web
counter
 

Own Your Geek

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (31)



51RHgAKcJ4L.jpg

The hot topic over the weekend, especially among movie bloggers and box-office pundits and the like, was the success — or lack thereof — of Kick-Ass, a movie that ended up with a $20 million opening against a $30 million expectation. William Goss already touched on some of this in his weekend box-office round-up, but I’d like to explore the issue a little deeper.

The way I see it, the opening of Kick-Ass wasn’t at all a failure. It was the expectations, based upon prognosticators without a real understanding of audience demographics, that screwed this up by predicting a $30 million opening in the first place. Kick-Ass had no shot at $30 million — there were no major stars (save for Nic Cage, a poisonous one), the source material wasn’t popular, it was rated R, and exposure to the movie was concentrated online. That exposure test is a fairly simple one: If your mother hasn’t heard of the movie, it has no chance of opening higher than $30 million. If your spouse hasn’t heard of the movie, then it has no chance of breaking $20 million (assuming you do not live in a two-geek household).

Movie bloggers, especially those associated with geek sites, were largely surprised by the lower-than-expected turnout. That’s, in part, because we’re a myopic bunch. When a movie hits its saturation point in our world, as Kick-Ass did, we believe that it’s destined for huge numbers. What we often fail to consider, however, is that our world is small. And that, though we are loathe to admit it, just like in high school, the geeks are unpopular, marginalized, and small in numbers (but at least we’re not selling cars, assholes). At the end of the day, the jocks and cheerleaders — or what I like to refer to as “dumbasses” — still rule the box-office.

Let me explain. I wish I knew how to make a proper graph, but I don’t, so the following very rough numbers will have to suffice. Let’s put the baseline for an incredibly successful opening weekend at a $100 million gross (ignoring things like budgets, marketing, etc.). To score $100 million, that means you need approximately 10 million people to go see your movie (give or take, based on a $10 movie ticket). So, 10 million is our universe. Kick-Ass scored only a $20 million opening. That means about 2 million people went to see it opening weekend, or 20 percent of our universe. That’s actually not bad if you consider that geeks only make up 20 percent of the movie-going universe. That means that Lionsgate completely maximized the base audience. The problem was, Kick-Ass had no crossover appeal. And to score a $100 million opening, you have to hit all the major demos.

Audiences are a lot like political parties. Movies have a certain base. You need to rally the base, and then pray that you have some crossover appeal to win. Sarah Palin, for instance, could rally her base and get only 25 percent of the vote because neither the liberal base (25 percent) or the mainstream middle (50 percent) would vote for her. (Fortunately, her followers aren’t really movie-goers, otherwise she’d be the next Tyler Perry). The numbers are similar for moviegoing audiences, although there’s obviously a significant crossover. But, to put it in an artificial black and white world, the demographic bases would look something like this (based on the 10 million universe):

2 million geeks
1.5 million horror fans
500,000 independent film fans
1.5 million mature, adult-oriented drama fans
2 million romantic comedy fans
4.5 million dumbasses

If I could do a VENN diagram, circles would be crossing over like crazy.

So, if you can rally your base, alone, you can expect box-office numbers in line with the above. For instance, Kick-Ass rallied their 2 million geeks and fetched a $20 million opening. Hellboy, which opened similarly, falls in the same category. A movie like State of Play, on the other hand, which is mostly limited to those who see mature, adult-orientated dramas, is going to score a $15 million opening weekend, assuming maximum exposure to the base and interest. Put Kate Hudson in a romantic comedy, and you’re going to open with about a $20 million opening no matter how bad the film is (see Fool’s Gold, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days and You, Me, and Dupree) because that’s the rom-com base. Put Adam Sandler in a broad comedy, and you’re going to maximize your dumbass audience with a $45 million opening (give or take). See: The Longest Yard, Click, Anger Management, Mr. Deeds, Big Daddy, etc. It’s hard to rally the base on an indie crowd, however, because they’re limited to the big cities and the openings are staggered, but if you manage to rally that base over the staggered release schedule you could hope to end up with a $5 million overall gross (if you’re lucky) (this is why Oscars are important to indies — an Oscar gives it some appeal to both adult-oriented drama fans and the dumbasses who like to see anything that’s popular).

Now, to really succeed, it’s imperative that you crossover into the other categories, and the easiest way to do that is to pick off the dumbasses. Horror movies do that ten times a year. For example, horror-hounds are going to see most horror-movie remakes, even if they know they’re going to be awful, because that base is rabid. But horror remakes also pull in a lot of dumbasses, a few geeks, and even a few from the rom-com category who tag along as dates. A movie like The Dark Knight, on the other hand, is going to hit them all: Geeks, horror folks, dumbasses, adult-oriented drama, and even the rom-com crowd (who just like to go on dates no matter the movie, OK?). Look at Twilight: It pulled in female geeks, female horror fans, the rom-com audience, and half of the dumbasses (i.e., their moms).

