Can computers predict which movies will flop?

[Desdichado]

I think that's an understatement. Some of the opinions and behavior I've witnessed from Hollywood types over the last few years makes me wonder if they're from the Bizzaro world from the old Superman comics.

Yeah, there's all kinds of movies that get great critical response, bomb at the box office, and then some studio exec makes some statement like, "Well, I guess America's not ready for this yet."

Well, duh. Try living in America for a change, and that would be immediately obvious.

 

[Dagger75]

Okay here are some upcoming movie, My predictions based on what I have seen upto taday, thats not much


Munich --Bomb
Transamerica -- Bomb (just read a 1 sentence synopsis. Hows that for a prediction)
The Producers --Bomb
Rumor Has It... -- Hit
Fun with Dick and Jane --Bomb
Cheaper by the Dozen 2 --Bomb
Casanova -- Bomb (Never heard of it but just from the name I can tell)
The Ringer --Hit
The New World --Bomb
Mrs. Henderson Presents --Never heard of it

I don't think King Kong will do as good as everybody is expecting. 3 hours long, the commercials showed everything, won't stand up to repeated viewing.

These are just my opionions.

 

[Hand of Evil]

The only gauge for a hit or a bomb is profit; so we can look at the cost of a movie and decide if it will reach its cost or not; if it does, you have a hit, if not, a bomb. So, taking that into account lets look at the above list add cost and predict.

let me hunt up the cost and put them in...back in a moment...this was very disappointing, not too much info to go on.

Munich - no data but a Spielberg movie - hit
Transamerica - no data - bomb
The Producers - no data - bomb
Rumor Has It... - no data - bomb
Fun with Dick and Jane - 100 million - bomb
Cheaper by the Dozen 2 - no data but don't think over 30 mill to make - hit
Casanova - no data but has studs and R rating - hit
The Ringer - no data but comedy on the lines of Wedding Crashers - Hit
The New World - 30 million - hit
Mrs. Henderson Presents - no data - bomb

 

[sniffles]

I don't really think anyone, much less a computer, can predict what will succeed and what won't. Look at the original Star Wars. Who would've thought that would be so successful?
I do wish Hollywood would stop making these value judgements based on how much money a film makes at the US box office, though. They act like the rest of the world doesn't have any opinion. And many films do better in video; people may decide they don't want to go to a theatre to see it, but they still see it. Films can also build up popularity over time. So first-week box-office receipts just aren't a good indicator of anything other than how many people are willing to pay to see a movie that week.

 

[Firebeetle]

Very interesting model you got there. . .

I think Ramesh Sharda is on to something, and it scares me. Check out the link to his 2002 paper in the news link above. His model is very accurate. Naturally, the factors he speaks of do not include nor even nod to the effect of creativity and artistic voice in movies. This makes hits above all else IMHO.

What I would like to see is a "less is more" attitude honestly. Independent films that cost so little to make that no one minds taking a risk in making them. This has provided us with many great movies and franchises and is a damn sight better than the constant regurgitation of ideas we see in Hollywood today.

 

[Desdichado]

Hmmm... Alright, I'll put my money where my mouth is. But I don't know all of those movies mentioned, having not seen a teaser/trailer or poster, or heard any buzz, so for those I've simply ignored them...

• Munich -- Moderately successful. Since this doesn't look like a really big budget movie (although I could be wrong there) it'll be a good investment anyway.
  
• The Producers -- Moderate success. On Broadway this has done very well, and lots of folks will want to see it for that reason alone to see what the big deal is. Not a blockbuster though.
• Rumor Has It... -- Moderately successful, but this is a low budget sex-comedy, so that's within expectations.
  
• Fun with Dick and Jane -- Based on what I've seen of it so far (not much) I think this will do well enough. It depends a lot on things I don't know about it, though, like is it actually funny or not. The concept's OK, though.
  
• Cheaper by the Dozen 2 -- Very minor hit, edging towards bomb. It depends on the budget if this is successful or not, because I don't predict big sales. Although it may pick up a lot of folks looking for a family movie and not seeing many other options in theaters at the moment; that could give it some extra legs.
  
• The New World -- Bomb. Looks too PC and overtly Oscar ambitious, which tends to turn off mainstream audiences. Of course, that could be a function of poor marketing, but I don't see this one getting anyone excited. The delays in release are another bad sign that editors are struggling to make a decent movie out of a bunch of film that's drek. Or am I mixing this up with some other movie; it has had delays in the release date, hasn't it?
  
• King Kong -- it'll be a hit. People will see it on name (both the King Kong name and Peter Jackson name) alone. It'll need to be, though--with a budget like it has, it'll have to make crazy money to be profitable. Based on early feedback, it just might be good enough to do it, too.

 

[drothgery]

I don't really think anyone, much less a computer, can predict what will succeed and what won't. Look at the original Star Wars. Who would've thought that would be so successful?

In the late 70s, I'm pretty sure sci-fi was a popular genre in fiction with few/no good movies. It shouldn't have been hard to project that a reasonably good sci-fi movie would be a hit.

 

[Dark Jezter]

For everyone wondering how much Munich cost to make, I heard a report on the news the a while back where it mentioned that the movie cost around $70 million to make.

And I agree with JD that The New World will probably bomb. I first started seeing the trailers months ago, and it gave me no desire whatsoever to see the movie. It looks too much like a PC Dances With Wolves clone set during the colonization of the Americas.

 

[Chain Lightning]

About the computer formula:

I used to work under a movie studio for a few years (in their tv dept.) and I remember being at one function once where I over heard a conversation about a formula studios actually use. Maybe someone else that works in the industry here can confirm or elaborate on this? Since I worked in tv I didn't know what feature film people did .... so its stiff fuzzy to me. But it had something to do with plugging an actor's name in and calculating things based off their movies gross for pass few movies. A kind of "who's hot and how hot will it make our movie with them in it" computer program. When I heard this I totally rolled my eyes and thought , "oh man....no wonder why I see a lot of miscasted movies".

I don't think King Kong will do as good as everybody is expecting. 3 hours long, the commercials showed everything, won't stand up to repeated viewing.

These are just my opionions.

Just saw King Kong and I gotta say, there was a TON more stuff in the movie than anything I've seen in the commercial. But then again, I haven't been watching any of the commercials in the last week and I know sometimes there's a "close to release" and "after release" type commercials that show a bit more.

Nevertheless, King Kong was a great ride and I think it'll do well. Maybe not Titanic well...but pretty good.

 

[sniffles]

In the late 70s, I'm pretty sure sci-fi was a popular genre in fiction with few/no good movies. It shouldn't have been hard to project that a reasonably good sci-fi movie would be a hit.

I was around in the late '70s and saw Star Wars numerous times when it was still in theatres in its' original form. In my experience sci fi was not hugely popular at that time; it was viewed as a niche market at best. It was a massive shock to anyone I knew that a movie like that could be such a hit. But that's all just based on my memory, and I grew up in a small town in Texas. Maybe things were different in other parts of the country.