My paper:
Douglas Silversten
Actually, please do...maybe I can improve it.
Doug
The Tagline: After eleven years on primetime television, The Simpsons
clan makes it to the big screen where Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie
and all the Springfield natives star in their very own feature film.
In June 1998, 20th Century Fox successfully released The X-Files: Fight
the Future, a full-length motion picture based on Fox's wildly successful
television show about cover-ups, conspiracies, and all-around weird
stuff. Although not the runaway hit that Fox was hoping for, The X-Files
grossed over $80 million domestically and was the 22nd highest earning
film for the year. A year later, South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut,
an animated cartoon based on Comedy Central's TV show, took in a domestic
gross of $52 million, far better than expected for a film derived from a
cable television program. Both these films demonstrate that it is
possible to successfully bring a running TV show onto the big screen. In
fact, the appendix indicates how profitable pictures based on recent TV
shows have been. I believe that another Fox television show, The
Simpsons, has the potential to continue the trend and be a very
profitable film. The show has similar demographics to those of the
programs mentioned above, but consistently draws even a larger audience.
With that in mind, I plan to move out to Hollywood and with my fledgling
production company, Homerun Productions, get this picture onto the big
screen.
From the start, I have always planned this to be a studio film.
In fact, it is almost necessary for it to be so. The television show is
owned and distributed by 20th Century Fox Television, and thus Fox will
be the studio I hopefully will be working with. Needless to say, the
process of getting rights to do the film will not be too difficult after
I get Fox to greenlight the picture. The question is, how do I get this
accomplished? The answer is rather simple.
By bringing The Simpsons to the big screen, Fox can promote the
show's brand name in a way that would not be possible otherwise. For
starters, it may attract more viewers to the television show. This can
likely have two beneficial effects. One, the show's ratings can see an
immediate bump. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there is a
possible spillover effect for all other Fox programs. Viewers may tune in
for The Simpsons and see advertisements for other Fox shows that may
pique their interest.
While a possible increase in viewership for Fox programs is a
side benefit to producing the film, the more direct reason to make the
film, which most movie executives care about more, is the possibility of
a large financial return. As the appendix indicates, television shows
converted into movies have done quite well of late. Furthermore, four out
of the top five movies listed were animated features, which, of course,
is what The Simpsons Movie will be. While The Rugrats Movie and Doug's
First Movie were aimed at a younger audience, The X-Files and South Park
have very similar target audiences to The Simpsons, comprised primarily
of young adult males. While the budget for The X-Files was in the $65
million range, the budget for a Simpsons movie, as we shall see, should
be significantly lower and closer to the $20 million figure for which
South Park was produced.
The actual production of the movie will be done by the same crew
that handles the television show. Since this will be an animated feature,
many costs will be saved. For example, there is no need to hire a
high-priced director or A-list actor. However, that does not mean that
this movie can be made cheaply. The popularity of the TV show has given
considerable leverage to all the voice actors themselves, some of whom
have become moderate stars in their own right (Hank Azaria, who does
several voices in the show, has been in several movies). For working
beyond the usual confines of the television show, the voice actors, the
animators, the writers and everyone else associated with the show will
demand a significant salary. Contrary to what many people assume,
animated films are not made cheaply. To make a film that matches the type
of quality that Simpsons fans have come to expect from the show, I will
be asking Fox to approve a $25 million budget. This figure, however, does
not include a promotional and marketing budget of around $10 million.
This estimate would need to even be higher if Fox was not the studio
behind the film. Thanks to some corporate synergies, I hope to be able to
advertise on the network and through several other outlets at a reduced
rate.
While the budget of the film would initially appear to be high, I
hope to be able to reduce the cost to Fox through the traditional method
of product placements. Although the film will be animated, that does not
necessarily take away the possibility of product placements. Depending on
the story line chosen for the film, several possible products can and may
play a prominent role in the film. After finalizing the script, my
marketing team can explore the markets to see if any funds may be
secured. The Simpsons' characters have already been associated with such
companies as Nestle (through the popular Butterfinger ads) and Intel, and
perhaps these companies would be interested in extending their relationships.
In my opinion, the key to making a successful Simpsons movie, as
well as most movies, is through a solid and effective marketing campaign.
Fortunately, the film will be in a unique position as there already
exists a built-in audience: the show's normal fan base. However, to bring
the film to blockbuster status, we will need to branch out and find a new
audience. The threat of being stuck with just the TV audience was a major
issue in the marketing of The X-Files. In their campaign, they
continually tried to emphasize that a non-fan of the show could enjoy the
movie just as regular followers of the show could. "If you haven't seen
the series, it works for the movie," Martin Landau, a star of the movie,
said. "If you have, you'll love it, because there's all kinds of little
stuff that goes on."
