Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Are there too many "tentpoles?" (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Author Topic: Are there too many "tentpoles?"
Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-19-2013 07:00 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This is supposedly from
The Hollywood Reporter but I couldn't find the actual story on their website. It came in my email from NATO.

Anyway, just read the very last paragraph for a slight glimpse into how much the average studio suit does NOT know about the movie theater business.

Here's the take-away, studio suits: THERE ARE 12 MONTHS in the year. Use them all for Pete's sake.

Too Many Tentpoles: Hollywood's Homegrown Summer Movie Crisis

"Pacific Rim," "The Lone Ranger" and "White House Down" flops are leading studios to re-evaluate their plans as an overcrowded summer schedule leads to millions in losses; one analyst tells THR, "It's not worth the pain."

At CineEurope, June's convention of European theater owners in Barcelona, Spain, a top studio executive asked a colleague to snap a photo of him with a costumed Despicable Me 2 minion in the lobby. The executive doesn't work at Universal, and he's not the only one envious of that studio's global blockbuster, one of the season's few successes as Hollywood endures the most crowded summer in history for tentpoles. The pileup has resulted in an unprecedented string of expensive bombs
that collectively will lose hundreds of millions of dollars.

It's a crisis of Hollywood's own making: Studios are releasing double the number of pricey movies they usually do during the summer, pushing the boundaries of how much the marketplace can expand. Amid the carnage, insiders question why studios are greenlighting so many films that cost more than $150 million to produce when so few have risen above the clutter.

"There was abnormally bad scheduling this summer by everybody. I don't think you will see this again for a while -- it's not worth the pain," says Wall Street analyst Doug Creutz of Cowen and Co. "While studios will still be willing to spend on a good concept, I think they might be a little more circumspect about when they are going to launch that movie."

Guillermo del Toro's Pacific Rim, the latest disappointment, is the third straight high-profile miss after Gore Verbinski's The Lone Ranger and Roland Emmerich's White House Down. The three megabudget films opened during a two-week period, leaving no wiggle room. Worse, they debuted in the wake of Warner Bros.' Man of Steel and Paramount's World War Z, both of which caught on at the global box office and appeal to the same audience. Those films have grossed $619.1 million and $423 million worldwide, respectively.

"The biggest issue is dating," says one studio head. "You had too many $100 million-plus movies, not to mention $200 million-plus movies, jammed on top of each other. There isn't enough play time, and the result has been more movies that wipe out."

Pacific Rim, which cost as much as $200 million to produce -- plus a global marketing spend in the $175 million range -- could lose $50 million to $100 million for Legendary and Warners, according to rival studio insiders. The pic opened to a soft $37.3 million domestically and $53.1 million from its first 38 foreign markets. While poised to do big business in Asia, Russia and Latin America, its chances are dicey in Europe and Australia. Legendary, which produced the fanboy-friendly film and footed most of the bill, will take the biggest hit.

Lone Ranger, with a production budget of $250 million, is falling off even faster than expected, grossing $71.5 million domestically and $48 million internationally to date for a total of $119.5 million. At those numbers, some Wall Street analysts say Disney could face a write-down of nearly $200 million. Analysts also say, though, that the studio is well insulated by profits from Iron Man 3, the summer's top earner with $1.21 billion in worldwide grosses, and Monsters University, which
has earned $474.2 million worldwide.

Sony has had two high-profile flops and likely will lose tens of millions from White House Down and Will Smith's sci-fi epic After Earth. White House Down, which cost $150 million to produce, has earned a paltry $82.7 million worldwide, and After Earth, which cost $130 million to make, has nearly finished its run with a tepid worldwide gross of $214.8 million (though it is off to a good start in China).

And the carnage might not be over. Universal's R.I.P.D., starring Jeff Bridges and Ryan Reynolds as otherworldly cops, could fall flat based on prerelease tracking. The movie cost about $130 million to produce.

Ironically, summer box-office revenue in North America is running 13.8 percent ahead of 2012, nearly closing the gap in year-over-year revenue. Several more modestly budgeted movies are helping to fuel the surge, including Summit's magician heist pic Now You See Me and Fox's female comedy The Heat, which have earned $185.8 million and $128.4 million worldwide, respectively. Sony's offbeat comedy This Is the End
also has succeeded in serving as counterprogramming to tentpoles, taking in $91.6 million domestically.

May was far less crowded in terms of tentpoles, and it showed. Even in Iron Man 3's wake, Warners' The Great Gatsby and Paramount's Star Trek Into Darkness did good business, grossing $326.9 million and $446.9 million worldwide, respectively.

The deluge began Memorial Day weekend when Universal's Fast & Furious 6 and The Hangover Part III opened opposite each other. Rivals were surprised at the double billing, considering both films needed males to succeed. Fast 6 was the big winner, taking in $704.2 million worldwide. Hangover III, from Warners and Legendary, earned $347 million, far less than the previous films in the trilogy.

