If moviemaking were a science, then it would be a science. But guess what? Quite often elements that have nothing to do with the movie itself -- timing, release pattern, marketing, advertising -- have more to do with what makes the thing a hit or a flop. Especially today, when pictures are in and out of theaters before the public has a chance to decide whether they're worth seeing -- much less worth seeing again. Repeat business, which used to be a big factor in determining a hit, doesn't really kick in until the DVD release anymore.
But there are still would-be alchemists who imagine they can scientifically -- or, at least, statistically -- measure the ingredients of a successful movie. Take Professor Dean Simonton at UC Davis, for instance. He says he's isolated the components of the magical formula that accounts for a movie's appeal, with audiences and with critics.
Can you guess what they are? Of course you can.
Christy Lemire, who is identified as "AP Movie Critic," reports for the Associated Press ("Study analyzes secrets to movie success"):
Movies are supposed to be about getting lost in emotion. But one scientist has broken down the film industry to cold, hard facts. A psychology professor at the University of California, Davis, has done a statistical study of thousands of movies to determine what makes them critical darlings or box-office hits.
Films that earn awards and praise from reviewers tend to be R-rated and based on a true story or a prize-winning play or novel, says professor Dean Simonton. The original author or the director usually have written the screenplay.Now, before you say "Duh" (and you should), Simonton says he's not a movie buff but "a consumer like everyone else," and he does admit that, "All these things are just statistical relationships — there are always exceptions to every finding you have."Big-budget blockbusters — whether they're comedies, musical, sequels or remakes — don't ordinarily draw acclaim, Simonton found. Neither do summer releases, PG-13 movies, movies that open on thousands of screens or ones that have enormous box office numbers in their first weekend.
"I had this hope that there was a difference between blockbusters and really great art films — films that can be considered great cinematic creations," said Simonton, who presented his findings Friday at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association in San Francisco. "It was gratifying to find out they're very, very different and you can find out what's different about them."
Simonton says he's not a movie buff — "I'm a consumer like everyone else" — but in his longtime studies of genius, creativity and leadership, he started compiling data about the collaborative process of filmmaking in 1999. He's also done a study comparing the Oscars with the Razzies.
How true. And close empirical (and statistical) analysis should indeed be a part of the study of how movies work. See Cinemetrics for a fascinating and useful database cataloging the average shot length of many movies. Such facts and tools can be used to examine stylistic features and trends, and make specific notations about films in any number of ways. And, natually, valid film criticism should always be rooted in direct observations of, and examples from, the movie(s) under scrutiny. But it's one thing to study and dissect films; it's something else to present analysis as a recipe or a prescription.
As I've said many times before, and plan to say many times again, the two most important things to remember about the so-called Hollywood studio product industry today are:
1) They're in the risk management business, not the entertainment business. Which means that studio execs are less likely to go with their guts, as the moguls of old were known to do on occasion, than to rely on previously successful formulas in attempts to cover their asses in case they should fail. After all, the studio bosses no longer work for themselves. They are beholden to their corporate bosses (at General Electric, Viacom, Newscorp) and, if they're public companies, the shareholders. As Simonton says, "Hollywood falls back on sequels and remakes. Even though you've seen them before, you know they've succeeded in earlier versions."
2) The "fast food" analogy is more apt than ever -- it's all about In-N-Out, as it were. (See "Crix Nix Kix Flix (Part I).") A movie doesn't need a long, lucrative engagement to become a popular success anymore. Hit summer movies regularly not uncommonly do 40 around 30 percent of their total theatrical business in their opening weekend. Revenues frequently plummet by 50-60 percent in the second weekend and 40 percent or more in each succeeding week, which is fine with the studios and the exhibitors, because that means faster turnover and higher per-screen averages. After the second or third week, they can move 'em on out (into smaller corrals) to make room for the next available cash cow. Even top-grossing movies may stay in wide release for only six or eight weeks, or even less. (More actual numbers below.)
