Friday, January 29, 2010

It’s been a slow death, but Miramax dies on Thursday.

What has come of things ... Miramax has one of the films I produced 9 years ago (Now You Know) with Keven Smith and Jeff Anderson ... I wonder what ever happen with my points ...? Oh well .. it was fun. RIP Miramax.
Jean-Luc Martin

The New York and Los Angeles offices of the arthouse movie studio owned by Disney will close.
Eighty people will lose their jobs. The six movies waiting distribution -- "Last Night," "The Debt," "The Tempest” among them -- will be shelved, to gather dust, or win a tepid release.
It’s not clear that anyone at the studio will care.
But a lot of other people around the movie business mourned the impending loss of a label that once set the bar for taste and artistry. (Update Thursday: A Disney spokeswoman called to protest that Miramax is not 'dead.' "Miramax will consoldiate its operations within Walt Disney Studios, and will be releasing a smaller number of films than in previous years. But it will continue to operate within the Walt Disney Studios," she said.)

Over 31 years, the movie company that for most of its existence was led by founders Harvey and Bob Weinstein brought the public enduring stories that plumbed the depths of human emotion (“My Left Foot”) and pushed the boundaries of cultural barriers (“Reservoir Dogs”).
When we think of the movies that defined the latter part of the 20th century -- the movies that mattered, that stories that hit pop culture like a hammer and left a dent -- more often than not they came from Miramax.
“The Piano.” “Pulp Fiction.” “Sex, Lies and Videotape.” “Clerks.” “The English Patient.” (See slideshow.)
All too often, we may find ourselves saying: Why doesn’t Hollywood make those movies anymore?
Maybe the movie industry doesn’t know how to. Miramax, for well over a decade, was something special.
“Miramax wasn't just a bad-boy clubhouse, it was a 20th century Olympus,” filmmaker Kevin Smith wrote to TheWrap. “Throw a can of Diet Coke and you hit a modern-day deity. And for one brief, shining moment, it was an age of magic and wonders.” (Read Kevin Smith's full Hollyblog.)
With these in the vault: “Shakespeare in Love” (Oscar: Gwyneth Paltrow). “The Crying Game” (Oscar, Neil Jordan). “The Talented Mr. Ripley” (5 noms). “Chicago” (6 Oscar wins).
“If there was any company that contributed more to the shaping of a generation and a sensibility -- I don’t know it,” said veteran publicist Fredell Pogodin, lamenting the closure.
There were lots of overambitious flops, or movies that tried too hard -- “The Aviator.” “The Shipping News.” “The Four Feathers.” “Cold Mountain.”
But there was also lots of plain audacious filmmaking, movies that nobody else would dare make, much less ride to awards glory: “Kill Bill I and II.” “The Ciderhouse Rules.” “Good Will Hunting.” “Swingers.”
The story of Miramax has been told and retold: Scrappy New York brothers name the studio after their parents, wheel and deal to hold their movie company together, bully business partners, seduce filmmakers and spend loads of money on Oscar campaigns.
Then came the sale to Disney. The success, the hubris, the Oscars, the overspending. The loss of identity, the desperate attempts to reconcile with Michael Eisner followed by the bitter divorce, and the quiet takeover by Daniel Battsek.
The final chapter has been short and bitter.
Battsek was squeezed to a smaller and smaller size by Disney, despite releasing some respectable movies including “The Queen,” “Tsotsi” and “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.”
The studio endured endless rumors of its impending closure. On Oct. 2, Disney announced that “Miramax Films will reduce the number of films it releases annually while consolidating certain of its operations.”
Dick Cook, the former chairman of the studio, told me last summer that while reduced in size, the studio would continue.
But by year-end , Dick Cook was gone, and Rich Ross had taken over. Soon after, Daniel Battsek was gone, too.
Remained the final sweep-up -- the firing of the remnant staff as part of the Ross reboot of the larger Disney studio, focused on a digital future with great, big, global brands.
I asked Harvey Weinstein how he felt on Wednesday. He wrote:
"I'm feeling very nostalgic right now. I know the movies made on my and my brother Bob's watch will live on as well as the fantastic films made under the direction of Daniel Battsek. Miramax has some brilliant people working within the organization and I know they will go on to do great things in the industry."
The Weinsteins have tried to buy the name of their former company back. Disney has not responded. But Bob Iger has made it known that he would be willing to sell Miramax outright -- for about $1.5 billion.
Too rich for the Weinsteins, and probably anybody else.
So on Thursday, one more arthouse film outlet goes away.
Some in this business just can’t believe it.
“I refuse to believe it will go away forever,” said Amanda Lundberg of 42West, who spent eight years of her life at the company.
“I think Miramax is too strong a brand to not exist in some incarnation. Maybe not this year or in five years, but the library is huge and the brand is big. I can’t imagine it will disappear.”

