Hollywood's Love of Analytics Couldn't Prevent Six Massive Blockbuster Flops 1029
Nerval's Lobster writes "In June, Steven Spielberg predicted that Hollywood was on the verge of an 'implosion' in which 'three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing to the ground.' The resulting destruction, he added, could change the film industry in radical and possibly unwelcome ways. And sooner than he may have thought, the implosion has arrived: in the past couple weeks, six wannabe blockbusters have cratered at the North American box office: 'R.I.P.D.,' 'After Earth,' 'White House Down,' 'Pacific Rim,' and 'The Lone Ranger.' These films featured big stars, bigger explosions, and top-notch special effects—exactly the sort of summer spectacle that ordinarily assures a solid run at the box office. Yet all of them failed to draw in the massive audiences needed to earn back their gargantuan budgets. Hollywood's more reliant than ever on analytics to predict how movies will do, and even Google has taken some baby-steps into that arena with a white paper describing how search-query patterns and paid clicks can estimate how well a movie will do on its opening weekend, but none of that data seems to be helping Hollywood avoid shooting itself in the foot with a 'Pacific Rim'-sized plasma cannon. In other words, analytics can help studios refine their rollout strategy for new films—but the bulk of box-office success ultimately comes down to the most elusive and unquantifiable of things: knowing what the audience wants before it does, and a whole lot of luck."
Here's an idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Saw Pacific Rim (Score:2, Interesting)
Great special effects. Story was not engaging. Didn't care about the characters. It's about the story. But with the way movies are funded I assume producers stick their $.02 in and then the studios stick their $.02 and by the time the director is done satisfying everyone the movie is as bland as can be. Spielberg is right but he is also part of the problem.
Hollywood's impossible dream of blockbusters-only (Score:5, Interesting)
In 1967, following the success of "Mary Poppins," Roy Disney said that the Disney studio ought to have "at least one 'Mary Poppins' every year."
There's nothing new about the money people wishing there was a simple formula that they could get rid of all the pesky issues of creativity, talent, and the public's taste.
Re:Better plots? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would be nice if our culture just became weary of entertainment cartel offerings, and people could once again take up more productive pastimes: making things, group outings and sports, exercise, hobbies...anything besides sitting on butts and watching brain numbing nonsense (yes, I'm as guilty as anyone)
Sad thing is, it doesn't have to be an XOR function between the two sets of activities. What really sucks is that a large part of our cultural output is seen as entirely entertainment oriented. Perhaps what we're seeing is that the upcoming younger generations see this and come to our same conclusions - and thus the disappointing flops.
Maybe instead of trying to artificially create the memes and hashtags on the social networks, Hollywood ought to listen to what's being said and take that for inspiration? I guess that's just really much more effort than rehashing the same damn blockbuster formula over and over again.
In other news, the economy aint doing so swell either - and my Netflix queue is quite long...
Re:Problem is, that hollywood is ran by MBAs (Score:4, Interesting)
The same thing that is killing USA's Auto companies (save tesla), Boeing, and hollywood, is that MBA's now run things.
Don't forget Las Vegas [youtube.com].
Re:Better plots? (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard that the plots and scripts are being dumbed-down so that they translate better into foreign markets, especially China. So instead of one culture enjoying a movie, none of them do.
Re:Movies used to be about the art, the story. (Score:5, Interesting)
I came up with the exact same summation; too much Indiana Jones. Some parts were great. Bilbo and Gollum under the mountain were truly excellent; it really did the book justice. The trolls weren't bad. The dwarf backstory was ok, going far beyond the book and doing it well.
But damn... Radagast the rabbit sledding superhero? The interminable goblin chase sequence....? wow. The whole mountain giant sequence was an exercise in excessive CGI combined with some unexplainable contempt for continuity. At some point during production someone had to think "wtf is this?"
There are two more. It is conceivable they didn't promulgate these mistakes to the remainder, but given that they've undertaken to stretch this relatively simple story over, what, 7.5 to 8 hours of movie... we could be in for a lot more fail.
