers ?

Re the lackluster results for the USA market for Pirates 5 and Baywatch --

deadline.com/2017/05/pirates-of-the-caribbean-5-dead-men-tell-no-tales-baywatch-box-office-weekend-1202102887/

How can two movies that excelled in their testing underperform stateside?

Disney

In the case of Pirates 5, I hear that the movie had the highest test scores in the history of the series. Once audiences get into the movie, they seem to be enjoying it with an A- CinemaScore, higher than the B+ of On Stranger Tides and in line with the second title Dead Man’s Chest and At World’s End, and an 82% positive score. The franchise is still fresh abroad, and given its glorious overseas opening, the movie will certainly be profitable for Disney with an anticipated final global haul of $800M-$900M.

Meanwhile, Baywatch tested over a 91 three times. In all fairness to Disney, the stakes were higher here for Paramount: It needed a home run to start the summer but came in 48% below tracking. Pirates 5 was only $5M off the low end of the $80M Disney was expecting this weekend.

Paramount

Insiders close to both films blame Rotten Tomatoes, with Pirates 5 and Baywatch respectively earning 32% and 19% Rotten. The critic aggregation site increasingly is slowing down the potential business of popcorn movies. Pirates 5 and Baywatch aren’t built for critics but rather general audiences, and once upon a time these types of films — a family adventure and a raunchy R-rated comedy — were critic-proof. Many of those in the industry severely question how Rotten Tomatoes computes the its ratings, and the fact that these scores run on Fandango (which owns RT) is an even bigger problem.

Both Pirates 5 and Baywatch started high on tracking four weeks ago, $90M-$100M over four and $50M over five days respectively, and the minute Rotten Tomatoes hit, those estimates collapsed. Over the weekend, I heard that some studio insiders want to hold off critic screenings until opening day or cancel them all together (that’s pretty ambitious and would cause much ire, we’ll see if that ever happens). Already, studios and agencies are studying RT scores’ impact on advance ticket sales and tracking.

“There’s just not a great date on the calendar to open a poorly reviewed movie,” said one studio marketing vet this morning.

[jo]

Interesting commentary on why Chinese movies will not take over Hollywood and its movie audiences.

www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-pomfret-hollywood-china-20170526-story.html

No offense meant -- contrary to movies made in China, Chinese and other Asian filmmakers have made some outstanding movies elsewhere.... however, they were Hollywood products ( they had artistic freedom all around). Even our own filmmakers here in the Philippines have done well at Cannes and Venice because the themes and treatment resonate with current times.

[jo]

Current renegotiations are underway on existing deals with the Chinese government on the number of foreign films to be released there and the fee-sharing ( including the use of flat-fee deals, which can now rise to as much as $ 10 million per movie). I am hoping that THE GREATEST SHOWMAN will be able to get into the Chinese market and find a way to get it approved beyond the fairly limited number allowed into the Chinese market, seeing that it is being released at yearend. Unless it is released in January, in which case it may fall under the new year quota?

www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-hollywood-is-squeezing-more-china-film-deals-1012699

[jo]

The Hollywood Reporter has put together a list of the Top 100 Most Powerful People in Entertainment ( basically owners/chiefs/producers/some writers & directors/a handful of actors ) -- aka the movers and shakers!


www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/thr-100-hollywood-reporters-powerful-people-entertainment-1013405

Getty Images
Who in this town has actual power, anyway? In short, the people on this list do.

In compiling the THR 100, our second annual ranking of Hollywood’s most powerful people, we used one overarching criterion: the power of “yes.” THR 100 essentially is a greenlight list: who has the authority to take projects from a no to a yes or the talent and track record to make what he or she wants. There are objective factors, like the size of an executive’s empire (owning it helps, a la Shari Redstone), access to vast sums of money (both Megan Ellison and David Ellison) or the number of series a showrunner has on the air and their ratings (congrats, Ryan Murphy).

Then there’s the subjective element of heat around town: “juice,” for lack of a better word. The Murdoch family’s 21st Century Fox is far more profitable than Netflix, but Reed Hastings and Ted Sarandos rank higher because there’s no company more the subject of Hollywood fascination and envy these days than theirs. Patty Jenkins’ Wonder Woman probably will end up grossing less worldwide than F. Gary Gray’s The Fate of the Furious, but the fact that Jenkins broke ground for female directors lands her (and not him) on the list. And so on.

In dozens of off-the-record conversations with top players, our team got an honest assessment of the pecking order at TV networks and film studios, the influence of talent agencies and the true value of stars (hint: It helps a lot when you also produce). Then the internal debate began: We started with 2016’s list but weren’t beholden to it. Some have risen significantly (producer Jason Blum rockets from 98 to 40 thanks to the surprise hits Get Out and Split), some have dropped (STX’s Bob Simonds and Adam Fogelson had a rough year at the box office) and some have fallen off entirely (sorry, Ben Affleck). And while Hollywood’s upper echelon remains overwhelmingly white and male, it’s a small sign of increasing inclusiveness that the number of women on the list (24, up from 19) and people of color (17, up from 10) are on the rise.

"Subjective" is the operative word on this list *rolleyes*! Take it with a grain of salt



Near the top of the list are two groups who have had an important impact on Hugh Jackman's career --

13 100

Ariel Emanuel and Patrick Whitesell
Co-CEOs, WME-IMG

From left: Ariel Emanuel and Patrick Whitesell
Miller Mobley
Emanuel, 56, and Whitesell, 52, continue to grow their mega-agency from seller to owner, partnering with clients to produce everything from a Steve Harvey talk show to a Michael Moore Broadway play. But WME hasn't abandoned its bread and butter, buying literary agency RWSG in 2016 and packaging TV hits This Is Us and Westworld.

