'Jonah Hex' Bombed, Can Anything be Learned Other Than the Obvious?
How about telling a good story for starters?
After reading Borys Kit's piece at The Hollywood Reporter headlined "What Hollywood can learn from 'Jonah Hex'" I couldn't help but think Kit wasn't bringing anything new to a conversation that may not even have a legitimate answer.
Kit's editorial explores the reasons Warner Bros.' box-office disappointment, Jonah Hex, failed to meet even the smallest of expectations in its opening weekend and how studios can use it to make sure future comic-based properties don't suffer a similar fate. This included the following pointed breakdown:
- Fanboys might not make or break a film, but they need to feel respected.
- Pick a release date carefully, and never underestimate Pixar.
- Not every comic needs to be movie.
- Executives would be wise to not overreact and think nonmarquee comic book titles can't be worthy of adaptations.
I'm sorry, but how that list suggests much of anything or relates to the failure of Jonah Hex is beyond me. On top of that, points three and four are mildly contradictory. Not every comic needs to be a movie? Yes, not every movie needs to be made into a comic book, but to use that in conjunction with "Jonah Hex" doesn't make sense to me. "Hex" could have been a great movie. What Kit should have written, is "Not every bad script needs to be a movie," though Hex's problems seem to go well beyond the script, which in its original stages may have been much better…
Kit nailed the reason for Hex's woes right away and it has nothing to do with being a comic book, had any film gone through this kind of production it would have likely been just as miserable. Warner Bros. hired Crank filmmakers Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor to write and direct Jonah Hex. However, while their script remained, they were replaced by Horton Hears a Who co-director Jimmy Hayward who was then side-stepped after delivering his cut of the film. Warner was apparently unhappy with Hayward's cut and brought in Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend) to oversee reshoots. While the amount of reshoots is unknown, for those that have seen Jonah Hex, here's Kit's breakdown examining how the two different versions came together:
The dream sequence involving Brolin and bad guy John Malkovich, which pops up at least twice in the film, actually is part of Heyward's original climax. The plot about stealing high-tech cannonballs, along with a glowing ball detonator, were added during Lawrence's reshoots, as were scenes involving Hex's backstory, President Grant (Aidan Quinn) and Hex talking to the dead. (The first cut kept his link to the dead more ambiguous.) Scenes with Michael Shannon and Will Arnett were trimmed to mere seconds.
The problems are evident and the budget bloomed to a reported $50-60 million at minimum as things only got worse. Anyone that saw Jonah Hex (and probably most of the people that didn't) know it should have been rated R, and I would assume many would also think glowing orbs of destruction don't make for an interesting climax in a ludicrous comic western.
However, sometimes the line between a successful film and a failure is not always a matter of quality. But when quality doesn't necessarily play a part, it's not easy to nail down the reason. Certainly, you have the obvious entertaining films such as Avatar and The Dark Knight. Family friendly films such as The Karate Kid succeed for obvious reasons, and I think that one scored a double whammy almost accidentally by also having added appeal for Black and Asian audiences (something I think box-office prognosticators overlooked). Top tier animated films are certain to do well, so Kit's theory not to underestimate Pixar is like saying don't stand in the rain unless you want to get wet.
However, while it's obvious why Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was successful at the box-office, how did it become that successful? What about Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans, 2012, G.I. Joe and Paul Blart? Most of these films were critically panned and their IMDb user rankings start as low as Paul Blart's 5.3 and only get as high as Alice's 6.8. So obviously, based on general consensus, even quality sometimes doesn't matter.
Bringing it back to Jonah Hex, it wasn't always a doomed project, which is the reason Kit's points have little relevance. Had Warner Bros. not decided to tone down the hard-edged killer, Hex may have been a better film. As a result it would have been easier to sell, would have had greater audience appeal and would have made more money even though it was up against a Pixar feature. Had it been rated R, it would have been the ultimate in counter-programming. Instead it turns out even the kid inside the most forgiving of PG-13 audience members chose Buzz and Woody over Jonah and Lilah.
I don't think Hex's failure had anything to do with fanboys being disrespected either. I would even wager the most ardent of fanboys were the ones that made for much of Hex's $5.3 million opening weekend. After all, it's not like we're talking about all that many tickets. Fanboys supported the first two Fantastic Four movies to $154 and $131 million. Ghost Rider made $115 million and Daredevil made $102 million.
This isn't a fanboy thing. From my perspective it seems fanboys are probably the #1 audience willing to give a film a chance, even if they don't think much of those chances. In short, fanboys really shouldn't be listened to that much if at all. Let them rant and rave, but do the best to tell the best story regardless of their complaints. Fan input isn't informed enough before a film goes into production to give it any real weight, so just let them vent and let the film stand on its own two feet.
The strangest thing about Kit's examination is nowhere in there is it said, "Make a better movie." But what's even more important than making a better movie, is that if you have a script you don't have confidence in, don't make the movie at all. You've gotta know when to hold 'em… It would seem Kit's focus is figuring out leverage and how to get a buck where one otherwise may not have been made with a film that probably deserved to be shelved.
The Dark Knight isn't consistently brought up in conversation because it picked a release date carefully, respected the fanboys or avoided Pixar (WALL•E came out three weeks earlier). Those factors may have helped it along the way, but it was quite simply a great movie that happened to be based on a comic book. To a slightly lesser degree, the same goes for Iron Man.
The point is to tell a good story, not the most generic story that will put the most asses in the seats. That works on occasion, but I would never bet on it. Hex seemed like a film that made such a gamble even though it should have been made on the cheap for about $35 million. Once glowing orbs and secret Gatling guns were introduced things got a bit messy. Had it stuck with a script suitable for a vengeful bounty hunter with a deformed face, kept the same cast and didn't necessarily respect fanboys, but respected audiences and the money they would pay to see the film, then perhaps we'd be talking about, at the very least, a modest hit rather than a flop a mere six days after its debut.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 20 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
if they didnt pick up megan fox then it would probably be different :P …. but seriously the movie in a way seemed rushed to the theaters and just did not appeal to me at all. I have never heard of Jonah Hex before or even knew it was a comic. Bad timing for it to come out and bad way to present it i think.
So Megan Fox sank the movie? That's what your saying? I'm not sure that not knowing Jonah Hex was a comic before hand is gonna stop anyone from seeing a movie either. The Watchmen was a virtually unknown series that at least made it's money back at theaters. I think Brad was right. Make a good movie first, then worry about marketing and release dates. It's true even really good movies often don't find audiences for various reasons, most of which would be marketing and release dates. However if you have a bad movie on your hands, all you have IS marketing and release dates. If this were a decent film it would have at least benefited from word of mouth.
Did not see it yet or do I ever plan to. Jonah Hex failed because WB seemed to have gave up on trying to make to film appealing at all in marketing or reshoots. In fact I think the only reason to film was moved from it August date is so they could pull the Pixar card now that it flopped.
I disagree. I think the studios worry too much about fanboy responses. The reasons why movies like SNAKES ON A PLANE and the recent KICK-ASS underperformed was in large part the result of studios/ distributors buying into the fanboy hype that very much extolled the brilliance of both pictures having R-rated edge to them. I think in the case of the former, New Line Cinema may have made a more lucrative feature had the rating been watered down to PG-13
I agree with your claims of Hollywood movies being bereft of good story content and in turn producing poor movies that fail to cultivate traction. I don't think there is a box-office science to any of this, as can be exemplified by last summer's DRAG ME TO HELL which was a fun movie with a PG-13 rating yet failed to find its audience. There are far too many films coming out every week and distributors need to consider scaling back on releases because the only people they're hurting is themselves.
I agree, that was my point, fanboys may rant and rave, but in large part they will also go see every movie despite their rants. So you don't have to cater to them or depend on them the way studios currently do.
Kit put it in such a way saying fanboys "need to feel respected," which I felt was a way of saying respect the fans and the material, which is valid, but only to a point. The story telling device is the most important because not everything translates perfectly when going from page to screen.
