FACE IT: Hollywood Is Missing The Boomer Boat
By Michele Willens
Confession: I took myself one afternoon to see “Rogue One.” On a recent Friday night, I saw “Beauty and the Beast,” without a kid in tow.
So why are the big studios ignoring me?
It is hardly news that those in the movie business are focused on young viewers, who they believe will not only see their action movies once, but multiple times, and eagerly await the sequels. Most targeted are the males, the idea being, I suppose, that their girlfriends will demand a rom com in return. And then there are the animated movies, or their live action versions, which rack up the most dollars these days. Just this past week, the number one film at the box office was “The Boss Baby,” followed by “The Smurfs.”
Close behind the latter was “Going In Style,” starring Alan Arkin, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine playing, well, three old codgers. One could hardly call its $12 million take-home ‘boffo,’ but then its entire budget would equal an hour’s work on one of the “tentpoles.” And it may gradually build an audience as the weeks pass.
Because, according to a new study by the AARP and Movio, the 50+ moviegoers are not only underserved in seeing their lives reflected in contemporary narratives, but underestimated as potential audiences. They represent money left on the table by an industry that stubbornly considers them invisible. (Welcome to our lives, guys) “This is a powerful force,” concluded the study, “bolstering blockbusters and creating lucrative new niches that don’t rely on major budgets and foreign success.”
The data may not qualify as Big, but it is there. Those who saw “Woman in Gold” last year, for example, went to the cinema twice as often as those who did not. “Sully,” starring 60-year old Tom Hanks and directed by 86-year old Clint Eastwood, told the story of a 58-year old pilot…and the movie made $124 million. (Of whom 57% were 50 and older) But a sizable percentage of older patrons also made it to many of the blockbusters.
Even though Hollywood is slow to get it, there are multiple factors as to why movie-going stats have changed, and why attention must be paid to the Boomer and Beyond folks. Ticket prices have escalated and frankly, that demographic has more money to spend. They also have more time and can go to the cinema during the afternoon. They can help build a film’s success by choosing to see it after the crowds have died down. While TV has become seriously competitive in content and quality, the 50+ers still prefer much of their entertainment on the large screen while the streaming society cares less. (Unless it is a highly touted 3D exception)
Besides deserving more recognition for its potential financial support, this demo should earn kudos for experimenting outside the box, either to stay in tune with the times, or to better relate to their children and grandchildren. They are trying to fight the narrowness that often sets in with older age, and they may have more curiosity than their progeny. When is the last time your self-involved child asked, “what did you do today, Mom?” I think it is fair to say my otherwise well-rounded son would put a gun to his head before he would see a Nancy Meyers film.
I would argue that even many of the seniors today don’t necessarily want to go to the movies to watch a long- married couple consider assisted suicide, or three old guys doing their version of “Hangover.” “Bucket List” was a hit, but it starred the perennially hip Jack Nicholson and the seemingly ageless Morgan Freeman. (Who has been playing old and wise since “Driving Miss Daisy”) Boomers prefer seeing attractive people in films and commercials, and they like to think that their sole experience of action need not entail falling. It is this group, after all, that winced the most when Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway stood clueless in front of the world.
None of this is to deny that the studios consider franchise films (the top ten earners last year were either animated or comic book adaptations) the least risk-averse. When the movies work, they generate profits abroad, not to mention toys and games at the amusement parks. Let’s face it, a “Sully” ride (“See if you can land it in the Hudson!”) or a Race of the Walkers (“How fast and furious are you?”) leave something to be desired. Still, neglecting this segment of moviegoers is not only hazardous financially, it is sending the dividends to television producers like Amazon and Netflix, who are stepping up.
I am in the business of covering the theatre world, where quite the opposite is at play. Most the ticket buyers are of a certain age, primarily because of ridiculously high prices and a lack of youthful interest in sitting unplugged for two and a half hours. While I confess to cringing when the hearing aids and phones go off, I do applaud their owners for getting dressed and showing up to hear literate dialogue. The Disney-fying of Broadway has certainly helped to attract younger audiences, but let us not forget who brought them there. This too should remind Hollywood that the kids who enjoy watching talking pets and babies on screen, are in the presence of paying parents and very often, grandparents.
It seems every time a 50+ movie does well, it becomes a story for ten minutes. (If it stars Meryl Streep or Helen Mirren, they are heralded as the only interesting women of their age) No one is expecting a trend here, but judging from the new study and recent results, it seems the perfect solution for a sputtering film industry may be including “mature” actors in proven genres. This year already, Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt bombed in “Passengers” while Hugh Jackman starred in “Logan,” which has made half a billion dollars. Talk about your hidden figures!