Blog

THE SCREENWRITING BLOG OF THE BLACK LIST

Reader Question: Why do some great movies fail at box office while others succeed?

A question from Mahmoud:

In your opinion why do many great movies fail to get money in boxoffice as Shawshank Redemption, or Hurt Locker or Coens films as Miller’s Crossing and Barton Fink, while others as Crouching Tiger, Pulp Fiction, Slumdog Millionaire and Full Monty hit?

Is it a fluke? Bad timing? Marketing problems? Generation thinking?

You mention one of the greatest examples of the “great movie = bad box office” phenomenon in The Shawshank Redemption. The movie, released on September 23, 1994, grossed only $28M, a disappointment considering the quality of the movie and the fact that it ended up receiving 7 Academy Award nominations. It was only after it aired on TNT seemingly every week for like 2 years that it became the cultural phenomenon that it is (currently the #1 rated movie on IMDB.com).

There are two major issues re Shawshank. First is the date of release. While in today’s market, there’s virtually no slack time for movies, back in 1994, late September was considered to be a slow period for box office — after summer blockbusters, kids back in school, and so on. The general thinking was that if a studio released a good movie that connected with adults, the film would have a chance for a nice long run through the fall with little competition. But that assumes the movie resonates with adults. If it doesn’t, there are no kids or teens around to buttress sales.

And here’s the deal: Shawshank did not find an audience when it was in general release, or at least not a big enough one. Why?

The simple fact is that the studio (Columbia) didn’t know how to market it. Check out the trailer:

Honestly if you hadn’t seen the movie, would you know what it was? A prison drama, yes, but would you have any idea what the story was about?

Of course, you can’t blame Columbia that much. They couldn’t promote Andy’s escape because that is a huge surprise. They tried to intimate the dynamic tension between Andy / Hope and Red / Cynicism, but their relationship is so nuanced over the course of 142 minutes, how can a marketing group be expected to adequately convey that in a 2-minute trailer.

Or look at one of the movie posters:

shawshank_redemption_ver1.jpg image by charbo187

Again if you’ve seen the movie, you know the power of this moment. But in September 1994, what in the world are we supposed to gleam about the story from the image of a man with arms outstretched in the rain? Perhaps the line “Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.” would make us think that the bright light which the man is facing is some sort of spiritual destination. But I suspect most consumers wouldn’t have a clue what the movie was about.

The fact is some stories almost defy marketing. They live or die either because of the names of the actors involved, relying on their ability to draw a crowd, and/or the by-word-of-mouth response. Had Shawshank been released in the current age of social networks and Twitter, maybe it would have generated a lot more buzz than it did when it was released. We’ll never know.

There are plenty of good, even great movies that failed at the box office. Another one that comes to mind is The Iron Giant. With a production budget of $70M, the animated feature only grossed $23M. Here is that trailer:

And the movie poster:

http://api.ning.com/files/lzX9zBdd6jOIVD1zNsJ6MFUcxNUuVklL174yp6PE8sY_/theirongiant.jpg

Again we’re looking at the same two issues: release date (August) and marketing. A decade ago, August was where studios dumped movies they’d intended to release earlier in the summer, but didn’t feel confident enough they could stand up to the intense competition of what they perceived would be ‘better’ movies from Memorial Day weekend through July 4th. However that thinking assumes that The Iron Giant is a children’s movie, which it most definitely is not. The movie was directed and co-written by Brad Bird, who also did The Incredibles, and both films are smart, funny, visual, and sophisticated enough to appeal to both kids and adults. However as you can discern from the one-sheet, the studio didn’t think that, stuck it in an August release, where it died a quick death.

The choice of release dates and exhibition strategy, along with marketing plans are a couple of major reasons why good movies don’t succeed at the box office. But really the issue almost always derives from the story itself. If it is a cross-genre movie, one that doesn’t have one clearly targeted demographic group, a story that is nuanced and has multiple layers of meaning, that all spells trouble from a marketing and distribution standpoint.

