Hollywood just doesn't get it

[reveal]

reveal posted a comment that suggested that crappy movies make less money, in general. His evidence was that movies that got poor reviews show more or less lower box-office take. He WASN'T saying that poor reviews ALWAYS equal crappy films, or that low box-office always equals crappy films -- he wasn't making any point at all in that direction. He was just saying that there seems to be a correlation between poor reviews and lower box-office performance.

Thank you. I think you're the first person to get my point.

There seems to be a direct correlation between the "likability" of an action movie released so far this summer to how much it makes at the theater. Critics are a good guage of how the general audience will like a movie, not the critics word is gospel, so that's why I used them. That's why I think the quote is so ludicrous. The "taste" of audiences this summer is not geared towards comedy, it's geared towards a movie the general audience finds to be a "good movie." Period. It has always been that way and it always will.

 

[mmadsen]

Everyone here should probably read Art De Vany's Hollywood Economics: How Extreme Uncertainty Shapes the Film Industry. William Goldman was right: nobody knows anything.

 

[barsoomcore]

Exactly! They don't know! They have no frickin' idea what they're doing, and they know it, and they do everything they possibly can to keep the shareholders from knowing it.

Hollywood has gotten a lot better at covering its bases in the last ten years. They aren't any better at picking successful films, but they ARE better at not putting so much at risk with each picture. I don't know if we'll see another production company getting wiped out by a single film like Carolco was by Cutthroat Island.

Who am I kidding? Nobody knows anything. OF COURSE somebody will get wiped out by a flop. It's inevitable.

 

[Ranger REG]

No offense, RR, but as you earlier in this thread admitted that you are pretty much only a genre movie fan, I wouldn't take your opinion on the broad ramifications of mainstream summer movies and their sales data as very informed or informative.

Although I do agree with reveal's general premise; the conclusion the Hollywood exec reached is preposterous.

No offense taken. As with my hobby, I'm not one to follow the mainstream.

 

[Shadowdancer]

You have evidence for this? Or are you now making stuff up?


What does this have to do with Hijinks' comment? Hijinks asserted that more people like musicals because of Chicago. I pointed out that there is no evidence to suggest that is true. You come along and note that in the wake of Chicago (and bizarrely, Moulin Rouge, which can't honestly be counted as any sort of big success), two more musicals have reached the big screen in the following three years. Although let us note that in the three years PREVIOUS to Chicago we saw The King And I, Hedwig And The Angry Inch and indeed the not-as-well-received-as-you-seem-to-think Moulin Rouge. So it's tough to argue that we're seeing some dramatic increase in the number of musical projects getting moved forward.

And even if we DID, that's no evidence that Hijinks is correct -- that's evidence that studio execs THINK Hijinks is correct. And studio execs have proven notoriously bad at predicting what people want.

Facts. I love facts.

No, I'm not making it up. I've read several stories since Chicago won best picture about Hollywood studios greenlighting more musicals because of its success.. Associated Press, Entertainment Weekly, several other places.

And while Moulin Rogue wasn't as successful at the box office as Chicago was, it was nominated for several Oscars and that helped it do well in DVD sales. So it is considered a success. If Chicago hadn't followed it with greater success the next year, it probably would have been considered an abberation. But because of Chicago, studio execs consider it the start of a trend.

As for Hijinks' comments -- yes, there is no factual proof. But if you reread my last paragraph, I was making the same point you are. We can't know if Chicago made musicals more popular with audiences until some more musicals are released and box office figures are tallied. But the Hollywood studios think that musicals are now more popular with audiences -- that's why they've finally greenlighted several musicals that for years couldn't get made: Phantom of the Opera, Rent, The Producers (also being released this year), others that are currently in production.

Personally, I don't think audiences are ready to go see traditional movie musicals, where the songs spring out of the action. I think the reason large numbers of people were able to enjoy Chicago is because almost all of the songs were presented as either fantasy sequences or as musical numbers staged in a club.

 

[barsoomcore]

We can't know if Chicago made musicals more popular with audiences until some more musicals are released and box office figures are tallied.

Yeah, exactly. Sorry my point was so unclear. It was because your post started with "No, he's not making it up," that I assumed you were disagreeing with me.

I'm funny that way.

 

[satori01]

I stand by my Structural Michael Bay take, which is his movies have succeded before on signifigantly less quality then the Island has now.

As to the success of War of the Worlds and Mr and Mrs Smith I would say this is a perfect example of the star power that many people would cite as being one of the bad traits Hollywood execs push to often in a film, Brad, Tom, Angelina, and Spielberg will put asses in the seats regardless of the subject.

It would be intresting to see a study done on the movie viewing habits of people during shared national experiences like war.

I think what people dont understand about Hollywood is the same people dont understand about any large money consuming endevour employing hundreds of people over many years, the work often varies from the plan, and the plan itself often is shown way to late to be inadequate. The scary part is that so much money is invested that the movie has to be released in a flawed format, to try to recoup even a fraction of the expenses.

 

[barsoomcore]

I think what people dont understand about Hollywood is the same people dont understand about any large money consuming endevour employing hundreds of people over many years, the work often varies from the plan, and the plan itself often is shown way to late to be inadequate. The scary part is that so much money is invested that the movie has to be released in a flawed format, to try to recoup even a fraction of the expenses.

Yeah. I sometimes try to explain to people that making a crappy movie is really, really hard. I mean, it's a LOT of work by a lot of people. Bad movies don't just make themselves -- people sweat and labour and struggle to bring them into being.

Good movies are lots of work, too. I'm not sure in fact that there's a level-of-effort correlation to movie quality...

 

[Desdichado]

As to the success of War of the Worlds and Mr and Mrs Smith I would say this is a perfect example of the star power that many people would cite as being one of the bad traits Hollywood execs push to often in a film, Brad, Tom, Angelina, and Spielberg will put asses in the seats regardless of the subject.

I still don't buy it. Ewan McGregor may not be as big a name as Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise, but he's no slouch either.

Note: I'm not at all trying to say I know why The Island is failing financially; I'm as mystified as anyone. I'm saying that the explanations I've heard so far don't satisfy at all, though.

 

[Hijinks]

I mean, I'll take Hijinks' comment on Chicago. Is it a fact that MORE people now watch musicals because of Chicago? Are musicals known to be more successful in its wake than beforehand? Are we seeing an explosion of musicals now to take advantage of this swelling demand?

And even if we DID, that's no evidence that Hijinks is correct -- that's evidence that studio execs THINK Hijinks is correct. And studio execs have proven notoriously bad at predicting what people want.

Someone missed my point entirely.

A person posted that certain sci-fi films increased the general public's interest in sci-fi. Someone else said "What do you mean?" I posted another example using Chicago from my own personal experience. Many of my family members are more willing to watch musicals because they saw Chicago and liked it. When did my statement say that there was a huge "swelling" increase in musical film interest? I didn't. I said more people were interested. Whether that's 100 more people in the US, whatever.

I was merely trying to give an example of what someone else said, because another person couldn't, for whatever reason, understand the concept.

I really don't care if I'm "correct" at all. I can certainly state my opinion, and I did.