i like the production quality. it's unique and easy to look at. however i want to quickly voice an issue i had with the video. Particularly with the box office math where you say that ,if it had more exposure the result would be exponential growth. I don't think you're right here. I see the film you dicussed as a guy running a marathon. He starts well and makes it 3 kilometres, then collapses. Afterwards you are examining his run and find that if he kept his pace and continued until the end he would have finished with a great time and be alongside the top marthon runners. However this is irrelevant as he passed out after 3 km and couldn't make that pace if he tried even though the math would tell you its possible. He would never make that great time and be comparable to the best runners even though on paper he could. i don't know if you like football (soccer) but i certainly do. Most non-league football teams can compete with the big teams with world class players for maybe one game. if you were to compare that one game and scale it up like you did for the film, you would expect the non league team to play in the same league as the big team. however its about consistentcy. The real question is how consistent is the film over 5,000 screens compared to a blockbuster. How does the non league team stack up vs the big team its apparent that you really enjoyed the film and feel it deserves to make more than Hancock. (Which it probably does). However its an arthouse film for a reason. People don't flock in their droves to see an arthouse film even if its the greatest thing the world has ever seen. I like a good mind stimulating film but i don't think a niche film like this would be appealing to the masses. (which you said at the start to be fair.) i think i saw another video of yours about its always sunny in philadelphia. It was about why its funny 12 seasons in. I watched it and learned a lot about the characters and their origins and the depth the show has. But i didnt understand what was funny about it. Sure they're a dysfunctional group of friends who do wacky things. The new series of the simpsons contain a dysfunctional family who do wacky things but it isnt funny. The Office (UK) is hilarious because of the awkward silences and cringy things our main character says. but it is the way it is executed that makes it funny not the situations by themselves. (i probably don't get it though. The clips you showed in the video just weren't for me and i probably glossed over the clever humour in it) anyway thats my two cents. if you read it all you must love what youre doing keep it up and keep improving :)
Yeah, in hindsight, this video needed a lot more research, but I was feeling the pressure of my self-imposed deadlines and the animations took fiveever, so as it stands, this video is probably my biggest disappointment. The truth is, there's no way to know how it would have performed with a wider release, because it didn't get one, but in all likelihood it would have done okay, but nothing spectacular, probably not enough to justify the cost of giving it a wider release. This is true, and it's a sad truth, but it is what it is. I was definitely just feeling passionate, and angry, and a lot of that comes off and I sound kind of like an idiot, but I still think more art films should be given a real chance, how will people ever discover art films if they're never in theaters? It's Always Sunny is a show(like any sitcom) that's hit or miss depending on who you ask. To me, the character depth just adds to the authenticity of the world the show presents, but you're definitely right, the situations and jokes are really the selling point, but to be honest I didn't think that'd make for a very interesting video, and when binge watching the show before making the video, I kept thinking back on the relationships the characters all have with their parents and I thought that'd be an interesting topic to cover. Oh I do, I really love what I do with this channel. Thanks for your comment!
6 months late, but I just ran across this video and your comment, and I feel like you're missing a fantastic experience in not getting Sunny... Imagine if you found football boring *gasp!* Overall it's hard to explain, but the humour isn't just about the situations. The characters are fantastic. Each very deep and very, very dysfunctional in ways that make their interactions with each other and especially with everyone else cringy and hilarious. They are simply the worst people possible. Think Bender from Futurama. Everyone is like that... But more narcissistic, dysfunctional and so much dumber. There simply is no comedy like it. I hope you give it another shot and enjoy it.
There are a lot of great movies that get wide-releases and don't make money back. The Nice Guys opened wide but hardly made it's budget back. Arrival opened wide and it only made 24 million during this first weekend, even though it's being lauded by the critics. Now compare that to Doctor Strange which has made almost half a billion dollars so far. The issue is people don't go to the theaters to see anything but a spectacle. A lot of people have home theater systems and access to so many movies and TV shows that it would take them a couple life times to get through them all. Therefore people go to the theater to experience things that their home system can't provide. It's a shame, I would love to live in a world where Hell or High Water gets a wide-release and makes half a billion in a couple weeks, but that seems impossible.
tinting the movies with a digital color, not having a memorable tune, shitty CGI, being afraid to show style and optimism because of twitter backlash from leftists, those are the main reasons.
I really liked Synecdoche New York and was dismayed that Charlie Kaufman had to go the crowdfunding route to get the money needed to make Anomalisa (which I also really enjoyed). However, the fact that it got its funding from its target audience, who then spent MORE money to go see it, restores a little faith in humanity.
I'll never forget working at a movie theater in college and watching loners and the occasional couple walk buy tickets for movies like Her while masses of people piled in to see movies like Ride A Long. Watching this analysis really did make me kind of sad. People don't want to be challenged or moved by a movie. I love a good goofy movie sometimes, but movies like Synecdoche have literally changed the way I think about things.
I just wish people kept a better balance, not every movie needs to be some flashy fun "turn your brain off" entertainment, sometimes it can really change your perspective to see a movie like Synecdoche, New York. It may not be the most comfortable watch, but you leave the film a different person.
I largely agree with what your saying, a lot of art house films dont do anywhere near as good as they should in cinemas. However when editing your videos i think you should be careful of where you place specific clips of movies when talking about a subject. When you were making a point i entirely agree with about exposure of smaller budget films and talking about style over substance, you placed clips of films like Logan and guardians of the galaxy. While both of these films might not have as much to say philosophically or creatively as a lot of underappreciated art house films, they are both fantastic pieces of cinema none the less. Love the videos though dude! You got another sub right here :)
oblix101 great point. These avengers films and stylized superhero shit is great! Just as inspiring as synecdoche. It’s just that, as Thanos would wish, it’s not balanced.
I love this. Particularly because in the economy of attention, awareness is paramount. That said, I think looking toward an old delivery mechanism is an error. Direct to streaming services like Netflix, HBO Go, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc is the correct path for good films to go today if you ask me. It's simply too expensive to keep theaters open for movies like this. I am totally on board with you about those making the decisions being business people and not film people. But that's the unfortunate truth of the way it needs to be for that industry. It's too big to be a good outlet for creativity except as an anomaly.
I think that is definitely a really strong option, though there's something about seeing a movie in a theater that just beats watching something on your TV or computer, and you'd think now that almost every theater has digital projection these days it wouldn't be too expensive to put a film in more theaters, unlike when they had to have a film print for every theater. Maybe they could find a nice middle ground? Or maybe do more of a test run through streaming services? It definitely seems to be a necessary evil, but I think as long as people with money want good films to be made, we'll see it happen. They just usually can't have a massive budget for people to take a chance.
Film Radar I see that as being the middle ground. I agree there's something about it but as it is now most people didn't see Synecdoche, NY in theaters and now love it. The way it is now loving it later makes no difference. If you take a straight to streaming approach then you'll get paid by the streaming service and have a chance to go into theaters based on success. Like you said, there's something about seeing things on screen. Did you see Synecdoche, NY in theaters? I bet not. And I bet now you'd love to be able to. If we abandon the theater first approach for actual films instead of being in constant conflict with the business that runs it today we can lead by example.
I missed it in theaters, but I would have loved the opportunity to see it. I think this could work, it could certainly help prove the point that people want to see movies like that. And what cost would it be to them? In the digital age, there's so much potential for spreading something around because it costs nothing to reproduce something digitally. You'd think studios would be taking advantage of this, but then again, a lot of these studios are run based on archaic ideas that don't work the way they once did.
Totally! This is something I've been saying for years. That theater no longer makes sense for anything but blockbusters OR releasing already established films that have a demand for an on-screen viewing. It just is no longer financially viable. I mean the video essay form itself is proof that new methods of delivering content are changing the content. Which is nothing new, there was resistance to film as being lesser than literature or theater, too. Until we learned that the medium has tools unique to it! I wrote a whole thing about how video games are going through a similar situation. We tend to be attached to the way we originally saw content being delivered but it is to our own detriment!
A movie has to make 3 times it's budget to be successful. 20 million to pay for budget, 20 million to maybe pay for marketing, and 20 million to actually make a profit. Synecdoche, New York getting 22 million would still be a bomb.
This is why, as a history buff, I try to go see as many Based on a True Story or Inspired by True Events movies as possible, even if the graphics look bad (like Midway). Studios are not concerned if the audience isn't impressed with the style or the accuracy of the portrayal, but seeing if audiences are interested enough in the historical epic/drama or period piece genera to spend money at the opening weekend box office. It's really hard to convince historical buffs about this truth.
The economy fell in 2008 but those films were in development 2/3 years prior to that. They would have been released regardless of the economic situation.
While they would have been in development, it's not unheard of for studios to pull the release at the last minute, or at least change how wide of a release a film will get. Just look at "Annihilation" which came out recently, at the last minute they decided not to go with an international release and just put it on Netflix. It's really expensive to get a movie international on thousands of screens, after the crash they'd certainly rethink which films got the star treatment and which were meant for the DVD rack.
I`m sorry but for a lot of people going to the movies is a form a relaxation and blowing off some steam. While I do not get the intricacies of a movie like Synecdoche, I can tell you one thing. It's not a movie you relax to. Charlie Kauffman's style is very hard to digest and not for everyone, myself included.
Oh for sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's always going to be a space in cinema for pure entertainment, and I'm glad for that, but I see no reason why the two can't coexist. I think a lot more people would get into a movie like Synecdoche, New York if they'd give it a chance. I've met a ton of people who aren't particularly passionate about films but they can still enjoy a really thoughtful and well made movie.
Well you'd think that'd be the case, Hollywood certainly seems to think so, but we've seen plenty of bleak movies that deal with real life struggles perform really well. Typically when it's a good film, certainly if it gets some decent Oscar notice, they'll usually do at least alright at the box office if not pretty well.
Broesly really? i find suffering with anxiety that only through the bizzare films of somebody like John Waters or the Greasey Strangler allow me to cope by reminding me im not the only one who sees the world as how it is: fucked. Kubrick being another notable example. Finding comedy in places usually considered dark. Idk maybe you just like things to be nice and round and safe and clear at all times though, thats certainly not everybody. Its just unfair that the one type of film is forced into a minority situation where it has no chance to really expand or flourish. I mean its not like the 'if you dont like comic book movies then dont watch them' argument (and all similar ones) hold any water whatsoever because as IHE mentioned, besides 'get out' or the occasional remake you have literally no other options to choose from, i mean you might as well rule out cinemas as a form of recreation nowadays if you arent amused by seeing the hulk punch iron man a thousand times. i think that is the ultimate point he (film radar) is attempting to make, that it is not about opinion , or getting everybody to like movies like that (Synechdoche being a specific example) , it is about scarcity and marketing...
