The
idea of movies and film as entertainment is really strange if you conceptualize
it. People with Hollywood dreams spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to go
to school and be trained in acting, filming, producing, or even screenwriting.
Not to mention the expenses for personal lessons, equipment, and tutors. Then
when they get out of school, they are hired by a big studio that spends
billions of dollars to make movies and cinema productions. Next, millions of
consumers spend their money to sit in a dark room for two hours and watch what
the trained professionals have created. The film industry is simply a cycle of perpetuating
monetary value off of creative escapism. But what happens when the people stop
viewing movies as often? How can companies continuously spend more money
producing bigger budget films than ever before and still be successful?
The
film industry is basically just a big investment industry. Like stock broking,
film is a careful balance of budgeting, revenue, and luck. Each movie cost millions to make and has no
guarantee of returning a profit larger than its expense. The cost of making a
movie can reach into the hundred millions, and if the profit from that movie
isn't greater than the cost, then the movie is considered a failure. Most
studios use the rule “go big or go home” and produce bigger budget films in
hope of capturing the largest audience possible. But it’s almost impossible to forecast in the film industry
or analyze the results. (Davidson)
It
was predicted that 2014 would be a flat year for domestic box offices. With big
name movies such as Fast and the Furious
7 being pushed back to release in 2015, studios were scrambling to
franchise movies and find audiences through releasing sequels. (Cunningham)
Unfortunately for the industry, the sobering prediction came true. According to
Access Hollywood, only 1.26 billion consumers purchased movie tickets in 2014,
hitting a record low since 1995. (Ford) Some
movies, such as 22 Jump Street (the sequel
to 21 Jump Street) succeeded. Their
domestic gross was $191,719,337, with a
budget of only $50 million, which made the movie more than profitable. (2014
Domestic) However other
movies such as Maleficent had production costs of $178 million and only made about
$100 million, incurring a domestic net loss of $78 million dollars. (Ford)
So
what happens when a film is a failure and doesn't make profit? Not much really.
Again, the film industry is a lot like gambling in the stock markets. Like
investors, studios stick to the things they know work. They use the star hit
system to identify popular to insure viewership. Michael Bay blows things up.
James Cameron makes things in 3D. And Leonardo DiCaprio is Leonardo DiCaprio. But
when that doesn’t work the oligarchy of studios that control most of the film
industry makes sure that they diversify their films so that if one flops, the
others can make up for their loss. In the past, diversifying included coming
out with films of different genres and for different target markets. Now, the
film industry is beginning to diversify by investing overseas. Right now, there
is a huge growth in the film industry in Asian markets such as China and Japan
(Ford) Slowly but surely filmmakers are beginning to target these foreign
markets that are giving them the profit margins they need. Although maleficent
may have lost $78 million domestically, it made $191.2 million dollars
overseas. (Ford)
It’s
clear that economically, there is a push towards making movies more adaptable
to foreign markets. But is this necessarily good for viewers? Transformers 4: Age of Extinction was the top grossing movie of 2014 making over
one billion dollars, and $300 million in China alone. (Coonan) But if you saw
the movie, it was clear that there was nothing too special about it. It was
mostly explosions and Mark Wahlberg running around in Beijing. Rotten tomatoes
rated it a 3.8 out of 10 and IMBD rated it a 5.1. If producers keep making
movies for money and disregard quality, what will become of the film industry?
As film becomes more global will there be a de-Americanization of movies in
Hollywood?
Citations
Coonan, Clifford.
“China Box Office: 'Transformers: Age
of Extinction' Is No. 1 Film of All Time” The Hollywood Reporter. 16 March.
2015. Web.
Cunningham, Todd
and Brent Lang. "Box Office: 2014 Will Likely Be Down, Because Not All
Sequels Are Equals." The Wrap 2 Jan. 2014. Web.
Davidson,
Adam. "How Does the Film Industry Actually Make Money?" The New
York Times. The New York Times, 30 June 2012. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.
Ford, Rebecca.
"Box Office Winners and Losers of 2014." The Hollywood Reporter. 2
March. 2015. Web.
"2014
Domestic Grosses." Box Office Mojo. Accessed 3 March. 2015. Web.
I really enjoyed your blog Maggie. It discussed some important points in regards to the changing and unstable movie industry of today. I find it interesting how today there are a lot of sequels instead of new materials. This is affecting domestic sales as well as the strong increase in foreign film, particularly in China.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Entertainment Weekly, China’s film industry has experienced a large growth over the past two years from 27 and 36 percent (LeBeck). This is great for China’s movie business, but the issue is that it will affect the North American Markets. For the first time this past February China’s monthly box-office toped the U.S. market. Although right now we are reasonably even in sales I wonder how long it will stay this way? Will the U.S. market be able to keep up or will China take over the industry and as a result but the US with less income. According to the article China will surpass North America by 2017 (LeBeck). This tells me that the U.S. markets need to take action and start producing more money making film that want to be consumed by mass markets. But then my issue becomes then are the just making movies that people will watch and pay for or are they making works of art and something that will share a message that people want to watch.
