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

[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.