I'm a notoriously late adapter. There were--and this is true--Amishmen in my home town who secretly had cellphones before I did. So I was kind of late to the game on Twitter. I hopped into the middle of the giant online cocktail party conversation early this summer and am now Twiddicted. I love Twitter for meeting like-minded folks and catching film news. Most of all, I love making my snarky, self-deprecating cynicism fit into 140 characters.
If used correctly, Twitter can be a wonderful, loose, free-flowing communication tool for quickly sharing news and opinions about everything from the Iranian elections to what people think of the latest blockbuster film in theaters.
Now see if you can guess which of those has Hollywood in a tizzy? Here's a hint. Unless they're being adapted into a Soderbergh movie starring Angelina Jolie and George Clooney, Hollywood does not care about the Iranian elections.
No, the big marketing story in Hollywood this summer is Twitter. Movie studios love to explore new ways to promote their product. But promotional hype is like a controlled burn: You want to generate a lot of heat. You do not want the fire to suddenly blow back and burn your very expensive mansion to the ground.
Studio marketing departments are perfectly happy to use new technologies and communication mediums to get their message out. Except the problem with Twitter is that it's mostly regular people talking about whatever they want, not about what talking TV newsertainment heads or press-touring stars or PR folks want them to talk about. And just as you can't run around a cocktail party full of hundreds of people and make them all stop saying bad things about the hostess, you can't keep people from sharing their honest opinions about films and doing so immediately on Twitter. As a wise man once said, you can't stop the signal.
So two different Twitter stories have emerged from Hollywood this summer. In one story Twitter is the lovable, rascally hero who helped spread the positive word of mouth about District 9 and Inglourious Basterds. In the other story, Twitter is the reckless, destructive loose cannon that ran around and shot off its mouth and single-handedly sunk big-name films like Land of the Lost and Bruno.
Here's the problem for Hollywood: They know most of their movies, especially their big summer blockbusters, aren't masterpieces. No one in a studio is looking at Land of the Lost or G-Force or G.I. Joe and thinking, "Wow, I really believe in this little film--if only we can get people to see it, I know they'll fall in love with it's subtle charms!" No. They're all thinking the same thing: "We need to hype this movie so hard people's eyes and ears bleed and hope we can convince hoards of unsuspecting folks jacked up on double-sugar Slurpees and Red Bull popsicles that if they do not see this film right away their lives will be drained of all possible meaning."
These days most big films do a huge portion of their business on opening weekend. Front load the marketing and publicity for weeks, get folks into the theater, and hit 'em with your big pile. By the time they stumble from the cineplex and are able to pull together a coherent thought, you've filled the theaters up a few more times on opening weekend and you've got your number-one box office spot.
Twitter is messing up that plan. Because now people are tweeting right after the movie, or even during it, letting all their pals know what's what with the big piles. Movies have always succeeded or failed based on word of mouth. But now the truth is getting out too fast--homegrown Friday (or even Thursday) night Twitter reviews from regular Janes and Joes are hurting Saturday ticket sales.
Let's pause for a moment and remember an important point: Studios are whining that tweeting is hurting bad movies. They're worried people are talking too much and too honestly about their products and are hurting sales. As if all big, bad blockbusters have some inalienable right to make $75 million on opening weekend. Meanwhile, good movies--like District 9 and Inglourious Basterds--are benefiting from positive word of tweet. Twitter is not some magical gnome that waves its sparkly wand and makes movies earn or lose money. It's just a communication tool that presents one more way for word of mouth--good or bad--to quickly spread.
So if the studios are worried that instant communication on sites like Twitter is making it harder to shove bad films down the public's throat, here's a novel idea: Make better movies. And when you know you have a pile on your hands, let it go gently into that good night. Instead of trying to make up for a lack of quality with an overload of deafening hype, why not pour your marketing budgets into smaller, better films that could use the profile boost?
But don't worry. I realize the notion of Hollywood embracing quality over empty hype is about as likely as Rob Zombie remaking Annie Hall. And see? I said that last bit in 139 characters.
"As if all big, bad blockbusters have some inalienable right to make $75 million on opening weekend."
Preach it, Brother Locke!
Posted by: Matt Doman | August 25, 2009 at 10:13 AM