This is just a rough sketch, and an overly simplistic one at that; it’d be impossible to calculate the real numbers. But the point is this: Kick-Ass maximized its base. If anything, the Lionsgate people should be happy about that. The geeks turned out in full force (whether they ultimately liked the movie or not is another question). Compare that to Defendor (review this afternoon), a similar movie with a similar audience which really did fail to reach its base. The problem was that it didn’t appeal at all to those other demographics. Not a whit (horror fans might have turned up in bigger numbers if they’d known just how much violence there was in the film, but the marketing didn’t really illustrate that).

All of which brings me back to the central thesis: Geeks still make up a relatively small portion of movie-going audiences. Yes, huge comic-book movies still rack up ridiculous box-office numbers, but that’s because they also appeal heavily to those other demographics. The dumbasses, for instance, will show up to anything that’s been cross-promoted at Burger King. Give us a good story and good acting like Iron Man did, and the indie fans and the adult-drama folks will show up, too (and the rom-com audience will show up to see RDJ).

Kick-Ass had none of that cross-over appeal, and in order to get it, the movie would have had to water itself down significantly and come up with a reason to cast Olivia Munn or something. I’m glad it didn’t. I think that Matthew Vaughn made the movie he set out to make (I just don’t think that a lot of people ultimately liked his vision), and Lionsgate did a nice job of marketing to the base. Of course, I wish it’d been better (and Dan wishes it’d been good), but the quality of the film really didn’t have a lot to do with the box-office opening (no one pays attention to critics on opening weekend, and everyone knows it). Indeed, for geeks, there’s nothing to be ashamed about here. You lost the popularity contest way back in junior high. All it means is that movies that strictly appeal to geeks aren’t going to make as much money as Grown Ups, starring Adam Sandler and Kevin James. Why is that bad? It doesn’t mean they’re going to stop making geek films, not if there’s a guaranteed $20 million base from which to start. Besides, why would you want to be lumped in with the dumbasses, anyway? And why would you want the dumbasses infringing on your territory? If you saw Kick-Ass over the weekend, that means you’re a geek. Own that shit. Wear it motherfucking proudly. And you can tell the geek bashers to watch Paul Blart and go fuck themselves.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Rockwell and ScarJo Attached to Lost Kubrick Project | Estate Sales Are Not Great Places For Dates | Pajiba Love 04/19/10









Comments

Good breakdown. As a data visualization nerd, I have to point out that the term is "Venn diagram".

Posted by: laredo at April 19, 2010 12:40 PM

VIN is an accurate term here since the circles are all pictures of Vin Diesel's head.

Posted by: Brian at April 19, 2010 12:47 PM

But the opening was a failure. Success/failure is defined by expectations. The expectations were 30, the result was 20, and that is a pretty serious under-performance. You can second guess the numbers all you want, but the advertising push was designed to bring in a lot more idiots, gore-hounds, pedophiles, latchkey kids, serial masterbators, and confused senior citizens than it did. You don't need commercials every 15 minutes on FX and TNT to rally the geek base.

But what's the big deal? I haven't seen it but from everything I've read the movie wasn't that great anyway- It was no Zombieland- and so I already have it in the Netflix queue and I'll see it in 4-5 months when the DVD drops.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 19, 2010 12:48 PM

I think the numbers of all of those could be safely cut in half so we could allocate 5 million to children and their parents. They'll show up to Iron Man 2 because it's more kid friendly and popular. But they're not showing up to Kick-Ass because it's obscure and violent.

Kids, man. It's all about taking the kids.

Posted by: superasente at April 19, 2010 1:02 PM

When I got halfway down this article, somewhere around the first instance of "VENN Diagram," I was like "how much is left of this thing? Holy Crow! This should all be fairly obvious what happened here: the same thing that happened for "Snakes on a Plane." The same thing that happened for "Grindhouse." The Intarwebz is a fickle bitch, and the problem with all those geeks is a whole bunch of them will forgo the box office because they'll download that fucker the following Monday online. Oh, and it wouldn't hurt if any of these films mentioned had gotten, you know, like, good reviews. That Ebert, man, he's got clout.

Posted by: EJ at April 19, 2010 1:05 PM

Um... 2 + 1.5 + 0.5 + 1.5 + 2 + 4.5 = 12. Either I've completely misunderstood the concept of a 10 million universe or I'm the only person on earth anal enough to check the figures.

Posted by: lozziefozzie at April 19, 2010 1:09 PM

You're not the only one, lozziefozzie.

Posted by: Math Bitch at April 19, 2010 1:36 PM

You also have the problem that the movie that was talked about among geeks (like on this site)bore no resemblance to the ridiculously shitty trailers on tv.

Posted by: maceo at April 19, 2010 1:36 PM

First, as a former jock, fuck you.

Second, as there is no citation for any of these numbers, I feel comfortable in assuming you've pulled those demographics straight from your ass.

Third, you're ignoring the fact that this fanbase will see a movie multiple times if motivated to do so. I guess that wasn't the case here.

Fourth, this sounds like a lot of tapdancing to explain away the relative failure of a film you liked. $30 million may have been too high, but I didn't hear that until the returns came back at $20 million.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at April 19, 2010 1:36 PM

First, as a former jock, fuck you.

Tracer, I'm shocked to hear you claim Jock-hood over Fanboy-ness. I thought after your Red Lantern Guy Gardner post you were one of us for sure.

It's like losing Ricki Martin to the gays all over again.

Posted by: superasente at April 19, 2010 1:42 PM

Quite interesting.

Posted by: grace b at April 19, 2010 1:44 PM

And I thought dumbasses would've loved this more then geeks considering how far from the source material they drifted.

p.s. This shit is watered down. In the book Dave gets shit on at every turn and that's what I loved about it, it made it seem that much more real. Also if you actually read all the books and are pissed at how they changed shit you're a true geek.

Posted by: blahblah at April 19, 2010 2:05 PM

lozziefozzie, I believe he said there were crossovers between the audience numbers, hence the mention of Venn diagrams. Therefore, the numbers shouldn't add up to 10.

Posted by: Phaeolus at April 19, 2010 2:14 PM

Considering the number of kids we saw sneaking into the theatre unaccompanied by an adult, I wonder how the box office numbers actually match up to the number of butts in the seats for this movie. I wonder what movie those kids paid for.

Posted by: Whorish Mouth at April 19, 2010 2:18 PM

I am both a jock and a fanboy in the same way that Ren's apathy balances out his rage.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at April 19, 2010 2:30 PM


lozziefozzie is correct. the way dustin presented his demographic riff, there were 10 million in his universe. the fact that some of
them may crossover in a venn diagram doesn't alter the fact that
he is working with 10 mill. speaking of crossovers , however, where
do the jocks and cheerleaders fit in ? the dumbasses i suspect while
the geeks get their own neat category in the universe. i submit
there are more smart jocks than smart geeks ... and dan was right
on the money with his review. this movie was was made by and for
dumbasses so using dustin's numbers it only attracted only 44%
of its base.
i give the geeks a pass. they were smart enough to stay home.

with it all, however, dustiin hit a home run with this one ... fun
to read and parse.

Posted by: snake at April 19, 2010 2:37 PM

Great breakdown!

Posted by: Mad Claw at April 19, 2010 2:47 PM

You're... you're quibbling with numbers on a fake statistic meant to illustrate a point.

My God. You're worse than geeks. You're dweebs! Line up for your swirlies now, wimps.

Fun Vin Diaramapazoid, Big Cheese, but how people were surprised that geeks didn't inherit the earth for this thing will always confuse me. Really, guys? A rated R movie about a comic book that most people have never heard of with _hard_ violence and you're shocked it didn't pull in 30 mill opening weekend? This movie will need to exist on good word of mouth in order for it to pick up steam. Sheesh.

Posted by: Kayanne at April 19, 2010 2:59 PM

You also have the problem that the movie that was talked about among geeks (like on this site)bore no resemblance to the ridiculously shitty trailers on tv.
Posted by: maceo at April 19, 2010 1:36 PM

Abso-frickin-lutely! I saw the film a while ago with my sister, and we came out of the cinema completely bewildered as to why they are marketing a great, sometimes quite harrowing film as a superhero spoof. Because I am a super-nerd and spend far too much time on the interwebs, I had had an inkling that it was going to be a lot more interesting that the adverts portrayed. If I wasn't such a geek then on the strength of the advertising alone there is no way I would have bothered going to see Kick-Ass and I would have really missed out.

Posted by: squeeziee at April 19, 2010 3:07 PM

Great post.

I saw Kick Ass over the weekend and I liked it. I'll rent the DVD when it comes to Netflix.

Posted by: John W at April 19, 2010 3:31 PM

jesus, i started reading that but then it was all wordy and i got bored.
just like i got bored midway (or even sooner) watching kick-ass. can't you just say it failed because it was boring and be done with it?

bah.

Posted by: gp at April 19, 2010 5:16 PM

I thought this was really interesting actually. Thank you for writing it.

Posted by: "luker" the barbarian at April 19, 2010 5:45 PM

I saw it, but I'm not mainly a geek. I'm a stoner geek. So yeah, that.

