News & Notes Inside the Week in Film

#NEWBOXOFFICETRENDS

There are a surprising lack of numbers attached to the Hollywood box office.  That hasn’t stopped publications from getting into the stats in a new way.

by Chris Neumer

One of the issues with writing about the box office performance of different films is that there just aren’t that many statistics out there that can be crunched.  For a given film like Oz: The Great and Powerful,which opened this last weekend, we know how many theaters it is playing in (3,912) and how much money it brought in, ($79,110,453 domestically).  And that’s it.It’d be tempting to throw Oz’s budget into the mix of numbers that we know, but there is absolutely no consensus on that matter.  My source on all box office matters, Boxofficemojo.com, is reporting that Oz’s budget was $215 million.  However, very reputable sources can also freely be found listing the budget at only $200 million.  Covering both scenarios, wikipedia lists the film’s budget at $200 million and cites as its source boxofficemojo… which, naturally, stated that the film’s budget was $215 million.  The LA Times went their own direction and reported that the film cost “roughly $235 million”.

And no matter how much anyone wants to know what Disney spent marketing Oz, it’s just not go ing to happen.  Hollywire reported the P&A campaign at around $105 million, “almost half [the film’s $215 million budget]”, The Hollywood Reporter listed it as being a little over $75 million, while both The New York Times and huffingtonpost.com put it at $125 million.

Depending on what outlets you chose to read, the total amount Disney spent making and marketing this film was either $275 million or $360 million.  I’m no statistician, but it seems that a 31% discrepancy in potentially usable figures might pose problematic.

With almost no hard numbers to work with, it’s next to impossible to offer any truly relevant box office analysis without getting really creative and spending a fair amount of time researching things.  So, what entertainment publications have begun to do is focus more on things that they can easily compare: namely how movies this year are performing as compared to their previous year’s counterparts.

I’ve never quite understood this because, outside of being released on the same weekend of the year, there isn’t really any correlation between, well, anything.  Does the Chicago Bulls’ 70th game of the 2012 season have any bearing on their 70th game of the 2013 season?  Not that I can tell.

As IndieWire’s Anne Thompson wrote, “The top ten films Friday grossed $38 million, a big jump from last week, but up only $3 million from a year ago… Take away the big new film and the rest of the grosses were an amemic [sic] $16 million total for the 2-10 slots yesterday compared to $25 million for them last year. So the uptick came about because of one expensive tentpole film rather than any broadbased return to theaters.

What Thompson is saying is, indeed, true, but lacks any perspective as to why this is important… namely because none of it is actually important.  So the box office is up from last weekend and last year at the same time… and this being reported with a negative slant to it.

What’s truly fascinating to me about this new style of supposedly numbers oriented box office reporting is that no one ever seems to stop and ask questions about anything, no matter how unusual the picture the numbers are painting appears to be.

From Thompson’s write up and an article on boxofficemojo.com that managed to compare Oz to last year’s mega-Evan Almighty-esque flop, John Carter (despite the fact that Oz grossed more in its first weekend than John Carter did in its entire run), I distinctly got the feeling that Oz was being looked at by insiders as a successful failure; ie: it was making money, but not enough to give Disney the windfall it was hoping for.

Thompson herself wrote, “[Oz] does seem to have a shot at hitting the necessary half billion or so gross needed to show a profit.”

So Disney needs to have Oz do $500 million (I’m assuming worldwide) to simply break even, something that it is stated it only has ‘a shot’ of doing… and yet, it has already greenlit a sequel.  The latter act seems a pretty brave move on Disney’s part, considering that the first film might not even turn a profit.  However, no one seemed interested in investigating that, especially given that the normal merchandising that would accompany a franchise like Oz’s have been shot to hell because Warner Brothers owns all the rights to the original Wizard of Oz materials.  Disney can’t go near ruby slippers, blue dresses or Toto without poking the angry Burbank badger.  (The LA Times did run a very interesting article on the Warner/Disney legal issues).

But, in a way, it’s hard to blame people for not writing about this: there are absolutely no facts that can be pinned down to write something that would hold up with under a 30% margin of error.

I Can Has Director of Slumdog Millionaire?

This is where we are as a society, America.  I hope you’re happy.  Academy Award winning director Danny Boyle went to South by Southwest… and was outshined by a cat.

by Chris Neumer

            In recent years, it’s become apparent and some might argue obvious that the Internet was created to share pictures of cute cats.  The latest cat to capture the heart of the tubes and go viral is the cat pictured above, Grumpy Cat™ (oh yes, it’s trademarked).  Grumpy Cat was on The Today Show and nearly broke the Internet when his owner’s brother placed a photo of the feline on Reddit in late 2012.

