Hollywood just doesn't get it

[barsoomcore]

This is a really weird thread -- it's like there's some secret process running that is altering every post as people view it so that nobody's having the same conversation.

Here's what I got out of it:

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.

I agree. I see the same correlation he does. Then I see a whole bunch of posts about how "I don't listen to critics" or "Money isn't what determines great art".

Then JD comes along and says "Nobody's saying money determines what's great art, but money is pretty much the only objective data we have."

And responses come predictably saying "Innovation and growing audience."

And I say, "Um. What?"

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?

I'm not. I mean sure, Rent is on the way but that was only a matter of time anyhow.

It's a nice theory, and maybe it's true, but I think you're making that up. Likewise MM's comment about how 2001 effected some huge transformation in the way people think about science fiction. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. Where's the evidence? Without any evidence, or at least a suggestion of where to look, this is just opinion-throwing.

Point being that reveal came up with a pretty striking correlation between reviews and money, and you can deduce from that correlation that movies that most people think suck don't make as much money as movies most people think rock. And that's NOT just opinion-throwing, that's looking at facts and considering what they mean.

Movies that I think suck make huge money, and movies that I think rock lose spectacularly, but that's because everyone else in the world has such terrible taste.

 

[Desdichado]

Point being that reveal came up with a pretty striking correlation between reviews and money, and you can deduce from that correlation that movies that most people think suck don't make as much money as movies most people think rock. And that's NOT just opinion-throwing, that's looking at facts and considering what they mean.

I think one factor that kinda confused the issue is that the comment in the article that sparked reveal's original post actually refers to a movie that seems to defy his generalization. I mean, I agree with reveal--I think there is a correlation between reviews and money made (mostly) but The Island commercially is only doing a few steps better than Cutthroat Island in spite of having mostly favorable reviews and fan response, at least based on the data I saw on movies.yahoo.com.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not trying to argue with you, , but I just felt the need to point out a few things:
1.From the Earth to the Moon:1867
2. Buck Rogers: 1928
3. Flash Gordon: 1934
4. R is for Rocket: 1943
5: Dr. Who 1963 (ok, maybe it doesn't quite fit your criteria, the Dr. did fight robotic space aliens. But I still think Dr. Who is one of the best, most innovative, sci-fi settings ever)
6. Dune: 1965
7. Star Trek:1966
8. 2001: A space Odyssey: 1969

I'm sure other people can think of more.

I'm not saying you should write an essay, but perhaps you could elaborate a little? I understand you're "generalizing in a big huge way," but I can't really imagine what you might be trying to say.

You're not talking about movie release dates, though. I think MM was specifically talking about the impact of 2001 the movie on sci-fi in cinema. And I think he's absolutely right as far as it goes; 2001 was a watershed movie in many ways in terms of making sci-fi a viable genre for cinema.

A fact for which I'm extremely grateful.

 

[takyris]

Actually, RottenTomatoes places "Island: The Clonus Horror" at 39%, still safely in Rotten-land, so while it was reviewed a bit more positively by critics in general (who, iirc, thought it was more thoughtful than an average action film), it still didn't make people happy.

That said, I agree with Reveal, although I can see where using critics as his general "Here's my basis for 'people didn't like it'" could cause confusion. Doing a whole bunch of RottenTomatoes searches to come up with a graph sounds like, well, work.

Generally, yeah, bad movies make less money than good movies of the same genre and budget and publicity-support level. A bad blockbuster action movie summer release might make more money than a good low-budget no-name-actor romantic comedy with no publicity push from the studio, but it probably won't make as much money as a good blockbuster action movie summer release.

 

[Mystery Man]

I think MM was specifically talking about the impact of 2001 the movie on sci-fi in cinema. And I think he's absolutely right as far as it goes; 2001 was a watershed movie in many ways in terms of making sci-fi a viable genre for cinema.

And that's all I'm saying really.

My only point is IMHO it's bad to start to use dollars to identify what is "good" IMHO. For example, when read about (not saying anyone here does!) how Star Wars is compared to say, LoTR in dollars I start to grind my teeth. 2001 couldn't hope to make the cash that Star Wars did, but it sure did have better dialogue IMHO!

The Island commercially is only doing a few steps better than Cutthroat Island in spite of having mostly favorable reviews and fan response, at least based on the data I saw on movies.yahoo.com.

And The Island is probably head and shoulders above Fantastic Four (Stricty conjecture of course, I have yet to see either one)yet all we're going to hear about from the media is how much money it's bringing in by comparison.