Re:Better plots? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe they'll start making... (gasp)... actual plots to accompany those stars/explosions/special effects?
General: Mr. Bay, can you think of any idea how to outwit these terrorists?
Michael Bay: I believe I can. We start... by making a big CG building and then we have a meteor go CROSSHH! and it, and it's all like CRAAWWW a-and motorcycles burst into flame while they jump over these helicopters, right?
General: No no! We need ideas how to stop the terrorists!
Michael Bay: An eighteen-wheeler spins out of control and it's all like BROSSHH! And then this huuuge tanker full of dyna-
General: Those aren't ideas, those are special effects!
Michael Bay: I... don't understand the difference.
General: I know you don't. Get him out of here!
(South Park, "Imaginationland")
Our culture (Score:4, Interesting)
In all fairness this is one you can't blame on our culture. Blockbuster movies need to be international. International means they can't have as much culture. Pure action translates well to large audiences worldwide, the more plot the more character the worse it translates.
This one you can blame the 3rd world.
Re:Better plots? (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly, this desire for international release is a big part of the problem.
Of course without international release budgets need to come down.
Re:Better plots? (Score:5, Interesting)
Depends on what you mean by group outings, sports and exercize.
http://i0.wp.com/pennsicwp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/pennsic37_ammo_wagon.jpg [wp.com]
http://thebeatofyounglosangeles.blogspot.com/2011/04/check-it-quidditch-comes-to-la.html [blogspot.com]
Re:Better plots? (Score:5, Interesting)
Inception. (Heck, this one so intricate, is prompted multiple viewings, group viewings, and discussions that didn't reach agreement.)
The Matrix. (Not surprisingly, the sequels were useless.)
Re:Better plots? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or use of of the already existing plots? There are literally dozens of sci-fi books I'd LOVE to see on the big screen. Heinlein's The Moon is A Harsh Mistress or Stranger In A Strange Land. Niven's Ringworld, or any of his Known Space stories. Piers Anthony's Apprentice Adept, or Incarnations of Immortality series.
Yes, Hollywood has done a few. Starship Troopers and The Puppet Masters by Heinlein, for example. But they did them... WRONG.
The day human beings become rational ... (Score:5, Interesting)
... is the day Analytics get to rule the world.
Human beings are famous for being irrational.
True, we are predictable, but, as irrational beings, our so-called "predictability" is not actually that "predictable", after all.
Blockbuster movies become blockbuster movies because they somehow sync with the audiences. Be it King Kong or Casablanca or Star Wars or Gone With The Wind, they sell because the fulfill something that the audiences need - either to be entertained, or to be informed, or to be enlightened.
Lately, actually not lately, but has been for the past several decades, Hollywood has lost its touch.
Instead of producing movies that can fulfill the needs of the audiences, Hollywood has been relying on formulas, sequels, and remakes of old classics.
The "Analytics", sad to say, is just a new name for their formula Hollywood has been relying upon since the 1980's.
Re:The day human beings become rational ... (Score:4, Interesting)
True. While I typically don't find anything at the movies interesting enough to see, I am sucked in by sequels or by movies that appeal to the geek in me (this year more than the past 20 or so for some reason).
For instance, I saw The Hobbit and I disliked it immensely. I have no plans to see any of the sequels (Bilbo saved Thorin? Seriously? I don't care what some fucking appendix says.)
More recently I was going to see After Earth. I do like Will Smith. But friends told me I'd dislike it primarily for the reasons I like Will Smith. In general he's a happy, larger than life character. In After Earth, as I understand, he's very robotic. I think that's why I didn't have any interest in seeing MIB 3D. And what's worse, I don't recall what I saw that night instead.
I did go see World War Z and did my best to ignore that it wasn't supposed to follow the book. But having three serious (serious!) zombie attacks due to noise (air base, Jerusalem, and the airplane) and then at the end to kick a fucking can in a well lit cafeteria? I almost walked out the second time they made unnecessary noise. (The popcorn sucked big time which is really the clincher "I want some buttered, salty, far too expensive popcorn; what's playing at the theater?")