No matter how hard they tried, though, The X-Files marketers
could not break out of the mold. I believe their initial mistake was
making the movie a continuation of the show. "Much has been made of the
fact that The X-Files is not so much a film based on a TV series as a
continuation of that series in film form," film critic Roger Ebert
explained. "The movie feeds out of last season and into next one." It
must have been extraordinarily difficult to convince non-X-Files fans
that they can fully appreciate and understand the feature film when the
movie is known to continue where the season-ending cliffhanger left off.
Unlike The X-Files, The Simpsons does not really have any running
plot line. You can miss an episode and pick up with the next one without
missing a beat. The movie should be the same way, and thus the marketing
strategy can emphasize that idea. The story of the film should be one
which can naturally be enjoyed by any audience, whether comprised of
Simpsons fans or not.
I definitely plan to run a series of test screenings to create
advance buzz for the film. The plan, however, is to have as many
non-Simpsons fans at those screenings as possible. After all, my primary concern is
not whether Simpsons aficionados will go to the theaters based on word of
mouth. My suspicion is that they will be there on opening night no matter
what the hype. Furthermore, I believe I will be able to count on the film
being critically praised. Critics have always loved the show (in
September of 1997, The Simpsons received its fourth Emmy Award as
Outstanding Animated Program), and if the film is written as well as a
normal episode, I have little doubt that the trend will continue, only
further hyping the film.
My promotion department will work non-stop to hype this film to
the maximum. You can be sure you will see Simpsons figurines at
McDonalds, Taco Bell, etc. Simpsons plush toys and video games will be on
sale at every conceivable place in America. Exploitation is the name of
the game. There will certainly be a few different Simpsons TV specials
("best of", "the making of The Simpsons Movie," etc.) and a barrage of
commercials that will hit our target demographics (comprised mostly of
young adults). I will arrange press interviews for the voices of the
characters and hopefully have a character or two interviewed (Kermit the
Frog has been known to do an episode or two of "Larry King Live").
Furthermore, our public relations department will get a Simpsons
character on the cover of as many newsmagazines as possible.
Fortunately, another advantage of working with 20th Century Fox
will be that the distribution deal will be easy to finalize. It is in
their interest, as well as mine, to release the picture in as many
theaters as possible. The X-Files film opened in over 2,600 theaters
while doing business of over $30 million during the first weekend, a
stellar opening. In my opinion, it is best to follow the same approach.
I do not feel that opening small and platforming out is the best approach
for such a mainstream movie. In addition, I do not plan to premiere the
film at any major film festivals in the country. Ideally, I am aiming for
a early summer release date (mid-June), as that is where both The X-Files
and South Park were successfully positioned.
In today's marketplace, a large portion of the revenues of major
motion pictures comes from the overseas market. On the surface, it would
appear that this could be a major drawback of a Simpsons feature. After
all, it will be based on an immensely popular American television show
that often pokes fun at the American way of life. However, after a slow
start for the program overseas, the animated series is now a hit in
upwards of 60 countries. "In the beginning there was zero interest from
overseas," says Marion Edwards, Executive Vice President, Twentieth
Century Fox International Television. "It was seen as a weird American
show. But it is now our most successful half-hour next to 'MASH.' "
Although I have outlined the steps I believe will make this idea
into a very profitable and successful motion picture, there are some
possible drawbacks to making a film of this genre. Even though the
television show is today enormously successful, there is no such thing as
a guarantee. The public is, and has always been, very fickle. What is
gold today is often nothing tomorrow. The film cannot be produced and
distributed overnight, and there is no telling whether the show's
popularity will be as strong at the release date as it is today. Thus,
speed to the market is key for this type of film.
However, having said that, I believe this is as close to a sure
thing as one can get in Hollywood. The Simpsons is currently the
longest-running situation comedy on television and its popularity and
appeal, in both the United States and abroad, are as strong as ever.
Based on the recent successes of films like The X-Files and South Park,
whose television shows do not even draw the ratings that The Simpsons
enjoys, I believe the market is ripe for a Simpsons feature film. The
potential for such a film is enormous.
Appendix
Total Domestic Gross for Recent Movies based on Television Shows
Rank Title Total Gross
1 The Rugrats Movie $100,491,683
2 The X-Files: Fight the Future $83,892,374
3 Beavis and Butthead Do America $63,036,689
4 South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut $50,587,886
5 Doug's First Movie $19,114,106
Al Denton
Peace out,
Al
----------------------------------------------------
"Don't make me run! I'm full of chocolate!!
----------------------------------------------------
David Puckett
news:7v5son$sft$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
<lots o' snippin'>
You are going to include some kind of "Works Cited" (if it's in MLA format) or
bibliography or something, aren't you? It's not that it's not a well reasoned
and well argued paper or anything, but if my professors saw this they would
promptly trash it (literally) and send me off to the academic discipline guys...
