Apparently the stars are to blame for not delivering more hits this summer, which appropriately enough finished this past weekend with the star-less sci fi film District 9 taking the top spot. Not that it was a bad summer, since early reports indicate that there is a year-on-year increase for 2009 so far. It is just that the hits were not delivered by the actors with $20m pay packets, according to the New York Times:
The gradual trend away from big-star vehicles in the summer has been under way for years.
At the start of the decade, summer still belonged to names: Cruise (“Mission Impossible II”), Crowe (“Gladiator”) and Clooney (“The Perfect Storm”) were the top three in 2000. But the three biggest films of this summer season, a crucial period from May 1 to Labor Day that typically accounts for 40 percent of annual ticket sales, have been “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” “Up” and “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.”
The fading ability of Hollywood stars to command box-office attention, and why that is happening, has been a perennial topic in Hollywood. And economists and academics have long argued that marquee names are not worth their expense.
The biggest names attached to those films: Shia LaBoeuf, Ed Asner and Daniel Radcliffe.
So are the studios going to stop using stars? No, they will simply ask them to take a pay cut as they always have. And further into the article the blame falls on social networking and Twitter - as discussed below.
Popularity: 10% [?]
It appears that cinema have been making hay while the sun didn’t shine. Most British newspapers and websites seem to agree that it is primarily the weather rather than the quality of the films on offer, that made 2007 a strong box office summer. Take this article from The Guardian (’Wet summer boosts UK film industry‘) which notes that:
The British cinema industry is celebrating its best summer in 40 years, partly thanks to the wet weather.
Figures released this morning by the Film Distributors’ Association, the trade body for the industry, showed that there were 50.8m cinema visits during June, July and August.
This is over 25% more than in a typical summer, and even beat records set in the 1980s when the arrival of multiplex cinemas gave the sector a boost.
Examples of other headlines are ‘Soggy summer boosts UK box office‘ (BBC News) and Wet summer made cinema top destination (Channel 4 News) and ‘Summer cinema gets boost from rain‘ (Digital Spy).
The impulse is to start polemicizing that ‘the death of cinema at the hands of DVD/YouTube/games/etc is greatly exaggerated’. Just don’t expect anyone to point out that the threat from on-line piracy is obviously also exaggerated, or why else would Brits splash their way to the cinemas instead of staying home in front of their warm PCs. It is worth adding that there was also no Olympics of World Cup to steal viewers away.
However, if these leads to complacency or anything more than modest celebrating then British cinemas are in trouble. Taking comfort from poor weather and people’s willingness from sitting through underwhelming threequels (’Bourne Ultimatum‘ excepted) does not a stable business future make. Smart cinemas use the extra money to expand beyond their core business (blockbusters, concessions and advertising). One major UK chain’s CEO told me that he no longer sends his staff to cinema trade shows like Cinema Expo. ‘The new idea are in gambling, nightclub and bar conventions,’ he said. While films will remain the bread and butter of the cinema business, don’t count on lashings of rains to make people seek refuge in their local multiplex. (Rain picture courtesy of Ahmed Rabea).
Popularity: 7% [?]
Entries RSS