From looking at the previews, R.I.P.D. looked okay (not enough to trigger the popcorn response though). White House Down and The Lone Ranger looked pretty stupid. After Earth and Pacific Rim didn't get good reviews from my friends and I wasn't really interested in Pacific Rim anyway. Humorously The Lone Ranger previews knocked home theater setups "Action this big shouldn't be seen on a screen this small" :rolleyes: Way to alienate the folks who are actually coming to see the movies.
Anyway, nothing upcoming looks good enough to consider regardless of their "Analytics". Obviously I'm not the target audience. I think I can just go and buy the popcorn though :)
[John]
Re:Our culture (Score:4, Interesting)
In all fairness this is one you can't blame on our culture. Blockbuster movies need to be international. International means they can't have as much culture.
Bollocks. Lazy studio thinking. Lazy thinking in general. You're assuming that audiences are uneducated and want neither to think nor to learn, and that because it may be difficult or more challenging than scripting a gunfight, that it is impossible for writers, directors, and actors to communicate a story effectively in a world with slightly different cultural norms and expectations.
Many Hollywood films - indeed, entire genres - are deliberately placed within cultures (and/or against cultural backdrops) that are separated from the expectations and standards and mores of the early twenty-first century USA -- sometimes by a little bit, sometimes by gaping chasms. When well-executed, the audience is immersed in the film's cultural context, and able to follow the plot despite their lack of (initial) familiarity with the setting.
This is the bread and butter of science fiction, fantasy, historical fiction, even of the political thriller. One does not need to have flown a starship or know how to cast magic spells to appreciate Star Trek or Harry Potter. One does not need to be indoctrinated into the world of high finance to enjoy Wall Street, nor deeply study geopolitics to grasp the fun of The Hunt for Red October.
And honestly, those international audiences have been consuming the output of the United States' cultural industries for decades. The typical foreign filmgoer is probably almost as familiar with the genre conventions and tropes of American filmmaking as any American.
Re:The day human beings become rational ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Storytelling was recognized as formulaic as far back as Ancient Greece by Aristotle in his book Poetics. He knew then that most people like their stories to end up with the suffering hero redeemed, the villain punished for his misdeeds, forbidden love triumphant, etc. Therefore, that's what the moviegoers have paid for year after year, and that's what Hollywood continues to deliver today. It sells.
I think the problem is pretty simply a glut. Thanks to modern media and communications, and extra thanks to cheap filmmaking gear, everyone is constantly exposed to endless variations and combinations of these stories. Flip on the TV and there are dozens of movies waiting to stream into your brain. Even if a few are decent, most don't even rise to the level of Sharknado or Snakes on a Plane. And with so many choices, we lack the editorial reviews and critics we might otherwise use to keep out the dross.
When you see a movie that's truly new and novel, it sticks with you. Sometimes its a good story or came from a good book, sometimes it's a great actor, sometimes it's a new special effect or cinematography trick, or sometimes it plays on our childhood memories. Of course success quickly breeds imitation, and within months there are 58 variations on the theme, adding to the glut. And when the producers tire of the imitators, they release an official sequel or three, and eventually add a "reboot" or "remake" of the originals that captured our imaginations so long ago. They snazz it up, apply extra-modern graphics, bring in Daft Punk to record the soundtrack, hire sexy-fresh new kids to be tomorrow's stars, and retell the same old stories.
Spielberg knows his problem is not that his next movie will have trouble competing with the current releases. It's that he's really competing against our fondest memories of classics such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, Shindler's List, Star Wars, Jaws, Casablanca, Snow White, and Toy Story, all of which are still busily crowding themselves onto our cable channels and Netflix queues. So other than the fact that he's got a billion dollars in the bank already, he's completely screwed.
Re:Better plots? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a big part of the problem.