"I'll say one thing: This summer has got to be an exhibitor's delight," quips another studio executive. "Imagine being a theater owner and having all these tentpoles in a row. Face it: A theater owner couldn't care less if the movie drops off a ton."

 |  IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004


 - posted 07-19-2013 08:06 PM      Profile for Justin Hamaker   Author's Homepage   Email Justin Hamaker   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
One of the problems with Hollywood is they are too prone to letting the pendulum swing all the way the other direction when something goes wrong.

In 2012, the market was starved for kids pictures most of the summer. We really only had three from the start of May until the end of July. The answer this year is to stack them up. Starting with Monsters University, we have a new one every 2 weeks. This is great for the consumers who like choice, but bad for each individual picture because it forces us to move things off screen sooner than necessary. There should have been at least 3-4 weeks between Monsters and Despicable.

Furthermore, there are just too many movies coming out in many of the weeks from hear to the end of summer. Four new titles the week of July 17-19, four on August 7/9, four on August 16, 3 on August 21/23, four for August 28/30. This may be ok for the megaplexes, but it means any theatre with less than 8-10 screens is either passing on pictures, or moving them off screen too soon. Of course this log jam comes right on the heals of one of the most barren January-April periods in the last 10+ years.

From my years of experience, there are some valid arguments for not releasing certain movies certain times of the year. Kids and family movies are not usually going to do very well in August and September as families refocus on back-to-school. And teens tend to be distracted by high school football. And the first couple weeks of December can be rough as people focus on their Christmas shopping. But it's always a matter of releasing the product to the demographic that is going to the movies that time of the year.

Maybe studios are just too afraid of the conventional wisdom to risk at big budget production at a traditionally slow period. But every time something like The Hunger Games is a hit outside the traditional periods, the studios seem to dismiss it as an anomaly, rather than a lesson that every time of the year is viable for the right movies.

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 07-19-2013 09:45 PM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Looks like a lot of desparate company survival kicking in knowing that the other nine months of the year they're in the red with filler movies that have to be released.

Course, this is just the first half of the story being the second half with video sales (hopefully) filling in the gaps that weren't filled in on the initial releases.

 |  IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012


 - posted 07-19-2013 10:39 PM      Profile for Terry Lynn-Stevens   Email Terry Lynn-Stevens   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There have always been summer flops, it is not a new concept. However, the gamble now is greater because the reward is so much bigger.

 |  IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-19-2013 11:28 PM      Profile for Randy Stankey   Email Randy Stankey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I propose an analogy...

I am a traditional photographer. I don't use digital. Film only.
When I go out shooting, I choose my subjects carefully. I think about my shots. I decide what I want the picture to be and I shoot accordingly to produce the image I want.

Too many times, I go out and see people shooting digicams like machine guns. They snap away 100 pictures and only end up keeping one.

I may incur greater expense with film although it's not so much if I buy in bulk instead of pre-loaded film. However, my greatest expense is time. I have to develop and print my images. That takes time. I'm not going to waste time machine gunning 100 pictures only to keep one or two.

I take more time to make good pictures because I shoot film.

Now that Hollywood has gone digital, I think that "they" might be falling prey to the "machine gunner" instinct. Because they feel like they don't have to deal with all that film, they feel free to shoot any movie, to do it quick and not care about the final quality of the movies they produce.

I also agree with Monte. They are hoping to make up their losses in the home video aftermarket. Again, I think this could be caused by making movies digitally. They can afford to "throw away" a lot more movies by letting them lose money at the box office if they might make money on the home video market.

Digital movies might be killing Hollywood, not by the technology itself, but by the attitudes toward movie making caused by (improper) use of technology.

 |  IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012


 - posted 07-20-2013 11:19 AM      Profile for Marcel Birgelen   Email Marcel Birgelen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Randy Stankey
Now that Hollywood has gone digital, I think that "they" might be falling prey to the "machine gunner" instinct. Because they feel like they don't have to deal with all that film, they feel free to shoot any movie, to do it quick and not care about the final quality of the movies they produce.
Do you really think that when you're spending $100M+ on a movie, the cost of film v.s. digital is really anything near relevant in the decision making process?

 |  IP: Logged

Robert E. Allen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1078
From: Checotah, Oklahoma
Registered: Jul 2002


 - posted 07-20-2013 12:22 PM      Profile for Robert E. Allen   Email Robert E. Allen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps if Hollywood would concentrate on telling good stories rather than trying to feed the appetites of specific groups they've created more people would come to the theatres and both the studios and the theatres would benefit.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 07-20-2013 12:25 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know Randy...when I shoot film, I have a motor drive on the camera so I can click em off too! A lot of my pictures never make it to print and stay as negatives. [Razz]

In truth, I only did that while shooting sports or other fast action stuff and didn't want to miss "the" shot. Naturally, I bulk loaded my film too.

 |  IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012


 - posted 07-20-2013 12:37 PM      Profile for Terry Lynn-Stevens   Email Terry Lynn-Stevens   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Randy Stankey
I take more time to make good pictures because I shoot film.
Seriously? What a bad analogy. The format you use has nothing to do with whether your photographs or photography is good or not, good photography has everything to do with skill level, risk and then luck as being in the right place at the right time. Last and least important is the format or camera you use.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Do you really think that when you're spending $100M+ on a movie, the cost of film v.s. digital is really anything near relevant in the decision making process?


