Redeeming Shawshank, Burning The Blair Witch and Sinking The Titanic

Why do good movies sometimes die a horrible death at the box office?

Industry analysts would have you believe that there are any number of reasons, but typically there's only one. Poor marketing. For example, The Shawshank Redemption is number 4 on the Internet Movie Database's (www.imdb.com) top 250 movies of all time list. The movie did less than stellar business at the box office, though. It pulled in only $28 million.

To dissect why this incredibly great film (if you haven't seen it, that's a hint to get off your ass and do it!) did such poor business, let's look at the situation surrounding its release.

First, the film was released into the movie dead-zone which is known as September. September is a time when small films with ultra-low budgets are typically released. The Shawshank Redemption is not a September film. It's a November or December film. A film which is out there to show all of its flash and glory for the Academy and people interested in seeing critically lauded films. In other words, real moviegoers. September is a time when the studios simply hope to cash in on the summer movie junkies who haven't had enough yet. The Shawshank Redemption doesn't fit in with this crowd.

Next, is the film's title. The Shawshank Redemption is a title which makes perfect sense to those who've seen the film. Unfortunately, it didn't do much for those who hadn't seen it. The title is actually the primary reason I didn't see the film in theaters. I ignored all the great reviews, and simply avoided it because the title didn't tell me anything about the film. I know it's wrong, and it's shallow and all that, but since it only did $28 million at the box office, the majority of you are guilty of the same thing. A better title would've told us something about the story, like (and this is just off the top of my head, so no flames) "Time" or even "Andy's Story" (it worked for Forest Gump the same year). These are not really workable titles, either, of course, but the fact of the matter is that the title couldn't have been much worse (until after you've seen the film, then it's perfect).

Another fatal flaw was the film's marketing. Everything from the poster to the trailer told us nothing about the film again. In the case of a slow-paced, cerebral movie like this one, where the characterizations are key, the idea is to get the performances across in a very short space of time. I probably would've selected a complete scene from the movie and used it as the trailer. Maybe the scene where Andy first comes to Shawshank. About the only thing right in the trailer was the scene with Andy standing in the rain, his arms outstretched, having just gained his freedom. The trailer didn't compel me to go see the film. Also, pushing it as "based on a story by Stephen King" wouldn't have hurt, either. After all, once you get asses in the seats, word of mouth can take over (look at The Sixth Sense and Titanic for great examples of that).

The final fatal flaw was not having tons and tons of preview screenings. Let people see the movie for free with another film. This way, you get people to see the film and then word of mouth can help you out. The only time you shouldn't use this technique is when the film sucks. This technique is one of the many things The Blair Witch Project did this summer, and look at the results there. And the fact of the matter is, I've only met two people who actually liked The Blair Witch. Personally, I hated it...but more on that later.

If you think that the studios don't screw up the marketing of their films that often, then you need look no further than this summer's animated flop, The Iron Giant. Several people had been telling me to go see this film, and the reviews have been fantastic. I finally went and saw it this past weekend on a matinee (because that's the only time it was playing), and the movie is great. It's well structured, emotionally moving, and beautifully animated. Why, in a summer where good films have reigned supreme and the crap (i.e. Wild, Wild West) has fallen by the wayside, has this movie failed so miserably? One word: marketing.

The Iron Giant was released too late in the summer (it should've come out just prior to Tarzan), and the trailers were horrible. When I was watching the trailer, the only thing that caught my eye was the unique style of the animation. Ironically enough, the animation shown in the trailer is some of the clunkiest stuff in the movie. The other problem is that there just wasn't enough marketing. I was seeing trailers in front of various films, but I saw no television promotional push, there was no McDonald's/Burger King/Taco Bell/Sizzler toy tie-ins. Frankly, Warner Bros. dumped this film on the market and has allowed it to wallow in a sea of obscurity.

Now, there are other factors in The Iron Giant's failure as well. Sadly, the film probably was released in August in an attempt to get out of the way of other studios (Disney) animated fare. They felt going to head to head against Tarzan would be suicide, and waiting until the fall would be deadly because of the impending release of Toy Story 2 and Fantasia 2000. While going head to head against the films on opening weekend would probably be suicide, it would've been a great idea to get this film out just prior to the release of one of Disney's giants. Pepsi became the number two cola product in the world based on going head to head with Coke. Just like Disney now, Coke was really the only serious game in town before "the cola wars". Now it appears that Warner Bros. wants to get out of feature animation altogether because it's not making any money for them. Well, with crap like The King And I, it's not hard to see why. Of course, you spent a ton marketing that thing. Ironically, Warner Bros. doesn't even seem to know when they've got a good thing.

I think I've said all I can say on that subject. So on to the next thing.

Sometimes I'm baffled by "the public's" taste in movies. Several films which have hit it big in terms of popular success have been films that I've either found to be average (There's Something About Mary) or downright bad (Dumb and Dumber). I suppose everyone feels like this sometimes, but I'm occasionally stunned by the crap which passes for great entertainment these days. Hell, even Star Wars: Episode I is pretty piss-poor when compared to the other three films in the series. I mentioned earlier that I hated the Blair Witch Project, and now I'll go into a little further detail.