Another thing is when you give things like "the Simpsons has a larger audience
than so and so" you really need to base this on something... Nielsen ratings,
an article you've read, something....
Douglas Silversten
: You are going to include some kind of "Works Cited" (if it's in MLA format) or
: bibliography or something, aren't you? It's not that it's not a well reasoned
: and well argued paper or anything, but if my professors saw this they would
: promptly trash it (literally) and send me off to the academic discipline guys...
Wow, you're good. I have endnotes, but they don't appear when you cut
and paste, but here they are, although you won't know where they refer to:
"The Top 100 of 1998," Variety.com, October
1999,<http://www.variety.com/numbers/top100.asp>.
International Movie Database, October 1999, <
http://us.imdb.com/Business?0158983>.
International Movie Database, October 1999, <
http://us.imdb.com/Business?0120902>.
"X-Files Enters Summer Big-Screen Bonanza," Paul Vercammen, CNN.com,
June 19, 1998.
"X-Files," Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times, June 19, 1998.
The Movie Times, October 1999,
<http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/98bygrossall.html>.
"World Gets a Kick Out of Twisted U.S. Family," Sharon Swart, Variety,
April 23, 1998.
: Another thing is when you give things like "the Simpsons has a larger audience
: than so and so" you really need to base this on something... Nielsen ratings,
: an article you've read, something....
And again, you are 100% right. I have actually been looking for that
for the past few hours.
Thanks for your critique. Any more advice/comments, please post them.
Doug
David Puckett
> David Puckett (David.A....@ou.edu) wrote:
> : You are going to include some kind of "Works Cited" (if it's in MLA format)
or
> : bibliography or something, aren't you? It's not that it's not a well
reasoned
> : and well argued paper or anything, but if my professors saw this they would
> : promptly trash it (literally) and send me off to the academic discipline
guys...
>
> Wow, you're good. I have endnotes, but they don't appear when you cut
> and paste, but here they are, although you won't know where they refer to:
>
> "The Top 100 of 1998," Variety.com, October
> 1999,<http://www.variety.com/numbers/top100.asp>.
> International Movie Database, October 1999, <
> http://us.imdb.com/Business?0158983>.
> International Movie Database, October 1999, <
> http://us.imdb.com/Business?0120902>.
> "X-Files Enters Summer Big-Screen Bonanza," Paul Vercammen, CNN.com,
> June 19, 1998.
> "X-Files," Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times, June 19, 1998.
> The Movie Times, October 1999,
> <http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/98bygrossall.html>.
> "World Gets a Kick Out of Twisted U.S. Family," Sharon Swart, Variety,
> April 23, 1998.
That's pretty good... do you know how to properly include references to them in
the paper? For something like this (a sociological sort of thingy) I'd
recommend the Modern Language Association's method over at http://www.mla.org
This site doesn't include much about the actual method, but it does have a very
important online addition regarding citations of online stuff. A good reference
for how to do everything else (citing articles, books, speeches, whatever) is
over at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1623/mla.html
Some people here might rush to the defense of using footers/bibliographies (the
more traditional method used primarily in historical papers) but this one's a
whole lot easier to format, requires less typing, and is actually preferred by
us pseudo-scientists (economists, sociologists, psychologists, accountants....)
> : Another thing is when you give things like "the Simpsons has a larger
audience
> : than so and so" you really need to base this on something... Nielsen
ratings,
> : an article you've read, something....
>
> And again, you are 100% right. I have actually been looking for that
> for the past few hours.
If you don't find it, I would personally recommend taking the reference out
completely... unsubstantiated/uncited references are a numero uno red flag for
lots of professors (especially the super-anal ones)
> Thanks for your critique. Any more advice/comments, please post them.
Can't really think of anything... since you've got the thing more or less
completely typed up, and with time to spare (well, compared to how I usually do
it, which is more similar to how Homer files his taxes)... where was I? Oh
yeah, stay out of my booze!
No, wait, what I meant to say is you've hit pretty much every point I can think
of on a topic like this, so what I'd do is just re-read it (after leaving it
alone for a while or maybe even sleeping on it) and then check for cumbersome
phrases, paragraph transitions that can be improved, maybe re-arrange some
stuff, typos that your spell-checker missed (two vs. too and the like) and
basically just polish it up. I can't think of any way in particular to do that,
but it never hurts.... professors can tell the difference between a paper that
someone did this to and one that was written up, proof-read a time or two, and
then printed... or at least mine seem to =p
Dean Humphries
Yeah, a.t.s and http://www.snpp.com
___________________________________________________________________
"Yoink-dot-adios, backslash/losers!"