Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Are there too many "tentpoles?"

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Are there too many "tentpoles?" (Page 6)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Author

Topic: Are there too many "tentpoles?"

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 07-24-2013 06:32 PM

Terry,

Being pedantic just for the sake of pedantry is making you look like a troll and a bore.

"Silence" was a big film for a small company like Orion any way you cut it. In effect, all their movies were "tent poles" as they released very few films a year and had to dodge the other bigger players play dates for their own survival.

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 07-24-2013 08:35 PM

{quote]Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures spent nearly $200 million producing Pacific Rim and Lord only knows how much marketing it. A $37 million opening weekend total for that kind of production would be disappointing regardless of what time of year it was released.[/quote]
That would be a great rebuttal if this were 1983 and the American theatrical window was such a vital part of a movie's overall bottom line. In 2013, our business might provide but a third of the worldwide box office gross for a movie, which itself is a small portion of the bottom line. Sure, DVD and Blu-Ray sales are continuing to fall, but there are so many more windows of opportunity today than there were even five years ago, and there'll be many more we haven't yet thought about five years from now.

So Pacific Rim cost $180-200m to make and probably another $80-100m to market worldwide. But with $167m in ticket sales worldwide in just ten days, with many important major international markets yet to open the film, and with all those new ancillary markets months and years in the future, the film cannot yet be called a hit or a bomb.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-24-2013 09:20 PM

Bullshit!

Bull. Shit.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-24-2013 10:48 PM

What a movie does in total is a very small part of the package. It's the "opening weekend" that counts, along with any records it set, such as "biggest opening of a horror movie during a full moon in July." Pacific Rim is already considered a bomb because it didn't have an $80 million opening weekend, and a bomb it will always be, no matter what happens down the road.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 07-24-2013 11:40 PM

quote: Sam D. Chavez

"Silence" was a big film for a small company like Orion any way you cut it.

Sam, Silence of the Lambs was a sleeper hit for a small company, that is what it was. With a $19 million it was certainly not a big budget movie (it had decent-large size budget for the time) and it was sure as hell not a tent pole film.

Lets also not forget that Silence of the Lamps did not have a super huge wide release that is almost always the case with a tent pole movie, it certainly had wide release, but it was not a tent pole release. Silence of the Lambs opened in 1497 theatres and then expanded to 1642. T2 and Robin Hood opened in 2200+ theatres in 1991.

Silence of the Lambs was sleeper hit that did very, very well. It also had a good solid debut, it had excellent word of mouth and second and third weekend held up well. It found and audience and had "legs" for a good run due to work of mouth.

The timing of the release, how well it did, how it swept the Oscars while being released in February, and it being an Orion Pictures was a total fluke.

quote: Edward Havens
the film cannot yet be called a hit or a bomb.

You are 100% correct.

quote:
with many important major international markets yet to open the film,

Japan and China is where Pacific Rim is going to make its real money. It still has yet to be released in these two markets.

quote:
It's the "opening weekend" that counts,

Mike, don't listen to what the media tells you. The media will try and feed off anything.

Back to original topic, the marketplace just has too many big budget movies that nobody wants to see. That's all. The Lone Ranger or R.I.P.D would not do any better if they were released in February or September, they flopped because they sucked and were not compelling. Summer is the time to release your big budget movie.

If people remember, 10 years ago, there were 29 movies that were released that grossed $100 million dollars or more, 16 of them came in the summer. That summer, the box had big/huge openings after huge openings, it was non-stop from May-Aug.

The media wants to feed off a few flops. While R.I.P.D flopped and the media was quick to talk about it, what the media did not talk about was the incredible success the conjuring had on its opening weekend. What the media also did not mention was that there was a $195 million dollars spend at box office between July 19th-21th, that is a pretty fantastic weekend at the box office if you ask me.

| IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 07-25-2013 01:58 AM

As I said, pedantic.

FYI, the term "Tentpole" did not even exist in this context in 1991. Yet, here we are ascribing this term retroactively to films from back in the day.

"Silence of the Lambs" was first and foremost a breakthrough film with a compelling plot. Its success could be called any number of things, but probably not a fluke. Every now and then the Academy picks the best story and this was one of those times.

I think this topic is pretty well played out, we are now in the realm of boring statistics.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 07-25-2013 07:05 AM

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Silence of the Lambs was not a tent pole movie. I don't care how well it did. It was a tent pole movie and this thread is about tent pole movies. I have a good feeling that you do not know what a tent pole movie is.

For the sake of the argument Bobby is trying to make, it doesn't matter if it was a "tent pole" or just a "blockbuster" or if the term "tent pole" even existed back in 1991. So that entire discussion is just splitting hairs about a non-relevant detail.
The point being made is simple: The movie was a great success notwithstanding it was released to the general public in February of 1991.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Back to original topic, the marketplace just has too many big budget movies that nobody wants to see. That's all. The Lone Ranger or R.I.P.D would not do any better if they were released in February or September, they flopped because they sucked and were not compelling.

Practically nobody is denying that some of those big budget movies out now are stinkers.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Summer is the time to release your big budget movie.

You keep repeating this in one way or another, others try to convince you that this statement might be inaccurate. They try to give examples of the contrary, but you just ignore them or call the examples they give you a fluke.

Maybe those others, including me, are wrong, but if you're so sure about it, try to come up with some compelling evidence, at least that would lead to an interesting discussion rather than just to claim that you're right and showing everybody else the middle finger.

And regarding The Conjuring, you might agree with me that this wasn't exactly something we could call a "tent pole" production? Or was it?

quote: Sam D. Chavez
I think this topic is pretty well played out, we are now in the realm of boring statistics.

Although statistics are often quite boring, if correctly applied, they can prove a point [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 07-25-2013 08:44 AM

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Practically nobody is denying that some of those big budget movies out now are stinkers.

Did you even read the original post? I think it was Mike who said use the 12 months of the year to release all these tent pole movies. The article chalks it up to scheduling, but that is not the case. The Conjuring was jammed in there between R.I.P.D and Pacific Rim, it opened huge because people just wanted to see it.

| IP: Logged

Mike Frese
Master Film Handler

Posts: 465
From: Holts Summit, MO
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 07-25-2013 08:45 AM

My son (9 years old) and I counted 23 movies we wanted to see this summer starting with Iron Man 3. No way in hell where we going to see all of those. So we have been going to the best of the lot. Here you have a case of the rich get richer. I doubt if many people can afford to go to two movies a week to keep caught up.

The Conjuring has done well as much as it has because it is basically the only horror movie of the summer. Two things that have always been consistent in my 20+ years in the movie business is that people ask what is funny and what is scary.

I would not call Pacific Rim a bomb at all. Very good 7.8 rating on IMDB. This is a good example of releasing it at a poor time.

BTW, do not forget when calculating break-even for a movie that these bigger titles will only get the studios 60% or so of the ticket sales.

Silence of the Lambs became a tent-pole title as is it spawned more movies.

I could care less what gets released as long as people spend money with me. It could be Iron Man 10 or some thought provoking no name movie shot on film played in film. I just want people spending money with me.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 07-25-2013 09:02 AM

Good point, and I would say Hannibal was a better example of a tent pole movie being risked on a Feb release than Silence of the Lambs was as Silence of the Lambs was not a tent pole anyway. MGM bet the year of 2001 on Hannibal with its $87 million budget and ultra wide release. Just the $87 million budget would be reason enough to think the studio would try and play it safe and release Hannibal during the summer.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-25-2013 09:22 AM

Jeez, Terry. You still aren't getting (or are deliberately ignoring) the larger point here: the studios DO NOT have to release a big event movie in the May-July period! I have provided numerous examples to prove that (and can provide more). You choose to make excuses and ignore the point.

If you can't see that point, or refuse to acknowledge it, you are indeed either an idiot or a troll.

The studios didn't see the point either and are now losing quite a bit of money over it. It's fucking stupid for the studios to blow their wad in the May-July period. No one is going to go see all of those movies, even if all of them are great. Even a rich guy who can easily afford to do so won't do that because he won't have the free time available either.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 07-25-2013 09:41 AM

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The Conjuring was jammed in there between R.I.P.D and Pacific Rim, it opened huge because people just wanted to see it.

And that's the whole point of this thread. Whether The Conjuring was released in March, July, or September, this point would still hold. And there is ample evidence to show horror movies can do well any time of the year.

As you go through the list of box office hits by month (see link), there are plenty of examples of movies opening well in every month of the year. Only two months of the year don't have a record opening over $50 million (January and September), and 8 of 12 months have a record over $80 million. Plus, every month multiple openers that went on to gross well over $100 million.

Box Office Records by Month from BoxOfficeMojo.com

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-25-2013 11:50 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
It's fucking stupid for the studios to blow their wad in the May-July period. No one is going to go see all of those movies, even if all of them are great.

That's for sure...and it's going to continue, with the studios having staked out pretty much every summer weekend from here to 2018 with various sequels and comic book movies.

If I was them I would get out my eraser right now and start moving some of those titles around. We could really use, say, an Iron Man 5 in mid-October.

The biggest problem with THAT idea is, as soon as the media sees a huge title like that in a non-summer date, they immediately begin assuming there's some "problem" with it, otherwise why would the studio dump it at that "slow time of year?"

It's just a vicious circle I guess.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 07-25-2013 11:50 AM

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Did you even read the original post? I think it was Mike who said use the 12 months of the year to release all these tent pole movies. The article chalks it up to scheduling, but that is not the case. The Conjuring was jammed in there between R.I.P.D and Pacific Rim, it opened huge because people just wanted to see it.

Yes. I did. Actually, I read the whole discussion and the fact that you made this remark makes me wonder if you did... But I know you did, you must have...

I guess I have to agree with Bobby and Sam, you're quite a pedantic prick. You don't have answers and refuse to comment on the questions asked, yet you continue the discussion just for the cause of it. Yes, there are people who would call those people a troll...

quote: Mike Blakesley
The biggest problem with THAT idea is, as soon as the media sees a huge title like that in a non-summer date, they immediately begin assuming there's some "problem" with it, otherwise why would the studio dump it at that "slow time of year?"

But why would a studio worry about that kind of press? Because shareholders are getting worried? I don't think that it will hurt ticket sales in any way, rather the opposite: More attention equals more free advertising. Why would somebody not want to see a particular movie if it had "production problems"?

Edit: I wasn't allowed to reply to myself, so I added a bit to my post. Schizophrenics aren't welcome here [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-25-2013 12:02 PM

He seems a little Tom Petrovian to me...hmmm.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.