Feedback:
BOP Answers Its Mail
By Calvin Trager
August 23, 2004
There's a saying, "Beware of those who ask for feedback". It means people usually only want to hear the good things. Most people want to play it safe, keep doing the things they already know how to do. Reinforcement is a critical element to taking the easy way out; tolerance of mediocrity begets mediocrity. The problem with that little scenario is, where's the growth? Where's the satisfaction that comes with improvement, achievement?
Well, we at BOP love all the feedback, good and bad. We're all about continuous improvement, knamean? And there's no doubt that sometimes we are going to follow our own muse, even in the face of negative feedback. But having said that, we're also not afraid to embrace good suggestions, as we've shown throughout our tenure here. For that we say thanks. Thanks for helping make BOP the kind of place we can be proud of, and the kind of place you can be proud of, too.
Here then is some selected feedback and response from June 5 - 14, 2004:
Josh hasn't a pedantic bone in his body; his skin however...:
I'm very confused with David Mumpower's Top 5 Cold War movies. Making the cut is Crimson Tide, which as I recall is about a rebel faction breaking away from Russia, well after the USSR's dissolution. The United States and the Russian Federation were allies. Could you please ask him to explain his interpretation of fairly recent World History?
It's like this, Josh. David's kind of busy, running the site and all. So you're stuck with me, and class is now in session. The Cold War was all about the build-up and threatened use of nuclear weapons, right? And Crimson Tide's central theme was about the use of nuclear weapons, right? So, that's pretty simple, right? Crimson Tide not only qualifies as a Cold War movie, one could argue it exemplifies the genre. To disqualify it because it doesn't take place between 1946 and, say, 1990, is silly. It explores the same thematic territory as if it had.
To provide you an answer you can more readily relate to, I will now switch into pedant mode. Like you said, Josh, the United States and the Russian Federation were allies at the time in which the movie takes place. But the conflict depicted in the movie didn't take place between the US and the Russian Federation, did it? Did it Josh? Rather, the conflict was with that rebel faction. Well, who do you suppose those rebel faction guys were, Josh? Old-school USSR types who wanted things back to the way they were in 1983, that's who!
Reading your feedback again, you appear to have messed up by confusing the "rebel faction breaking away from the Russian Federation" with the Federation itself. Perhaps you should visit a different Web site and ask them their interpretation of "rebel" and "breaking away from".
At this point, I will switch out of pedant mode and thank you for your feedback. Thank you for your feedback.
Bob wants to debate Harry Potter 3:
Guys!!!!! A film that had an estimated gross of over 90 million in 3 days not making the cut? Come on, it's not really about competition....we'll see if the film has legs... Thanks so far for the great coverage this summer.
I think what we're seeing is just a natural phenomenon, Bob. Believe me, we take no satisfaction in being right about Harry's legs (at 2.62, HP3's legs are indeed the shortest of the three films, and its gross the smallest). It is simply that the freshness of viewing the Harry Potter (or Spider-Man, for that matter) universe brought to life in a movie has worn off. People are as excited as ever for the newer chapters (i.e. opening weekends are still about as maxed out as they can get) but the repeat viewings aren't there for either title, and consequently the sequels fall off a bit. From a box office perspective, the bar set by the original chapter of each franchise is so high - reflecting a perfect storm of awareness, anticipation, quality, capacity, and shiny! - that the sequels can't quite repeat the formula.
Naturally we're disappointed. We want to see records. And you are clearly right; we judge sequels too harshly in these instances. I mean, the dropoff phenomenon has been proved time and again (see: Batman, Home Alone, Jurassic Park)
What is interesting to me is that in 2004 it was proved that the phenomenon for action movies is somewhat quality-proof. It is easy to look at the Batman franchise and note that quality moved in lock-step as the box office tallies deteriorated from Batman's $251 million to Batman and Robin's $107 million. But Spider-Man 2 is clearly superior to Spider-Man, and the Potter franchise appears to be just now hitting its stride. Yet that wasn't enough to propel the sequels to greater heights than their comparatively weaker debuts. This is something for which, prior to Harry Potter 3 and Spider-Man 2, we didn't really have a good case study. Now we know.
A notable exception to the above is Shrek. Some combination of the three-year layoff (instead of 18 months for Potter or two years for Spidey), the wall-to-wall jokes, bits, and sight gags, and the targeted family-friendly demographic led Shrek 2 to easily outpace the original. I also note the second chapters of American Pie and Austin Powers did the same. So maybe the phenomenon is quality-proof, except for comedies. You know, somewhere in there is a thesis; I'm just not sure what kind of degree you could get for it. Thanks for the feedback.
