Why can’t Hollywood learn from the box office?
Back when I was trying to break into the entertainment industry as a screenwriter, I used to follow the box office returns most assiduously. I wanted to know what kind of movies people were watching, what themes and relationships resonated with audiences. And I would then consider my own story ideas and find which stories were, thematically, most like those which sold the most tickets. I would focus my attention on marketing those.
Now, all my stories lacked explosions and car chases, but each did affirm the value of certain archetypal relationships, like a man’s bond to his father, a child’s connection to his or her family and the tension between that familial affection and his or her romantic inclinations (see, e.g., Romeo and Juliet). Back in 2002, when My Big Fat Greek Wedding, which cost only $5 million to produce, snuck up and surprised everyone, capturing nearly one-quarter billion dollars at the domestic box office alone, I had great hope for some of my scripts, a few of which had similar themes.
Attending a panel of industry executives at a Film Festival the summer that sweet sleeper was eating up the box office, I asked if its success would change the way things were done in Hollywood. To a man (there were only men on the panel), the executives said it would not.
In what other industry, I wondered, would an unexpected success not cause companies to reconsider the way they did business?
Over at Big Hollywood, my friend John Nolte explores a similar theme:
- Anti-American, anti-troop films flop one right after another both here and overseas. See:Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here.
- The rare pro-American, pro-troop film makes money overseas. See: Here. Here. Here. Here.Here.
- Hollywood makes anti-American films one right after another.
- Hollywood says they don’t make pro-American films because they don’t make money overseas.
Read the whole thing. Why does Hollywood not learn from the box office?
Perhaps, when I moved to LA, instead of studying the box office, I should have changed my politics.
25 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think I’m the only one who didn’t see MBFGW. Coulda watched it for free on a flight to London, but chose Monsters Inc. instead. Wasn’t Saw one of those low budget sleepers too?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 5, 2011 @ 1:46 am - April 5, 2011
Your points go along very well with Michael Medved’s, who has thoroughly documented that family films, G, PG, and PG-13, take in VASTLY more money than R rated movies, but Hollywood is almost exclusively interested in the latter.
Its not about money. Its about the agenda. They make the films they have to make to earn the money to make the crap they want to make that no one wants to see.
Comment by American Elephant — April 5, 2011 @ 4:52 am - April 5, 2011
Well lets be fair… If you lived in a piece of crap third world country would you rather spend your hard earned cash on a long winded, preachy, condescending bit of idiotic drivel? Or on something that for 90 minutes helps you forget the world and have an adventure?
Hollywood has lost it’s mind… Plain and simple.
Comment by Stone K — April 5, 2011 @ 5:50 am - April 5, 2011
>>>Back when I was trying to break into the entertainment industry as a screenwriter, I used to follow the box office returns most assiduously.
That was your second mistake.
Sometimes, when it comes to art, it’s not about the box office.
But they’re always be third-rate hacks willing to write derivative junk just like ____________. (Insert any title).
Comment by Auntie Dogma — April 5, 2011 @ 9:33 am - April 5, 2011
But we are talking about movies, Antipathy Dogma, which are not about art. What artist pays his model a gi-normous sitting fee and residuals when he rents the painting out? What poet makes deals for product placement in his tender sonnets? What successful artist didn’t learn the trade by taking notice of what the public would and wouldn’t buy?
Art is in the mind of the beholder. The more who behold and appreciate it, the better paid the artist becomes. If art is in the mind of the artist, then Hollywood is an artist’s whorehouse of nightmares where every aspect of the artist’s vision is hacked apart by little people with big egos.
Try again.
Comment by Heliotrope — April 5, 2011 @ 10:13 am - April 5, 2011
I find it humourous from Holylweird, that there was the campaign against I believe it was called ‘clean flicks’ that sanitized popular films, but the same hollyweird execs don’t mind TV edits, or even changing contexts (“Captain America: The First Avenger” becoming “
Captain America: The First Avenger.”) overseas.For all the talk of good will, Hollywood won’t even keep Captain America, fighting against the
Nazi’sforces of Hydra.Comment by The_Livewire — April 5, 2011 @ 11:58 am - April 5, 2011
Miss Dogma, this time, you actually offer valid commentary. So, let me clarify. I followed the box office not to determine what to write, but which ideas (of the many I had) to develop into scripts.
I wanted to focus on those that I had the best chance of selling. I hope that clarifies my point. The box office wasn’t so much determining the stories I told as the ones I focused on.
