One Troubled Production
Posted by Dirty Harry on Saturday, July 12th, 2008
However, like Valkyrie, Spike Jonze’s live action Where the Wild Things Are sounds like it really is in trouble:
Something has gone very wrong with “Where the Wild Things Are,” the much-anticipated Spike Jonze adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s classic children’s book. The $80-million film, with a script by literary cool-guy Dave Eggers, was filmed largely in the second half of 2006 in Australia. It was originally slated for release this October but got pushed back to the fall of 2009. Last week it disappeared entirely from the Warner Bros. release schedule, a sign of continuing troubles.
The script got good early reviews. But for months the Web has been pulsing with rumors and in-depth accounts that when Jonze had a research screening last December, kids in the audience were crying and fleeing the theater–not exactly the reaction the studio had hoped for. …
But can the movie be saved? And when will it ever see the light of day? I just spoke to Warners chief Alan Horn, who offered, for the first time, his studio’s side of the story.
Horn denied rumors that the studio has taken Jonze off the movie, saying he remains fully supportive of the filmmaker.
“We’ve given him more money and, even more importantly, more time for him to work on the film,” Horn said. “We’d like to find a common ground that represents Spike’s vision but still offers a film that really delivers for a broad-based audience. We obviously still have a challenge on our hands. But I wouldn’t call it a problem, simply a challenge. No one wants to turn this into a bland, sanitized studio movie. This is a very special piece of material and we’re just trying to get it right.”
Filed in General |
Katoon 12 Jul 2008 at 4:28 pm 1What did they expect? Dave Eggers and Spike Jonze are veritable founts of too-cool-for-school cynicism. And that is precisely the wrong attitude to bring to this material. Like I always say, studio executives would rather be hip and fail, than square and succeed. Sigh.
abeon 12 Jul 2008 at 4:55 pm 2“Like I always say, studio executives would rather be hip and fail, than square and succeed. Sigh.”
Are you kidding me? Hollywood executives are not immune from the consequences of their movies failing or succeeding–at the end of the day they have to care about the bottom line and if that means being “square” then so be it. This is why Hollywood produces so much trash every year and why Jonze is not getting carte blanche.
Jake Was Hereon 12 Jul 2008 at 5:31 pm 3I keep getting Dave Eggers and David Foster Wallace mixed up. No biggie, though, as they seem to publish similar crap.
pageivon 12 Jul 2008 at 5:52 pm 4Kids crying and running from the theater? Sounds like my kind of movie!
Katoon 12 Jul 2008 at 5:52 pm 5Abe: Hm. So that’s why Hollywood makes one anti-war movie after the other, despite every single one of them bombing at the box office. Because they’re just thinking of the bottom line.
alexdroogon 12 Jul 2008 at 6:00 pm 6“Dave Eggers… veritable founts of too-cool-for-school cynicism”
Huh? Granted I’ve only read “A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius” and “You Shall Know Our Velocity”, and that was a few years ago, but would you care to explain where I’ve missed this “too-cool-for-school cynicism”, particularly the “too-cool-for-school” part?
abeon 12 Jul 2008 at 6:50 pm 7Kato: First off, I doubt the scale on which that these anti-war films tanked is that severe–at least from the perspective of the people financing them. For instance, consider “Rendition.” Box-Office Mojo reports that it’s worldwide take was $26,612,477–and it’s production budget about $27 million, plus, say, another ten million for promotion. but in the coming years I am sure the film will be able to recoup that ten million as the film is shown on tv/premium networks–not to forget DVD sales.
Now consider “In The Valley of Elah”–again, it did horribly in the US but it’s worldwide take was $28 million–on a budget of $23 million. I don’t think it was advertised heavily and I don’t know how it did on dvd–again, not a box office smash but hardly a failure from the perspective of the studio.
“Jarhead” took in $62,658,220 domestically and $34,231,778 foreign, on a budget of 72 million. Whatever it cost to promote the film, and whatever the dvd sales were, I’m pretty sure that whoever financed it still managed to make money.
I will give you that De Palma filmed backed by Mark Cuban tanked. But was it even released anywhere? Also: De Palma’s art films don’t make much money usually anyway. Remember “Femme Fatale”? Excellent film, horrible Box office take.
