Could DVR Usage Portend a Movie's Failure?
Mr. Hole the Magnificent
"Puss in Boots"
by Corwin Neuse
An interesting trend evidently just picked up on by Hollywood
intelligentsia:
Apparently TiVo and DVR users have been skipping the trailer for "The
Three Musketeers" at an astonishing 20% rate. (Which seems astonishing
to us only because it's so low. What's going on with the other 80%?
Have they fallen into comas? Should we alert the paramedics?)
Various studio executives and accountants and advertising firms are
all atwitter about these numbers, as they see them as portend the
film's ultimate doom. (Really? Isn't the film's seemingly atrocious
quality more of a harbinger of its inevitable failure?)
In contrast, only 11.7% of DVR users skipped ads for "Puss in Boots,"
which suggests that it'll either be way more successful than "The
Three Musketeers"—no surprise—or that audiences are generally much
more forgiving of terrible quality when kittens are involved. As way
of proof, I offer the attached photo of a kitten in a yarn Gryffindoor
hoodie. Or something. What is that thing, anyway? Chances are, most of
you will be too smitten by said feline to be outraged that I really
haven't told you anything you didn't already know. Bad movies tend to
do badly at the box-office. This is not news.
What do you think? Will "The Three Musketeers" be the laughably
preposterous, haphazardly thrown-together, giant festering ball of
vaguely warmed-over garbage that it's trailer suggests?
Are DVR usage patters useful tools in gauging a film's potential
success? Or is Hollywood over-thinking things here, succumbing to the
sweet, succulent temptation of "statistical analysis" so romanticized
in the recent "Moneyball?"
http://social.entertainment.msn.com/movies/blogs/the-hitlist-blogpost.aspx?post=858e89bf-9ace-4053-bf44-a56d0f7b02da
nick
Another possibility: anticipation. People are so looking forward to
seeing The Three Musketeers, they want to savor every single frame and
don't want their cinematic bliss lessened by having already seen the
trailer. Like when you're really looking forward to a CD download so
much you don't even listen to the 30 second samples.
Professor Bubba
<b66d97de-cbd5-44b4...@dk6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Mr. Hole the Magnificent <classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are DVR usage patters useful tools in gauging a film's potential
> success? Or is Hollywood over-thinking things here, succumbing to the
> sweet, succulent temptation of "statistical analysis" so romanticized
> in the recent "Moneyball?"
I'd like to see someone actually track this, instead of guessing at it.
It would seem to me that if someone skips an ad for a movie, then
they're not really interested in going to see it (or stream it or
whatever), just as they skip over ads for certain prescription drugs
and other things they don't need or want.
I wonder why somebody thought we needed yet another version of The
Three Musketeers.
Bill Anderson
> TiVo viewers skipping "The Three Musketeers" but like "Footloose" and
> "Puss in Boots"
>
what's been recorded on a TiVo hard drive? Seriously? And can (does?)
my cable company track what I'm skipping when I watch something I've
recorded on my cable box DVR?
And how about Netflix? If they're tracking what I'm watching, why did
they ask me if I enjoyed RUBBER when they ought to know I watched 15
minutes and turned it off?
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
Arthur Lipscomb
> In article
> <b66d97de-cbd5-44b4...@dk6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Mr. Hole the Magnificent<classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Are DVR usage patters useful tools in gauging a film's potential
>> success? Or is Hollywood over-thinking things here, succumbing to the
>> sweet, succulent temptation of "statistical analysis" so romanticized
>> in the recent "Moneyball?"
>
>
> I'd like to see someone actually track this, instead of guessing at it.
> It would seem to me that if someone skips an ad for a movie, then
> they're not really interested in going to see it (or stream it or
> whatever), just as they skip over ads for certain prescription drugs
> and other things they don't need or want.
>
I'll often skip previews for certain dramas and mysteries that I know
I'm going to see anyway and don't want spoiled by commercials that give
the entire plot away.
> I wonder why somebody thought we needed yet another version of The
> Three Musketeers.
released a generation ago, it's time for another one.
Tom
Tom
Bill Anderson
(And I suppose that reference is two generations old. Sigh.)