Columnist Mark Harris in Entertainment Weekly covers some of this same ground in a piece called "Buzz-Lite Year," in which he says of these One Weekend Wonders: "It's bad news for moviegoers that studios can now make money without having to worry about that pesky variable, word of mouth."
A slight exaggeration (word-of-mouth travels a lot faster in the days of blogs, e-mail, mobile phones, and text-messaging) but he's basically right. For most of the corporate life of the cinema, executives have done their darndest to figure out a way to manufacture movies without all that troublesome talent: writers, directors, actors, and anybody who belongs to a union. They joked about it, but if they could have done it, they would have. And there's been a lot of press the last couple years about how studios are theoretically squeezing critics out of the box-office equation (predicated on the unsupported assumption that critics were ever a significant part of it in the first place).
Now, the corporations can make a profit on a movie even without you, the audience. With pre-sales of what were once "ancillary rights" (DVD, cable, foreign theatrical distribution, etc.) some movies are in the black before they're even released. Sometimes it seems the only thing that can really hurt a movie investment is to actually show the picture to people. Best to get it In-N-Out before anybody catches on to what's actually being sold. (I kid to some extent, but to make a point.) Remember, the theatrical release is basically a publicity stunt, an elaborate marketing campaign to prepare for the TV and DVD releases, where the real money is. And, by then, it doesn't matter so much how "good" the product is. People are a lot less picky and more forgiving when it comes to watching movies at home on cable/satellite or DVD than they are when they make the effort to go out, stand in line, buy tickets, and watch a movie in theaters.
If they could only get rid of the movies and just sell consumers the ads, then they'd have it made. Oh, wait, that's already happening. Who needs a feature when you've got 20 minutes or more of commercials to sit through? At least on the damnable DVDs that come pre-loaded with ads you can push MENU during the bloody previews. Well, on some of them you can...
(BTW, I should mention that In-N-Out is my second-favorite drive-in burger chain -- it's delicious! -- and my reference to it in this context, because of its picturesque name, is not intended to disparage In-N-Out restaurants, only to comment on the studios' fast-food approach to selling and releasing films. In-N-Out itself is a much classier operation. I'll take an In-N-Out burger over "Rush Hour 3" any day -- a higher quality product, and more gratifying experience, all around, I'm sure.)
(Thanks to Ken Lowery and Chris, both of whom sent me links to the "statistical analysis.")
As you said, there is no formula, there are only tried-and-true previous results that studios can fall back on.
With that said, however, I will say that I think 2007 has been a somewhat rewarding year as a movie fan, even though I have yet to see some of the best-reviewed films of the year. It seems as if the general quality of some of the biggest releases has been generally higher than in past years.
Among the big-budget releases to also receive good-to-very-good reviews and be generally well-liked by the public:
"Knocked Up"
"Superbad"
"The Bourne Ultimatum" (motion-sickness complaints aside)
"The Simpsons Movie"
"Transformers" (not great reviews, but people seemed to like it)
"Ratatouille"
"Grindhouse"
"Hot Fuzz"
"Hairspray"
"Zodiac" (not really big-budget, I guess, but still prominent)
"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix"
"Stardust"
"300" (terrible movie, but people seemed to like it in general)
I'm sure I'm leaving out a few. But my general point is that, compared to the sea of mediocrity that swept through the past few summers ("Pirates of the Caribbean 2", etc.), it seems as if this year has provided a few more pleasurable blockbuster experiences for most moviegoers.
So either Hollywood has indeed figured out some sort of formula, or, more likely, they took the waning box office numbers of the past few seasons as a sign that people expect at least some sort of talent and skill on display, even with their popcorn movies.
Alex: Good point. "Knocked Up" is the perfect example of an exception that proves the rule (if, indeed, an exception can do that). It's one of the relatively rare hits that never made it to the top of the weekend box-office charts, but hung in there week after week without precipitous revenue drops. According to Box Office Mojo, its opening weekend gross was only 20.8 percent of its total (so far). Compare that with a franchise picture like "Spider-Man 3," which took in 44.9 of its domestic revenue in the first weekend.
