Pages

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Spider-Man or 20 interesting films?

During the Monday morning meeting this week, the talk was about how bad Spider-Man 3 is. "Do NOT go see Spider-Man" one co-worker warned. "It's the worst movie EVER" another chimed in. They were mad at one guy who said he thought it was good but the smirk on his face suggested he liked it BECAUSE it was so bad.

As we left the meeting, my cube-mate said "I don't know why they're so surprised. The third movie is always bad." She went on to name a series of franchises in which the third was bad. I wasn't really listening as I don't usually see franchises at all and I didn't think the first Spider-Man was all that great (aside from the special effects).

Of the big Hollywood films that I like, the third has been actually been good: Lord of The Rings and Harry Potter. "Well, Lord of The Rings is different," she murmurs, "that was one story that they made into three movies." Okay, and she hasn't seen any Harry Potter films.
Where I thought she was going was "Why are they surprised? Almost everything that comes out of a major studio these days is crap." Spider-Man 3, despite getting terrible reviews and (apparently) actually BEING terrible, it's well on it's way to grossing more than the previous two.

On NPR the other day, an industry expert was talking about why record sales are plunging. One of the biggest reasons he gave is that the artists the major labels are signing aren't putting out enough music. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that they sign lame no-talent teenagers that are manufactured and overproduced? I can't keep up with all the great music being released by real artists. The second biggest reason (curiously similar to the first) is that the major labels can't seem to find the hits. Where oh where ARE those hits?

Here's where the music industry is as lazy and greedy as the film industry. They really aren't interested in producing quality entertainment and they aren't as concerned about profitability as they are with big bucks, the jackpot! They're in the business of gambling and they have secured their fortunes through control of the distribution. They are basically like the mob except they don't have to break our knuckles to purchase their crap, we do it willingly!

In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell explains the ridiculous process the record industry uses to "test a hit" and why it doesn't work. People don't know what they want and when they like something, they can't explain why. We're also enormously influenced by the context in which we experience something. It's not insignificant that $150 million was spent marketing Spider-Man 3. It's not that people just can't wait to see it, we're bombarded with advertising that has us following the flock to movie theaters.

These industries are still trying to hump the "mainstream market" despite the lack of evidence that such a thing ever existed.
It's not like The Beatles sat around trying to figure out how to sell records; they developed their talents, took incredible chances and sold records because people liked their music. Not EVERYONE, just a good chunk of loyal listeners.

Little Miss Sunshine, according to The Numbers, was made for $8 million (plus probably $20 mil for marketing) and grossed $97 mil. That's a 350% profit margin! The 40-Year Old Virgin was made for $26 mil (plus $27 mil for marketing) and grossed $177 mil! Even the British indies have fared well. The Queen, made for $15 mil grossed $113 mil worldwide and Bend It Like Beckham, made for only $5 mil grossed $76 mil.


So why aren't the studios making every $10-30 million movie they can find? They could make twenty indie films with Spider-Man 3's $450 mil. With an average profit margin of 300%, even if half of them fail, they'd still make out with $711 million and we'd have at least ten good films to watch! Problem is, Spider-Man 3 is on track to gross about $900 million and they want the easy money. It's too much work for the big studios to find quality scripts and develop them.

This is why, one of these days, the big guys will get swallowed up by a swarm of little guys delivering better music and better movies to exactly the right people - meganiches of a million or more folks each. Meganiches unite!

2 comments:

constant drama said...

See the idea really is that when you produce big budget movies, you gonna get an even Bigger payoff. That's the theory anyways. And it had been proven time and time again.

Case and point:
LOTR, Hary Potter, Fast and Furious, Star Wars, and who could for get the Jaws franchise that single handedly spark off the whole big-budget-summer-popcorn movies genre. I'm not saying that these movies are good but I'm not saying that they are bad either. What I am saying is that what they have in common is that are all big budget movies and all of them get their payoffs.

One gotta look at big studios movies like perhaps a musical concert. When you have the money, you can afford to throw a concert full of glitters and special effects but when you don't have money, the concert you throw must be focused on raw talent alone.

That's the thing with big studios and indie movies. The big studio guys can afford their movies to be all great and whimsical. Big studios are there for show, to create awe in its audience with their special effects and all that other crrazy stuff. Indie movies have to rely on emotions and drama because of the resticted budget.

In the end its like what you say, its greed. Easy money. Its much easier to get payoff from a movie franchise off which there's already a fanbase. It just takes too much afford to do what the Indie are doing: real, good, movies. That's all work and perhaps no payoff. That doesn't add up in the world of big studios.

In the end, its all entertainment. And lets not forget entertainment is also a business and all business is about money ultimately.

Sad when profit comes before quality but its just the way it works.

Angelique Little said...

Yep, you're right. Even franchises that have famously gone south have come out on top. Matrix Revolutions performed the worst of the three but still only cost $160 mil to make and market compared to the $424 mil it made.

And well-known "flops" attract enough viewers with their special effects to make the effort worthwhile - National Treasure netted $200 mil while Daredevil, a MERE $100 mil.

I suppose I'm really just sore that money makes the world go round, people support this crap, and it makes it harder for filmmakers without money to get anything made or seen.