An issue that I have noticed is that producers are getting less creative within the movie industry and just doing what they think that the people will want. For example, the new movie Cinderella. They are just recreating something that was already done to make them more money. They know that young children and hopefully people our age who grew up with Cinderella will want to go see it. They make films for what will sell, but not for creativity and the story. I have noticed this become a theme lately. Studios are creating films from books, twisting off old movies as a remake or new plot twist. I know that there is more out there, but it makes me wonder why they just keep doing the same things over and over again. Todd Cunningham and Brent Land also talked about this idea in their article how sequels have been driving this years box offices sales which is a problem. The top film’s this year were all sequels or building off old themes from “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay,” “The Hobbit: There and Back Again,” “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” and so on (Cunningham). The issue is that not all sequels are equal. This just proves again how movie producers need to get more creative and reinvent the wheel instead of just relying on old information and story.
LeBeck, Jeff. "China Monthly Box Office Tops U.S. for First Time." Entertainment Weekly. 2 March 2015. Web.
Cunningham, Todd and Brent Lang. "Box Office: 2014 Will Likely Be Down, Because Not All Sequels Are Equals." The Wrap 2 Jan. 2014. Web.
Jake Carleton
ReplyDeleteBlog Post 5
Maggie, I really like some of the points that you make. Especially the point you make about the film industry being similar to an investment industry. I had never really thought of the money that goes into a talent, professional worker, or film project and how their results are reflected in a monetary outcome as opposed to a personal outcome, which is much like the stock market. Although one difference that can be made regarding that point is that films can do poorly domestically, but can do killer numbers in foreign markets (just look at anything that Michael Bay makes). However, your insight into the economics of the film industry makes me think about many things.
For example, the economic gains of sequels as opposed to original projects. In his article titled Box Office: 2014 Will Likely Be Down, by Todd Cunningham, it is written, “Sequels drove this year’s box office – the top five films were all second go-rounds” therefore in Hollywood, sequels are doing immensely successful. This can be due to many factors, such as, a following from the first movie, as opposed to an original project not having a fan base that is in place prior to their movie releasing. This can cause a strange effect on the economics of films. Why is it fair that films such as Transformers or Fast and the Furious’ box office numbers compare to films that may be much more artistically pleasing, but do not do as well in the box office numbers? Sequels play a huge role in the economics of Hollywood films, and it. Should. Be noted that these films may need to be looked at as outliers when it comes to box office numbers and the economics of films.
Another thing that can effect the economics of the film industry is obviously the presence of online piracy. This has been the single most detrimental thing to the numbers that some end up taking in from the box office. For example, we can look at a movie like The Expendables 3, and in Brent Lang’s article in Variety titled Expendables 3 Flops: Is Piracy to Blame?, it. Is written that the movie took in roughly $10 million less than they projected, and flopped to a minuscule $16.2 million. The reasoning for this flop was that the movie was released through a pirate website three weeks before the film debuted and it was seen by 2.2 million people. This would kill the company that produced the film, as they would not even nearly hit their desired numbers because it was released online early. The article also states that, “A 2011 study by Carnegie Mellon University researchers found that when a film is pirated prior to release, it loses nearly 20% of its potential revenue.” 20%?! That is crazy! Not only are these people breaking the law, but they are affecting the livelihood of people that had anything to do with the film. Piracy is killing the movie industry, and serious affecting the economics of movies at are pirated earlier than their expected release dates.
The film industry has many factors when it comes to the economic successes and failures of film projects. There are constantly going to be drawbacks when it comes to a film project and their expected results, especially when the film does not hit their numbers. Maggie, I agree that the economic logistics are very diverse, and I gave some insight that I have regarding some of these things including sequels and piracy. I really don't think people will ever stop going to movies, unless a major economic decline happens. I my opinion, the film industry will always be a lucrative industry around the world.
Works cited:
Cunningham, Todd and Brent Lang. “Box Office: 2014 Will Likely Be Down, Because Not All Sequels Are Equals.” The Wrap 2 Jan. 2014. Web.
Lang, Brent. “Expendables 3’ Flops: Is Piracy to Blame?” Variety 17 Aug. 2014. Web.
Lindsay Goldstein
ReplyDeleteI personally consider the film industry one of the most confusing in all of Hollywood for exactly the reasons you stated – it all comes down to money. Unlike television, film studios and production companies make a film with very little to forecast whether it will fail or flop. While television has pilot season, where networks spend money making one episode, test the waters and then decide based on other’s reactions and opinions whether they should invest in the project for an entire season, a movie has to be made for it to be seen. Your comparison of the film industry to investment banking and stocks is a great way to show just how tricky the economics of the industry are in this sense.
You made another really interesting point when you said, “Like investors, studios stick to the things they know work,” (Folsom). This idea sort of backs up Box Office Mojo’s “2014 Domestic Grosses” chart. I was really surprised to find that basically every single one of the top 10 grossing films was a sequel, adaptation, or part of a series or large franchise. The top grossing according to the chart was The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1, an adaptation of the book and part of a series of films. Other movies on the list include superhero and comic book adaptations, Maleficent, a re-imagining of Disney’s Sleeping Beauty, and Big Hero 6, based on Marvel comics (“2014 Domestic Grosses”).
