
The Broadway revival of Arthur Miller’s Death Of A Salesman came out of the gate and broke the house record for the Ethel Barrymore Theatre. It needed only seven performances in that first week to post a $780,000 gross. The star cast certainly helps–Mike Nichols directing Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amazing-Spiderman star Andrew Garfield and Linda Emond–but it’s a becoming a word of mouth hit and is a hot ticket until its limited run ends June 2, that will most certainly sell out long before that.
It shows what can happen when storied subject matter is handled skilfully with experienced directors and strong producers, which to me is the neat thing about the staggering weekend gross of The Hunger Games. Having read that book while Deadline was revealing the construction of that movie from the hiring of Gary Ross as director to the film’s casting, I was intrigued by the ways that director Gary Ross bobbed and weaved around gruesome plot points of that book, softening them to make the film palatable for younger audiences, while still maintaining the edge, the menace of an oppressive totalitarian regime, and the terror felt by teens thrust against their will into a bloodsport arena.
Ross’s accomplishment makes me wonder if Hollywood will rethink its current infatuation with entrusting gigantic budget movies to first time directors. Even if The Hunger Games‘ $215 million opening weekend is the story of the day, I still can’t get over last week’s big story, Disney’s $200 million write-off on John Carter. Done by first time live action director Andrew Stanton from storied subject matter, John Carter is the textbook case on how not to make a big movie. It was botched every step of the way by current Disney regime that inherited a film put into the system by Dick Cook (who left in fall, 2009) and tiptoed around the internal Pixar politics and gave Stanton wide creative sway and a humungous budget to carry out a vision that in hindsight was hardly 20/20. From a pasty-skinned Taylor Kitsch on a dusty planet, matched with a red-skinned love interest who looked like she was spray-tanned by Snookie, the flaws obscured the good things in the film. I couldn’t help but wonder while watching why nobody stopped Stanton and made him understand how far off the mark he was. And why didn’t Disney exercise more fiduciary responsibility if Stanton wouldn’t listen. And why make changes in distribution and marketing in a way that left John Carter with a marketing campaign as boring and confusing as the film?
By comparison, you could see the collaborative effort involved in The Hunger Games, starting with Ross working closely with author Suzanne Collins when they rewrote Billy Ray’s script. They also benefited from a terrific marketing campaign by Lionsgate’s Tim Palen and his team. In fact, for me, the only sad part of coming to the New York premiere of The Hunger Games and seeing all the Lionsgate people who put it together–including Palen, Joe Drake, Alli Shearmur–was knowing that possibly all of them are out of jobs because of the Lionsgate acquisition of Summit Entertainment. The management of Summit Entertainment–whose company’s value was largely driven by the success of their Hunger Games, The Twilight Saga–has clearly taken the upper hand. Drake I expect will become re-involved with Mandate, maybe even buying that back from Lionsgate/Summit; Palen is unfortunately pitted against Summit’s equally well regarded marketing head Nancy Kirkpatrick; and Shearmur’s Summit counterpart Erik Feig already got the top production job. Shearmur might continue on with The Hunger Games and join Nina Jacobson as a producer, but that’s not firm. Ross made it a point to single out those executives and their role in the architecture of such a smash hit when he introduced the film before a New York audience that had stars Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth and Stanley Tucci in tow, and I was left feeling they were taking a final bow. Who said Hollywood was fair?
While all the takeover turmoil was going on with Carl Icahn and a lot of Lionsgate’s pictures weren’t working, there was always a sense of, wait till The Hunger Games!. Now it has put Lionsgate on the map, to a level no one imagined. My colleague David Lieberman reports that Lionsgate stock is up. The creative team responsible for it won’t be around to enjoy the spoils of a franchise that will last for at least two and possibly three blockbuster films over the next five or so years.
