I always wanted to know is the movie review given by the reviews really affect the audience? As well as does it really affect the business of that movie as well?
I always wanted to know is the movie review given by the reviews really affect the audience? As well as does it really affect the business of that movie as well?
Tell that to Fantastic Four, John Carter, Lone Ranger....the Disney studios chairman actually lost his job over the JC & LR flops.The huge blockbusters I don't believe are affected by film reviews. Because they are often targeting a lowest common denominator uninterested in the subtleties of plot or script-writing skills.
But as Fantastic Four showed, sometimes there's nothing they can do to improve the box office.Agree with Fillumgeek. Studios now spend nearly as much on marketing as on the films themselves to create their own propaganda. The general public, as opposed to film fans, don't pay anywhere near as much attention to traditional reviews as they used to. Blogs now cover movies ahead of release which the traditional reviews don't really.
So studios have taken what action they can to to limit the negative effect from reviews.
I am not sure it was all down to reviews cultural zeitgeist also has an effect on it. If Carter and LR had been lower budget less studio tentpole features they may have been more successful.Tell that to Fantastic Four, John Carter, Lone Ranger....the Disney studios chairman actually lost his job over the JC & LR flops.
Fantastic Four got very poor reviews & people stayed away. Had it got good reviews there's no reason why the people who usually go watch the Marvel Studios films wouldn't have gone. People stayed away because reviews were very poor.
John Carter & Lone Ranger aren't actually that bad, but the poor reviews doomed them & people stayed away.
Studios have been spending the equivalent of a films production budget on marketing for decades, it's nothing new or recent. As for using marketing to limit the damage of bad reviews consider the case of Ishtar starring Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty. A negative buzz started even before the film was completed, the studio conducted focus groups before the film was released which suggested the film was going to bomb. The marketing people suggested the studio cut it's losses by cutting the marketing budget; instead the studio spent even more because they did want to upset the stars. The film still tanked.Agree with Fillumgeek. Studios now spend nearly as much on marketing as on the films themselves to create their own propaganda. The general public, as opposed to film fans, don't pay anywhere near as much attention to traditional reviews as they used to. Blogs now cover movies ahead of release which the traditional reviews don't really.
So studios have taken what action they can to to limit the negative effect from reviews.
John Carter & Lone Ranger aren't actually that bad, but the poor reviews doomed them & people stayed away.
Studios have been spending the equivalent of a films production budget on marketing for decades, it's nothing new or recent.
As for using marketing to limit the damage of bad reviews consider the case of Ishtar starring Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty. A negative buzz started even before the film was completed, the studio conducted focus groups before the film was released which suggested the film was going to bomb. The marketing people suggested the studio cut it's losses by cutting the marketing budget; instead the studio spent even more because they did want to upset the stars. The film still tanked.
How has the average been worked out? If it's total spent on marketing during a year divided by the number of films produced that year then it doesn't tell you anything. I'm sure a film like Battle Beyond the Stars cost considerable less than ESB but doubt they both had a marketing budget of $4.3m.Marketing spend has increased over time, both in real terms and as a proportion of movie budgets.
$200 Million and Rising: Hollywood Struggles With Soaring Marketing Costs
"In 1980, the average cost of marketing a studio movie in the U.S. was $4.3 million ($12.4 million in today's dollars). By 2007, it had shot up to nearly $36 million."
So it trebled in real terms in three decades.
Average budget in 2007 was $65 million (or around double the marketing spend):
Why Movies Cost So Much To Make
I couldn't easily find the average budget for 1980, but here are a few from the Numbers:
Dressed to kill $6.5m
Lion of the desert $35m
Long Riders $10m
Empire Strikes Back $23m
Raging Bull $18m
Unless the average Hollywood budget was under $9 million in 1980 (and unless you have data that indicates otherwise, I would suggest it was around $15 million), my data shows that marketing spend has increased relative to budgets, from around 25% to 50% during the period 1980 to 2007.
The data is an average for studio pictures, so excluding Roger Corman films like Battle Beyond the Stars. Therefore it should be comparable.How has the average been worked out? If it's total spent on marketing during a year divided by the number of films produced that year then it doesn't tell you anything. I'm sure a film like Battle Beyond the Stars cost considerable less than ESB but doubt they both had a marketing budget of $4.3m.
I thought these two were more about marketing than reviews. I saw the trailer for LR (my usual screening method as I find reviews too spoilery) and it just looked... no thanks - and I normally like a bit of mindless nonsense.
Have since watched JC on a Netflix trial and it was OK but very forgettable - the Jupiter Ascending of its day probably.
The reviews of John Carter were scathing???? but when I saw it on TV I realty enjoyed it, although was a little like Planet Hulk and picked the Blu Ray up of it at a reasonable price and looking forwards to watching it again.Agreed, John Carter wasn't that bad. .
That's a peculiar thing to say. You wouldn't argue you'd have to be 95 to be a Superman fan or a Dracula fan. I agree the studio spent too much money on LR and they also targeted it at the wrong audience and I don't mean it should have been targeted at septuagenarians.I didn't see Lone Ranger, but again that "property" is soooo old and the studio spent a fortune on it. How old would you have to be as a LR fan, 75?
That's a peculiar thing to say. You wouldn't argue you'd have to be 95 to be a Superman fan or a Dracula fan. I agree the studio spent too much money on LR and they also targeted it at the wrong audience and I don't mean it should have been targeted at septuagenarians.
In the UK Id say in the 50 there also was a cartoon series in the 60 which has been repeated quite recently on one of the channels but was treading in Wild Wild West territory with giant robots etc.I don't know, Superman was a popular phenom in the 80s, when was the Lone Ranger series on tv? Just seemed really odd, like remaking King Solomon's Mines or Happy Days.