I think one of the key differentiators here is the amount of starting capital. Movies outside of the Hollywood machine might have the budgets for at least a certain level of special effects but because they don't have the marketing budget to ever think about attaining blockbuster status, there's no incentive to have to rake back in hojillions of profits because that money was never spent in the first place. As such, there's no desire to pander to every single market and thus less of a chance that your movies comes out as blandly homogenised-by-committee crap. Take Looper, or Prometheus for example. Set themselves up to say something brilliant and profoud about their retrospective environments, and then didn't.
Honestly, I don't really care that much about the plot re-use; there are only so many plots and so many ways you can fit them into 2hrs, but so many big-budget movies recently seem to have actually forgotten how to deliver them with style (or indeed at all in many cases). The effects all look the same, the characters are all the same.
Eurotrash pontificating here, but this is why I've ended up like euro-centric cinema the most these days. There's a fair few attempts at effects-laden hokum but most of the stuff tends to revolve around some sort of a character study in $period_setting. Cheap to film but requires good acting/directing and a solid script. My favourite example of these came as a recommendation from a friend to see Il Divo, examining Giulio Andreotti, an Italian politician with incredible staying power. I know, I'd never heard of him either, but he's painted like a real-life version of Francis Urquhart [imdb.com]. It's an immensely stylish swoop through Italian politics and corruption and general hideousness with fantastically opulent trappings and a convoluted plot. It got next to no publicity here in the UK but all the Italians I knew were raving about it (and thankfully we have enough indie cinemas here that you can guarantee that most of these films will receive some sort of showing, at least in London). The same director has done at least two other films with the same lead actor, Tony Servillo, all character studies and, by and large, examining completely different themes and all, IMHO, enthralling viewing.
Also IHMO (and yes, I'm trying to be objective about the rose-tinted specs effect), Hollywood's last "golden period" was something like 1998 to 2005 where a lot of movies with interesting ideas or themes, or even just old ones but with a radical new style, came out and a large chunk of it's output since then has been distinctly boring. Thankfully, as Hollywood history has shown, this is usually a cyclical thing and after the current swathe of identikit superheroes and invading CGI monsters collapse under their own weight we'll hopefully see interesting ideas brought to the fore again.
£0.02
Re: The day human beings become rational ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't see all of last year's or this year's "big" films, but the five minute answer covering '82 to '11:
1982 Blade Runner (Ridley Scott)
1983 Scarface (Brian De Palma)
1984 The Terminator (James Cameron)
1985 Brazil (Terry Gilliam)
1986 Ferris Bueller's Day Off (John Hughes)
1987 The Princess Bride (Rob Reiner)
1988 Akira (Katsuhiro Otomo)
1989 A Grand Day Out (Nick Park)
1990 Goodfellas (Martin Scorsese)
1991 Boyz n the Hood (John Singleton)
1992 Reservoir Dogs (Quentin Tarantino)
1993 Schindler's List (Steven Spielberg)
1994 The Shawshank Redemption (Frank Darabont)
1995 Crying Freeman (Christophe Gans)
1996 Trainspotting (Danny Boyle)
1997 Gattaca (Andrew Niccol)
1998 Run Lola Run (Tom Tykwer)
1999 Fight Club (David Fincher)
2000 Requiem for a Dream (Darren Aronofsky)
2001 Amelie (Jean-Pierre Jeunet)
2002 The Pianist (Roman Polanski)
2003 Dogville (Lars Von Trier)
2004 Shaun of the Dead (Edgar Wright)
2005 Hard Candy (David Slade)
2006 This Is England (Shane Meadows)
2007 Juno (Jason Reitman)
2008 Waltz with Bashir (Ari Folman)
2009 The Scouting Book for Boys (Tom Harper)
2010 Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky)
2011 We Need to Talk About Kevin (Lynne Ramsay)
No remakes (that I'm aware of), no sequels, and no easy formulaic films here.
Shit, cutting down to a single film from some of those years was raw pain. '94 and '05 in particular.