Saying "film is only escapism" is like saying "our tongues were designed for junk food". Sometimes we need something that's not as easy to digest, but is more fortifying.
I think you're argument might be right but the evidence doesn't entirely support your position. If Synechdoche were screened at other cinemas, it's possible that the market would not have grown accordingly. This would occur if the movie had only a small, urban audience who would have actively sought it out whereas the blockbuster had a mass market that required extensive marketing activities to provoke actual movie attendance. So, while possible, I'm not entirely convinced. I do, however, agree that the movie was pushed far less than it should have been. Should it have been shown in 1000 cinemas? Not sure. But 40 is certainly too few.
They want movies to be forgettable. That way, they can rehash the same story over and over again with minor changes, promote it and people will go and watch it unknowingly. I went over seas and all I had to read was some John Grisham novels. After reading them, I was half way through one of them before I realized that I had read it before. You are hypnotized like a sheep.... Everyone knows there are great movies and great literature out there, but nobody consumes it, they want the flashy new pap. Same with TH-cam videos.
Wow, that Charlie Kaufman bit really made me sad.. He's a brilliant writer and it blows my mind that he has been able to get any work made in 8 years! Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is one of my favorite movies. I haven't seen Synecdoche New York yet though, I'll be checking that out right away
It's heartbreaking, right? This guy is so talented and can't a movie made, it's terrifying. If you appreciate other works of his, you'll love it, just probably not the first time you watch it :P
The audiences are the same as the hollywood business men in that they don't want to take the risk of watching an art house film which might be awful. They would rather play it safe and watch a superhero movie where they know they will at least be somewhat entertained.
Haha, I guess I just was taking a stab at assuming it would be dogshit, like the other stand alone Wolverine movies. But you can even check, this video came out before the movie, and I think we were all surprised. Granted, I still haven't seen it, but I've heard from many people that I trust, that it's amazing, and I'm inclined to believe it.
yeah, Xavier dying like a bitch, Wolverine being replaced by a little girl with no charisma, bad acting chops and dubious race, not having a memorable tune at least, begins and ens in a depressing tone, LIKE ALL MOVIES THESE DAYS. You see were I'm going? It was just another forgettable, run of the mill, blockbuster.
A VERY well thought out argument! Great narration and wonderfully straightforward editing. It's also great to know there are more people out there who see the brilliance of SNY. I discovered it after Roger Ebert called it 'the best movie of the decade'.
Though I understand that there is a created need to vote with one's wallet, I am not sure how I feel about presenting it like voting for a party for multiple reasons. Most importantly unlike a vote, of which everyone gets one and one spends by themselves, film is competing not just with other film but with other entertainment, basic needs, savings, etc. One does not by default see a movie every month and then get to choose which one to go to, choosing the best one everytime. When unsure about a movie, they might just do something different alltogether. The individualistic aspect of voting is also lost. When I go to the movies with my girlfriend, I will go to a movie we both like, when we bring another friend or family member, we have to take their taste into account as well. This means in the group that something like baby driver gets preference over the latest need for speed, but it also means that even though I love synecdoche new york, if in the time it is screended I do not go to the movies either by myself or with one of my friends that also happens to like those movies I will simply not see it. Life is most always, though espcially in contemporary society, about choosing between evils. Sometimes going to kung fu panda 3 is the lesser evil, even if I think that movie is just ok.
I agree about star wars awakening , it looked like a reboot , Kylo Ren was the new Vador , and the trio of young heroes , somehow represented young Han , Luke and Leila
This analysis is just typical worthless art school posturing. Not because its wrong, a lot of it isn't. Its because its dismissive in the same way most of these diatribes tend to be. "Why does Star Wars make all the money when its just like a ton of other movies." Its because its a broad movie with extremely universal themes and that's what it was made to be. Most people DO NOT CARE about what movies are considered important. Why would they? They have their own problems to deal with. And they go to a movie to be shown a world in which problems can be solves in just under 2 hour and ten minutes. Film brats love to look down on normal people for liking "feel good films" while never realizing that paying good money to be reminded that the world is a sad place and your body is slowly decaying around you is actually more of a weird thing that artists like to do for the most part. Both weird art house films and big summer movies are made at a consummate rate with what people tend to see. Synecdoche New York would still be a weird alienating art house film no matter how many theaters you put it in. And that's GOOD. Its an art film made for artist. Most people are not artists.
I feel like several people have made this point, so I must not have been has clear as I would have liked in the video. But I have no problem with people enjoying a good old fashioned blockbuster movie, there's nothing wrong with popcorn entertainment, some of the most memorable times I've had at a theater were popcorn flicks, like the first time I saw The Avengers in theaters with a bunch of friends, it was a total blast. My complaint is how these popcorn flicks are starting to swallow up the more artistic films, a very similar thing is happening with the gaming industry as well. Everyone is just trying to play to the lowest common denominator, which is causing more niche content to die out, and I don't think anyone wants that. I want the big fun summer movies to still come out, I just want there to be some room for films like Synecdoche, New York as well.
marketing plays a huge part, consider two of my favorite films.... SILENCE and BARRY LYNDON, very similar... both killed by bad marketing. Very good video btw, as always
Oh for sure it does. Some of the greatest films of all time have suffered from terrible marketing. Movies like that are hard to market to the masses though. Thank you!
You forget that it also costs the studio money to put the movie out into more theaters. 119 theaters is pretty reasonable for a film like Synecdoche, as any more would be expensive. Not to mention that no one truly knows how a film will be received critically until the critics actually review it, so saying that people are just going to go see better films regardless of their target audience is baseless. Also, the film would have to make $40 million in order to make a profit, which given films of late, it could easily have done.
Hahaha, yeah, this video was originally written as one long one alongside my film analysis of Synecdoche, New York. Also, it made it easier when it came to crunching the numbers to focus mainly on one film, but in hindsight the video would have been made better by using more examples.
Excelente contenido. Yet I don't understand why some movies are shown in more theathers than others, it costs more money for the studio to show it in more teathers? I thought it had no costs for the studio and the profit of the ticket sell was what they paid to the theater...can't find an answer to this on google.
enjoyed your video essay, subbed. Def can never have enough film industry analysis videos! on a side note: have you put into your analysis that theaters will take 50% of the revenue, so the studio would need to gross 2x their budget to recoup all of their money back? Also, the above par gross at each theater might be the result of having the film shown at a small number of theaters in large markets, thereby drawing in the specific type of audience that might enjoy a film like Synecdoche in each market. Having it shown on higher number of screens might not necessarily result in higher revenue, but just the same number of people going to a more spread out number of theaters and the studio losing more $. just a thought
In hindsight, there's definitely a lot more complicated stuff about box office that I could have studied deeper before making this video. You're absolutely right, but I think my main point still stands, that studios should try more often to push out these original movies, despite it being a risk. But yeah, given the data, and how much theaters take, as well as having a more spread out audience(smaller towns, not as film centric), it wouldn't have made a fortune, but I think it still could have done alright, especially if it had gotten some Oscar buzz.
Fantastic video. Every person who wants the tides of mediocrity and shallowness to be settled down in favor for forms of enriching experiences in art and entertainment of cinema should see this video and also studio execs in favor of actual passionate, visionary filmmakers who want their rightful dues to be paid. Thank you Film Radar and I hope just like other great filmmakers and studios you get more success in the future.
Thanks for your comment! I just always hope to add to the conversation if nothing else. Very selfishly I might add, as a film lover first and foremost, damn it, I just want more good movies every year. And every year there seem to be fewer and fewer.
Sorry for coming to the party so late, but I would like to point out something (from a business perspective) that I think you overlook: The US movie market is not a uniform, consistent entity: Be very careful when extrapolating numbers on a 'scale up' exercise - the New York, Chicago, San Fran et al. markets are quite different from other parts of the country. I feel that, if executives could make a buck running an art house movie in Mobile, Alabama - let's say...they would run it. I just don't think people in certain areas are that interested...
Not since the 1940s and '50s have we seen all kinds of movies in theaters given equal screen time. But that was before television. As soon as television became widespread, attendance at movie theaters dropped off. The 'small screen' became the purveyor of every type of film, until Hollywood realized that films similar to "The Adventures of Robin Hood" looked a lot better on the 'big screen' than the small. ]Which is when, to fill the theaters as often as possible, while not letting go of the small film audience altogether, blockbusters started to be made with the idea that nowhere but in a theater can an immersive experience be fully satisfied. Enter the wide screen. Enter 3D. Enter super-sized, wrap-around screens with multiple projectors in sync. Today we're seeing the culmination of that trend, proving the theory that intimate films don't appeal to wide audiences as much as spectacles do when seen on a viewing surface that's 40 feet high. Now one can also put on a headset to experience 3D, and 60' TVs are becoming more common, but there's still nothing like the experience of hearing yourself and everyone around you saying "WOW!" at the same time. So Hollywood makes films that satisfy this need for greater-than-real experiences in milieus far far away from everyday life. Everyday life is more and more the province of the small screen. If a distribution method for 'opening' a small movie on the small screen, that would maybe solve the problem - somewhat. Netflix is trying. We'll see where this goes and if there's some way of compensating the film makers as if they were in theaters.
Did you say Ironman was forgettable or Avengers? Or the music therein? Because the only movie whose music I remember is Last of the Mohicans. But Iron Man and Avengers are totally still in memory for every single fan of those movies, and there's a lot of us.
No matter how big its budget is, you can't call a David Fincher film a blockbuster. He makes high budget independent films, and calling them blockbusters is clearly an offence...
I saw your post on Newtubers. This was a really enjoyable video and really reminded me of Nerdwriter but slightly different. You just earned yourself a new sub :D
I guess too many people are missing the point. The guy simply tells us that this kind of movie has potential (to gain financial objective) but the distributors won't even give a chance. It is not about your movie taste or how someone must be pretentious to enjoy art film, it is all about marketing and how a better effort to reach more awareness will give more opportunity to achieve audience.
