What do ‘the people’ want?
Mark Harris is by far the best of Entertainment Weekly’s three rotating back-page columnists. (Dalton Ross is too hipster-ironic-snarky, and why should I care what Stephen King has to say about anything other than books?) His entry in the June 1 issue is a prime example of his insight and intelligence. I nodded in agreement through the entire piece, and I’m not much of a nodder.
Entitled “Power to the People,” the column addresses this common Hollywood lie: “We’re just giving the people what they want.”
It’s the defiant lie told by those who want to pretend that their failures of ambition are your fault - that because “the people” eat what they’re fed, they must like it. The moneymen behind Spiders of the Shrekibbean brag about meaningless numbers (Spider-Man 3 had the biggest opening weekend of all time!) and shrink from meaningful ones, like the fact that Spider-Man 3 cost more and will likely gross less than the first two. And they start planning Spider-Man 4 because “the people” want it, and try not to listen to the moviegoers saying “Ehh, 3 was okay, the second one was better.” Because nothing that anyone says after the movie counts.
Preach it, brother! Just because a lot of people saw something doesn’t mean they all liked it. It doesn’t even mean most of them liked it. As Harris says elsewhere in this article:
The sentence “The movie was great — it was just marketed badly,” which is said every hour in Hollywood, is true exactly 3 percent of the time, whereas “The movie was bad — it was just marketed really well,” which is almost never said, is true 97 percent of the time.
“Revenge of the Sith,” “How the Grinch Stole Christmas,” “The Phantom Menace,” “Home Alone,” “Independence Day,” and “Three Men and a Baby.” They were all the top-grossing films of their respective years. But do you know anyone who LOVES them? Does anyone cite “Home Alone” as one of his or her favorite movies? Of course not. Huge box office doesn’t necessarily mean all of America loved a film. It only means that all of America SAW a film, and there are a lot of possible reasons for that.
Of course, sometimes the two do correlate. Sometimes a film has a huge box office because it is actually well-loved by a lot of people. “Return of the King,” “Toy Story,” and “Saving Private Ryan” were the top-grossers of their years, and a lot of moviegoers genuinely adore them. My point is that it’s not an automatic thing. You can’t point to a #1 film and say, “Oh, the people must want that.” All you know for sure is that a lot of people saw it.
Harris goes on to point out that TV has already realized that America is not one homogenous cluster of like-minded people. “We’ve become a niche nation, and we’re going to stay that way,” he says. He continues:
We don’t all like the same shows; we don’t all want to like the same shows. When the most popular (and most people-powered) TV series is American Idol, and three-quarters of households are happily watching something else every time it’s on, talk of “the people” as a unified entity becomes pointless. (It’s even pointless on Idol itself: Remember when “the people” decided that they liked Taylor Hicks better than Chris Daughtry, and then months later, when their CDs came out, decided they were only kidding?)
This is worth discussing. Twenty years ago, the top-rated show of the week (”The Cosby Show,” in those days) might have as many as 60 million viewers, with half of all the nation’s TV sets tuned in to it. Today, “American Idol” (the current top-rated show) usually scores around 30 million viewers and, as Harris says, about a 25 percent share.
In other words, America has become much more fragmented over time. Cable played a huge part in that, of course, and so has the Internet. With the ability to focus on (and obsess over) the things that you, personally, like, there’s no need to be mainstream. Twenty years ago, it was almost literally true that “most” people watched “The Cosby Show” every week. Today, it’s not even close to literally true that “most” people watch anything. The best you can hope for is a big chunk of the minority. Even the top-rated show is being ignored by 75 percent of the TV-watching population every time it airs.
Movie studios need to follow TV’s lead by accepting — and embracing — the fact that America is composed of dozens and dozens of niches. Only a few million people watch “The Office” every week, but it’s enough for the show to be profitable and stay on the air. And more to the point, the people who do watch it are devoted, loyal, and enthusiastic about it — something that cannot be said for most of the people who have seen “Spider-Man 3.”
But what motivation do movie executives have? As long as the blockbusters keep busting blocks, it doesn’t really matter whether people actually, you know, like them. Yet as Harris points out, those days may be numbered. More and more people are becoming dissatisfied with movies, and with the moviegoing experience. If Hollywood wants to woo those viewers back, they’ll need to try harder to speak to THEM, not just to “the people.”
May 29th, 2007 at 11:23 am
The only problem with this theory is the fragmentation of channels doesn’t fit with the current theater model. The internet and TV gives me access to 100s of channels, but if I want to watch a movie, there’s only one or two theaters within reach, and that’s at most 14 choices, if by chance they aren’t playing the same movie. In order to get the same number of choices, the only distribution options are places like netflix, or iTunes or on-demand.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:48 am
That actually supports the theory. Movie grosses have increased in absolute terms but decreased in relative terms, with a few exceptions.
Hollywood also continues to hype actors, but I don’t think we have the kind of guaranteed Box Office champs like Harrison Ford and Swarzenegger used to be. Who fills those shoes today? Ben Stiller? Matt Damon? But Hollywood pays too much to the stars, just as many athletes are over-paid.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Eric,
That really is a very good article indeed. I think Brian Robbins was the most recent person to make the “what they want” argument, which isn’t surprising considering he’s a purveyor of crap. I also think B makes a very good point; lack of choice is often a problem, and it often boosts the revenue of the most hyped and most widely shown films.
