..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

2004: The Year
My Report Card Broke

A number of things pop to mind about the majors studios and companies that traditionally account for more than 90% of what North Americas see in movie houses in any given year. None of these thoughts is particularly positive. 

The most obvious point to make is that year after year fewer Americans leave their house to see movies. There is from time to time an attendance boost but that increase is never proportionally greater than the actually population growth.

What’s troubling about that fact is that at the same time more people are watching movies thanks to their availability on DVD, Pay-cable and other mediums. And what’s difficult to reckon is whether the studios have simply reapportioned the traditional manner in which films are seen. It does not seem like an orchestrated plan to redefine viewing habits to conform to the realities and potencies of different arenas but rather a Topsy-like growth the industry is desperately trying to confront and conform after the fact. 

Hollywood has a long-standing and destructive history of being behind the curve to whatever elements impact its livelihood. It reacted slowly to the advent of television as well as videocassettes not to mention every social and political tremor in society over the past 100 years.

What appears consistent is that the films themselves are the bedrock of the industry and the art form and their haven is a movie theater. Alternatives venues come and go. The dominance of VHS evaporated as DVD ascended and that’s brings to mind the cruel reminder of a stack of 8-Tracks with no machine to play them on.

It also begs the question whether new formats are the doom of old formats. And what follows from that is the reality that initial spurts of growth plateau quickly as they arrive at maturation. The industry’s vitality is now keyed to supplanting one format with another and in the absence of timely change there will be stagnation and erosion on the balance sheet.

Artistry is not victim to these sorts of constraints. It has more insidious gremlins. About five years ago Steven Soderbergh made the observation that “films that have a number in their title are basically a whore’s game.” There is a cynicism in trying to replicate a past success or duplicating and manipulating an old movie and passing it off as a new one. It is the equivalent of cinematic alchemy and like the process of turning lead into gold, accomplishing that feat is almost always more expensive than exploring for a new vein. Again, it’s a classic example of Hollywood being behind the curve.

My personal conviction is that by definition sequels cannot be superior to originals. The film most often cited as better than its inspiration is The Godfather, Part II. And I understand the argument that it is a more complex and ambitious picture than the first chapter. The hurdle I cannot clear is being convinced that any movie that follows from another is not in large part shaped by the good will, intention and achievement of its source. The Bride of Frankenstein is a better film than Frankenstein on the basis of craft and storytelling but at the same time could not exist without the first outing. John Huston’s 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon is superior to the two prior screen versions of that novel but it was not capitalizing on the earlier film’s successes - it was attempting to overcome their failures.

Curves also come into play when grading the output of the majors. It’s called marking on the curve and on that comparative basis, by definition, some will be receive an A and others will get Fs. Objectively it’s a fraudulent standard as theoretically those worthy of a positive assessment could be designated with a failing or marginal grade when stacked beside others. What goes into the assessment is another matter I won’t even begin to try to wrestle to the ground.

The bottom line is that the majors, individually and collectively, are doing many things in an ill-conceived fashion. It doesn’t absent the possibility of positive or encouraging development, simply an over-riding tendency listing toward bad or shortsighted judgment calls. That’s the bias that underlines the observations of Hollywood current studio system.

Sony. By the industry’s market share yardstick, Sony was 2004’s domestic champion. The studio’s international performance was not as potent. The company’s most commercially impressive pictures were the artistically worthy sequel Spider-Man 2, an utterly conventional Adam Sandler comedy (50 First Dates) and the Americanized remake of the Japanese horror film The Grudge. So, it’s financially viable year rested on the bedrock of recycled ideas.

Following a lackluster 2003, Revolution Studios - the company’s biggest supplier - had an OK year with a relatively inexpensive, high concept slate that included White Chicks, The Forgotten and Christmas with the Kranks. Overall Sony’s slate was very formulaic and the modesty of ambition coupled with comparatively low budgets resulted in some highly profitable films such as Anacondas and the acquisition of The Grudge and Resident Evil: Apocalypse via its association with the German-based Senator Films. There were commercial disappointments but no abject failures on the schedule.

Its few ambitious ventures included the holiday 2003 release of Big Fish and late year releases of Closer and Spanglish primed for award season consideration. However, the latter two entries failed to make the critical cut and their commercial run has been disappointing in relation to production and marketing costs.

Warner Bros. The leader internationally and second in market share at home, Warners had the third installment of Harry Potter and ramped up Ocean’s a notch. It rolled the dice on Troy and while the critical response was mixed, its formidable overseas gross made the gamble pay off.

Its other risky venture was The Polar Express that was co-ventured with …. It was initially an expensive proposition but as production waged on it became even more costly and combined with gross profit players spiraled to a level that demanded Titanic returns. To the company’s credit it pulled out the stops to promote the film even after initial soft business but at the end of the day someone will be writing off losses.

Warner Bros. continues to be a volume player and this year it was manifested in such inane offerings as A Cinderella Story, Torque and The Big Bounce. The company library is littered with pictures like this that either make a tidy profit or incur a small amount of red ink.

The major missteps financially and artistically included a failed attempt to create a Catwoman franchise, the Exorcist prequel and Alexander. However, financial partners mitigated the sting of the latter two.