For similar reasons, I was also surprised by the top 10 DVD and Blu-Ray titles of 2014, according to Nielsen’s “Tops of 2014: Entertainment” article. Again, many of the films were some form of adaptation, sequel, or big franchise, like How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Hunger Games: Catching Fire (Nielsen). After reading your blog post, though, it actually makes sense. We know as media studies majors that Hollywood and the entertainment industry makes every decision based on money. So, instead of wasting money (and time, energy, etc.) on a film that will lose money like Legend of Hercules did when it made only $61.3 million worldwide compared to the $70 million it cost to make (Ford), studios will invest their money in series, adaptations and franchises that have succeeded historically. Thinking about it that way also explains why there are so many adaptations in film today! This also really proves your point that studios like to stick to what they know will be successful because it will ultimately make them money.
Lindsay Goldstein, continued
ReplyDeleteYour question about profit vs. quality is a really important one and one that I believe the film industry hasn’t really taken into account. This is proven when looking at movies like Transformers 4: Age of Extinction. As you mentioned, it was extremely successful internationally, but domestically, it didn’t even crack the top 10 highest grossing films of 2014. You write, “But if you saw the movie, it was clear that there was nothing too special about it. It was mostly explosions and Mark Wahlberg running around in Beijing,” (Folsom). This is a great example of how the film industry is putting an emphasis on money instead of quality. International audiences love action movies and explosions (I’m not sure on their opinion on Mark Wahlberg, though), so it I’m sure the success in countries like China did not surprise the studio and moviemakers. Had they thought more about the quality of a film and appealing to their domestic audience, they probably would have created a movie with less explosions and more story, and while they would have made more money in the United States, their international sales would have been much less. In this regard, there definitely seems to be a “de-Americanization” of movies in Hollywood as movies are being created to appeal to an international audience.
While I do believe that the industry should be paying more attention to quality as opposed to money, I don’t see that trend changing anytime soon. The United States will either have to learn to love explosions or foreign audiences will have to learn to appreciate heart because the industry will continue to do what makes them money for as long as they can.
Works Cited:
“2014 Domestic Grosses.” Box Office Mojo. IMDb, n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2015.
Ford, Rebecca. “Box Office Winners and Losers of 2014.” The Hollywood Reporter. 2 Mar. 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.
“Tops of 2014: Entertainment.” Nielsen.com. 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.
I agree that the film industry is in a sort of economic crisis. They are constantly faced with balancing quality with making a profit as well as with the issue of the decline in domestic market sales. I never realized how growing the foreign movie market is and how much the domestic market is declining. I suppose this makes sense considering countries such as China and India have such a dense population of over one billion people. With populations like that it is no wonder that “some analysts predict that the Chinese market will surpass North America in 2017” (LeBeck). In appealing to these new overseas markets I do not think that producers need to sacrifice quality in order to make the most money. If you look at China, for instance, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies and The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 were among the top grossing films for a period of time (LeBeck). These two films are certainly not poorly rated and are highly revered all over the world including in the U.S. A common theme among these movies is that they are franchises. I think franchises are the major moneymaker when it comes to appealing to all markets. This is especially the case for franchises that are based on a book series. This is because there is almost a sure guarantee that people will come see the sequels of a film based on the popularity of its previous ones and based on the popularity of its accompanying book series. Producers will not have to disregard quality because they know they will make a decent profit.
ReplyDeleteBut not all movies made can be franchises or be based on popular books. Many films have struggled to become accepted overseas. This is the case for many films with African American lead roles. It is difficult for black actors and actresses to find success overseas as “no under-35 black star has carried a global mega-grossing film in recent years” (Ford). Even huge stars like Kevin Hart who have films that are widely popular in the U.S. cannot seem to find success globally (Ford). With all of this push to appeal to foreign audiences, African American actors have an increased difficulty in breaking out as major stars because of their struggle to find success overseas. Studios may be less likely to support films with lead actors of color for fear that the film may not perform well in global markets. The challenge here will be to convince studios to “[get] behind those films and not allowing it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy that those films don’t work” (Ford). Many may argue that it is hard enough for African American actors and actresses to find meaningful and successful lead roles in films and reach success domestically let alone globally. Perhaps, a solution to this would be for producers to have more actors of color be a part of their successful franchises that are likely to be popular in foreign markets so these markets will learn to be more accepting of other films with actors of color.
Works Cited
Ford, Rebecca. "Who Is the New Denzel? Hollywood Struggles to Launch Next Black Stars." The Hollywood Reporter. 1 Aug. 2014. Web.
LeBeck, Jeff. "China Monthly Box Office Tops U.S. for First Time." Entertainment Weekly. 2 March 2015. Web.
Julia Timpanaro
ReplyDeleteMaggie, not only did I find your blog particularly interesting, but I also thought that this was extremely well written. Something you managed to do is bring up valid issues regarding the movie industry. Before reading your blog, I never really thought much about the movie industry. I always thought that for the most part, the industry in controlled by a core group of people. You managed to make me think more in depth about the issues America faces.