I very much disagree with the idea that fans will turn out to see every movie despite their rants… Again, I'd say look at Halle Berry's "Catwoman". The fan community collectively turned their backs on that because there was obviously zero respect for the character in that film.
There is no doubt that the internet is full of hysterical fans screaming about every little change, and that they don't really represent the larger fanbase that will still turn out to see "Spider-man" regardless of whether he has mechanical webshooters or not. However, there is a tipping point… after decades of Hollywood bastardizing comic adaptations needlessly, if a studio changes a property too much, the fan base will walk away.
Likewise, I think studios leave a lot of money on the table when they are careless in their adaptations. Yes, a lot of Fantastic Four fans still went and saw the movies, but they both underperformed, bleeding off fans rapidly to the point that they already need a relaunch. Likewise with "X-men" properties. If Fox wants to make a "Deadpool" film with Ryan Reynolds, they'll have to work hard to make the character much more like the comics version next time in order to win back the fans' trust, because almost none of them will show up to see the version that was featured in "Wolverine".
According to an interview with Lauren Shuler-Donner I read, her plan is to ignore the Deadpool seen in Wolverine and reboot the character totally from that.
I think there's a valid point to the advice "Respect the fans", but "Jonah Hex" seemed to respect them well enough, at least before any planted their butts in the seats to see it. They cast Brolin as the lead, which by most accounts was good casting even in the final product. They didn't seem to be overly hamming it up, or mocking the premise. They didn't reinvent the concept altogether. In short, they didn't make a "Catwoman" or "Steel".
I always feel that too many Hollywood writers are overly concerned about how big a comic book was if it's being adapted into a film. "Men in Black" was a comic that nobody had heard of before it was a huge movie franchise. "Road to Perdition" and "A History of Violence" were comics before they were Oscar contenders. Yet when it comes to super heroes, many in Hollywood seem to think that the only characters worth adapting are the ones famous to the wider public because they were adapted before, and thus are surprised that "Iron Man" could hit it big even though most people didn't know him yet. 5 of the top 10 comic adaptations are from characters that never had a movie or prime time television show before 2000 (although Iron Man and the X-men both had cartoons.) It's well past time for some entertainment writers to give up the idea that the only superheroes worth making movies about are Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Spider-man and the Hulk.
The character of Jonah Hex was never going to bring a huge comic book fan base with him to cushion the box office. I'm a comic book fan, and I've never read a comic with him in it. That's okay… that just means that the studio should have had as much faith in the project as they do with any other project they greenlight without a massive fanbase. Brad's exactly right… the lesson in such a case is not "don't make a movie of this level of comic book character", it's "make a good movie that people will want to see".
Sorry Brad, I understand your point but I have to disagree with you on one thing.
Bory Kit got one thing right and that is not every comic needs to be made into a movie. I'm sorry but that is a very, very large reason as to why Jonah Hex did not make a lot of money: nobody knows who Jonah Hex is. Forget the fact that the movie itself has a poor script, plot etc..The average person simply does not know who Jonah Hex is and what his story is about. Why would someone go spend 12$ at the theater to go see a movie about something that not only looks stupid, but something that they have no general background information on?
The thing with comic movies is that the average person doesn't know the stories from the comics. But most are familiar with the hero in question. Batman, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Green Lantern…we may not know their history in the comics, but we've at least heard of them. Start making movies like Kick-Ass, The Losers, Jonah Hex…well, you're not going to be getting Iron Man box office numbers. That's guaranteed.
I think you should acknowledge that Brad. As bad as the movie itself was, lesser known comics don't have large movie audiences. And that definetly keys in to why it doesn't make as much money.
No, I agree not every comic needs to be made into a movie, but it seemed the point was being made to insinuate Hex shouldn't have been made into a movie, which I disagree with… I'll edit that part of the article to be a little more clear.
There's the question of whether it makes "as much" money as an Iron Man, and the question of whether it makes enough money to justify being made. 99% of the movies made don't make as much money as Iron Man… certainly nobody should expect them all to.