Nick wants a pen pal:
You can consider Van Helsing a flop but the people at Universal should not bacause I remeber reading somthing,i dont know if it was you guys, but it said even the hulk made more money in this amount of time. For one The Hulk had better reviews, opened in June when kids were out of school, and had a 62 million opening. Back to what i said before its not a flop because the hulk made 245.3 mill. worldwide and Van Helsing has made 254 mill. woldwide and still going. With 160 production buget and 50 mill. in marketing it has a 210 buget and it has passed it. I predict it'll pass 120 in the U.S. and possably make in the 160-170 range in the other countries. I really enjoyed Van hesing just so you know. PLEASE E-MAIL ME BACK i would really like to hear your thoughts
Well, let's see how you did, Nick. Van Helsing reached $120 million in the US, but didn't pass it. Internationally it fell short of your prediction by $15-$25 million. Yes, Van Helsing was more than likely a profitable venture for Universal. But that alone doesn't qualify it as a success, unless you have a back-end deal, Nick. Which you don't. I know this because people with back-end deals don't solicit e-mail correspondance from Web sites.
Anyway, you have to remember the game here is about maximizing potential. How well did Van Helsing do in this department? To answer this question I looked at peer films for Van Helsing. That is, movies that managed between $45 million and $55 million opening weekend. I threw out the movies from before 1997, the movies that opened in July 2004 (their books are still open) and the movies that opened on holiday weekends, and was left with a good sample of 19 movies. I then looked at final box office for these same movies to determine which ones successfully leveraged their opening into a hefty sum, and which ones dropped the ball.
The best of the bunch managed well over $250 million in US gross and includes films like Men in Black and Pirates of the Caribbean. Van Helsing ranked 17th out of 19, keeping company with other duds like 2 Fast 2 Furious and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider that couldn't manage to break $150 million despite starting the race a third of the way to the finish line after only three days. So yes, I acknowledge that Van Helsing is in the black. As long as you acknowledge that the movie left upwards of $100 million on the table, and in our eyes that constitutes a flop. Thank you for your feedback.
Smitty asks the $1.8 billion question:
Good evening! Do you have an idea of what the final numbers, domestic and international, will be for The Passion of the Christ for 2004? Do you anticipate a re-release around Christmas, or Easter 2005? I have enjoyed the site, and your insight into this industry. Keep up the good work!
Will The Passion get a 2005 re-release? Is the Pope Catholic? Does Mel Gibson love money? Of course it will, and if Mel is smart about it this will happen each and every year for the next decade at least. Frankly, if there will ever be a film to challenge Titanic's $1.8 billion as overall worldwide champion, this is it. The Passion has earned over $600 million worldwide to date, $370 million of that total coming domestically. Thanks for the feedback.
Bob is my sworn enemy:
Just a small request, for the lesser dedicated movie fans, would it be too much trouble to reference the movie quotes at the end of every Daily News? Often times, I remember hearing the line before, but just can't place the film and/or scene and it drives me nuts. Please, for the sake of my and I'm sure other's sanity... reference the quotes.
So you're the one. When I first saw this feedback, I said to myself there was no way we would honor this request, as it is not in keeping with the site's personality. Lo and behold, I then noticed when reading the Daily News a few days later that we are now giving the quote reference to the previous edition's quote. Geez! At least we're not spoon-feeding readers with the reference to the current quote, but still, where's the fun in providing the reference at all? Don't we want to challenge our readers and stimulate discussion? What is this, No Reader Left Behind?
You win this round, Bob. This round. Thanks for the feedback.
Jason has some doubts:
Whatever happened to the periodic Trailer Hitch feature? I loved it despite the fact that it was two layers of "meta" away from actual entertainment, while remaining entertaining. Of course, this critique of your reviews of trailers for movies is yet another layer removed, but I doubt is all that interesting.
Reader Jason bursts on the scene with an offering that brings a fresh perspective and a youthful, vibrant voice to the arena of critiques of reviews of trailers of movies. We can't wait to see his next piece. This reviewer gives him seven thumbs up.
Here's the thing, Jason. Don't ever try to out meta us. We invented that.
Seriously, Trailer Hitch has officially returned. We appreciate your enthusiasm for the column. Thanks for the feedback.
James is the Don King of Val Kilmer movies:
Could you add WB's 2005 film "Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang" to your database. I heard about it from ET. I am extremely curious to see your analysis of it's boxoffice potential. I really enjoy your site. Very respectfully, James
It's on the list, James. Thank you for the feedback.