As you mentioned earlier in your blog post, something that I found interesting was the way you broke down the movie industry. I never really thought how basic/similar the movie industry is to stock broking. I agree that although there may be a star hit system, there is no guarantee that a movie will be a success. A movie that automatically came to mind was Paranormal Activity. This movie had a very low budget, but some how seemed to do well in the box office. Another example I thought of was the movie Fifty Shades of Grey. Although this movie did well in the box office, for the most part, people were extremely disappointed. The rankings of this movie fell rather quickly. One of my favorite things you brought up is how certain people are known for specific things (the example regarding Michael Bay). I personally feel that people will see movies, no matter what the cost is if they really love a specific actor, actress and or director. I know that if Leonardo DiCaprio is in a movie I will go and see it whether or not I personally find the movie interesting.
In the article, Box Office: 2014 Will Likely Be Down, Because Not All Sequels Are Equals, Todd Cunningham mainly talks about how sequels are the main reason why the box office is still generating money. In my opinion, I think that movie producers are becoming less creative and want to take the easy way out. I know the old saying “Don’t’ fix if it’s not broke” might come into your head, but I personally would like to see more originality. Cunningham mentions that movies such as the Hunger Games or Captain America are big money makers. Although this may be true, I believe that the movie industry will never die because people will always want to be entertained. However, I think that the industry will slowly just be remakes and sequels only.
In the article, China Monthly Box Office Tops U.S. for First Time, written by Jeff LeBack, he talks about how China has a growing movie industry. Something that frightened me was when LeBack said that “In February, China’s monthly box-office topped the U.S. market for the first time.” (LeBack) That quote frightened me and I am not even a movie producer. I think that American movie directors and producers should really figure out why China is thriving in the movie industry (their secret).
Overall, I agree with you Maggie and I think that the movie industry will eventually be ruled by China if we do not find out how to become more popular again.
Work Cited
Cunningham, Todd, and Brent Lang. "Box Office: 2014 Will Likely Be Down, Because Not All Sequels Are Equals." Box Office: 2014 Will Likely Be Down, Because Not All Sequels Are Equals. The Wrap, 2 Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.
LeBack, Jeff. "Report: China Monthly Box Office Tops U.S. for First Time." Entertainment Weekly's EW.com. Entertainment Weekly's, 2 Mar. 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.
Brittany Joyal
ReplyDeleteThe film industry, similar to many media industries, is one that has recently been faced with the need to reinvent itself in order to stay afloat. When one is to think back a handful of years they would more than likely agree that going to see a movie was more of a novelty experience, per say; what I mean by this is that in years past going to a movie with family, friends, loved ones etc. would be something planned in advance, and said persons would make an entire night out of it. Along the same lines, movies weren’t as easy to come by back then (via illegal streaming sites, On Demand, etc.) and thus more money would be invested in the movie-going process. Maggie, I think you put it perfectly by saying the film industry is essentially a big investment industry; and according to many studies the ROI for film-makers is steadily decreasing. It seems as though many leading figures in the industry seem to think sequels and forging into foreign markets may be the industry’s saving grace.
According to The Wrap, “Sequels drove this year’s box office — the top five films were all second go-rounds — and they’ll drive next year’s, too. You can’t have a franchise without a successful second movie, and several studios will be trying to grab the brass ring with follow-ups to recent hits” (Cunningham). As acknowledged by Cunningham, Hollywood’s most recent trend is to abide by the motto ‘stick to what you know’ via sequels and series. Big name film conosseuirs tend to agree, according to an article published by Screen Rant. The article states:
Studios have become increasingly hesitant to green-light projects, unless they are some kind of remake, franchise reboot, or adaptation based on a lucrative pre-established brand. However, possessing those qualities is no guarantee that a blockbuster will make a profit, due to factors like niche subject matter, lackluster marketing and/or weak critical word of mouth (Schaefer).
Brittany Joyal cont.
ReplyDeleteThis approach to film making, in my opinion, tends to stifle both the diversity and creativity of productions. It seems as though rather than taking the risk to create something completely atypical, many screen-writers and producers are reverting back to what has shown to turnover the highest profits in the past. Take The Fault in Our Stars, for example: According to Nielson’s Tops of 2014: Entertainment it was number one in the top ten print books of 2014. Film-makers saw the book sales, acknowledged that “chick-flick” love stories sell, and created a movie out of it. Similar things have happened with books like Divergent and Gone Girl.
This leads me to wonder if the television industry has trumped the movie industry under the terms of creativity; televisions series are diversifying to attempt to capture and retain the attention of live viewers and thus tend to put out more creative and atypical content. You ask what will become of the industry if producers continue to trump money over quality; in my opinion, although I don’t believe the movie industry will ever die completely, I tend to believe that movie viewing will begin to follow more of the long-tail theory: many individuals may forego physically going to a movie, wait for it to come out On Demand or Netflix, and watch it along with its sequels in a binge-like fashion months after its original release. This will, in turn, decrease ticket sales and overall profit of a movie in the beginning of its release.
If American film makers aren’t able to re-attain audiences via sequels there may be a de-americanization of movies when film becomes more global. Personally, I don’t see the industry shying away from foreign markets or sequels seeing as the end goal is ultimately to make the most money.
Works Cited
Cunningham, Todd and Brent Lang. “Box Office: 2014 Will Likely Be Down, Because Not All Sequels Are Equals.” The Wrap 2 Jan. 2014. Web.
Schaefer, Sandy. "Lucas and Spielberg Predict Big Changes to the Film Industry." Screen Rant. N.p., 13 June 2013. Web.
"Tops Of 2014: Entertainment." Nielsen.com. Nielsen, 19 Dec. 2014. Web.
Tyler Speed
ReplyDeleteMaggie, absolutely loved the post this week. This topic of the film industry and the economy is something that I personally have been interested in ever sense I saw that movie studios were missing out big time on an opportunity to make an even larger profit margin. The majority of this is what I am actually doing my pitch project on but I still feel that this is relevant to what your talking about here. To me it seems that the movie industry, especially the new release movie industry, is slowly declining. The reason that this is happening at least in my opinion is because people simply aren’t willing to take the time out of their days to drive to physical movie theaters anymore. What they are doing instead is they are actually either waiting until that movie comes out on demand, or they are finding illegal websites to stream the new released movie. Now, when this happens obviously there is going to be a negative affect upon the movie industry because that means that movie studios are losing box office ticket revenue thereby making a good portion of today’s top movies not profitable. As even stated by Rebecca Ford of The Hollywood Reporter
“There were plenty of empty seats at movie theaters in North America last year. According to estimates, roughly 1.26 billion consumers purchased cinema tickets in 2014, making it the the lowest since since 1.21 billion in 1995. Year-over-year, attendance is about 6 percent lower than 2013, when admissions clocked in at 1.34 billion.” (Ford 2015)
Obviously this can cause a huge problem for the corporate side of these movie studios, especially given the fact that they are most of the time dealing in hundred’s of millions of dollars, and the loss of millions of dollars does not sit well with shareholders. So what my idea is, is to get Netflix to generate the very first online legal movie theater, with a direct to consumer approach. The reason why I think this would be a great idea and would be able to help the movie studios regain some of their lost profits is because this new Netflix product would not only open doors for people who are lazy and unwilling to travel to movie theaters in this country but it would also create the opportunity to allow the same in other countries where I can almost guarantee that the same type of thing is happening. Given the fact that we have seen the international stage continuously play a role in Hollywood’s success I think that you could only gain more success by developing this portion of Netflix and allowing content to be viewed globally. As even stated by Jeff LeBeck from Entertainment Weekly
“Math can be a frightening thing, especially if you’re a Hollywood studio exec invested in the continued predominance of American movies. Like most every other American industry, Hollywood looks east and sees a growing colossus in China, which has experienced year-over-year growth in the last two years of 27 and 36 percent. China’s movie business is thriving, and no one with an appreciation for numbers doubts that it will eventually eclipse the North American market.” (LeBeck 2015)
Overall, I guess my point is that Netflix has the opportunity to revolutionize the movie theater industry forever, while at the same time helping movie studios profit, to me this is a no brainer, but what do you think?
Work Cited
Ford, Rebecca. "Box Office Winners and Losers of 2014." The Hollywood Reporter. 2 March. 2015. Web.
LeBeck, Jeff. "China Monthly Box Office Tops U.S. for First Time." Entertainment Weekly. 2 March 2015. Web.
Eddy Negrepont
ReplyDeleteMaggie, I found this blog to be very interesting. It illustrated how the film industry can be very confusing and intriguing at the same time. I believe that this blog discussed a lot of great and important points about how much the movie industry is evolving and how unstable it can truly be. I found the section that you discussed about movies starting to become more un-Americanized fascinating.
I know for me personally I did not realize how much money these film industries really invest into making movies. My roommate is a film major and taught me many things about the movie industry that I previously did not know. I find it unbelievable to think that most movies don’t end up profiting from what they spent to make the movie. I think it was a very interesting point that you brought up about most studios having the “go big or go home” mindset. Having that mindset can either be the best career decision that they ever made or the worst. I agree with what you stated about how it is a lot like gambling and the stock market, because before a movie comes out you never truly know how good it is going to be. A prime example of this is the movie, “The Godfather”. Before it was released the film industry was not sure if it was going to be successful or if it would even be accepted by the audience. The director, Francis Ford Coppola, was almost fired at one point while shooting the movie. That movie is now considered a classic and is regarded as one of the best movies of all time. Although it was made in 1972, it is still watched today by many different generations.