BIG WIN July's $4 billion purchase of client UFC gave WME rights to one of sports' fastest-growing leagues.
BIG BET UFC hopes to quadruple the value of its media rights to $450 million a year.

•••
Best advice I've received about power
Emanuel: Never received any, but it's fleeting and not an accurate reflection of anything. People who are insecure think there is something in power. It's a false sense of security for insecure people.
Whitesell: Always remember the power is the position you hold, not you.

My primary news source
Emanuel: The Washington Post.
Whitesell: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and Flipboard.

I can't get through the workday without
Emanuel: Exercise and meditation.




12 100

Stacey Snider and Emma Watts
Chairman/CEO; Vice chairman and president of production, 20th Century Fox Film

From left: Stacey Snider and Emma Watts
Todd Williamson/Getty Images (2)

Snider, 56, who officially succeeded Jim Gianopulos in September, has been making her mark while avoiding any big-budget disasters. She hired Pamela Levine to run worldwide marketing and, in the biggest move, elevated Watts, 47, to vice chairman (Watts also remains president of production).

BIG WIN Hidden Figures and Logan both scored with critics and at the box office.

BIG BET War for the Planet of the Apes (July 14) hopes to beat sequel fatigue, while Fox is counting on Steven Spielberg's The Papers (Dec. 22) to be an awards contender. On Christmas Day, Hugh Jackman's The Greatest Showman on Earth hits theaters.

•••
Best advice I've received about power
Watts: "Never take no for an answer and always be suspicious of yes." — Oliver Stone

If I could switch jobs with anyone in Hollywood for a day, I'd choose
Watts: Skip Brittenham.

How my assistant would describe me in one word
Watts: Direct.

My primary news source
Watts: The New York Times and The Washington Post.

The object on my desk people would be surprised to see there
Watts: A mug from Baltimore that says "hon" on it.

[jo]

Interesting article on the evolution of blockbuster movies -- with LOGAN used as a major example of a welcome change!

www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/blockbuster-movies/49500/is-the-four-quadrant-movie-hurting-blockbuster-cinema

Is the four-quadrant movie hurting blockbuster cinema?
Harry Potter, Pirates Of The Caribbean, even The Exorcist: they're four-quadrant movies. But what does that even mean...?

Feature
Simon Brew
Jun 23, 2017


The summer of 1990 was a good one for blockbuster cinema. Notwithstanding the fact that Dick Tracy and Gremlins 2 didn’t get the expected financial returns – and in the latter case, that’s a scandal – it saw the emergence, for one, of Arnold Schwarzenegger as a bona-fide movie star. He finally reached the top off the back of an 18-rated science fiction Philip K Dick adaptation, Total Recall. In a summer laden with hits, it was one of the biggest.

The film was one of the top ten of the year overall too, notable in particular now because it targeted adults, and was a hard science fiction blockbuster. Other films in that top 10? The tense Jack Ryan feature, The Hunt For Red October. There was Pretty Woman, an R-rated romantic comedy with sinister undertones. Die Hard 2, meanwhile, was a straight, R-rated action movie. Family fare was relatively scattergun, and it was said that even Kindergarten Cop had its family appeal lessened by its harder edges.

Bottom line: a real mix of films, catering to a real mix of audiences.

You don’t need this article to tell you that blockbuster cinema has become a radically different beast in the 25 years plus since, though. Now, the emphasis is heavily on making sure films come armed with a PG-13 rating, and a 12A in the UK. That way, the possible audience is maximised. Literally – and it’s very nearly a proper use of the word – anyone can get to see a film rated 12A or PG-13. Furthermore, when a blockbuster film rarely swims against that and is allowed a harder rating – Logan and Deadpool the big recent examples – that in itself becomes part of the sales story.

The theory underpinning all of this is nothing new, that you make your films appealing to as many people as possible to make the most cash. But it points to Hollywood’s quest to make what it likes to call a ‘four quadrant movie’. It’s a phrase that’s quietly dominated box office cinema for the past decade or so.
Universal attraction

The working definition of a four quadrant film is it’s one that appeals to the four key areas of the moviegoing audience. That is women under 25, men under 25, women over 25 and men over 25. There’s a little more to it than that, too, as four quadrant films often have a family appeal too. Get an adult or two and a bunch of kids into the cinema, and you’re going to shift a fair amount of popcorn.

It’s a not a new thing, either. Whilst the terminology may not have been so liberally applied, the likes of Jurassic Park, Titanic, The Wizard Of Oz, Toy Story, Raiders Of The Lost Ark and Star Wars all fit the definition. There’s an interesting piece too at Screenplay Scripts, where it argues that The Exorcist is a four-quadrant movie. It’s a rare example in that it doesn’t attract a family crowd – here, kids! You’re going to love this one! – but its audience was nonetheless compromised from the four key sectors of the cinema audience.

As things stand now, once a studio is spending at least $100m to make a film, it wants to be hitting as many of those quadrants as possible. Spend north of $150m, it wants to be hitting them all. Again, go back to Logan and Deadpool a minute: both of those had lower budgets (in the case of Logan because Hugh Jackman cut his fee, for one reason) to allow the movies concerned to be targeted at a smaller subset of the audience. In turn, likely limiting the box office returns.
Which it did. As big a success as Logan has been, then, its $600m worldwide gross is still less than the far-more criticised Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice and Suicide Squad, both of which had friendlier ratings (in the US at least: Suicide Squad was a 15 in the UK in the end). I like Logan an awful lot, but its commercial ceiling – at least in its cinema run – was curtailed a little by shutting out a younger audience.

The book Blockbuster: Why Hits – And Big Risks – Are The Future Of The Entertainment Business is a dense dissection of big budget films, and the decisions behind them. It talks about how Alan Horn – now chairman of Walt Disney Pictures – transformed Warner Bros in the 2000s by changing the studio to focus on four quadrant movies. A perfect example? The Harry Potter series, a collection of films with near-universal appeal. It became the most lucrative movie franchise of all time, and every other studio was taking notes.


