Limited Releases

[Watashi]

Can someone explain to me the logic behind releasing a film first in limited and then opening wider as the weeks go on? I'm not talking about arthouse indie films (like "The Tracy Fragments"), but obvious big budget films like Assassination of Jesse James, Atonement, Juno, and the upcoming There Will Be Blood. Don't studios know that releasing it in more than 50 theaters, the stronger the film will do finacially and with the public? There is no point in testing the waters with films that have bankable names like Brad Pitt and Daniel-Day Lewis. Hell, 3 of the past five Best Picture winners didn't open wide until much later on and some cities never got the opportunity to view them until the hit DVD.

[baby doll]

They do it to generate buzz because they're not the type of films that thrive on an expensive advertising campaign alone. Apart from Anderson's, and maybe Moll's (which I missed when it blew through town), none of the films you mention looks very good anyway.

[Rowland]

maybe Moll's (which I missed when it blew through town)What's this?

[Boner M]

They do it to generate buzz because they're not the type of films that thrive on an expensive advertising campaign alone. Apart from Anderson's, and maybe Moll's (which I missed when it blew through town), none of the films you mention looks very good anyway.
Moll?

EDIT: Oh wait, I think you're confusing Andrew Dominik with Dominik Moll. LOL.

[ledfloyd]

living an hour outside of any major city i definitely hate when interesting films don't come my way.

[Ezee E]

Have you noticed how No Country For Old Men is doing? Last week it only dropped 3.2% because of the buzz it's getting. If you put it in 3,000 theaters, it wouldn't be making any money off the bat. You need to get people saying that it's good for others to see it.

It does work quite well actually. Million Dollar Baby is one of the best examples I can think of that pulled it off well. No Country is right with it.

[DavidSeven]

[...]but obvious big budget films like Assassination of Jesse James, Atonement, Juno, and the upcoming There Will Be Blood.

I know when I think of "big budget films," these are the first ones that come to mind.

[origami_mustache]

I know when I think of "big budget films," these are the first ones that come to mind.

haha yeah Juno cost about 7 million, can't speak for the others, but these films are more for niche audiences than mass.

[number8]

It's a process. A wide release cost a lot of money, and the movies you mentioned do not benefit from the usual marketing strategy, ie. they don't have the "money shots". A big star doesn't always guarantee a success, especially when they're not typically mainstream films.

There's a reason why limited releases always go to the same cities (LA, NY, SF, Chicago, Seattle and Austin), because those are cities with a strong film community that supports more obscure films. Once the people there generate buzz, one where they can look at the numbers and hype them as successes, then it's more financially sound to release them wide.

By the way, in what world do you think Daniel Day-Lewis is a bankable name?

[MadMan]

By the way, in what world do you think Daniel Day-Lewis is a bankable name?In the world of Match-Cut perhaps :lol:

[lovejuice]

correct me if i'm wrong. also, i think, a general movie theater just doesn't want to show art house films that they think won't make any money. unless of course it comes with word of mouth.

[baby doll]

Oh wait, I think you're confusing Andrew Dominik with Dominik Moll. LOL.I thought that was hilarious, too.