The Fifth Estate, Benedict Cumberbatch & Fangirl Problems

[pennswoods]

[Originally Posted to Tumblr]

I woke up in a good mood this Monday morning, but that quickly soured as I scoured some of my favorite sites for information about Benedict Cumberbatch and came across an explosion of commentary regarding how poorly The Fifth Estate performed, and how this is bad news for Benedict. This meant I had a very bad morning because as a huge Cumberbatch fan, I am overly invested in him having a long, varied, and full movie/television/theatre career so I will never run out of things to reblog on Tumblr.

According to fans in the industry or at least people who profess to be in the film industry (the money part) but may just be trolling, Benedict’s name being associated with underperforming films is what is going to have a negative impact on him being hired to lead films in Hollywood. And this has nothing to do with his talent but everything to do with whether his face will get butts in seats and in dollars in pockets. This is all according to this rather polemically titled rant thread here.

For non-fannish perspectives see also

• This gossip blog: http://www.laineygossip.com/Benedict-Cumberbatchs-The-Fifth-Estate-bombs-at-the-box-office/28392


• The Hollywood Reporter article that started it all: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-gravity-no-1-649646


• And this REALLY unfortunately titled article : http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/10/20/box-office-disaster-benedict-cumberbatch-the-fifth-estate/

Things I did not know but have learned since reading all this:

1. STiD was considered not a good showing so this is a black mark against him.


2. That he is on all the posters for TFE and did all the promo and pretty much the fact that Dreamworks were using his rising star power to see the film is going to work hugely against him.


3. The Hobbit is not considered a financial success and The Desolation of Smaug is not anticipated to do that hot either.

Things I suspected and have been confirmed by reading all this:

1. Hollywood investors are super conservative and only care about making money, but also suck at understanding why things do or don’t make a lot of money and therefore like to blame the talent - especially if new.


2. Having a bit part in a film or two that does well artistically is not going to help demonstrate that Benedict is a good investment to lead a film.


3. The Hollywood model of putting all its money on big blockbuster tentpole films is a broken model and more and more BIG films are failing (see The Lone Ranger, the Man of Steel, John Carter of Mars) and this is going to result in even less variety in films coming out as film investors get super conservative and scared and avoid risks. Even Spielberg is having a difficult time producing and has to invests in his own films for them to happen: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/10119344/Steven-Spielberg-predicts-film-industry-meltdown.html

Reading all this made me think that Assange, in his letter to Benedict, was right about one thing but for the wrong reason. Dreamworks used Benedict. Dreamworks opened TFE too broadly and had too high an estimate for a film about a man that a good chunk of America doesn’t like/thinks is a threat to national security/doesn’t remember or care about. Their marketing relied heavily on Benedict’s face, rising star, and fan base, a good chunk of which is not in the US and still can’t see the damn film because it hasn’t opened yet (it comes out in Germany the end of October, in Denmark in November, in Sweden in December, and I cannot even find a release date for Japan.)

So they hitched their film to his rising star to try and take advantage of his momentum, to make some money. They took a risk, but Benedict was too new and hadn’t reached high enough visibility among the audiences they hoped to reach (not the Cumbercollective) and his promotion was limited (Katie Couric is not David Letterman or the Colbert Report) and it brought in so little money on its opening weekend that now whenever the financial failure of the film is being discussed, it’s linked with Benedict’s name.

Bummer…

Comments

[daasgrrl.livejournal.com]

1. I see nothing to worry about. His talent will ensure he has an amazing and long-lived career (assuming mental health or other personal issues don't interfere). What he ISN'T is a Hollywood leading man, period. Should that opinion come back to haunt me, I won't be sorry.

2. I agree, I doubt the average US citizen cares too much about either BC or Assange, and the allegations against the latter have dismayed people who might otherwise have been pro-. I'm vaguely surprised that it's opening so late here, because Assange is Australian and as such has periodically been all over the news. Or perhaps that was deliberate, because the reviews will be damning (and people will probably say the role should have gone to an Australian). Reserving judgement on that question for now.

