Understanding A Box Office Failure - What's Wrong With Hollywood
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ค. 2024
- Box office and film economics in general is a very complicated subject, I couldn't possiby cover everything even in a 12 minute video, but I think this serves to inform on the basics of box office and why we see independant or creative films suffer.
The scene in Hollywood has changed. Ever since the financial crisis of 2008 things have shifted towards increasingly skyrocketing budgets, movies that present a massive spectacle with all of Hollywood's biggest stars attached. While many thoughtful and insightful films are still made today, they seem to be an endangered species. This video examines the release of one of these films, "Synecdoche, New York" in particular, how it failed at the box office, and why it happened, and how we, as movie goers, have all the power to change the way Hollywood thinks.
Keep up with me:
/ filmradar
/ thefilmradar
/ film_radar
Watch my analysis of "Synecdoche, New York":
• Synecdoche, New York -...
All box office data from:
boxofficemojo.com
Music Credits(in order of appearance):
"Bad Actors" - Flying Lotus
"Waking Me Softly Ft. Snowflake" - Ghost_K
"Sync" - Disasterpeace
"Moon Mall" - Jonny Greenwood
"Anonanimal" - Andrew Bird
"Watch This Space Ft. Doxent" - robwalkerpoet
"Time" - Mactonite
"Ophelia's Song" - Grapes
"Formations" - Disasterpeace
"Sea of Teeth" - Sparklehorse
"Unexpected Delight" - Flying Lotus
"Changes" - Urmymuse
This video was written and edited by Daniel Netzel.
www.danielnetzel.com/
Microphone Used:
amzn.to/2zd0Cc5
Pre-Amp:
amzn.to/2hInTLM
Edited Using:
amzn.to/2iEyybb
amzn.to/2B98FYR
Sound Mixing:
amzn.to/2hSEJve
(full disclosure these are affiliate links, if you choose to buy I get a little kickback for you following the link) - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
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
Not every arthouse movie is great and not every blockbuster movie is Garbage.Take for example Logan ,Im sure its bound to be a classic 20 years to come and then theres Girl on the train which was not very good. So I think people should just support good movies,not to pick a side between arthouses or blockbusters
Oh for sure, I guess I could have made that more clear in the video. Plenty of arthouse films are absolute garbage, and some blockbusters are incredible. Like what Pixar does, Christopher Nolan's films. I am really excited to see Logan as well, everyone seems to be in love with it. I totally agree on that last part, my main frustration is how many people pay to see the big tentpole movies just because that's what everyone else is doing, and then complain about how many tentpole movies are getting made. But I have no problem with people enjoying those types of movies, or paying to support them, I just hate seeing all the complaints about big blockbusters from people who are paying to go see them, that's what bothers me.
Logan is like a blend of Clint Eastwoods Unforgiven and Leon The Professional. I get what you mean. I also get frustrated when people keep on complaining that Hollywood isn't making original films yet can't support an original film like The Nice Guys, Sing Street, Silence.. to name a few
Huge fan of your video essays btw. Keep them coming. Will tell more people about your channel and support you on Patreon
Damn, that sounds insane, I definitely have to see it now! Right? Plenty of amazing original movies come out all the time, but for some reason people don't go see them...it's weird. Thanks a lot, I'd really appreciate the support!
Hi, did you see Logan after all? I didn't watch it btw..
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.
awesome analysis!! Synecdoche is my all time favorite movie, and didnt understand the failure, but i think you nailed it. thanks!
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!
8:57 "Superhero....garbage" that was the greatest thing I've ever heard
I just love the way he says it XD
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.
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.
Brilliant video. Comprehensive yet engaging. Keep up the good work :D
Thanks a lot, will do!
this is what martin scorsese said about marvel
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.
Love your stuff, man. Keep making these awesome videos :)
Great job, and a new susbcriber ;)
Thank you! :D
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.
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.
I was not expected Andrew Bird's music to pop into your video.
Video was awesome. Great points and info and a wonderful production.
2016 was change in direction for blockbuster and art house films
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.
Again, thanks for this. Super inspirational!
Hey! Thank you for the kind words! :D
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.
Just found this channel. Instant subscribe. You make really good videos.
Thanks so much! I do my best!
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!
"It has to be a good movie" - the most subjective statement ever
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.
Thank you for making this.
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.
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
Love the movie and Charlie Kaufman. Noticed your use of Sparklehorse which I also love.
Please accept my appreciation.
Another great video. Props on using those FlyLo tracks!
Thanks! You know it :D
Do you have a soundtrack listing? What a great selection!
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!
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.
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
Smashing. Cheers for the video. I really enjoyed this.
Thank you kindly!
Great video and great channel. Subscribed!
Thanks so much! :D
Hollywood today: If it's broke BUT it makes a lot of money...don't fix it.