1. At 5:43, the data do not support your conclusion. There's way too much missing information to make the conclusion you want to make. Also, it's "what these data illustrate to me" not "what this data illustrates to me." 2. I love watching the videos you movie buffs make. When I see one, I search for the flick, often going to Rotten Tomatoes. It's striking how often the critics' assessment varies from the audience's, and how extreme the difference can be. Then I saw some woman's video on "Bright." At 26% fresh, "Bright" has 84% audience approval. I'm starting to think that while movie execs may not know what makes a good movie, for film critics, that is almost certainly true.
Just want to point out a technicality: you're misusing the word exponential when you're saying showing the movie in more cinemas would have resulted in an exponential growth. But your calculations display a linear growth. If 10 times more cinemas result in 10 times more revenue, and 100 times more cinemas result in 100 times more revenue, that's linear growth. Exponential would be 10 times more cinemas resulting in 2^10 = 1024 time more revenue, and 100 times more cinemas 2^100 = a lot of many times more revenue. There is nothing wrong with linear growth, no need for big words, especially if you're displaying real calculations.
the studio does not get all of the gross. 22 million gross would not be enough to recoup costs of a 20 million dollar movie. Plus production budget does not include marketing so the film has to make even more just to recoup costs.
This is definitely something I could have touched on more, but the video was already incredibly long as it was, and as it turns out while production budgets maybe easy to find, it's not quite as easy to find marketing budgets(maybe I wasn't looking in the right places, but I couldn't find it) so I focused instead on production budgets. What I do know about marketing though is that it's related to the production budget. You won't see a movie with a $150 million budget that spends $100k on marketing for example. But I think my point still stands, when you consider the theater average between a film like Synecdoche and Hancock, it shows that there's interest in both types of film, but when Hollywood gives Synecdoche a really limited release, it's final number is going to suffer, but they don't seem to understand that it would have likely done just fine in a wider release, because I believe those numbers definitely illustrate that.
It seemed like it was going to go the same route as the other Wolverine films, but I'm quite pleased that it did something unique. I haven't seen it yet, but I have no doubts that I'll really enjoy it.
Executives and directors/writers should get together before deciding a release so the executive can be educated on how to make a good movie. That would probably make some change. When given power, casuals almost always ruin the subject at hand.
you are very very wrong about almost everythig you said. people will flock to a small theater to see kuafman which makes the per screen averae seem high. but if you look at recent history with films like birdman of the grandbudpast hotel they did great in its small release with a really high perscreen average but on wide release they did not do well.
birdman hand an insanely high persecreen average in small release becuase thier was enough film lovers to feel those theaters and go far away to see them. but on wide release their was not enough people who cared and they did alright to bad.
Love the breakdown! Have you thought about the fact that these arthouse movies are released in areas where the do well(LA/NY ect). You can't assume the same per screen average in TX as NY for an arthouse film.
Thank you! I'm sure the per screen average would see a decline in smaller cities, but I think that when a movie is marketed right, and when it's offering something different than the other films released at the same time, I think there's a draw for a film like Synecdoche, New York, even in smaller towns. Then again, maybe I'm biased, I've spent most of my life living in small towns and have to constantly suffer through every movie I want to see being in "limited release". XD
Studios have tried wide releasing arthouse movies before and it usually goes bust and leads to like an F cinemascore and terrible word of mouth. They usually look at how an arthouse movie does in platform/limited release when deciding on its expansion schedule. SNY only did about a 19k average in 9 theaters OW which is very mediocre. Compare that to big arthouse hits which can get up to like 100k averages and it's a clear sign that even in artsy urban areas the film isn't blowing the roof off.
And that's why in my opinion horror/suspense movies are sometimes the very best. They offer entertainment and escapism but delivering something more on the background. Not all of them obviously.
You have several good points regarding the profit-focus mindset of movie studios, but the argument is lost when you opened establishing that the recession made people seek out escapist films. The fact that you only used one case study that was released in that specific cultural zeitgeist weakens your argument at its foundation, because like any other piece of art, another thing that makes or breaks films is the timing of its release. The reason why the New Hollywood Era (where "the greats" like Scorsese, Coppolla, Kubrick and several other auteurs shined) happened when it did was because of the political climate at that time. The reason why late in the New Hollywood Era, summer blockbusters became a thing with Star Wars and Jaws leading the forefront was a response to that old cynical, grounded paradigm. Movies and box offices change because of the current cultural mindset. Synecdoche, New York was released at a time where people sought escapism and spectacle because of an economic recession, not introspective films. Regardless if studios will release it more widely, it will no doubt yield minimal results against the cost of distribution and marketing. I think the ultimate solution for this though is to make films that are more accessible and up to par with the current zeitgeist, while maintaining a sense of artistic integrity. Movies like The Winter Soldier, The Dark Knight, and Logan excelled at this. They provided commentary and entertainment at the same time. It's not that there's no room for introspective arthouse films, but if you want to reach more people, therefore earn more money, then the product itself has to be accessible intrinsically, not just logistically, and I think that's the challenge of arthouse film makers.
I'm confused, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You say that my argument is lost because I say that people sought out escapist films after the recession, but the you claim the same thing in your third paragraph. That said, this video is my weakest in terms of the script, I'm still proud of the video as a video, I think the pacing is well done and I like the animations, but yeah, my arguments could have been better formed, there is no doubt about that.
Really like your analysis, however it misses something in the assumption that people are not interested in watching these films at all. When in fact it just shows they won't pay to see it in cinema. Quite often people will wait for these films to hit netflix, rentals and/or tv showings. Some of the stats for the arty independent films on Netflix are extremely good. Suggesting that content is not the sole problem. Some of your analysis suggests that because people watch the "bigger" "spectacle" films in the cinema that means they are not interested or wont watch these films at an alternative time. The average American goes to the cinema just 6 times a year. For many its seen as a treat, an expense that needs to come with guarantees and therefore is less risky going with something they know they will more than likely love or will give them their money's worth. While I agree more people shpuld take risks in what they see at the cinema, I dont think we should label them all mindless morons when they may be enoying all the filma we want them to at home.
I've gone back and revisited this video, rather embarrassed at my naivety. It's a sore subject, one I'm pretty easily fired up about, but yeah, looking back, I got a lot of things wrong. I've left it up because it's still a nice video and seems to incite interesting discussion, but yeah, I was being a little presumptuous with my calculations.
Film Radar I'm glad you left it up. Debate and discussion in the arts, particularly film, should always be encouraged. I agreed with many parts and just pointed out one part I disagreed with but I'm glad I watched if because it made me think. You'll always have disagreements with something as subjective as film so hopefully that hasn't put you off. I actually found this after watching the Baby Driver video which gave some awesome insights. Looking forward to more 👍
Oh the disagreements are fine, encouraged even(when civil that is), mostly, the whole video was based on information that can't really be proven on a smaller scale as I tried to demonstrate. I still think movies like Synecdoche, New York deserve more exposure, but it's a little naive to think that the numbers would scale the same if it had gotten a wide release. Awesome, thank you!
Hancock per theatre was obviously lower as the number of cinemas showing was so much higher. People are willing to drive for a film they really want to see.
You're parting from the false premise that scaling up the movie showings would maintain the same numbers. Whereas it may just be the case that they selected the few locations where the movie would do well, and if you scale it then the return on every individual cinema drops.
I Don't see anything that's worth going to the Theater for and why pay for over priced popcorn and drinks. I just wait a month or more and its on the TV.
Oh. I definitely believe this, but I think you should really work on your marketing ploy..."superhero movies are for people with low IQs while my movies are for smart people...and if you like superhero movies, you are not going to like my movies...." Hence, why they don't do as well....as superhero movies. When you call the customers idiots," they tend not to spend their money to make you rich.
Definitely felt that too. Oh I like superhero movies. Guess I'm a person of lower IQ then. Geez people in Hollywood just pass the ball around of who gets to say it next.
Good video, but a demanding film about mortality is never going to be a blockbuster, I suspect. (Look at 'The Fountain'). I have a feeling that everyone who was likely to see this in a theater probably sought it out and did so. I saw it in the theater, but the film was challenging and odd enough that I doubt I would have necessarily recommended it to anyone else. And I didn't see it a second time until video.
a very important video. A bit repetitive, but you gave all the important arguments I'm already boycotting Marvel and pretty much every film I suspect of being purely commercial for some time now. In 2016 this sadly means that I don't really go to the cinema anymore. Right now a handful of interesting films get released like Shin Godzilla, Moonlight, or Silence but it will take some time until they reach me in Germany. The last film I've seen in the theatre was The Hateful 8 in January
Wow, that's a very long time since seeing something in theaters. I don't blame you though. It's a sad state of affairs these days in cinema. Not enough films with artistic merit actually get pushed into wide release.
While I do like your video, I did notice that you tended to only use one type of box-office failure, the lower-budget movie that is not shown in many theaters. Even then, most of that time was talking about "Synecdoche, New York", only one example. I think it would have been interesting to talk about different types of box-office failures. The 2016 remake of "Ben Hur" for example. That was a remake with a sizeable budget that didn't make bank. With examples like these and the ones you brought up, I think it would warrant a more interesting look at the topic. With the title you have and the examples you gave, it seems more of a video about "Why Arthouse Films Don't Do That Well", rather than taking a look at box office failures in general, making the title a little misleading. That's my takeaway at least.
The funny thing is, I had never really intended to make this video. It all started as a long piece on "Synecdoche, New York" specifically, and as I was nearing the end of my sort of analysis, I felt the need to discuss the aftermath of the film's release. The script ended up becoming so long that it didn't make sense to keep it as one video, so I ended up splitting them into two separate videos instead. And then the title just seemed like a good way to draw in viewers because it ended up not really being about that movie, so I didn't want to necessarily only grab people who had seen SNY. And you know it is, smaller TH-camr, trying to get views, so it's definitely a little bit click-bait. But it's a topic I may revisit in the future and discuss more in-depth.