Moreover, I did not recognize how sluggish of a year 2014 was for movies. According to Rebecca Ford the Hollywood Reporter, “It was a tumultuous year for the box office. Revenue looks to have come in at $10.35 billion, down more than 5 percent from 2013's record $10.9 billion. Worse, attendance hit a two-decade low, with roughly 1.27 billion going to the movies, compared to 1.34 billion in 2013. A dismal summer was the biggest culprit (revenues tumbled 15 percent for the season.” (Ford) One thing that I did not find surprising from the winners and losers of 2014 is that the movie Marvel succeeded. After having so much success with the Avengers, Marvel has become talked about frequently and has continued the success. However, I did not realize how poorly the sports movies were accepted. According to Rebecca Ford “Sports movies, overall, weren't able to score at the box office in 2014. Draft Day, starring Kevin Costner, opened to a soft $9.8 million in its U.S. debut for a fourth place finish. The football film earned $29.5 million worldwide. Another football film, TriStar's When the Game Stands Tall, earned a nearly identical amount, ending its run with $30 million on a $15 million budget.” (Ford)
Another good point that was brought up in the blog is the amount of sequels in 2014 that came out that were not as successful as the first movie. According to Todd Cunningham “But not all sequels are equal, and for the first time since 2006 there will be no “Avengers,” “Dark Knight,’ “Harry Potter” or “Iron Man’ movies on the schedule, and that’s why most analysts see 2014 having a tough time matching this year’s grosses.” (Cunningham) Overall, I found this blog to be very interesing and I think that there were many valid points brought up throughout.
Works Cited
Cunningham, Todd and Brent Lang. "Box Office: 2014 Will Likely Be Down, Because Not All Sequels Are Equals." The Wrap 2 Jan. 2014. Web.
Ford, Rebecca. "Box Office Winners and Losers of 2014." The Hollywood Reporter.2 Jan. 2015. Web.
Maggie, I think that this is an interesting point of view about the film industry as strictly just a business that cares more about the money and profit than the quality of the movies. I was actually very surprised to learn as well that the new Transformers movie was the top grossing movie of 2014 because I saw it and was really not impressed. Actually, going into the movie I knew it was going to be nothing special but I just wanted to see it because it was at the top of the box office. I consider myself as a movie fanatic and really wish that a lot of this was not true, but in reality with some of the main production companies and directors it is. They tend to stick to what works and what will bring in the most revenue regardless of the quality of the movie.
ReplyDeleteI am not the type of person who is going to enjoy the movies that are at the top of the box office. I am rather someone who has a couple of favorite directors that make original movies and I know that I am going to watch something worth my while. For example, when any knew Quentin Tarintino, Christopher Nolan, or Martin Scorsese movie comes out I will definitely pay to go see it just because I know that they are extremely talented directors and you know what you are getting. For the most part these directors are very strict on the quality of the movie rather than just making the most revenue from it.
Furthermore, I understand what you mean when you talk about the strategy for producers to make financially successful movies. In Cunningham and Lang’s article they say “Wold notes. Among his likely candidates are Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar,” the Marvel Comics adaptation “Guardians of the Galaxy” and the young adult fantasy “Divergent,” which aren’t sequels, but have built-in fan bases of one sort or another.” (Cunningham/Lang) This strategy is important in the movie and television industry. To have a large cult or fan following is a huge start before a movie is made. This is what has made Marvel so successful with all of their box office hits because it starts out with an audience already that has read the comics. Also, movies that are based on books are a great way to start building a film for the same reason as comics, because they already have fans. Also, sticking with Superhero movies it is amazing to see how the actors that are recycled through the same Superhero roles end up being either nominated for an Oscar or winning an Oscar. In Sneider’s article he states “Let’s not forget that Oscar winner Ben Affleck inheriting Batman’s cowl from Oscar winner Christian Bale, or that five-time Oscar nominee Amy Adams plays Lois Lane opposite Henry Cavill’s Superman. Oscar winner Jamie Foxx and Oscar nominees Willem Dafoe, James Franco, Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church all played villains in “Spider-Man” movies.” (Sneider) The movie industry is a very fascinating one and this just further proves the point that the industry stick to what works. They recycle through cult followed Superhero movies to help bring in big revenue and these movies can even skyrocket actors careers.
Works Cited
Cunningham, Todd and Brent Lang. "Box Office: 2014 Will Likely Be Down, Because Not All Sequels Are Equals." The Wrap 2 Jan. 2014. Web
Sneider, Jeff. "Superhero Movies Dissed at Oscars Despite 9 Acting Nominees With Comic Book Roles." The Wrap 22 Feb. 2015. Web
Jessica Betsy
ReplyDeleteThe film industry sure is strange, like you mentioned Maggie, though I never truly processed it up until now. It amazes me how studios go out of their way to spend millions of dollars to produce a movie for us as consumers to see. And I can certainly say that I am one of those consumers who will spend the money to go into a movie theatre for a couple hours to watch the movie that has been shown on countless commercials on my television screen prior to it being released in theaters such as Transformers or The Hunger Games.
Whether it be the star hit system and producers use actors that we love knowing that as consumers we will go see the movie just because we love that actor or actress playing a role in the movie to see how well they do, or whether it is the film director in general and as consumers we want to see what is going to be blown up or how cool an animated movie is in 3D, the people within the film industry certainly have a strong understanding of how to grab our attention to draw us into watching their movies.