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

'Avatar' is king of the world

Hello All,


I remember when a lot of my friends were working on Titanic and all the stories of the craziness that was going on at the time. At that time it had the smell and feel of a "Water World" situation. With Avatar everyone knew it was going to be BIG but this BIG so quickly. It is going to hit 2.5B within 2 years if not more. 
Have a great day 
Jean-Luc Martin


Film trumps 'Titanic' as the all-time grossing title worldwide
James Cameron has conquered the worldwide box office, again.

As of today, 20th Century Fox and Cameron's "Avatar" surpassed previous record holder "Titanic" to become the highest worldwide grosser of all time.

Fox said final figures won't be available until Tuesday, but with weekend numbers for "Avatar" totaling $1.838 billion worldwide, pic's expected $15 million domestic earnings should give the pic enough steam to sail past "Titanic" with a global cume of $1.842 billion.

This latest record comes just after "Avatar" made history over the weekend, grossing $1.29 billion at the international B.O. to tackle "Titanic's" $1.24 billion.

"Titanic" still reigns Stateside with $600.8 million, but as "Avatar" maintains a heady lead over its competition -- pic fell only 16% in its sixth frame -- holdover should continue to close the gap, having already earned $551.7 million as of yesterday.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Movie Production Incentives: Blockbuster Support for Lackluster Policy

Very interesting article!
Jean-Luc Martin

This is from:"The Tax Foundation"
 Movie Production Incentives: Blockbuster Support for Lackluster Policy

Introduction
In the last decade, state governments have "gone Hollywood," or tried to, by enacting dozens of movie production incentives (MPIs), including tax credits for film production. Hollywood might be expected to wield influence in the California state legislature, but it is more surprising to see movie and TV executives throwing their weight around in Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, and South Carolina. All these states and most others have enacted MPIs. Those who were quickest and most generous have landed productions. Other states are left empty-handed despite having offered embarrassingly generous tax abatements to attract filmmakers.

Based on fanciful estimates of economic activity and tax revenue, states are investing in movie production projects with small returns and taking unnecessary risks with taxpayer dollars. In return, they attract mostly temporary jobs that are often transplanted from other states. States claim to boost job training with MPIs, but these tax incentives often encourage individuals to gain skills that are only employable as long as politicians enact ever larger subsidies for the film industry. Furthermore, the competition among states transfers a large portion of potential gains to the movie industry, not to local businesses or state coffers. It is unlikely that movie production incentives generate wealth in the long run. Most fail even in the short run. Yet they remain popular.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist (R), Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (D), New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D), Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski (D), Ohio Governor Ted Strickland (D), and Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) in particular have strongly pushed for MPIs to encourage film production in their states. In California, a state that avoided offering credits until very recently, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger hopes that they will lure back productions now moving to other states. In the rare case when the executive branch rejects the use of MPIs, as Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R) did in 2008, or strongly questions them as Iowa Governor Chet Culver (D) and Rhode Island Governor Don Carcieri (R) have done recently, their concerns are overridden with resounding support from the state legislature and incentive beneficiaries.

Politicians are not alone. While the occasional letter to the editor warns otherwise, most citizens view state-funded film production in a positive light, a win-win for everyone. This report describes the various incentives that states have enacted, explains their undeserved popularity, and makes an argument for their immediate discontinuance.

Key Findings

• Forty-four states now offer significant movie production incentives (MPIs), up from five states in 2002, and twenty-eight states offer film tax credits.

• In the face of state budget pressures and preposterously generous incentives in Louisiana and Michigan, states may curtail or even terminate their MPI programs. Kansas and Iowa have suspended theirs, Kansas for two years to save revenue and Iowa briefly to investigate corruption.

• MPIs have often escaped routine oversight about benefits, costs and activities.

• Spurious research is common in campaigns for film tax credits, often featuring dramatic job creation claims. A recent study concluded that Pennsylvania'
s film tax credit produces net benefits of $4.5 million by assuming that any business interacting with the film industry would not exist but for the credit. MPIs create mostly temporary positions with limited options for upward mobility.

• The MPI experience demonstrates that a politically connected industry can grow if the state greatly reduces its taxes, but states should have a tax system that operates as a welcome mat to all industries, not just those politicians have picked.

Los Angeles location production drops in '09

California and Tax incentives - We need them or else


Los Angeles location production drops in '09
Film permits off 30%, reality TV down 49%


The industry erosion continues: On-location production in the Los Angeles area slid 13% in the fourth quarter, yielding a 19% plunge in such shoots in 2009.

Production permit service FilmLA on Thursday unveiled yearly stats showing the sharpest decline since tracking began in 1993. The non-profit group recorded 37,979 permitted production days in 2009, compared to 47,117 in 2008.

"This annual report reinforces the need for the positive steps being taken by the Los Angeles City Council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to attract more filming to the city," FilmLA president Paul Audley.

City officials recently pledged to step up efforts at easing bureaucracy for locally based productions and to investigate other means of reversing so-called runaway production.

Film production increased in the fourth quarter by 14%, and 21% more commercials were shot on location, but the bigger category of TV shoots were off 33%. Some 35% fewer TV dramas received on-location permits in the latest quarter than a year ago, while sitcom activity fell 11% and on-location reality shoots were off a big 49% and TV pilots 41%.

For the year, film production fell 30%, television 17%, commercials 12% and miscellaneous other categories 21%.

FilmLA said the declines would have been worse if not for California's recent tax-based production incentives.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Digital blurs designing roles

 Production designer vs Art director ...very interesting

Digital blurs designing roles
ADG clears up art director, prod. designer
By JACK EGAN

In Hollywood, where titles and credits count for a lot, the line differentiating the role of the production designer and that of the art director has always been a bit fuzzy. But to the multitude of art department professionals who work behind the scenes to create the visual world that the actors inhabit, it's an important distinction that involves both turf and tradition.

In simplest terms, the production designer, working in tandem with the director, designs not just a coherent physical look, but is also key in creating the emotional atmosphere of a film. Beyond artistry, the production designer has to hew to a film's strict shooting schedule while also dealing with the allotted budget.

The art director, in turn, is second in command, responsible for executing the plan down to the smallest details so it is camera-ready. As right hand to the production designer, the art director marshals the resources of the art department, from scenic designers to set painters.

Production designer is not just an empty title. The first time someone gets hired as a production designer, a committee of the Art Directors Guild -- a union that is a part of IATSE -- reviews paperwork to determine if the person qualifies.

"Clearly we've also (contributed) to the general confusion," says ADG president Thomas Walsh. His organization, after all, is called the Art Directors Guild, not the Production Designers Guild. And the Oscar for best art direction goes to a film's production designer along with the set decorator, a key collaborator.

To provide some clarity, the ADG has prepared a short film that will kick off the group's annual awards dinner next month. "A core message will be to define (what) the production designer does," Walsh says. "We're not trying to be exclusionary, but we do take great pride in what the production designer title represents."

In the heyday of the studio system, when movies were churned out on an assembly-line basis, there were no production designers, only art directors. The title of production designer was first conferred on art directing legend William Cameron Menzies by David O. Selznick to more accurately describe his sweeping contributions to the look of "Gone With the Wind" and his dramatic use of Technicolor.

Hidebound Hollywood wasn't ready to accept the new moniker, and the 1939 Oscar for best art direction went to Lyle Wheeler, the supervising art director on the Civil War epic. As if to rectify the omission, Menzies received an honorary Academy Award in 1940 for his experiments with color. He had already won Oscars for best art direction in 1928 and 1929, the first two years they were handed out.

The production designer credit, however, didn't come into its own until the end of the '40s when the studio monoliths began to crumble. No longer full-time employees, they in effect became freelancers who signed onto individual projects, assembled art department teams and assumed responsibility for the results. The title, however, didn't become official until the late '70s.

The upshot of Menzies' innovations, which included storyboarding every scene, was to advance the idea that the production designer's job is to provide a coherent, unified vision. "It works best when there are fewer cooks in the kitchen," Walsh says. "Otherwise you would have a film constantly being reinvented from early conception to final realization in post."

With the advent of digital imagery and computer graphics as essential ingredients in more and more movies, the role of the production designer is again being redefined. The freshest and most notable example is in "Avatar," helmer James Cameron's billion-dollar blockbuster. Here the real and digital worlds have been seamlessly integrated, requiring the close collaboration between veteran production designer Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg, who oversaw the look of the virtual world of Pandora. As a result, both have received a very rare double credit as production designers on the film.

"The double credit was something I felt strongly about," says Carter, who over the last two decades has himself been at the cutting edge of evolving digital technologies, working as the production designer of choice for directors Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis on such films as "Jurassic Park" and "The Polar Express." "I felt Rob and I had made equal contributions. It took a lot of work, but I walked the Art Directors Guild as well as the Motion Picture Academy through the process and got them to accept that both of us should get production design credit." The only precedent was on "Polar Express," where Carter also made a successful pitch to get digital designer Eric Chang a production designer credit. Both Chiang and Stromberg have since gone on to be sole production designers on films.

"There will be more of this in the future," Carter says. "I think digital technologies have given production design a whole new lease on life."

Drac Studios segueing into film producing Effects/makeup house in preproduction on 'Dead in the Water'

Good Morning!
This is great news! Way to go Baton Rouge ..and Drac! Great company and a huge asset to Louisiana Producers and Projects!
Jean-Luc Martin
Line-Producer, Production Manager

Special effects and makeup house Drac Studios is segueing into motion picture producing, opening up Drac Studios Louisiana and going into preproduction on its first live-action feature, "Dead in the Water."

Si Dunn wrote the script, which will be directed by Rob Walker and produced by Drac president Harvey Lowry.

"With all of the indie and studio films being shot in Louisiana, it was an easy decision to open a facility in the state," Lowry said. "Now we can offer other producers the Louisiana tax incentives for our special effects and makeup effects as well as take advantage of them ourselves for our own productions."

The company is leasing space in Baton Rouge's Raleigh Studios Celtic Media Center.

The creative team behind Drac -- Lowry, Todd Tucker and Ron Halvas, with creative direction by Greg Cannom -- has won Oscars for "Bram Stoker's Dracula," "Mrs. Doubtfire" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and been nommed for "Titanic," "The Passion of the Christ" and other productions.

Drac had been supplying effects to Louisiana productions -- "The Mortician," directed by Gareth Maxwell Roberts, and "Area 51," being produced by Courtney Solomon and Moshe Diamant, are in preproduction in the state -- but "Water" will be its first all-in movie.

Tucker and Lowry recently completed production on their first feature, "Monster Mutt," under their Green Pictures production banner.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Paramount to produce more micro-budget films

"Studio will spend $1 million annually to develop 10 to 20 films"

Hello all,

Of course a studio will want to tap in on this concept and exploit the bottom line! Who or what is the bottom line? Well .. that would be the crew. The folks who will benefit will be the director, producers and a couple of the no name actors. Pay the crew fairly and no name actors and shoot it for 600K and exploit it with P & A capital and make 300% on your ROI .. but have a good story.
have a great day!