Not every four-quadrant film that Horn greenlit did the business – Speed Racer struggled, for instance – but his run at Warner Bros saw it become the biggest and most successful of the Hollywood Studios. He gambled – and his gamble paid off – that prioritising five or six huge films a year made more sense than 20 smaller ones. That one or two big hits would cover everything. And Horn, financially at least, was correct.

So right, in fact, that he went to Disney, and the same policy is being deployed there, if anything in an even more lean way. Disney’s theatrical movie output is less than 20% of what it was in the early 1990s, barely hitting double figures a year. Those films are now mapped out fairy rigidly, divided into familiar categories: Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, live action fairytale, Walt Disney Animation Studios, legacy sequel to long-running franchise (such as Pirates Of The Caribbean 5). There’s scope in there for one or two films around the sides – Queen Of Katwe last year, A Wrinkle In Time next – but these are very much the exception.


The problem is that now, studio after studio is eyeing the same model. There are fewer films being made for the same money (if not more), and they need as broad an appeal to get a return. It’s why we have so many cinematic universes too: if you can group all the films together in one boxset, all the better, and easier to sell.

The further problem, then, is that with every major studio – and in turn, every maker of big blockbuster films – following the same strategy, the summer release window is predictable. Every week or two, along will come a big blockbuster, with a loud ending, special effects, franchise potential and a PG-13 rating. And whilst the films themselves differ, they all work within the same bracket. Most of the time, I’d strongly argue you can tell. That a structural formula is in place, that edges are often blunted, and that there needs to be some action, some comedy, some effects stuff, and it’ll all make a nice-ish trailer.

It affects the films that are being pitched into studios, too. How many films for adult audiences, that cost $100m or more to make, are in development right now? It’s impossible to put a number on, but it’s unlikely to be a high one.
However, there are slight suggestions that things may change. The fact that blockbuster cinema – aside from a few films at the very top end – is in a bit of a rut for one. This summer’s films are already expected to make less money than last, and 2016 don’t forget was the summer when big franchises such as Independence Day, Alice In Wonderland and Ice Age, to name but a few, spluttered out. On the basis of this year's summer releases already, The Mummy 2 and Pirates Of The Caribbean 6 are looking unlikely. 


But then there’s Deadpool and Logan. They may have been cheaper films to make, but the $600m take of Logan (and near $800m that Deadpool pulled in) is still more than X-Men: Apocalypse, Star Trek Beyond, Mad Max: Fury Road, Terminator Genisys, and many other recent high profile blockbusters, good and bad. There are murmurings as a result that, for instance, Sony may go with an R-rating for Venom, which would likely be a four quadrant movie but without the family angle.
It’s small steps, but with studios finding that spending more money isn’t working the way it once did, the strategy may have to slightly change. And instead of trying to please everybody all of the time with every film, one of the logical options is to narrow the target audience just a little. To focus the films just a little more, and try and impress a smaller part of the audience more. I’m not utterly convinced that’ll happen, and certainly if it does it won’t happen quickly. But the drive for exclusively four-quadrant blockbuster movies isn’t working. And something, eventually, has to give…

*A little simplistic in approach. One must also consider the changing qualities of the movie-going audiences. Will support come if the movie is not politically-correct? Social awareness has become important when sometimes making movie choices to see! On the other hand, young and older people may not always want movies that require deep instrospection to enjoy - instant gratification especially for the so-called millennial generation! One other important development -- to some extent, kids or fairly young people also now dictate the kind of entertainment to be offered for some segment of the market -- and older quadrants happily watch animated movies or movies aimed for the very young market! What is very profitable with that segment is that it is also the audience for the uber-huge market for toys and memorabilia!

Also, there are too many forms of entertainment available -- at the cinema, on TV, on a game console, even reality shows translated to real life, physical books to read, online books to peruse by literally moving one's fingers, even the ubiquitous mobile phone ( used in the past simply to communicate has now become a major channel for entertainment), travel, etc... unlike in the past when movies were probably the most important cost-effective entertainment!

*The advent of technology has also caused the revolution in film-making, not just in the nature of the content, but as to how content is delivered! Compare the after movie credits -- it has become kilometric...with most people being acknowledged for work that most movie audiences do not even understand ( "what is a data wrangler, anyway?"). Technology has also facilitated piracy, something unheard of before unless one stole the old-fashioned reels from a projection room and unless one has a projection room in one's house! Even the period between theatrical exhibitions to home video has dramatically shortened -- because studios are wary of their films being reproduced without permission and without being paid for ( giving the audiences the means to see the movie in the convenience of one's house is now a promptly-delivered alternative)!

*What about the creatives -- a director has to become more adept in the tools available to him, other than what they had in the older timeframe. Creatives, especially film directors, are pushed towards the less-appealing film products, artistically-speaking!

*What about the actors? It is a sad commentary that many actors with very good acting reputation now shun roles of the past and have moved to blockbuster territory! To pay for the bills, mostly...or even just to get acting roles!

In a way, Hugh Jackman is one step ahead -- presumably one of the reasons why he has decided to move away from superhero blockbuster movies ( or more precisely, the XMen franhise), personal reasons aside, is to explore more artistic options in his career! Hope his move succeeds very well because other actors may follow suit and begin to please the once-upon-a-time traditional 4-quadrant audiences once again! Once upon a time, some 17 years ago, Hugh Jackman's realistic and inspired portrayal of a beloved comic book icon started a new genre in filmmaking -- the blockbuster superhero genre! Is he also leading the way for actors to be comfortable not only with the superhero genre but also with once-forgotten classic themes in movies!