It is true that studios sure seem to know how to make a successful returning profit. Though recently, like Maggie mentioned, within the past year in 2014 there was a decline at the box offices. According to The Hollywood Reporter article, it stated, “Revenue looks to have come in at $10.35 billion, down more than 5 percent from 2013's record $10.9 billion,” and the article goes on to say that “Worse, attendance hit a two-decade low with roughly 1.27 billion going to the movies, compared to 1.34 billion in 2013” (Ford). To me, this shows that times are changing and consumers, like myself, want to start seeing different things within the film industry instead of the same old actors and following the same old story lines and plot twists. In other words, maybe there should be more female films whether the lead role in a superhero movie is an actress or whether a woman directs and produces a movie like Angelina Jolie. Or adding even more diversity within movies so it reaches an even bigger target audience within the United States, so therefore, even more people can relate to it. This would only help movies succeed even more so.
Also, I completely agree with Maggie that fortunately if a film does not do so well domestically, international countries like China are certainly helping boost movies to make them an even bigger profit. According to the article from Entertainment Weekly, it stated, “China’s movie business is thriving” and goes on to say that “The final Hobbit film (which opened in January) and Mockingjay were the leading Hollywood blockbusters in China for the month,” (LeBeck). Knowing this, there certainly is a great amount of growth in the film industry overseas like China, which undoubtedly helps the U.S. market.
Truth is when it comes down to it, it truly is all about how successful a movie is going to be and how much money it will make.
Works Cited
Ford, Rebecca. "Box Office Winners and Losers of 2014." The Hollywood Reporter. 2 Jan. 2015. Web.
LeBeck, Jeff. "China Monthly Box Office Tops U.S. for First Time." Entertainment Weekly. 2 March 2015. Web.
I have vivid and fond memories of going to the movies with my family and friends as an adolescent. Nowadays, I can't bring myself to go to the movies which is why I’m not too surprised that the box offices are struggling domestically. There are numerous contributing factors though as to why I don’t go. I live in New York where one adult movie ticket cost $16.14. As stated in the Hollywood Reporter, “The average ticket price for 2014 is likely to be at least $8.15, compared to $8.13 for 2013” (McClintock).
ReplyDeleteWhile I don’t think ticket prices are the main factor keeping consumers away, I think it’s ridiculous that a single ticket cost more then subscribing to be a Hulu Plus member at $7.99 a month. Speaking of Hulu Plus, online streaming has undoubtedly cost box offices. We as consumers are spoiled. We can access different types of media entertainment (movies, tv shows, music, books, etc) on a variety of cool high tech devices. And the best part is that we can be entertained anywhere! We can watch a movie on our computer at home or we can catch up on an episode of our favorite tv show on the train ride to work. Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, and even iTunes have triumphed the U.S. box offices. And we no longer have to go to the entertainment when it can come straight to us.
The film industry is quite aware of the different factors that are keeping people like me away from movie theaters. But I don’t think that because films do poorly domestically that that suddenly means the film industry is going to die. Like most media industries, they are struggling. And they are going to have to adapt to the new consumer in order to succeed. For example, I didn’t see The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies in a movie theatre, but I will be renting it on March 24th when iTunes releases it. And according to the 2014 Domestic Grosses report, it still made $254 million domestically. The report also shows that internationally it made 700 million.
Antonia Jones Cont.
ReplyDeletePut those two figures together and that means one, just one, movie made about $950 million in movie theaters. According to the Hollywood Reporter, “The total the cost of the trilogy has bumped up to $745 million, according to financial documents filed in New Zealand this month, AP reports” (Bulbeck). Warner Bros has already turned a 205 million dollar profit. And again, they covered their cost in only one movie. They have undergo a lot of scrutiny for spending that much on one movie but like we all seem to realize, making a movie is a gamble.
The movie industry is going to win some. And they are going to lose some. But I doubt that they are ever going to go jobless. We consumers need entertainment and while tv shows are ruling the market, I do enjoy a good movie. And who knows.. someone might change the movie business and how consumers get new releases. We may see a new online “movie theatre” one day.
Work Cited
McClintock, Pamela. "Box Office 2014: Moviegoing Hits Two-Decade Low." The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 21 Dec. 2014. Web.
"2014 Domestic Grosses." Box Office Mojo. Accessed 31 Jan. 2015. Web.
“The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.” Box Office Mojo. Accessed 31 Jan. 2015. Web.
Bulbeck, Pip. "'Hobbit' Trilogy Reportedly Cost $745 Million to Make." The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 21 Oct. 2014. Web.
Maggie,
ReplyDeleteMovies need to be de-Americanized. As big investors pour more and more money at production companies. These investors realize they will not be seeing any major return if it isn’t distributed overseas. The movie is one product that cost relatively nothing to reproduce on film reel (or any digital mean) once the first one is made. This is similar to pharmaceutical investors, it cost hundreds of millions to make the first pill, but after that it is easy money. “China is currently experiencing explosive growth in the construction of movie theaters, with 15 new screens being added every day” (LeBeck). Once this distribution infrastructure is put in place it becomes extremely cheap for companies to distribute films. Investors certainly benefit from broadening their market when the cost of replication is minuscule. To get back at your question, is good for viewers (in America) to share whatever influence a consumer has, with the global market? If it weren’t for the global market, we would be watching movies filmed with obsolete technologies. Not nearly as much money would be thrown at the production budget (more than half considering that China alone matched American box office sales). In theory movies would become more diverse to some extent as they target new cultures. Then the question becomes- how much diversity can the young American adult stomach at once?
LeBack states “Of perhaps greater concern to American studios is the fact that the record Chinese month at the movies occurred mainly without the boost of Hollywood blockbusters” (Leback). This shows that in what was a record breaking month in Chinese film history there wasn’t much demand for Hollywood movies. This could mean two things for the future of American movies. First, Hollywood will focuse on tailoring content even further to accommodate foreign audiences. The fact that China’s market is growing to be soon just as big as the domestic markets means- it wouldn’t be that inconceivable if movies came out in mandarin with Chinese stars. Now that would be too much diversity even the most moral citizens our country. The second way Hollywood could go would not be by their choice, but by the rise of China’s own Hollywood. This could breed even more competition and therefore more tailored content to try and win back the Chinese market. The great compromise would be that Hollywood uses some of the money made overseas and put it towards making different versions for different cultures. Ironman seemed to pioneer this method and it was very successful.
The treat of online piracy is something that will threaten all of the markets. “A 2011 study by Carnegie Mellon University researchers found that when a film is pirated prior to release, it loses nearly 20% of its potential revenue” (Lang). A study by Berkeley Technological Law Journal reports that piracy is also a problem in the Chinese market “This behavior appears particularly concentrated on college campuses, with a potent combination of poor students and readily accessible high-speed internet access” (Priest). Note that this is a trend among young people and will continue as China develops. The only way for Hollywood to produce technologically advanced material that is pirated and not occur a loss, is for it to broaden its’ market. Remember the first pill cost a lot, but after that the more it is distributed the more money it makes. It is inevitable for Hollywood to go global and us Americans better get used to it otherwise we won’t have movies anymore.
Lang, Brent. "‘Expendables 3′ Flops: Is Piracy to Blame?" Variety 17 Aug. 2014. Web.
LeBeck, Jeff. "China Monthly Box Office Tops U.S. for First Time." Entertainment Weekly. 2 March 2015. Web.
Priest, Eric. "THE FUTURE OF MUSIC AND FILM PIRACY IN CHINA." (n.d.): n. pag. 2006. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
Katie Phillips
ReplyDeleteAccording to The Hollywood Reporter, “It was a tumultuous year for the box office. Revenue looks to have come in at $10.35 billion, down more than 5 percent from 2013's record $10.9 billion. Worse, attendance hit a two-decade low, with roughly 1.27 billion going to the movies, compared to 1.34 billion in 2013. A dismal summer was the biggest culprit (revenues tumbled 15 percent for the season). Still, there were plenty of happy endings, thanks to a strong international marketplace, especially with China's growing influence helping to boost some films, like Transformers: Age of Extinction which took in $1.08 billion worldwide for the top spot for the year. And there were unexpected surprises in the U.S. and abroad like Gone Girl and Guardians of the Galaxy” In Maggie’s blog she asked the question,” But what happens when the people stop viewing movies as often?” That seems to be the way that our society is headed, people no longer go to the movies like they once use to unless it is a movie that involves the movie theater experience for example any form of an Imax movie. Those types of movies cannot be viewed the same as a home movie which a person can illegally download online, and that is what most people do these days. Maggie also asked the question, “ How can companies continuously spend more money producing bigger budget films then ever before and still be successful?” Making sequels is one way for a company to continuously spend more money producing bigger budget films then ever before and still being successful. According to The Wrap, “Sequels drove this year’s box office — the top five films were all second go-rounds — and they’ll drive next year’s, too.” The Wrap also went on to explain how, “You can’t have a franchise without a successful second movie, and several studios will be trying to grab the brass ring with follow-ups to recent hits. They include Sony’s “22 Jump Street” (June 13), Universal’s “The Purge 2,” Sony’s “Think Like a Man Too” (June 20), Disney’s “Planes: Fire and Rescue” (July 18) and Warner Bros.’ “Horrible Bosses 2” (Nov. 26). Then there’s “Dumb and Dumber To” (Nov. 14) – with Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels in a follow-up to their 20-year-old celebration of stupidity for Universal.” Those are just a couple of example’s of movies that would not be as popular or would not be producing as big of a budget as it is now only because it is a sequel. Another way a movie can make money even if it does not do well in the box office is off of merchandise. Think of all of the different merchandise items Frozen has come out with, I believe a majority of their profit comes off of their merchandise not their box office revenue. Maggie asked the question, “ so what happens when a films a failure and doesn’t make profit ?” She then went on to explain how ,” Not much really. Again, the film industry is a lot like gambling in the stock markets. Like investors, studios stick to the things they know work. They use the star hit system to identify popular to insure viewership.” It’ll be interesting to see which way the film industry goes over the next couple of years but it is also very hard to predict.
Works Cited:
Cunningham, Todd and Brent Lang. "Box Office: 2014 Will Likely Be Down, Because Not All Sequels Are Equals." The Wrap 2 Jan. 2014. Web.
Ford, Rebecca. "Box Office Winners and Losers of 2014." The Hollywood Reporter. 2 Jan. 2015. Web.