3. Back to point 1. He will always be offered great roles in Britain - theatre/movies/TV - should he want them, and character roles elsewhere.

[pennswoods.livejournal.com]

I don't mind so much that he not be a Hollywood leading man, but I would mind if he were perceived as box office poison and therefore directors who wanted to cast him for substantial and interesting parts had a difficult time doing so because the investors would insist on someone else.

I like seeing him in TV and I think theatre is where his heart is sometimes, but I also want avenues to stay open for him so he can do awesome film roles. The characters he goes after are inspiring.

[daasgrrl.livejournal.com]

I suggest that the two concerns aren't really related in the sense that at worst, box office "poison" means he won't get cast in *leading* roles which he's not necessarily suited to anyway. It wouldn't stop a) directors desperately wanting to work with him (if you've got JJ and Spielberg fawning over you you're batting big) and b) being cast in fabulous character and/or indie-style roles. Which I think is mostly what we (okay, I) want anyway.

I'm sure you knew all that - don't let the online negativity get you down. I mean, they're not going to watch anything he does anyway *g* *pats*

[splix.livejournal.com]

I agree with all this. Frankly, while I think he'll continue to get a choice of interesting roles, I would be happier if he didn't go the big-Hollywood route, and even big stars like Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise don't necessarily command the automatic draw they did twenty years ago. Star power is not what it used to be; stats seem to indicate that people are going to see films for content rather than for actors.

I've spoken to people who barely know what the Wikileaks scandal was all about - I'm not at all surprised the film isn't doing well.

He'll be fine. He'll have a solid, respectable career with, I'm certain, a rich variety of roles to choose from.

[pennswoods.livejournal.com]

I am sure he will be fine. I think I was just feeling rather down by all the negative hullaballoo as well as the celebrating going on over on ONTD and other places who were taking this as evidence that he's overhyped, ugly and just needs to disappear.

[splix.livejournal.com]

ONTD is a cesspool. I don't go there any longer, but when I did, I always came away feeling coated in slime.

[cleflink.livejournal.com]

*tilts head* But STiD is the highest grossing film in the Star Trek franchise. And the Hobbit made over a billion dollars (15th highest grossing film in history). Who are these people who think that these numbers are not good enough? Especially for genre films...

I'm pretty sure that all the positive reviews from Fifth Estate have been about Benedict's acting which should hold him in decently good stead despite the suck that was the box office take. He's also got a couple of other films on the line that are getting very well received in limited release (I think 12 Years a Slave is already getting Oscar buzz). It's not good news, certainly, but he's not riding on it the way he might be if he hadn't been so busy in the last couple of years.

Although I wonder if, in some way, Benedict might actually be kind of relieved to avoid the big blockbusters and focus on smaller and/or non American films. He seems to be the kind of guy who finds fame difficult.

[pennswoods.livejournal.com]

Who are these people who think that these numbers are not good enough? Especially for genre films...

No idea. Probably people who've overinvested in certain films to the neglect of mid-range films in the hope of minimizing risk and maximizing their end of year portfolios.

I agree that he's not seeking fame, but I do think he's seeking opportunity to stretch himself and to do interesting roles and to work with people he admires and respects. As long as that remains open to him, I'm sure he'll be happy. I just selfishly want to keep seeing him do cool stuff because I love his acting and like looking at his face.

[cleflink.livejournal.com]

*nods* For sure, I want him to be able to do the films he wants, whether that's blockbuster big or indie or whatever. I feel that one bad film (even one as poorly performing as Fifth Estate) won't be sufficient to affect that.

love his acting and like looking at his face.
As do all the best people. ^_^

[drinkingcocoa.livejournal.com]

Although I wonder if, in some way, Benedict might actually be kind of relieved to avoid the big blockbusters and focus on smaller and/or non American films.

