My Turn to be KW
KW likes to write letters to journalists who say things that either don't consider the whole story or say things that are completely wrong, and for months now I've merely used this forum to do the same thing. But now, Entertainment Weekly has just pissed me off--royally. In this weekend's issue, there's another box office slump article. It is an article that actually goes so far in its case that it actually disproves the point that people aren't going to the movies. Go ahead, read it. Here's my response to the magazine:
Your magazine continues to perpetuate misleading information about this year�s so-called �slump� in box office numbers. Besides the continued, ridiculous comparisons to last year, which made a record $9.4 billion from a record 551 releases, 3 of which are among the top 10 moneymakers of all time, now you have writers providing �evidence� that actually disproves the case rather than enforces it. Joshua Rich provides a hit list of films, even going as far as to provide examples of bad films, which made tons of money. Sure, this is an answer to the excuse of �bad product equals bad box office� but it also leaves a glaring question: How does this prove that people aren�t going to the movies? (Answer: It doesn�t).
He then somehow doesn�t buy the Passion of the Christ argument. Go ahead; name the last February release to make over $370 million (Answer: It�s the only one to even reach as much as $170 million). How in the world does that not factor into the $500 million comparative �deficit?� He then compares that movie�s grosses to Star Wars: Episode III�sure, go ahead and use the biggest movie of the year to prove that somehow that movie cancels out the other one, and I�ll introduce you to Shrek 2 and Spider-Man 2. This analysis always fails to take in account that 2004 set box office records, that it set the bar way too high for this nonsense about a slump. And the �miracle� Rich refers to may indeed be coming with the influx of huge family films during the holiday season. The real miracle is that this year�s box office is only $500 million behind, considering the number of remakes and unasked-for sequels. And with box office likely to be near or above $9 billion at the end of the year, how exactly is this industry suffering?
The answer, of course, is that it isn't. It's a total lie. It's like being in The Matrix. There's been a lot of discussion as to why this year isn't as good as last year's, but nothing I have seen bothers to ask why that matters. If the film industry was losing money, and they were about to fold because of these numbers, then that would be news. But none of the big studios are in danger of needing to close shop. Far from it. Someone needs to tell me why this story is a story at all.
posted by Chris @ 10/29/2005 08:39:00 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Good letter. I hope they print it in their "to the editor" section. I honestly don't even think that EW knows what point they're trying to make about movies (they suck, no one's going, we're not making as much as last year). They just wanna have something to say. Good job pointing out their wayward logic.
I have to ask too: what's their corporate angle? I mean, they're owned by AOL/Time Warner, who also owns a film studio. So...what's the angle? I am not in favor of censorship, by any means, but shouldn't someone at Time Warner call the magazine and say, "Hey, you're not making any sense on this issue...you're confusing people. And what's worse...you're perpetuating a myth that no one's going to the movies...which might make other people stay away from the movies...which hurts us all."
Just idiots. I'm glad you're on this issue, Chris, or I'd have to write something too. As it is...you said it pretty much perfectly.
My point is, though, is that there is no slump. It's an absolute fabrication when you look at the real evidence (i.e., not the media).
I understand and appreciate the idea of people not wanting to go to a movie for such and such a reason (and there are many), and there is also no doubt that it has CONTRIBUTED to falling sales...but a slump? A year that is going to reach around $9 Billion is a slump? Says who?
The weekly percentage drops are a completely incorrect method by which to measure this industry. For instance, let's say week 1, year 1 makes $80 million, and it continues to do so for 4 weeks (that's $320 million). Now, week 1, year 2 makes $75 million for 3 weeks (that's $225 million) and the next week makes $100 million, thereby beating the previous year ($325 million). Yet, for three weeks the media will be saying, "Box office in a slump."
At this point last year, 3 films I think truly made a difference had been released at this point (NOT including SHREK 2 and SPIDER-MAN 2, which incidentally, skyrocketed last year's take). PASSION OF THE CHRIST (2005 had no answer--although it's going to be, mark my words, CHRONICLES OF NARNIA), HARRY POTTER 3 (came out in the summer, whereas this year had to wait until November), and FAHRENHEIT 9/11, a DOCUMENTARY that made over $100 million (thanks to the election year). The closest 2005 has got to that is MARCH OF THE PENGUINS.
While I understand that there are people who are turned off by the theatre experience, it is by no means in trouble. Look at the real evidence.
Post a Comment
<< Home