In short, studio execs are still businessmen above all else–even if they have their political biases.
Katoon 12 Jul 2008 at 6:50 pm 8Maybe cynicism wasn’t quite the right word; irony is more precise. Don’t get me wrong, I actually like some of Eggers’ writing, in particular, “A Heartbreaking Work.” But the work of his I’ve seen (even that title) is rife with cool irony. Are you familiar with his magazine (and publishing house) McSweeney’s? I find some of the writing there pretty amusing, but it fairly bursts with sarcasm and irony. And Eggers drops phrases like “meta-narrative” with alarming frequency. The New Republic called Eggers the “father of post-postmodern half-irony.” Maybe that sounds pretty cool, but it’s also terribly distancing (i.e., “too-cool-for-school”). And it’s certainly nothing a child could fathom, let alone enjoy.
[IMH]on 12 Jul 2008 at 7:27 pm 9I’m no defender of Dave “You Shall Know My Tortured Metaphors” Eggars, but from what I’ve read, he and Jonze delivered a movie that was very true to the spirit of the book.
Sendak’s book is about conquering childhood fears… and for that to be effective, the scary parts have got to be, you know, scary.
When there were rumors of Jonze being replaced, I was ready to give up, but this first official position by WB gives me hope that they’re simply trying to improve the movie, not change it wholesale.
Having discussed the situation with a very conservative mother of four young children, she absolutely got it, and had no trouble believing that the studio would be scared to death of a faithful adaptation.
Sharpshinyon 12 Jul 2008 at 7:28 pm 10Hiring a “literary cool-guy” to write a children’s film was probably the first of many mistakes here.
Lloydon 12 Jul 2008 at 7:31 pm 11Abe: “Hollywood executives are not immune from the consequences of their movies failing … I’m pretty sure that whoever financed it still managed to make money”
(Beg pardon for the conflation of quotes.)
It somehow sounds like an insurance issue. Insure the movie in case of a loss, then make sure there is one by producing a horrible movie. Insurance payout goes only to the Hollywood executive and no points to anyone else.
I wonder if that plot has been filmed yet? (sarcasm).
Carolynon 12 Jul 2008 at 7:32 pm 12Here’s from the review: “The movie’s big problem? The boy, played by newcomer Max Records, is almost entirely unlikable, coming off as more mean-spirited and bratty than mischievous.”
That’s hilarious! For years, I’ve had a grudge against Hollywood for thinking bratty kids are cute. They’re NOT. They’re brats and I want to slap them silly - but slap even harder the damned directors and producers who for some unearthly reason think I would want to pay good money to see a little shit annoy the hell out of me on screen.
So this is too funny for words. Finally, Hollywood is getting kicked in the box office by its own brat. What a hoot!
Bobon 12 Jul 2008 at 7:40 pm 13I can’t say how happy this makes me!
As a child, I instinctively hated “Where the Wild Things Are,” sensing in it some prototypically liberal themes like anti-authoritarianism as self expression, and non-conformity as an implicit “good.” It’s the same “naiveté as wisdom” garbage as most of Dr. Seuss’ works. I still hate it. There are hundreds of other, much more worthy and edifying books for children.
How typical that liberals would set out to make hundreds of millions by indulging their self-gratifying nostalgia — for “the children” — and turn it into another overblown homage to themselves.
mido505on 12 Jul 2008 at 8:47 pm 14Abe:
I am afraid that you demonstrate a faulty understanding of film economics. Rule of thumb is that 50 percent of reported box office take goes to the exhibitors, i.e. the theaters. So, using your numbers:
Rendition - world wide gross, $26,612,477.
Budget, $27,000,000 + $10,000,000 for promotion, total $37,000,000.
Revenue to producers $13,306,238.50.
Loss, $23,693,761.50.
In The Valley of Elah - world wide gross, $28,000,000.
Budget, $23,000,000 + say $5,000,000 for promotion, total $28,000,000.
Revenue to producers, $14,000,000.
Loss, $14,000,000.
Jarhead - world wide gross $96,889,998.
Budget, $72,000,000 + a conservative $20,000,000 for promotion, total $92,000,000.
Revenue to producers, $48,444.999.
Loss, $43,555,001.
