Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Inside The Curious Marketing Of Angelina Jolie’s ‘By The Sea’

In a crowded marketplace where prestige movies without proven stars are sinking like stones, you will be hard pressed to find a fall film with bigger worldwide box office stars than Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. But despite the fact that Jolie wrote and directed By The Sea and stars in it with Pitt in what marks their first feature collaboration since the 2005 blockbuster Mr. And Mrs. Smith, there is little to no awareness — or evidence in the advertising — that two huge stars are in almost every frame of this film. And rather than a wide release, the only firm plan is for a release in three cities.

So, two weeks before its November 13 bow, few realize that By The Sea is coming out even though the studio releasing it, Universal Pictures, has expertly marketed and distributed winner after winner this year with Jurassic World, Furious 7 and Straight Outta Compton.

Consider the one-sheet for By The Sea: It shows barely a glimpse of the two biggest box office stars in its movie poster, which depicts a balcony with a man’s hat barely touching a woman’s hat, against a yellow-hued sky. On the second one sheet, Jolie is unrecognizable, with hair looking like a wave that covers most of her face. Pitt is in a small photo at the bottom, also barely recognizable. In fact, at first glance, he looks more like Bryan Cranston as Dalton Trumbo.

So you gotta ask: What is going on with By The Sea? And why would a marketing-savvy studio like Universal not exploit the presence of two of the few stars who are proven draws?

According to the studio and Jolie’s camp, it’s all by design, a subtle way to deliver a film that is more personal than commercial. However, sources say that at the center of it all is Jolie, a writer-producer-director-star who has ideas of her own and is in involved in every detail of the film’s launch of what is clearly a personal pet project. By allowing the film to go to market in modest fashion as Jolie wishes, they say, Universal is protecting its future relationship with a star who built a strong relationship with film chairman Donna Langley from when the star directed the Louis Zamperini drama Unbroken.

So when a trailer cut by Universal didn’t please her, Jolie cut her own. Said one person with knowledge of the behind-the-scenes machinations: “They aren’t selling it as a mainstream romantic drama because she doesn’t want that and they weren’t willing to take her on.”

Also curious is that release pattern. While Universal and Jolie’s camp maintain that a limited release was always in their minds and that anybody who says different made the mistaken assumption this was going to be bigger, the film has been listed as going “wide” on exhibitor schedules (including on Rentrak’s release schedule, which gets its information directly from the studios). Online, By The Sea is also referred to as a “nationwide” release. It’s been on the books that way since May, when the studio first announced a November 13 release. To be fair to the studio, the press release of their date announcement had no reference to the release pattern.

“It’s still on my list as wide,” said one exhibitor this week. “If they are going limited, they probably need to tell people pretty soon.” Said one observer: “Why would you make a $30M movie with two big stars and deem it worthy of a three-city release?”

That it was ever going wide was vehemently denied by Jolie’s camp, and by Universal, which has told us that the movie wasn’t ever intended to be more than what it turned out to be: Jolie’s version of a ’70s art film; not a sweeping romance but rather a small “personal” film about a crumbling relationship. They say that this tiny release strategy for a film that is shouldering more than $30M (with P&A added in) was what they had in mind all along.

more in the link

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 59December 7, 2020 10:43 PM

So in short this movie is personal intellectual masturbation of that narcissistic Jolie . Right? Anyway this movie is going to bomb big . Then may be Jolie will come out of her own revere . As far as Pitt is concerned he has totally been emasculated by Jolie . Does he has any say in their relationship or even life of his kids ?

by Anonymousreply 1November 3, 2015 7:42 PM

If this movie is as bad as the trailer seems to indicate, this will be a career-ender for Jolie! She seems to think that she's still the Queen of Hollywood and merely hinting at her presence in a film will be enough to bring in droves of fans, but she's been so quiet and boring for the last few years that the droves have deserted her for reality TV.