Dude, you're amazing. Just subscribed!
Thank you so much! I'm glad you enjoyed the video! And thanks for subscribing :)
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.
Yet another great video! Can you please make a video on Drive (2011). That's my favorite movie of all time.
Fantastic, Keep up the good work
Truly great video!!!
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 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.
Rather if you agree or disagree the important thing is that we are having this discussion .
This video is 5 years old and still true. I feel like the gap widens every year
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.
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!
Sobering reality. Thank You. 🎬
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 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+
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
One day hundreds of years from now people we'll think about Charlie Kaufman. The way people now think about Vincent van Gogh.
Great video
Thanks
100% agree with that. He'll go down as one of the best writers in film history I think. Thank you!
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.
Fantastic video.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zohan was actually one of Sandler’s best films....Synedoche, NY was just not very well loved (the reviews were merely okay)
Background muaic plz??
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.
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.
what's the main font you use in the video?
Georgia
I forgot who said it, but there was a great line about bad movies that make a lot of money "Don't blame bad movies, blame the dumb audiences that give money to bad movies"
Truth!
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...
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.
Spot on
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.
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.
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.
Great video. Curious on your thoughts on BVS The Ultimate Edition. For me it's a great movie the acting, score, visual effects, Cinemotography, And plot. I know not everyone likes it
I haven't seen it, I actually haven't seen any of the DCU yet :P
Film Radar Lol interesting. Another great video. I hope to collab one day
what you didnt take in mind that cinemas that played Synecdoche, New York knew thier aduience, thats why it was screened on such a small scale
And how can they be so sure it'd perform poorly on a larger scale?
Film Radar because specific cinemas show art films so people who want to go to there, a lot of art cinemas are closing now because not a lot of people go, this film made good money for art cinema, so i cant be sure
I don't think anyone can ever be sure with these things, sadly. I'm an optimist with film though. I think that you're right, the theaters it was shown in likely house a more film savvy crowd. But I still believe in good cinema, and I believe it could have at LEAST broken even, which while not ideal is better than it losing a ton of money. Especially now because Charlie Kaufman can't seem to get financing for any of his projects.
Film Radar again i agree with you but cinemas are even blinder than production companies and the dont want to screen any film that doesnt have Michael Bay in it, sometimes you have to pay money to get your film screened to make sure that the cinema wont lose any but Synecdoche, New York didnt have any more
no relation i watch anomalisa ad really enjoyed it so thanks for recommending this film ill watch when i can
Same with Annihilation.
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.
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
Oh hey, that FEZ level was awesome
Haha, I actually used like, 4 different pieces from the FEZ soundtrack, such a great score, and a great game!
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.
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.
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 was a movie you could release everywhere and NYS isn't. Only big city, well educated, middle class professionals will chance on it.
Good video. I agree with all of it except I think "You Don't Mess With The Zohan" is probably the last funny comedy Adam Sandler has made.
Comedy is probably the most subjective genre out there, so it's just different from person to person. I have no qualms with anyone finding any enjoyment with any movie, but I think regardless of the "funny" factor it's clear there's hardly the same amount of substance to that as Synecdoche, New York. And mostly I just find it frustrating that Sony would rather push out something that's only purpose is to provide a good chuckle or two, when a movie like Synecdoche, New York is a really insightful and profound film worth discussing and pondering over. But obviously in an ideal world it wouldn't be one or the other, instead both of them would get their chance to shine in theaters.
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 :/
“Most of the people in charge of getting movies made are business-minded, not film-minded.” Hm. Yup.
Preach bro :D
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.
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.
As much as I love Synecdoche and find it very meaningful on a personal level. I have a very hard time believing most people could appreciate it and that therefore it could have been as successful a film as Hancock for example. People are just too used to indulging in escapist fantasies as the endless, box office drivel routinely proves time and time again. Synecdoche is brutally honest to the point of being sometimes uncomfortable to watch at certain points. Not everyone can deal with this. Regardless, successful or not, it's a powerful film and it will be remembered.
You're probably right, this video was a passion project and I'm ashamed to say I didn't do as much research as I should. I am just heartbroken at the thought of a man of such talent as Charlie Kaufman not being able to make a film when Michael Bay can basically make whatever he wants for whatever budget he wants, it's just sad.
Womble Dewd He wasn't actually making that point, he was saying that the movie might have done well if it had gotten better exposure. He wasn't talking about it becoming a blockbuster. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.
Well, no offense, but he did compare it against blockbusters and whilst I appreciate your point, I still respectfully disagree. Synechdoche, as powerful a film as it is, is just very difficult to watch. One because it's so abstract and experimental with regards to the way the story is told, and two because the subject matter is so depressing. That's not to say I don't like it though. Honestly it's easily one of the greatest films I've ever seen. It's just not easily digestible, nor is it easily appreciated.