Skip to comments.(Vanity) Brokeback Mountain, a Curious Attendance Story
Posted on 01/06/2006 3:31:19 PM PST by Balding_Eagle
Did anyone else hear this on the Michael Medved talk radio today?
A man called in, near the end of the hour. He said he had been taken his kids to the theater, and the kids movie they were waiting to see had a very long line. Brokeback Mountain was also showing at that theater. He said he sat near the ticket booth for 35 minutes, as his kids waited in line to buy tickets for their movie.
During that 35 minutes he never heard one person buy a ticket for Brokeback Mountain. However, during that 35 minutes, the SOLD OUT sign came on for Brokeback. Out of curiosity, he went in to the Brokeback theater, and only saw 4 people in there. The theater manager refused to comment when the man questioned him.
Is this how all those theaters are getting such high attendance for Brokeback? Imaginary theater goers?
Perhaps other theater goers can investigate for themselves this weekend.
I can only vouch for the fact that this man called in a related the story as I presented it here, not if its true. Callers can make up stories too. It peaked my interest though.
No need to insult Nerds.
Uh, okay--so no one is actually seeing the movie, that's all hype, but it's going to change the culture? Ooookay...
Enough for you to know how that people here LOVED it (your emphasis, not mine).
I recall it had a limited release, and then it got released in more theaters, supposedly because of the great demand to see it. I think this is all marketing hype. Motion pictures have marketing schemes just like any other product. I think the producers are trying to hype the film by creating an impression there's great public enthusiasm for it. It wouldn't entirely surprise me if the company handling the release asked theatres to say it was sold out as part of the deal, even if it wasn't.
Same thing. 'Cept I spose you don't need a ladder for sheep.
Flame away. Go ahead. I dare ya! Pffffft.
Ironically I answered that question in the very next post.
The studios wouldn't stay in business long if they made a habit of this. Their purpose is to make money, not give it away. And theater chain owners would scream bloody murder. They get as much or more of their revenue from concessions as from tickets sales. Am I supposed to believe that the studios are footing a big chunk of the original production costs for films, and then buying up millions of tickets which will not be resold, and paying off theater owners for the lost concessions? Theater owners have a stake in this business too, and wouldn't stand for this if it happened on more than very rare occasions in a limited number of markets. And local journalists would have a field day, since they'd have no trouble confirming the stories with the many casual workers who staff theater ticket windows, projection rooms, and concession stands. And most of these major studios are publicly traded companies, or segment-reported subsidiaries of publicly traded companies, so the stock analysts would be all over this, followed quickly by the SEC's investigators, who'd slap fines and nasty publicity on the studios that would put a quick stop to such schemes. And competing studios would get wind of such antics quickly, and be quick to expose them, since their own revenues would suffer from false promotion of competitors' films as blockbusters. If major studios were falsifying financial reports by misreporting sources of revenue and targets of 8 figure expenditures, while engaging in deceptive practices that thousands of casual theater workers, plus theater owners, are in a position to notice and blow the whistle on, the execs would be in deep trouble very quickly, and the practice would end.
Nope, if what you describe has ever happened, it has been rarely and on a small scale. Inflated ticket sales/attendance numbers are very common in the sports world, but none of the major sports organizations are publicly traded, and nobody is paying for the tickets. The same companies, or incestuously related companies, are getting most of the revenue from ticket sales, and reporting the numbers, AND managing the events on site (so unsold seats are frequently packed with people who've been given free tickets, making the reported numbers look at least vaguely believable to naive people, and making concession owners happy since people who got free tickets buy at least as much junk food as people who already spent a bundle on tickets).
Hollywood always seeks to change the culture. In this case, their goal is to promote homosexual "love" over heterosexual marriage.
Are you disputing that?
The Passion was a huge success had an enormous pre-release publicity push, targeted at the likely viewers.
There are many, many more Christians than there are homosexuals, and they came out to see a movie in wide release, as opposed to this one.
In fact, The Passion is a textbook example of how to release a movie Hollywood saw as a "problem" film. In fact, it was a problem for them, as its success has now made alternatives to their view of religion (pervert or lying priests, anyone who espouses Christian beliefs being an idiot or kook) potentially lucrative. Hollywood can spin it all they want, the gigantic success of The Passion showed that Christian-themed movies will draw the audience in gigantic numbers.
