Destroyer (2018)

[Aclea]

Again, I seriously doubt it. Straight out the gate its numbers were nothing to write home about and coming out sooner wouldn't have changed that - the week of the Golden Globe nominations At Eternitys Edge, another title with inbuilt audience resistance, only did $319,925 at 174 screens. And it's not as if Destroyer is doing well anywhere else - in the UK it couldn't even crack the top ten and barely managed the top 20, only managing no. 19 with just ￡106,410 from 113 sites.

[Leonidas King]

My AMC will be getting it this weekend, woot.

[Chaotic]

Already Down to one showtime at my art house theater this weekend

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Leonidas_King

My AMC will be getting it this weekend, woot.

I'd see this if it expanded opened at an AMC but it's Washington DC run basically is on its last legs - two screenings (three on the weekend) a day down a E Street. Landmark dropped this movie over at Bethesda literally after a week's run - guess the audience base their just wasn't interested in seeing this

Originally Posted by MikeScott

The weekend it went from 6 to 27 was the weekend after the Golden Globes when Kidman didn't win. Releasing it wider sooner, especially over the crazy busy holiday movie-going time, would have seen better results. Sure it never would have been huge, but I believe it would have found more of an audience for sure. Maybe could have gotten to 11-13 Million. Certainly more than the 2 Million tops it will get to now. I also believe it would have fared better with a normal release during a less competitive time of year. Basically this year adult fare like Destroyer doesn't stand a chance if it's snubbed for awards. It's another casualty of awards season. Like Film Stars Don't Die In Liverpool last year, 20th Century Women the previous year (both happened to star Annette Bening), etc... But a well-reviewed adult film with a name star can pull in solid numbers outside of the competitive awards season. It would stand out more rather than getting lost in the shuffle. The audience it's aimed at is trying to catch up on the films actually nominated during this time. Also, they wouldn't have had to spend a fortune on advertising. Just a normal amount. It's not like I think they should spend as much as would be spent on a big studio film.

this is the typical Annapurna release (and Sony Classic Pictures) schedule; drop it in a couple of theaters in L.A and New York at the very end of the year, think they'll get a few awards nominations and such, but overall just doesn't do the movie any good.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

this is the typical Annapurna release (and Sony Classic Pictures) schedule; drop it in a couple of theaters in L.A and New York at the very end of the year, think they'll get a few awards nominations and such, but overall just doesn't do the movie any good.

It's pretty much everybody's typical release for difficult pictures that need to build word of mouth. All too often going the other way and opening wide can be a disaster - look at Fahrenheit 11/9, which opened at 1719 theaters and bombed with a $6,352,306 closing gross that didn't even come close to covering the cost of releasing the film let alone making it.

There's also another problem with indie distributors opening films wide: the major chains give them much worse terms than the studios get - where a studio can expect to keep 55% of the gross, for indies that can be as low as 35%. In limited release indie distributors can command a higher percentage because of exclusivity while they're theoretically building audience interest for an expansion. But often it becomes clear from the numbers from the first limited engagements that it simply won't be economically viable to expand the film much, especially since to get a 500-1000 screen release you have to commit to a higher level of marketing support on TV and in print.

Destroyer's problem is probably that it's the kind of film that (like Stan and Ollie in the US) appeals to an audience that just doesn't go out to watch movies anymore: as an HBO movie it would probably pull in a respectable audience, but the release strategy now seems more to raise interest for its streaming/home video release than in any forlorn hope of raising the theatrical take.

[Shingster]

If you subscribe to the multiverse theory then I would say that there is no way any of the uncountable amount of parallel universes that there is one universe where Destroyer pulled any significant audience into theaters. It's a very bleak film and pretty much every image you can pull from it makes that abundantly clear. I've got to agree with Aclea that it probably would have found, and maybe it will find, some minor success among the lineup of HBo or a Netflix where you can promote it like a gritty shades-of-grey crime thriller in the True Detective mould.

[Underworld54]

Originally Posted by Aclea

It's pretty much everybody's typical release for difficult pictures that need to build word of mouth. All too often going the other way and opening wide can be a disaster - look at Fahrenheit 11/9, which opened at 1719 theaters and bombed with a $6,352,306 closing gross that didn't even come close to covering the cost of releasing the film let alone making it.

There's also another problem with indie distributors opening films wide: the major chains give them much worse terms than the studios get - where a studio can expect to keep 55% of the gross, for indies that can be as low as 35%. In limited release indie distributors can command a higher percentage because of exclusivity while they're theoretically building audience interest for an expansion. But often it becomes clear from the numbers from the first limited engagements that it simply won't be economically viable to expand the film much, especially since to get a 500-1000 screen release you have to commit to a higher level of marketing support on TV and in print.

Destroyer's problem is probably that it's the kind of film that (like Stan and Ollie in the US) appeals to an audience that just doesn't go out to watch movies anymore: as an HBO movie it would probably pull in a respectable audience, but the release strategy now seems more to raise interest for its streaming/home video release than in any forlorn hope of raising the theatrical take.

Trevor?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Shingster

If you subscribe to the multiverse theory then I would say that there is no way any of the uncountable amount of parallel universes that there is one universe where Destroyer pulled any significant audience into theaters. It's a very bleak film and pretty much every image you can pull from it makes that abundantly clear. I've got to agree with Aclea that it probably would have found, and maybe it will find, some minor success among the lineup of HBo or a Netflix where you can promote it like a gritty shades-of-grey crime thriller in the True Detective mould.

and I think that's inherently the problem here, sure there's a market and audience for bleak, nihilistic entertainment, but I think there's a saturation point where despite an actor getting critical acclaim for a performance, the overall trailer and vibe a movie gives, the opposite happens, it turns away an audience.

[CavebobSpongeman]

This movie is incredible guys. I emplore people to beg, borrow or steal to see this.

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I'd see this if it expanded opened at an AMC but it's Washington DC run basically is on its last legs - two screenings (three on the weekend) a day down a E Street. Landmark dropped this movie over at Bethesda literally after a week's run - guess the audience base their just wasn't interested in seeing this



this is the typical Annapurna release (and Sony Classic Pictures) schedule; drop it in a couple of theaters in L.A and New York at the very end of the year, think they'll get a few awards nominations and such, but overall just doesn't do the movie any good.

It did a 2-3 week residency at Hollywood ArcLight where they were doing almost nightly Q&A sessions with the director, writers, and Nicole Kidman. Some showings were also projected at the DOME there. I saw it at my local ArcLight theater but almost 3 weeks later. It's still playing locally at all ArcLight theaters, I believe.

I did think it would go wider after it initially opened up in more.

[MikeScott]

Originally Posted by Aclea

especially since to get a 500-1000 screen release you have to commit to a higher level of marketing support on TV and in print.

Tell that to Aviron and Serenity . I mean you certainly should spend money on advertising but you don't HAVE to to get that many screens. Same with BH Tilt. They don't spend much on advertising and even then it's basically just online advertising.

[dommie]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

It did a 2-3 week residency at Hollywood ArcLight where they were doing almost nightly Q&A sessions with the director, writers, and Nicole Kidman. Some showings were also projected at the DOME there. I saw it at my local ArcLight theater but almost 3 weeks later. It's still playing locally at all ArcLight theaters, I believe.

It was playing here at the Arclight Sherman Oaks and they gave it a few weeks, just pulling it from their schedule this past week. It's a shame that this film didn't get more attention. It's a good one, so much so that I gave it a 5/5 for the poll. I ranked Destroyer as my 2nd best film of 2018, topped only by Mission Impossible: Fallout. maybe it will receive some love in the ancillary markets (Blu-ray, on line streaming, etc.).

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by dommie

It was playing here at the Arclight Sherman Oaks and they gave it a few weeks, just pulling it from their schedule this past week. It's a shame that this film didn't get more attention. It's a good one, so much so that I gave it a 5/5 for the poll. I ranked Destroyer as my 2nd best film of 2018, topped only by Mission Impossible: Fallout. maybe it will receive some love in the ancillary markets (Blu-ray, on line streaming, etc.).

Here's hoping it gets love on home media. I will be getting the BD/Digital HD. If I had seen the film in 2018, it would most likely have gone on my top-10 list.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by MikeScott

Tell that to Aviron and Serenity .

Except Aviron did spend money on P&A - the beef from the stars and director is that they didn't spend enough and honor their alleged commitment to spend $30m marketing a film that tested disastrously, got atrocious reviews and a D+ CinemaScore from audiences. Even with a low-key campaign they certainly spent more than they got back from the box-office. Ironically one of the complaints levelled against them was that the film wasn't platform released, when that would have killed it even faster. Their response? '...sadly, the data demonstrated that the film was not going to be able to perform at our initial expectations, so we adjusted our budget and marketing tactics accordingly.' In other words, they spent the bare contractual minimum.

I mean you certainly should spend money on advertising but you don't HAVE to to get that many screens.

Except you do. Serenity didn't just appear in theaters with no publicity: it still had a marketing spend, albeit one that made no impact, and it still had TV spots (allegedly not in any primetime network shows) and print ads.

Same with BH Tilt. They don't spend much on advertising and even then it's basically just online advertising.

Interesting you should bring up Blumhouse, because their two-tier release strategy isn't as cheap as people think. To open Get Out, Universal spent $30m in the US alone - which is the low end for a mass studio release, but still substantial - and then had to spend more after it opened to support it (which I'll come back to in a moment). BH Tilt was designed expressly for films that Universal refused to release theatrically but whuch Blumhouse had contractual obligations to release because the talent deferred their salaries. Its marketing spend, by their own account, varies from the low-mid seven figures, and that spend is concentrated on opening pictures. To date none of their Tilt pictures have reached $12m and only three have passed $10m despite being far more commercial product than Destroyer, acting more to raise their profile on VOD than to make their money back in theaters. None of them had any longterm marketing support - the spend was concentrated almost entirely on the opening weekend.

Expanding a film to 500 screens, let alone 1000 after its posted soft results in limited engagements is a very different proposition, especially for an indie that has no leverage. The film has already proven to exhibitors that it's not an attractive booking. Indie distribution is a ruthlessly Darwinian environment these days, and to persuade theaters to take an underperforming film on even in their smallest screen means convincing them that despite the film posting soft numbers that decrease with even minor expansion you have a strategy to turn the film's fortunes around. They'll expect that to mean marketing support even if you get an Oscar nomination, which these days rarely provides much of a boost for holdover indie films (Willem Dafoe's Oscar nomination for At Eternity's Edge did nothing for the film, 'boosting' its weekend take to a mere $40,403 total from the previous week's $31,144 at 16 fewer screens).

[prkchopexpress]

this is legit great. it's not perfect. but extremely solid. this is kind of a nitpick, but the ending... I would have cut it a little earlier.

kidman is pretty good. I love the way kusama stages everything. sebastian stan should really get more respect. he does the huge marvel movies, than has snuck in some great other roles the last few years. comedy in the bronze, a crazy role in i, tonya and now this.

you could say this wasn't marketable because it's a movie without a hero... but that's bs. this will make money, but let's temper expectations. was this going to make $100 million? no. I'd say this is a better movie than widows, which overperformed. (and got way more praise than it deserved.)

so I get it if the studio doesn't want to spend 50 marketing a $10 million movie. I'm glad stuff like this is getting made. too much nonsense in movies now is about marketing and not about the movie itself. I wish they could market this more by the director or as a dark tale.

[Chaotic]

Widows didn't overperform. I think it was expected to do better than what it did.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

It did a 2-3 week residency at Hollywood ArcLight where they were doing almost nightly Q&A sessions with the director, writers, and Nicole Kidman. Some showings were also projected at the DOME there. I saw it at my local ArcLight theater but almost 3 weeks later. It's still playing locally at all ArcLight theaters, I believe.

I did think it would go wider after it initially opened up in more.

no Arclight Bethesda is no longer showing it.

[prkchopexpress]

argh. wish this made more money.

[Shingster]

Why? You think there was ever a chance of there being a sequel? This film was made on such a small budget that it ultimately doesn't matter to the careers of anyone involved.

[Frank TJ Mackey]

This is down to 144 screens and still hasn't cracked $1.5 million at the box office. They totally f**ked up this release. Just release the BD already, assuming it gets one.

I'm going to check it out soon before it leaves theaters altogether.