Posted by: Brittany at April 19, 2010 5:59 PM

Kick-Ass Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $19,828,687 53.3%
+ Foreign: $17,400,000 46.7%

= Worldwide: $37,228,687 100.0%

Posted by: Recondite at April 19, 2010 7:48 PM

I see that Dustin went to the Peter King Semi/Quasi School of Statisticnessitude.

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at April 19, 2010 10:02 PM

Thanks Recondite. I was curious to see how it went in the foreign market compared to the US.

I have always wondered why box-office 'success' has always been dependant on US takings and the evidence is right there.

I saw it at a free screening over here and feel like I have let the team down.

Posted by: Seraf at April 19, 2010 10:43 PM

I liked the article quite a bit. Makes sense.

I still have zero interest in that damned movie.

Posted by: figgy at April 20, 2010 12:38 AM

Your article made me feel smarter and also explained Adam Sandler movies. Awesome!

Similar things happen in videogames but the breakdown is different. Its 20% hardcore fanboys. 70% dumbasses. 5% parents buying games randomly as gifts. 5% casual players.

Posted by: ThingOfThings at April 20, 2010 1:11 AM

At least it lost to How to Train Your Dragon, so really the geek picture was outgeeked.

Posted by: DoctorControversy at April 20, 2010 10:02 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8631767.stm

/breaks into rendition of "We aren't the world..."

Random comment about counting all of your eggs before they hatch.

Posted by: Recondite at April 20, 2010 10:16 AM

International box office sales are not used in this case for several reasons. 1. The makers of Kick Ass didn't claim that Kick Ass would make $30 million dollars in total international box office receipts. They claimed that the movie would bring in at least $30 million in United States box office receipts, which it did not.

British movie, British actors, British director, and yet they made a point to separated United States box office and international.

Why?

Because that is usually the way it works. The international profits are usually utilized to cover various costs that the average non-film industry guru has no concept about.

Why? (Part 2)

Based on truly awesome and stupendous support from geeks that have access to the internet, Vaughn was able to get a bidding war started on who would get distribution rights for his movie Kick Ass in the United States. Most studios passed on funding the project, because they thought it would fail. In fact so many studios passed on funding this movie because it was freakin obvious that this movie was fail that Vaughn had to borrow the money to get the film made. Around $30 million AT LEAST (hidden costs abound in making a movie.)

And you math whiz guys and contemplate what the interest would be on a loan of that size.

But armed with the incredible geek fan support that Kick Ass had, Vaughn was able to convince Lionsgate to shell out at least $70 million dollars. But that $70 million that Lionsgate shelled out was only for distribution of the movie Kick Ass in theaters in the United States.

(I'm hoping that the first thing that Vaughn did with that $70 million was pay off the loans he took to finance the film. But then again I'm not a super rich business guy, which means I'm loaded with shit load more common sense.)

So when Vaughn and crew are erroneously claiming that the movie would make at least $30 million opening weekend, they are not saying it to you, or the guy behind you with the mustard on his shirt...

They are saying it to Lionsgate, who paid $70 million for the rights to distribute in America.

And even if somehow Kick Ass manages to make enough money to pay back Lionsgate the $70 million dollars that the movie cost that company just for the right to distribute, that company still looks like a pretty big chump.

Why?

Because Lionsgate will be very hard pressed to make more money on the domestic (United States) box office receipts from the movie Kick Ass, as they would have made if they had just put the $70 million dollars in a high interest savings account somewhere.

And people in the movie industry generally like to make a more sizable profit then just that.

And that is why Kick Ass is a failure.

And right now there are several Lionsgate execs that are kicking themselves in the ass for believing a bunch of internet geeks who were so throughly convinced that the movie was going to be a runaway success.

And watch the movie. It ain't all that. It's not even close. Certainly not anywhere the amount of internet hype that was generated for it.

And very hard to believe that Vaughn didn't know that from the finished product.

Wait.

Six months after production wrapped on Kick Ass, and the movie had been edited and in the can, Vaughn brought everyone back that was necessary to completely re-shoot the final scenes.

Are you dense enough to believe that his faith in the movie was absolutely iron clad?

Then certainly no reason to re shoot the ending.

This was a movie that everyone everywhere that had anything to do with the film industry pretty much thought that it would not be a success. But somehow, possibly by catering to a very particular demographic, Vaughn was able to convince Lionsgate to give him a suitcase full of $70 million dollars.

But all you geek and comic book fans, don't expect a major film studio to so intently listen to what you are saying next time.

Because looking at the failure of Kick Ass...

...You're all full of shit.

Posted by: John Zee at April 25, 2010 3:26 AM