Rich
news:b66d97de-cbd5-44b4...@dk6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> TiVo viewers skipping "The Three Musketeers" but like "Footloose" and
> "Puss in Boots"
>
> by Corwin Neuse
>
> An interesting trend evidently just picked up on by Hollywood
> intelligentsia:
>
> Apparently TiVo and DVR users have been skipping the trailer for "The
> Three Musketeers" at an astonishing 20% rate.
shawn
All of them can record what you watch to as fine a degree as they
want. However that doesn't mean they do. Most just aggregate all of
the data together so they know X number of boxes watched show Y but
they have no idea that you turned off Rubber after 15 minutes but may
have watched all of the latest episode of Jersey Shore. Eventually
they may use that info to control what advertising you see but not
yet.
TBerk
> I wonder why somebody thought we needed yet another version of The
> Three Musketeers.
Décolletage maybe?
TBerk
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
TBerk <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 11, 7:49�pm, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I wonder why somebody thought we needed yet another version of The
>> Three Musketeers.
>
>
>
He was the fourth one, right?
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
trotsky
likely Return on Investment.
trotsky
Out of the other side of your mouth you complain about "panic ads". Do
movies make you afraid in general?
Obveeus
"shawn" <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 23:23:56 -0400, Bill Anderson
> <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/11/2011 10:27 PM, Mr. Hole the Magnificent wrote:
>>> TiVo viewers skipping "The Three Musketeers" but like "Footloose" and
>>> "Puss in Boots"
>>>
>>
>>Can the Lords of TiVo really track who's watching and who's skipping
>>what's been recorded on a TiVo hard drive? Seriously? And can (does?)
>>my cable company track what I'm skipping when I watch something I've
>>recorded on my cable box DVR?
>>
>>And how about Netflix? If they're tracking what I'm watching, why did
>>they ask me if I enjoyed RUBBER when they ought to know I watched 15
>>minutes and turned it off?
>
> All of them can record what you watch to as fine a degree as they
> want. However that doesn't mean they do. Most just aggregate all of
> the data together so they know X number of boxes watched show Y but
> they have no idea that you turned off Rubber after 15 minutes
turning off and tells you that info for each film...which I guess is very
helpful for people that watch films over multiple sittings rather than all
at once. The reason to ask you how you liked it is perfectly valid as there
may be a good reason why you turned it off (cringe-worthy exploding bunnies
and such) and you may want to share that info by giving the film a low
score. RUBBER, for example, isn't a good film, but it is mesmerizing and is
thus an excellent example for budding filmmakers as to how to hook an
audience.
Obveeus
"Mr. Hole the Magnificent" <classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Apparently TiVo and DVR users have been skipping the trailer for "The
>Three Musketeers" at an astonishing 20% rate. (Which seems astonishing
>to us only because it's so low. What's going on with the other 80%?
>Have they fallen into comas? Should we alert the paramedics?)
preview so as to not spoil my paid moviegoing experience. If I don't have
any plans to see a film in the theater, then I have no reason to avoid the
preview...watching it can help let me know if I should add it to the Netflix
queue or if I should avoid it altogether, but at least know something
regarding what it is about in case the subject comes up in conversation. Of
course, the rest of you do everything wrong, so yes...it makes sense that
you all intently watch previews for films you plan to see and avoid previews
for film you aren't going to watch.
Arthur Lipscomb
> On 10/11/2011 11:28 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>> On 10/11/2011 7:49 PM, Professor Bubba wrote:
>
>>> I wonder why somebody thought we needed yet another version of The
>>> Three Musketeers.
>>
>> My guess is it's a proven money maker. And since the last one was
>> released a generation ago, it's time for another one.
>
old so close enough.
They seem to come out with a new Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake
every 15 to 20 years or so. Spider-man (and Death at a Funeral) not
withstanding, 15 to 20 years seems to be about the time-frame for
remakes and reboots (of English speaking movies).
I'm still a bit stunned they are now remaking movies that *I* remember
seeing when they were first released theatrically. Remakes are what you
do with old movies from the 40s 50s and 60s not the 80s! I just hope
they remake Back to the Future in 2015, complete with the now real
self-lacing shoes.
