The Lengthy Process of Hyping a Movie

Drake’s third peculiarity of Hollywood states that film revenues are streamed across a long span of time.  In essence, movie marketing is essential in the continued strive for public consumption.  To begin, marketing is paramount in attracting the public to see the movie in theaters.  Drake explains that opening weekend is now huge, accounting for nearly 50% of the movies revenue during its time in theaters.  Furthermore, a successful opening weekend likely ensures a lengthier stay in theaters, which in turn continues to help ticket revenue.  That being said, the movie must have thoughtful and well-planned marketing, advertising, and publicity to generate a “buzz” for the film.  Whether this is through hyping a particular star like Brad Pitt, another film in a series such as Toy Story, or promoting an acclaimed director, there is an obvious necessity to generate a public excitement toward the release of the film.

The importance of movie marketing doesn’t end after opening weekend.  After the first four days, almost every movie changes their marketing strategy to reflect either the success of the film or critic’s reviews.  I can’t think of seeing a movie that didn’t have a commercial stating it was, “now the number one comedy in America”! Or “Roger Ebert calls this movie a timeless classic”.  No matter the case, each film attempts to continue to get the public in the theater through this second-round advertising.

Still, advertising and publicity attempts do not end when the plug is pulled on movie screenings.  After this stay in theaters, the publicity and marketing team must discover the best way to develop excitement for the DVD release, or movie’s soundtrack.  DVD revenue accounts for a bulk of the success of the film, and successful marketing is likely to lead to a more successful revenue stream.

Quite clearly, choosing the correct marketing strategy is very important to establishing a successful film.  Using a solid strategy such as publicizing the known stars of the film help to minimize the risk associated with a film’s production.  In this regard, the die-hard followers of this actor or actress will be likely to attend the theater, no matter what genre of film it may be.  However, there are certainly some risks that still hold true.  For example, the 2005 average cost of marketing was nearly 36 million.  It is important to be able to manage this money in an intelligent way.  If you market the movie in a way that generates little buzz, you will have wasted that money without generating success at the box office.  Furthermore, there is also the prospect of under-marketing.  Some films hit theaters with relatively few ads, and few interviews with popular TV shows or magazines.  That can be equally as troubling, as the public may be less inclined to see a movie they have heard almost nothing about.

Therefore, it is truly a balancing act.  The publicity and marketing team must analyze the framing of the film and determine the best way to market the picture to the public.

I thought this link was perfect, as Will Ferrell recently went on Conan to announce Anchorman 2.  Fit perfectly with trying to already generate a "buzz" for the film.

Anchorman 2

1.) As a publicist, have there been any stations or people in particular that you or the production crew has steered clear of?  Was there ever a time when the publicity department knew to stay away from a particularly hazardous interview or one that could generate negative buzz?

2.)  How much say does the talent actually have in the publicity department?  Specifically, do the stars of the film get to decide whom they want to be interviewed by, or how much they want to publicize the movie through TV shows, magazines or newspapers?

3.)That being said, is there one particular medium that you prefer to channel your publicity through?  Do you think magazines, per say, are better publicity than TV or is it all relative?

Sequel Epidemic in Hollywood

After reading through Roberts and the Articles, "The Day Movies Died" and "Sequels come Fast and Furious as Studios Aim to Cut Risk," It is very evident in my mind that their is now a gap between the Creative and Commercial aspects of making a successful movie or even TV show. In the modern era that we live in people expect more and more from the movies that they go see. The issue with this is that these expectations cost a lot of money in terms of what it takes for the producers to make them. If these shows or movies flop there is a large amount of loss and sunk costs in regards to this risk.
It is my opinion that although yes there has been an increased amount of communication between Creative and Commercial, as Rogers says, the industry is clearly dominated by the commercial risks. Anymore we see studios fighting battles over who can get the rights to popular books, especially those that come in a multiple part series. The people in the Commercial sectors can be almost sure that because of PREVIOUS success, these movies will be profitable. This is the point when it seems Creative gets involved, but it is still not until after the fact when the people in charge of Commercial aspects have made up their mind about what needs to be created.
Although it is a shame that it seems some creative aspects have been extracted out of Hollywood, people have to remember that it is still essentially a business. If movies or TV Shows flop, people lose their jobs and sometimes studios will have to go bankrupt. Two of the best examples I can think of personally in recent history would have to be the Harry Potter movie series and the Toy Story Series. Both were done a little differently in terms of timing and release but in both cases the hype and popularity for each case almost created as some business men say are their two favorite words, "sure thing." I argue that commercial does have a say over creative at the moment, and if you dont believe me, here is one of the most hyped upcoming movies...