 

[Desdichado]

My only point is IMHO it's bad to start to use dollars to identify what is "good" IMHO.

Well, following barsoomcore's lead, we can not use the qualitative word good, and simply point out that there seems to be an obvious correllation between between reviews and box office take, and if movie moguls are stumped for the reason why movies aren't making as much money as they want they oughtta look at that extremely basic and key piece of data. Although, IIRC, you've already also said that you believe making a movie to please critics is a bad idea.

I don't know if I completely agree with that--sure there are rare movies that are phenomenal commercial successes in spite of critics reviews and many artsy-fartsy critics' darlings aren't particularly blockbustery. But those are the statistical outliers. The general trend seems to be a safe bet.

 

[barsoomcore]

My only point is IMHO it's bad to start to use dollars to identify what is "good" IMHO.

Right, but that's a different conversation. This conversation is about "Can we identify any particular reasons why some movies don't make as much money as other movies."

And the answer appears to be "Because not as many people like them," which I'm not sure is the most helpful answer ever, but it IS well-supported.

The big question is "Why don't as many people like them?"

And the answer to that is "Because they didn't hire ME to write them, dadgumit!"

Actually, it's funny. I was reviewing some of my screenplays (all unsold) and thinking, "Damn, I WANT to see a movie about a travelling mercenary swordsman who gets trapped in a town full of zombies and hooks up with a bitter ex-mercenary woman who's husband's just been killed by the zombie-leading spider god cultist to penetrate the spider god's lair, free the villagers, destroy the underground temple in a spectacular flash flood, and then inspire the woman to get her bloody, thunderous revenge on the bad guys and ride off into the sunset."

Probably wouldn't score very high on RottenTomatoes, nor at the box office, but I'd PAY to watch that.

 

[Shadowdancer]

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?

I'm not. I mean sure, Rent is on the way but that was only a matter of time anyhow.

It's a nice theory, and maybe it's true, but I think you're making that up.

No, he's not making it up. That's the way Hollywood works. Because of the success, both at the box office and at the Oscars, of the musical Chicago, studios are now willing to greenlight other movie musicals.

Rent was not just a matter of time. It had been stuck in Hollywood limbo ever since it was a Broadway hit, along with many other musicals. No Hollywood studio was willing to greenlight them.

After the success of Moulin Rogue one year and then Chicago the next, suddenly studios started greenlighting musicals, at least "name" musicals. Phantom of the Opera, which came out last year, was the first. Rent and several others are in the pipeline, will be coming out later this year and in the future.

Whether there is an actual audience demand for musicals is yet to be determined -- we'll see when the movies reach the theaters. But as far as the studios are concerned, they perceive there is a demand because of the success of Chicago and Moulin Rogue.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Oh, and you seem to be confused between the roles of director and writer for a movie. Michael Bay was the director, not the writer, so he didn't really have much influence in exploring the sci-fi parable aspects of the movie, like you seem to want to. Which, personally, I think would easily have made the movie considerably worse, not better.

Now you are the one who seems to be extremely uninformed. In Hollywood, a "name" director (and Michael Bay, for better or for worse, is a "name" director) has much greater influence over what ends up in the final product than the writer does. The writer does the original script, yes, but if the director wants it changed, it gets changed. The studio will even bring in other people to rewrite the script. The director sometimes does his own rewriting of certain scenes.

It's entirely possible that the original script for The Island did explore more fully the sci-fi parable aspects of the movie. Then Bay might have said, "I don't want to film this crap, let's cut it out in favor of more explosions and chases and stuff." And the studio would probably say, "OK, whatever you want. Explosions and chases appeal to more people than stuff that actually makes them think." So it got cut.

Or it could have been filmed, then cut in the editing room, for length or because Bay didn't like how it flowed or fit with the rest of the movie. Movies can be tremendously changed in the editing process. The main story that made it into Annie Hall, for example, was just a subplot of the original film. They cut out all the rest of the stuff and changed the focus of the movie in editing. There also were several attempts to make movie musicals in the 80s and 90s that didn't score well with test audiences, so all of the songs were cut out and they were released as non-musicals.

Even "name" actors have more power over what gets into the finished version of the movie than the screenwriter does.

 

[barsoomcore]

Because of the success, both at the box office and at the Oscars, of the musical Chicago, studios are now willing to greenlight other movie musicals.

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

After the success of Moulin Rogue one year and then Chicago the next, suddenly studios started greenlighting musicals, at least "name" musicals. Phantom of the Opera, which came out last year, was the first. Rent and several others are in the pipeline, will be coming out later this year and in the future.

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.