This, exactly. Benedict needs a limiting factor. He will drive himself sick without one. I'm already worried about how he's managing the relentlessness of being a front man.

[pennswoods.livejournal.com]

The promotion is definitely not the easiest thing for him though he really does give it his all.

[(Anonymous)]

Its more than the fact that people "don't like/thinks is a threat".

The American culture in the past few decades or so have become very 'now' oriented. Assange is old news. Most news here is now on the Snowden story (and by the time Hollywood makes a picture out of it, that could be old news too).

With everything going on in the US right now, people don't want to go to movies to be educated. With the cost of a movie ticket in most areas, if a family (or even a couple) are going to spend that much on admission (and lets not even get into the cost of refreshments if they want any), they want to be entertained, taken away from reality, find some relief from the bad stuff in the news.

And really? Benedict Cumberbatch is not a well known name here in the states yet to a large percentage of the population. It's not that big a draw to a lot of demographics.

[pennswoods.livejournal.com]

The now oriented point you raise is akin the the issue of relevance and currency people have pointed out regarding the difference in reception between the Social Network and TFE. Facebook is a more visible part of people's immediate lives than is wikileaks. I cannot really fault the US population (or other populations) for being very now oriented. It is an oversight, but sometimes I feel I am drowning in information overload and find it very hard to slog through it all.

And Benedict is definitely not a big enough name to carry a film in the States. This is part of why the marketing around him really felt to me like pinning too much on a rising presence. I cynically wonder if in doing so, Dreamworks was hoping to wash their hands of blame. Once they realized it was not going to get a great reception, did they decide to focus their marketing and promotion on him so they could more easily blame his lack of starpower for the movie's financial underperformance?

[dragonsinger954.livejournal.com]

They had to focus on him, he had the lead role.

However, many people are also beginning to realize that current event films don't "reveal the truth" because they are really just opinion pieces in long form on events, a very long commercial for someone's beliefs and opinions on what went on.

But as I said earlier, with the events of late, most of us want to go to the cinema to escape for a while, not catch up on the news. We can do that at home, in our pj's, comfy and for free.

[dragonsinger954.livejournal.com]

Pennswood, if a comment comes into be screened by "anon" that was me, apparently LJ signed me out and I didn't know it ^___-

[pennswoods.livejournal.com]

Aha! So glad to know who that was. I just unscreened it but was freaking out a little because I couldn't figure out what anon person would come comment on my cumbercrush posts.

[dragonsinger954.livejournal.com]

Apparently, the page was still signed in when I read it and commented. Then as I hit send, must have decided to sign me out.

[droxy.livejournal.com]

this is part of the shitty business of show business. but every BBC movie I watch we see many familiar faces so BC will have plenty of work there.


"Hollywood investors are super conservative and only care about making money, but also suck at understanding why things do or don’t make a lot of money and therefore like to blame the talent - especially if new."--- well hollywood on a whole is soooo not politically conservative, and very liberal. However the Hollywood crowd (From musicians, actors, filmmakers, and all the supporting industry) likes keeping their money and use every tax loop hole available. Movie making is time consuming and expensive to do it well, like any producers of product, and it is product, they want a ROI. Spielberg reinvests to get control over his pictures. Budget sometimes matters in making a great movie, sometimes it doesn't.

Fear not, the after theater market makes money for them as well. Some movies that stunk at the box office make quite a bit on the DVD market, and make even more money than the theater run. Theater goers are not us, they are mostly young men. If middle aged women poured money into theaters the market would adjust accordingly to follow the money.

I liked the hobbit, but it's production value (writing) wasn't as good as LOTR. That's what kills a movie. Great actors cannot fix crappy writing and a crappy story.