Just some off-the-cuff thinking


Jo

[jo]

I think it is not really a correct perception that DEADPOOL and LOGAN be compared in exactly the same terms, other than they both sharing a RESTRICTED rating!

DEADPOOL was a surprise blockbuster because it offered pure, unusual, and unexpected entertainment!

LOGAN became a hit for more complex reasons -- it went back to traditional storytelling much like the way classic films in the past did! It went for strong characterizations with fewer characters in a straightforward manner of telling their tales!

Both offered unexpected but welcome entertainment from a movie, a departure from typical tentpole fares ... and that seems to be the reason for the double success of the FOX new stable of blockbusters!

Which is the better formula! Both! Both succeeded in unusual and well-receieved ways! Each in his own way has courted the becoming-jaded blockbuster audiences...and came up with the goods!


Jo

[jo]

A studio rethinks its future direction. Are studios becoming wary of franchises and excessive film-making budgets? But are the moves in the right direction?

www.tracking-board.com/warner-bros-is-contemplating-some-interesting-moves-but-are-they-the-right-ones/

Warner Bros. Is Contemplating Some Interesting Moves, But Are They the Right Ones?
June 26, 2017



As previously mentioned in this space and elsewhere, Toby Emmerich has moved from the head of New Line to the head of Warner Bros. Pictures, and with his move has come the thinking that maybe Warner should change the way it does business, and I’m torn.

Some of the change seems good, some less so, and that’s where my consternation arises. On the one hand, he’s interested in slimming budgets and perhaps returning to some of the mid-range films that the studios have, for the most part, stopped making. That means a potential return of romantic comedies, conventional thrillers and dramas, even possibly Westerns. It also means relief from the Tent Pole Fatigue that is slowly but surely strangling the very industry that has become addicted to it.

On the other hand, because it wants to continue to hold creative control over its films, it is going to mostly avoid working with “auteur directors” who might come with final cut privileges. There would be notable exceptions to this rule, of course — longtime Warner stalwarts Clint Eastwood and Christopher Nolan, to name two — but generally speaking, the ability for a director to come into Warner and call his or her shots won’t be there.
Further confusing this mix is the knowledge that, these days, the list of directors who come with final cut as part of the package is an extremely short one, so the question can reasonably asked, “Why is this a big deal? Or, for that matter, any deal at all?”



For one thing, Emmerich believes that the studio can still attract A-list filmmakers despite this new mandate, which may or may not be wishful thinking, as it probably depends on the filmmaker and the project. Emmerich just green lit his first film since taking over, an adaptation of Donna Tartt’s award-winning novel, The Goldfinch, to be directed by Brooklyn helmer John Crowley. That has both prestige and awards potential written all over it and is the kind of picture that Warner used to make back in the days before Major Franchises and Comic Book Movies. Movies like Casablanca, and Bonnie and Clyde, and The Exorcist, and Goodfellas, and Unforgiven, not to mention Stanley Kubrick’s final five films (A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut), all of which were released under the Warner logo.


That’s just scratching the surface. I could fill a whole column with just a fraction of the great movies to come out of that studio, from just a few of the greatest filmmakers of the medium, and it would make even the most skeptical observer take a step back and say, as Keanu Reeves’ Neo would, “Whoa.”

(From The Matrix, which is another Warner Bros. film, made by a pair of visionary filmmakers in The Wachowskis who, incidentally, also had final cut.)



I like Emmerich quite a bit, and I think he understands the legacy to which he is now somewhat beholden. It would appear that the interest in moving back into certain genres — and moving forward with films like the one about Michael Brown’s murder and the resulting unrest in Ferguson, Missouri — that had recently been abandoned is a nod to that. In a Hollywood Reporter story about Emmerich’s mission moving forward, an executive with ties to the studios is quoted as saying, “They’re not going to make a movie like The Judge with Robert Downey Jr. for $60 million. For $35 million — maybe.”

See, I’m okay with that, because it’s sort of what I’ve been talking about for a long time, now. Why spend more money than you have to on a movie that might not have the same financial upside as one with superheroes in it? This, mind you, while still committing to make that same movie without the superheroes, so as to appeal to a different audience who might not care for the spandex set? You can still make money off these smaller movies, and if you’re spending less on them, the point at which the film enters the black happens much sooner.

If we’re using The Judge has an example, I have to concur that I have no idea how anyone could have spent $60 million on that film. It could have come in for a third of that, easily, and when you consider that it made $84 million worldwide, that lower number would have meant profitability. A solid single. Mix enough of those in with a few doubles, and a couple of those big, Tent Pole home runs, and you’ve got yourself a hell of a year, especially when you add in the fact that Warner regularly releases the most movies of any studio, in the range of 18 to 22 per year.



Box office grosses and market share are important, yes, but actually turning a profit is infinitely more so. As obvious as that fact may seem, it is often lost on those running the film divisions of these major corporations that are increasingly taking over all of our entertainment options.


But let’s return to this whole idea of avoiding most final cut directors, because that’s sort of how we got here in the first place. The idea is kind of preposterous, isn’t it? A bit of a “cut off your nose to spite your face” thing? Again, the list is already a short one, and there are those who have had the privilege and lost it (see, once more, The Wachowskis and their Jupiter Ascending fiasco), but if you’re good enough — and successful enough — to be on the list in the first place, wouldn’t that, by definition, make you attractive to a studio? Wouldn’t there be a fair amount of upside to taking on said director’s project with, one would think, a variety of reasons to do so?

And it’s not like one of these filmmakers would be writing their own ticket. A studio can put all kinds of limits on a film, especially when it comes to the budget. That certainly might scare some directors, but would only be an enticement to others, and Emmerich, in his position running one of the biggest studios in the world, still would hold a fair amount of power in any such scenario.