So Grumpy Cat was asked to appear at South by Southwest at the Mashable House tent.  And promptly became the star of the festival.  People lined up for three blocks, a wait that would last more than 90 minutes, to see the cat for 30 seconds.  In that line was one woman who flew in from Australia specifically to see Grumpy Cat.  The saddest part of all came when CNN reported, “Oscar-winning filmmaker Danny Boyle was doing an interview… but people crowded past him for a glimpse of the cat.”

Yup, this is where we are are a society.  There is going to be more weeping than usual in my apartment tonight…

 

And In Other Non-News…

Iran is planning to A) continue refining uranium, B) condemn western music or C) sue Hollywood for the liberties that Argo took in representing their country?

by Chris Neumer

Whenever I read an over-the-top and comically outlandish story, I always quickly check the byline to make sure it wasn’t filed on April 1 (or that someone hasn’t misunderstood the purpose of The Onion).  When word broke of the Wolverine film leaking online, it took me several days to realize it wasn’t a hoax because the story broke on April Fool’s Day.  This last week, a story caught my eye that I simply couldn’t believe was real.  However, as reported by the Associated Press (AP) and published in Entertainment Weekly (in March, no less), there was no denying its validity: Iran wants to sue Hollywood.

The story began: Iran is planning to sue Hollywood over the Oscar-winning Argo because of the movie’s allegedly “unrealistic portrayal” of the country…  Yes, sue Hollywood.

If, like me, you’re wondering who would get sued for this or what court would accept this lawsuit, you’re not alone.  The AP was kind of curious too.  Tucked into the very middle of the article was this gem of a sentence: “It remains unclear what specific charges Iran could raise and what court Tehran could turn to if the action goes ahead.”

What was most entertaining about this story—which is really as much of a non-story as there can be; it’s the equivalent of reporting that Tom Cruise wants to flap his arms really hard and fly around—was the lengthy history of animosity that Iran has towards Hollywood.

My favorite was the mention made of how Iranian officials demanded an apology from a group of Hollywood insiders that was visiting the country in 2009.  After some more digging, it came to light that about a dozen film industry folks including Annette Bening, Alfre Woodard and then Academy president Sid Ganis went to hob knob with Iranian filmmakers.  When the group arrived in Tehran, Iranian cultural advisor to the president demanded that the group “apologize for Hollywood’s ‘insults and libel’ against the Islamic Republic” and announced that an apology had to be delivered before any higher up members of the government would meet with them.

Now that takes balls.  Approve the travel plans of the Hollywood contingent, get them into Iran and then, THEN, announce that they had to apologize to the Iranian people for the movie 300 (which none of them had anything to do) or the Iranian government wouldn’t meet with them.

At this point, only one thing is certain: Iran will behave like a jilted high school boyfriend at every possible opportunity.

 

The Photo of the Week

Safety Last

 

The 5 Things I Learned This Week

Fascinatingly true things to broaden your mind

 

1) A nautical mile is one minute of arc on Earth.  This is roughly ten percent shorter than a mile on land.

2) A knot is a measurement of speed.  If a ship is traveling 1 nautical mile per hour, that is considered a speed of 1 knot.

3) It was reported in 2009 that Pixar had made more than $5 billion on merchandising from the movie Cars alone.  Just in case you’re still wondering why they made a sequel.

4) NBA player Richard Jefferson’s mother is named “Meekness LaCato”.  His father is Richard Jefferson Sr.

5) K-Mart is owned by Sears Holdings.

 

 

This Week’s Stories

New Releases

The First Time 

THE PLAYERS: Starring Dylan O’Brien, Britt Robertson, Victoria Justice; written and directed by Jon Kasdan. Released by Samuel Goldwyn. Rated PG-13.

THE PLOT: Two teens (O’Brien, Robertson) face the challenges of relationships in this high school RomCom.