Unfortunately, "Zodiac" (my favorite American movie of the year so far, if "Inland Empire" is considered a 2006 release) was pretty expensive ($65 million), and took in only about half that at the US box office...
Jim, thank you. "Zodiac" has been one of my favorite movie experiences of the year as well. Incredible, really.
I agree with Alex that this year has been, over all, a lot more fun than previous years. Studios have allowed a little more faith in the filmmakers I think to do their jobs and to do it without a lot of questions or interference (except for in the case of the Beatle's inspired film coming out, which I have high hopes for!) That has made for some truly interesting films, ones marked by their makers.
"If they could only get rid of the movies and just sell consumers the ads, then they'd have it made." My feelings exactly! The hype exists for its own benefit, and the movie exists for the benefit of the hype! Can you imagine if they did finally get rid of the movies? Don LaFontaine doing all the adds. "The best movie ever made! Jerry Bruckheimer presents Nothing!" And yes, take the end user out of the equation! The movie and music industries have already done it! "This song is a hit because we say so. The entire record-buying public could die before this single is even released, and it would still be a #1 hit." M Knight Shyamalan's Lady in the Water gets a huge section of display space at the local Blockbuster hoping to cash in on the five unsuspecting shmucks who don't know yet! The movie is a hit no matter what anyone does! Nobody gets fired!
We should just jail the whole system for murdering art and start again from the ground up.
Remember, the theatrical release is basically a publicity stunt, an elaborate marketing campaign to prepare for the TV and DVD releases, where the real money is.
You know, this seems like a critically important observation to me. There's a lot of fluff about theaters dying out and studios taking a big hit from piracy, but this suggests that the biggest killer of the theater experience is -- wait for it -- the studios themselves.
Now that I write it out like that, it seems less revelatory and more "plainly obvious," but I feel there's something substantial there... They are undermining themselves and then pointing the finger at other sources, and the theater chains don't seem to be making these vital connections.
Off to woolgather on this some more...
Correlation does not prove causality.
Causality says everything happens for a reason...as an effect of a specific cause.
Just because we don't know the relationship DOESN'T mean it doesn't exist. There is a REASON why movies do well and don't do well. It sounds like it is extremely complicated. To disparage someone's conclusions is one thing...
...to disparage their attempt at understanding is completely different.
Be careful.
JG:
I understand your trepidation. Simonton identifies himself as "just a consumer," so I take it a little easy on him, even if I think his study is a tremendous waste of university dollars.
It's the frankly false stereotypes that his study subtly supports -- or, at least, this write-up supports -- that bother me. There's a lot of lazy thinking going on here, and it'd be way too easy for people to walk away from this study with the wrong ideas... as Ms. Lemire, the writer of the article, has clearly done.
For instance: Certain movies making big box offices draws doesn't tell us that those movies are necessarily "what people want"; what it actually tells us is those are the movies studios are ready to put their full weight behind, largely because they're known quantities and guaranteed some level of success. Equating box office metrics with popular success and esteem is deeply flawed, as Jim and Mark Harris (quite glad you mentioned his column, Jim, I think he regularly contributes some desperately needed sanity to the movie conversation) have pointed out better than I ever could.
And then there's the Tom O'Neil fella at the end of the article, an "Awards expert" who has decided that because critics' picks for a year's best do not match up with oscar winners, critics are off on some esoteric side trip that has no relevance to modern movie-going. O'Neil is furthering two wrongheaded notions: that the Oscars are a statement of endorsement by the public (which must come as a hell of a shock to the AMPAS), and that critics are in the business of rating movies by hype or box office rather than, you know, quality.
I don't begrudge someone's desire to learn, however wrongheaded their techniques may eventually be. But lazy (and possibly dangerous) thinking like the type perpetuated in Lemire's article can't go unanswered.
Yes, I think that both Apatow productions this year (still unseen by me) have shown that, as lowbrow as they may be, the possibility for word-of-mouth hits still exists.
