http://boxoffice.com/distribution/ Film Distribution from Boxoffice® en Copyright 2008 Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:00:00 -0800 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification Peege," a 28-minute movie about his grandmother. More than three decades later, Kleiser - who went on to direct the megahit "Grease" and other Hollywood features - is still drawing accolades for "Peege's" fiercely honest and poignant portrayal of a subject that touches us all: aging and mental decline. The latest honor for "Peege" may be its greatest ever: The 1972 production, distributed by St. Louis' Phoenix Learning Group, was named in December to the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress, alongside such better-known classics as "Back to the Future," "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," and "12 Angry Men." Started in the 1990s at the behest of Congress, the National Film Registry is intended to preserve the nation's movie heritage. Each year, hundreds of films are nominated by the public and by movie experts, and 25 are chosen for a list that now includes 475 classics from every era. Kleiser's "Peege" is only the second student production ever selected, the Library says. After Peege, Kleiser realized his dream of becoming a major Hollywood director. In addition to "Grease," the world's top-grossing movie musical, he has made such critically praised works such as "Getting It Right," starring Sir John Gielgud, and 1986's "Flight of the Navigator." "Grease" has so far grossed about $380 million worldwide. "Peege" has grossed less than $2 million - tiny by Hollywood standards, but extraordinary for a student production less than half an hour long. Fittingly, the story of how "Peege" came to be made, to touch so many viewers, and to launch Kleiser's career has its own measure of drama. A Philadelphia native and 1964 graduate of Radnor High School, Kleiser fell in love with film as a child and knew he wanted to make it his career. "I saw "The 10 Commandments" and the opening of the Red Sea, and I decided I wanted to become a director," says Kleiser, now 61. "I started making these little 8-milimeter films with my friends." But after earning a bachelor's degree at USC, Kleiser hit a wall. He was working in post-production on educational films and "floundering, editing these stupid little films about weaving." So at the suggestion of his father, a psychologist, he went back to school for his master's. Kleiser planned to create and direct a film as his master's thesis. His first attempt was something "arty and obscure," as he puts it: a film based on a Los Angeles theater troupe's experimental play about the journey of man through time, which he hoped to jazz up with special effects. In his mind's eye, Kleiser can still see Columbus transforming into a space traveler. But Kleiser wanted to own his production, which meant that he had to rent his own equipment - otherwise, USC would keep the copyright. And when he found he needed $5,000 to finish the film, no one he contacted wanted to help. Ironically, Kleiser credits horror-film producer Curtis Harrington with pushing him to do "Peege," a film about love and connection, albeit one that often brings its audiences to tears. "He told me, 'Why don't you abandon that project and write something that's from the heart?'" Kleiser recalls. So Kleiser turned to something he knew all too well: the painful emotions that for much of his childhood had accompanied his family's periodic visits to see his grandmother in a Lebanon, PA nursing home. Kleiser, away at college, joined them every Christmas. And every year, Peege - her family's nickname for her - seemed to deteriorate further. "Each year, it got worse and worse, and we'd begun to dread visiting," Kleiser says. "I wrote the film about that last trip to the nursing home." Kleiser made "Peege" for about $10,000, but its acting and production values don't look low-budget at all. Indeed, the cast is full of familiar faces - starting with Bruce Davison as Kleiser's character. Davison didn't need the work. He'd already starred in 1970's "The Strawberry Statement" and 1971's now-classic horror film "Willard," and has since enjoyed a busy career as a film and television actor, including winning a Golden Globe for his supporting role in 1990's "Longtime Companion" and Oscar and Emmy nominations. But Davison liked the script, and signed on for Screen Actors' Guild minimum and a small cut of profits. Throughout the project, pieces like that just seemed to fall into place. Kleiser says producer David Knapp volunteered to help because he liked the story and also because it offered professional advancement: Knapp's best gig so far had been as associate producer on an early Steven Spielberg production, "Something Evil." "He wanted the title of producer," Kleiser says. Knapp even put up $5,000 to help finance the project. Knapp also contributed something even more fortuitous: access to the CBS studio offices that Spielberg had been using, because that project had wrapped with two weeks left on the lease. Next door was the studio for "Gunsmoke," TV's longest-running drama, where Jeanette Nolan often starred. Nolan, who had launched her own career playing Lady Macbeth opposite Orson Welles in his 1948 feature, agreed to portray Peege. Barbara Rush signed on as Kleiser's mother. William Schallert, the father on "The Patty Duke Show," seemed "perfect to play my Dad," and Kleiser got him aboard. Barry Livingston of "My Three Sons" fame agreed to play his brother. The job of getting "Peege" to an audience fell to Barbara Bryant, one of the founders of Phoenix Films, who saw it in 1973 at an Atlanta film festival. Her company was new, but Bryant was already a leader in distributing independent film to libraries, universities and other institutions, and ran frequent workshops on visual literacy and film's value in teaching and provoking discussion. When other distributors shied away from "Peege" because of the strong emotions it evoked, Bryant and her business partner didn't hesitate. "We knew we wanted it the moment we saw it," she says. Bryant began taking "Peege" everywhere she went. The reaction? "A lot of crying. A lot of positive human response. People would leave the room and would immediately call their mothers or their grandmothers or whoever they had been estranged from." Bryant retired last year, but still consults to Phoenix. And Phoenix still sells "Peege" - in fact, it recently released a digitally remastered version that includes commentary by Kleiser, Davison and Dr. Robert Yahnke, a University of Minnesota expert on the role of film in gerontological education. Yahnke says "Peege" was "a seminal film," one of the first films of any kind to break a barrier in how old people were portrayed. "It was the first great educational film that told the story from the perspective of the older person," he says. The DVD version also includes actual photos of Kleiser's last visit to the real Peege - photos that refreshed his memory and inspired him to do a movie about an old woman whose own memories come to life thanks to the words and touch of her loving grandson. ]]> http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2008/01/littleknown-peege-named-to-nat.php http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2008/01/littleknown-peege-named-to-nat.php Distribution bruce davison curtis harrington davipd knapp grease national film registry peege randal kleiser Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:00:00 -0800 Be Kind Rewind - which takes independent filmmaking to a different level. The basic guide to filmmaking would probably recommend starting with a script. That’s good advice, but - with the Rewind method -- if you can remember some lines from a classic movie or two why not start with that? No money to pay for actors? Just find a friend with an outgoing personality. What about locations? Your backyard? Okay, get a digital video camera, some household materials to make costumes, and you are on your way to producing your next film. Of course this is not a serious proposal. It takes much more work to make an indie that actually produces money. Be Kind Rewind is a new movie written and directed by Michel Gondry. Mike (Mos Def) and Jerry (Jack Black) play video store attendants who accidentally erase all the store’s video tapes, and can’t buy new ones - their solution is to become very creative. They also become neighborhood legends when they remake movie classics using a technique they call sweding (producing very low budget home movies as they remake famous movies like Ghostbusters, Driving Miss Daisy, and Robocop). Mike and Jerry don’t just put a spin on filming indies, they attempt to show an alternative way to distribute and market film. Bob Berney, move aside -- there are faster ways to distribution. According to Mike and Jerry, you just use the direct-to-video approach, and distribute it through the local video store. And if you have some connections, you’ll get some exposure. Mike and Jerry’s technique of "sweding" should be qualified a bit. First of all, their “remakes” aren’t exactly equal to the remaking of Ocean’s Eleven or The Italian Job. You are limited to what you cover in 20 minutes. Nevertheless, they show that viral marketing and neighborhood distribution can work, at least in a comedy. Warning: this technique of sweding should never be attempted at home. The FBI frowns upon copyright infringement, and so do the writers currently on strike. ]]> http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2008/01/among-the-laughs-an-idea-or-tw.php http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2008/01/among-the-laughs-an-idea-or-tw.php Distribution be kind rewind indie producing jack black michel gondry mos def neighborhood distribution sweding Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:00:00 -0800 It is difficult to go anywhere today without hearing or reading about social networking websites. Words like Facebook, Twitter, Flixter, Friendster, and MySpace seem to be appearing everywhere. The film industry discussion is that sites like these could radically change how movies are marketed. While there are already some solid examples of films beginning to utilize this platform, aiming a movie marketing campaign toward these sites is still very much in its infancy. Indie films are strangely slow to get onboard this new media. This confuses some, who see the opportunities in this area as perfect for independent film. There are also several reasons why promotion through social networking websites can be more beneficial to the Indies and even give them a leg up on the major studios. Creating a page on virtually all social network websites is free. Anyone can do it, but not many can make the page interesting and user friendly. A MySpace or Twitter page for a big studio film like I am Legend can have all the bells and whistles it wants, but if it doesn’t make people want to discuss, interact, and most importantly, tell their friends about it, it can be worthless. The size of a marketing budget has very little to do with its success in the online world. Creative marketing campaigns are worth a lot more than gimmicky, overblown and expensive ones. Facebook users have proven to be especially savvy and do not react positively to aggressive advertising. Major studios, with their propensity to do things on a large scale when pushing a film, should take note. Annoying applications and endless banner ads could create a backlash and one day work against them. On the other hand, Indies have the chance to thrive in this environment by simply endeavoring to create positive buzz for their films in more ingenious and creative ways. Creating a culture around a film, where users feel they are part of it will enhance the films appeal and prompt visitors to tell their fellow Facebook, MySpace or Twitter friends about it. This is the very foundation of social