THE SKINNY:
+/- This high school movie features some of the hottest 22-24 year olds you will ever see.  It’s actually jarring how good looking everyone is, save for the computer geek.  You want to talk about giving people a complex, this movie has the potential to do that.  I mean, even the nerdy art chics are insanely hot.
– The First Time features a girl explaining that her virginity isn’t something to be treasured…  Yeah, kind of scary, really.
+ Written and directed by Jonathan Kasdan (yes, there’s another one out there writing and directing movies about relationships joining Jake and Lawrence), The First Time does accurately capture the tumult and tribulations of high school.
– … unfortunately the casting is so bad—people this good looking do not spend time worrying about losing their virginity even in a fictional world—that a lot of this is lost in the proceedings.
– The Arial and Helvetica fonts are prominently used in the film’s marketing materials.  For the life of me, I cannot figure out who thinks this is a good idea.  Helvetica?

YES, IT’S TRUE: There is no medical definition for ‘virginity’.

Hitchcock

THE PLAYERS: Starring Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, and Scarlett Johansson; written by John J. McLaughlin and Stephen Rebello; directed by Sacha Gervasi. Released by Fox Searchlight. Rated PG-13.

THE PLOT: An exploration through the life of famed director Alfred Hitchcock (Hopkins) during the filming of his classic film, Psycho.

THE SKINNY:
– Director Alfred Hitchcock was a dick.  Plain and simple.  He treated people (read: women) very poorly and is the type of person who seems like he deserved a smack down of some sort.  Yes, if I had a time machine, I’d do whatever I could to pair Hitchcock with NWA.
– For all the positive press Psycho gets, it’s just not that good of a movie today.  It does not hold up well against even Dial M for Murder.
+ Helen Mirren does a smashing job as Hitchcock’s wife, Alma.  Anthony Hopkins delivers a capable job in the lead, but it is truly Mirren who stands out.
– This movie is a contrast in tones.  It’s about a deeply disturbed man who is making a movie about a serial killer that has a very light hearted and (occasionally) farcical feel to it.  This works well on Dexter, but isn’t a quality that is easily captured anywhere else, as evidenced by Hitchcock.
– We highly recommend that you just go watch North by Northwest instead.

YES, IT’S TRUE: Psycho was the first American film to show a toilet flushing.

Life of Pi

THE PLAYERS: Starring Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, and Tabu; written by Yann Martel and David Magee; directed by Ang Lee. Released by Fox. Rated PG.

THE PLOT: Teenager. Tiger. Lifeboat.

THE SKINNY:
+ Easily one of the top five movies of the last decade focused on the relationship between a teenager and a tiger that forms on a life boat at sea after they are shipwrecked.
– Unfortunately, it’s also one of the five worst movies of the last decade to feature a prominent plot point that includes a floating carnivorous island of meerkats.
+ The visual effects and cinematography of Life of Pi are absolutely astonishing.  It truly deserved the Academy Awards it received in these fields (as well as Best Director).
– Spoiler Alert: The tiger is a metaphor for the lead character… This is actually better than the book though, which not only went down that road but also made the lead character a murderer.
+ The movie is legitimately good.  It also feels good.  The aesthetics and glossiness of the film are simply outstanding.  It is a true delight for your eyes.

YES, IT’S TRUE: Pie is a dessert with filling, whereas its competitor, cake, is usually covered in frosting.

This Must Be the Place

THE PLAYERS: Starring Sean Penn, Frances McDormand, Judd Hirsch; written and directed by Paulo Sorrentino. Released by Weinstein Company. Rated R.

THE PLOT: Penn plays a former rock star that travels to New York and then across the country to make amends with his sickly father.

THE SKINNY:
+ It’s basically like someone dropped an English glam rocker into a standard movie about a man coming to grips with his estranged father.
– Unfortunately, it’s still a movie about a man coming to grips with his estranged father.
– I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I hate movies where the lead characters end up learning things about how to be human.  Not only do I not understand how someone can get to age 50 with knowing these things, but I sure as hell don’t believe that one cross country road trip is going to be enough to change a life of assholish hedonism.
– Oh, yeah, and this is a cross country road movie…
– … where the aforementioned glam rocker is trying to find a Nazi war criminal who humiliated his father at Auschwitz.
– Check that, where the aforementioned glam rocker is trying to find a Nazi war criminal who humiliated his now deceased father at Auschwitz.
+ Sean Penn delivers a very good (albeit somewhat irritating) performance as the lead.  Talk very slowly in the weakest, most high pitched, begging-to-be-bullied voice you can and you’re about a quarter of the way to what Penn delivers here.

YES, IT’S TRUE: The Talking Heads’ David Byrne also appears in the film, recreating a situation with Cheyenne that actually happened to Byrne in real life.

The New Releases were written by Chris Neumer and Kevin Withers