And every year there are some films that perform well beyond any reasonable expectation of their marketing campaign: "Borat", "Little Miss Sunshine", "The Blair Witch Project", etc.
That's why opening week numbers are so meaningless...when Michael Bay claims that people must love "Transformers" because it dominated the box office in its opening weekend, he's putting forward a fallacy. Opening weekend numbers don't mean that people liked "Transformers", it meant that (through a combination of relentless advertising and nostalgia for the old TV show), they liked the idea of GOING TO SEE "Transformers".
Re: your insights, Jim, I find them depressing... but dead-on. Many pop movies are nothing more than soulless commodities. As you point out, they are the cinematic equivalent of fast food. But not all pop movies are like this. I still think it's possible to have big budget art, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult based on the more aggressive corporate control of movie studios. The cyclical relationship of the audience and product must not be ignored though. Are the movies the commodities or is the audience?
Good directors will always discover ways around the restricting filmmaking, marketing, and distribution process, but even their days with the big budgets appear to be numbered. With Miami Vice flopping and Zodiac (my second favorite film of the year so far behind Brad Bird's brilliant Ratatouille) underperforming as well. Big-budget art may well die with the artist who currently is exploiting its resources, Steven Spielberg. Over the the last ten years, he has been very reflexive of his position as a blockbuster filmmaker, and that position has informed his directing chops in a number of excellent movies (A.I., Minority Report, War of the Worlds). But, truth be told, he can only do what he's doing because he is the Great One. There won't be another figure like him in Hollywood for a very long time. Social and economic circumstances simply will not allow it.
Big budget art may be dying, but cinema as a medium will continue to thrive. It will find a way, as it always has over the last century. The massive economic interests of capitalism have made it difficult, but cinema's fundamental status as a deep artistic expression will hopefully enable its artists to continue making great movies. Call me naive, but I have confidence in that.
What always amuses me about these statistical studies is that, as you pointed out Jim, films are a hit for a number of reasons including the timing.
Timing is the most interesting of all (not to mention the hardest factor to nail down) because it incorporates factors such as other movies released around the same time, world events, and even political climate (just to name a few).
Films are a product of their times, and I'm always curious whether these studies really take that into consideration. What was a hit in the 80s may not necessarily be useful in today's market (much less trends of the 1920s).
I mean, on September 10th 2001 it would have been a great movie idea to have a fictitious John McClane in a hypothetical Die Hard 4 fighting fictitious terrorists who want to fly planes into skyscrapers.
I think there's very little further progress mankind can make towards understanding what makes a hit, then making the hits happen, than what the studios have already figured out short of inventing the Precogs from Minority Report.
"Hit movies regularly do 40 percent of their total theatrical business or more in their opening weekend."
Sorry, but this is demonstrably untrue. I have been following the box office for years (as a sports fan would follow sports stats), and the norm for hits, or even just average movies, is that a movie's total domestic gross will be around three times its opening weekend figure. There would have to be pretty terrible word-of-mouth for a movie to make 40%+ of its domestic total on the opening weekend. Spider-Man 3 is one of the rare examples. (It was the result of enormous audience disappointment and competition from the two other "threequels" in May.)
Jim, you're a smart man. If a movie's audience declines by 50% every weekend, then what will its lifetime gross be? Certainly not 2.5 times its opening weekend number. In order to have that kind of ratio, the movie would have drop by more than 60% on most weekends, particularly the second weekend. In the box office analysis world, we typically call that a "flop" -- not so much in absolute terms (especially if the movie ends up making $200M+) but in relative ones, where staying power does matter. The primary exception to such a label is when the movie has a significant built-in fan-base, usually a "geek" crowd who will flock to the movie on opening weekend, causing a disproportionate pattern. So you see this most often with comic book movies, especially ones without a lot of critical acclaim, audience awareness, or general buzz.