networking itself. Hollywood studios are predominantly focused on opening weekend box office. Their marketing campaigns reflect this. Advertising for a studio film will accelerate in the weeks leading up to its release, but will decrease significantly after its first week in theatres. Social networking websites, by their very nature, seem to cater to the popular indie strategy of slowly generating positive word of mouth for a film and continuing to do so throughout its entire release. The reason these websites have the marketing world in a frenzy is because they allow advertisers to target a specific demographic based on the users own supplied information. Anything from a user’s age, gender, political views, race, religion, hobbies, and interests can be used if they opt to allow it. It is still early in the game, and the potential of this new market has yet to be tapped. In many ways, it is wide open to experimentation and there is no reason why the indie film world can’t begin exploring the virtues of this platform. http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2008/01/films-socializing-on-the-net-p.php http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2008/01/films-socializing-on-the-net-p.php Distribution facebook flixter friendster i am legend indie myspace social network studios twitter Mon, 14 Jan 2008 03:00:00 -0800 http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2008/01/paris-hilton-to-be-honored-wit.php http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2008/01/paris-hilton-to-be-honored-wit.php Distribution national lampoon paris hilton regent releasing Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:00:00 -0800 This past Monday we discussed the reasons films such as Grindhouse have failed to attract their targeted geek demographic. Hear now from Harvey Weinstein, producer of the Grindhouse project, who, at the time of the film’s release placed the problem on marketing by saying, “We didn’t educate the South or the Midwest. In the West and the East, the movie played well. It played well in strong urban settings. But we missed the boat on the Midwest and the South.” What about the recent geek film, Shoot ‘em Up? Why did a film that can only be described as an over-the-top, violent live-action cartoon fail to catch on, not only with geeks, but with the mainstream action crowd? It featured two A-list stars in Clive Owen and Paul Giamatti. It was the best Hollywood example of the kinetic, two-fisted gunfights that John Woo made so popular in Honk Kong, but had been unable to replicate in the United States. And it wrapped the whole package in a nicely ironic bow with its tongue planted firmly in cheek. And it sank like a stone. Was the tone too sardonic with the intentionally cheesy one-liners and outrageous stunts? Was it too violent? Or, was it, once again, poor marketing? Some have blamed the downturn in traditionally geek-supported films -- genres horror, sci-fi, and action -- on piracy, claiming that the geek base is the kind of tech-savvy crowd that would be comfortable illegally downloading films from the Internet. While a small percentage of the group might be involved in such activity, it would be unfair, not to mention irresponsible, to accuse the entire audience of such activities. The reason for the financial failure of films like Grindhouse and Shoot ‘em Up might be the simplest one of all. Hollywood may have over-estimated the size of the geek audience. Just because they are among the more vocal and opinionated movie fans, doesn’t necessarily translate to them being the largest demographic. Either way, the studios would do well to not abandon this group. Recent history has shown that what was once the exclusive territory of the geeks can become mainstream gold. If not for geeks, the recent studio cash cows of comic book and video game adaptations would never have gotten off the ground. Their importance as a barometer for discovering the next big thing may be a valuable consideration. What might also be considered is the failure of studios to market films successfully to both the geeks and the mainstream crowd. The advertising mindset seems to have been that if a film is made for a niche audience, that is the only demographic the marketing should be aimed at. But what of the rest of the movie-goers? It’s not impossible for genre films to break out and become cross-over hits. The attitude that a film will only appeal to one demographic is self-defeating. By broadening marketing strategies to include more mainstream audiences, studios can give their geek films a bigger shot at success. But if there is a failure to restructure studio marketing, the very real possibility exists that the geeks will be abandoned by Hollywood. If that happens, everyone loses. ]]> http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2008/01/a-geek-tragedy-part-2-of-2.php http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2008/01/a-geek-tragedy-part-2-of-2.php Distribution clive owen demographic geek tragedy grindhouse hrvy weinstein mrketing paul giamatti shoot em up Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:00:00 -0800 Hollywood has cashed in on this crowd by raiding the popular -- and even the more obscure -- comic books, TV shows, and video games to consistent financial returns. While adaptations have proven to be profitable, original material aimed at this audience has produced disappointing box office results, begging the question, why are the geeks not supporting projects specifically made for them? Snakes on a Plane was possibly the most-hyped film of 2006 on the Internet. In a nod to the geek demands for a more extreme film, New Line Cinema went back for re-shoots to add more gore and pushed the film to its R-rating, allowing star Samuel L. Jackson to utter a line suggested on a geek message board, “I have had it with these mother****** snakes on this mother****** plane!” Despite these added touches and a great marketing campaign that built a tremendous