A case in point is that this Friday in the UK (where I am), the film Flyboys is supposed to be coming out. Now, I’m not expecting this to be the best film in the world, but I was curious about it. However, every cinema within 60 miles of me isn’t showing it - why? Because they’re all showing Spiderman on 2 screens, and Pirates on 4 screens, so there’s no need for another action film. They are showing the latest sure-to-be-rubbish horrors, but the smaller and less hyped action film is left by the wayside, limiting how many people can see it. There are plenty of people who might *want* to see Flyboys, but these same people are *going* to see Pirates if they turn up at the multiplex.
That said, I do think that even with blockbusters, there are examples of films being poorly marketed which are actually good. For example, I really do think that Superman Returns was harmed by bad marketing. I accept that it wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea (although I thought it was excellent), but the TV trailers made it look like a testosterone-fuelled, face punching, villain stompin’ smash fest, when of course it was anything but. I think that when people who are naturally drawn to testosterone-fuelled, face punching, villain stompin’ smash fests don’t get to see a testosterone-fuelled, face punching, villain stompin’ smash fest, this generates horrid word of mouth. But when people go to see crud like Norbit and Epic Movie, they pass it off as “pretty good” and “not bad for a laugh” because they don’t want to admit they just spent £8 on going to see cinematic excrement. Somehow people are much harsher about films that don’t live up to their precise expectations than they are about films that are generally poor, and these expectations are regularly created by marketing.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Leonard Pitts Jr. wrote what amounted to not a counterpoint to this column, but it touches on it to some degree. It’s about the “Hollywood Values” charge that gets thrown around in political campaigns.
Go here — http://www.miamiherald.com/285/story/106000.html
May 29th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
David:
Unfortunately, I am pretty sure that most of the people who go to see films like “Norbit” and “Epic Movie” really DO enjoy them (kind of like the way that only Freddy Prinze Jr. fans, and possibly their dates, go see Freddy Prinze Jr. romantic comedies. Why? Because they LIKE them.) I REALLY would like to believe what you said, though.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Ah, you’re describing The Long Tail. If you’ve not heard of it, go here: The Long Tail on Wikipedia
May 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I’ve often contemplated how much the previous movie in a series affects the opening of a movie. Is the success of a sequel a better indication of how good the first one was?
Thank you for pointing out the difference between the gross revenue of a movie and its actual profitability. I think this difference is often overlooked.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Lack of choice is definitely a problem. I wanted to take my children to a movie on Memorial Day. The only family-friendly movie I felt I could sit through was “Meet the Robinsons”. Of course no one else would be going to see that, I thought, everyone else is going to see POTC or Shrek; I’ll have the theater to myself. Ha.
It was sold out for ALL shows ALL day and they were turning people away right and left. Meanwhile, there were loads and loads of seats available for both POTC and Shrek. Not wanting to disappoint the kiddies, we decided Shrek would be our best bet (the other movies, including POTC, being completely inappropriate for my young children). Ugh. Aside from roughly three laughs, what torture Shrek was! I didn’t want to see it, I didn’t enjoy it when I saw it, and I don’t plan on ever renting it. It was a lame experience. Additionally, I felt guilty for giving it my money and therefore, my vote.
Yeah, yeah, I know, Hollywood doesn’t know what I want, but I’m not doing a very good job of telling them, right? I blame it on lack of choice, but I really should have just gone home with a car full of disappointed children and made them clean their rooms instead. Or adopted a highway and made them clean up litter. Or….
May 29th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I also can’t stand the way that the newest box office totals are not usually adjusted for inflation. You can’t tell me that Spider-man is the biggest of all time when it’s really the 27th on the list.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I liked Independence Day.
Not sure how this applies, but I’ve heard the analogy of a husband and wife who went to a movie of the wife’s choosing. She had heard wonderful things and expected to love it. He thought it sounded like a chick flick, and expected to hate it. Turns out it was pretty good, but not great. The wife was felt it was only an 7 out of the 10 she had expected, but the husband gave it a 6 instead of the 2 he had expected. So she was disappointed and he was pleased, even though she rated the movie higher than he did.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:30 pm
For my part, I agree with your examples of top-grossing films that are not altogether beloved by “all of America”. My kids (ages 4 through 8), however, would disagree. They fell in love with Home Alone this past Christmas. I naively introduced them to it thinking it would be harmless fun for them to see. Little did I know it would become and instant favorite (for all seasons) and that I would end up listening to it over and over again on a road trip to Washington DC in April! Gotta love those portable DVD players.
Nothing quite compares to hearing your 4-year-old quote all the questionable lines I had forgotten over the years while there’s company over. “I’m over here you big horse’s a**, come and get me before I call the police!” Although, it is kind of fun to hear him quip, “Keep the change, you filthy animal,” seemingly at random.
I much prefer hearing the lines from Toy Story that they have become expert at slipping into everyday conversations. “Where is your honor, dirt bag!? You are an absolute disgrace!”
May 31st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Whoops! Looks like combining an ‘8′ and a ‘)’ produces a nifty little emoticon 8). That’s problematic…
May 31st, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Jake, I was wondering why your kid was too cool to tell us his age.
Kids are always going to quote the thing that will most embarrass their parents.