Seeking to replicate the stunning success of "Paranormal Activity," Paramount's launching an initiative that will spend $1 million annually to develop and produce microbudget films.



Move, unveiled Thursday, is designed to place between 10 and 20 projects in development by the end of next year, with no individual budget topping $100,000.

Paramount Film Group prexy Adam Goodman, promoted to the slot in June, cooked up the plan in the successful wake of "Paranormal," made for $15,000 and grossing more than $100 million domestically.

Goodman indicated the funds, which will come out of the studio's overall production budget, will be targeted at both unknowns and established filmmakers, with the goal of increasing the studio's ability to find new voices and ideas. In addition, the initiative's aimed at giving Paramount a more diverse portfolio of titles at a time when Hollywood's devoting most of its resources to megabudget pics, such as Par's "Transformers" and "Star Trek" franchises.

The studio hasn't set a target of how many projects would receive a theatrical release. The microbudget projects could also conceivably be remade with conventional budgets.

Paramount originally planned to release "Shutter Island" in early October but, citing costs, decided in late August to push that title back to February and opted for "Paranormal Activity" instead.

Par was able to make effective use of a low-cost grassroots release strategy, starting with a dozen midnight screenings of Oren Peli's horror-thriller in college towns before launching a gradual rollout that built on strong word of mouth.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

'Avatar' blasts past $1 billion worldwide

Well ... it happened and I thought it would take 30 days!
Jean-Luc

James Cameron's 3D epic hits the mark in just 21 days

"Avatar" started the new decade dominating the foreign circuit by grossing an estimated $133.5 million on the weekend -- down just 13% from the prior stanza -- from more than 13,500 screens in 110 markets.

Worldwide in just 21 days, director James Cameron's mega-budget epic has rolled up total boxoffice of $1.022 billion (comprising $670.2 million offshore and $352.1 million domestic).

Only five films in motion picture history have exceeded worldwide boxoffice of more than $1 billion, and "Avatar" now ranks No. 4 on that all-time list.

Preceding it are Cameron's own 1997 smash "Titanic" ($1.843 billion) from 20th Century Fox, the distributor of "Avatar"; 2003's "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" ($1.119 billion) from New Line Cinema; and 2006 's "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" ($1.066 billion), from Disney. Trailing "Avatar" is 2008's "The Dark Knight" ($1.001 billion), from Warner Bros.

"At the current pace of business," adds Fox, "Avatar" could claim the No. 2 all-time spot this week "even with school holidays ending in many markets."

Top "Avatar" territories overseas were France ($21.3 million on the weekend for a $84.5 million), Germany ($12.3 million, cume $57.2 million), Spain ($10.1 million, cume $47.1 million) and the U.K. ($9.3 million, cume $53 million).

No. 2 foreign on the weekend was Warner Bros.' "Sherlock Homes," director Guy Ritchie's adaptation co-starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law of the venerable Sir Arthur Conan Doyle detective series. Second weekend on the foreign circuit detected $37.6 million from 4,600 screens for an early cume of $88.3 million. "Holmes' " No. 2 finish in the U.K. provided $5.2 million from 762 sites for a market cume of $19 million.

Finishing third was Fox's family-oriented title "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel," which grossed $32 million from 6,105 locations in 54 markets. Overseas cume stands at a hair under $100 million ($99.1 million). A No. 3 U.K. finish generated $3.8 million from 492 spots for a market cume of $20.3 million.

Opening at No. 4 on the weekend in Russia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania is Universal's release of "Black Lightning," co-produced by the studio and Russian wunderkind producer-director Timur Bekmambetov." Being touted as "the Russian response to 'Transformers' and 'Batman,' " "Lightning" drew $9.7 million from 800 screens.

In Russia, the weekend tally was $8.9 million from 698 locations, sufficient for a No. 2 ranking behind "Avatar." Universal ranks "Black Lightning," directed by Alexander Voytinsky and concerning a mild-mannered student-turned-flying superhero, as the distributor's fourth-biggest opening in the market. Openings in Israel and Bulgaria loom this week.

