By: Dominic La-Viola
The Guardian has just released an article speculating about the lack of star power that some of Hollywood’s biggest stars no longer have.
Referencing ticket sales from Tom Cruise from 1986-2006 or Will Smith from 1996-2016. Which without question is completely out of context and cannot be compared to current box office sales, due to the current state of the film industry.
By the late 2010s, streaming started to make its move on the major studios because before this, they were really only a threat to cable and physical media sales.
At first, streaming was a way to bypass cable and save some money each month. After Netflix took out Blockbuster, that is with its DVD by mail and its introduction to streaming. Then making it a competitor for cable.
The writing was on the walls, but no one wanted to read it or believe it. They all just turned a blind eye, as they did to the comic book industry in the late 90s and the music industry in the early 2000s. All just watched as what was slowly died. Waiting to try to reshape the future. Which has given us overpriced concert tickets and vinyls that cost three times the price it once did.
However, the question remains how does that affect the current situation that Hollywood’s in? Hollywood is in a critical state of transition, and with streaming services producing big-budget films with A-List stars, it only heightens the stakes and makes the transition more complex.
Cinemas have had their issues in that past few years, trying to keep up with streaming services and other entertainment platforms.
So there is more than simply one thing that is causing issues with the film industry.
First being the transition of movie stars making the switch to streaming services and the way “TV”movies are being produced. Look at Mark Wahlberg in his latest film, Play Dirty.
A Prime original that 10 years ago would have easily gotten a theater release. Netflix with Eddie Murphy’s Beverly Hills Axle F, Frankenstein, and A House of Dynamite.
Of course, we can’t forget the Prime release of Roadhouse, which was supposed to get a theater release that was dropped on Prime at the last minute.
We can’t overlook the quality of “TV” movies that are being released weekly and not talk about them and the problem they present.
Audiences no longer need to go to the movies to see their favorite A-List stars: Mark Wahlberg, Robert De Niro, Adam Sandler, Chris Hemsworth, Eddie Murphy, Miles Teller, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lopez, Jason Momoa, and Jake Gyllenhaal.
All these actors and actresses have done streaming movies in the past few years. Which then compete with films on the silver screen.
The Rock’s Smashing Machine is a biopic picture that didn’t get the marketing or publicity needed to really drive the film.
Yes, biopics have been a huge success in the past few years, although again. Those films were about musical icons that everyone knows or knows of. Even if they didn’t grow up on their music or even like their music.
The story of UFC legend Mark Kerr isn’t something that is marketable because he was a star fighter before it became popular and a worldwide phenomenon. If you did a movie about Conor McGregor, it would be more successful by default. Simply because even people who don’t watch the sport know who he is.
Big Bold Beautiful Journey. A romance comedy, with minimal marketing, failed? What a surprise. From what was shown in trailers, the movie was marketed as a streaming service movie of the week. Not that the film wasn’t good. Although that’s not its problem, its lack of marketing and marketability is. I’m sure we’ll see a huge increase in box office numbers from Margot Robbie’s upcoming film, Wuthering Heights.
Which not only is already being marketed as the movie to see on Valentine’s Day weekend. It’s already getting trailers played throughout movie theaters across the states, and it doesn’t even come out for another 6 months. This movie has gotten more marketing already than most movies on the list, according to the Guardian article.
Daniel Day-Lewis stars in his son’s directorial debut, Anemone. The first problem with this film. The marketing. Which it didn’t get any, and if it did. Someone needs to check to see where their money went,because I haven’t seen any marketing for the film. Then to top it off, how does one market this film?
Where is the marketable appeal? For I don’t see how one can market this movie to the average moviegoer. A family drama between two brothers set in the middle of the woods. Sounds like an arthouse film, in which film nerds are your target audience.
I have yet to see the film, although that’s not due to a lack of interest. That’s due to the lack of availability of the film. A completely different issue. One which is a topic of its own and for a different time.
Good Fortune, the new comedy starring Seth Rogen, Keanu Reeves, and Aziz Ansari. It did all the right things, kept the budget at a minimum with only $ 30 million. It has a rather stellar cast and even has favorable critical reviews and audience ratings, yet still can’t manage to make it.
Now, having seen a good amount of marketing for the film, I can honestly say that the film appears to be struggling due to its time of release. Something we’ve seen happen time and time again.
The film is essentially about someone who is struggling so badly that a guardian angel needs to step in and switch his life with someone who is rich. To show him how the other side lives. The trailer shows Reeves’s angle saying that he thought if he switched them, Azziz’s character would see that money won’t solve all his problems. The other angel says, and then Reeves’s character says, well, it appears that money solved most of his problems.
With the current state of things, between the government shutdown, the tariffs, and economic uncertainty that most Americans face during this horrible time of inflation. The film comes off as a depressing reminder of the current economic state. Not a fun escape from reality.
For this film, it’s more bad timing than anything. Just as Seth Rogen’s previous comedy, The Watch, which was released in 2012. The film was a box office disaster due to the film’s subject matter after the death of a youth in Florida by a neighborhood watch member. The film was originally titled Neighborhood Watch and was about a group of neighborhood watch members. Even the retitling of the movie and pushing it back a few months didn’t save it. For the relevance of the case in question was still very much a hot topic.
After The Hunt. A film with a star-spangled cast of A-Listers and stars of the upcoming generation, still struggle to find its footing. This film is another one of those films that isn’t necessarily an arthouse film, however, still falls in a category of film that is hard to market.
How do you market a film about sexual assault allegations and what appears to be siding with the accused. Bringing falsehoods and accusations as a serious issue? From the marketing alone, it appears that the film pushes back against the narrative of blindly siding with the victims and supporting them blindly.
Although as I write this, I have yet to see the movie, I am speaking solely off the marketing in which I’ve seen and what it appears the film is trying to achieve or say.
The reviews are not promising. There are two critics who give the film 100, and most give it a 60 or less. Which begs the question: is the movie bad, or is it simply something that is so controversial that it turns its viewers away due to the current atmosphere around the subject matter?
The real issue is with the expectations. To think that movies which have a marketing disadvantage are going to perform simply by a cast alone isn’t going to work. Not when you have the star power pulling audiences in at home, and they have more options and choices than ever.
Source : The Guardian
Four Time Film School Dropout 
Leave a comment