The thing about working in an industry dominated by white straight men is that the powers that be forgive other white straight men for their missteps, but not women, gays, or POC. Pitt is going to walk away from this with his career undamaged, but she made a turkey AND interfered with the release, the studio will never fund another of her vanity projects. RIP her directing career.

by Anonymousreply 2November 3, 2015 7:42 PM

I wonder how much she had to whore around for 30 million.

by Anonymousreply 3November 3, 2015 7:47 PM

I wonder how much actually she wrote and directed this movie

by Anonymousreply 4November 3, 2015 7:50 PM

Unbroken was not a bad film and it did not deserve to be snubbed. I don't know how this one will be accepted.

by Anonymousreply 5November 3, 2015 8:08 PM

This movie is inspired by her mother.

Christ, her daddy issues will never end.

by Anonymousreply 6November 3, 2015 11:18 PM

This looks almost identical to that dreadful Taylor - Burton film...BOOM

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7November 3, 2015 11:59 PM

Are critics going to review the movie before it opens? Is the limited release due to the fact that the studio doesn't believe it will perform well?

by Anonymousreply 8November 4, 2015 12:21 AM

That liz taylor movie looked awful

by Anonymousreply 9November 4, 2015 12:57 AM

That Liz Taylor movie IS awful, R9, in fact it's so awful that it's considered a camp classic!

The validity of your gay card is currently under review. You will be notified of the results in 3-5 business days.

by Anonymousreply 10November 4, 2015 4:40 AM

IOW, the studio knows this is a dud and is backing away slowly. Starting by letting Jolie take the credit (blame) for that awful trailer that landed with a thud.

by Anonymousreply 11November 4, 2015 4:56 AM

The production budget is around $10 million not $30 million. It was only ever meant to be a small indie film. That's what was said from the start. Lots of small budget films are made every year and those are usually the ones that interest me. I think they (Jolie & Pitt) got their own financing and then a studio (Universal) got on board to distribute it. Whatever Universal decided to spend on marketing is on them - but I wonder how accurate that figure is.

If the atudio supposedly knew it was a "dud" why would they have spent so much on marketing. The article doesn't make sense.

by Anonymousreply 12November 4, 2015 5:44 AM

There is no way Universal was putting up that kind of money for a film they planned as a limited release all along. Also Jolie and Pitt are producers--there is no way they didn't negotiate a marketing budget. When they announced the release date, the statement was "Universal is honored to market and distribute it to audiences around the world." This only became a limited release after the trailer was a dud and likely after the studio saw the first cut and determined they couldn't sell it wide. This studio had already taken Unbroken from her and recut it, maybe they decided to cut their losses this time.

by Anonymousreply 13November 4, 2015 6:22 AM

HA HA HA HA!! The reviews are horrible. Finally, maybe they will both fade away

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 14November 6, 2015 8:16 AM

Pitt and Jolie are trying to act cool with very bad reviews. They said it was made for art and not an Oscar. They are both insufferable. Maybe the the production companies will stop greenlighting vanity projects from these talentless idiots.

by Anonymousreply 15November 6, 2015 8:19 AM

That horrible wig doesn't do her any favors first off.

by Anonymousreply 16November 6, 2015 8:36 AM

"Wow what a piece of art" said my sister to her son when he brought home a lump of clay that in no way resembled the bowl he was supposed to have made. That's the exact same thing that's happening here, except Jolie isn't 7yrs old and we arent morons.

by Anonymousreply 17November 6, 2015 8:43 AM

I wonder if it will turn out to be so bad it's good? Maybe even a bit camp?

by Anonymousreply 18November 6, 2015 9:21 AM

There was a huge amount of publicity a year ago about this movie. Remember all of Angie's stories about how she directed the sex scenes? How she made 13-year-old Maddox a production assistant? When the first stills from the film came out in September 2014 the heavy implication was that this was expected to be an important and exciting film -- every article talked about the "famous couple" who had just famously gotten married a month earlier. In fact, people presumed that the marriage was scheduled for max publicity for the film.

Then UNBROKEN came out and it was a fucking disaster. The film is obnoxious and amateur beyond belief. From the ridiculous hair dye to the campy performances to the bizarre makeup on the villain, the movie was a complete loss. Jolie couldn't handle it and faked measles or smallpox or something to get out of attending publicity.