There is, of course, a wild card here, in that said director could game the system and hold up postproduction because of his or her final cut privileges, essentially holding the studio hostage because, contractually, it’s sort of stuck. But even with that possibility — something I like to think is a rarity among professionals on this level, and even if one of them does it, one would think said studio would not offer them the privilege again — the decision sort of has me befuddled.


Any studio these days needs anything it can get, in regard to both profit and prestige. Maybe I’m missing something, but making this kind of decision — a decision that feels very much like it was conceived in a vacuum — seems like it could seriously detract from both.

Neil Turitz is a filmmaker and journalist who has spent close to two decades working in and writing about Hollywood. Feel free to send him a tweet at @neilturitz. He’ll more than likely respond./I]

PAN was a Warner Bros movie. We learned that after the studio had seen the first director's cut, that Joe Wright was asked to make major changes. The release date was moved almost half a year. Did the studio-mandated changes hurt the movie?

THE FOUNTAIN was another movie released under the Warner Bros banner. But because of initial critical reaction at the Venice Film Festival, the movie was put on a fairly limited release basis. When the DVD was released, they wouldn't even allow Darren Aronofsky to make a Director's commentary...so much so that Aronofsky did one by himself and uploaded it himself ( meant to be read together with the home video). But 11 years hence, look at all the delayed tributes that the movie has garnered. THE FOUNTAIN has become a cult favorite!


I wonder -- will the APOSTLE PAUL project ( announced in April 2015, with Hugh Jackman in the titular lead), a Warner Bros project which include Affleck and Damon as co-proponents, be allowed to continue to prosper? Nothing has been heard about it since it was first announced.


Jo

[jo]

CHINA, the main outside market for Hollywood films now allowing audit of box office figures --

chinafilminsider.com/china-allows-hollywood-audit-box-office-first-time-report/?utm_source=China+Film+Insider+Newsletter+Update&utm_campaign=2c8576c433-Daily_Newsletter_August_228_22_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9a066b9dc2-2c8576c433-226845293

It looks like China is now encouraging more Hollywood entry into their domestic market ( which has been suffering some declines more recently) by liberalizing the number, maybe the fee structure, and now increasing the reliability of reported box office figures ( which would be of extreme interest to Hollywood film producers/distibutors.

[jo]

Franchise Fatigue? Other factors in box office success.


moviepilot.com/p/is-franchise-fatigue-real-or-buzzphrase/4310498

[jo]

Another article by a non-trade paper on what's wrong with franchise/franchise-like new films --

www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/07/hollywood-has-a-bad-movie-problem/532602/?utm_source=China+Film+Insider+Newsletter+Update&utm_campaign=611d0b072e-Daily_Newsletter_August_228_22_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9a066b9dc2-611d0b072e-226845293

[jo]

Fairly long but very informative article on the Rupert Murdoch clan and how they have gone through the transformation and succession issues. Of particular interest are the surprising insights on the two brothers, Lachlan and James, who jointly run FOX Studios.

www.ft.com/content/a530494c-e350-11e6-8405-9e5580d6e5fb

[jo]

The Toronto International Film Festival has announced its preliminary lineup --

deadline.com/2017/07/toronto-film-festival-2017-margot-robbie-gary-oldman-jake-gyllenhaal-emma-stone-christian-bale-1202135285/



I doubt that FOX would want to premiere THE GREATEST SHOWMAN at any festival. Its magic ( box office appeal) lies in its holiday season appeal and the release on Christmas Day ( albeit a world premiere date presumably slightly ahead). Also, with so many films ( many Oscar baits) hoping for attention, it may not be a good decision to be among the many hoping to attract audiences. Presumably, other than early awards-bait attention, many of the movies are not too sure how they will fare at the box office ( either due to subject/theme or limited marketing budget). Hence, festivals ( unless it is the special presentation) do not usually include major blockbusters ( The Greatest Showman could be one - depending on how the film turns out to be...and how well promoted it is). Also, I think the TIFF and Venice Film Festivals are too early in relation to actual film release date of THE GREATEST SHOWMAN. The festivals are slated for early to mid-September.

Also, I think it is appropriate that The Greatest Showman hold its world premiere in the tri-state area ( where Barnum lived and worked his showbiz magic), in this case, in New York City. It seems it will be an invite-only premiere, so maybe it will be a glittering affair ( too bad the Ziegfeld Theatre is no longer around).


I could be completely wrong though about the intentions of FOX

Jo

[jo]

Deadline (via Pete Hammond) asseses the awards-baits among the TIFF slate and other earlier festivals as well as from the early releases --

deadline.com/2017/07/tononto-film-festival-lists-kickstarts-oscar-race-and-spills-the-beans-on-venice-and-telluride-upcoming-lineups-hammond-1202135456/

Excerpts --

Today’s announcement, and all it means for all the other fests, is a promising start to the six-month-long awards season that gets underway officially at the end of August. But in some ways, with such movies as Dunkirk, Get Out, Detroit, Wonder Woman, War for the Planet of the Apes, Logan and other likely, once considered unlikely contenders, it is already well in progress.

The advantage of these early releases is that they have proven both their critical and commercial successes!

Jo

[luzie]

La La Land premiered in Venice last year and was shown at many fall festivals where it gained a lot of global (!) positive buzz - in particular after its premiere in Venice. The film festival in Venice is a big deal here in Europe and gets a lot of media attention (Gravity premiered there too a couple of years ago)! La La Land opened only in December too, in Europe even later, but I've already seen the first media reports here about it after Venice. The Greatest Showman needs every possible buzz, especially global buzz. I haven't heard anything at all about the movie here yet, and I doubt that will change any time soon. Hence it would be a smart move by Fox if they would use any festivals to try to create some buzz. But presumably the movie isn't ready yet, or needs re-shoots or whatever. Also, we don't know yet if the NY premiere is really the world premiere or if any other premieres are planned before that.