What other great movies have fared poorly at the box office? Perhaps there are other lessons we can learn from them.

3 thoughts on “Reader Question: Why do some great movies fail at box office while others succeed?

  1. It's really genre movies vs non-non genre movies.

    Advertisers are lazy.

    It's the same reason we see the huge influx of movies based on pre-existing brands.

    BATTLESHIP? Please.

    It's just going to be whatever original spec on the high seas is getting good buzz in the agencies this year, with the brand name slapped onto it, and then developed into retardation as to not offend anyone and get a PG-13 rating.

    It will have a big enough advertising campaign behind it that everyone will want to see it, despite already knowing it's going to be a shit-fest.

    People site TITANIC as breaking the mold — but they forget that Titanic was a bloated 225 million dollar budget in a time when 100 million dollar budgets were obscene. Many people went to see what 200 million looked like onscreen.

    It was also somewhat serendipitous that the Titanic (ship itself) was a huge financial undertaking with a devastating result. There was a sort of NASCAR-type, waiting to see a flaming car wreck appeal.

    Not to mention it was also released over Christmas (a plus), and was heavily influenced by the DISASTER genre films of the 70s.

    Growing up, there were always gems like The Shawshank Redemption, that were difficult to market. That didn't stop these movies from getting made.

    You really don't see these type of movies getting made anymore. Especially with the death of the independent arms of studios (which I actually think is a good thing for film, but that is another story).

    Good story and genre are not synonymous. Neither are they mutually exclusive.

    And neither are guarantees when it comes to money.

  2. Having produced well over 100 plays in DC and New York City…though not films…I can say…you really as I call it must "hit the combination." ALL these elements must come into place:

    Right script
    Right time
    Right director
    Right cast
    Right audience
    Right design team
    Right marketing campaign
    Right critic ON the right night from the right paper(more a theater thing)
    Sometimes word of mouth can save you without the right critic…sometimes…not often…

    Miss one element…you don't get it. At least with film you get a second chance with a DVD.

    Though there is nothing more exciting then when you do "hit the combination." On the "night" I just know when it has happened. Magic. I'm in the middle of a show now…and still love the action and looking for the "high" of a hit. Knock wood!

  3. RAGING BULL is my favorite example of a great movie that didn't do well at the box office but it's certainly no mystery why a period movie in black and white that's chock full of expletives and explicit battery in various forms with a brutal antihero didn't bring in the big bucks.

    There's a couple more reasons why THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION didn't do well initially:

    a) it's a horrible title (although as a movie title it's a marked improvement over the novella's title "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption"). I don't know what the hell "Shawshank" means, and "redemption" makes me feel like I'm in for a lecture or worse yet, a sermon.

    b) IMO, it's actually not that great a movie. It's an ok-to-good one, but nothing I would (or did) recommend to friends because I found the overlay of 90s feel-good psychology in a film about the 40s completely unconvincing. Here's an excerpt from THE MANLY MOVIE GUIDE by David Everitt and Harold Schechter – they cited it as the "Least Manly Prison Movie:"

    "Tim Robbins plays an innocent man who is sent to prison on a false murder conviction. Does he get bitter about this and try to do something constructive, like kill a guard who gets on his nerves? No. Why? Because he believes he deserves to be punished. Again – why? Because he's a nineties guy (who happens to be in prison in the 1940s, but never mind). He believes he deserves to be punished because he was guilty of not having emotionally connected with his wife and even worse, actually getting angry with her when she started sleeping around! Somebody, please, get this guy a dress."

    Obviously, a lot of people disagree with me, so YMMV. Prison breakout movies offer a great vicarious release (pun intended) to people who feel trapped in their lives in some form or another, and SHAWSHANK exploited this quite well – I think that's one reason it places on great movie lists so consistently.

Leave a Reply

Connect with: