Indy.com
Today:
American Teen not taking off at the box office
Posted: Aug 18, 2008 in Culture, Movies, TV and Celebrities
Tags:
Despite a mountain of publicity, "American Teen" has not made a big impact at the box office.
According to industry estimates, the documentary about five Indiana teens was 27th at the box office last weekend. That's up from 31st the previous week, but the movie actually made less money ($103,000) despite adding 29 screens.
It's now on a total of 105 screens nationwide and has made $656,000. That's very good for a documentary, which typically only are seen on a few screens and make a few dollars before going to video.
But it's still far less than recent mainstream docs like "Spellbound," "March of the Penguins," "Super Size Me" or "An Inconvenient Truth."
The per-screen average is a very anemic $980 -- compare that with $7,833 for "Tropic Thunder," the top grossing movie. Even "Hancock," which has been out nearly two months, made $1,409 per screen.
The per-screen average is important because it dictates how long individual movie theaters will hold onto the flick. At $980, it's probably not going to be a long life for "Teen."
Why do you think the movie isn't a bigger hit?
I'm guessing that it's not getting as much buzz everywhere else as it is here in Indiana. I know it has gotten some media attention, but that can't overide major advertising like the other films get.
(Is Fast Food Nation really considered a documentary? that doesn't make sense to me)
I haven't seen much real on-TV-type advertising, which probably plays a big role and makes a big difference. I think the general public will go see a documentary that gets some hype (like the Michael Moore films or "Super Size Me"), but other than that they're not going if it's a documentary.
I've had a few people ask me about "Teen," but most of the people I talk to haven't heard of it.
I'm guessing that it's not getting as much buzz everywhere else as it is here ...
Perhaps he meant to say "Super-size Me" instead of "Fast Food Nation"... because its def not a documentary.
Interesting points, guys, thanks for bringing them up.
It just goes to show the power of advertising. It's usually the first thing companies cut during lean economic times -- believe me, we know all about the dip here in the MSM biz. But ads can still put butts in seats like no other tool.
It seems like the "Teen" marketers have relied on the media to do their advertising for them. And we certainly haven't failed to give them plenty of ink and air time. They've been on MTV's "Total Request Live," and Entertainment Weekly and other publications have done big spreads. (You may have noticed we had a word or two to say about the movie here at the Star/Indy.com.)
Sounds like a few well-placed TV commercials on "Gossip Girl" or similar shows would have gone a long way.
Interesting points, guys, thanks for bringing them up. It just goes to show the power ...
I think commercials make a bigger impact than TV spots and print/online outlets for the most part. I think commercials really hype up a film and bring a sense of legitimacy to a campaign. Any schlub with a camera and a couple of actors can do a newspaper interview, but it adds weight and maybe an implied studio backing with commercials, as if there's enough money behind it, and it's worth the time to go see it. I don't know that it's a conscious thing, but I think the younger generation (and the "Gossip Girl" crowd as you so aptly noted) responds more to that.
It's not that I necessarily agree with this as a way of deciding which movies to see, but I think it's the reality.
I think word of mouth will eventually win over some paying customers, but that takes time. They have to keep it in these theaters for awhile, maybe have a free ticket to the movie glued to the back of a bottle of clearisil, the audience will see it, once kids get back in school, and the word gets out to the masses.
That's why more advertising, and more previews would have helped during the summer, the social networks aren't working as well when the kids are out of school.
I think word of mouth will eventually win over some paying customers, but that takes ...
I agree with your thoughts, Nate, but the movie theater business is all about now, now, now. If a flick isn't making money, they'll dump it as fast as they can. Films don't get a few weeks to build an audience anymore.
that's the truth, I can't remember the exact movie, I think it was Lost in Translation. But by the time I finally heard the good buzz about the film it was gone from theaters in the area.
Luckily they re released it after the Oscar buzz came into the picture.
Checking back in -- in looking over the box office list for this past weekend, "American Teen" comes in at #43 with a take of $59,000 and a per-screen average of $541.
Only "Meet Dave," "The Love Guru" and "Beer for My Horses" ranked lower.
It's now banked just shy of $800,000. Again, that's quite good for a documentary, most of which barely get a theatrical release and do their real business on video or cable.
It's now on 109 screens nationwide. My info from Landmark Keystone is that that "Teen" will be staying at least one more week there.
Checking back in -- in looking over the box office list for this past weekend, ...
Ugh. That doesn't bode well. It's definitely worth seeing!
I saw it, and there were about ten total people in the audience. It is really good!! I guess word of mouth just isn't enough anymore.
I saw it, and there were about ten total people in the audience. It is ...
It REALLY needed more TV ads. With even a mildly aggressive TV campaign, I bet it would have been a big hit.
Yeah I agree with that, they could have even done something inexpensive like offering free clips of the film on YouTube or something like that and definately more television ads.
I hate to say this, since I always loving doing interviews and stories about movies (especially those with Indiana ties), but the studio probably should have taken the money they spent flying the teens all over the globe and staging events and pushed that into some TV commercials for better exposure.
That means media schlubs like Joe and I wouldn't have gotten face-to-face interviews, but the film might have done better. It's a very good doc, despite the reception.