None of these numbers include deductions for gross points given to various stars/directors, etc. Movies like Rendition and Elah could only keep those budgets low by deferring salaries and by giving away points in lieu of big up front pay checks. So the losses to the producers are probably worse than these numbers suggest. Ancillary sales will close the gap somewhat, but not enough to make these into blockbusters. Those Rendition action figures aren’t exactly flying off the shelves…
maatkareon 12 Jul 2008 at 8:51 pm 15Oh my God Bob-lighten up! “Where the Wild Things Are” was a fun romp for kids who don’t want to go to bed! You could easily argue it’s conservative–the wild land is civilized by the savvy westerner who comes to appreciate the boundries set down by his loving parents. Bless you for being the 1% of kids who went to bed without a fuss. The producers didn’t set out to butcher a classic–successful kid adaptations are a license to print money, and they luv money. But they picked the wrong team and a bad actor. (And sometimes you don’t know how bad until the cameras roll.)Didn’t “Monster House” make the same mistake of being too scary for its audience? Sometimes you get lucky–cool indie director Christopher Nolan has remade Batman into a powerhouse. John Favreau went from indies to launching an amazing Iron Man franchise. Sometimes the little indie dude is ready for the big leagues. Clearly Jonze ain’t, and the project lacks a strong enough producer to get things back on track. Which is a shame, because if you didn’t know better, that photo look awesome. As much as I like live action, it sounds like they should’ve stuck to CGI for this one.
Katoon 12 Jul 2008 at 9:23 pm 16midi505, actually, the losses are even greater, because that 50% rule only applies to domestic gross — for foreign gross, the percentage return is even smaller, closer to 25% (depending on a lot of factors, of course). And Abe left off several other costly anti-war bombs, like:
Lions for Lambs ($35 million production budget, probably another $15-20 million for marketing, vs. $15 million domestic gross, another $47 million foreign)
Stop-Loss (production budget alone was $25 million; domestic and foreign gross, combined, was $10.9 million)
War, Inc. (production budget “unavailable,” but must have been several million; domestic and foreign gross = a whopping $485,448).
The hits just keep on coming….
whiskeyon 12 Jul 2008 at 9:29 pm 17Abe, let’s count how wrong you are:
Rendition cost 27 million, plus likely $30 million (not ten) for promotion US domestic. It’s domestic gross was about 9 million, of which $4 million was the opening weekend. So the Studio gets $3 million the opening weekend (75% of weekend receipts) and 50% of the remaining $5 million, which is $2 million. That’s $5 million in domestic receipts.
Rendition’s $16 million foreign box office ACCRUES TO THE EXHIBITORS, not the studio, which has print, advertising, dubbing and other costs, and likely sees only 45% or less of foreign revenue. Around $7.2 million.
By my counts, current revenue: 12.2 million, against $57 million in current outlays.
Anyone expecting DVD sales to “fix” sucky box office is dreaming. It’s not 2000 anymore, and DVD sales are falling year after year, as are margins. AMERICAN GANGSTER was for sale at LA area swap meets according to the WSJ two weeks before it opened, at $5 a pop. Piracy puts a floor on what studios can charge, and demand anyway is not there. In any case DVD promotions are just as expensive as movie promotions are now. Movies like “Pirates of the Caribbean” will do well revenue wise, these crappy anti-war movies will be selling for $5 at your local supermarket.
That’s just for Rendition. You could do the same calcs for Elah, and the other anti-war crap that Hollywood execs greenlight. Of course they lose money. And of course the execs are not accountable.
Execs depend on not successes with audiences and making money, but relationships with power-brokers in Hollywood: Agencies, big shot directors and producers, a few “mega-stars” who Hollywood loves but audiences do not (examples: Brad Pitt and George Clooney).
Oops, Mido505 said it better than me! Yes don’t forget about points. That will cut revenue even more.
abeon 12 Jul 2008 at 9:36 pm 18mido–you’re right, I did forget to account for the exhibitor’s take. I was however aware though that in the first couple of weeks their cut isn’t as high as you suggest:
http://www.themovieblog.com/2007/10/economics-of-the-movie-theater-where-the-money-goes-and-why-it-costs-us-so-much
This is why theaters charge so high for popcorn/soda–they aren’t making much from tickets.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle–these movies aren’t tremendous financial successes but they aren’t the outright box office failures that the right wing would have us believe.