The true hits are movies that more than triple their opening weekends. If you go back to Box Office Mojo and look at their all-time highest grossing releases list, you'll clearly see that the vast majority of $150M+ earners had openings comprising 35% or less out of their totals. Even alleged disappointments such as King Kong, Superman Returns, or even this year's Ratatouille have managed to more than quadruple their opening weekend grosses.
I know that this is being nit-picky, and I don't disagree with your arguments, but you shouldn't have to distort the facts to make your point.
Big-budget art may well die with the artist who currently is exploiting its resources, Steven Spielberg. Over the the last ten years, he has been very reflexive of his position as a blockbuster filmmaker, and that position has informed his directing chops in a number of excellent movies (A.I., Minority Report, War of the Worlds). But, truth be told, he can only do what he's doing because he is the Great One. There won't be another figure like him in Hollywood for a very long time. Social and economic circumstances simply will not allow it.
Spielberg may be working to deliver his own projects with artistic merit (some efforts more successful than others) but on the other hand, this year his money and influence have brought us Transformers and On the Lot. Take that for what you will...
Fei: My mistake: I meant to write "30 percent." I probably shouldn't have said "regularly," either, since it's a needlessly misleading exaggeration. I've re-written the paragraph to accurately reflect the numbers. But my main point is the huge increase in week-to-week percentage drop-offs over the last 10 - 20 years, and how that has changed the dynamics of the movie business dramatically
Look again at the percentages of second-weekend drops by some of the "big" movies this summer -- most of which continued to drop by 30 to 50 percent until very near the end of their runs. Much of this is the consequence of 2,000+ screen blitz openings:
"Pirates III": 37.3 percent of total domestic box office in opening weekend. 61.5 percent drop in second weekend, followed by 52.2%, 41.3%, 42.2%, 31.1% 39.3%, 53.6%...
"Spider Man 3": 44.9 percent of total gross in opening weekend. 61.5% drop in second weekend, followed by 50.1%, 50.6%, 37.6%, 47.1%, 50.6%...
"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix": 27.5 percent of total gross in opening weekend. 57.8% drop in second weekend, followed by 45.5%, 46.3%, 43.0%, 32.7%...
"Fantastic Four II": 44.2 percent of total gross in opening weekend. 65.6% drop in second weekend, followed by 54.3%, 53.6%, 61.5%, 54.0%, $37.8%
"Ocean's Thirteen": 31.0 percent of total gross in opening weekend. 45.4 percent drop in second weekend, followed by 42.1%, 46.7%, 42.1%, 43.7%...
"Transformers": 22.9 percent of gross in opening weekend. 47.5 percent drop in second weekend, followed by 44.6%, 43.2%, 48.3%, 46.3%...
"I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry": 30.6 percent of total gross opening weekend. 44+ percent drop the next three weekends...
So, you see the pattern. "Knocked Up" was a more steady performer, with drops in the 30-percent range (and never made the #1 spot at the weekend box-office.)
How dramatically things have changed in the last 20 years or so. When I booked a movie theater in Seattle in the mid-1980s, we'd collect the grosses from other theaters around town on Mondays and Fridays. If we saw a 30-40 percent drop between the first and second weekend, that spelled trouble. Now, for wide releases, it's routine.
Compare the single-digit drops for the pioneering wide release (only 409 screens for weeks) of "Jaws" in 1975. Or the first "Die Hard" movie in 1988, which went from 22 to 1,276 theaters in its second weekend, then dropped 14.0%, 6.0%, +0.1%, 22.2%, 18.9% +29.9%... (Yes, it actually went up a few times, because they added theaters.) Or even as recently as 1999 and movies like "The Sixth Sense" or "Austin Powers" (both non-sequels) -- which had single-digit or low double-digit drops for their first four weeks or longer.
Times -- and the movie biz -- have changed fairly radically.
While I agree that Transformers follows the pattern of around 40% drops every week after its opening you have to admit the movie has legs and does NOT match the percentage of other blockbusters who earn around 40% or more of their total box office run on opening weekend.
The numbers you posted prove it: only 22,9% of gross and it's still in theatres I believe so that percentage is going to drop even further.