That's when the publicity for BY THE SEA started to go south. Maybe she decided she wanted just a low-impact indie film after the UNBROKEN fiasco, maybe Universal wanted to distance themselves, who knows.

And $30M isn't a huge budget, but it's right about where all the semi-indie Oscar bait movies are nowadays. THE BUTLER and GET ON UP a couple years back and SOUTHPAW this year all came in at $30M. That $30M figure was probably based on the idea that this film could get some Oscar action. After UNBROKEN I'm not so sure it will.

by Anonymousreply 19November 6, 2015 11:01 AM

30 million is a big budget for an indie. They probably got a big chunk of that money for themselves. I wonder what they stage this time to get some attention for this crap. They can't hire that Russian prankster anymore to fake punch Brad's face. HD powder, measles ... maybe they could ask Beyawnzze and Gay Z about elevator fights.

by Anonymousreply 20November 6, 2015 12:14 PM

$30 million isn't much for a wide release film, but it is huge for an "art" film that the studio and director are now laughably insisting was always intended for a limited release.

by Anonymousreply 21November 6, 2015 12:21 PM

Yeah, the $30M would have had to have been raised with the understanding that the film would be wide release. All the examples of other $30M movies I listed in R19 had wide release.

BY THE SEA was meant to be wide release originally. Their denial is pretty hilarious, though.

by Anonymousreply 22November 6, 2015 12:31 PM

Jolie Pas nous livre sa faux-pas avec ce "non, merci". Just no

by Anonymousreply 23November 6, 2015 12:46 PM

Wasn't UNBROKEN a hit though?

by Anonymousreply 24November 6, 2015 12:50 PM

Will this be their Last Flight?

Cotillard and Canet bombed at the box office.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 25November 6, 2015 12:51 PM

What's Niels Arestrup doing in this shitfest?

I wasn't wrong, there is a bit of French in this movie.

by Anonymousreply 26November 6, 2015 12:53 PM

Compared to this, Eyes Wide Shut was a masterpiece.

by Anonymousreply 27November 6, 2015 12:54 PM

R24, yes but it underperformed, especially for a WW2 drama with a huge built-in audience and a very aggressive year-long marketing campaign. The awards nominations that were expected to boost the box office never came. Fury made twice as much money with half the attention.

by Anonymousreply 28November 6, 2015 1:04 PM

Has Jolie ever been a huge draw? I don't think she's ever brought in a huge audience on her own and the movies she's starred in have been mostly forgettable mediocrities.

My impression of her is that she leveraged her supporting Oscar, exceptional physical attractiveness and media hype (due to her power coupling with actual star Pitt) to become something of a dragon lady within the Hollywood clique -- rather than being a proven audience magnet like Bullock or Roberts.

by Anonymousreply 29November 6, 2015 1:19 PM

Pitt really never has been a big box office star either.

by Anonymousreply 30November 6, 2015 1:37 PM

She's all over the place: wants to be Winterbotton, then Eastwood/Oshima and then Antonioni. Her next project has Rithy Panh attached as co-producer. She can't admit she doesn't have the depth or the skills to pull it off and her filmography as an actress speaks for itself. Pitt is limited but a good producer.

What next? Oh yes, Cleopatra: the-camp-event-that-shall-never-be

by Anonymousreply 31November 6, 2015 1:37 PM

Her box office isn't what you'd expect considering the hype she generates. Her biggest films are all Disney/animation or action movies. Her dramas bomb and get poor reviews. Changeling was an exception but it's one of Eastwood's more modest grossing films as a director even though it ran a higher budget than what he usually requires. It's kind of hilarious that she's posing as this deep writer/director now because there's not much in her filmography to suggest she has a good eye for scripts. Rudin described her film career perfectly--a camp event.