It sure does.

 |  IP: Logged

Elise Brandt
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 160
From: Kuusankoski, FIN/ Kouvola, Finland
Registered: Dec 2009


 - posted 07-20-2013 12:51 PM      Profile for Elise Brandt   Email Elise Brandt   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I get the analogy and agree. It's not the actual cost of the media, but the attitude with which it's used. Making a calculated investment to a few places, few shots, versus the producing product at the cost of deliberated result.

I don't have the words to put it to, rightly, of course. Darnit. And my kid is screaming right there for me to "listen to her!!" while I'm trying so that's doesn't help either... geesh.

 |  IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012


 - posted 07-20-2013 01:16 PM      Profile for Marcel Birgelen   Email Marcel Birgelen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
It sure does.
I'm sure as hell that the rise in numbers of "tent-pole" movies produced has NOTHING to do with the digital shooting process making movies cheaper, because it doesn't...

Even if you correct for inflation, Hollywood movies (and especially the big tent-pole productions) haven't become cheaper since the widespread adoption of digital shooting processes.
Also, the analogy with digital leisure/hobby photography is totally wrong. When I take my DSLR with me, I also tend to shoot a lot more pictures than I did before with film. I don't see this as a disadvantage, because some of the lucky shots turn out to be not bad at all. Also, you can now easier (or rather cheaper) take multiple shots of the same thing and you practically never have to reload.

But this situation is ENTIRELY different from making a movie... Why? Because those things require a crew, actors, a script, sets, etc. etc. Those things don't magically appear out of the blue and are far more expensive for practically any Hollywood production than the film or digital storage media will ever be.

The situation is different if you're making an indie production with a minimum amount of budget, but we're talking about Hollywood here.

 |  IP: Logged

Frank Cox
Film God

Posts: 2234
From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada
Registered: Apr 2011


 - posted 07-20-2013 01:41 PM      Profile for Frank Cox   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Cox   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
What about the difference between, "We're here so lets ad-lib this scene 27 different ways and pick the best one", versus actually taking the time to compose a scene, plan the camerawork and polish and rehearse all of the dialogue and action beforehand?

In most cases I suggest that the second approach would result in a better movie.

Perhaps this is how many of the filmmakers do it anyway, but some of the stuff in certain movies these days seems pretty slapdash.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-20-2013 05:01 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Justin Hamaker
From my years of experience, there are some valid arguments for not releasing certain movies certain times of the year. Kids and family movies are not usually going to do very well in August and September as families refocus on back-to-school. And teens tend to be distracted by high school football. And the first couple weeks of December can be rough as people focus on their Christmas shopping. But it's always a matter of releasing the product to the demographic that is going to the movies that time of the year.
There are lots of good times of year besides just June and July for kids' movies. The Ice Age series first came out in March (around Eastertime) and of course was massive. I don't really understand why studios figure kids only go to movies when school is out...we've had plenty of instances over the years when we didn't play a kids movie on the break but instead played it after school had resumed, and still kicked butt.

The problem is the studio mentality (fueled by the short video window) that movies are no good after two or three weeks. Time was when a movie had a chance to build an actual audience.

 |  IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012


 - posted 07-20-2013 06:04 PM      Profile for Marcel Birgelen   Email Marcel Birgelen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Frank Cox
What about the difference between, "We're here so lets ad-lib this scene 27 different ways and pick the best one", versus actually taking the time to compose a scene, plan the camerawork and polish and rehearse all of the dialogue and action beforehand?
This is were Digital has an "advantage", because you can now retake almost as much as you want, without running out of film. Although there are other things involved too: With digital you can have almost instant playback of the material you acquired, so if it is good, there is no reason to do five different retakes.

But anyway, this doesn't really impact the studios decision how much movies get made.

The real reason is probably much simpler and has already been given: It's a gamble, the potential is gigantic and up until now, the odds seemed to be rather good. All that potential money is quite capable to bend the perception of reality a bit for the people involved in the decision making process.

 |  IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-20-2013 10:13 PM      Profile for Randy Stankey   Email Randy Stankey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Elise gets the point.

With digital, images become transitory. With film they are more real. Because film imagery is more real, filmmakers will take the time to tell a story. Because digital movies are transitory, movie makers do not feel the need to invest time in storytelling.

Robert says that Hollywood needs to invest in storytelling. I believe that is true. I believe the switch to digital movies has caused people to shift away from storytelling.

It's not because film is more expensive. Digital movies are just as expensive to make, if not more expensive. It's because of a change in attitude.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.