Creative vs. Commercial

The article by Roberts does a tremendous job of setting the stage on the debate for a creativity-limited world of media.  It isn't hard to see the motives behind the commercial aspect of such a profit-driven industry.  Take one quick look at the movies Hollywood is currently producing, and it's all too apparent that the commercial side of the clash is having a large impact.

Mark Harris is quick to point this out in his article on the "death" of the movie industry.  To him, the struggle of Inception to receive a positive backing from studios themselves shows the changing of the industry.  Harris is explaining that the associated risk from producing certain movies is keeping the industries from funding these creative movies.  Basically, Inception was produced as somewhat of a favor for the director who would be needed to produce another Batman film in the future.  Essentially, the article is explaining that studios are choosing the safer movie.  The window of opportunity for new, moderately budgeted movies with a clever plot is smaller than ever before.

What's more, the industry is choosing movies that have more opportunities for profit outside of the theater.  Kung and Schuker explain that the most marketable movies are those that can easily be made into sequels.  Or, movies that can be branded on lunchboxes and other merchandise.  Quite simply, it's another limit on creativity within the industry.  Instead of producing a new film with a interesting plot, the industry will choose Toy Story 4 and the incredible merchandising opportunities that come along with the name.  In addition, they get the benefit of already having a legitimate audience that has identified with the previous films.  That being said, it shows the movie industry choosing to produce films that have low risk, with high monetary reward.

Personally, I think the desire for commercial success is especially bad in limiting creativity specifically for moviegoers.  With the incredible amount of channels on television, you see a much broader aspect of show styles, genres, and characters.  With the hundreds of available stations, you are more likely to see original programming with such a wide variety of choices.  Always Sunny in a perfect example of this.  They were able to produce their show at little cost, and shop it around to a station that would not limit their creative edge.  If they had instead produced a movie, they would have run into little luck outside of perhaps a film festival.  Certainly, we are seeing the constraints on creativity in the movie industry, particularly with the high cost of producing a major film.  Studios don't want to take the chance of producing a pricy film, only to be unsure of its box-office success.  They want the sure thing.  I can't wait for Final Fantasy 34 in a few years!

I'm sure many of you have seen this, but it's a classic.

The Positives and Negatives of Pacts in the Film Industry

        Production contracts (pacts) have an extensive impact on the film making industry.  A pact is an arrangement made between players, studios, and production companies.  These pacts can force players to give studios a chance to purchase a script before other studios can see it, set up a profit scenario where individual players, studios, and company backers all share the profits made from the film, and a set up a distribution system where the studios distribution and marketing branches are used exclusively.

         In the current market, these pacts have led to extremely successful business operations due to the preferential deals acquired by both sides.  This can be seen by the overwhelming amount of movies in box office created by large studies, a good amount of which were engaging in pacts.  These pacts help make the filmmaking process much more efficient.  Two reasons that pacts have increased the efficiency of filmmaking is that they narrow down the selection of scripts studios have to go through and it helps ensure funding and loans.  In the film making industries, there are millions of scripts being sent to studios and a ton more being pitched verbally.  Studios don’t have time to read and listen to these opportunities, so having pacts with good writers and studios limits there options on scripts because they will be brought scripts by proven writers directly and they can purchase these scripts immediately.  Second, it is easier to get funding.  Banks often require a completion guarantee before supplying a loan.  If banks know that the studio has an interest in the movie being finished, due to the sharing of profits, and that a large studio is producing the movie they are more likely to complete the movie.  This is especially important with the rising cost to create films.

        Unfortunately, pacts have a negative impact on the film industry and can also on the quality of texts.  Pacts, to an extent, have made the film industry a closed market.  With first look deals, scripts are sold without competition.  Other studios never have an opportunity to bid on them and they never enter the market.  Further, with distribution and production deals, studios limit who they interact with during the whole process.  The quality of texts can go down because the writers involved in pacts may be producing worse scripts than other writers, but they will often receive the funding instead because of the pact.  Further, there script is more likely to be produced and finished because the studio has a stake in the profits.  This could be lower quality movies on the market, and leave great ones out.

Pacts: Hinder, Help, or just Convenience

Pacts are agreements between production companies and studios for development and output of (in this case) film.  These production agreements lead to continuous film production between studios and companies and have a positive correlation with box office success.  The production pacts speed up the production process; take Wasko's example of Michael Crichton's story and Fox studios.  The process was shortened because Fox was the only company the book was sold to instead of having it shopped around.

So why the big deal?  Why does it matter if all production pacts do is speed the process up an lead to box office success.  This is true but with production pacts many writers, ideas, and concepts cannot break into the market.  These pacts effect the process because it provides a shortcut for producers and studios, they are cost-effective, and a successful pact has been shown to lead to box office success; the flip side is they are not inclusive they do not provide a lot of opportunity for new ideas and talent to enter on the production side of film.