> 1993 is a "generation ago"? I'm coming, Elizabeth!
>
> (And I suppose that reference is two generations old. Sigh.)
>
Sanford and Son is from the 70s which makes it Generation X. Since then
there has been Generation Y and Generation Z, yep, two generations ago. ;-)
Don't feel too old, they brought back Tron, Tin Tin, "where's the
beef?". These days everything old is new again.
For a fun trip down memory lane check out:
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic
moviePig
wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > Mr. Hole the Magnificent<classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Are DVR usage patters useful tools in gauging a film's potential
> >> success? Or is Hollywood over-thinking things here, succumbing to the
> >> sweet, succulent temptation of "statistical analysis" so romanticized
> >> in the recent "Moneyball?"
>
> > I'd like to see someone actually track this, instead of guessing at it.
> > It would seem to me that if someone skips an ad for a movie, then
> > they're not really interested in going to see it (or stream it or
> > whatever), just as they skip over ads for certain prescription drugs
> > and other things they don't need or want.
>
> While I tend to watch ads for certain special effects extravaganzas,
> I'll often skip previews for certain dramas and mysteries that I know
> I'm going to see anyway and don't want spoiled by commercials that give
> the entire plot away.
>
> > I wonder why somebody thought we needed yet another version of The
> > Three Musketeers.
>
> My guess is it's a proven money maker. And since the last one was
> released a generation ago, it's time for another one.
it's interesting to contemplate what *does* invite a remake. E.g.,
will we ever see (or want) a redo of GONE WITH THE WIND, STAR WARS,
SOUND OF MUSIC, or E.T.? Sure, ultimately remakes happen for profit.
But, for that, it's not clear to me what qualities catch the eye. (I
mean... FOOTLOOSE?)
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Bill Steele
>
> People who were not yet born when it was released are now 17 to 18 years
> old so close enough.
>
> They seem to come out with a new Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake
> every 15 to 20 years or so. Spider-man (and Death at a Funeral) not
> withstanding, 15 to 20 years seems to be about the time-frame for
> remakes and reboots (of English speaking movies).
new audience, just re-release the original.
Mason Barge
<bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>In article
><b66d97de-cbd5-44b4...@dk6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>Mr. Hole the Magnificent <classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Are DVR usage patters useful tools in gauging a film's potential
>> success? Or is Hollywood over-thinking things here, succumbing to the
>> sweet, succulent temptation of "statistical analysis" so romanticized
>> in the recent "Moneyball?"
>
>
>I'd like to see someone actually track this, instead of guessing at it.
>It would seem to me that if someone skips an ad for a movie, then
>they're not really interested in going to see it (or stream it or
>whatever), just as they skip over ads for certain prescription drugs
>and other things they don't need or want.
for movies I'm interested in seeing, and skip (either after sampling or
totally) previews of things I have absolutely no interest in.
>I wonder why somebody thought we needed yet another version of The
>Three Musketeers.
devil's in the details.
This one lost me when I perceived (correctly or not) that the hook was a
new female swordfighting hero.
RichA
>
> >> TiVo viewers skipping "The Three Musketeers" but like "Footloose" and
> >> "Puss in Boots"
>
> >> by Corwin Neuse
>
> >> An interesting trend evidently just picked up on by Hollywood
> >> intelligentsia:
>
> >> Apparently TiVo and DVR users have been skipping the trailer for "The
> >> Three Musketeers" at an astonishing 20% rate.
>
> > Good.
>
> Rich, why do you feel threatened when a movie is likely to make money?
> Out of the other side of your mouth you complain about "panic ads". Do
> movies make you afraid in general?
trailer?
Invid Fan
executives, makes any money from that. I actually like the way the BBC
use to do things: they'd make a TV episode and air it once, then never
show it again thus guaranteeing steady work for everyone involved. They
even restaged live productions instead of just showing the tape of last
week's version.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
Obveeus
"Bill Steele" <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> Disney is the only outfit that's seen the obvious. If there's a whole
> new audience, just re-release the original.
decision process for those films are not the people (children) being aimed
at the film. If the kids had a choice, they would likely want to see
another SpongeBob film...or Phineas and Ferb or whatever rather than Lion
King 3D.