Winding up at No. 5 was Disney Animation's '"The Princess and the Frog," which drew $9.5 million from 2,929 screens in 17 territories for an overseas cume of $45 million. A third Italy weekend provided $2.9 million from 550 sites for a market cume of $12.9 million.

Universal's "It's Complicated," a comedy from writer-director Nancy Meyers co-starring Meryl Streep, Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, drew $5 million in its second weekend on the foreign circuit from 1,053 sites in 13 territories. Overseas cume stands at $13.8 million.

Sony's "Did You Hear About the Morgans?" generated $3.6 million from 575 locales in just seven markets, nudging its total overseas gross thus far to $6 million. The romantic comedy co-starring Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker finished the weekend in the No. 4 spot in the U.K., taking in nearly $2.1 million from 318 screens.

"2012," Sony's top-grossing picture of 2009 overseas, pushed its offshore cume to $595.2 million thanks to a $4.9 million weekend at 3,265 sites in 72 markets.

Still generating boxoffice in Japan at 618 situations was Pixar/Disney's "Up," which has grossed a total of $422 million offshore. Weekend tally was $3.1 million. Disney's "Old Dogs," a comedy with John Travota and Robin Williams, generated $3 million from 1,264 locales in 20 markets for an overseas cume of $25 million.

Other international cumes: Universal's "Couples Retreat," $52.9 million; Sony's "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs," $83.6 million (after a $2.8 million weekend at 910 screens in 21 markets); Pathe's "Loup," $7.8 million (France only); Universal's "Public Enemies," $116.2 million; EuropaCorp. Distribution's "Arthur et la vengeance de Maltazard," $31.6 million (over five frames, France only); Sony's "Zombieland," $23.1 million; Studio Canal's "R.T.T.," $7.7 million (France only); and Focus Features/Universal's "9," $7.1 million (seven Universal territories only).

Friday, January 1, 2010

New focus for film marketing --- Internet, mobile grab more studio spending

Great Article on marketing within the studio system.
Happy New Year!
Jean-Luc Martin
Production Manager




Just a few short years ago, when studio marketers were looking to get the most bang for their buck, the basic questions were simple: How much can we spend on TV? And which of the old reliables -- billboards, newspaper ads in top markets -- get the rest?

Today, marketing mavens are still building their promo plans around TV, but the old reliables are anything but.

Marketing remains as shrouded in secrecy as the inner workings of the CIA. And while studios are cutting costs across the board -- slashing talent salaries, reducing the number of movies they finance and produce, and laying off staffers -- they fork over as much as ever on marketing. But where they're spending that money is shifting.

If a studio thinks a film has a chance at grossing north of $150 million domestically, it will lay out $100 million or more for a worldwide campaign. For a film that's hoping to gross $50 million or more domestically, a studio will spend $30 million-$40 million.

In the first two quarters of this year, $1.7 billion was spent to promote theatrical releases, a 1.2% gain vs. the same period in 2008, despite the economic crisis, according to Nielsen Monitor-Plus. (Other sectors, including automotive and pharmaceuticals, were down by double digits.)

Television and radio remain the cornerstones of pic marketing spends, gobbling up 60% to 70% of a promo campaign's budget. But with auds dipping into everything from text messages to Facebook to TV and the Internet -- often simultaneously -- the studios are spreading their marketing moolah wider, across multiple venues, with multiple trailers, multiple approaches and specific demos in their sights.

There are no longer general-interest campaigns. Studio promo efforts have become more targeted, looking to engage core audiences in key demos more directly and actively.

And film marketers have revived an old Hollywood showman's tradition, the roadshow, in which stars and filmmakers make stops in multiple cities around the globe to tubthump their upcoming releases.

While the money spent on digital marketing has increased, it's almost surprising the totals aren't higher. In 2002, an estimated 1% of a film's marketing budget was allocated to digital. A few years later, that figure rose to 4.4%, according to a 2007 MPAA report. Today, 8%-12% of the marketing budget is devoted to new media, such as Internet and wireless promotions.