[hughmanity]

This point is very well taken.  I was hoping it would be completed and that Fox would have the great confidence to showcase it.  I am starting to have some anxiety around the release of the film due to stiff competition and some of the controversy surrounding what some people seem to think is the "sugar-coating" of Barnum.   I certainly hope I am worrying needlessly.  I often do!

Jul 26, 2017 5:46:04 GMT -5 luzie said:

La La Land premiered in Venice last year and was shown at many fall festivals where it gained a lot of global (!) positive buzz - in particular after its premiere in Venice. The film festival in Venice is a big deal here in Europe and gets a lot of media attention (Gravity premiered there too a couple of years ago)! La La Land opened only in December too, in Europe even later, but I've already seen the first media reports here about it after Venice. The Greatest Showman needs every possible buzz, especially global buzz. I haven't heard anything at all about the movie here yet, and I doubt that will change any time soon. Hence it would be a smart move by Fox if they would use any festivals to try to create some buzz. But presumably the movie isn't ready yet, or needs re-shoots or whatever. Also, we don't know yet if the NY premiere is really the world premiere or if any other premieres are planned before that.

[jo]

La La Land was an indie musical...and needed all the publicity it can get.

The Greatest Showman is a major studio movie -- produced (including funding) and distributed by FOX. It is one of the big movies planned by FOX for the last quarter and is specifically slated for Christmas Day -- that has been the plan since 2016 ( original release date) and moved to 2017 ( but still planned for a Christmas Day release).

Presumably this is because it is intended as a family-friendly movie ( maybe PG or at most PG-13) that can benefit with a holiday season playdate, especially for Christmas Day itself. A studio-produced and distributed movie will likely get a fairly big marketing budget to promote it ( which is not usually the case for indies). Promotional material has already been presented at both CinemaCon in Las Vegas with all the FOX bigwigs around ( with Hugh introducing the material, which was the finale of the entire FOX presentation) and CineEurope in Barcelona ( also with Hugh not just hosting the presentation but also the big party after). The audience are USA and European theatre distributors - which will facilitate the theatrical scheduling and related marketing. That step is done ahead because screen availability is probably a function of early planning and influence. This is especially true for December scheduling -- the big holiday box office appeal type of movies (such as Star Wars) and the last-minute award baits ( such as the DDLewis P.T.Anderson movie called "Phantom Thread" which could only get a limited release but could still meet the awards qualifying schedule). Presumably, FOX would also want to look at the Oscar chances of SHOWMAN ( which would take a different kind of campaign, together with other FOX movies like The Paper ( Spielberg/Streep/Hanks) which is a political/journalistic drama involving The Pentagon Papers, or even LOGAN and other movies which received favorable critical reception!

We do not know what will be in store as overall promotion and publicity material for SHOWMAN. I would rather trust Fox's judgment ( they did have a very innovative LOGAN marketing campaign). That will also depend on how the movie quality turns out -- we are all hoping for a critical and commercial success for the movie. Blockbusters tend to carry fairly large marketing budgets ( conventional wisdom is that it could as high as the same as the production budget level). There are 5 months to go -- so, we may be seeing promotional activities that are exciting and appeal across all demos. Of course, the desired demos focus more on the young

Btw, Hugh and Keala were in London recently when that MTV promotional activity for GREATEST SHOWMAN ( maybe around the theme of THIS IS ME) was underway recording/filming at the famous London Abbey Road Studios. There were 22 young pop stars from all over the world ( Europe/Asia/South America/presumably also from USA) who were part of a marketing project slated to support the movie. That is impressive to me in terms of reaching their desired demographics across the world.





Presumably a soundtrack release will also be forthcoming.



Also, only very recently we saw a photo of Hugh/Zac/Zendaya/Pasek/Paul --

They were working on promotional material at the YouTube studios for THE GREATEST SHOWMAN.



Who knows what other publicity moves are in store? It is possible major publicity campaigns are being planned now as we speak... Also, don't forget that the FOX group also owns the Fox Channel.

So, that is why I am trying to assess whether FOX may or may not contemplate festival publicity ( which could arguably undermine the planned publicity direction for GREATEST SHOWMAN plus it could get lost among all the numerous festival entrants).



On past Hugh Jackman films presented at major film festivals --

The first film of Hugh which was presented at a major festival was The Fountain - horrible reception at Venice! The first review I read gave it 1 out of 4 stars ( which I still remember to this day )...and look at what happened to its box office. And it was not a terrible film -- it was enigmatic and very introspective ...and grew to become a cult favorite over the years!

Prisoners was a favorite at Toronto ( 2nd most favorite, as voted by TIFF fans) but it did not translate into big box office bonanza or even awards recognition.

Eddie The Eagle was the sneak preview film at Sundance but did not receive major box office boost. \

LOGAN was at the Berlinale - but the box office numbers in Germany ( $9.9 M) pale in comparison to China's numbers ( $ 106.0 M) and it is doubtful that most Chinese audiences saw it because of the positive reviews at the festival?

I also remember XMen-3 (which was featured as "not- in competition") at Cannes FF but it was very near its actual release date...and France loves its XMen films (Logan did $ 15 M). Plus superheroes usually clean it up at the box office, no matter that it was not a well-reviewed movie.


I think if there are hopeful box office numbers for a movie musical, it will be in Asia and the UK ( and maybe a few European countries), apart of course from the USA market ( China/Japan/South Korea which have all registered great numbers for Beauty and the Beast released on day/date with USA... and La La Land which was mainly released in many countries after its Oscar nomination and publicity) plus China has been a home of circus acrobatics.