Arthur Lipscomb
> On Oct 11, 11:28 pm, Arthur Lipscomb<art...@alum.calberkeley.org>
>
to come up with a new name or even just recycle The Thing from Another
World to avoid confusion.
this weekend and 3 MUSKETEERS the next,
> it's interesting to contemplate what *does* invite a remake. E.g.,
> will we ever see (or want) a redo of GONE WITH THE WIND, STAR WARS,
> SOUND OF MUSIC, or E.T.? Sure, ultimately remakes happen for profit.
> But, for that, it's not clear to me what qualities catch the eye. (I
> mean... FOOTLOOSE?)
>
> --
to a release of the original if they did that instead. Now Ghostbusters
on the other hand...I'm expecting the theater to be packed for the
re-release.
I think a big part of it is kids/teens becoming adults and remaking the
movies they liked when they were younger. Somebody has to *want* to do
a Gone With the Wind remake. And somebody has to see an audience for
it. With a movie like Gone With the Wind I don't see either being the
case. Star Wars and E.T. on the other hand we've already had plenty of
rip offs of those movies but we won't get a proper remake as long as
Lucas/Spielberg are alive and have any say in the matter.
Obveeus
"Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> I don't really see the appeal in Footloose either but then I wouldn't go
> to a release of the original if they did that instead.
just to hear Victorious remake 'Almost Paradise'.
nick
>
> With FOOTLOOSE and THE THING this weekend and 3 MUSKETEERS the next,
> it's interesting to contemplate what *does* invite a remake. E.g.,
> will we ever see (or want) a redo of GONE WITH THE WIND, STAR WARS,
> SOUND OF MUSIC, or E.T.?
There was a rumored remake of Gone with the Wind, Sergio Leone's
followup to Once Upon a Time in America, iirc. File under: too good
to be true, but we can contemplate the sheer awesomeness of what might
have been.
moviePig
I grovel at its mere contemplation. What was that other famously big
film that collapsed under the sheer weight of its ambition? Oh yeah,
Alejandro Jodorowsky's DUNE...
trotsky
Because you're an idiot? You mean with worldwide box office, DVD, and
TV rights they won't get a return on their investment? Really?
You sound like some pig ignorant weasel sitting in his underpants and
whining on Usenet.
trotsky
As if that's going to be as good as Michael Mann's "Steel Magnolias"
remake for the Lifetime Network.
Rich
news:OqidnXYo2qTEuwvT...@mchsi.com:
Not much if it's a piece of boring garbage. Even aiming it at people
like you.
Ken from Chicago
news:b66d97de-cbd5-44b4...@dk6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> TiVo viewers skipping "The Three Musketeers" but like "Footloose" and
> "Puss in Boots"
>
> by Corwin Neuse
>
> An interesting trend evidently just picked up on by Hollywood
> intelligentsia:
>
> Apparently TiVo and DVR users have been skipping the trailer for "The
> to us only because it's so low. What's going on with the other 80%?
> Have they fallen into comas? Should we alert the paramedics?)
>
> all atwitter about these numbers, as they see them as portend the
> film's ultimate doom. (Really? Isn't the film's seemingly atrocious
> quality more of a harbinger of its inevitable failure?)
>
> In contrast, only 11.7% of DVR users skipped ads for "Puss in Boots,"
> which suggests that it'll either be way more successful than "The
> Three Musketeers"�no surprise�or that audiences are generally much
> more forgiving of terrible quality when kittens are involved. As way
> of proof, I offer the attached photo of a kitten in a yarn Gryffindoor
> hoodie. Or something. What is that thing, anyway? Chances are, most of
> you will be too smitten by said feline to be outraged that I really
> haven't told you anything you didn't already know. Bad movies tend to
> do badly at the box-office. This is not news.
Cats rule!
> What do you think? Will "The Three Musketeers" be the laughably
> preposterous, haphazardly thrown-together, giant festering ball of
> vaguely warmed-over garbage that it's trailer suggests?
>
> Are DVR usage patters useful tools in gauging a film's potential
> success? Or is Hollywood over-thinking things here, succumbing to the
> sweet, succulent temptation of "statistical analysis" so romanticized
> in the recent "Moneyball?"