And while studios spent about 14% of a film's marketing budget on newspaper ads in 2004, and 10% as recently as 2007, they now allocate maybe 4%, according to studio insiders.

It's a sign of the times that for "Avatar," perhaps the most expensive movie ever made and a major year-end release, 20th Century Fox devoted at least 10% to promotion on the Web, while buying just a single full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times on opening day -- significant, but modest relative to the movie's size and scope.

Similarly, Paramount last summer took out only one full-page ad on opening weekend in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times for the debut of "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." When rival studios saw that "Transformers" wasn't hurt by having virtually no newspaper presence -- the film grossed $200 million in its first five days -- they took note. Warner Bros. quickly cut back on its print campaign for "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince," which bowed two weeks later and grossed $158 million in its first five days.

The downward shift in ad placement has huge ramifications for big-city newspapers, already pinched by declining readership and the loss of other key advertisers. Not long ago, the usual practice was to take out full-page or two-page (double-truck) ads on the Sunday preceding a film's bow, then on opening day, and once or twice each weekend for the next few weeks. The Friday editions of major newspapers were stuffed with pages and pages of movie ads.

Today, the number of print ads touting films has dwindled sharply, even in the mainstay New York Times (where a double-truck ad can cost $175,000, while a full-page ad goes for $95,000) and Los Angeles Times (where rates are somewhat less than at the Gray Lady).

There is one demo that studios do still rely on newspapers to reach: older adults. In particular, prestige titles that are review-driven continue to use newspaper ads. Recent examples include "Fantastic Mr. Fox" and "The Lovely Bones."

"Newspapers aren't a decision-making medium anymore, except for older audiences and movies that are really review-driven," one studio topper says.

Other marketing traditions, like static movie billboards, also have become an endangered species or have been shifted to supplement online campaigns, as Sony did with "District 9." Studios still devote 8% to 12% of their total marketing campaigns on outdoor, but the number used to be closer to 20%.

It's a reflection of the increasingly cluttered media environment that building awareness of a movie now demands more than just delivering a message passively to prospective audiences. It's now about engaging them more directly.

Besides allocating more marketing money to new areas, studios are using fresh takes on old ones, such as the revived practice of the "traveling roadshow."

With its relaunch of the venerable "Star Trek" film franchise this past summer, Paramount faced a key hurdle: overseas audiences weren't traditionally "Trek" fans.

So the studio rolled out high-profile advance screenings of the J.J. Abrams film both domestically and abroad. It created splashy showcases in various countries from Austria, Belgium, Holland and Spain to New Zealand, and brought the filmmakers and stars along to do local media interviews. Director Abrams even traveled to Kuwait to show the film to U.S. troops. Par also held a handful of official "Star Trek" premieres around the globe, in Australia, Germany, London and the U.S.

The costs of such ground efforts vary quite a bit, depending on the scope of the campaign and the movie's heft.

With a lower-budget marketing effort, aiming for less-splashy events, as was the case with "Paranormal Activity," each city can cost about $15,000. But on a bigger-scale film with more talent participants, such as "Star Trek," the cost of each leg of a roadshow can run to $100,000 or more. That adds up to better than $1 million overall for such multicity tours, be they international or domestic.

The payoff, though, is evident: "Star Trek" grossed $127.7 million internationally, considered a huge victory. (Domestically, where the franchise has a loyal following, the pic cumed $257.3 million).

Warner Bros. faced an equally tough challenge in taking "The Hangover" overseas, as American comedy is often a tough sell. Drawing from the same playbook that Paramount did, Warners held special "Hangover" screenings around the globe in many of the same spots "Trek" visited. "Hangover" became the top grossing R-rated laffer of all time, both domestically and overseas.

Back in the U.S., the studios are doing more word-of-mouth screenings and local promos, such as cable TV campaigns -- an effort that one marketing exec refers to as "geo-targeting." Such focused approaches make more sense than spending big money on newspaper advertising and big network TV, says the exec.