John Carter to me is just as sad. Despite his wild success track record in feature animation, Stanton’s stock as a live action director is through the floor. And many in town are saying that because of the clout that Pixar and John Lasseter exerted to allow Stanton such free reign when he was clearly over his head, this ought to count in the loss column of Pixar’s previously unblemished streak of hits, even if the Pixar brand doesn’t show up in the credits.
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘The Voice’ Finale On Par


am i the only one that thought Hunger Games was just okay? i did not read the book, but being a big fan of Battle Royale was looking forward to a fresh western update on the bloodsport trope and felt really disappointed by how flat the whole movie was. what was the deal with that awful camera work, there were so many moments i could only half see what was going on. and how long are we supposed to be interested in watching Katniss sit in a tree? i need to go read the books because i think the success here was more about the source material than the film. fine performances all around though.
sounds like you came into it expecting something specific which is always a recipe for dissapointment.
thank you! i couldn’t agree more. I did read the book and i was not moved by any of the characters, and found the direction terrible. This is such a simple story to adapt to the screen and i thought it failed in every way. The time spent in the “Games control booth” was a wasted opportunity to spend more time developing the characters. There was no sense of Life or death urgency.
I think people underestimate how hard it is to fully bring the book to the screen. The basic plot is fairly easy, but a big part of the book is the first person telling of it which constantly lets the reader know what she’s thinking (and is a big part of her character development in the book). And it’s impossible to get all of that across in the movie, particularly when there are long stretches of plot when she’s alone. In the book knowing her thoughts and motivations are fascinating but there’s no way to really do that without having her constantly talking to herself or cheesy voiceover narration. Considering that I think they did a great job with the movie. And the second and third books don’t have nearly as much material like that so I think they’ll have an easier time getting more of the psychological aspects in.
As for the camera work, I think it’s intentionally obscuring the violence to some degree, and not just for the sake of ratings. These books have a point of view that’s anti violence and the movie versions could easily have made the action slick to the point where it’s exploitive. Making the violence too “exciting” or even “fun” would run contrary to the whole point of the books, the biggest mistake would be to film it in such a way that the audience is cheering it on just like the TV audience in the film.
I haven’t read the books and have yet to see the movie, but I’m baffled by the apparently widespread notion that THE HUNER GAMES is a retread of BATTLE ROYALE.
Yes, I get that there are similarities. But Collins has said that she had never seen or heard of the movie when she thought of her novels… and I’m more than willing to believe her. Clearly, the books *aren’t* BATTLE ROYALE (see post above!).
People seem to think, “I’ve read what I’ve read, seen what I’ve seen, and that’s all there is in the world to draw from.” Well, folks… nope. How ideas form and how pieces of things get put together is stranger than apparently most folks can imagine.
Right. We don’t believe her.
Battle Royale + The Long Walk = Hunger Games.
Exactly.
An obscure Japanese film and an obscure Stephen King novel, both released in your lifetime, provide the basis for all stories dealing governments abusing youth in brutal competitions.
Thank you for proving my point.
Obscure Steven King novel? Hmmm…
No, you’re not the only one. The movie was entertaining as a whole but lacking the political background that was the most interesting thing. They had the chance to make a big movie with depth and essence yet they went for all the action and people’s cash.
The performances were lacking something. Jennifer Lawrence was bland for someone that is “the next Mery Streep”, her choices were very poor and she was badly directed. Hemsworth barely appears on it yet they made him promote it like crazy. The costumes looked cheap and the pace was off. Guess people just need another thing to obsessed about…
marc, I agree wholeheartedly the movie was only ” okay,” but also surprisingly boring at times. And, most of the acting performances were forgettable.
I think it’s another case of movies have become so horrible by and large that when a big tentpole picture comes out that isn’t unbearable it gets praised as if its the be all and end all. Although one has to admit, it’s better than Twilight, better than Transformers and so on.
The Hunger Games was boring in the first hour, picked it up at some parts,but had a very weak ending!
@Mark, I agree,very flat movie,the critical reception and box office don’t reflect the actual film!