[pennswoods.livejournal.com]

I really do wonder if theatre goers are really comprised of so many young men or if the investors just think they are because this is an old model. There's a tendency in research (and investment is just another kind of research) for bias to cloud interpretation of the results. This is shown over and over. A lot of what I read in many sectors, whether it is from actors, critics, film-makers, film-making professors, people in the investment side is that this is just as true in the movie industry.

[droxy.livejournal.com]

Given ticketing data based on credit card purchases versus cash, and on line "big data" tracking such as google, foursquare, twitter, and FB, the data maybe more accurate today. The NSA may be able to track us, but the NSA does this with the commercially available tracking information. The NSA just correlates more than a typical corporation and stores it forever. The money isn't just made by movies, but product placement and after market goodies such as video and on line games. Because of the after market-market, they go for people who are willing to spend discretionary income- young adults versus older folks who, like me and my bias, don't give a damn about games. But there is big money in games. Huge money in games. You would probably freak out at how accurate the data is on people's buying habits, and all the industry people care about is money and only money, and they want to know where the money goes, and who spends it. That's probably the most studied human behavior in the world, because it involves money.

Now there is a tendency of investors to have their own taste bias, everyone has bias. One reason we see so many (unnecessary) remakes of old films is that the history of those films is proven, but a remake seldom has the impact of the original- but it makes money. Know that investors in a movie, may also be investors/owners of other related, tie-in industries, and they are looking for vertical income integration. The movie entertainment business is nasty and brutal. I know some lady's son is in the business side of it, I hear stories. He refuses to date actresses (or actors for that matter). Movies industry makes my office politics look like supreme noobies. Soo happy I am not in "show business".

Don't worry about BC...he will be in plenty of shows. The really talented and popular tend to go in cycles. This won't ruin his career. Look at the supremely flaky Robert Downey Jr. His behavior would have got him arrested and unemployed from any regular position. As an actor the only way he's back is apparently he's good.

[foxestacado.livejournal.com]

I am second-guessing the articles that think STiD and The Hobbit are not considered box office successes, and as a result, I think they're arguing for the sake of arguing, and perhaps being a little too critical of one box office failure whose promotional material heavily focused on BC (and how could they not? He's playing Julian Assange). But they are right in that he didn't get the promotion in the US (did he even do Katie Couric? I wasn't sure about that).

At least in LA, TFE is everywhere: on buses, billboards, tv spots, etc. But in general, the advertisements weren't well done, i.e. they don't tell audiences anything beyond that it is some sort of thriller-looking film.

So, there were problems to the release of the film that can be blamed on Dreamworks, and I don't think anyone can fault BC much, given that his acting is consistently pointing out as being the redeeming aspect of the film.

But it does suck to read about how this might affect his career, long-term. I think he went through this before though with previous leading-man films, and perhaps it's true, he just doesn't demonstrate leading man numbers.

[pennswoods.livejournal.com]

And one of the most vehement critics of that was a nony on the rant meme, who could just be using the veil of anonymity to overstate his/her position. But on the other hand, business is not my division and people who are all about money are really all about money. Big, big money. So I can believe they had huge plans for these films and if they weren't realized then it's a failure.

It's funny how the choice of these words really colors interpretation of things whether they are true or not. If people think this is true, that a move bombed or failed to win big, then that becomes the repeated concept. I just don't like seeing these headlines WITH Benedict's name in it. And I'm adding to all the clutter by posting this as well so I'm almost as bad.

I think there was a lot down wrong with how this film was promoted and released and Assanges rants may have actually served to help promote it on some level, so Dreamworks could have done even worse without that free publicity. It's hard for me to gauge how it's been promoted on the ground because there hasn't been a lick about it here. Then again, Sweden is not a media focal point, which is one of the reasons smaller films like this don't hit theatres until 2-3 months later.

I am still invested in seeing Benedict lead films, even if he isn't considered a leading man. There are tropes and categories for actors that I don't quite understand, but I'd love to see him with substantial parts in interesting films about complex people doing interesting things. I'd also like to see him having fun with his roles and I know variety challenges him, so I hope that this doesn't end up shutting the door on a huge corner of things. But I guess it will.

