Movie Marketing: Best and Worst of 2005

I still haven't seen all the movies I feel like I should have seen to make a Best and Worst list for actual movies, but now that 2005 is over I can comment on marketing and other aspects of movies this year. Soon to follow: Best and Worst Trailers of 2005, which JoBlo.com has already beaten me to, but I'm not taking his idea dammit.

First off, 2005 ended up with $8.8 billion, the lowest since 2001. The problem with that story is that it separated into two different stories. The media outlets who covered the box office slump this year decided to take it one step further and say that the drop comparitive to last year meant people were deciding not to go to movies anymore. This was an incredible logical leap when you consider the number of dollars that came in. Giving the media the benefit of the doubt, it's hard to fathom why, after 2004 had the largest amount of revenue ever, and the increase in revenue had been strong for 13 years, that it took 1 year for people to decide not to go to movies anymore. It was an alarmist stance, and Entertainment Weekly was the number one culprit, as far as the periodicals I read.

One thing is certain, even if I decided to go along with the media stance, that when you have three films in the last quarter of the year make over $200 million (Harry Potter is nearing $300 and Chronicles of Narnia will likely end up around that mark, while King Kong most certainly will hit around $250), those figures should turn you and the media around. If they don't, you are in the media for the wrong reasons as far as I'm concerned. You notice the shift in the media stance at the end of the year, though. Once they saw these returns, all they could grasp for was that they wouldn't be enough to beat 2004. Oh well. Maybe next year, huh?

One final jab at EW: In their end-of-year report they finally decided to say, "Well, the numbers we're seeing basically means that any reason you can come up with, it's really a little of everything." Meaning, people aren't going because they don't like the cell phones and ads and sticky floors of theatres, people aren't going because of the product, people aren't going because DVD's are better, and so on. They couldn't even decide on what the reason was. The reason was always simple--it was product, and how it was marketed. That leads to the remainder of this post.

Worst Marketing of the Year: Cinderella Man, Universal Pictures.

The movie pulled in a little over $61 (a little over $100 worldwide) million after it was released on June 3. It's still likely to be in my top 10 when I finally see everything. Think about all the gaffes made here. First off, Million Dollar Baby, a boxing movie, just won Best Picture some 4 months before this was released, which meant for another month or so, people were still watching the 2004 Best Picture after it won. Now, a couple of months later, Universal is unleashing another boxing drama on the public, one that is usually reserved for fall consideration, not summer escapism. Ultimately, people were not ready to watch this movie. The trailers were awful and slow, 2 1/2 minutes that seemed to go for 3 or 4. There's no doubt in my mind that Universal wanted to focus all of their energies on King Kong in the last half of the year. Add all of that together, then you have failure. This should have made another $40 million.

Dishonorable Mentions: Zathura, The Legend of Zorro, Sony Pictures














Actually, probably the bigger disappointment of the two I've mentioned. This is a family-themed movie that I was banking on being a quiet $100 million hit. But the marketing for this was horrible, and it made $28 million (only $32 worldwide) after its November 11 release and is a massive failure. Sony came out with teaser trailers nearly a year in advance, and they never built any momentum. When you come out with teasers that early, you need to give audiences a new bone to chew on every now and then. As such, the teasers kept playing and were quickly forgotten. Then, the name. Jumanji did well because there was Robin Williams. But the biggest name this movie had was Tim Robbins, and he couldn't help the awkwardly named Shawshank Redemption (nor could Morgan Freeman), and he's not exactly the face of family entertainment, either. You put Will Ferrell in this, it would have made $100 mil or close to it. I admire director Jon Favreau sticking to his guns and making a movie with some integrity (and the movie is very good, but there's a reason why people stayed away), but there were too many factors that kept customers from buying tickets.

The first, Mask of Zorro, was a huge hit...in 1998. It took 7 years to make the sequel, and Sony decides that the best thing to do with a forgotten franchise with actors who have stigmas attached to them that they didn't then is to drop this on October 28, against Saw II. This is hardly the time of year people are looking for an action film. Plus, no PG-13 heat meant this was aiming a little lower. A $75 million investment turned in $45 million domestically ($132 worldwide). Sony had a topsy-turvy year with the marketing minds. They had some clear hits but they didn't know what to do with these movies I've mentioned.

Best Marketing of the Year: Wedding Crashers, New Line Cinema

Budgeted at $40 million, this mid-summer comedy made over $200 million in the U.S. and another $73 mil in other parts of the world. The trailer promised all sorts of male hijinks, using comic actors hailing from the "Frat Pack" that has ruled hit comedies since Old School. Debate raged a little as to whether the movie delivered on this promise, because in the end, it was really just a boys-meet-girls, boys-lose-girls concept that didn't sustain two hours of hilarity. The movie was long by most comedy standards, but by appealing to men and women, it got people into theatres. The deal-sealer was Isla Fisher's pop-eyed psycho performance that was featured in all the trailers when she tells Vince Vaughn, "Never leave me...because I'd find you!" and then maniacally laughing. By all standards, Wedding Crashers is a smash.

Now I'm going to the honorable mentions. Now, there were a lot of success stories in 2005, despite what you might hear. I mean, the Disney marketing machine cannot be ignored when a movie like The Pacifier makes over $100 million, or Fox's fairly equal marketing skill with Fantastic Four ($150 mil domestic, over $320 worldwide). There were a ton of bad movies that made lots of money, and they deserve some kudos for getting people to watch. But I'm going to focus on the movies that were not even on the radar that came out of nowhere.

Honorable Mentions: The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Sony Pictures; March of the Penguins, Warner Independent

I saw no trailers for this until about a month before the September 9 release, but when the trailers hit, it was like, "Whoa! Where the hell did this come from?" Budgeted at $19 million, it went on to take around $75 million ($131 worldwide) through a great focus on the scary, distorted faces and nary a hint of the courtroom drama that it really is.



Documentaries haven't quite become mainstream choices, but they're getting close. Warner Independent took a summer relatively devoid of family pictures by storm when they unleashed this entertaining doc, featuring the drama (and comedy) of penguins trying to survive the cold and predators of Antarctica. Like most independents, good word of mouth built steam for this, and then they planted it in the perfect scenario to succeed. This also after penguins stole the show in Madagascar, Dreamworks's huge animated comedy that nearly took in $200 million earlier in the summer. When all was said and done, this film, which probably cost peanuts to make (Morgan Freeman's narration probably cost the most) went on to earn $77 million here (over $110 worldwide)

My next list will be Best and Worst Trailers of 2005.