The Passion is a success story that Hollywood is trying to ignore but seeing how box office was down this year they may have no choice but to back more Christian-themed movies. Narnia, partially funded by a Christian investor, is another example.
Hollywood likes pushing their agenda, but they like making money, too. Don't be surprised if you see some spin-off companies arriving on the scene to make just those kinds of films for the major studios.
Yes, but where's the discussion? All I know is that people loved it. But the endless threads about Brokeback? I'd rather read why those who've seen Narnia enjoyed it.
Follow his reply...in that post he's talking about "Walk the Line"
It's a politcal forum. Brokeback is a political film. Narnia isn't.
I don't know how many in Hollwood are "always" seeking to change the culture. I know people who work in movies, and they want to make a good movie, tell stories, etc. Where's the evidence that a movie supposedly no one is seeing is somehow changing the culture? Are people saying "Hey, this movie I haven't seen says gay love is cool, I'm gonna turn gay"?
In case you haven't noticed there's a lot more than politics discussed on FR. Football isn't a political topic, yet I seem to recall seeing a few threads about it.
The Passion also had the most vindictive press of any movie release I have ever seen, while BM has had the most fawning.
I think most people on FR see through hollyweird's marketing ruse and think you are a hollyweird sycophant for pushing that ruse and saying it is s a success, when it really is not, and if anything shows hollyweird's declinging clout in the culture wars.
A movie will remain exclusively in the cinema circuits anywhere from two weeks to 4 months - although they may continue to run in cinemas long after the initial exclusivity has been withdrawn.
Of the revenues generated at the box office, the studio ultimately will take home 50-55 percent, leaving the balance to the cinema-owners. During the early weeks of a film's release, the studio's cut can be as high as 90 percent in some cases; at the end of a long run, this ratio can inverted, providing 90 percent to the cinema-owners and only 10 percent to the studios. This may be one of the reasons the length of the theatrical window has declined in recent years, as studios have determined that it may be friendlier to the bottom line to move their films more quickly to the retail sales / rental market.
The data is from the theatre manager, not the pimply faced usher. Not that the manager might not have a few pimples. Also, spot checks are made on the theatres. These checks are made by independant companies paid by the studios. The checks include head counts and checking the ticket sales. There are also covert checks, where someone goes to see the movie and gets the count on that particular show in that theatre.
I'm sorry, I just liked those sentences.
I understand that, and Narnia has been discussed along with other secondary topics. You asked why Brokeback was getting so much attention here, that's the reason. It's a film with a political agenda. And this is a (primarily) political board.
I'm not entirely sure why you're splitting hairs here. The answer to your question is fairly obvious.
... er... possibly eight
To paraphrase another poster on one of these ButtBuddy Mountain threads: That's b-a-a-a-a-a-d!
No argument there.
I think most people on FR see through hollyweird's marketing ruse and think you are a hollyweird sycophant for pushing that ruse and saying it is s a success, when it really is not, and if anything shows hollyweird's declinging clout in the culture wars
Yeah, whatever, pushing the ruse, blah blah blah.
Funny how you can't even admit that I just praised The Passion to high heaven, and have been pointing out the success of BBM only as money-making ventures. Unlike you, who get pissy because I refuse to lie as you are, I deal in truth, I know about the economics of the movies, and I am providing actual information, as opposed to your bizarre lies. And of course, you don't like the truth so you use a smear.
If you can quote a single sentence in which I say a single positive thing about the actual movie BBM, post it. But you can't, because I haven't said any such thing, because this is a discussion of money, pure and simple.
But your ignorance of the financial facts has been shown up, and you pout and insult. Boo hoo, poor baby. Grow up and stop talking about things you know zero about and stick to the topic at hand, and stop throwing mud when you've been show up to be an ignorant jerk.
Not splitting hairs, just wondering. The answer to my question is not obvious, because people post about movies and books they enjoy all the time, with no political content--ever notice the "Bloggers/Peronsal" and "General/Chat" links on the side? I don't find many discussions about a movie people here love, only endless false info about the finances of a movie they hate.
And if one movie allows the theater to keep more money than another movie, it would be in the theater manager's best interest to sell tickets for the latter in the name of the former.