Moreover, contra DH, the success of a film like “Vantage Point” doesn’t necessarily stem from its pro-american stance but rather from the fact that it’s a THRILLER above all else, thoroughly advertising itself as entertainment. “Rendition” and “Elah” were heavy movies and their advertisements suggested as much.
johnmark7on 12 Jul 2008 at 9:47 pm 19Kids scared? Fleeing?
Hmm, anyone ever seen the Wizard of Oz? One of the most terrifying movies for kids ever made. Green nasty witch. Flying monkeys? Omigod.
Bad dreams for kids for years.
Bobon 12 Jul 2008 at 10:00 pm 20:::looks at “bob” in #13:::
….That’s odd, I figured I was the only Bob, or at least that wordpress didn’t allow for duplicate names (though I was always surprised no one else had grabbed such a common name.) Hm. Well, in any case, I’m the Bob more of you are familiar with, not the Bob who posted #13. (I may have to get another tag now…) Anyhoo…
I’d SEVERELY doubt that the problem is that Jonze’s script is too “cynical” - if anything the opposite is probably true. Studios WANT family films to all be “Shrek” right now - lot’s of ribbing of genre cliches, lots of 4th-wall breaking, lots of pop-irony. That’s not really Jonze’s bag - he’s a fantasist mainly, look at most of his other work. He likely turned in something that wasn’t too-cool-for-the-room ENOUGH. The notion that kids were scared/sad at the screening is probably a sign of this… it’s a story about a bratty kid who runs off and lives with monsters, thinks it’s swell but then decides he wants to go home and faces resistance from said monsters - that’s SCARY, to a kid, and probably a little sad. That the target-audience had a genuine emotional response and the studio thinks that’s a BAD thing tells you a lot about how hard it is to make a great film for children in this climate.
Another problem might be that Jonze made a film that’s genuinely too cerebral and MAYBE even too profoundly frightening for kids. Jonze is of roughly the same generation as myself, and what unifies “our” relationship with the pop culture of our youth is that we’re the first generation that openly rebeled against the idea that certain stories, tokens etc. absolutely HAD to go “live in the attic” at a certain point. This is how Transformers, a line of toys for small boys, can stage a comeback 20 years later as a big-budget movie aimed primarily at guys in their early-30s for whom this is a long-time-in-coming reconnection with a building-block of their psyche. I’d say it’s wholly plausible that Jonze, given the reigns of “Wild Things,” treated it as the holy-writ it remains as in the mind’s-eye of his/my generation and maybe made something so “cerebral” that it’s better appreciated by Gen-Xers who grew up having it read to them than a younger audience that might be coming to it for the first time… which’d kinda be missing the point a little.
alexdroogon 12 Jul 2008 at 10:01 pm 21Kato:
Understood, and those are valid points. I personally really enjoyed “A Heartbreaking Work…” but not so much “You Shall Know Our Velocity!” which hasn’t exactly made me search out his McSweeney’s stuff. I’ve read good things about “What is the What”, though.
And from what I’ve seen of some leaked footage of this movie, the fault may lie more withSpike Jonze. The tone just seemed too adult. To paraphrase Sendak: If a child doesn’t like the movie, throw it in the trash.
Katoon 12 Jul 2008 at 11:05 pm 22Abe - This is math, not postmodern literature, so the truth is pretty cut and dry. Look again at the figures midi505, Templar, and myself posted earlier. And “Rendition” and “Elah” were not the only anti-war movies to bomb. What about Lions for Lambs, starring the biggest box-office star in the world? What about Stop-Loss? The ads for both were ubiquitous, and the latter was marketed heavily to teens, the biggest group of filmgoers. (It was a co-production of MTV, if memory serves.) The one-sheet was a picture of heartthrob Ryan Phillippe lounging on a car hood. And still, ka-boom.
(Oh, and I neglected to include in my earlier list “Grace is Gone,” starring John Cusack. Total domestic gross: $50k. That is not a typo.)
whiskeyon 13 Jul 2008 at 1:04 am 23Kato — the marketing of Ryan Phillipe, MTV heartthrob, is even more evidence that Execs don’t have a clue and don’t care about profitability.
Now, who’s the biggest group that makes movies profitable? Men/boys 15-34 really.
