Skip to main content

Strange Predictors of Movie Failure

Obviously, to keep this blog going I’m going to have to do more than just film reviews, as I don’t see movies every day (or even every week); it’s just too expensive a habit for an Administrative Assistant and aspiring Librarian to upkeep.  So between reviews I’d like to discuss topics directly related to films and the film industry.  I hope that’s all right with everyone.

For my first “filler,” as I prepare to write my review of John Carter for you all, I wanted to explore a theory I have—or, rather, something I have noticed over the past few years which seems to hold up and represents the development of an hypothesis.

You can tell by the TV spots whether a movie is going to succeed or bomb at the box office.  There’s a patently obvious “tell” that gives it away, which makes me wonder if somehow, these things aren’t predetermined.  I mean, of course you can’t really make up an audience’s mind in advance, but I don’t know. It just seems odd to me.

Here’s how it works.  I’m not sure if anyone has noticed this, but there are two types of trailers shown on TV.  These two types are those that take up the full screen (forgetting letterboxing), and those that have the movie’s name and release date clearly displayed in the letterboxes.  Compare, for example, the trailers for The Hunger Games and the trailers for John Carter.  The trailers for Hunger Games are dynamic, full-screen trailers. They draw you in and look, well, like traditional trailers.

The trailers for John Carter, on the other hand, have pronounced letterboxing, and in the black bars, in large, prominent letters, are the words “JOHN CARTER” and “NOW PLAYING.”

John Carter has been a (surprising) box office flop. Sure, it’s gotten bad reviews from a spate of reviewers apparently too simple or thick to be able to follow a pretty straightforward story (this doesn’t represent all of the film’s bad reviews, incidentally; I just have no patience for these people who claim the story is too complex, convoluted, or incomprehensible—there’s nothing even remotely complicated about the story at all). I have noticed over the past couple of years that no matter how good the film may be, every film that lists the title and release date in the pronounced letterboxes fails at the box office.

I cannot think of a single exception to this rule; can anyone else?  It just seems very odd to me.  Perhaps it’s just an indicator of studios being aware of a lack of buzz around certain films and desperately trying to get their names in front of peoples’ eyes. But it seems to me that a nearly infallible predictor of whether or not a movie will succeed is this: if you can read the name and release date in the black bars throughout the TV spot…it’s probably going to fail.

It’s more than possible that I’m late to the party on this and slow to pick up on it.  Just wondering if anyone else has noticed it, and what your thoughts are?

Comments

  1. I never noticed that. I will have to look for it now.

    I can't wait for your review of the Hunger Games! Enjoy the movie! I forgot it was coming out as the only show I watch at the moment is called "Bubble Guppies" and is for little kids. You'll have to review that... ha ha.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I haven't seen any of these ads (not watching TV and all...) but I've read various discussions about John Carter and how Disney basically gave up on it -- not helped by the fact that the director hadn't scheduled marketing into his plan. All seems a bit of a train wreck behind the scenes.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Review: Marcus Nispel's Conan the Barbarian (2011)

I posted this review in a slightly different format on my older blogs, but since Conan came out on Blu Ray and DVD a few months ago, and has been making the rounds on cable and On Demand, it seemed a good way to kick off my blog.  Plus, someone requested it. The promised reviews of John Carter and The Hunger Games will follow soon.   Fair warning: there will be minor spoilers in this review.  Nothing major, but if you're avoiding spoilage altogether, you might give this a pass. Introduction First things first.  This is absolutely not a remake of the Arnold one .  The only thing it has in common is the "revenge for my dad's death" plot.  The events of the story are completely, 100% new (well, new as in, they weren't anywhere to be found in the Arnold flicks).  So that's something. A new Conan film has been in Development Hell since 1984’s Conan the Destroyer . Various incarnations have come and gone, all of which have generated varyi...

Review: Peter Jackson's The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey

Introduction The biggest buzz in movie news these days is the release of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The film slammed the box office this weekend, dominating in a way that even its predecessors in the Lord of the Rings trilogy did not. The film pulled in nearly $223 million at the box office its opening weekend, and that was with a traditional Friday opening rather than the oh-so-trendy "Wednesday opening to pad the numbers" tactic. The movie is news for several reasons. The obvious, of course, is that it's the long-awaited completion of the story of the Baggins clan as written by J.R.R. Tolkien, an adaptation of the prelude (not prequel, for this book was in fact written first) to the longer, epic Lord of the Rings. The second is Jackson's decision to shoot the film in 48 fps "High Frame Rate" (or HFR) format. For around 100 years now, films have been shot in 24 frames per second; the argument in favor of HFR is that the faster...

Review: No Time to Die

Before I get started, let me be clear that there will be minor spoilers in this review. Minor ones. It's really impossible to talk about what sets this flick apart without that. But I'll try to keep them to things that won't ruin the experience.  No Time to Die may be the most eagerly anticipated James Bond film ever made. It ends Daniel Craig's historic run as the seminal and iconic antihero, secret agent, and assassin in explosive fashion. This one has been a critical darling, but the fanbase seems wildly split. Let's be fair, though: a lot of the negative fan reaction comes from "fans" who haven't seen the film and are knee-jerking something that's quite frankly, not even a thing in the movie.  I'll get it out of the way without taking a stand on whether it would be a good or bad thing. James Bond is not turned into a black woman, nor is he changed in any way whatsoever. Bond is still Bond, through and through, and as a very minor spoiler ju...