By the time I'd had all I could stand and got up to leave, I wanted all those horrid "Ordinary People" to be dead in horrible ways.
How about this to top it.
All the while his people were taking calls (and giving him updates on the giveaway numbers), he kept bitching about how the theater gave them a bunch of tickets for Bareback Mountain. Did they give them tickets to see the last Starwars? NO. Did they give them tickets to see King Kong? NO. Did they give them tickets to see (fill in the blank with every popular movie in the last year)? NO. All they ever gave them was a bunch of tickets to see a couple of gay cowboys. It was hilarious.
Bullhonkey! Michael Medved said `Brokeback Mountain' is not only pro-homosexual, it's anti-family as well! Two married men leave their wives and families to bugger each other in the Hollywood Hills.
`Liked the movie'. Yeah, right.
Endless false info about "Brokeback Mountain"?
Is Free Republic sullying this fine film's good name?
Well, now I know. I guess the book biz is more corrupt than the movie biz, LOL!
In Louisiana it's known as BrokeDick mountain....and it's made all of $3.94 in 3 venues in New Orleans.....
Or...maybe ONE person or ONE group bought up ALL the tickets (online?), but NO ONE really was going to see it? There are a lot of possible scenarios.
LOL - why would people disagree with such propaganda EVEN if repeatedly posted?
I would agree that [it] is the most successful unsuccessful homosexual propaganda movie thus far...
pique a boo or is it picabo? twin peaks?
Well, duh! If you give away those tickets, they might take a seat away from a paying customer.
If you buy out a movie theater on Moviefone, it is considered SOLD OUT, even if no one attends. The numbers then go into Box Office Mojo, etc, and count. I would not be surprised, given the critical importance to the Left that this film "succeed", that Harvey Weinstein himself were buying up all the tickets. The man is worth seveal hundred million dollars. Laying out $1-2 million is chump change to falsely portray "B.M." as a mainstream hit and pump this up for the Oscars.
Good evening and the very best to you and yours.
However, that won't keep the Hollywood PC-crowd of liberals and gays from voting it an Oscar just to give the finger to the rest of the country.
LOL Who'da thunk it?
Are Special Interests using Fandango and Moviefone to stuff the box office by paying for empty seats?
I understand what you are saying. And I am not saying that what they are doing (might be doing) is legal.
All I am saying is, whether for money, or a theater manager's sympathy for the subject matter, if tickets sold for one movie are posted to the account of another movie, the only losers are the people connected with the first movie. For example, if I sell tickets for Narnia, but post them to the account of Brokeback Mountain, I am cheating the Narnia folks and sending undeserved receipts to the BM folks.
They were there. They were just hiding in their closets.
You cracked me up with that one.
They did the same thing with 'The Passion', only in reverse. There were stories of them attributing 'Passion' ticket sales to other movies.
I have no doubt they CAN do this and HAVE done this before!
I see your point, but the producers of the movie don't have to show inflated ticket sales. It's the owner of the theater, a separate company, who would be misrepresenting the ticket sales by putting "Sold Out" in the window. As long as the theater accurately reports its income to the IRS, who is going to care?
And consider this. When the movie gets nominated for an Academy Award, which is probably the intent from the get-go, it can be re-released as "Nominated for X Academy Awards". And the company that owns the theater can profit from that. And if it wins, which isn't all that unlikely, it can get a longer and bigger run at theaters. So I still think there may be an element of hype here.
No you are wrong my friend. The entire Democrat Party is just excited to the core over this fudge packer film. Why Democrat liberal, left-winger Jon Stewart is going to tend to the sheep, if you know what I mean, during the Academy Award Presentations while the two gents go at it. Spielberg and Clooney will bless the proceedings. And...Soros and Moore may try an act of their own with Nancy Pelosi assisting. The Academy Award Presentations are just going to be magnificent this year. The highlights, sheep and men, America haters, Jew haters, trans-sexuals, etc. Grand, isn't it!!! Everyone in America should watch these creative artists at work!!!! NOT!!!!
"despite proclaimation of it being a "Cultural Phenom"!"
Is it being produced by Bialystock and Bloom?
Lotsa good names gleaned from this thread, which has been quite entertaining...
...and the list goes on...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.