Sunday, August 31, 2008

"Tentpole" movies

Business practices ebb and flow in Hwood, but with rare exception each of the major movie studios consistently subscribes to the importance of "tentpole" movies. What are they? Big, brash, expensive movies around which a studio can build their release schedule. Typically slotted in the two big box office season -- November throug December (holidays) and May through July (summer) - tentpole movies are often based upon pre-existing literary material (e.g., Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Iron Man, Spiderman) or pre-existing original movies (e.g., Star Wars, Indiana Jones). The reason they're called "tentpole" movies is that their primary function is to hold up (do well) at the box office, typically raking a lot of money in a short time, and by doing so balance out the rest of a studio's slate of movie releases.

For the last several decades, no studio has been more closely identified with tentpole movies than Warner Bros. This recent Daily Variety article takes a look at the current regime's attitudes toward tentpole movies -- nd because of various contributing factors, Warner Bros. is peering into 2009 and even 2010 with fewer than normal huge budget tentpole movies:

With a worldwide gross of $700 million (and still counting), "The Dark Knight" is exactly the kind of film Warner Bros. likes to make.

It's a tentpole whose supersized budget for top talent, lavish action sequences and special effects can pay off big time by selling a helluva lot of tickets -- and raking in the dough for other divisions, including TV, homevid, merchandise and vidgames.

If Warners got its way, it would have at least four of those blockbusters a year. Yet the studio is light on tentpoles next summer. Make that most of 2009.

Thanks to the addition of New Line and the shuttering of Warner Independent and Picturehouse, the studio has a glut of films to release -- but not necessarily the kinds of films WB is used to distributing.

It will still release 25 films annually, as normal. But a majority of the films on the slate next year are made up of comedies and genre fare -- less expensive projects it was able to turn around quickly because of the writers strike. It looked like traditional superheroes and fantasy epics would be no-shows, until Warners late last week decided to move "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" from November to July 17.
One of the biggest factors was the recent WGA strike:
"We were impacted, there's no denying that," Horn says. "We really needed screenplays and we were just dead in the water. It hurt (tentpoles) the worst."
That's "Horn" as in Alan Horn, President and COO of Warner Bros. Entertainment. When someone in that position of power speaks, it pays to listen.

While the typical route to a tentpole movie is, as noted, pre-existing literary or original motion picture, at some point a writer came up with a great idea, wrote a book or script, and that evolved into a hit franchise (e.g., Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Shrek). So if you're the kind of screenwriter who can think and write 'big,' it behooves you to spend at least some of your time brainstorming potential tentpole movies -- because that's the single most important type movie the studios are looking to find, develop, and produce.

By the way, there's no hard and fast rules or scientific approach to generating tentpole movies. For example, who would have guessed that Night at the Museum (2006) would have become the success it's become, generating $574M worldwide? At the time, it seemed like a typical mid-budget, high-concept movie starring a solid, but not A-list piece of talent (Ben Stiller). But now, at least as far as its studio, 20th Century Fox, is concerned, this is a tentpole movie, spawning at least one sequel (Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian), and depending upon how that movie does, perhaps more.

Tentpole movies. Do you have one in your imagination?

8 comments:

Mike Scherer said...

Scott,

Can you have a 'tent pole' movie without CGI??

The type of movies I like to write are usually action-adventure, thriller -- without all that CGI crap. I say crap because I find CGI boooooring! Kind of a 'been there, done that' feeling.

Just me -- and I'm sure it limits my chances of ever making a sale – but... I'm writing what I want.

Keep Writing,
Mike

Scott said...

First movie that comes to mind is The Dark Knight. Director Chris Nolan, like you, doesn't like "CGI crap." Hence, when he wanted to flip over an 18-wheeler in Dark Knight, they actually flipped an actual 18-wheeler. BTW, the cab of the truck landed within 2 feet where they projected it would land in pre-pro.

I say write what you want to write, and let the director and prod team figure out if / how much CGI they will use / not use. Unless your script includes an army of 8 million giant ant warriors, in which case CGI is pretty much a given.

deepstructure said...