However, it's not the least bit guaranteed that a small property can't break out. Again, I point to "Men In Black", a tiny, unheard-of comic book that is a major movie franchise now. "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" likewise became a huge children's property after being adapted from a tiny print run of comics. There's definitely the possibility of gold in the hills beyond the wider public's recognition. But, while I'm sure they always hope for that kind of success, I would suspect they were aiming instead to have something along the lines of a "Blade" franchise by taking a small character and producing a genre hit with him. However, the budget obviously got away from them.
I agree, most movies don't make Iron Man numbers. But a movie like Jonah Hex is already an underdog right out the gates because lack of general interest.
For every Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles theres a dozen Jonah Hexes. I'm still a strong believer that comics like Jonah Hex don't need to be made into a movie because the comic fanbase is already small. Honestly, how good could they have made this movie? It's hard to make something like that appealing to a mass audience. TMNT worked because it was aimed towards kids. MIB worked because it had Will Smith. Those 2 franchises are exceptions to the rule you know?
Another factor for Jonah Hex's epic failure was that western-themed movies aren't exactly moneymakers.
The point about making a 'good' movie or at least one with something that the target audience can relate to is a correct one.
The fact that Jonah Hex wasn't well known shouldnt in and of itself have been an insurmountable issue if the marketing and promotion was attuned right. If it had been made for a more modest budget as well, it wouldn't have needed to break out to be a success. It could have become a cult genre film and still earned a respectable amount.
My biggest problem with these kinds of films is the watering down/cutting/reshooting to end up with a PG-13 movie that perhaps should just never have been a PG-13 in the first place.
If the source material lends itself to a higher rating, work to that and don't water down just to make a bit more money (or at least that would be the attempt) in the short term.
I agree that any comic can be made into a decent film or even a great one. If they had nailed it with Jonah hex everyone would know who he was. You got to put the blame where it deserves to be and that's on the directors of this film and any past bombs.
According to a Warner Bros exec (via Nikki Finke) the lesson learned was "You don't take a handsome actor and disfigure him."
Which shows they didn't learn any lessons.
Essentially it came down to terrible marketing. The first footage (outside of Comic-Con) appeared less than 2 months before the release date, and that footage was cut into a horribly God-awful trailer. It's been proven over and over again you can create a great trailer from a bad movie, and thereby often get a decent opening weekend for a bad film. That's the lesson learned. Warner Bros sold Jonah Hex as a crappy movie and it did crappy business. Genre, fanboys, source material really didn't have much to do with it.
and their IMDb user rankings start as low as Paul Blart's 5.3 and only get as high as Alice's 6.8. So obviously, based on general consensus
———————————————————-
No disrespect, but don't ever use the IMDb ratings to support your opinion. The entire world knows the number one rule: never, ever trust IMDb and its rating system. Fanboys of a certain movie vote another movie down, using multiple accounts, just because it has a higher rating or just because they hate the other group of fans. That's the reality on IMDb and that's why the ratings there are completely useless. Go to YahooMovies.com and take a look at the ratings there.
They actually reflect the general audience.
I've been reading comics for 30 years and these are really valid points also when a director deviates too much from the source material(superman returns) or treats the original comic like a storyboard without bringing originality(watchmen) that project will fail.
Not every fanboy is a retard. The studios seem to think that they drool over every comic there is, shivering with excitement, embracing each and every figure, disfigured or otherwise. Bad thinking, mismanagement and bad timing can only lead to disaster.
The movie may have been bad ( I don't know, I didn't see it). But, there are lots of bad films that make a lot of money. I think a big reason it failed, was because of marketing. Where were the tv spots, that trailer was horrible and who the hell is Jonah Hex??? A lot of people didn't know about this film and still don't.
The scuttlebut wasn't that Jonah Hex was just bad, but that it was ridiculous. So it was ridiculed. I agree that a straight up, more realistic and edgy version would have been better. I plan to rent it on DVD, though. Nice picture of Megan Fox!