Pitt also has an uneven record. He's had a few blockbusters but many of his big budget films just barely break even and he's had several major bombs. He lucked out big time with the Ocean's series because before then his box office was a joke. He does pretty well as a producer though.

by Anonymousreply 32November 6, 2015 1:39 PM

The three French actors (Bohringer, Laurent, and Poupaud) AJP hired should have been in their own movie with this premise. Directed by any of France's significant female cineastes, i.e. Denis, Fontaine, et al.

by Anonymousreply 33November 6, 2015 1:39 PM

The FOUR French actors she hired. Niels Arestrup is French too. And he's a theatre powerhouse.

by Anonymousreply 34November 6, 2015 2:00 PM

Astute observation r7.

I can't tell you how insufferable this woman is when she saunters into the offices of UNHCR as if she were some kind of messiah. She has a very limited knowledge of world history thus she's clueless about the geopolitical issues that fuel refugee flows or the complex nature of a multi-organizational response..

With respect to both her work in film and her association with the UN she fancies herself an intellectual. Its embarrassing. And it looks as if this film is going to confirm this truth.

by Anonymousreply 35November 6, 2015 2:28 PM

I hope it's dreadful. Then my art films can be forgotten.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 36November 6, 2015 2:31 PM

Ach, Genève...

by Anonymousreply 37November 6, 2015 3:21 PM

I think she is more of a draw to international audiences. She isn't in the US. People like reading about her and talking about her life, but don't really care about her work.

by Anonymousreply 38November 6, 2015 3:41 PM

R38. But last movie "unbroken" did far better in US than in International market. (almost thrice)

by Anonymousreply 39November 6, 2015 3:44 PM

Jolie is hardly an international draw, R38

by Anonymousreply 40November 6, 2015 3:44 PM

R40, actually her movies usually do much better in the international market than in the US. Unbroken is an exception, but she wasn't in it. The international market kept that crapfest The Tourist from losing money.

by Anonymousreply 41November 6, 2015 4:47 PM

[quote] Has Jolie ever been a huge draw? I don't think she's ever brought in a huge audience on her own and the movies she's starred in have been mostly forgettable mediocrities.

Of course she has. Salt, Wanted, Maleficent, The Tourist. Do you think she got the big bucks because she DIDN'T bring in huge audiences?

by Anonymousreply 42November 6, 2015 7:22 PM

I wonder how they make their money. All those children and their nannies must cost a fortune. She is more like a tabloid star, people are more interested in what she, her kids and her dumb husband do than go watch her in movies. They probably made more money from selling kids and wedding pics to the yellow press than from acting in movies. They got Lainey shilling for them now. They both look so bizarre.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 43November 6, 2015 8:55 PM

R42, I think only Maleficent and Wanted qualify as a real box office blowouts. The rest made only a modest profit when you factor in marketing and campaigns, and only because of international sales where marketing is usually much more expensive to begin with. Salt was definitely regarded as a modest hit and The Tourist just squeaked by after bombing in the US.

Compare either of them to Tom Cruise, who is widely regarded as being on a career downturn since jumping on Oprah's couch. But since then Cruise has been a more consistent box office success than either Jolie or Pitt.

by Anonymousreply 44November 6, 2015 9:14 PM

R44, Cruise is smart enough to accept his limitations as an actor, and to find scripts that work for his incredibly narrow range. Even since the fiasco of his marriage to Holmes and the end of his popularity as a celebrity, he's made action films that are surprisingly popular, considering nobody actually likes him any more.

Jolie thinks she can act in any sort of role, write, direct, and meddle in politics, and doesn't seem to have a fucking clue where her actual strengths and weaknesses lie. Hubris goeth before a fall.

by Anonymousreply 45November 6, 2015 9:29 PM

Pitt also has a very limited range as an actor. I will give him credit as a producer though--he does pick good films/source material. Obviously that good sense didn't apply with this film.

by Anonymousreply 46November 6, 2015 9:43 PM

Sorry, hit Post too fast. I don't think Cruise is a limited actor, though. I think he is (or at least was) an excellent actor and it's a shame that he's resting on big action movies now, presumably to line Scientology's coffers.

by Anonymousreply 47November 6, 2015 9:45 PM

Of course Cruise is a limited actor, R47! Try to imagine him in a comedy, or playing someone who lives in ancient Rome or colonial New England, or a hippie or a gay man, or just a man who's passionately in love. Compare him to an actor with real range, like Alan Rickman or Hugo Weaving, and rethink.