But as I have said -- I could be all wrong

Jo

[jo]

One thing that the publicity machine may not have expected -- it looks like THIS IS ME by Keala Settle could be a big hit, especially with the young people. Quite a few new sites uploading the trailer music, albeit featuring only parts of the song, have mushroomed on YouTube. Some say that their replay buttons are getting overiime work... while others are dying to buy the music ( even Hugh's Australian concert version is getting some internet love). Many have said this is going to get an Oscar nod! If the song is released as a solo -- it could be a major come-on for the movie. Here's one of those sites dedicated to Keala's This Is Me --

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBGOnvN4I7Y&t=42s

Do check out the Comments.



And that is just one of the songs. What is different from La La Land and Beauty and the Beast and Les Miserables is, as it has always been planned, that GREATEST SHOWMAN is a period piece but the musical score has a contemporary beat! Plus Pasek and Paul is arguably the hottest songwriting team for musical scores at the moment, having just won an Oscar (Lalaland) and a Tony ( Dear Evan Hansen) for their work, both in 2017. Btw, one of their original musicals, THE CHRISTMAS STORY, is supposed to be FOX TV's live-action musical for this coming holiday season and Pasek & Paul are actually writing new songs for it.

I've wanted an early release of some songs, if not the soundtrack album, because they can serve as calling cards for the movie.

I know patience is a virtue -- but it is really hard to abide by it

Jo

[hughmanity]

Thanks, Jo, for your always comprehensive and well thought-out take on the "biz" ( and the "buzz" for that matter)!

[jo]

The Venice Film Festival ( the Cinema part of the Biennale) has announced its lineup --

www.tracking-board.com/venice-film-festival-lineup-includes-jim-carrey-andy-kaufman-documentary/


The mix is more representative of the international character of European film festivals than Toronto.

The Greatest Showman is not part of the lineup.


Btw, in 2016 a film from my country, the Philippines, won the Best Picture award ( Golden Lion).

variety.com/2016/film/festivals/the-woman-who-left-by-filipino-auteur-lav-diaz-wins-venice-film-festival-golden-lion-complete-list-of-winners-1201856697/

The Filipino auteur-director Lav Diaz was extended an invitation to join the AMPAS ( Oscar voters) this year, along with another Filipino auteur-director, Brilliante Mendoza, who won Best Director in a previous Cannes Film Festival.


Jo

[jo]

Are audiences tiring of spectacle ??

lrmonline.com/news/audiences-are-tired-of-spectacle-and-hollywood-doesnt-care-the-lrm-weekend

AUDIENCES ARE TIRED OF SPECTACLE AND HOLLYWOOD DOESN'T CARE...


The major studios are giving up on small and indie films to go all-in on big-budget blockbusters, franchises, and universes -- despite audience fatigue being at all-time highs. The big studios are now merely puzzle pieces in giant, international conglomerates, more interested in selling action figures than making quality films. Seems a bit harsh, right? I'll wager that your local movie is showing maybe 2 small or indie films (on its smallest screens) but the rest of the Cineplex is almost certainly jammed full of big-budget blockbusters, which hog the best screens and limit the potential for anything else. Given the cost of filmmaking today, it's a no-win scenario for small and indie projects.

Blockbuster films are all telling the same story, essentially. A common complaint I hear is that today's blockbusters are all adhere to the same formula: CGI spectacle + dumbed-down plot + big battle climax = huge international box office. Pick any major film this year and the pattern is clear: Spider-Man: Homecoming isn't a whole helluva lot different than Wonder Woman, Logan, The Fate of the Furious, Kong: Skull Island in terms of major plot beats, emphasis on special effects, and third-act mayhem. Even our animated films have their own rote patterns, but kids are more forgiving.Does it seem like movies are getting dumber too? You might also notice that films today either have either less dialog, simplified dialog, or use a bunch of gibberish or techno-babble. Why? Because Hollywood makes most of its money overseas where voices are dubbed (for example: Despicable Me 3 is a huge hit with $235 million domestically, but it earned an additional $592 outside the U.S.). In any given superhero film, where CGI and stuntmen stand-in for principal actors at a growing rate, it makes less sense to pay Robert Downey Jr. tens of millions of dollars when a lesser-known performer can do the same job cheaper and their performance is dubbed later for each non-English region. King Arthur earned $14.6 million its opening weekend on a $175 million budget.

But here's the thing, audiences aren't stupid. In fact, they're staying away in droves. According to Box Office Mojo 2017 is down 2.2% from the same time last year and only about 1.1% better than 2012. What's evident is that when a movie fails, it fails big (The Mummy, King Arthur, and probably this weekend's The Dark Tower). Bear in mind that 3D was also generating a lot more revenue a few years ago; according to THR in 2010 3D represented 21% of revenues but last year it dropped to 14% -- studios are cutting back on 3D too.The fact is, Hollywood has lost step both with advances in consumer technology and the shifting nature of entertainment consumption. Uh, what? To put it another way, a family of four could easily drop $100 on tickets, concessions, parking, and dinner when just $8-$10 a month plus a large pizza (w/ home delivery) gets you an entire night of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, or HBO at a fraction of the same cost. Bottom line, people are going to the theaters a lot less today than even a few years ago, and that trend isn't going to reverse itself all by itself.

The good news is, even if Hollywood is betting their future on formulaic blockbusters, small and indie films have found a home on streaming services and premium cable. Netflix is pouring millions into films with top actors like War Machine, Beasts of No Nation, and Bright. Hulu, Amazon, HBO, and Showtime are also keeping pace. Thanks to online retailers like Amazon, big screen TVs, stereo speakers, and videogame consoles are cheaper than ever and finally able to represent a theater-like experience (a promise we've been hearing since flying cars was a topic).

