An interesting article I found over at Spinoff Online
which touches on something we've looked at a couple times on this community. Does a studio throwing masses of money at something guarantee it's success?
From their June 12 posting:
How much advertising is too much? That might be the question Hollywood executives find themselves asking with the news that Prince of Persia has so far failed to earn back its own advertising budget in the US.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, Prince of Persia has only earned $63 million dollars domestically, for a movie that cost $75 million to release and market.
Possible reasons for this? Word of mouth about what were apparently some pretty cheesy effects? Disinterest in the story? Well, maybe in this more media savvy times it was because of one thing: Buzz. Or lack of it.
But buzz doesn’t behave the way marketing should; sometimes, in fact, it’s just the opposite – Right now, for example, I think the summer movie with the most buzz is Scott Pilgrim… A movie that has barely started to be advertised, officially. Or, last year; District 9 didn’t have anywhere near the advertising budget of GI Joe: The Rise Of Cobra, but which one were people talking about most excitedly, ahead of release?
Think about it, "Prince of Persia" was being marketed out the yin yang, but it wasn't the film that had people waiting in anticipation for it. Even with all the trappings of a by the book summer blockbuster it has come in way below studio expectations being beat out by an animated sequel that had already been out for a week and a movie aimed at women (hmmm....sounding familiar to a certain release week?)