He's taken a talent for looking extremely intense and made a career out of it, I do have to admire his smarts even as I dismiss his talent.

by Anonymousreply 48November 6, 2015 9:58 PM

Cruise is very limited as an actor, he isn't intelligent enough to make believe.

by Anonymousreply 49November 6, 2015 10:05 PM

Disagree - Tom Cruise is a smart actor in that he pretty much consistently chooses the appropriate roles for himself (so much so that the missteps are glaring) but since post-Penelope he's been on the slide and post-Holmes his reputation is in tatters, he's played it, with a few exceptions, entirely safe with action adventure and McQuarrie and Liman. Actually, I can picture Cruise as a hippie or a gay man, actually. Colonial New England? Nope. Though conversely I could picture him grungied up to the gills as some Dickensian-style grotesque. He'd be reasonably good in those shark-eyed Kevin Spacey roles in HORRIBLE BOSSES or HOUSE OF CARDS. He even in shitty movies, he had great directors - both the Scotts, Redford, Mann, Zwick, Spielberg, Crowe, Anderson, Kubrick, Pollack, Jordan, Stone, Scorsese, Coppola - but he's probably viewed as too damaged to convince anyone of that stature to work with him now.

r31 - Angelina Jolie as auteur is a riot. That Directors Roundtable last year was a case in point. All the directors present spoke in depth about how they chose their projects and developed them and when it came to Jolie's turn, she went gave this bimbo reply about how she was attracted to the script because of the heart and the positive message and how it spoke to her. When Mike Leigh (politely but very frankly) challenged her to give a less bullshit reply and treated her like a peer, Bennett Miller got all white knight and went, "Aw, leave her alone!". Which interestingly displays that none of them including Bennett took her seriously as a director because she was out of her depth enough to require defence and also "I gotta rescue the pretty girl!". There is no way Jane Campion or Nicole Holofcener or Kathryn Bigelow or Jodie Foster would want nor require help discussing their filmmaking process.

by Anonymousreply 50November 6, 2015 10:21 PM

R48 we just have to disagree. I think he has more potential than he let himself realize, but I think he's shown a range with Color of Money, Rain Man Born on the 4th of July (hippie), Interview with a Vampire (colonial), Magnolia, Collateral, Jerry McGuire and Tropic Thunder (comedies). I don't think he rates as one of the best actors ever, but as far as movie stars go he's pretty impressive.

by Anonymousreply 51November 6, 2015 10:26 PM

Actually, come to think of it, I wonder how much going full-tilt into Scientology in the early 2000s squelched his acting talent. The whole obsession with auditing, the tone scale and what they call ethics probably inhibits the skills an actor needs to go deep into a complex character.

by Anonymousreply 52November 6, 2015 10:32 PM

Cruise is a brainwashed weirdo, which shows up in every acting role he does. He played himself in Magnolia, he actually believed in all the creepy shit his character says. Watching him in that movie is as offputting as his couch jumping or his Xenu PR video. The guy is a low intelligent retard.

by Anonymousreply 53November 6, 2015 10:32 PM

----

by Anonymousreply 54December 24, 2015 6:48 PM

"Hey Angie, remember us?! We can help you, honey - let's be friends again!!"

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 55December 24, 2015 8:10 PM

----

by Anonymousreply 56January 12, 2016 2:53 AM

Excellent post, R50.

by Anonymousreply 57January 13, 2016 12:56 AM

Cruise might be able to get his acting mojo back if he went out and signed on for a few indies, with some up and coming young directors/writers. Take some risks, it might pay off. Look at Stallone and Coogler this year. Who would have thought Sly had it in him?

Or he could sign up as part of a strong acting ensemble, much like he did in Magnolia.

by Anonymousreply 58January 13, 2016 1:29 AM

I'm watching this movie now and it is so fucking boring. Did anyone see it in the theater? What were the reactions.

by Anonymousreply 59December 7, 2020 10:43 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!