How many of them even can stand Ryan Phillipe? Maybe about 3, and that includes Phillipe’s cousin.
Guys don’t like the pretty boys and never have. If you sent Ryan Phillipe, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Ashton Kutcher to a long-term mission to Pluto taking, oh say 100 years (of suspended animation) I suspect most men in America would stand up and cheer. Forget Heroism deficit Hollywood has a male deficit.
Guys won’t see a movie with a bunch of pretty boys pouting around and posing like a gay porn ad. Geeky guy demonstrates heroism and gets hot girl? Well now you’re talking.
This isn’t rocket science, execs knew going in this movie would bomb and promoed the heck out of it anyway, because of it’s politics and how it would get them in good with power brokers.
Cambiason 13 Jul 2008 at 6:11 am 24Would someone please explain how and why ANYONE can think a picture book with 300 words of text TOTAL can be made into a feature film? You’d have to pad it mercilessly to make a 10-minute short. You’d have to include musical numbers and really long credits to fill a half-hour network slot with commercial breaks.
One would think that the failures of the recent Dr. Seuss feature films — and all of Seuss’s books are Dickensian in length compared to WTWTA — would clue people in that YOU CAN’T MAKE A FEATURE FILM OUT OF A 28-PAGE PICTURE BOOK!
mido505on 13 Jul 2008 at 6:12 am 25I’ve done a little research, and there seems to be a lot of innaccurate information on the net about movie economics. Here is a SEC filing for Regal Entertainment group: http://sec.edgar-online.com/2002/04/19/0000912057-02-015824/Section10.asp
If you divide film rental and advertising costs by revenue for admissions, you get 55 percent. Now, film rental costs are going to go to the studio, but advertising costs are not, so at max the studios are getting 55 percent of box office take, with the actual figure somewhat below that, probably the 50 percent rule of thumb commonly used.
These front loaded numbers we see bandied about only apply to movies where the producer has some leverage, i.e. George Lucas and the Star Wars franchise. Since these pictures are expected to have staying power, the studios are not getting more revenue, they are just getting more of their share early in the game.
Kato is right that foreign gross is even more of a problem for the studios. Foreign rights are often sold for a fixed amount, so the studio cannot benefit on the upside.
As a side note, concession revenue seems to account for 27 percent of sales. While cost of goods sold for concessions is low at 14 percent, other theater operating expenses (wages, fixed costs, etc.) are monstrously high and eat up most of that profit.
mjkon 13 Jul 2008 at 6:42 am 26Abe -
You forgot to say that the movie makers will make their money back on any and all losses suffered in the theater from DVD sales and repeated showings on HBO or TNT or some such crap.
That’s the other rationalization that is used, right?
Carlitoson 13 Jul 2008 at 7:30 am 27Rule of thumb; movie has to make twice it’s production budget to break even. You do the math.
jicon 13 Jul 2008 at 8:43 am 28The reviews of the most recent DreamWorks Animation movie, Kung Fu Panda, note that it contains little of none of those elements. And yet, it has been a huge domestic and international hit.
jicon 13 Jul 2008 at 8:56 am 29little or none…
Stickwick Staperson 13 Jul 2008 at 10:03 am 30This may explain some of Records’ unlikability
Nothing wrong with vegetarianism per se, but this set off my “sanctimonious twerp” alarm.
Flashon 13 Jul 2008 at 12:17 pm 31Maybe they should have made it a Muppet movie. A child has to be a mega wuss to run at the sight of Sweetums and almost any Muppet would be better liked by kids and grownups then most child actors.
Oh well, too late now.
Bobon 13 Jul 2008 at 7:46 pm 32jic
“The reviews of the most recent DreamWorks Animation movie, Kung Fu Panda, note that it contains little of none of those elements.”
I’m assuming you mean aside from the fact that the entire movie was a parody of a film genre?
jicon 13 Jul 2008 at 9:10 pm 33I haven’t seen it, so I can’t say that it isn’t a parody of martial arts movies (as opposed to what it seems to be, a martial arts movie aimed at children). But even if it is, that isn’t necessarily the same as the snide postmodernism you were talking about.
Robert Lindseyon 14 Jul 2008 at 7:45 am 34I don’t care what anyone says, this classic book should not be made into a movie. At all. Ever.