I like your style but I don''t really agree, unfortunately. I think that SNY is a hard sell. There are some indie arthouse movies that really attract an audience (Lion, Get Out, for example) and some that don't. But more importantly, your box office analysis doesn't seem right. You think that if SNY opened in 500 or 1000 theater,s it would garner the same per theater average over its run? Because I disagree. Part of the appeal, I think, is the limited opening appeal. Lots of movies open huge per theater averages in small openings and then expand and grow because it attracts an audience (La La Land is the most prominent example, but also Slumdog Millionaire, etc.) but some don't because the appeal is just no there. I really do not believe that if SNY opened in 500 theaters that it would maintain that per theater average over its run. In fact, I think it'd suffer because it's a hard sell and when theaters see that so few people are seeing it, it'll be dropped quickly. Having them in fewer theaters at first is the right move, and the fact that it did not expand well (or get very very good reviews instead of the average-good reviews it got) means it did not appeal.
Victor Chang People who make lame excuses about how bad movies are who don't make the effort to see movies like Synecdoche are the problem. They have no one to blame but themselves for the studios not taking any chances with movies like this.
I have to disagree with this video entirely. The reason retention was stronger for Synecdoche is because the type of people who'd see it would see it in theaters. They look for these types of films and are willing to trek out to a major US city to watch it. If you release a weird, experimental film with that wide release, it would tank so quickly because it's frankly to weird for general audiences. No one really goes to their local cineplex for weird and experimental.
Logically you are right, but you are forgetting one big point: Marketing. Its all about selling and advertising these movies and getting people interested in them. As much as I love synechdoche, I totally see the problem with selling it wide in the US: it is too intellectual and formal something totally different and standing out. In my opinion Film history (or nowadays: history of audiovisual content) is some Kind of road: for example 'Breaking Bad' would probably never have been a success without the existence of 'the Sopranos' because they first perfected the possibilities of cinematic storytelling in TV. Yes, you can always find a series that did that before, but the point is, that there are badly needed referencepoints for the audience. Synechdoche is far ahead of its time and has no visible referencepoints in resent Film history that the US audience could relate to. I'm going to make myself hateable in saying, if there was a consistent European Film-marketplace it would have fared much better here, because of our bigger openness to movies that challenge and the ongoing breaks and turnarounds in art. But here also it relies on Marketing: you can have the best movie of all time in some cinemas, nobody will care if you dont make them care and go there. At the end of the Day the whole world of cinema has probably the same Problem: the successfull takeovers of moneypeople, taking away the Power of craftsmen and cinephiles.
The older this video gets, the more disappointed I am in my execution. I think I spent more time doing all of the crazy After Effects stuff that made my want to jump off a bridge(which is why you don't see this much animation in any video I've made sense) that I didn't do nearly enough research, and basically just come off as an angry fan screaming at the clouds. You're totally right, I mean, I still think this is a movie that could have been marketed in a unique way and seen a return on the budget, but it certainly wouldn't have smashed the box office by any means, it's just not a movie for the average movie goer in America. The whole reference point is really interesting, and I agree with you. People kind of need to take baby steps to understand more experimental things, like, in music, you won't find average folks listening to Penderecki or Ligeti, but people who've studied music for years and years find it fascinating precisely because it's so unconventional. So people like me, who've seen thousands of movies and just gotten a really good feel for the rhythm of a typical film, LOVE this movie, because it's just unlike anything else you've ever seen, and that's exciting when you've seen the same tired films done over and over again. I think American audiences in general need a major overhaul of the audio-visual content they consume, they're missing out on a lot of great stuff.
Genre will always be more popular than literature. No matter what, the average consumer is taking a risk when there is a film culture (although divided) which peddles just as much in pretentiousness as there is one which trades in hype. So naturally, people take the safe option (one with predefined Genre and expectations).
Gotta love it when people do video essay's and don't really get the topic they are discussing. Box Office is a complicated business. The Synecdoche New York example is flawed. It had a 4000 dollar per theatre average because it played in LESS theatres. simply opening to a higher theatre count wouldn't mean that this number stays the same. Art house films play in cities like New York, LA, San Fransico, Chicago etc where there is an audience for niche art house films. Plenty of movies start small then expand wide in a few weeks. Usually movies that do this have a strong per theatre gross on the opening weekend. Had Synecdoche New York had a strong per theatre average, it would've expanded. Also? Movie studios do not get every dollar that comes in. They get a little less than Half in most cases. 50%. Worldwide? Much more complicated. China for example? Studios get 25% of the take. A quarter. Plus you've got not only the production budget to consider, but the marketing (aka P&A budget. Prints and Advertising). On a movie like Hancock? It can add at least 100 million to the cost. So that's 250,000,000 Sony spent. The movie also has a big star in Will Smith, Stars of his caliber usually get box office points. First dollar gross points OR profit participation. First dollar gross points mean a Smith gets, let's say 5% of every dollar that comes in. Profit participation means once the movie earns back its budget then the actor/director/producer starts getting money. Creative Hollywood accounting usually sees that they don't get a dime. For example, Warner Bros tried to say they took a loss on the 5th Harry Potter movie despite it making almost 900 million worldwide. So there you go.
Yeah, no, you're totally right. I've responded many times in the comments, but I'll always continue to for as long as I can. I really fucked up on this one, I spent too much time focusing on the animations and editing that I totally over-simplified the research process and made a really half-assed argument. The video is still public because I'm not one to shy away from mistakes, but rather own up to them. But it was a learning experience for me, and I've never made this sort of mistake since. Research is easily the most important aspect to a video like this, but I was so concerned with presenting everything in a professional manner that I just overlooked a lot of simple things. Everything I said in this video made sense to me at the time of making it, but I cringe every time I look at this video. It's frustrating that this seems to be the one TH-cam is intent on sharing the most of all of my older videos, which is a shame, because it's easily the worst video I've ever made in terms of argument. Presentation I think is still solid, but god damn does this video make me look like an idiot.
Good video with a compelling point. I disagree with what you say here and I'll give you an example- danny Boyle's Steve Jobs film. It had a fantastic limited run, fantastic reviews and was amazing. When it went to wider distribution it utterly collapsed and made almost nothing at the box office. I think you make a good point about giving an art upise movie a wide release if you're giving shitty adam sandler movies wide releases but there is already such a large and strong audience for Sandler films and films that are stupid that people can watch and make fun of that it's hard not justifying an art house release. Unfortunately any time an art house flick is wide released it's under an intense microscope and if it doesnt make back its money its the first thing studios complain about and use as justification for not releasing more arthouse fare.
It doesn't matter that the new starwars movie had the same plot as the older one! The point was to keep the starwars brand alive and keep generating money. Its already a big name, so tons of people are going to see it. Old and young starwars fans, as well as non starwars fan children of starwars fan parent's. As well as many others. Their trying to keep the franchise alive. If it means losing some old\current fans by making "repetitive" similar storyline films, so be it. The older fans that notice or realized will die off ether soon or soon enough. But the kids seeing film 7 now won't care and will carry on the starwars name!
I completely disagree. Eventually, any fans of the new ones will go back to watch the originals, that's what happened when I was a kid and the prequels came out. I don't see how they couldn't have told a more original story that would please everybody, old fans and new fans alike.
Film Radar, I've TRIED and seen BOTH ANH and TFA back to back many times and I really don't see very many similarities. But that's just my perspective and opinion.
For sure, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, mine is no more important than anyone else's. I did enjoy The Force Awakens as entertainment, it's just really forgettable for me, I guess I probably had my expectations set a little too high.
After seeing how Obi Wan died in Episode IV and then watching Episode I, I wish Darth Maul had killed Jar Jar Binks instead of Qui-Gon Jinn now that would've come straight out of left field.
I certainly hope so, but even with low expectations they were still disappointed, it's why Kaufman has had such a hard time finding funding for his movies ever since :/
i like the production quality. it's unique and easy to look at.
however i want to quickly voice an issue i had with the video. Particularly with the box office math where you say that ,if it had more exposure the result would be exponential growth. I don't think you're right here. I see the film you dicussed as a guy running a marathon. He starts well and makes it 3 kilometres, then collapses. Afterwards you are examining his run and find that if he kept his pace and continued until the end he would have finished with a great time and be alongside the top marthon runners. However this is irrelevant as he passed out after 3 km and couldn't make that pace if he tried even though the math would tell you its possible. He would never make that great time and be comparable to the best runners even though on paper he could.
i don't know if you like football (soccer) but i certainly do. Most non-league football teams can compete with the big teams with world class players for maybe one game. if you were to compare that one game and scale it up like you did for the film, you would expect the non league team to play in the same league as the big team. however its about consistentcy. The real question is how consistent is the film over 5,000 screens compared to a blockbuster. How does the non league team stack up vs the big team
its apparent that you really enjoyed the film and feel it deserves to make more than Hancock. (Which it probably does). However its an arthouse film for a reason. People don't flock in their droves to see an arthouse film even if its the greatest thing the world has ever seen. I like a good mind stimulating film but i don't think a niche film like this would be appealing to the masses. (which you said at the start to be fair.)
i think i saw another video of yours about its always sunny in philadelphia. It was about why its funny 12 seasons in. I watched it and learned a lot about the characters and their origins and the depth the show has. But i didnt understand what was funny about it. Sure they're a dysfunctional group of friends who do wacky things. The new series of the simpsons contain a dysfunctional family who do wacky things but it isnt funny. The Office (UK) is hilarious because of the awkward silences and cringy things our main character says. but it is the way it is executed that makes it funny not the situations by themselves. (i probably don't get it though. The clips you showed in the video just weren't for me and i probably glossed over the clever humour in it)
anyway thats my two cents. if you read it all you must love what youre doing keep it up and keep improving :)
Yeah, in hindsight, this video needed a lot more research, but I was feeling the pressure of my self-imposed deadlines and the animations took fiveever, so as it stands, this video is probably my biggest disappointment. The truth is, there's no way to know how it would have performed with a wider release, because it didn't get one, but in all likelihood it would have done okay, but nothing spectacular, probably not enough to justify the cost of giving it a wider release.
This is true, and it's a sad truth, but it is what it is. I was definitely just feeling passionate, and angry, and a lot of that comes off and I sound kind of like an idiot, but I still think more art films should be given a real chance, how will people ever discover art films if they're never in theaters?
It's Always Sunny is a show(like any sitcom) that's hit or miss depending on who you ask. To me, the character depth just adds to the authenticity of the world the show presents, but you're definitely right, the situations and jokes are really the selling point, but to be honest I didn't think that'd make for a very interesting video, and when binge watching the show before making the video, I kept thinking back on the relationships the characters all have with their parents and I thought that'd be an interesting topic to cover.