>
It's the execution, stupid.
Plenty of indie flicks do relatively well without blockbuster fx. Plenty of
movies with ... familiar ... stories can do well if visuals or other
compensating factors (e.g., music in a musical, fx in scifi, stunts in
action flix, landscapes panoramas in road trips, concept / world-building in
sf, twists and turns and teamwork in a caper flick, etc.). Plenty of star
vehicles do well with charismatic actors.
And films with a well-told tale with decent marketing and release timing can
do well.
-- Ken from Chicago
trotsky
As ever, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Bill Steele
<ecd41f01-cd67-40be...@t6g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> With FOOTLOOSE and THE THING this weekend and 3 MUSKETEERS the next,
> it's interesting to contemplate what *does* invite a remake. E.g.,
> will we ever see (or want) a redo of GONE WITH THE WIND, STAR WARS,
> SOUND OF MUSIC, or E.T.? Sure, ultimately remakes happen for profit.
> But, for that, it's not clear to me what qualities catch the eye. (I
> mean... FOOTLOOSE?)
We ought top make a distinction between a specific remake of a movie and
a movie based on a story that has been made into a movie before. I'm
assuming that Footloose is the former and Three Musketeers is the
latter, unless they are actually using the script of one of the earlier
versions.
If The Thing adheres to the original Campbell story it won't be a
remake.
The idea of a remake that identifies itself as a remake is fairly new.
In the heyday of the studio system it was common to recycle old scripts
and present them as new movies. Lots of musicals, in particular, were
based on earlier non-musical films. And I recall that the Esther
Williams movie Neptune's Daughter was a remake of an old black and white
movie from the 30s. Can't think of the title; what sticks in my mind was
that there was one swimming scene in the old movie that was replaced by
a song in the new one.
Thumper
wrote:
My wife's too young to remember the original "The Thing From Another
World" with James Arness.
Thumper
nick
> In article <ws21-6C1CAF.12485712102...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Bill
>
> Steele <w...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >In article <j74eav$ts...@dont-email.me>,
> when I first saw old classics like Gone With the Wind, Shane, Ben-Hur, The
> Bridge on the River Kwai. Even 1967's The Graduate was re-released in 1972.
>
> I guess all the studios except Disney gave up the practice because there's
> so many movies -- "major" and not-so-major -- coming out these days. It's
> at least 300 a year in the US alone isn't it.
It stopped with VHS.
Flasherly
>
> The idea of a remake that identifies itself as a remake is fairly new.
Oh, really. . . .a somewhat humbling if not compromised perspective
from the point of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, that very few are
inherently endowed with a distinctiveness of such succinct caliber to
definitively create virtuosity. At what level and interplay from
established forms prior, as well as not, in the case of celluloid,
whether by direct allusions consequent to formulaic stories adopted
from prior ages. Relatively, then, is juxtaposed by present
incarnations for which means to claim as value coincident to ascribe
to individual worth, in measures given by acceptance of artistic
devotion modernity connotes, regardless of how obtained withal and
integral to truthfulness or faithful from prior accord embellished
within the story. Tradition, as such, is not within the underpinning
of bastilles of liberal democracy, in its least common fractious
appeal to denominators of pocketed insularity over a wider state of
alienation and special interests, as for what this age would offer to
presuppose worth in value entails by a baser invocation. Within
industrial treatment of sluices controlling effluent served for
entertainment, need is not one to carry a baggage and onus of implicit
responsibilities greater than a insipid affront characterizing no
small share of art as presently staged.
The so-called Golden Age of Hollywood from the 1970s may be unique in
individualistic retaliation as expressive forms seep past a censorship
exercised by a tighter reign in the perceived threat of communism.
Whereas now with borders tentatively opened but lacking in reflection
from tired exhaustion without discrete ties to artistic integrity,
perhaps the course is one closer in time to having run itself thin.
In a purely reasonable sense, of course, the mindful always kept the
real story closer to hand in its printed form, invariably in
preference and honor to defer when in need of inspiration instilled
with weightier offerings.
Bill Steele
Thumper <jayl...@comcast.net> wrote:
She never watches television?