Thanks to Patrick Goldstein for waiting two full weeks before rewriting my piece on the extreme lack of an Oscar bump this year. Looks like he read the blog on Saturday for even more detail about what films have done what so far.
Unfortunately, he didn't read carefully enough and decided, in his wisdom, to completely overlook the details and to keep selling the load of crap he loves about the marketplace instead of putting the responsibility in the places it so obviously is.
Specifically... you can't get an Oscar bump unless you market your movie when you expand... and oh yeah, you have to expand.
Patrick is busy selling his "One big factor in the evaporation of the Oscar bounce has less to do with the Oscars and more to do with the commercial marketplace" theory.
And what is profoundly flawed about this - and it is not just about this, but it stands as the biggest misunderstanding of journalists covering this industry, year in and year out - is this notion that the movie business operates on some sort of continuum that is general and not deadly specific.
Of COURSE it was the actual movies - and their studios' unwillingness to chase an Oscar bump - that didn't make more money. There is no way to explain this away. People, whether we think they are brilliant or idiots, make choices. They are not automatons. They are no without will. They are, in the end, just like you and me, the dumbest and the smartest among us… they buy what they like. And why they like something is both simple and complex. But it is not ever a slam dunk. You can, most often, push out product that gets a response on the level of your push. But you cannot buy the gross you want in this business.
In other words, a studio spending $40 million or more on an opening week will almost always get that opening over $8 million. But the difference between the same money spent and the opening at $8 million or $40 million is the audience and, indeed, how interested your marketing is about to get them in the material. (There are other factors, like built-in interest… but that is only an issue for 20% or so of the product being brought to market by studios each year.)
The problem with hindsight is that ALL the theories can be true, whether it is the theory that ends up sticking (and one always does) or one that no one thinks is possible.
Why has Frost/Nixon died an ignoble death, even by indie division standards for an Oscar nominee? Well, there are a bunch of answers that have credence.
1. The interest in politics at the movies is slight.
2. Nixon himself is a turn off.
3. The real election ended up eating all the interest.
4. The studio held it in limited for too long.
5. Frank Langella didn’t do enough media going in.
6. Michael Sheen got marginalized.
7. The studio shot its marketing wad before the nomination, so when it came time to push it out wide after the nomination, they were too gun shy to spend like it was a wide release.
8. The wrong focus was chosen for the advertising.
9. There was an inherent lack of drama that could be converted to ads.
10. Two non-openers in the leads.
You can come up with more. Many studios execs around town already have.
And many of these things can be converted to cover the other films as well.
What was the genius of the Doubt campaign? They sold it like a clash of the titans. It’s still only $30 million, but it is a good number for that material.
What about Revolutionary Road? Leo & Kate, together again… $20 million so far. Good or bad?
Defiance, from the same marketing group, has done $6 million more in a shorter release window? Why? Because they sold it as Bond v The *** instead of as complex moral tale of four brothers faced with a life and death dilemma.
They, of course, got that campaign from Terry Press and Valkyrie, the Tom Cruise movie that was sure to be slaughtered, but which did $82 million in the US because they sold the drama about a coup led by a one-eyed, one-armed man as Tom Cruise vs The ***!!! (He may even end up killing Hitler! Really!) Of course, the big question mark there is whether Ms. Press spent well over $50 million to get that $45 million in rentals for MGM.
And back to January… if it was so easy to be commercial in January, the same marketing group at Sony wouldn’t have just had Paul Blart succeed, but would have also made an easy smash of the Pink Panther sequel and The International.
How does it work, in this “easy” world of obvious, commercial January, that Push opens to more than The International? (Neither being a very happy event.) Or that Taken , a retro-fitted Euro-pick-up from Team Besson, starring that mega-opener Liam Neeson (whose only career openings to do better were The Bat, The Vader, and amazingly, The Haunting), opens to 2.5 times as much as The International?
In the first seven weeks of 2009, there have been fifteen $10 million openers… four more than last year (11)… eight more than the year before (7)… and four more than in 2006 (11). Great.
But in all of those commercial films - heck, let’s include ALL films that have opened to over $1 million (that’s only four more titles) – can you find ANY titles that actually appeal to what would otherwise be the Oscar movie market, aka adults? I will list the ones I think might: The International, New in Town, Confessions of a Shopaholic, Bride Wars, He’s Not That Into You.
Okay… now… that is a generous list, no? And is there one film that you might consider serious? Is there one film that actually appeals to the same moviegoing instinct that takes you to a serious drama?
OF COURSE, Slumdog is the only one doing business… it is the only real and obvious movie entertainment of the four nominees. That is not to say the other films are not entertaining or completely worthy of your money. Frost/Nixon is a ton more entertaining than people get from the ads. Milk is weighty and, in some ways, a feel good film, even with a double murder at its center. Ben Button had its shot, made its money, and got iffy-to-bad word of mouth, which has hamstrung it at the box office ever since.
This brings us, inevitably, to the other Great Theory of the lack of a bump… people want to escape.
And there is probably some truth in that in the success of the films that are doing better. But in the end, movies have a commercial life of their own. It is likely that, in the end, more Americans will see The Reader than Milk or Frost/Nixon. What’s so uplifting about that film?
Nothing.
But people are intrigued by the storyline, the awards buzz has pushed it along, even though The Weinstein Company hasn’t spent a ton of money, and if it doesn’t pass Milk (F?N is already in the rear view), it will be almost the same domestic box office total.
Explain that away…
Every movie has its own story. Trend pieces are bullshit. The Continuum is bullshit. All of us who theorize about this business need to accept that there are many, many things for which there will never be a clear, specific, detailed ANSWER that makes us feel smarter than everyone else because we KNOW something.
If people knew, people would act accordingly.
It is wrong to think that the people who have risen to the top in this town are a bunch of idiots who know nothing. They know a lot. They are, in most cases, professionals. But like professional athletes, they also know – though they dearly don’t want to admit it – that they will be wrong at least a third of the time... and that will make them superstars. And when they are wrong two-thirds of the time for two years in a row, they are (usually) out of a job.
Journalists have the luxury of never having to be right… they just have to tell you what other people say is true. Of course, that is changing as we continue into the era (or error) of journalist as expert. But like the pros, when you find someone who gets it right 50% of the time, you have struck a rare vein (or vain) indeed.
But each journalist has their own story…
Read the complete post at http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2009/02/oscar_bump_redu.html