To understand where I'm coming from, you have to know how much attention I paid to this thing for a long time. I first stumbled on the (still fantastic) trailer last winter. I downloaded it, and emailed it to Jay so he could put it up on the web site. It had been a long time since a truly scary horror film had come out (because of Scream, most of the stuff being released was trying to be self-referential, and of course failing miserably). I was looking forward to a genuinely terrifying horror film, and I knew from past experience that the truly scary horror flicks were the ones where the producers had no money. The motivations were monetary, but the results were extraordinary. Truly frightening horror films require the audience to rely more on their imaginations and their own brains than special effects.

Also, I'm aware of the films which can be made for no money. I've seen some great ones over the years (most notably Clerks), and I always love to see struggling filmmakers hit it big. The Blair Witch Project had all the elements it needed to be a film I loved. So, why did I hate it?

First off, the film is supposed to tell the story of what happened to three documentary filmmakers. If these three people (who are of course actors) are supposed to be filmmakers, then why don't they know how to hold a camera? I can forgive the herky-jerkiness when running through the woods in the middle of the night, but why does the stuff they supposedly were shooting for the documentary suck so bad? The lighting is terrible, camera placements are crooked and off-center, it's just generally bad.

Second, Heather Donahue. Is it just me, or is her voice (and especially her scream) the most annoying thing in the world? I can honestly say I'd rather spend a weekend with Freddy Krueger in a room full of blackboards than hear that damned scream again.

Lastly, the pacing. This movie is sloooooow. It's only eighty minutes long, but it feels like about three hours. It feels like the movie has been padded out to get to it's eighty minute runtime, and comments from early screenings seem to support this. Most early screen reports put the movie at a very short sixty-five minutes. I suspect that The Blair Witch Project could've been compelling at under an hour, but at eighty minutes it's too long. And in feature film terms, this is very bad news, indeed.

Ironically, The Blair Witch Project has gone on to do great business because of one thing. Great marketing. I love this movie for its business side, but hate it for it's artistic side. That's gotta be the first time that's ever happened.

One last bit before we get to the quote of the week.

I was reading Jeffrey Wells' column over at reel.com, and couldn't help but notice that he makes mention of the Titanic DVD. Or more appropriately, his disappointment in the lack of extras on the DVD.

The nice thing about reading Wells' column is that he has all the inside contacts, and can call all the right people for asking questions. When he quizzed Paramount Home Video on the lack of extras, the response he got was (quoted verbatim from his article): "'What planet are you from?' said Paramount Home Video's Garrett Smith when I asked why no plans exist for the issuing of a special edition Titanic DVD. 'I'm not in any position to make suggestions to Mr. Cameron,' he added. 'This is a Lightstorm issue.'"

"Cameron's associates at Lightstorm 'have mentioned there was always that possibility, but they said he wouldn't get to it for another couple of years,' he says. 'Typically what he likes to do is put it aside for awhile and then go back to it later. It's not on his mind now. He's been writing a lot .…'"

Later on in the article, Wells goes on to say, "Cameron has put out some excellent special editions of his films. He's one of the few directors who seems to really put his heart into making laser disc and DVD transfers of his films into special home video events. So why is he slacking off on Titanic? "

Being me, I have to interject my two cents here (and I'll be forwarding this week's issue to Mr. Wells just in case he doesn't read this site), and say that I think he's missed the boat on this one.

At three hours and fourteen minutes (or two hours, seventy-four minutes as the studio liked to say), having a good picture and great sound means there's not a lot of room left on the disc for anything else. I suspect we will see a Titanic: Special Edition DVD at some point down the road, when mass production of a dual-sided, dual-layered disc is easy and inexpensive. For now, that just isn't the case.

Also, Cameron worked on Titanic for several years, and if you think you're burned out on the big boat, imagine how he feels about it. Regardless of the popularity of the film, it is Cameron's baby, and when he feels he's ready to revisit the material for a special edition DVD, I'm sure he will (just as he did with most of his films prior to this one). Besides, Cameron had final cut on Titanic, and he's said repeatedly that the version which is on the screen is his version. Previous reissues of his films have been different edits that the studio wouldn't release because of time constraints. Any special edition won't be a "director's cut", but will be the standard cut with a ton of supplements.

At this point, the only major faux pas on Paramount's part with the new Titanic release is not enhancing it for widescreen televisions. After all, we're all expected to upgrade our television sets over the next few years, so why the hell wouldn't they want to take full advantage of all the benefits DVD offers?

Titanic is the highest grossing film of all time. It's release on DVD is a milestone for the format, and very important. It also shows us that James Cameron is one of the few "A-list" directors who is concerned more with how his films are viewed than how much money he can make from a format. He hasn't blocked any of his films from release on the format, and any delays have been caused by the studios in question, and not the director himself. Spielberg and Lucas can't say the same. Once The Abyss is released (which has been terminally delayed by Fox), all of Cameron's films will be available on DVD. Well, except Piranha II, but we can't have all the crown jewels, I guess.

One last thing, the transfer used on the DVD of Titanic is not the same as the earlier laserdisc issue. The DVD was made from the new high-definition master which was made for broadcast on HBO's hi-def channel. This makes the lack of anamorphic enhancement that much worse (since hi-def masters are anamorphic by nature). If you go back and compare the two transfers on a properly calibrated television set, you'll see the difference.

Last week's quote of the week was answered correctly by Matt Duncan as being from Disney's Mulan. The line was spoken by the little dragon (Mushu) voiced by Eddie Murphy.

This week's quote is from another great film this year which has been overlooked by audiences.

"Let them have outer space. We got rock 'n roll"

As usual, if you know the quote's source, email me at

ken@dvdfuture.com.