THANK YOU for pointing this out! Whether you enjoy a genre or not (young adult stories, romance, action, horror, etc.) at the end of the day WHAT STANDS OUT WILL ALWAYS BE A GOOD STORY, WELL-TOLD!!!
Time and again we’ve forgotten than in this business, and as long as we keep forgetting, WE MUST ALWAYS BE REMINDED.
Thank you!
I totally agree with this article. Thank god there’s a book to film franchise that doesnt suck or talk down to us.
With all the finger pointing at Stanton on John Carter, does no one want to mention Paramount hiring another first-time feature director from the Pixar stable for Mission Impossible IV? 20/20 hindsight.
Thanks for pointing this out. The way people draw conclusions from success and failure in Hollywood is pretty wild-ass crazy.
Two weekends ago people around town were saying, “No one wants a science fiction movie. That’s what we learned from JOHN CARTER.”
Now… what just broke the box office? A science fiction movie. With…. wait for it… a young woman in the lead.
But, of course, you never put a female as your lead, because that’s the lesson Jeff Rabinov learned from THE BRAVE ONE tanking at the box office. Because it’s important to look at a failure and make huge, blanket statements about what will and will not work for a movie.
That’s exactly right. Hollywood operates in the strangest ways, with people overreacting to the things they think are important. Often times what audience’s actually care about is lost in the shuffle of “well we need more special effects or need more Hemsworth’s”. There are countless examples of this, from the rush to greenlight fairytales after Alice in Wonderland, to the overreaction to Avatar’s 3D performance. My theory on this is that the execs here in town only know other people in the industry and never hear a perspective from an outside individual except in testing cards. All it would take to really nail down what people are interested in is more awareness of the non-entertainment industry public, but it doesn’t seem like that’s ever going to happen. And until it does, execs are going to keep overreacting to trends and come out stunned and surprised when their movie flops.
Excellent point!
Gary Ross was also far from an intuitive choice for an action/tentpole franchise, since he had no real experience in that arena.
not sure we should be comparing death of a salesman with silly crap like hunger games
Where would Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol fit into this equation. It was a fourquel with a big budget given to a first timer and it did really well, top grosser of Cruise’s career, one of my fave movies of last year.
I realize Bird probably wasn’t afforded the same freedoms as Stanton, but much of the same story holds true for this. Now that I think of it, Mission Impossible 3 also had the same story setup with Abrams being the first time in the director’s chair, and the creative success of that one paved the way for this one.
“while still maintaining the edge, the menace of an oppressive totalitarian regime, and the terror felt by teens thrust against their will into a bloodsport arena…”
This was totally lacking on the movie, it’s like they only wanted to focus on the action.
HUNGER GAMES has a great first 35 minutes, after that it is very CONTRIVED and convenient. Katniss, for all her skill, smarts, and toughness, gets saved very conveniently by two tiny supporting characters whose sole existence in the film was to SAVE her ass. They both got killed immediately after they saved her (COOKIE CUTTER screenwriting) It has almost no middle, and the end just evaporates. Potentially interesting subplots, Peeta’s comment about not being taken over by THEM….is never addressed. There is one token scene of a man getting irate while watching the little black girl die, and he stirs up a little fuss–but again, that didn’t seem organic and real.Felt like an add on.
What was exhilarating at first became dull. Great marketing, great trailer, great source material–a very average movie. Box office just means attractive, it doesn’t mean great.
And lastly, there are some first-timers who hit home runs. RESERVOIR DOGS, anyone? It’s not about how many a director has done, it’s his skill set and connection to material and ability to pull it off and make it great. Ross does a serviceable job, but he’s not a good writer, and in his collaboration with writers he put forth some amazing pictures, but not great story.
The HG has an intriguing story, and is extremely popular with the Tween crowd. The quality of the actual film has nothing to do with it’s success. The Twilight series has proved this already. There’s nothing skillful about shaky cam. The only time it was used with skill was the first time we truly saw it. Which was the opening of Saving Private Ryan.