"While the typical route to a tentpole movie is, as noted, pre-existing literary or original motion picture, at some point a writer came up with a great idea, wrote a book or script, and that evolved into a hit franchise (e.g., Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Shrek)."

i know 'die hard' and 'shrek' were books first. isn't that a 'pre-existing literary'? or were these books specifically written by screenwriters with the movie in mind?

E.C. Henry said...

The answer to your question is, yes, I do have a couple of features that would make GREAT "tentpole" features: "Indians of the Ancient Plains," genre: Supernatural Western Thriller, "Cowboy Alien Diaries", genre: Supernatural Western Thriller, "Give It Up for Chimpy," genre: Screwball Comedy with a Romantic Comedy twist (and I've allready got its sequel already penned to if that's a go!), "Hometown Professional Football" genre: sports comedy, might fit that bill too.

I've got one other tentpole movie, but it will only work through FOX, as it is my re-imagining of "Planet of the Apes" and it rocks. Re-captures the sci-fi edge that I thought Tim Burton's film lacked. Can't show anyone that one though, as I got a cease and desist letter from a VP at FOX. Would love to re-crank up that project, BUT it would have to be through FOX and with a deal in place...

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

Scott said...

Shrek and Die Hard were based on books, the latter a book by Roderick Thorp, "Nothing Lasts Forever," the former "Shrek!" by William Steig. I'd say that most tentpole movies are based on books, comic books, graphic novels, however, there are exceptions ala Lethal Weapon, Night at the Museum, Kung Fu Panda.

James said...

I'd say the one big factor is repeatability.

The ability to have a sequel, that is similar enough to the original to capture the same audience, but different enough to provide something new.

Alien, Godfather, Shrek, Austin Powers, Die Hard, Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon --

The sequels are all a promise of the original feature (with heightened stakes). Aliens is Alien with, literally, more aliens, and this time trained marines to fight them.

I'd say some of the tentpoles that peter out tend to be a little more based on a gimmick -- BEVERLY HILLS COP comes to mind. It is a great film. But by the start of the second movie the premise (a Detroit Cop in Beverly Hills) has just been worn rail thin.

Same goes for RUSH HOUR. The premise, that made the first one interesting, can't propel multiple episodes.

Even some of your cheesier horror movies have premises that can be exploited for dozens of movies. Isn't the premise of NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET terrific? A killer who attacks you in your sleep. This could be exploited in SO many different ways and still be hauntingly frightening (I don't have high hopes for the remake, but the originals, despite low budget effects and hokey story-telling were still utterly frightening).

Scott said...

James, that's a really good analysis of tentpole movies and I concur: one of the most important elements is, as you say, "repeatability."

Here's the thing about sequels: the conventional wisdom in Hwood has done a complete 180 in two decades. Back in the 70s and 80s, the thinking was that sequels would generate less revenue than the original movies. They even had a formula that said most sequels would only generate 50% of the original.

Now it's completely different: studios expect sequels to do more business. Why? Because the original movie builds an audience that can be tapped again and enlarged with sequels. That's why so many sequels cost more than the originals, again a change from two decades ago when sequels were made for a budget price.

James said...

I think part of that is because it takes a VERY specific type of writer to craft a GREAT sequel.

James Cameron is king in this arena. Aliens, Rambo II, Terminator II are some of the best sequels ever made.

And Jeffery Boam who wrote Lethal Weapon II and Indiana Jones 3.

That's two writers, who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of GOOD SEQUELS from the 80s and 90s, that we are still familiar with to this day.

I really think you need a writer that just "gets it." That understands the original franchise and are able to reproduce that with a new story.

I think there is a big problem with many of the sequels of today -- Die Hard IV, and Indy IV are awful. The characters don't feel like they are the same characters we've come to know and love.

I think part of the reason there was a ney-saying of sequels is for the most part they tended to be genre fluff (and are becoming so again, because they can make money off known franchises -- note INDY IV 740 mil worldwide). Sequels of old were much easier to be written off when good, and for the most part, they were expected to be bad. Heck, I love Jaws 3D -- because it is Jaws IN 3d, at a water park. That's just fun. But I'm not expecting Spielberg.

Really, I think Godfather 2, and the Star Wars trilogy are what proved that cinema could both be serial and good.

The dawning of good comic book movies (basically 2000), along with Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, and J.K. Rowling's Harry Potters have done a LOT for the resurrection of the serial and sequel format in film.