WTC word-of-mouthing

email this story
read comments (13)
post a comment

The thrust of this N.Y. Times David Halbfinger story about World Trade Center 's first few days of commercial release is...uhm...that it's doing well for a 9/11 film? I guess. It's done much better so far than United 93 did, primarily because word has circulated that it's a warmer, more conservative-minded, hooray-for-the-regular-guys film. And that it did better in the New York area that in Los Angeles. And that Snakes on a Plane (opening this Friday) poses no challenge. And the word-of-mouth is primed to take flight.

"Everything that we hoped about the movie has started to happen," Paramount marketing chief Rob Moore tells Halbfinger, "and now itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s about 'Can you still in this day and age have a movie that can be propelled by word of mouth? You take the movie Oliver made, the initial turnout, the response of the audience and critics, and all of that feels, to us, that we should be able to play and not have a movie that falls 65 percent from Week 1 to 2 and then does all of its business in two weekends. This to us was always a movie that should have exceptional hold. We think it should play for a very long time."

Locarno head-scratcher<< previous | next >>Lt. Dan in Iraq

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 14, 2006 at 11:56 AM

comment #1

NYCBusybody says ...

I'm just not sure that the "conservative-minded" talk has much to do with the success of this film. After all, Paul Greengrass (United 93's director) went on the Rush Limbaugh show and did a live interview when it came out. Rush gets, what, 15 million listeners a week? And he, and many other conservative media outlets, gave United 93 a big ballyhoo, including National Review Online.

And just about no name in Hollywood is more distasteful to conservatives than Oliver Stone's, even IF word gets out that it's a non-political piece. My guess would really be that this is making more money simply for the polish -just by watching the trailers, it seems slicker, more mainstream, more Hollywood, and stars a recognizable movie star in Nic Cage. Maybe even the summer release date.

Posted by NYCBusybody at August 14, 2006 12:35 PM

comment #2

MikeMac says ...

This is the reason people are so timid to embrace a "9/11" movie. Art for art's sake is not going to be rejected by the American people who have spent 5 years dealing with the aftermath of such a situation. In fact, I've seen several of the survivors of the WTC attacks speak at colleges and bought their books whose proceeds support the families still devastated by the attacks...

But to have to read about and hear about the 'dropoff' and the numbers and the millions of dollars the distributors are pulling in is simply nauseating. The movie business is still just a business, and decisions are made with dollar signs in mind when it comes down to it. I love movies, I love art, and I am honestly interested in seeing 'World Trade Center', but I simply cannot bring myself to give my money to the theaters and the business to profit off of this story.

Posted by MikeMac at August 14, 2006 12:36 PM

comment #3

Nicol D says ...

WTC is a flawed, but very good film. I don't agree with the argument that these stories should not be told because the company will 'profit' from it. Using that logic, virtually no movies based on any real events should be told.

No Schindler's List, no Silence of the Lambs, no nothing.

Movies cost money. Big money and that will always call into question whether or not films are a truly artistic medium. But Stone is a genuine artist who works in film. He is one of the few and I enjoy his work even when I disagree with the thesis.

He has the fire in the belly. I'm glad I saw WTC and hope more do the same.

Posted by Nicol D at August 14, 2006 12:47 PM

comment #4

AH says ...

While I may not agree with the conclusion, I can completely understand MikeMac's argument. I think the issue is time. Some will not want to relive the 9/11 experience because it is still very raw ... and that is certainly understandable.

Posted by AH at August 14, 2006 12:59 PM

comment #5

Dixon Steele says ...

I also agree with Mike. There's something odious about Cage, Stone, Paramount etc. making millions off such a terrible tragedy.

And, Nicol, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS was a novel, not an actual event.

Posted by Dixon Steele at August 14, 2006 1:23 PM

comment #6

C. Atwell says ...

Aside from it being such a fresh wound, what makes 9-11 different from Titanic, the Holocaust, Vietnam, Pearl Harbor, Ike and Tina Turner's marriage or any other tragedy that Hollywood has mined in the past? Hollywood is a business ... a given. Hollywood exploits real-life tragedy because it's a shortcut to connecting with audiences emotionally ... again, not news. The fact is that if artists are going to make work that is relevant and worthwhile, they're going to have to engage the real world from time to time, and doing so means risking offense or just plain fucking up. So what? Sometimes the risk produces great and profound movies. Should artists ignore 9-11 for fear of exploiting it? As for objections to Oliver Stone "raking in millions," spare me. In case no one's noticed, 9-11 has been a non-stop cash cow for publishers, news agencies, and others - not to mention a handy, cheap button pusher at election time (and oh, let's not forget all the mileage televangelists milked for their "Jesus is coming; send money" sales pitches ... I mean, sermons). Oliver made a respectful, honorable film and shouldn't have to apologize for people going to see it.

Posted by C. Atwell at August 14, 2006 2:00 PM

comment #7

Patrick says ...

91% rated it 'excellent to very good' and 80%
said they'd recommend it, so I'd say the word of
mouth will be solid. I think it can fall about 35%
this coming weekend and still have a shot at $75
million.

Posted by Patrick at August 14, 2006 2:06 PM

comment #8

MagillaOrangutang says ...

Reminds me of that scene in the Player where Peter Gallagher mines the news for stories.
..."Cast Jimmy Smits and you have a sexy Stand and Deliver."
Just think of WTC as Backdraft meets Poseidon Adventure!

Posted by MagillaOrangutang at August 14, 2006 2:53 PM

comment #9

Nate West says ...

Come on, now! You're all forgetting Paramount's secret weapon! The foreign box-office on this movie will be huge! It's called WORLD TRADE CENTER after all. They'll be lining up in Pakistan, Northern Africa, Egpyt, Jordan, the Gulf States, the environs of Paris and London. True, true--these audiences may be seeing a little bit different film, but TORA! TORA! TORA! did gangbusters in Japan.

Posted by Nate West at August 14, 2006 5:21 PM

comment #10

Todd says ...

I was just going to write in a comment about how WTC will do great in the Muslim countries. Nate beat me to it. But how right he is. This film will be another recruiting film for young frustrated muslims. A tag line can be "They use bombs we use box cutters, seek revenge against the infidels"

Posted by Todd at August 14, 2006 5:29 PM

comment #11

actionman says ...

After seeing WTC this weekend (I thought it was excellent in many ways) I have a feeling it will have small drops throughout the weeks to come and come in close to $100 million domestic. There was a full round of applause, tears being shed, and excellent discussion/word of mouth leaving the theater...and this was in LA, not NY. It's a much more emotional movie than UNITED 93 (which I feel is a superior film in the end) which is one of the reasons it will do better at the box office.

Posted by actionman at August 14, 2006 5:55 PM

comment #12