Oh I do, I really love what I do with this channel. Thanks for your comment!
thanks for the reply. Keep up the great work :)
6 months late, but I just ran across this video and your comment, and I feel like you're missing a fantastic experience in not getting Sunny... Imagine if you found football boring *gasp!*
Overall it's hard to explain, but the humour isn't just about the situations. The characters are fantastic. Each very deep and very, very dysfunctional in ways that make their interactions with each other and especially with everyone else cringy and hilarious. They are simply the worst people possible. Think Bender from Futurama. Everyone is like that... But more narcissistic, dysfunctional and so much dumber.
There simply is no comedy like it. I hope you give it another shot and enjoy it.
Hey, Zohan is really funny.
Come on...
Disco! Disco! Good! Good!
There are a lot of great movies that get wide-releases and don't make money back. The Nice Guys opened wide but hardly made it's budget back. Arrival opened wide and it only made 24 million during this first weekend, even though it's being lauded by the critics. Now compare that to Doctor Strange which has made almost half a billion dollars so far. The issue is people don't go to the theaters to see anything but a spectacle. A lot of people have home theater systems and access to so many movies and TV shows that it would take them a couple life times to get through them all. Therefore people go to the theater to experience things that their home system can't provide. It's a shame, I would love to live in a world where Hell or High Water gets a wide-release and makes half a billion in a couple weeks, but that seems impossible.
Arrival actually ended up making a small profit.
The Nice Guys failed because it opened the same weekend as Angry Birds and Neighbors 2.
Pleb-tier Productions totally agree.
What time was it released? That also plays into it very much, as there are times of the year when certain movies are released.
tinting the movies with a digital color, not having a memorable tune, shitty CGI, being afraid to show style and optimism because of twitter backlash from leftists, those are the main reasons.
I really liked Synecdoche New York and was dismayed that Charlie Kaufman had to go the crowdfunding route to get the money needed to make Anomalisa (which I also really enjoyed). However, the fact that it got its funding from its target audience, who then spent MORE money to go see it, restores a little faith in humanity.
I'll never forget working at a movie theater in college and watching loners and the occasional couple walk buy tickets for movies like Her while masses of people piled in to see movies like Ride A Long. Watching this analysis really did make me kind of sad. People don't want to be challenged or moved by a movie. I love a good goofy movie sometimes, but movies like Synecdoche have literally changed the way I think about things.
I just wish people kept a better balance, not every movie needs to be some flashy fun "turn your brain off" entertainment, sometimes it can really change your perspective to see a movie like Synecdoche, New York. It may not be the most comfortable watch, but you leave the film a different person.
Lol the "loner going to see Her" hit hard..
Style without substance - "*shows Logan clippings*"
Me: that's not very cash money of you
I largely agree with what your saying, a lot of art house films dont do anywhere near as good as they should in cinemas. However when editing your videos i think you should be careful of where you place specific clips of movies when talking about a subject. When you were making a point i entirely agree with about exposure of smaller budget films and talking about style over substance, you placed clips of films like Logan and guardians of the galaxy. While both of these films might not have as much to say philosophically or creatively as a lot of underappreciated art house films, they are both fantastic pieces of cinema none the less. Love the videos though dude! You got another sub right here :)
oblix101 great point. These avengers films and stylized superhero shit is great! Just as inspiring as synecdoche. It’s just that, as Thanos would wish, it’s not balanced.
I love this. Particularly because in the economy of attention, awareness is paramount. That said, I think looking toward an old delivery mechanism is an error. Direct to streaming services like Netflix, HBO Go, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc is the correct path for good films to go today if you ask me. It's simply too expensive to keep theaters open for movies like this. I am totally on board with you about those making the decisions being business people and not film people. But that's the unfortunate truth of the way it needs to be for that industry. It's too big to be a good outlet for creativity except as an anomaly.
I think that is definitely a really strong option, though there's something about seeing a movie in a theater that just beats watching something on your TV or computer, and you'd think now that almost every theater has digital projection these days it wouldn't be too expensive to put a film in more theaters, unlike when they had to have a film print for every theater. Maybe they could find a nice middle ground? Or maybe do more of a test run through streaming services? It definitely seems to be a necessary evil, but I think as long as people with money want good films to be made, we'll see it happen. They just usually can't have a massive budget for people to take a chance.
Film Radar I see that as being the middle ground. I agree there's something about it but as it is now most people didn't see Synecdoche, NY in theaters and now love it. The way it is now loving it later makes no difference. If you take a straight to streaming approach then you'll get paid by the streaming service and have a chance to go into theaters based on success. Like you said, there's something about seeing things on screen.
Did you see Synecdoche, NY in theaters? I bet not. And I bet now you'd love to be able to. If we abandon the theater first approach for actual films instead of being in constant conflict with the business that runs it today we can lead by example.
I missed it in theaters, but I would have loved the opportunity to see it. I think this could work, it could certainly help prove the point that people want to see movies like that. And what cost would it be to them? In the digital age, there's so much potential for spreading something around because it costs nothing to reproduce something digitally. You'd think studios would be taking advantage of this, but then again, a lot of these studios are run based on archaic ideas that don't work the way they once did.
Totally! This is something I've been saying for years. That theater no longer makes sense for anything but blockbusters OR releasing already established films that have a demand for an on-screen viewing. It just is no longer financially viable. I mean the video essay form itself is proof that new methods of delivering content are changing the content. Which is nothing new, there was resistance to film as being lesser than literature or theater, too. Until we learned that the medium has tools unique to it! I wrote a whole thing about how video games are going through a similar situation. We tend to be attached to the way we originally saw content being delivered but it is to our own detriment!
awesome analysis!! Synecdoche is my all time favorite movie, and didnt understand the failure, but i think you nailed it. thanks!
A movie has to make 3 times it's budget to be successful. 20 million to pay for budget, 20 million to maybe pay for marketing, and 20 million to actually make a profit. Synecdoche, New York getting 22 million would still be a bomb.
I was not expected Andrew Bird's music to pop into your video.
This is why, as a history buff, I try to go see as many Based on a True Story or Inspired by True Events movies as possible, even if the graphics look bad (like Midway). Studios are not concerned if the audience isn't impressed with the style or the accuracy of the portrayal, but seeing if audiences are interested enough in the historical epic/drama or period piece genera to spend money at the opening weekend box office. It's really hard to convince historical buffs about this truth.
8:57 "Superhero....garbage" that was the greatest thing I've ever heard
I just love the way he says it XD
Great job, and a new susbcriber ;)
Thank you! :D
The economy fell in 2008 but those films were in development 2/3 years prior to that. They would have been released regardless of the economic situation.
While they would have been in development, it's not unheard of for studios to pull the release at the last minute, or at least change how wide of a release a film will get. Just look at "Annihilation" which came out recently, at the last minute they decided not to go with an international release and just put it on Netflix. It's really expensive to get a movie international on thousands of screens, after the crash they'd certainly rethink which films got the star treatment and which were meant for the DVD rack.
I`m sorry but for a lot of people going to the movies is a form a relaxation and blowing off some steam. While I do not get the intricacies of a movie like Synecdoche, I can tell you one thing. It's not a movie you relax to. Charlie Kauffman's style is very hard to digest and not for everyone, myself included.
Oh for sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's always going to be a space in cinema for pure entertainment, and I'm glad for that, but I see no reason why the two can't coexist. I think a lot more people would get into a movie like Synecdoche, New York if they'd give it a chance. I've met a ton of people who aren't particularly passionate about films but they can still enjoy a really thoughtful and well made movie.
Well you'd think that'd be the case, Hollywood certainly seems to think so, but we've seen plenty of bleak movies that deal with real life struggles perform really well. Typically when it's a good film, certainly if it gets some decent Oscar notice, they'll usually do at least alright at the box office if not pretty well.
Film Radar like The Revenant, a dark fucking stressful film that got a lottttt of money, pretty she it broke 9 digits
Broesly really? i find suffering with anxiety that only through the bizzare films of somebody like John Waters or the Greasey Strangler allow me to cope by reminding me im not the only one who sees the world as how it is: fucked. Kubrick being another notable example. Finding comedy in places usually considered dark. Idk maybe you just like things to be nice and round and safe and clear at all times though, thats certainly not everybody.
Its just unfair that the one type of film is forced into a minority situation where it has no chance to really expand or flourish. I mean its not like the 'if you dont like comic book movies then dont watch them' argument (and all similar ones) hold any water whatsoever because as IHE mentioned, besides 'get out' or the occasional remake you have literally no other options to choose from, i mean you might as well rule out cinemas as a form of recreation nowadays if you arent amused by seeing the hulk punch iron man a thousand times.
i think that is the ultimate point he (film radar) is attempting to make, that it is not about opinion , or getting everybody to like movies like that (Synechdoche being a specific example) , it is about scarcity and marketing...
Saying "film is only escapism" is like saying "our tongues were designed for junk food". Sometimes we need something that's not as easy to digest, but is more fortifying.
Again, thanks for this. Super inspirational!
Hey! Thank you for the kind words! :D
Brilliant video. Comprehensive yet engaging. Keep up the good work :D
Thanks a lot, will do!
I think you're argument might be right but the evidence doesn't entirely support your position. If Synechdoche were screened at other cinemas, it's possible that the market would not have grown accordingly. This would occur if the movie had only a small, urban audience who would have actively sought it out whereas the blockbuster had a mass market that required extensive marketing activities to provoke actual movie attendance.
So, while possible, I'm not entirely convinced. I do, however, agree that the movie was pushed far less than it should have been. Should it have been shown in 1000 cinemas? Not sure. But 40 is certainly too few.
Video was awesome. Great points and info and a wonderful production.
Love your stuff, man. Keep making these awesome videos :)
They want movies to be forgettable. That way, they can rehash the same story over and over again with minor changes, promote it and people will go and watch it unknowingly.
I went over seas and all I had to read was some John Grisham novels. After reading them, I was half way through one of them before I realized that I had read it before. You are hypnotized like a sheep.... Everyone knows there are great movies and great literature out there, but nobody consumes it, they want the flashy new pap. Same with TH-cam videos.
This is actually a really good point.
