July 9, 2006
 
RUTHERFORD ON FILM: Movie Hit Picking: More Than Rolling Dice and Flipping Coin? Part 2 of 3
 
By Tony Rutherford
Huntington News Network Writer
 
Huntington, WV (HNN) -- The previous article explained how economists theorized that the advance selection of “hit” and “flop” motion pictures can be attributed not to talent, creativity, or a knack for the public”s taste, but solely through a randomness comparable to rolling dice and flipping a coin.
 
Naturally, the Hollywood executives disagree, but the L.A. Times piece attributes their arguments as simply a sense of denial that they can “control” the outcome of a film”s success or failure in the marketplace.
 
One portion of the article adds that despite stars, director, and other favorable pieces in the complex puzzle of filmmaking, an on paper tent pole can go array during the production process whether affected or afflicted by forces similar to weather predictions i.e. changes in public taste, acting chemistry (or lack thereof), and the contributions of co-stars and crafts personnel.
 
I do not pretend to offset the executives or economists in their conjectures, but I have observed marketing factors that intertwine with the popularity (or lack thereof ) of some films that go out in nationwide release.
 
Green lighting a project aside, the release date of a film in comparison to other films within a one to two week window before and afterward does impact attendance at cinemas. Although the season of the year has its own implications based on general movie attendance (summer and Christmas seasons are the hottest; January and September are cold), studios have an unfortunate knack for releasing too many films of the same genre at the same time and/or releasing films targeting the same demographic groups.
 
As glaring examples, once the distributors rediscovered the popularity of family oriented productions, they determined you can not have too much of a good thing, right? Under that theory “Over the Hedge” and the “Garfield” sequel should have both been mega blockbusters. But, “Hedge” came out first on a weekend in which its only major new competitor was “The Da Vinci Code.” Obviously, the likely audiences for these two films are diverse.
 
The animated “Hedge” had no overlapping animated film until the release of “Cars.” That gave the first animated picture about a month without any films seeking the same demographic. Sure, “X Men III: The Last Stand” appealed to families, but the pic also had a built in appeal from the previous two films, comic book fans, and older young people who might have a prejudice against animation.
 
By the release of “Garfield” on June 23, the picture had to fend off the prior animation productions as well as live action family fare that had been creeping into the marketplace. Meanwhile, “The Break Up” had a mid-position to capture that segment of the audience immune to action and/or animation.
 
Corporate Hollywood executives have a play it safe attitude believing that sequels, prequels and re-makes maintain an already established group of moviegoers just waiting to buy a ticket. Since a sequel tends to gross about 60% of the former, the studio figures a production budget, add in the marketing campaign, and calculates the math assuming that an offspring of a tent pole success guarantees at a minimum a “hit.”
 
But a follow up minus the ingredients of the predecessor(s) do not a tent pole make. Cases in point --- the “Superman,” “Batman” and “Star Trek” series” have all gone in and out of temporary retirements.
 
Movie history was made this weekend, as the “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man”s Chest” scored the hottest opening in history. Yet, “Superman Returns,” one of the most expensive films ever made, came out “hot” but “cooled” rapidly. Actually, the brilliant scheduling may be the exec who determined that “Devil Wears Prada” would counter Man of Steel demographics.
 
Roasting hot to ice cold appears to be a trend among comic book super hero productions. Their fans and others seeking to be with the “hip” crowd attend the first couple of weeks when the picture enjoys a spot on top of the boxoffice popularity chart.
 
But, neither national media nor local media used to blurb the Top Five movies of the weekend, like CD”s on a Top 40 play list. Films had a few weeks to “find” their audiences, which theatre owners liked, since their percentage of admission revenue generally increases the longer a feature runs. An unexpected hit, like “Star Wars,” brought smiles from cinema owners. By “The Empire Strikes Back,” though, 20th Century Fox “knew” they had a “franchise,” so its terms skewed in favor of the studio rather than George Lucas or theatres who benefited from repeat business.
 
By contrast, only last summer, studios, moviegoers, and theatre owners alike were disappointed by the performances of particular summer releases. That year brought an extremes only selection --- giant hits or giant flops with nothing solid in the middle.
 
Home video/DVD, as well as PPV and premium movie channels, have permanently altered the release patterns that at least once before underwent a metamorphous.
 
Prior to television, more studios made more movies and more people went to the movies more often. Thus, a theatre generally ran films for shorter periods i.e. Sunday-Tuesday and Wednesday through Saturday. When TV decreased attendance, the number of pictures dropped too and the length of run increased as smaller movie houses closed their doors.
 
Hollywood panicked that no one would come to a theatre, so they countered by making expensive “blockbusters” in the 50s and 60s introducing new formats (3-D, Cinerama) and adding content ( nudity, violence, mature subject matter ) that TV could not show. During that period, Cinerama (films showed on a semi-circular screen with three projectors running at the same time) classics, such as “2001: A Space Odyssey” or “Lawrence of Arabia” played at the same “house” (i.e. theatre) for months and in larger cities even a year.
 
Population shifts occurred about the same time, as middle class and professionals sought relief from decaying downtowns and fled to the suburbs. Newly constructed suburban theatres adapted to spiraling construction and less attendance with fewer seats. Eventually, this trend squeezed the downtown movie palaces with 2,000-3,000 capacity out of business, as the smaller, newer theatres had less overhead.
 
Having less seats meant that a popular picture at one theatre could not accommodate all those wanting to see it the first week. Sell outs occurred more often which increased the odds that a picture would run for a lengthier period.
 
At approximately the same time, anti-trust action forced studios to give up their ownership of movie theatre chains. Where before every Paramount pic played at the Paramount theatre, now, the theatre owners “bid” on each picture. Since film companies made the most during the early weeks of a run, they added “advances” and “guarantees” to win the rights to show a purported sure hit.
 
Unfortunately, the randomness theory and others arose to create a system that had owners bidding on unseen product. A paper “hit” with name “cast” might bring the studio mucho bucks from the early bidding on , say, “Heaven”s Gate,” but , instead, of a long run, the film itself did not deliver, leaving theatre owners stuck playing a film over multiple weeks to mostly empty seats.
 
Litigation eventually stopped the blind bidding process, which gave owners and their bookers an opportunity to at least view the finished product before plucking down dollars for the license to show it in their community.
 
If you remember that population shift, theatre owners started building cinemas in shopping centers with multiple screens and varied sized auditoriums. A film will open in the largest auditorium then gradually be moved to smaller ones as the time since initial release increases. Further, a dud could be sent to the smallest auditorium immediately and left to flounder until the end of its contract while more popular pictures took over the larger auditoriums.
 
Leave it to Hollywood to trump the enterprising exhibitors (i.e. theatre owners). The latest trend favors “on demand” scheduling in which a picture opens on multiple screens with a wide variety of start times, then, gradually dwindles its screens and times until ultimately ending the run with, perhaps, only one showing a day.
 
But, this new system of popularity in which a films must be at the top of the chart opening week created disincentives for discovering films that do not have positive advance word of mouth. With every release shoving for the #1 position, it does not assist those productions that gain support once the first group of filmgoers see the flick and pass on favorable word of mouth. The lightning of networks and internet get the word --- pro or con --- out faster, thus, again increasing the importance of selection of a good release date for a production.
 
NEXT: What you have been waiting for… an analysis of the “We Are Marshall” options.