For veterans of the marketing game, such localized efforts recall Hollywood's roots back -- way back -- in the silent-film era; it's the old mantra of "hit 'em where they live." What is new is that studios -- after years of false starts -- are also finally learning how to harness the Internet and social networking to their advantage.

The 2009 box office saw an unusual number of films climb to unexpected heights, and several of them -- including "Paranormal Activity," "District 9" and "The Hangover" -- were helped by innovative, viral marketing campaigns.

With "Paranormal Activity," the microbudgeted horror film that DreamWorks picked up for $350,000, Par built buzz with midnight screenings in select markets and then sent fans to online site Eventful to petition for the pic to go wide when it hit 1 million requests.

The pic gradually widened with the slogan, "You demanded it!" reinforcing the idea that the audience was actively participating in the film's bow. The pic has grossed $104.2 million domestically.

"There are so many ways for people to communicate instantaneously," a Par exec says. "One person who comes to a screening tells lots of people about the movie, or (tweets) about it, or posts something."

Such of word-of-mouth is invaluable, but its actual cost is relative to expectations. One exec estimates the marketing budget for "Paranormal Activity" at something less than $20 million. That's very low considering other films' marketing budgets and the horror pic's eventual gross, but it's pretty high considering that the pic's production budget was a mere $11,000.

With its marketing campaign for sci-fi thriller "District 9" this past summer, Sony was the envy of rival marketing execs. The studio paired a barrage of creative content on the Internet with an innovative outdoor campaign. Cryptic billboards and bus-stop ads drove consumers to the film's website. The website then gave partial explanations as it promoted the film. Audience members had to be versed in both the old and new marketing realms to piece the full concept together. "District 9," an inexpensive pickup for the studio for which it spent roughly $20 million on marketing, turned into a phenom, grossing $115.6 million domestically.

While Internet ads do cost appreciably less than traditional media, studios are still spending as much as ever in two traditional areas: television ads and trailers.

Thursday-night television remains an oasis for movie ads because studios want to woo viewers to their Friday pic launches. Go-to shows on Thursday include "The Office" and "30 Rock," both on NBC, and "CSI" on CBS."CSI" is especially key for a movie that needs support from the middle of the country, vs. the two coasts.

Shows airing on other nights of the week also carry plenty of movie spots these days, and sports and reality programming get plenty of the ad action. According to a recent survey by AdAge, Fox's upcoming season of "American Idol" is fetching $360,000 to $490,000 for a 30-second spot. That's more even than NBC's Sunday Night Football ($339,700) commands. Among scripted shows, ABC's "Grey's Anatomy" gets a price of $240,462 and ABC's "Desperate Housewives," $228,851.

"There are only a few places left that get a huge audience, like the Super Bowl. Marketing has become a more complicated science," one studio topper says.

As for trailers, that staple of the moviegoing experience, they're still the chief means by which a studio introduces a new film to the public. In 2007, 4% of a pic's marketing budget went to trailers. The thinking is that if you've already got 'em in the seats, in a film state of mind, why not tout your upcoming pics as well?

At a minimum, there are two trailers cut for most movies: the "teaser" and the "payoff." For some titles, there are three or four different trailers.

One former studio exec says studios are still spending too much on trailers, sometimes commissioning three to six companies to create separate trailers, then picking one or two of the best from among the choices. While studios used to produce trailers inhouse, trailer production is now routinely outsourced, with costs ranging between $100,000 and $300,000 to produce each one, according to estimates.

Such considerations of cost and impact will continue to confront the majors as they face increased pressure from their parent congloms to reconcile the bottom line.

Marketing spends must be accounted for in the quarter a film is released, even though box office returns might not come in until the following quarter. This can drag down an earnings report, and raise eyebrows up and down Wall Street.

"The landscape is shifting. We're sort of betwixt and between," one studio marketer laments. "While everyone is clearly focusing on the Internet, we're just not at a place yet where we can do less television. That's why it's such a confusing, interesting and scary time."