So don't despair, if you're a fan of quality cinema, it's finding its way to your living room. Unfortunately, it looks like movie theaters are stuck showing the same old CGI spectacles, at least until Hollywood wakes up and figures out new ways of telling stories (hint: the old ways worked just fine).

Read more at: lrmonline.com/news/audiences-are-tired-of-spectacle-and-hollywood-doesnt-care-the-lrm-weekend

[jo]

On a related subject -- is the so-called " infantilization" of films ( now at a possible tipping point) being also followed to some extent on Broadway, where it is called the "Disneyfication" of the theatre? The major film franchises can be traced to a great extent to the Disney's Marvel Studios franchises in the superhero genre, so the coined words could be identically viewed? A new Broadway attraction is the coming stage adaptation of FROZEN, which judging by the kilometric posts on BWW seems to be drawing very significant interest.

Beauty and the Beast was an exception adaptation -- the animated movie, with its score and book based on an old French fairy tale, won a rare Oscar nomination for Best Picture. The live action theatre staging plus the appeal of the overall musical score gave it long life in the theatre. Cinderella also enjoyed a recent revival, after the successful live-action Branagh film. Ditto with Ariel ( Little Mermaid), which may have already plans for a live-action movie.

A musicalized Harry Potter tale is also coming to the theatre -- although the appeal is to a slightly older demos.

LOL -- I thought fairy tale adaptations ( but with a different inspiration) were basically left to Sondheim's INTO THE WOODS

Jo

[jo]

Film critics, Rotten Tomatoes, word of mouth -- an analysis from Variety on the impact of film critics and the more recent phenomenon of the ratings-oriented Rotten Tomatoes.

variety.com/2017/film/columns/rottentomatoes-the-danger-of-film-critics-speaking-as-one-1202533533/#respond

Is there a herd mentality going on?

Are other factors other than film quality and production values considered in giving a rating at RT ( such as the social pressure to boost a film like Wonder Woman or Get Out in the interest of inclusivity )?

Is word of mouth actually the stronger factor?


Do read the feedback section, too -- it has a lot of good insights!



Jo

[jo]

An interesting analysis by Anne Thompson on the success and the current threats to FOX Searchlight as the best film distributor for indies and other niche market movies (not covered by the major studios), while providing some insights on a much-changed film market for this type of movies.

www.indiewire.com/2017/08/patti-cake-fox-searchlight-specialty-distributor-oscars-1201868626/

Btw, Fox Searchlight's most successful domestic box office performer was JUNO (Oscar nominee for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actress acting honors) , helmed by Jason Reitman, who also happens to be directing Hugh Jackman's latest film project The Front Runner. Will they be interested in releasing the next Reitman project, given that its lead has been in several success FOX ( the mother studio) film productions/releases?

Jo

[jo]

How dire is the Hollywood collapse -- the summer season was very disappointing and somewhat ominous!

www.artshub.com.au/news-article/features/film/david-tiley/how-dire-is-the-hollywood-collapse-254356


A very incisive analysis on what is happening at the box office --


Excerpts :

The lessons?

Franchises are not doing well. Studio pictures are being saved by higher takes from around the world - but those are being saved by China. Take that market away and the figures look much worse.

However, the system works on a small set of pictures which cost a big chunk of money to make and distribute, and a couple of dogs can make the results look pretty dreadful. Deadline points out that the box office was 4% up before May so the problem exploded over summer. The studios failed to work the holiday weekends with their usual acumen, climaxing with the Labor Day weekend which finished yesterday. And, Deadline says bluntly, 'The R-Rated comedy is broken.'

But, production does not a value chain make and the exhibition companies have been badly hurt. By the middle of August, the share price for AMC had plunged by 55% in fifteen weeks, while IMAX bled 40% and Regal dropped 29%. 

Bloomberg claims that Warners, Universal, Apple and Comcast -  Disney is an exception - are likely to insist on a deal with the cinema chains which forces a holdback period of only weeks. Then the VOD folks release a premium cost production which streams into homes, and splits the revenue with the chains.  What that does to the indy cinemas does not feel good.
 
However, all this is likely to be overshadowed by the role of China. Last year the Chinese box office began to drop, leading to dire predictions, but we can see now that the Chinese market has continued to stabilise the US studio returns and is the highest ever. However, the Wanda Group is the majority owner of AMC Theatres (and Hoyts) and is under intense pressure from the government to pull back on its ambitious media growth, while founder and chairman Wang Jianlin is no longer allowed to leave China. 


The conclusion so far? A messy summer, which could be redeemed by a strong fall and winter, with pictures like the Stephen KIng story It on the catapault. The studios are not going bust, and the tentpole strategy continues to work. But the wobble had better end by the end of 2017, or financiers are going to realise that the studios have locked themselves into a 2018 schedule which the audience has rejected. So we watch and wait...


It is possible that the 'worst ticket sales in 25 years' could be a sign that something crucial broke this summer, and the audience will never come back...

[jo]

What drives Hollywood as to what kind of movies to make ?


www.vox.com/culture/2017/9/7/16257426/box-office-global-domestic-china-mummy-furious-despicable-me-wolf-warrior


Excerpts :

International box office has a huge impact on what kind of films Hollywood makes

Most people who track box office returns look at “domestic” (meaning US) and “worldwide” box office when thinking about how a movie performed in the marketplace. The key to understanding what constitutes a success by Hollywood standards lies in the combination of those two figures — and sometimes, in the difference between them...

Still, the numbers indicate that even though Americans may seem to be souring on some kinds of movies — the endless sequels, the limp reboots — those movies will almost certainly continue to be made, because studios have an eye not just to the US, but also a broader worldwide market. And as long as that worldwide market is profitable, the movies will keep being made.

There's more in-depth analysis of the box office performances on both the USA and the overseas markets. Please check out the link for the rest of the article.

Jo