You’re right: when it comes to art, it shouldn’t be about the box office.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 5, 2011 @ 12:30 pm - April 5, 2011
Hi. As a regular over at Big Hollywood (and veteran of John Nolte’s previous sites), I have a few thoughts:
For starters, box-office is not a good arbiter of quality. If it were, Avatar would be the best movie ever (when pigs fly). Ultimately, the only true test of a movie’s success is time.
Now when it comes to deciding what to write, I agree with your tactic though at the end of the day, a writer can only write a movie (or novel) that he/she would want to go see (or read).
As for the comment re: Michael Medved, of course movies that are rated R don’t make as much as others, because more people can go see them. There’s no agenda when it comes to ratings – some stories just aren’t meant for family audiences.
Comment by ScottDS — April 5, 2011 @ 12:44 pm - April 5, 2011
I checked out the list, and although some of those films in #2 can certainly be said to be pro-American (like the National Treasure movies), what they have in common is that they were entertaining. They were fun, they were engaging. IMHO, the reason the movies in list #1 didn’t make money is because they didn’t entertain people as well. They are preachy, whether or not they can be said to be anti-American. (I can’t say for sure, since I haven’t seen any of them, but I’ll defer to Mr. Nolte’s interpretation.)
On top of that, we’ve been at war for 10 years. In a non-stop 24-hour “news” cycle. In that context, most of the list at #1 are probably also too depressing for the general movie-going public. People don’t go to the movies to be depressed. They go to be entertained. They rent depressing movies from Netflix.
I don’t disagree that Hollywood continues to green-light anti-American themed movies, but I think at the end of the day, “Big Hollywood” (the concept, not the website) is just another big business, trying to increase it’s revenue. Like any other business, some choices they make work out, and some don’t.
Comment by Neptune — April 5, 2011 @ 2:06 pm - April 5, 2011
Holy shit Dan, are you really comparing the box office receipts of Syriana to Ironman to prove your point? By what arbitrary standards are you labeling these movies anti-American and anti-troop? Hurt Locker was anti-American, really? I might as well say that Gigli was a conservative movie and Titanic was a liberal movie.
Also, Avatar was pretty explicitly anti-war and that made more money than anything ever – you lose! It’s another terrible post!
Comment by Levi — April 5, 2011 @ 2:08 pm - April 5, 2011
Ah, LEvi’s doing his wack a mole thing. Popping up in a thread after being shown to be a liar in another.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 5, 2011 @ 2:10 pm - April 5, 2011
@Levi, the difference between Avatar and say, The Hurt Locker is that Avatar did a good job of couching it’s anti-war, anti-American, Anti-capitalism sentiments in a film that was full of flashy special effects, digital animation, action and let us not forget inter-species romance. Those were the things that made Avatar a success at the box office, not it’s underlying progressive message. Most people that went to see it were there because of the visuals not the message.
Comment by Kristie — April 5, 2011 @ 3:43 pm - April 5, 2011
I am definitely not a liberal, but this Levi person is actually right in this instance. As a servicemember and History professor — a very strange combination, I know — I must say it’s impossible to be so neat in dividing anti-troop from pro-troop films. There is a lot to criticize about the Left but this line of criticism doesn’t work. It doesn’t make sense.
The reality is that people in the Army (my branch) have complex and ambivalent views about military themes in films. We know the military is screwed up in many ways. We often hate people we serve with even though we would never let them down. So what is anti or pro-military is too mixed up to make a clear argument about.
The big problem with Hollywood is that it is fed by film programs in MFA institutions, and these are run by leftist assholes who can’t let the Vietnam Era go even as we hit 50 years after the fact.
Comment by Immanuel Valriche — April 5, 2011 @ 4:05 pm - April 5, 2011
Hurt Locker was anti-American? >.>
Comment by Charon — April 5, 2011 @ 5:29 pm - April 5, 2011
Its not box office receipts that dictate what happens in Hollywood. The top brass make a lot of money no matter what and if the lower levels of moviedom get paid minimum wages – they don’t care.
For them movies are a platform to shout out their beliefs. They don’t care if the movie doesn’t make money – it’s the only platform they have.
Then of course once the movie is made they go on all the TV talk shows and repeat their crap once again.
Comment by Leah — April 5, 2011 @ 10:01 pm - April 5, 2011
Avatar = Dances with Wolves (with better graphics)
Also…I think Leah is right on the money
Comment by Nathan — April 5, 2011 @ 11:06 pm - April 5, 2011
I’ll take a stab at not overanalyzing the success of Pro- American, pro-troop films both here and abroad – Could it be as simple as movie goers are inspired by having a strong definitive message that reaffirms democracy and the strength of our military? Is it such a stretch to believe, contrary to our current president’s obsession that America needed to transform in the eyes of the world, that we were/are actually viewed through a paradigm of freedom and hope and not a vile, arrogant oppressor?
