Blame the movies or the moviegoers?
People aren't seeing a lot of movies in theaters right now, but that doesn't mean there aren't good ones to watch.
“You and I are gonna be the greatest musical manager team since Jessica Simpson and her father. Only you and I get to "mreow" and they can't, 'cause it's illegal. I looked it up.”
Remember last week when I said people go to the theaters around Thanksgiving? Uh, yeah, not this one. It brings up the whole “underperforming” and “over-performing” notions that people in Hollywood love to talk about, and I’ve actually been meaning to write about.
I’m going to exaggerate here, but the movie industry treats a film’s expected opening weekend box office as something handed down by Moneyis Maximas, the God of Entertainment1, and if a movie’s monetary take goes well above or below that mark, it’s as if the movie somehow acted as an independent entity and intentionally screwed it up / crushed it. When in reality what happened was people believed a movie was going to make a specified amount of money, but it never was going to. They just didn’t know it yet.
So what’s really going on is poor expectation setting. People, aka executives, at studios initially judge a movie to make a certain amount of money because of X,Y and Z criteria they greenlit the movie on and then that assessment gets adjusted once the market research starts to come in. But audiences don’t base their movie going decisions on the rubrics created by studios, they decide on whatever the hell they wanna decide on. Which makes predicting the outcome of theatrical performances kinda hard! I do have some insight into the issue as during the latter part of my time at Paramount I worked on making better prediction models. But even when the model2 I had helped build was ultimately “right,” but had ran afoul of the expectations of people in charge, I quickly became not the most popular person. I obviously hadn’t done anything, except to convey information and nothing had functionally changed except the knowledge inside a person’s head, but it was as if speaking about an outcome somehow helped make it happen.
Take the recent movie that detailed the NY Times investigation into Harvey Weinstein, She Said. If you sat the movie next to its comparables, aka “comps,” upon initial creation, you’d be like all right, we’re not making a ton of money, but we should make some money. And then when early market research indicated a release weekend haul of 4-9 million dollars, you’d be like, k, we might make less money than expected, but again, still some money! But then when the movie ends up bringing in 2.4 million on a wide release, somehow the movie failed to do what it was “supposed” to do. But the movie was likely always3 going to make that amount of money. And sure if you compare it to The Post or Spotlight it underperformed, but movies are individual entities and the factors that apply to one film, don’t necessarily apply to this one. It’s partly why making movies can be so fun and infuriating at the same time, the unpredictability of it all.
Now you can sympathize with everybody involved wanting to understand how a movie is going to do so they can either a) buy that car or b) sell that house. But even though I don’t work at one anymore, I’ll always push for studios to focus less on what they think will happen, and more on making what they want to happen, happen. But the unknown is scary, and often times not the best for business, but it’s always going to be there. Because if things were predictable, the world would be pretty boring, wouldn’t it?
So the next time you read or hear a news story about a movie under / over performing, maybe take a second and ask, compared to what?
Note: Emancipation, Will Smith’s first movie since, what apparently everyone is calling The Slap, is coming to nationwide theaters this weekend. But it’s an Apple TV+ release so I’m going to wait until next week when it drops there. But don’t get too excited as while most are not on Rotten Tomatoes yet, the review embargo lifted late Wednesday and a quick perusal seems to confirm earlier inklings online (and suspicions from the trailer) that it’s mostly a miss. But will do a dive next week.
Extra Credit Movie(s):
The Inspection - an autobiographical story from director Elegance Bratton about a young (gay) man who, after being cast aside by most of the people in his life, decides to join The Marines in a search for purpose. Reviews are conveying a warmth and affection for a story that gets at a lot of outsider and acceptance themes. Playing in Limited Theaters now and expanding “Nationwide” on Friday.
Doesn’t it just make sense Santa would be a little bit vexed, and a lot bit of a bottle tipper? I mean, the man (editor’s note: is he a man, or just like a “being?”) has been fulfilling everybody else’s wishes for god knows how long - no seriously, if Santa exists, so does the ol’ G.O.D and they’ve surely got to be the only one old enough to remember. So when does the bearded bastard in red get his present?
Um… now?
And apparently top of his wish list is beating the holy hell out of a bunch of baddies - headed up by Snarls In Charge himself, John Leguizamo - trying to steal some money from a family just trying to make it through the holidays.
In what is one of those perfect casting scenarios, Mr. Claus is played by David Harbour from Stranger Things - the guy can be annoyed and endearing at the same time like few actors out there. And what else can help exhume (not that) Jolly Saint Nick’s holiday spirit but partnering up with a spirited young girl that managed to escape the initial thieving onslaught.
