As The Hangover Tears Up The Box Office, Studios Should Rethink The Blockbuster Model

Over the past few weeks, I have been infatuated with surveying my friends’ and online peers’ reactions to The Hangover – always hoping to hear effusive praise.  The film is already a financial winner – with over $150 million dollars at the box office in less than a month – but I want to see its bottom dollar soar.  It is the rare movie that not only tickles me, but also perfectly represents my philosophy about the way the industry should trend, to the point that I feel personally invested in its success. 

Not only did I find The Hangover to be clever, original and hilarious, but I also feel that it defies conventions about film marketability that are overemphasized.  Specifically, franchise fans, movie stars and child-friendly content are not the only things that can draw a wide audience; fresh ideas with a great concept and a detail-oriented script – even if they’re highly adult-skewing – should be encouraged and nourished.  Warner Bros. clearly invested heavily – with the extensive May commercial campaign, especially  – in creating awareness for The Hangover where almost none existed (how many people had this on their list of most anticipated films for 2009, back in January?), and it’s beyond satisfying to see this decision rewarded.

Without a doubt, the biggest industry surprise about The Hangover’s success is its lack of bankable stars.  Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis were not on anybody’s radar as leading funnymen a few months ago (their demand is already skyrocketing).  In fact, it is somewhat remarkable director Todd Phillips didn’t attach any of his Old School stars to this project, especially considering how incestuous R-rated comedies are these days. 

(It’s worth noting that The Hangover creamed Land of the Lost, with purported comedic heavyweight Will Ferrell [$44 million to $18 million] when both films opened June 5-7. Now some experts are questioning Ferrell’s drawing power.  Although I do not think he would have been better suited for the role, I have little doubt that if Ferrell had been cast as The Hangover’s “Alan” (rather than Galifianakis), the film would have been just as successful.  But rather than admit that premise counts more than cast, some folks would rather blame Ferrell.)

Despite a dearth of an existing fan base, Warner Bros. pushed The Hangover’s concept and actors out there through every medium possible, and the unfamiliar became the big buzz.  Positive critical reviews certainly helped, but that alone doesn’t explain why The Hangover (78% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes) outperformed the April R-rated comedy, Adventureland (88% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, $6 million opening weekend).

In fact, The Hangover’s $44 million even bested 2005’s Wedding Crashers ($34 million) for opening-weekend take.  That is a clear victory for the marketers.  The bulk of the credit for the film’s sustained success in weeks two and beyond probably goes to The Hangover cast and crew, as great word of mouth has driven new viewers to theaters subsequently.  But the Warner Bros. folks deserve a major pat on the back for that big opening.

I would like to imagine that now more studios will be willing to seek out fantastic original scripts, cast the right people with less of an eye towards star power, and mobilize their armies fully towards making these projects a success.  That, in turn, would foster an environment where writers and directors see more of a point in mining their creativity and then perfecting their best ideas.  As it stands now, I believe too much of the industry’s creative juices are poured into revisiting and adapting, or writing vehicles for stars.  The Hangover is obviously none of those, but still a critical and financial victor.

It would be naïve to think that the success of The Hangover is going to revolutionize Hollywood –  that’s not my prediction – but I bet it at least puts a small dent in the typical thinking about the path to huge box office dollars.