WTF – Stupid Hollywood Analysts

Posted by Kevin Carr (kevin@filmschoolrejects.com) on December 31, 2008

We all know that there’s quite a bit of “business” in “show business.” However, most of the sane people in the world also know that the “show” part of this involves something that cannot be pigeonholed into a marketing package.

However, that doesn’t stop moronic Hollywood analysts trying to explain the American moviegoing public with demographics and star power. And this past month has had plenty of this ridiculous speculation.

If you were to believe the Hollywood pundits, you’d think that people were leery of seeing Valkyrie because Tom Cruise wore an eye patch, that people flocked to see Marley and Me because of Jennifer Aniston and that people stayed away from movies like Seven Pounds and The Tale of Despereaux because of bad weather.

What the fudge-factor?

It seems that the folks covering the Hollywood inside think that people are so stupid that they don’t know a good movie from a bad movie. They also assume that people instantly react to star power, regardless of the movie being a turd bigger than a cocker spaniel.

This past week, entertainment news buzzed with excitement that Valkyrie wasn’t a flop. With a modest box office take of $29.5 million over the Christmas weekend, it was suddenly declared that Tom Cruise’s star power was back, and the only reason some people didn’t go see Valkyrie was because part of his pretty-boy face was obscured with an eye patch.

Let me tell you something… Valkyrie wasn’t a flop, but it really wasn’t much of a hit, either. It came in fourth over the weekend, bowing to a dog, Adam Sandler and a guy who ages in reverse. People didn’t pour into the theaters for Valkyrie, and it had more to do with Cruise’s inability to do a German accent and the general passionless nature of the film than anything else. (And, no, Hollywood. It’s moderate success also had nothing to do with his Golden Globe nomination for Tropic Thunder, either.)

Then there’s the so-called “Battle of the Exes.” A completely irrelevant news story was generated in the entertainment press that Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston were duking it out in the box office, and the winner was Aniston.

Wrong again! I doubt that more than five percent of the audience for Marley and Me gave a hoot that Jennifer Aniston was in this film. Heck, they didn’t even care that Owen Wilson was in the movie. People saw this film because of the dog! Why else was the pooch the only face on the poster?

Seriously, any actress in her 30s could have pulled off the role of Jennifer Grogan. Aniston had about as much impact on this film’s box office as she did with Bruce, Almighty, or Leprechaun for that matter.

And finally, I saw a ridiculous number of news stories a couple weeks ago that explained the poor box office of the weekend before Christmas… bad weather.

Sure, there were snow storms across the country, but I doubt it kept many people home. What kept them home in droves, contributing to a box office that was about forty percent lower than predicted, was the fact that there really wasn’t anything good in new wide release.

The choices were The Tale of Despereaux (a weak-willed CGI film that couldn’t even connect to the family market), Yes Man (Jim Carrey’s latest offering that was mildly funny but more a summer release than a holiday one) and Seven Pounds (a widespread stinker of Will Smith’s ego and misdirected star power).

For the most part, with tickets averaging less than $10 apiece, movies are recession-proof. They’re also weather-proof because most people in this country live within a mile or two of a movie theater.

The only thing they’re not is idiot-proof. But apparently being a box office pundit isn’t.

Read more articles by Kevin Carr