[shadowfireflame.livejournal.com]

Weirdly, this post actually makes me feel a lot better because I know exactly what you’ve been going through, and it’s nice that I’m not the only one! I’ve been very disappointed in the reception to The Fifth Estate, which I feel is important for U.S. moviegoers to see, and above all I actually enjoyed (and was blown away yet again by its lead).

All I want is for Benedict to be happy and phenomenally successful so he can have his choice of a spread of a wide variety roles, which I think is what he wants (and certainly what I would love to see). Dreamworks was dumb, and I really hate to see people punishing Benedict over that, as I felt he did a fantastic job. And I want to see him in more roles of whatever he chooses, but yeah, I’m greedy and want him in leading roles because then I’ll get to see more of him!

[lampblack.livejournal.com]

Wanted to see this movie and hadn't realized that it was out yet. Will get my uninformed ass in a theater seat soon!

Numbers Never Lie

[major-dallas.livejournal.com]

According to fans in the industry or at least people who profess to be in the film industry (the money part) but may just be trolling, Benedict’s name being associated with underperforming films is what is going to have a negative impact on him being hired to lead films in Hollywood. And this has nothing to do with his talent but everything to do with whether his face will get butts in seats and in dollars in pockets. This is all according to this rather polemically titled rant thread here.

Ah yes, the Fan "Experts", well let's look at his films, since Tinker Tailor Solider Spy, which had a very weak US Opening, but a very good UK opening of 2.8 million pounds off 382 screens, average of: $7329.84 per screen over a Friday-Sunday weekend. there's a lot more I could go into this movie, like the fact that the end of its run in the US, it made almost as much as it did in the UK, just between these 2 countries it almost tripled its budget of 20 million pounds.

Anyway moving on

War Horse(2011) Budget $66 million(Profit: $196 million), US opening was & 14.5 million finishing its US run at $79+ million, worlwide though it made $177,584,879, combined with DVD, Blu Rays, Video Ondemends, and Cable Licensing Rights, this movie crossed the profit line.

next up, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey(Its actually on as I'm typing this, in fact the dwarves and Gandalf are escaping the Goblin mountain and Bilbo just beat Gollum in the Riddle Game), to which Cumberbatch does double duty as Smaug and The Necromancer. Still he was barely in it and trust me, this movie crossed the profit line, so we'll just go to the next movie, which was...



in which Cumberbatch SMEXYIED his way through equally against Kirk and Spock, seriously, I need to post numbers on this? Ok, here we go, budget: $190 million (profit line: $570 million) US opening was: $70+ million, overall run in the US was: $228,773,450, worlwide run was: $465 million it was considered a disappointing theatre run, but DVD, Blu Rays, Video on Demands, Licensing Rights for Cable networks, etc. will make this movie very profitable, Star Trek Geeks will see to that ;p

I'm not going into 12 years a Slave, as it really isn't through a Run yet, but anyways, my points are that Cumberbatch movies perform, numbers never lie :D

so go tell those "Experts" to Fuck themselves

[errandofmercy.livejournal.com]

Don't fret, my dear fangirl! Benedict is going to be fine. Plenty of actors have had terrible experiences and come out all the better for it. Zachary Quinto played Tori Spelling's gay best friend in an entire TV series (among other weird shit) and he turned out ok!

A lot of this hype and Batch-bashing is just a way for some media people to get noticed and keep their jobs. It wouldn't be as lucrative if they were just blathering about how great he is.

You and I both know that he is too awesome to be contained by a couple of offbeat or unprofitable movies. Numerous shows (Star Trek, Firefly, etc.) have shown us that a small but devoted following can make a huge difference in an actor's career successes. The fans won't stop clamoring for him, so he's not going anywhere :)