“Hollywood flop sweat: What caused the latest box-office duds?”

Yesterday in the LAT, Patrick Goldstein weighed in with a few thoughts about some recent film and TV projects that have fared poorly:

I was a huge fan of both “Hugo” and “Luck,” less so when it came to “John Carter” and “Terra Nova.” But regardless of my own critical take, it was pretty obvious all of the shows lacked a key ingredient: a rooting interest in the central characters [emphasis added]. Whom did we really care about? Not Dustin Hoffman in “Luck,” who barely came into focus until way too late in the season. Not “John Carter’s” title character, whom Chicago Tribune critic Michael Phillips called “a flat, inexpressive protagonist played by a flat, inexpressive actor.” Not anyone in “Terra Nova,” which seemed engineered to please every possible demographic known to man. Not “Hugo’s” wide-eyed young boy, who was almost as inexpressive as John Carter.

That’s certainly an important takeaway for any writer: Make sure we have key characters, particularly the Protagonist, who create an emotional connection with readers. I’ve seen it called ‘audience identification,’ where the viewer [or script reader] identifies with the Protagonist, thereby pulling the viewer into the story. Then Goldstein makes another point:

The ideas at the heart of these stories skew old in an era when audiences skew young. For all its cutting-edge visual effects, “John Carter” was based on a century-old idea of adventure from Edgar Rice Burroughs. “Hugo” was set in 1930s Paris with a story that revolved around film pioneer Georges Méliès. Set at Santa Anita racetrack, “Luck” focused on a sport that has almost no resonance with anyone under 40 (and featured two marvelous actors, Hoffman and Nick Nolte, who are in their 70s).

This seems like a no-brainer and should be top-of-mind with studio and TV network execs, consumed with an endless obsession to chase after a young demo group. So how in the world did they let these ‘older’ skewing stories go into development and production?

Several insiders I spoke to argued that today’s studio and network chiefs are more confused than ever about what their audience wants, a lack of certainty that encourages them to look for answers — and cede control — to high-powered creative minds.

Hence the names involved in the four projects the article mentions: Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Michael Mann, David Milch and Andrew Stanton. But if these demigods misfire, where does that leave the industry?

One trend we may continue to see grow: Lower budget, high concept genre movies. Chronicle, Act of Valor, The Devil Inside, Project X, none of them cost more than $15M, all of them were profitable. Maybe not generating the revenues of bigger budget films, but when you add in the inevitable sequels, potentially doubling the income, suddenly these type of films seem like safer bets than projects costing $100M or more even backed by Spielberg, Scorsese, Mann, et al. And they’re all aimed squarely at that hallowed youth audience.

For more of Goldstein’s article, go here.
Comment Archive