Tyron needs a tissue and a pillow:
I get sick and tired of the way some of the people enter all these little pissy remarks about whatever celebrity or film they don't like in to the box office analysis. It takes away from whatever credibility you guys want to pretend to have because it gives the appearance that you play favorites in the way a given performance is broken down. I understand it, and am frequently amused by it in all the other stuff, but not in the analysis and until that changes I'll consider this nothing more than a humor site.
Tyron, we're honored you think we have credibility, and we pledge to work hard every day to live up to that. Additionally, we are honored you think we are a humorous site, we work hard at that, too. Thank you very much for the glowing feedback.
Bill is this week's recipient of credit where credit is due:
Re: The Weekend Box Office Report and the prediction about the upcoming Spiderman 2. I'm not so sure about it breaking 400 million. Has anyone heard anything about it? It looks like a retread of the first to me, and I'll be surprised if it comes close to the first one in box office. What do you think?
Spider-Man 2 is going to have a final box office of around $366 million, giving it about 90% of the final box office of Spider-Man. So you're right - way to go. A $400 million prediction was a very gutsy call though, so by denouncing it you don't get all that much credit, Bill. If I said that Barry Bonds would hit 70 home runs this year and you said you weren't so sure about it, well. You'd be right but I'd be bold.
Jake chimes in on a recurring theme
Hello chaps. You run a good site, I must say. I love reading your analasys of various movies box office performances. I just have one thing I need to nitpick about. I recently read your article about......err box office. In that you stated that in order for a film to be considered a success, it HAS to gross more than it's production budget domestically. I disagree with that. Just because a film doesn't break even domestically it doesn't mean that the film is a flop, or even a dissapointment. Take Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines for example. It had a budget of around 175 million US dollars and it grosses 150 million US Dollars in Norh America. Does that mean it's a flop? Most certainly not, as it had a staggering worldwide gross of over 430 million US Dollars. The movie performed below expectations in the US, but I believe that it performed above expectations overseas, as it became the highest grossing film of all time in Russia, and did extremely well in India, Japan and many other countries. Add to that the money it has generated on DVD/VHS which has been reported as to being 250 million US Dollars at present time and you have a solid hit on your hands. Afterall the producers of T3 wouldn't go ahead with T4, if T3 had been a flop would they? I just used T3 as an example as to movies that don't really break out in the US, but does so in the rest of the world. Who really gives a flying peanut wether the movie breaks even domestically if in the end it is profitable. I understand that you meant it in a general way, but I just don't think that you are in any position to make such generalisations, taking recent trends into consideration. Please do not feel offended as I really like your site, but this was just one thing I felt I needed to point out. Yours faithfully, Jake
This argument has played out against a number of movies, Jake. Though most of the mail has been about 2004 releases Troy and Van Helsing, T3 applies as well. I won't reiterate BOP's position on the topic yet again; for that you can read any number of other feedback columns, or simply scan further up in this one. I just wanted to give your particularly well written piece a forum. Compared to some of the litter we receive, it reads like Shakespeare. Cheers mate, and thanks for the feedback.
Kaya theorizes about a conspiracy:
Okay first off, this really doesn't have to do with your site because personally I have no complaints about it. My question may seem odd and random but here it goes. I decided to pop in a James Bond movie to watch from my collection and picked out GoldenEye. As I placed the DVD in my player I saw that on the DVD it read "US PG-13". On the back of this Region 1 release I saw that it read "PG". My take on this is that the studio posted the Canadian rating on the back. I was wondering what's your take on this. I remember seeing this on several occasions with other DVD's but I don'e remember which ones. Is this a misprint? Or was it intended this way? All the other Bond movies I have are normal. Thanks for your time.
Are you implying, Kaya, that the studio accidentally on-purpose used a lower rating on the box in order to broaden its market potential and boost sales? I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya. Seriously, it could have been a simple mistake and the Canadian rating got placed on the box inadvertantly. Or that could just be the convenient excuse the studio had ready made in case anyone ever called them on their greedy, duplicitous act. Either way, you just admitted your DVD collection includes GoldenEye. Thanks for the feedback.
Carol remembers everything but the damn title:
HELP - maybe you know the answer to this. I saw a movie - probably from the 40's - sometime in the mid-50's and there was a scene in it where a guy was either in a room or on an elevator and the walls started closing in on him. I remember he took a floor lamp and tried to stop the walls with that. Do you know what this movie might be? If so, you will solve years of searching for it on my part. Thank you! Carol
The movie in question is Star Wars, but it was from the '70s, not the '30s or '40s. The scene took place in a garbage chute, not an elevator. And Luke stopped the walls from closing in not with a floor lamp, but with a long, pole-looking thing that looked like it had seaweed or vines or cables on it. Glad we could be of so much help, Carol. Thanks for the feedback.
Print this column