Wow, that Charlie Kaufman bit really made me sad.. He's a brilliant writer and it blows my mind that he has been able to get any work made in 8 years! Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is one of my favorite movies. I haven't seen Synecdoche New York yet though, I'll be checking that out right away
It's heartbreaking, right? This guy is so talented and can't a movie made, it's terrifying. If you appreciate other works of his, you'll love it, just probably not the first time you watch it :P
2016 was change in direction for blockbuster and art house films
The audiences are the same as the hollywood business men in that they don't want to take the risk of watching an art house film which might be awful. They would rather play it safe and watch a superhero movie where they know they will at least be somewhat entertained.
You are right
But dont touch logan man, Logan is Awesome!
Best adapted screenplay nom
Haha, I guess I just was taking a stab at assuming it would be dogshit, like the other stand alone Wolverine movies. But you can even check, this video came out before the movie, and I think we were all surprised. Granted, I still haven't seen it, but I've heard from many people that I trust, that it's amazing, and I'm inclined to believe it.
yeah, Xavier dying like a bitch, Wolverine being replaced by a little girl with no charisma, bad acting chops and dubious race, not having a memorable tune at least, begins and ens in a depressing tone, LIKE ALL MOVIES THESE DAYS. You see were I'm going? It was just another forgettable, run of the mill, blockbuster.
Thank you for making this.
Just found this channel. Instant subscribe. You make really good videos.
Thanks so much! I do my best!
A VERY well thought out argument! Great narration and wonderfully straightforward editing. It's also great to know there are more people out there who see the brilliance of SNY. I discovered it after Roger Ebert called it 'the best movie of the decade'.
Thank you very much! It's one of my favorites of all time, Charlie Kaufman is just always brilliant.
Though I understand that there is a created need to vote with one's wallet, I am not sure how I feel about presenting it like voting for a party for multiple reasons. Most importantly unlike a vote, of which everyone gets one and one spends by themselves, film is competing not just with other film but with other entertainment, basic needs, savings, etc.
One does not by default see a movie every month and then get to choose which one to go to, choosing the best one everytime. When unsure about a movie, they might just do something different alltogether.
The individualistic aspect of voting is also lost. When I go to the movies with my girlfriend, I will go to a movie we both like, when we bring another friend or family member, we have to take their taste into account as well. This means in the group that something like baby driver gets preference over the latest need for speed, but it also means that even though I love synecdoche new york, if in the time it is screended I do not go to the movies either by myself or with one of my friends that also happens to like those movies I will simply not see it.
Life is most always, though espcially in contemporary society, about choosing between evils. Sometimes going to kung fu panda 3 is the lesser evil, even if I think that movie is just ok.
"It has to be a good movie" - the most subjective statement ever
Another great video. Props on using those FlyLo tracks!
Thanks! You know it :D
This video is 5 years old and still true. I feel like the gap widens every year
Rather if you agree or disagree the important thing is that we are having this discussion .
I haven't even heard of _Synecdoche, New York_ before I watched this video, but I'm interested now
It's definitely worth checking out!
I agree about star wars awakening , it looked like a reboot , Kylo Ren was the new Vador , and the trio of young heroes , somehow represented young Han , Luke and Leila
This analysis is just typical worthless art school posturing. Not because its wrong, a lot of it isn't. Its because its dismissive in the same way most of these diatribes tend to be. "Why does Star Wars make all the money when its just like a ton of other movies." Its because its a broad movie with extremely universal themes and that's what it was made to be. Most people DO NOT CARE about what movies are considered important. Why would they? They have their own problems to deal with. And they go to a movie to be shown a world in which problems can be solves in just under 2 hour and ten minutes. Film brats love to look down on normal people for liking "feel good films" while never realizing that paying good money to be reminded that the world is a sad place and your body is slowly decaying around you is actually more of a weird thing that artists like to do for the most part. Both weird art house films and big summer movies are made at a consummate rate with what people tend to see. Synecdoche New York would still be a weird alienating art house film no matter how many theaters you put it in. And that's GOOD. Its an art film made for artist. Most people are not artists.
I feel like several people have made this point, so I must not have been has clear as I would have liked in the video. But I have no problem with people enjoying a good old fashioned blockbuster movie, there's nothing wrong with popcorn entertainment, some of the most memorable times I've had at a theater were popcorn flicks, like the first time I saw The Avengers in theaters with a bunch of friends, it was a total blast. My complaint is how these popcorn flicks are starting to swallow up the more artistic films, a very similar thing is happening with the gaming industry as well. Everyone is just trying to play to the lowest common denominator, which is causing more niche content to die out, and I don't think anyone wants that. I want the big fun summer movies to still come out, I just want there to be some room for films like Synecdoche, New York as well.
Love the movie and Charlie Kaufman. Noticed your use of Sparklehorse which I also love.
Please accept my appreciation.
marketing plays a huge part, consider two of my favorite films.... SILENCE and BARRY LYNDON, very similar... both killed by bad marketing. Very good video btw, as always
Oh for sure it does. Some of the greatest films of all time have suffered from terrible marketing. Movies like that are hard to market to the masses though. Thank you!
You forget that it also costs the studio money to put the movie out into more theaters. 119 theaters is pretty reasonable for a film like Synecdoche, as any more would be expensive. Not to mention that no one truly knows how a film will be received critically until the critics actually review it, so saying that people are just going to go see better films regardless of their target audience is baseless. Also, the film would have to make $40 million in order to make a profit, which given films of late, it could easily have done.
This was a beautifully argued point, and it makes me very sad. And I used to think I just didn't like movies...
Movies are great, just have to find the right ones, sadly they're getting harder and harder to come by.
this is what martin scorsese said about marvel
This was a good explanation, but dude, there are other movies besides Synechdoche, New York lmao
Hahaha, yeah, this video was originally written as one long one alongside my film analysis of Synecdoche, New York. Also, it made it easier when it came to crunching the numbers to focus mainly on one film, but in hindsight the video would have been made better by using more examples.
Do you have a soundtrack listing? What a great selection!
Excelente contenido. Yet I don't understand why some movies are shown in more theathers than others, it costs more money for the studio to show it in more teathers?
I thought it had no costs for the studio and the profit of the ticket sell was what they paid to the theater...can't find an answer to this on google.
Truly great video!!!
Background muaic plz??
enjoyed your video essay, subbed. Def can never have enough film industry analysis videos!
on a side note: have you put into your analysis that theaters will take 50% of the revenue, so the studio would need to gross 2x their budget to recoup all of their money back?
Also, the above par gross at each theater might be the result of having the film shown at a small number of theaters in large markets, thereby drawing in the specific type of audience that might enjoy a film like Synecdoche in each market. Having it shown on higher number of screens might not necessarily result in higher revenue, but just the same number of people going to a more spread out number of theaters and the studio losing more $. just a thought
In hindsight, there's definitely a lot more complicated stuff about box office that I could have studied deeper before making this video. You're absolutely right, but I think my main point still stands, that studios should try more often to push out these original movies, despite it being a risk. But yeah, given the data, and how much theaters take, as well as having a more spread out audience(smaller towns, not as film centric), it wouldn't have made a fortune, but I think it still could have done alright, especially if it had gotten some Oscar buzz.
Definitely get your point. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Look forward to your next vid!
Thanks for your comment! I'm excited to have the next one out!
Dude, you're amazing. Just subscribed!
Thank you so much! I'm glad you enjoyed the video! And thanks for subscribing :)
Smashing. Cheers for the video. I really enjoyed this.
Thank you kindly!
Great video and great channel. Subscribed!
Thanks so much! :D
Fantastic video. Every person who wants the tides of mediocrity and shallowness to be settled down in favor for forms of enriching experiences in art and entertainment of cinema should see this video and also studio execs in favor of actual passionate, visionary filmmakers who want their rightful dues to be paid. Thank you Film Radar and I hope just like other great filmmakers and studios you get more success in the future.
Thanks for your comment! I just always hope to add to the conversation if nothing else. Very selfishly I might add, as a film lover first and foremost, damn it, I just want more good movies every year. And every year there seem to be fewer and fewer.
Fantastic, Keep up the good work
Sorry for coming to the party so late, but I would like to point out something (from a business perspective) that I think you overlook: The US movie market is not a uniform, consistent entity:
Be very careful when extrapolating numbers on a 'scale up' exercise - the New York, Chicago, San Fran et al. markets are quite different from other parts of the country. I feel that, if executives could make a buck running an art house movie in Mobile, Alabama - let's say...they would run it.
I just don't think people in certain areas are that interested...
I agree with everything but you do not have to drag Zohan like that man, that movie is everything to me and I was way bummed. Everything else is A+
Sobering reality. Thank You. 🎬
Not since the 1940s and '50s have we seen all kinds of movies in theaters given equal screen time. But that was before television. As soon as television became widespread, attendance at movie theaters dropped off. The 'small screen' became the purveyor of every type of film, until Hollywood realized that films similar to "The Adventures of Robin Hood" looked a lot better on the 'big screen' than the small.
]Which is when, to fill the theaters as often as possible, while not letting go of the small film audience altogether, blockbusters started to be made with the idea that nowhere but in a theater can an immersive experience be fully satisfied. Enter the wide screen. Enter 3D. Enter super-sized, wrap-around screens with multiple projectors in sync.
Today we're seeing the culmination of that trend, proving the theory that intimate films don't appeal to wide audiences as much as spectacles do when seen on a viewing surface that's 40 feet high.
Now one can also put on a headset to experience 3D, and 60' TVs are becoming more common, but there's still nothing like the experience of hearing yourself and everyone around you saying "WOW!" at the same time. So Hollywood makes films that satisfy this need for greater-than-real experiences in milieus far far away from everyday life.
Everyday life is more and more the province of the small screen. If a distribution method for 'opening' a small movie on the small screen, that would maybe solve the problem - somewhat. Netflix is trying. We'll see where this goes and if there's some way of compensating the film makers as if they were in theaters.
Did you say Ironman was forgettable or Avengers? Or the music therein? Because the only movie whose music I remember is Last of the Mohicans. But Iron Man and Avengers are totally still in memory for every single fan of those movies, and there's a lot of us.
No matter how big its budget is, you can't call a David Fincher film a blockbuster. He makes high budget independent films, and calling them blockbusters is clearly an offence...
i saw the neon demon in 2016 - was sooo good. I usually just watch pirated copies of films but this film i decided to give the theatre some money.