Reviews have been describing it as a combo of Die Hard and Home Alone, which sounds pretty accurate and quite a bit of fun. They’ve also been saying it does exactly what it sets out to do, which is to be brutally and inventively violent, but not so dark as to be able to slip in some Christmas themed “it’s the giving that matters” themes. Just be aware that those message will be splattered with lots (and lots) of blood when they’re delivered. 🩸🎅
Out: Friday
Where: Theaters
1 hr 41 mins | R | 🍅: 71%
During the press tour for the recently released Don’t Worry Darling, director Olivia Wilde talked about how there is far less focus on female sexual pleasure in movies than there is on the male side of things. Which, honestly, could be extrapolated to culture at large. But waaaaay back in the 1920’s, author D.H. Lawrence was already detailing the accounts of a woman who sought more in her sex life than what she was getting. Which was nut’n. That’s because her well to do husband was paralyzed in WW I. As you might imagine, upon the novel’s release people were aghast (aghast I tell you!) and the book was summarily censored, banned, taken to court and probably read in public with the incorrect sleeve in order to mask the naughtiness one was consuming.
But while much of the world is more open to the idea of one seeking sex for pleasure, I’d argue it’s still pretty prudish overall (see: people still hiding / being embarrassed about reading Fifty Shades of Grey at its height). So this might seem like just a steamy romance movie, but there is still provocation to be found, even in “our day.” Part of which comes from the issues that arise when (keyword —>) Lady Chatterly starts her torrid affair with the lower status groundskeeper. But the notions of class are likely to be mere foreplay to the main morsel of a woman deciding what she needs in her life is some damn good sexin’. And what’s wrong with that? Though I guess it all depends on to whom you pose the question…
Out: Friday
Where: Netflix
2 hrs 6 mins | R | 🍅: 88%
Look, I know the likelihood of most people watching this movie. It’s only somewhat higher than the standards of someone who ever thought it was a good idea to purchase a 1993 Pontiac Grand Am (the ugliest car ever made - as deemed by me). But for those of you with a penchant for movies that are on the peculiar and thoughtful side of cinema, you might want to pay attention.
It stars (of course) the ineffable Tilda Swinton in dual roles, progenitor and progeny, and is directed by Joanna Hogg - the two previously teamed up, along with Swinton’s daughter, for The Souvenir Part I / II. This, like the two aforementioned movies, comes from A24 and while it’s not quite The Souvenir Part III, it sounds pretty darn close and you’d probably benefit from seeing those first installments of Hogg's story. And it is her story as Swinton acts as a surrogate for the director as she processes another aspect of her life through film. Whereas her two previous movies were about her “then,” this is more about Hogg now, as “she” takes a trip with her elderly mother to try and extract memories in hopes of making a movie about them. If this all sounds very meta (not that one) it is. But it doesn’t look to be cloying in the way that many movies are, but more ethereal and even ephemeral.
Reviews are positive, saying the mood is unsettling and the acting excellent, but as you’d imagine this is far more a “critic’s movie” than it is a mainstream chart topper. But if you’re looking to ensconce yourself in a gothic world where not a ton happens, and yet lot is going on, you might want to book a night with The Eternal Daughter.
“Sometimes, no matter how resolved you are to reach down into the inexpressibly profound depths of your mutual love, guilt and remorse, all you can ever actually dredge up is some comment about the niceness of the marmalade or prettiness of the gift wrap.” - from the Variety review of The Eternal Daughter.
Out: Friday
Where: Limited Theaters / Streaming
1 hr 36 mins | PG-13 | 🍅: 95%
That right there is a bear who just ingested cocaine. It’s in the new trailer for the aptly titled, Cocaine Bear. It doesn’t look nearly as ridiculous as it sounds, and yet more so at the exact same time. Plus, there are way better actors in this movie than you’re probably expecting.
There weren’t a ton of trailers this week so only featuring the above because, well, why the hell not? But there is a second trailer for the Margot Robbie / Brad Pitt starring Babylon though, which is unfortunately looking more and more like the second coming of Amsterdam (i.e. big name director, lots of stars, but not that great - I’m holding out hope though!).
Also a second trailer for The Super Mario Bros. Movie - which I can’t add to the playlist because it’s “made for kids” (seriously? who the hell played Mario if not people now 40+). It still basically looks like another Lego Movie with Nintendo characters / settings. But then again, they did show off Rainbow Road sooooo that’s pretty fucking cool.
Oh, and Jesse Eisenberg directed a movie. It kinda looks like exactly how you think it’d look.
Of course what actually goes on is a fairly established process called “tracking” where market research companies use surveys to gauge potential moviergoers interest in a film. Whenever some movie does way differently than tracking says it was going to, there are rumblings and numerous articles written about whether tracking is “broken.” Let’s just say Hollywood is not filled with statisticians.
I’ve written about it in the past, but the model was based on social media data (mostly from Twitter) and Google search data. If you’re curious, feel free to ask more about it.
Always depends on certain factors being static, like a fairly standard trailer and the accompanying marketing support.