What the Box-Office Skeptics Are Missing About Super 8
Then again, Cloverfield -- subject to significant fanboy-targeted, January-doldrums hype ahead of its release -- plummeted 68 percent in its second week. Furthermore, as one insider told Deadline's Mike Fleming:
"It was a different world when Spielberg held everything secret, and Abrams isn't Spielberg, at least not yet. Young moviegoers now have shorter attention spans, they want to know what they're getting right away, or they will find any one of 40 other things they can do with their time and money. If Super 8 doesn't open strong, next week will be even tougher because awareness on Green Lantern is tracking through the roof and both films need the young male audience to succeed."
Well, yes and no. Green Lantern is indeed tracking well, though not so far beyond Super 8, and anyway, we're kind of talking conceptual apples and oranges: Vulture cites 88 percent total awareness and 45 percent definite interest for the Ryan Reynolds-starring comics adaptation, with the low-wattage original Abrams story Super 8 hovering at 64 percent and 36 percent, respectively, in the same categories.
More importantly, while Super 8 does need the young male audience to succeed, it doesn't need them right now. It needs 30-somethings who couldn't care less about The Green Lantern next week, or Cars 2 the week after, or Transformers or Harry Potter following those -- the same relatively underserved demographic that, coincidentally, helped make a hit out of E.T. when they were kids. Nostalgia counts for something, and it doesn't need to be $60 million out of the gate: E.T. opened to $11.8 million in 1982 -- roughly $24 million in 2011 dollars -- before finding a phenomenal word-of-mouth stride throughout the remainder of the summer and well into 1983, when it finally exited theaters after grossing a total of $359 million.
That kind of run won't happen with Super 8; attention spans are too short, there are hundreds more movies released today than there were 30 years ago, and honestly, it's good but not great. But the beauty of E.T. -- Spielberg's cachet notwithstanding -- has a lot in common with the beauty of Super 8: It's long-legged, low-maintenance counterprogramming for a summer otherwise awash in franchises, adaptations, updatings, knock-offs and/or overhyped crap.
The week E.T. opened, for example, it beat Annie, Grease 2, Star Trek II and Rocky III. As it continued its dominance deep into the summer of '82, it vanquished the likes of Blade Runner, The Thing, Tron, The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, The Road Warrior, The Beastmaster, The Pirate Movie (!), Friday the 13th Part III in 3-D (!!) and re-issues of both Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars -- all of which were expected to open big and successively push E.T. down the box-office charts. Indeed, a few of them debuted at number one, but none outlasted Spielberg's blockbuster in the long haul.
That's where the young male audience came in. If Super 8 can manage half that profile, it will be a $200 million sweetheart -- not to mention the summer Oscar probable we all know it was intended to be.
So instead of second-guessing Abrams and Co. as cagey, aloof and/or self-sabotaging, let's give them some credit for daring to let Super 8 succeed or fail on its own accord -- to find, captivate and sustain an audience organically without resorting to the unhinged Hollywood stunts that we bemoan in so many other campaigns. Regardless of our opinions of the film, we shouldn't take for granted storytelling that demands being seen on its own terms, however and whenever its creators are ready. Sure, it's a risk -- for them and for us -- but that's as it should be. Nothing good at the movies ever came without it.
[E.T. box office figures via Box Office Mojo]
Pages: 1 2
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
That original trailer didn't show E.T., but it spelled out the WHOLE PLOT. Seriously, the only thing that doesn't get teased is the flying bicycle.
That said, I think you're right about "Super 8." They're relying on word of mouth and the film having legs, which says more about their belief in its quality than all the desperate flailing for "Thor," "X-Men" and especially "Green Lantern."
One question. Has no one in Hollywood ever heard the anger voiced by pretty much every single person in America at trailers that reveal the entire movie? I love the idea of trailers giving us enough to intrigue without revealing most of the major plot points.
And I'm tired of this expectation that a movie has to make $100 million on opening weekend or it's a disappointment. Adjusted for inflation, The Goonies opened at $20.2 million, Close Encounters at $19.0, and E.T. at $31.6. One of my pet peeves is if a movie doesn't open big, it's a failure. Good movies will survive.
Again, another great article. I like the idea of Super 8 being, gasp, an un-tentpole. Granted, Goonies, Close Encounters and E.T. all had multiple sequels that racked up billions - oh wait, no they didn't. Sometimes it's nice to see a movie that's a movie, not an advertisement for a blockbuster sequel.
I saw 'E.T.' with my children. Now that they've grown up and gone away, the trailer's telling me that there's no reason for this Adult to go see 'Super 8'.
So I'll go see 'Green Lantern' which does appeal to me as both a fan boy and an adult.
That trailer surprised me too. It pretty much outlined the entire movie. My parents took me to see it when it originally played in theaters, and I hadn't seen the trailer. That was one of the best movies I've ever seen. Looking back, I'm glad I never saw the trailer. Applause for not revealing E.T., but seriously, that trailer was cheesy and revealed WAY too much.
"Granted, Goonies, Close Encounters and E.T. all had multiple sequels that racked up billions - oh wait, no they didn't. Sometimes it's nice to see a movie that's a movie, not an advertisement for a blockbuster sequel."
Aaaaaamen. Thanks, Tommy!
Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason so much is spoiled in trailers is because studio execs are a really nervous bunch who are never really sure what is going to hit or why. So they do what they can: Overexpose a film and hope to make their money back.
Right on, brother. Movie headlines now are all about the opening weekend haul. I guess no one cares anymore if the movie is good or not.
Are there really hundreds of more movies made today than there were 30 years ago? I am only asking the question because it doesn't seem that way.
According to the-numbers.com:
1982: 146 films released
2010: 892 films released
I don't know about "made"; I wrote "released." While I'd assume it's accurate for both, I know it's accurate for the latter: According to at least one database -- which doesn't include indie and foreign releases from the time, granted, so let's add 50 percent just for the hell of it -- studio releases in 1982 totaled 146. More comprehensive (i.e. indie/foreign) data from 2010 lists a total of 892 releases.
A lot of this is just attributable to the surge in media: more multiplexes = more screens to fill; more cable bandwidth = more channels to program; more festivals (and lower barrier to entry) = more indie/low-budget proliferation... etc etc.
Haha. Jinx!
Burning money is always fun to watch.