Another Academy Awards has come and gone and, judging from the new releases for the past couple of months, the studios have greeted the Awards with a collective shrug. A lot of this has to do with the comparative money the awards winners are making, compared to the box office winners. When a disappointing muddle like Ghost Rider can rake in over $90 million in a couple of weeks, and The Departed (the highest grossing of the Best Picture nominees) only manages $132 million in it's entire run, there's a major disconnect between quality and the marketplace.
This isn't a new thing, by any stretch of the imagination. Last year's awards, I remember comments that the 5 top movies together couldn't match the gross of any of the February opening movies (or some such statistic like that). And I saw more than one article this year where some studio head was quoted as saying they'd just like to get back to work making movies and not have to worry about Oscars and campaigns and the like.
But it's not simply that it's expensive, time consuming and doesn't seem to show any bottom-line benefit (Unlike the Grammy's, an Academy Award doesn't seem to be showing the same kick to box-office—or even DVD—revenues that would justify the expense of launching an Academy Award campaign.)
But I think a contributing factor is simply that the guys running the studios these days don't have any personal stock in the Awards. Back in the day, there really WERE Warner Bros. MGM was more than just a few initials on a studio marquee. And United Artists was exactly that… a group of artists out to get a little control over the movies they were making. These guys were all as bottom line conscious as the marketing wonks running things these days (well, maybe not THAT bottom line conscious). But they were also personally invested in it. For them, an Academy Award was as much a personal victory as it was a prize for the studio.
The closest analogy I can think of today is to sports teams (bear with me… my knowledge of sports and the business thereof is limited at best). But this is the only area today where you're likely to find multi-million dollar ventures in the hands of individuals who are personally vested in their success, above and beyond the bottom line. For them, there's a value beyond what they put into and get out of the franchise… a trophy or banner or ring is a symbol of the success of THEIR team, and every bit as important to them as the extra money that success brings with it in terms of ticket sales for the coming season. (Am I being naive here? Do the owners of the Clippers and Raiders, who seem more intent on their bottom line than winnning teams negate this argument?)
The opposite end of this argument can be seen in the games industry. Since the rise of the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube early this decade, the games industry has grown to a multi-billion dollar giant, directly competing in dollars and mind-share with Hollywood products. But the closest thing the games industry has to an awards show is the lamentable Spike TV Video Game Awards. Admittedly, they seem to be getting a bit better at picking out the quality from the merely popular, but the show is a joke, and the nominees and award winners have that look of the resident geek invited to hang out with the cool kids for the evening. Sure, there are other award ceremonies (the annual GDC's Game Developer's Choice awards, the Golden Joystick Awards, the freaking BAFTA video game awards.) But who, outside the gaming community is even aware of these awards?
That's because the EA's and Ubisoft's, the publishers of the video game world, don't care about these awards. They've got the same attitude toward them that the movie studio suits do… 'yeah, thanks. Nice joystick. Now, can I get back to selling videogames, please?' The developers care, but that's becauase this game is their baby… they've sweat blood and (often) put their development house on the line to get this game out. (Developer is to filmmaker as publisher—EA, for instance—is to studio.) For the publisher, it's just another investment that either pays off, or it doesn't. And if the award doesn't translate to more/better sales, they're just not going to care.
So similarly, the studios are losing interest. The CEOs of these companies are more intvested in the bottom line and keeping the shareholders happy. And if an award can't help that bottom line, then why should they care? It's just not personal to them.
This isn't a new thing, by any stretch of the imagination. Last year's awards, I remember comments that the 5 top movies together couldn't match the gross of any of the February opening movies (or some such statistic like that). And I saw more than one article this year where some studio head was quoted as saying they'd just like to get back to work making movies and not have to worry about Oscars and campaigns and the like.
But it's not simply that it's expensive, time consuming and doesn't seem to show any bottom-line benefit (Unlike the Grammy's, an Academy Award doesn't seem to be showing the same kick to box-office—or even DVD—revenues that would justify the expense of launching an Academy Award campaign.)
But I think a contributing factor is simply that the guys running the studios these days don't have any personal stock in the Awards. Back in the day, there really WERE Warner Bros. MGM was more than just a few initials on a studio marquee. And United Artists was exactly that… a group of artists out to get a little control over the movies they were making. These guys were all as bottom line conscious as the marketing wonks running things these days (well, maybe not THAT bottom line conscious). But they were also personally invested in it. For them, an Academy Award was as much a personal victory as it was a prize for the studio.
The closest analogy I can think of today is to sports teams (bear with me… my knowledge of sports and the business thereof is limited at best). But this is the only area today where you're likely to find multi-million dollar ventures in the hands of individuals who are personally vested in their success, above and beyond the bottom line. For them, there's a value beyond what they put into and get out of the franchise… a trophy or banner or ring is a symbol of the success of THEIR team, and every bit as important to them as the extra money that success brings with it in terms of ticket sales for the coming season. (Am I being naive here? Do the owners of the Clippers and Raiders, who seem more intent on their bottom line than winnning teams negate this argument?)
The opposite end of this argument can be seen in the games industry. Since the rise of the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube early this decade, the games industry has grown to a multi-billion dollar giant, directly competing in dollars and mind-share with Hollywood products. But the closest thing the games industry has to an awards show is the lamentable Spike TV Video Game Awards. Admittedly, they seem to be getting a bit better at picking out the quality from the merely popular, but the show is a joke, and the nominees and award winners have that look of the resident geek invited to hang out with the cool kids for the evening. Sure, there are other award ceremonies (the annual GDC's Game Developer's Choice awards, the Golden Joystick Awards, the freaking BAFTA video game awards.) But who, outside the gaming community is even aware of these awards?
That's because the EA's and Ubisoft's, the publishers of the video game world, don't care about these awards. They've got the same attitude toward them that the movie studio suits do… 'yeah, thanks. Nice joystick. Now, can I get back to selling videogames, please?' The developers care, but that's becauase this game is their baby… they've sweat blood and (often) put their development house on the line to get this game out. (Developer is to filmmaker as publisher—EA, for instance—is to studio.) For the publisher, it's just another investment that either pays off, or it doesn't. And if the award doesn't translate to more/better sales, they're just not going to care.
So similarly, the studios are losing interest. The CEOs of these companies are more intvested in the bottom line and keeping the shareholders happy. And if an award can't help that bottom line, then why should they care? It's just not personal to them.
Comments