The first year of operation of Warner Independent Pictures doesn’t yet paint a clear picture of how the company will balance its programmers from quirky or alternative fare. Warners has a history for tackling offbeat or what the industry likes to call “difficult” pictures despite all the ink spilled about its resistance to green light Million Dollar Baby. The closed door sessions may have been heated but the film was made and is being supported.

Buena Vista. It would be far too cute to say what would you expect from a Mickey Mouse operation. There’s little question it faltered through much of the year, rallied at the finish and had a very potent year on the international front. Disney has a penchant for lightweight family comedies that included Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen and Raising Helen and had high ticket items such as Hidalgo and King Arthur that failed to coalesce domestically though the latter movie was a big hit overseas.

It also had a major collision with The Alamo, a property with a long history of strife and no happy ending at the close. The company’s record with iconoclastic filmmakers is also problematic and neither the Coen Brothers' remake of The Ladykillers nor Wes Anderson’s The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou reversed the tide or provided any indication that the studio has an affinity for unusual talents or material.

It’s internal animation unit is in desperate need of a shake up as evidenced by Home on the Range and its highly profitable and creative association with Pixar comes to an end following next year’s release of Cars. Of all the major players, Disney is the company where numbers only provide a tip of the iceberg view. This year’s slate might provide a more upbeat picture but the past few years reflect a tired game plan in need of a new coach that can shake things up.

DreamWorks. Take Shrek 2 and Shark’s Tale out of the equation and there’s not much animation in the vitality of this newest Hollywood player. Spielberg’s latest, The Terminal, was passable financially but lacked the pep and invention of past efforts while Collateral failed to perform to the level associated with star Tom Cruise’s box office record. Anchorman was possibly its best investment on return though its appeal internationally was extremely limited.

The company has experienced painful growing pains as it’s slowly raised its release schedule for six to eight films annual to 10 to 12. It just hasn’t displayed a knack for fungible fare and the grim evidence was there to see with the likes of Envy, Win a Date with Tad Hamilton, Eurotrip and Surviving Christmas.

Fox. Of all the majors, Fox had a true mixed bag of pros and cons in what appeared to be an extreme makeover. It had big event pictures such as The Day After Tomorrow and I, Robot that worked financially but most of its low brow fare that in the past has produced some of the best commercial results went down in flames whether it was First Daughter, Welcome to Mooseport or Catch That Kid. The exception was Dodgeball that proved to be a big hit domestically and a better than fair sized grosser internationally. Go figure.

Traditionally it’s a company that aspires to produce one or two pictures of quality like last years Master and Commander. However, that element was missing and there’s a big question mark about its demise in light of Searchlight’s aspirations and the success of the latter division’s 2004 slate both financially and commercially.

It’s difficult to assess whether the past 12 months were an anomaly, a transition or something else altogether. Allowing for benefit of the doubt, it scrapes by on balance … but just barely.

Universal. For lack of any substantial factor such as regime change, Universal tends to go up or down in market share more vigorously than any other of its cousin major outlets. It had major hits with sequels - The Bourne Supremacy, Meet the Fockers - but its attempt to establish Van Helsing as a franchise simply wasn’t good enough commercially or artistically. The company also generated very good results from its acquisition of Ray and with Friday Night Lights though the latter film failed to sustain any award consideration momentum.

It also continued a long tradition of popular horror movies with the sequel The Chronicles of Riddick and the remake of Dawn of the Dead. It should have had a more substantial year but came up short with its Working Title productions Wimbledon and Thunderbirds and a disappointing domestic response to the second Bridget Jones film that will gross more than $200 million overseas.

Of all the studios, Universal probably had the most ambitious and diverse slate in spite of the preponderance of retread vehicles on its schedule. One can only hope that its balance sheet is hearty enough to sustain both qualities.

Paramount. There’s not much glory to be derived from a release slate almost entirely composed of cookie cutter films even if virtually all of them turn a modest profit. There’s essentially the basis for the imminent overhaul at the top of Paramount’s food change and it’s virtually any guess what the new gestalt, if any, emerges two years down the line.

The not quite swan song of the Lansing era was largely undistinguished but not embarrassing. Bottom line entries including Mean Girls and Without a Paddle were highly profitable and pictures such as Suspect Zero and Against the Ropes disappeared so quickly their failures were hardly noticed.

Its investments in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow as well as The Manchurian Candidate and Team America should return modest profits but each needed to be conspicuously successful to match their respective ambitions … and that simply did not happen.

MGM. The studio remains a major more by dint of historical legacy than anything else. It actually flexes some muscle when it has a Bond in the pipeline but this wasn’t one of those years. Its 2004 roster was dotted with ill-conceived sequels to Barbershop and Cody Banks and an uninspired remake of Walking Tall.

It hasn’t helped that MGM has had a For Sale sign on its offices for years and the consummation of a deal with Sony (propelled by its library) has left a big question mark hanging over its future. It won’t be business as usual in Leo’s den but will it be business at all?

2004 Domestic Boxoffice
2004 International Boxoffice
2004 Market Share

- by Leonard Klady