amount of online buzz, the film had a so-so opening and fizzled its way to a dismal domestic haul of $34 million. What went wrong? Why did the geeks abandon the film to its sudden, tragic death? One reason is that the film just didn’t live up to the hype. Instead of being a legitimate thriller or embracing the campiness of the concept, the film tried to be both things and settled for being mediocre. Once the ho-hum reviews and poor word of mouth reached the average moviegoer, it was doomed to a quick hook from theaters. Poor execution shot down Snakes on a Plane. What excuse is there for the failure of Grindhouse to catch on with the geek audience? This was the project that seemed to have it all: two movies for the price of one, big name directors in Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez; great casts consisting of A-list stars and cult movie favorites, and the additional fun of fake, satirical trailers inserted between the two features. Everyone agreed: it was a sure thing. But audiences, including geeks, stayed away in droves. Poor reviews can’t be blamed for this failure; the finished product was widely praised. Was it the campy attitude that kept viewers away? Maybe the digital degradation of the film to make it look old and damaged? The 3+ hours running time that limited the number of showings in a day? Or was it a tragedy of viral marketing? Once again, the film was heavily hyped on the Internet, specifically targeting the geek audience that had been so supportive of the filmmakers in the past. Did this emphasis on a specific audience detract from making mainstream viewers in Middle America aware of the film? What is the answer? Is there an answer? On Thursday we will supply the thoughts of Grindhouse insider Producer Harvey Weinstein and take a closer look at the impact of Geekdom in the movies. ]]> http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2008/01/a-geek-tragedy-part-1-of-2.php http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2008/01/a-geek-tragedy-part-1-of-2.php Distribution adaptations comic book geek new line cinema online marketing pop culture fanatic samuel jackson snakes on a plane Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:00:00 -0800 Batman film. Network pages can now be created by brands instead of just people. A brand-specific page is free to create and can include anything a regular website contains, with the added bonus that it too can generate its own contact list. Users can interact with the page by making comments, downloading widgets, or reading the latest news associated with the film. These actions are then included in the feed that gets sent out to that visitor’s entire contact list, thus creating a chain reaction where they have the opportunity to be part of the film’s promotion. Advertisers hope this will act as a kind of personal recommendation from a friend, instead of an advertisement from a film studio. Interest in the film is heightened, conversation is sparked between users, and the all important word of mouth is generated. While Hollywood marketing budgets currently devote only a small percentage to online advertising, there is evidence that this may soon change. Sony’s Columbia Tri-Star announced that audience surveys for two of their recent hit films, Superbad and Resident Evil: Extinction showed online marketing as the primary source of awareness. A first for the company and an occurrence that should act as a wake up call to all studios and indies alike. In Part two we will discuss how the independent film industry can utilize this platform to market their films.]]> http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/12/films-socializing-on-the-net.php http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/12/films-socializing-on-the-net.php Distribution demographic facebook indie marketing online marketing social marketing word of mouse word of mouth Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:00:00 -0800 Batman Begins was an unquestionable success that reinvigorated Warner Brothers’ Batman franchise by doing just that. In many ways the film’s sequel, The Dark Knight, due out mid-2008, is being taken a bit further. Not just in terms of developing the journey of the characters, but also in the way in which the studio is creating audience awareness, and in how fans receive information about the film itself. The objective of making a film available to the public is to make it one which viewers feel an absolute priority to see. With Dark Knight, Warner Brothers has decided to employ a viral marketing campaign. In May of this year, Warners set in motion plans to make the sequel available to the public despite, at the time, the film’s release was well over a year away. Things kicked off with one of the viral sites eventually releasing the first image of Heath Ledger as the Joker, as well as the line: “See you in December.” It implied that something big was to happen in December, but what? As this month has panned out, December has seen the release of the film’s first feature length trailer, multiple one-sheets, and an IMAX prologue that introduces the Joker. But in the time between May and December, there have been viral sites devoted to unlocking promotional images and, with the help of anticipating fans, developing intricate scavenger hunts. Cloverfield’s first trailer was released with screenings of Transformers over the 2007 summer. But the film’s title, Cloverfield, wasn’t even confirmed until fall with the release of the film’s second trailer. And similar to The Dark Knight viral websites, Cloverfield has a website meant to help audiences try to piece together a timeline of photos connected to the film. Filmmakers on the independent level with limited resources must focus on making the film as good as it can be -- ultimately, the overall product is how a film is judged. Yet, while it is obviously not the prime objective of the filmmaker to market the film, it is important to not ignore the impact of making information about the film available. There is no set way to do so, but as The Dark Knight and Cloverfield have done, viral marketing is one very creative way to help spread the word that these are stories and characters worth caring about. ]]> http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/12/viral-marketing-promotion.php http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/12/viral-marketing-promotion.php Distribution batman christopher nolan cloverfield dark knight heath ledger viral marketing warners Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:00:00 -0800 Fargo (1996) “We’re not a bank, Jerry.” Jerry brings an investment to his father-in-law and leaves with nothing. He trudges back to his car that sits alone in the snow-covered parking lot. The audience, the camera angle, look down on Jerry surrounded by snow. There’s nowhere for him to hide. Groundhog Day (1993) “This is pitiful. A thousand people, freezing...waiting to worship a rat.” Reliving the same day over and over makes a strong case for hell on earth, even with snow. Bill Murray is at his funniest as he tries to get the girl through cynical trial and error to find the perfect things to say, “I like to say a prayer and drink to world peace,” or to create the perfect situation -- making a snowman and paying a few local kids to have a snowball fight. The Thing (1987) “You’ve got to be…kidding me” The Antarctic is scary enough without the threat of a frozen alien. When a heart attack turns into a stomach with teeth and a head that sprouts legs, you’ve got to think it’s pretty much over for humanity. The scene is horrifying and it only gets worse -- setting a benchmark for future horror directors on how it should be done. Kill Bill (2003) “That really was a Hattori Hanzo sword” The culmination of Chapter 5 takes place in a serene Japanese garden. Snowflakes float from the night sky. It’s still. It’s quiet, even in the face of impending battle -- the final fight. Missing the first two hours of the movie doesn’t take away from the beauty of the garden -- its symmetry and sounds and soft snow match perfectly with the artistry of the samurai battle. It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) “Merry Christmas, Movie House!” The holiday season is not over, until you watch It’s a Wonderful Life. The celebration of George Bailey’s quest starts with his romp through snowy downtown Bedford Falls. The holiday is in full bloom and there’s George being the great guy everyone, except himself, knows him to be…until now. Christmas Vacation (1989) “We have to check every bulb. Whoop - Got a little knot here. You work on that.” The doorbell of doom that marks the family’s arrival, struggling to find the perfect tree, and cousins who empty their RV’s toilet into your sewer line -- the chaos that is the holidays. But the scene that typifies the holiday experience is when Rusty is handed a knot of Christmas lights the size of a medicine ball and politely asked by his father to work it out. And finally, the colorful gleam and shimmer on the snow banks -- the trials of exterior illumination have never been so perfectly illustrated. ]]> http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/12/snow-as-protagonist.php http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/12/snow-as-protagonist.php Distribution christmas vacation fargo groundhog day it's a wonderful life kill bill the thing video store Mon, 24 Dec 2007 03:00:00 -0800 Fox Searchlight The Highs: Once, a very low budget musical/romance for the art house crowd produced a domestic gross of nearly $10 million. Waitress was a solid sleeper hit taking in more than $19 million with stellar reviews. The Lows: Danny Boyle’s sci-fi flop, Sunshine, intended to be a melding of sci-fi drama and art-house sensibilities. It failed with both demographics, with a weak U.S. gross of $3.7 million. Doing just $12.5 million domestically, Chris Rock’s I Think I Love my Wife was not loved by the audiences. The Wildcards: Juno looks to be this year’s Little Miss Sunshine, already picking up four nominations for the Independent Spirit Awards. The Savages is heavy Oscar-bait with Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Laura Linney in the lead roles. Paramount Vantage (formerly Paramount Classics) The Highs: No Country for Old Men (produced with Miramax) was named the best film of the year by the National Board of Review and has a very respectable domestic gross of over $28 million to date. The Lows: Despite a cast including Samuel L. Jackson, Christina Ricci, and Justin Timberlake, Black Snake Moan was a critical and commercial flop. A Mighty Heart sank like a stone at the box office, but awards buzz surrounds Angelina Jolie’s performance in the lead role. The Wildcards: The Kite Runner, based on the popular novel, should do solid business and not be forgotten come awards time. Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood (also produced with Miramax) was named the best film of the year by the Los Angeles Film Critics Association and should get heavy Oscar consideration. Warner Independent The Highs: It was a tough year for Warner Independent. With no financial winners to boast about, they are forced to depend on a long-shot Oscar nomination for either of their documentaries, Darfur Now or The 11th Hour. The Lows: In the Valley of Elah, from Oscar winning writer-director, Paul Haggis. Intended to be their prestige picture that also did solid box office numbers, it had a disappointing run that saw it come and go from theaters by Thanksgiving. The Wildcards: They have nothing on the near horizon that looks poised to pull them from their slump. Focus Features The Highs: Scored modest art-house hits with Talk to Me and Lust, Caution. Being looked at as a major awards contender is Atonement with Keira Knightley and James McAvoy tipped for special recognition. The Lows: Evening, a tearjerker with a big-name cast received harsh reviews and tanked with a domestic haul of just over $12 million. Eastern Promises, while critically well received, flopped at the box office with a gross of just over $17 million on a budget estimated at over $50 million. The Wildcard: With no other new films for the rest of the year, they are relying on Atonement to bring home the awards and be a strong box office presence. Miramax The Highs: Becoming Jane racked up a domestic gross of almost $19 million in the waning days of this summer’s blockbusters. No Country for Old Men (see above, Paramount). The Lows: Gone Baby Gone, while adored by the critics, was largely ignored by the movie going public. It has taken in just over $20 million domestically to barely earn back its budget. Despite the commercial disappointment, it remains a favorite to score at least a couple of Oscar nominations. The Wildcard: There Will Be Blood (see above, Paramount). Sony Pictures Classics The Highs: Though both were released overseas in 2006, The Lives of Others and Black Book were sleeper hits in the U.S. in 2007. The Lows: Sleuth, the remake of the 1972 mini-masterpiece, failed to impress critics or audiences who stayed away in droves. The Wildcards: France’s entry for this year’s foreign language Oscar, Persepolis could be a sleeper hit with its unique animation and timely story. Francis Ford Coppola’s first movie in ten years, Youth Without Youth might bring in viewers curious to see what the reclusive filmmaker is offering. Will any of these films be the breakout hit that the studios are looking for? With less than a couple of weeks left in the year, the answer is upon us.]]> http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/12/stacking-up-the-indie-arma.php http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/12/stacking-up-the-indie-arma.php Distribution focus features fox searchlight miramax paramount vantage sony pictures classics warner independent Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:00:00 -0800 In some ways a movie shot entirely on film has a luster that digital just can’t match. And that is what distributors and exhibitors are familiar with when they plan to book a movie into most first-run theaters. That being said, it’s hard to deny that the abundance of cheap but quality digital recording technologies has had a positive effect on the lives of truly independent filmmakers, and producers, more and more, have this in mind. The two most important factors in the production of a movie for those in the independent and guerilla filmmaking community are finance and availability. The ability to not only create, but distribute indie works to the world in digital format has opened the doors for many talented people. Although it can be argued that film stock is still the highest quality medium in which an artist can tell a visual story, the benefits of digital filmmaking cannot be ignored. The most compelling argument voiced by many independent directors, producers, DP’s, and cameramen when dealing with digital film is the ability it gives a filmmaker to simply let the camera run. One canister of film stock allows a four minute maximum of actual shooting. Once that film is spent, it’s gone. For a director wanting to refine a vision or take multiple shots of the same scene, the expense can become legendary. It would not be unthinkable for a filmmaker to wrap shooting on a budget of $750,000 with two-thirds having gone to film! Admittedly some directors love to take multiple shots and many takes, but for a neophyte trying to cement a signature vision, digital format affords the opportunity to let the camera run. Additionally, the results can be reviewed on the spot without worrying about the cost. Also, a 200 gig hard drive with over 100 minutes of movie time is far cheaper than buying 100 minutes of film stock, even if you cut film costs with reel ends. The other big advantage to filming in digital revolves around the process of editing. The ability to take a direct-to-digital recording, transfer it straight into the editing software, and immediately cut the footage is a tremendous benefit. Not only is there no waiting for the film to come back from development, but doing pickups is as simple as mounting the camera on a tripod, shooting another scene, and taking it back to the editing bay. The down-side: Once a movie is completed with digital, it has to be transferred to the conventional film reels because most festivals, the professional distributors, and first-run theaters still require media on film for submission and showing. Still, the initial use of digital leads to a lower overall budget. Another step often not realized by neophytes is that no matter how big the budget, a movie shot on film stock will be transferred to a digital format for editing and sound correction -- and then put back onto film. For this reason alone, to most movie enthusiasts and many producers, the concept of shooting with digital has become more and more the format of choice. Starting with digital means details within the budget may already be covered. Film is still needed, most often, for distribution. http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/12/the-digital-attraction.php http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/12/the-digital-attraction.php Distribution digital to film film budget film to digital sound editing visual editing Thu, 13 Dec 2007 03:00:00 -0800 What is it about science-fiction and horror stories that makes them so resilient? Fans keep coming back for more despite the fact -- or maybe due to the fact -- that the stories follow a formula promising a certain set of payoffs. I Am Legend puts this idea to the test; showing that no matter how many times it’s been done before, with each new interpretation of a sci-fi or horror story, comes a new selection of settings, stars and substance -- and a new blockbuster cash cow which distributors immediately recognize. There have been multiple film adaptations of Richard Matheson’s 1954 science-fiction novel I Am Legend, which tells the tale of scientist Robert Neville, the last human in a world now inhabited by vampire-like creatures. One might think there were only so many ways to retell the same story, but in the case of I Am Legend, that assumption would be wrong. Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later (2002) borrows the “last human alive” premise of Matheson’s work and applies it to a small band of survivors in England who assume, like Neville, the rest of the world has been wiped out by contagion. Boyle’s film bears a striking resemblance to the novel not only for the similarity in premise, but also the focus on the emotions of the protagonists. George Romero, one of the better-known directors in the horror genre, cites Matheson’s I Am Legend as a key inspiration to his Night of the Living Dead (1968) and its continuing franchise. Again, as was the case with Boyle, Romero places heavy emphasis on the importance of the despair felt by the main characters as they come to terms with their assumed ‘last living person on earth’ status. Both 28 Days Later (2002) and Night of the Living Dead (1968) boast remarkably high box office returns due to relatively low production costs -- a quality that benefits producers, distributors, and theater owners. IMDb lists over 15 distributors for 28 with 20th Century Fox keeping a tight rein on worldwide distribution, and over 40 USA home entertainment media alone for Night. And the distribution stats continue to build for the mixed genre. Should producers plan on taking this trend to the bank? Taking into account the deluge of films with plots similar to Legend, it’s hard not to wonder if adapting the novel itself can offer anything new - and if it the formula will hang in there as the cash cow. Is it possible to steer the material in a new direction? The new rendition with Will Smith as Neville, directed by Francis Lawrence, (I am Legend, 2007) must compete not only with films that borrow from Matheson’s material, but past film adaptations of the story itself. To bring something new to the table, a new horror or sci-fi story needs to change important aspects while staying true to the story’s theme. Matheson’s original novel took place in a suburban setting and noted Neville’s everyday routine of checking the boards on his windows, cleaning dead mutated bodies off his front lawn, hunting down a few monsters and even searching for more ammunition to do so. Instead of suburban America, Lawrence opts for downtown New York. With this arena comes a new set of challenges and obstacles for Neville. The novel allowed for a deep look into Neville’s thoughts, hopes and despairs; but does the film give light to this crucial aspect of the character? If Legend (2007) throws out the psychological aspect of what happens to a human being when left truly alone - is it the same story? Will Smith’s vehicle clearly isn’t the first adaptation of the novel, but it is the first major film to use the same title. When Charlton Heston played Neville, the story went by the name The Omega Man (1971) and Vincent Price’s take was called The Last Man on Earth (1964). Both Heston’s and Price’s films took steps away from the novel’s major plot lines. Is it more important to stick to Matheson’s story elements if the film uses the same title? Demographically speaking the answer is a simple “no.” Legend (2007) takes aim at the teenage through middle-aged crowd - most of which probably don’t even know the book exists. By adding Will Smith and special effects, Lawrence guarantees a safe viewing pull from the targeted demographic; making the need to have ever heard of the book a moot point. However, since the movie does use the book’s title, there is the chance that readers who caught the book when it first debuted will seek it out due to curiosity. The brains that make the distribution decisions are obviously secure with the sci-fi/horror genre as long as the concept remains recognizable. Price has at least 15 US distributor listings with most specific to the home market, including numerous DVD releases - clearly a note of continuing public interest. And, Omega is well-covered with Warner Brothers at the distribution helm One fact remains: the fierce competition among films with plots similar to I am Legend (2007) doesn’t allow for a bland repeat. But, exhibitors might surmise that -- with the box office of similar movies as indication, its star power and special effects eye-candy as givens, and Warners, once again, head honcho on distribution -- this film is perched for massive success. ]]> http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/12/post-3.php http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/12/post-3.php Distribution 28 days later c heston distribution horror-sci-fi i am legend matheson night of living dead v price Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:00:00 -0800 The Rome Film Festival (RFF) was born in 2006. For two years there’s been in Italy a confrontation between Rome and the oldest film festival, Venice Film Festival (VFF) and the Turin Film Festival (TFF). All these FFs take place from the end of summer to the end of autumn. The VFF was born in 1932, it’s the oldest FF in the world. It starts the end of August. The TFF was born in 1982 and starts at the end of November. The RFF holds mid-October. The management of VFF wants to defend his primacy in Italy based on his history. But in Venice there aren’t good structures like a cinema hall and sponsors, and so productions have begun to give a look to Rome. The RFF was made by Walter Veltroni, mayor of Rome and recently elected leader of the new Democratic Party. Veltroni loves cinema and has many friends in this domain. The RFF has a lot of sponsors and wants to be a spectacular event with international stars and a red carpet. But it has a film competition too, like Venice and Turin, and now these three FFs compete for the best films. The TFF is historically oriented to the indies and the young directors. Its new art director is Nanni Moretti (Gold Palm in Cannes 2001). He said that the dates of the RFF are unbecoming for his festival and that some films, like Juno (the winner of the RFF) and Peur du noir, like attending the RFF better. In 2006 the art director of VFF, Marco Muller, said that Rome takes the movies rejected by his Festival. The RFF is the only one that has a film market, the Business Street. And that attracts foreign capital. Francesco Rutelli, Minister for the Cultural Heritage, member of the Democratic Party, admits there is a problem in the proximity of dates, but he said that each Italian FF has its own quality. http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/12/where-to-strut-your-stuff-in-i.php http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/12/where-to-strut-your-stuff-in-i.php Distribution nanni moretti roma film festival turin film festival venice film festival walter veltroni Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:00:00 -0800 A trailer is a film's contract with the audience, telling the audience what to expect from the actual film. The audience can expect the film to conform to the genre indicated in the trailer. They can expect to see the film's hook in the trailer. They can expect to see snippets of the film's story in the trailer, and they can expect these snippets not to mislead them. And for each cool moment in the trailer, they can expect several even cooler moments in the film itself. If this contract is broken, the audience will leave the film dissatisfied. Suppose the trailer indicates the wrong genre or takes a minor plot point and disguises it as the hook or includes scenes that aren't really important in the film itself or, worst of all, includes every single cool moment in the film. This is tempting if the film isn't very good, because the trailer can make it look better than it is. But it's never a good idea, because a breach-of-contract trailer, while it may have been riveting, was promising something it didn't deliver. The quality of the actual film doesn't matter if people who chose to see the film, based their decision on the trailer -- and didn't get what they were promised. It's vital to stick to the contract. And in addition to including the actual genre, hook, some plot points, and a few cool moments, it's also important to avoid including certain things. For instance, if the film has a major twist at the end, that should absolutely not go in the trailer. For a comedy, the film's first big laugh should not go in the trailer (the theatrical trailer for Death at a Funeral (2007) broke this rule, and as a result the first laugh fell flat for anyone who had seen the trailer). The plot points in the trailer should be enticing but should rarely reveal much beyond the first act, and in no way should a trailer give away the film's resolution. And the film's very coolest moments should be saved for the film itself. The trailer is just a taste. The film is the meal. A good trailer will bring the right people to see the film, people who will like it. A trailer that breaks its contract with the audience will bring people who will be disappointed by the film and will spread the word about how bad they thought it was. And no film deserves to be brought down by its own bad trailer. ]]> http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/11/post-2.php http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/11/post-2.php Distribution breach-of-contract-trailer genre hook plot point trailer contract Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:00:00 -0800 To bring in audiences, filmmakers must first grab their attention. While all genres benefit greatly from a catchy, no-nonsense title, there is no call to attention like those labels assigned to distribute the classic horror film. Even the moviegoer who attends only drama will never mistake Killer Clowns from Outer Space and Night of the Living Dead for anything other than gore fests. In fact, anything with “of the dead” in the title is a good indication of something terrible happening to a lot of people. The holidays are a time of peace, love and joy, unless you live in the worlds of Silent Night, Deadly Night or Black Christmas. And everyone knows when the 13th falls on a Friday, it’s bad luck, but when the big screen shrieks: Friday the 13th, bad luck is the least of our worries. The Mist, not to be confused with The Fog,, is currently rolling into our neighborhood theaters. Titles reveal themes and The Mist clues you that something serious is about to happen and it involves heavy precipitation. You don’t expect to walk into that theater and see children dancing around singing “Let’s go play in the mist!” Movies with “The” titles are often really, really bad. Those aren’t just birds…they’re THE Birds. Yes, that ring is very lovely, but it’s nothing compared to THE Ring. THE Blob is not just your loveable, big-boned friend! And, has there ever been a good omen? Not for Robert Thorn in THE Omen. (Both of them!) Look out it’s The Grudge, The Hunger, The Ghoul, The Messengers, The Amityville Horror. These are all bad. Run. Now. Posters sell movies when they carry the code words. Consider: Demons, Zombie Nation, Evil Dead, Dead Alive and Night of the Creeps -- not titles from the Merchant/Ivory collection. A Nightmare on Elm Street will not be pleasant. The list goes on and on. If you open your local newspaper and find the show times for Gone Baby Gone, you might not know what to expect. But when you flip through the same paper and read Lake Dead is playing, you know it’s horror time and if you’re looking for some blood, guts, and scares…then welcome home - you’ve been expected. http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/11/titles-that-tell.php http://boxoffice.com/distribution/2007/11/titles-that-tell.php Distribution black christmas distribution friday 13 lake dead night of living dead the fog the mist titles Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:00:00 -0800