I saw your post on Newtubers. This was a really enjoyable video and really reminded me of Nerdwriter but slightly different. You just earned yourself a new sub :D
Thanks a lot! Nerdwriter is one of my inspirations for sure, so I appreciate the comparison!
:D
I guess too many people are missing the point. The guy simply tells us that this kind of movie has potential (to gain financial objective) but the distributors won't even give a chance. It is not about your movie taste or how someone must be pretentious to enjoy art film, it is all about marketing and how a better effort to reach more awareness will give more opportunity to achieve audience.
Hollywood today: If it's broke BUT it makes a lot of money...don't fix it.
1. At 5:43, the data do not support your conclusion. There's way too much missing information to make the conclusion you want to make. Also, it's "what these data illustrate to me" not "what this data illustrates to me."
2. I love watching the videos you movie buffs make. When I see one, I search for the flick, often going to Rotten Tomatoes. It's striking how often the critics' assessment varies from the audience's, and how extreme the difference can be. Then I saw some woman's video on "Bright." At 26% fresh, "Bright" has 84% audience approval. I'm starting to think that while movie execs may not know what makes a good movie, for film critics, that is almost certainly true.
Zohan was actually one of Sandler’s best films....Synedoche, NY was just not very well loved (the reviews were merely okay)
Yet another great video! Can you please make a video on Drive (2011). That's my favorite movie of all time.
Fantastic video.
Just want to point out a technicality: you're misusing the word exponential when you're saying showing the movie in more cinemas would have resulted in an exponential growth. But your calculations display a linear growth. If 10 times more cinemas result in 10 times more revenue, and 100 times more cinemas result in 100 times more revenue, that's linear growth. Exponential would be 10 times more cinemas resulting in 2^10 = 1024 time more revenue, and 100 times more cinemas 2^100 = a lot of many times more revenue.
There is nothing wrong with linear growth, no need for big words, especially if you're displaying real calculations.
the studio does not get all of the gross. 22 million gross would not be enough to recoup costs of a 20 million dollar movie. Plus production budget does not include marketing so the film has to make even more just to recoup costs.
This is definitely something I could have touched on more, but the video was already incredibly long as it was, and as it turns out while production budgets maybe easy to find, it's not quite as easy to find marketing budgets(maybe I wasn't looking in the right places, but I couldn't find it) so I focused instead on production budgets. What I do know about marketing though is that it's related to the production budget. You won't see a movie with a $150 million budget that spends $100k on marketing for example. But I think my point still stands, when you consider the theater average between a film like Synecdoche and Hancock, it shows that there's interest in both types of film, but when Hollywood gives Synecdoche a really limited release, it's final number is going to suffer, but they don't seem to understand that it would have likely done just fine in a wider release, because I believe those numbers definitely illustrate that.
I know this vid was made before Logan came out but Logan definitely doesn't fall into the forgettable schlock category.
It seemed like it was going to go the same route as the other Wolverine films, but I'm quite pleased that it did something unique. I haven't seen it yet, but I have no doubts that I'll really enjoy it.
Executives and directors/writers should get together before deciding a release so the executive can be educated on how to make a good movie. That would probably make some change.
When given power, casuals almost always ruin the subject at hand.
Stopped in the middle...
I love Synecdoche, and will always defend this movie, but the arguments here are nonsensical.
I agree partly. But FYI nothing is going to change. Also Syncehndoddudud NY next on my list to watch.
Let me know what you think! Also, fair warning, it takes patience, and likely more than one viewing.
you are very very wrong about almost everythig you said. people will flock to a small theater to see kuafman which makes the per screen averae seem high. but if you look at recent history with films like birdman of the grandbudpast hotel they did great in its small release with a really high perscreen average but on wide release they did not do well.
this is becuase art house lovers flock to see it at far away places in small theaters but the wider audince does not care
birdman hand an insanely high persecreen average in small release becuase thier was enough film lovers to feel those theaters and go far away to see them. but on wide release their was not enough people who cared and they did alright to bad.
The Grand Budapest Hotel Budget: $29 million. Box Office: 174.8 million
Birdman Budget: $16-$18.5 million. Box Office: 103.2 million
You were saying?
Film Radar That doesn't refute his point. It doesn't even address it.
Mean Bean Productions It addresses the point perfectly.
You miss a huge thing here. I can take my kids to a superhero movie. I can't to a R art house film.
Yes, you can. My dad always took me to art house movies.
Love the breakdown! Have you thought about the fact that these arthouse movies are released in areas where the do well(LA/NY ect). You can't assume the same per screen average in TX as NY for an arthouse film.
Thank you! I'm sure the per screen average would see a decline in smaller cities, but I think that when a movie is marketed right, and when it's offering something different than the other films released at the same time, I think there's a draw for a film like Synecdoche, New York, even in smaller towns. Then again, maybe I'm biased, I've spent most of my life living in small towns and have to constantly suffer through every movie I want to see being in "limited release". XD
What is 1:46?
The movie you mean? There's a quick cut so it's either Reservoir Dogs or Moon depending on where you paused.
Film Radar
That’ll be moon then. Thanks for the answer! Great vid.
Studios have tried wide releasing arthouse movies before and it usually goes bust and leads to like an F cinemascore and terrible word of mouth. They usually look at how an arthouse movie does in platform/limited release when deciding on its expansion schedule. SNY only did about a 19k average in 9 theaters OW which is very mediocre. Compare that to big arthouse hits which can get up to like 100k averages and it's a clear sign that even in artsy urban areas the film isn't blowing the roof off.
Same with Annihilation.
And that's why in my opinion horror/suspense movies are sometimes the very best. They offer entertainment and escapism but delivering something more on the background. Not all of them obviously.
Absolutely, I love horror movies. It's probably my favorite genre.
Because people don't appreciate art. They want stupid ass humor and big bright things. Sigh.
exactly, also the producers mainly are businessmen, they rarely understand art.
You have several good points regarding the profit-focus mindset of movie studios, but the argument is lost when you opened establishing that the recession made people seek out escapist films. The fact that you only used one case study that was released in that specific cultural zeitgeist weakens your argument at its foundation, because like any other piece of art, another thing that makes or breaks films is the timing of its release.
The reason why the New Hollywood Era (where "the greats" like Scorsese, Coppolla, Kubrick and several other auteurs shined) happened when it did was because of the political climate at that time. The reason why late in the New Hollywood Era, summer blockbusters became a thing with Star Wars and Jaws leading the forefront was a response to that old cynical, grounded paradigm. Movies and box offices change because of the current cultural mindset.
Synecdoche, New York was released at a time where people sought escapism and spectacle because of an economic recession, not introspective films. Regardless if studios will release it more widely, it will no doubt yield minimal results against the cost of distribution and marketing.
I think the ultimate solution for this though is to make films that are more accessible and up to par with the current zeitgeist, while maintaining a sense of artistic integrity. Movies like The Winter Soldier, The Dark Knight, and Logan excelled at this. They provided commentary and entertainment at the same time. It's not that there's no room for introspective arthouse films, but if you want to reach more people, therefore earn more money, then the product itself has to be accessible intrinsically, not just logistically, and I think that's the challenge of arthouse film makers.
I'm confused, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You say that my argument is lost because I say that people sought out escapist films after the recession, but the you claim the same thing in your third paragraph.
That said, this video is my weakest in terms of the script, I'm still proud of the video as a video, I think the pacing is well done and I like the animations, but yeah, my arguments could have been better formed, there is no doubt about that.
Hello FilmRadar.How did you manage to make the VFX?Can you tell me the software used?
These days it's almost all After Effects, but this one made heavy use of both After Effects and Illustrator.
Really like your analysis, however it misses something in the assumption that people are not interested in watching these films at all. When in fact it just shows they won't pay to see it in cinema.
Quite often people will wait for these films to hit netflix, rentals and/or tv showings. Some of the stats for the arty independent films on Netflix are extremely good. Suggesting that content is not the sole problem.
Some of your analysis suggests that because people watch the "bigger" "spectacle" films in the cinema that means they are not interested or wont watch these films at an alternative time.
The average American goes to the cinema just 6 times a year. For many its seen as a treat, an expense that needs to come with guarantees and therefore is less risky going with something they know they will more than likely love or will give them their money's worth.
While I agree more people shpuld take risks in what they see at the cinema, I dont think we should label them all mindless morons when they may be enoying all the filma we want them to at home.
I've gone back and revisited this video, rather embarrassed at my naivety. It's a sore subject, one I'm pretty easily fired up about, but yeah, looking back, I got a lot of things wrong. I've left it up because it's still a nice video and seems to incite interesting discussion, but yeah, I was being a little presumptuous with my calculations.
Film Radar I'm glad you left it up. Debate and discussion in the arts, particularly film, should always be encouraged. I agreed with many parts and just pointed out one part I disagreed with but I'm glad I watched if because it made me think. You'll always have disagreements with something as subjective as film so hopefully that hasn't put you off. I actually found this after watching the Baby Driver video which gave some awesome insights. Looking forward to more 👍
Oh the disagreements are fine, encouraged even(when civil that is), mostly, the whole video was based on information that can't really be proven on a smaller scale as I tried to demonstrate. I still think movies like Synecdoche, New York deserve more exposure, but it's a little naive to think that the numbers would scale the same if it had gotten a wide release. Awesome, thank you!
Hancock per theatre was obviously lower as the number of cinemas showing was so much higher. People are willing to drive for a film they really want to see.
You're parting from the false premise that scaling up the movie showings would maintain the same numbers. Whereas it may just be the case that they selected the few locations where the movie would do well, and if you scale it then the return on every individual cinema drops.
I Don't see anything that's worth going to the Theater for and why pay for over priced popcorn and drinks. I just wait a month or more and its on the TV.
Oh. I definitely believe this, but I think you should really work on your marketing ploy..."superhero movies are for people with low IQs while my movies are for smart people...and if you like superhero movies, you are not going to like my movies...." Hence, why they don't do as well....as superhero movies. When you call the customers idiots," they tend not to spend their money to make you rich.
Definitely felt that too. Oh I like superhero movies. Guess I'm a person of lower IQ then.
Geez people in Hollywood just pass the ball around of who gets to say it next.
Good video, but a demanding film about mortality is never going to be a blockbuster, I suspect. (Look at 'The Fountain'). I have a feeling that everyone who was likely to see this in a theater probably sought it out and did so. I saw it in the theater, but the film was challenging and odd enough that I doubt I would have necessarily recommended it to anyone else. And I didn't see it a second time until video.
a very important video. A bit repetitive, but you gave all the important arguments
I'm already boycotting Marvel and pretty much every film I suspect of being purely commercial for some time now. In 2016 this sadly means that I don't really go to the cinema anymore. Right now a handful of interesting films get released like Shin Godzilla, Moonlight, or Silence but it will take some time until they reach me in Germany. The last film I've seen in the theatre was The Hateful 8 in January
Wow, that's a very long time since seeing something in theaters. I don't blame you though. It's a sad state of affairs these days in cinema. Not enough films with artistic merit actually get pushed into wide release.
Film Radar I'm going to go see Arrival this month though, sounds like a really dope film! Creative and intelligent
While I do like your video, I did notice that you tended to only use one type of box-office failure, the lower-budget movie that is not shown in many theaters. Even then, most of that time was talking about "Synecdoche, New York", only one example. I think it would have been interesting to talk about different types of box-office failures. The 2016 remake of "Ben Hur" for example. That was a remake with a sizeable budget that didn't make bank. With examples like these and the ones you brought up, I think it would warrant a more interesting look at the topic. With the title you have and the examples you gave, it seems more of a video about "Why Arthouse Films Don't Do That Well", rather than taking a look at box office failures in general, making the title a little misleading.
That's my takeaway at least.
The funny thing is, I had never really intended to make this video. It all started as a long piece on "Synecdoche, New York" specifically, and as I was nearing the end of my sort of analysis, I felt the need to discuss the aftermath of the film's release. The script ended up becoming so long that it didn't make sense to keep it as one video, so I ended up splitting them into two separate videos instead. And then the title just seemed like a good way to draw in viewers because it ended up not really being about that movie, so I didn't want to necessarily only grab people who had seen SNY. And you know it is, smaller TH-camr, trying to get views, so it's definitely a little bit click-bait. But it's a topic I may revisit in the future and discuss more in-depth.
I like your style but I don''t really agree, unfortunately. I think that SNY is a hard sell. There are some indie arthouse movies that really attract an audience (Lion, Get Out, for example) and some that don't. But more importantly, your box office analysis doesn't seem right. You think that if SNY opened in 500 or 1000 theater,s it would garner the same per theater average over its run? Because I disagree. Part of the appeal, I think, is the limited opening appeal. Lots of movies open huge per theater averages in small openings and then expand and grow because it attracts an audience (La La Land is the most prominent example, but also Slumdog Millionaire, etc.) but some don't because the appeal is just no there. I really do not believe that if SNY opened in 500 theaters that it would maintain that per theater average over its run. In fact, I think it'd suffer because it's a hard sell and when theaters see that so few people are seeing it, it'll be dropped quickly. Having them in fewer theaters at first is the right move, and the fact that it did not expand well (or get very very good reviews instead of the average-good reviews it got) means it did not appeal.
Victor Chang People who make lame excuses about how bad movies are who don't make the effort to see movies like Synecdoche are the problem. They have no one to blame but themselves for the studios not taking any chances with movies like this.
Spot on
what's the main font you use in the video?
Georgia
I have to disagree with this video entirely. The reason retention was stronger for Synecdoche is because the type of people who'd see it would see it in theaters. They look for these types of films and are willing to trek out to a major US city to watch it. If you release a weird, experimental film with that wide release, it would tank so quickly because it's frankly to weird for general audiences. No one really goes to their local cineplex for weird and experimental.
If you look for the pinned comment to read my reply, you'll know that I have mixed feeling about this video these days :/
Logically you are right, but you are forgetting one big point: Marketing. Its all about selling and advertising these movies and getting people interested in them. As much as I love synechdoche, I totally see the problem with selling it wide in the US: it is too intellectual and formal something totally different and standing out. In my opinion Film history (or nowadays: history of audiovisual content) is some Kind of road: for example 'Breaking Bad' would probably never have been a success without the existence of 'the Sopranos' because they first perfected the possibilities of cinematic storytelling in TV. Yes, you can always find a series that did that before, but the point is, that there are badly needed referencepoints for the audience. Synechdoche is far ahead of its time and has no visible referencepoints in resent Film history that the US audience could relate to. I'm going to make myself hateable in saying, if there was a consistent European Film-marketplace it would have fared much better here, because of our bigger openness to movies that challenge and the ongoing breaks and turnarounds in art. But here also it relies on Marketing: you can have the best movie of all time in some cinemas, nobody will care if you dont make them care and go there.
At the end of the Day the whole world of cinema has probably the same Problem: the successfull takeovers of moneypeople, taking away the Power of craftsmen and cinephiles.
Still: great Video, keep up the good work!
The older this video gets, the more disappointed I am in my execution. I think I spent more time doing all of the crazy After Effects stuff that made my want to jump off a bridge(which is why you don't see this much animation in any video I've made sense) that I didn't do nearly enough research, and basically just come off as an angry fan screaming at the clouds.
You're totally right, I mean, I still think this is a movie that could have been marketed in a unique way and seen a return on the budget, but it certainly wouldn't have smashed the box office by any means, it's just not a movie for the average movie goer in America.
The whole reference point is really interesting, and I agree with you. People kind of need to take baby steps to understand more experimental things, like, in music, you won't find average folks listening to Penderecki or Ligeti, but people who've studied music for years and years find it fascinating precisely because it's so unconventional. So people like me, who've seen thousands of movies and just gotten a really good feel for the rhythm of a typical film, LOVE this movie, because it's just unlike anything else you've ever seen, and that's exciting when you've seen the same tired films done over and over again.
I think American audiences in general need a major overhaul of the audio-visual content they consume, they're missing out on a lot of great stuff.
Genre will always be more popular than literature.
No matter what, the average consumer is taking a risk when there is a film culture (although divided) which peddles just as much in pretentiousness as there is one which trades in hype.
So naturally, people take the safe option (one with predefined Genre and expectations).
Truth.
Gotta love it when people do video essay's and don't really get the topic they are discussing. Box Office is a complicated business. The Synecdoche New York example is flawed. It had a 4000 dollar per theatre average because it played in LESS theatres. simply opening to a higher theatre count wouldn't mean that this number stays the same. Art house films play in cities like New York, LA, San Fransico, Chicago etc where there is an audience for niche art house films. Plenty of movies start small then expand wide in a few weeks. Usually movies that do this have a strong per theatre gross on the opening weekend. Had Synecdoche New York had a strong per theatre average, it would've expanded.
Also? Movie studios do not get every dollar that comes in. They get a little less than Half in most cases. 50%. Worldwide? Much more complicated. China for example? Studios get 25% of the take. A quarter. Plus you've got not only the production budget to consider, but the marketing (aka P&A budget. Prints and Advertising). On a movie like Hancock? It can add at least 100 million to the cost. So that's 250,000,000 Sony spent. The movie also has a big star in Will Smith, Stars of his caliber usually get box office points. First dollar gross points OR profit participation. First dollar gross points mean a Smith gets, let's say 5% of every dollar that comes in. Profit participation means once the movie earns back its budget then the actor/director/producer starts getting money. Creative Hollywood accounting usually sees that they don't get a dime. For example, Warner Bros tried to say they took a loss on the 5th Harry Potter movie despite it making almost 900 million worldwide. So there you go.
Yeah, no, you're totally right. I've responded many times in the comments, but I'll always continue to for as long as I can. I really fucked up on this one, I spent too much time focusing on the animations and editing that I totally over-simplified the research process and made a really half-assed argument. The video is still public because I'm not one to shy away from mistakes, but rather own up to them. But it was a learning experience for me, and I've never made this sort of mistake since. Research is easily the most important aspect to a video like this, but I was so concerned with presenting everything in a professional manner that I just overlooked a lot of simple things. Everything I said in this video made sense to me at the time of making it, but I cringe every time I look at this video. It's frustrating that this seems to be the one TH-cam is intent on sharing the most of all of my older videos, which is a shame, because it's easily the worst video I've ever made in terms of argument. Presentation I think is still solid, but god damn does this video make me look like an idiot.
Good video with a compelling point. I disagree with what you say here and I'll give you an example- danny Boyle's Steve Jobs film. It had a fantastic limited run, fantastic reviews and was amazing. When it went to wider distribution it utterly collapsed and made almost nothing at the box office. I think you make a good point about giving an art upise movie a wide release if you're giving shitty adam sandler movies wide releases but there is already such a large and strong audience for Sandler films and films that are stupid that people can watch and make fun of that it's hard not justifying an art house release. Unfortunately any time an art house flick is wide released it's under an intense microscope and if it doesnt make back its money its the first thing studios complain about and use as justification for not releasing more arthouse fare.
It doesn't matter that the new starwars movie had the same plot as the older one! The point was to keep the starwars brand alive and keep generating money.
Its already a big name, so tons of people are going to see it. Old and young starwars fans, as well as non starwars fan children of starwars fan parent's. As well as many others.
Their trying to keep the franchise alive. If it means losing some old\current fans by making "repetitive" similar storyline films, so be it. The older fans that notice or realized will die off ether soon or soon enough. But the kids seeing film 7 now won't care and will carry on the starwars name!
I completely disagree. Eventually, any fans of the new ones will go back to watch the originals, that's what happened when I was a kid and the prequels came out. I don't see how they couldn't have told a more original story that would please everybody, old fans and new fans alike.
Film Radar, I've TRIED and seen BOTH ANH and TFA back to back many times and I really don't see very many similarities. But that's just my perspective and opinion.
For sure, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, mine is no more important than anyone else's. I did enjoy The Force Awakens as entertainment, it's just really forgettable for me, I guess I probably had my expectations set a little too high.
i know this is old, but do you feel the same about tlj? i think it really killed the star wars brand
After seeing how Obi Wan died in Episode IV and then watching Episode I, I wish Darth Maul had killed Jar Jar Binks instead of Qui-Gon Jinn now that would've come straight out of left field.
Its not a movie for everyone, i am sure the creators knew that before going into production.
I certainly hope so, but even with low expectations they were still disappointed, it's why Kaufman has had such a hard time finding funding for his movies ever since :/