Eh... how do you cover the hype over the hype? Honestly, I think this post is overhyping the hype this film has gotten. I've seen literally zero ads anywhere for it (I'm not saying this means they *did* zero advertising, just that it's obviously not blanketing the media), and I haven't seen an unusual number of news reports about it either - and I watch a lot of news. It's getting a lot less coverage than, say, Independence Day did, or Star Wars Episode I, or whatever.
I don't believe I've seen a single story (except this one!) say anything about guaranteeing a documentary would become the top-grossing film of all time. Who is really overhyping this film? #michaeljackson
I think people just have MJ fatigue, which is too bad. I saw the film tonight and came out blown away by the talent we lost when he passed. He comes across as a gentle, hardworking, and genuine entertainer.
And I'm not even a huge fan. But he truly was a talent of a lifetime. #michaeljackson
none of the columns in modern love is worthy of a feature-length film--individually or collectively...a lifetime movie, perhaps, but really, they're in column form for a reason. #newyorktimes
"And by the way, that Blair Witch Film which changed everything. It grossed 140 million dollars. Which is six million less than Paul Blart: Mall Cop made this year. We're waiting to see your trend pieces on that."
I think that misses the point that executives and marketers (the money side) are focusing on. The budget of Blair Witch was 60,000. That it grossed 2,333 times what it cost to make is what all the excitement was about. THAT is the "trend" that gets the industry salivating. They could care less if it is "good" or what people in general think about it.
Would somebody please glue a copy editor to this guy. His writing incorporates every hack mistake there is--sentence fragments, run-ons, verbosity, syntax horrors, elementary grammatical errors, typos-my head hurts. Look at this small sample:
"In the end, while countless trees will be killed for stories about about power of the blogs, Twitter, Facebook and social media to propel a film to stardom.
'But more important than the money is the effect these films have on the minds of entertainment reporters, who seem them flipping the dominant paradigm; to redefining the way films are sold and turn the show biz establishment on its head'
"And by the way, that Blair Witch Film which changed everything. It grossed 140 million dollars. Which is six million less than Paul Blart: Mall Cop made this year. We're waiting to see your trend pieces on that."
What is the thesis here? Isn't the whole point of low-budget films the net receipts?
@Motoko Kusanagi: I think the idea that "bigger is better" is completely bogus in these situations. If you have a movie you made for under $100-grand and it grosses $140M a studio would have to break box office records 20 times over (never gonna happen) for the same percentage of profits.
A key point is the number of screens--prints and the shuttling to and from theaters--is not cheap. A blowout opening weekend of 3000 theaters usually means the moviemakers are trying to drain every drop before word of mouth kills them.
Makidian promoted this comment
Edited by funyuns are awesome in phx at 10/12/09 5:00 PM
funyuns are awesome in phx was starred
funyuns are awesome in phx was unstarred
I think if the reporters want a "trend piece," they should look at the traditional fare that was the send up to the juggernauts--that is, a dearth of good stuff from the usual suspects (like most of summer 2009) creating an open field for others. Add in the psychological factor of "the cool insider find" that viral marketing has going for it, and you have ticket sales beyond expectations.
The producers of Paranormal should send "Thanks for Sucking" presents to the studios.
Wouldn't it be a better money-making strategy to put the words on the interweb and make viewers pay for the pictures? Why would anyone pay money to read what Megan Fox has to say?
10/30/09
10/29/09
[boxofficemojo.com] #michaeljackson
10/29/09
I don't believe I've seen a single story (except this one!) say anything about guaranteeing a documentary would become the top-grossing film of all time. Who is really overhyping this film? #michaeljackson
10/29/09
And I'm not even a huge fan. But he truly was a talent of a lifetime. #michaeljackson
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/13/09
10/12/09
I think that misses the point that executives and marketers (the money side) are focusing on. The budget of Blair Witch was 60,000. That it grossed 2,333 times what it cost to make is what all the excitement was about. THAT is the "trend" that gets the industry salivating. They could care less if it is "good" or what people in general think about it.
10/12/09
"In the end, while countless trees will be killed for stories about about power of the blogs, Twitter, Facebook and social media to propel a film to stardom.
'But more important than the money is the effect these films have on the minds of entertainment reporters, who seem them flipping the dominant paradigm; to redefining the way films are sold and turn the show biz establishment on its head'
Aaaargh!!!!
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/13/09
10/12/09
What is the thesis here? Isn't the whole point of low-budget films the net receipts?
10/12/09
A key point is the number of screens--prints and the shuttling to and from theaters--is not cheap. A blowout opening weekend of 3000 theaters usually means the moviemakers are trying to drain every drop before word of mouth kills them.
10/12/09
10/12/09
The producers of Paranormal should send "Thanks for Sucking" presents to the studios.
10/12/09
10/12/09
09/19/09
09/20/09
09/21/09
This wouldn't be as conducive to the privacy needs of her teenage fanclub, as an an easily-purchased magazine which could be taken to their rooms.
Give them a taste and they may go for the (s)mile.