It's not cause the movies are bad...

[Youth N Asia 0]

--------------------------------

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/digital/news...sp?story=434778

 

Texting blamed for summer movie flops

By Andrew Gumbel

18 August 2003

 

In Hollywood, 2003 is rapidly becoming known as the year of the failed blockbuster, and the industry now thinks it knows why.

 

No, the executives are not blaming such bombs as The Hulk, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle or Gigli on poor quality, lack of originality, or general failure to entertain. There's absolutely nothing new about that.

 

The problem, they say, is teenagers who instant message their friends with their verdict on new films - sometimes while they are still in the cinema watching - and so scuppering carefully crafted marketing campaigns designed to lure audiences out to a big movie on its opening weekend.

 

"In the old days, there used to be a term, 'buying your gross,' " Rick Sands, chief operating officer at Miramax, told the Los Angeles Times. "You could buy your gross for the weekend and overcome bad word of mouth, because it took time to filter out into the general audience."

 

But those days are over, because the technology of hand-held text-message devices has drastically cut down the time it takes for movie-goers to tell their friends that a heavily promoted summer action movie is a waste of time and money.

 

Five years ago, when summer movies were arguably just as bad as they are now, the average audience drop-off between a film's opening weekend and its second weekend was 40 per cent. This summer, it has been 51 per cent. In some cases, the drop-off has started between the film's opening on a Friday night and the main screenings on Saturday. The upshot: unsuccessful films disappearing from cinemas so fast that there is no time for second opinions.

 

A 56 per cent drop over the first week of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines was not what the studio moguls had expected. As Arnold Schwarzenegger himself might say, hasta la vista, baby.

----------------------------------

 

You'd think they could have come up with a better excuse then this.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Here's a crazy idea:

 

Make better movies so word of mouth is good.

[Mole 0]

That is the DUMBEST THING IN THE WORLD.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

They shouldn't bitch about it.

 

It has worked both ways in the past.

 

The best example I can think of is Scream...where it opened at 6 million something and ended up grossing over 100 million based SOLELY on word of mouth.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Did Hollywood and the RIAA have some sort of retreat weekend in Montana recently?

 

Hollywood has plenty of excuses...but not enough new ideas..

[Mole 0]

They shouldn't bitch about it.

 

It has worked both ways in the past.

 

The best example I can think of is Scream...where it opened at 6 million something and ended up grossing over 100 million based SOLELY on word of mouth.

As with the Others.

[WrestlingDeacon 0]

I want to see researched proof of this phenomenon. I would also have to think that if a movie was good, the gross would go up do to the instant word of mouth. They also gloss over the fact that movies like the Hulk and Charlie's Angels did big business in their first weeks and suffered their huge drops the second weekend, like traditional word of mouth. This is so grasping at straws and illogical.

[Downhome 0]

That sounds like some excuse that WWE would give for ratings and buy rates.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

That sounds like some excuse that WWE would give for ratings and buy rates.

Text Messaging = Internet Chatrooms/Forums

[Downhome 0]

That sounds like some excuse that WWE would give for ratings and buy rates.

Text Messaging = Internet Chatrooms/Forums

 

What?

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

This "word of mouth" seems hard to belive, but if people really have begun to communicate with eachother, it could shape not just the entertainment industry, but the entire world.

[Guest Choken One]

What I can't stand is people text Messaging to a person in the same room...I see this all the time at work (when I go) and it pisses me off...I know they are talking about me...

 

It's prevented the old "

Go to the breakroom and gossip" routine and shit...

[HellSpawn 0]

Thats Stupid.

Its like blaming YOU because the Movie Sucked.

How about a crappy CGI Hulk or Charlie Angles with just T&A over story.

 

I remember Scream down here in Mexico... almost 2 months after the premiere... and some theaters were still FULL.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wonder if Verizon will craft a commercial around this -- warn your friends of bad movies with text-based messaging...

[Youth N Asia 0]

And The Hulk DID in fact suck.

 

It goes both ways. Some movies do better cause people go on and on about how great they are, and some do worse cause people say what a shitter it is.

 

If the movie's good it'll make bank. End of story.

[Nevermortal 0]

I hate Cell Phones, 2 Ways, Pagers, and all that other shit.

 

With that said, this is the stupidest excuse. EVER.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

I remember when Sream opened and didn't do well...(6 something mil) and I saw some movie reviewer on TV talking about how the horror genre was dead.

 

Then it just kept making the same amount every week. That movie just never had a drop off.

[Guest Fook]

So the drop off is due to people telling their friends that the movie sucked faster than they used to and not because the movie actually did suck?

 

OK then. Just wanted to clarify that one.

[AndrewTS 0]

It doesn't matter so much if you make a movie that's stupid crap but people like it--Bad Boys II for instance.

 

And The Hulk DID in fact suck.

 

A tad harsh. Directed well, but the final product was damn cheesy. However, it was great to riff with a friend. ("Bruce Banner...noted scientist. Dedicated his life to the betterment of Mankind. Push a button, things happen. A scientist becomes a hulk brute...did I say flag on the moon?")

 

Having seen it twice, I think critics overrated it because of the way it was directed, and ate up the way the film was set up slowly, relieved it wasn't all just wrecking stuff and explosions.

Edited August 20, 2003 by AndrewTS

[Guest MD2020]

They shouldn't bitch about it.

 

It has worked both ways in the past.

 

The best example I can think of is Scream...where it opened at 6 million something and ended up grossing over 100 million based SOLELY on word of mouth.

As with the Others.

And something like The Blair Witch Project or My Big Fat Greek Weeding.

 

Small, really-low budget films that got great returns because people said it was different/scary (BWP) or that it was a good, funny movie (MBFGW--note: I didnt' see this, but I'm going on what I heard).

 

Even Titanic. This didn't make $1B because people wanted to see the big ship go down (although that's part of it), but because it was a nicely told "Boy meets girl, loses girl, gets back with girl" love story.

 

Make good movies, and more people will see them.

[AndrewTS 0]

Question--since when were the Hulk and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle bombs? I thought the Hulk was #1 for a while and CA:FT was in the top 5 for a while?

[Youth N Asia 0]

They expected way WAY bigger numbers for Hulk and Angels

[AndrewTS 0]

So you're still considered a bomb if you merely underperform in comparison to expected numbers?

 

Or is it that they didn't make a substantial profit due to the huge cost of making them (special effects don't come cheap, especially CGI)?

[Youth N Asia 0]

www.the-numbers.com

 

 

The Hulk

Released in US June 20, 2003

Total US Gross $131,164,155

Production Budget $120,000,000

[Damaramu 0]

Hmm....so the movie doesn't suck....it's because I tell me friends it sucks! I never knew that! These are actually good movies but just because *I* don't think so they make horrible money! Wow!

[AndrewTS 0]

www.the-numbers.com

 

 

The Hulk

Released in US June 20, 2003

Total US Gross $131,164,155

Production Budget $120,000,000

HA! They barely broke even. Although they made 11 million dollars, proportionately they didn't make much profit.

 

You know, they'd have done a lot better if they didn't pay ungodly amounts to top actors these days. Of course, CGI was undoubtedly most of the cost in The Hulk's case.

 

They'll probably make a little profit on the home video releases--but I find this pretty funny.