Side note: Nothing can explain the Blair Witch Project – other than a low budget precursor to YouTube…
Comment by mlb — April 6, 2011 @ 1:52 am - April 6, 2011
Sure some movies arent made for family audiences, but when all the money, attendance, and the vast majority of DEMAND is for family movies, why does Hollywood put out more R rated movies? Agenda.
I invite you to read the long time movie-critic’s best-selling book, “Hollywood vs America”. He makes his case quite irrefutably.
Comment by American Elephant — April 6, 2011 @ 4:10 am - April 6, 2011
I argue with the movie geeks all the time on other sites. These same kids who throw money at Michael Bay for really bad renditions of cartoon characters with explosions cant seem to fathom a pro American movie. To them as long as the movie has explosions and unnatural looking high school girls they will not notice that all the enemies in the movie are always the American government or the evil military.
Comment by Aleric — April 6, 2011 @ 10:16 am - April 6, 2011
I think it’s much simpler than that. The hollywood execs make movies that they themselves enjoy and want to see.
They can’t understand why everybody outside of their world sees things differently so they keep plugging hoping we’ll all get it someday; until then they follow their gut and keep making the movies they love and enjoy.
Comment by rushevents — April 6, 2011 @ 10:27 am - April 6, 2011
They’re probably subsidized by George Soros, and probably our tax dollars. I know how greedy movie moguls are so I know they must make a profit at no matter who’s expense.
Comment by James — April 6, 2011 @ 10:58 am - April 6, 2011
It’s ironic that conservatives, who claim as a central belief that government is corrupt, incompetent, bumbling, and oppressive, would so object to theatrical portrayals that depict the government exactly as such. Am I missing something here?
Comment by Levi — April 6, 2011 @ 5:20 pm - April 6, 2011
I don’t consider Hurt Locker an anti-troop film, speaking as a troop. I can’t speak for the others.
Comment by Risawn — April 6, 2011 @ 10:43 pm - April 6, 2011
It’s ironic that Levi, who’s said that government is corrupt and needs ‘the right people’ to fix it says distrust of Government is a purely conservative trait.
Personally, I think part of it is that they’re afraid to admit that America is still special.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 7, 2011 @ 8:04 am - April 7, 2011
First, I agree with those who express confusing at defining Hurt Locker as “anti-american.” The biggest gripe I’ve heard from most warfighters was the lack of realism in portraying a very few soldiers experiencing events wherein they should have been accompanied by at least dozens of team members. The director consciously made that decision both for budgetary and dramatic reasons.
Second, I am having trouble following Levi’s logic. Apparently he equates portraying America (or our troops) as evil, with bumbling or incompetent government!? Sounds like underpants gnome logic to me:
1 – America is evil, 2 – ???, 3 – BUMBLERS!!
Also, I think some folks misunderstand Mr. Blatt’s point in citing box office; in general, anti-American movies fare poorly, and pro-American films do well.
But, just because I’m that kinda guy,I plugged in a few more movies at Box Office Mojo. Numbers reference budget/domestic gross/foreign gross. I expect the readers here can do their own math.
And, yes, I did round down.
Tears of the Sun barely made money ($72m budget, $43m + $42m gross); Men of Honor did fairly well ($32m budget, $48m+ $33m); Pearl Harbor (yeah, I know, I couldn’t resist) ($140m budget, $198m + $250M Yoicks!); The Great Raid ($80m, $10m + $600k – urk); Enemy at the Gates (useful as a control) ($68m, $51m + $45m); Flags of our Fathers ($90m, $33m + $32m); Letters from Iwo Jima ($19m, $13m + $54m (Japan only: $42m)); Hart’s War ($70m, $19m + $13m); Saving Private Ryan ($70m, $216m + $265m (note greater foreign take)); Black Hawk Down ($92m, $108m + $64m); Three Kings ($75m, $60m + $47m); The Peacemaker ($50m, $41m + $69m). The last two are interesting in that they are both commercially successful movies starring George Clooney as a soldier. Obviously George is far more commercially successful as a positive role model, and equally obviously he doesn’t care. Pity. Peacemaker is one of my favorite movies.
Finally -just because I can’t stop myself- The Men Who Stare at Goats ($25m, $32m + $36m). Maybe sometimes crazy trumps patriotic? For the skeptics I cite Kelly’s Heroes in evidence.
Comment by Casey — April 10, 2011 @ 2:15 am - April 10, 2011