I’ve seen time and time again on here that as long as movie makes money, it will be cherished and defended to the death. If JC had been the hit, and HG the flop, this would be the exact same article with only a few names changed. I see the most horrible films get “congratulated” on here simply because they came in number one.
It’s disheartening. It used to be about the actual movies. Now the movie is only good if it made enough money. Which is ironic, since all I read on here is how the business aspect is ruining the quality of films. Pot, meet kettle.
It all comes down to opinion, you didn’t like it so you don’t think it’s about the quality of the film. With books that are loved by many people of all ages, 85% good reviews on RT, and many great reactions from viewers online, people who’ve read the book and people who haven’t, there’s a strong argument that the quality of the film is EXACTLY the key to its success.
I’m glad to see a quality film do this well after all the things like Twilight and Transformers. And it sure does look like the reaction to this movie is people seeing it and liking it, not some silly conspiracy theory about people making up their minds based on box office results.
Never said I didn’t like it. I said the success of this has little to do with the films technical merits. Even the positive reviews complained about shaky cam and poorly filmed action scenes.
But my point was about the POV in which these articles are always written from. I’ve enjoyed reading this site for some time now. But the slanted opinion is decided on by one simple rule. Big BO = Good film. Poor BO = Poor film. I’ve read them praise the Transformers movies simply because it made a Billion dollars. And yet countless movies that are head and shoulders above that crap gets trashed simply because it didn’t light up the BO. Even Finchers Dragon Tattoo movie recently got “snarked” as soon as they found out it lost money for MGM. It would just be nice to see some articles with some real opinions behind them for once.
First time for shakey cam? For me (and a lot of others) it was Evil Dead. Like someone else’s distain for Voice Over Narration, these are just tools folks. VON worked great in Apocalypse Now, not so much in Bladerunner. Ultimately it’s how they’re used.
EXCELLENT ARTICLE MIKE!
what’s been lacking in our entertainment lately is GOOD STORYTELLING…seems like marketing gimmicks and “niche” movies have become the rule of the day–and those of us that just want really good stories have been ignored
say what you will about genre, etc…Hunger Games: its makers brought us a WELL CRAFTED, ENTERTAINING STORY! I also watched The Raid this weekend and that too delivered..its story may have been boilerplate–but that movie knew that it had to ENTERTAIN!
nice to see a popcorn movie actually entertain us for once..reminded me why I moved here in the first place and why I wanted to be a part of this bitness
as for Death Of A Salesman–that’s a classic and when produced by really talented people–what did Pacino say about one of bo goldman’s scripts?? it’s “actor proof” LOL
Never read the HG books but I hear it’s an amazing read with a very strong message about control and politics, like a futuristic, dystopian Gladiator. I believe it. Unfortunately, the movie I saw was a futuristic, dystopian Twilight, i.e. it sucked. So putting this on par with Death of a Salesman in terms of execution makes me question how good that play really is.
I read on another blog if Chris Nolan or David Fincher or Ridley Scott had directed this film adaptation, it would have been extraordinary & timeless. I definitely agree. But, Gary Ross’ ” Hunger Games ” should have been more gritty , raw, and emotionally involving- but it failed in every category. Also, the set pieces were cheap looking , and the always reliable Woody Harrelson & Stanley Tucci were weak in this flick.
Just saw HG and agree with previous comments in that the first thirty minutes of the movie was terrific. Then the Truman Show meets Battle Royale section made for a mediocre film with the last ‘Romeo and Juliet’ being very trite by then. Havent read the book and realize it would have been not true to the book but thought the killing of the black child will hurt the film’s potential grosses especially internationally.
There was so much more that could have been explored to make for not only an enjoyable teen film but a truly meaningful and deep story.I couldnt help but think the film’s message was about the one percenters living off of and laughing at the 99 percenters, us,
Obviously a blockbuster in the US but left me feeling empty and am leery it will be an international hit. Sold my Lionsgate stock today, maybe prematurely
All the hunger games movie teaches you is books always beats movie