There is no denying that production pacts regulate and effect the film industry.  They secure success for major companies and are not really helpful to the "little guy."  Regardless of the negatives in concerns to the "little guy" they are economically valuable ways for production companies to continue success.  In any business money is the driving factor; the film industry is no different.  Unfortunately the desire for economic success has a negative effect on the production of texts.

The pact process does not include many "little guy" companies.  It does not provide great opportunities for inclusion and promotes consistency with major name companies.  Who knows how many ideas, concepts, blockbusters, and potential this system has disregarded or left out.  While the system creates convenience for big name production companies it has a negative effect on the production of texts and on "little guy" companies. 

While theatre differ in ticket prices the movies offered within the theatres do not alter. An Indy film costs just as much as a blockbuster to the excited movie go-er. For this reason the filmmakers play a gamble – they are either about to far exceed their budget in ticket sales or not make enough to compensate for their spending’s. On of the five peculiarities of Hollywood films are in fact that all ticket prices are the same despite the cost of films.

This peculiarity can be a good thing because the first weekend for blockbuster hits is such an attraction for people that millions flock to the movies, ultimately resulting in huge ticket sales for the filmmakers. On the other side smaller (cheaper) films do not initially draw the audiences in so their money is made more gradually (if at all) over time. In these cases the risk of peculiarity is diminished. But it cannot happen without marketing. Marketing for movies are the reasons why individuals know to go to the movies in the first place. Where they are marketed and how makes a big difference for the viewers, for some movies their trailers are on television every other commercial. While some have merchandise that attracts the audiences. In the end it doesn’t matter what brings the masses to the theatres – filmmakers are just glad they came and paid for their ticket. Ultimately that money will help offset the cost for the film.

The Commercial Versus Creative In Movies & Television

When discussing the relationship that exists between the commercial and the creative, it seems as if the creative has been put to rest in order to gain a larger profit. This seems to have been the focus of our class, thus far. This is why Roberts' article was a breath of fresh air -- perhaps monetary gains are not the primary goal that the media industry strives for! Roberts specifically focuses on the constructive aspects that may result from this interplay within the media industry, and shows us the ways in which TV programming does, in fact, attempt to keep up with audience culture and give the people what they want.

This, however, cannot necessarily be said for the movie industry as is demonstrated in the article by Harris. Sure, we love to go see sequels to the movies we love (Transformers 3 and the final Harry Potter were the only movies I cared to pay for this summer, as a matter of fact), but is the fact that all we receive are sequels and remakes of comic books slightly insulting to American society's level of intelligence? Within the movie industry, it seems clear that the commercial outweighs the creative in terms of actual content; however, creativity has emerged in a different sense. When Harris discusses Top Gun and its creators, notably Jerry Bruckheimer, he mentions that these movies appeal to "the transient heigh of sensation." Perhaps the commercial has allowed production companies greater creativity in visual and digital effects, leaving us relatively complacent with the lack of intellectual stimulation that we receive from the movie industry.

Nonetheless, Roberts makes a valid point in that the audience opinion is what drives media industries. Without catching our interest, what will be left of the industry? It is their responsibility as entertainment providers to ensure that we are happy with our programming. What happens, though, if soon enough all we care about is digitized content, stripped of true drama? Then will the television industry switch over to the style  of its cousin of Blockbuster films?

More of the Same?

When a company decides to produce a feature film, or a television show, what is it actually looking to do? Is it really looking to do anything other than make as much money as possible? According to Roberts, while revenue may be the bottom line, that doesn't mean that we are throwing creativity out the window.

However, the GQ article by Mark Harris suggests that the film industry would rather churn out clear moneymakers than take risks that could flop or lead to bigger pay-offs. Harris specifically looks at the recent and future summer movie line-up, and noted that the overwhelming majority of the films have built-in fan bases. Whether it be a movie developed from a comic book, a sequel, or a remake, we are continuing to see these "safe bets" produced. And Harris is right, when you look at the movies that we had last summer, it is absolutely astonishing at the amount that fall into those categories. You may not think about it until someone points it out, but it is definitely a trend. He also gave the counter example of Inception, which he said the movie industry thought was produced as a favor to director Christopher Nolan. What turned out to be one of the biggest hits of the last decade was an afterthought until it began to rake in money.

As the movie industry has experience somewhat of a struggle recently, we are beginning to see the creative side (the writers and directors according to Roberts) align more with the commercial side. The creative side knows that it has to be able to produce a profit, first and foremost. So in this sense, I think that economic factors absolutely impede creativity. Writers may think that if the revenue for their most recent work isn't there, then who knows if they will get another chance. They must be conservative, because that works and that is what is accepted.