New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

BOP loves its readers. And BOP's readers love BOP. But some of BOP's readers don't love certain things that BOP does. But others do. This is the enigmatic nature of feedback: It doesn't often let you know what you are doing well, but it very nearly always lets you know what you're doing wrong, or at least what others think you're doing wrong.

And while we at BOP are self-aware and confident enough to follow our own muse even in the *gasp* face of negative feedback, from time to time we will use this forum to respond to our readers, to further clarify, to enlighten, to entertain.

Here then is some selected feedback and response from May 1-5, 2004.

Michael is feeling a bit high and mighty:
"I have to say, I read your article and you have got to be the most racist bunch of people out there. Calling Shii Ann 'Neck Eater'. What is the bet that you are card carrying members of the KKK? Please do not insult our intellegence by disguising blatant discrimination as witty banter. Bow office prophets my ass, a profit is someone you learn from, you must be preaching to the rest of your klan members."

This is as good a place as any to talk about this column's rules. There are two important ones. For example, we will not post your email address, lest someone decide to harass you for being, I don't know, a dumbass. This is purely a hypothetical, and in no way meant to imply that we think Michael is a dumbass - we love all our readers, even the special ones. What you all might think is a different matter entirely, and we want to provide some measure of protection for people like Michael so they can feel free to be candid in providing feedback, without the fear of repercussion. For this same reason we will not use your last name if you provide it.

Secondly and lastly, we will publish your feedback as is. This means no editing for clarity of content, spelling, or grammar, no matter how bad it might need it, Michael. We may on occasion censor a bad word if you happened to be in a particularly crass mood that day. But otherwise, if you want the world to know your own "special" definition of profit, you're on your own.

Now that we have that out of the way, I want to offer a substantive response to Robb, I mean Michael: Dude, chill out. We call Shii Ann "Neck Eater" because on Survivor: Thailand she - wait for it - ate the neck of a chicken! And all the other parts like the gizzard and heart that the other survivors were too grossed out to eat, as you can clearly see in the accompanying disgusting photo.

Race has not a thing to do with it, and frankly Michael, and I'm saying this as a friend, that you assume it does reveals more about your own views than ours. Thank you for your feedback.

Robert has a money problem:
"I know 13 Going on 30 has had 2 weeks of sneak previews before its actual release yet i cannot find any information on how much money it made at these previews. Could you possibly tell me how much it made at the previews and if you think it will make back its total costs of $72 million."

Robert, as near as I can tell, the first part of your question is unanswerable for two reasons. If a movie sneaks as a stand-alone, the revenues are rolled into first-weekend receipts. This is often the case when a movie officially opens on a Friday but sneaks on a Thursday night. Theaters report one number for Friday box office, and the Thursday night receipts are included, and lost in the shuffle. The other situation that can sometimes happen is a sneak preview that is "attached" to another movie. Pay for the sneak preview for 13 Going on 30, and stay for say, Kill Bill Vol. 2 for free. In this instance, you think you've paid for 13 Going on 30, but your money is counted with that weekend's receipts for KB2. This is often the case when movies sneak weeks in advance. The motive for example one is to boost the movie's opening weekend by adding a few extra showings. The motive in example two is to build awareness and buzz. The bottom line is if the theaters don't report it, you can't track it.

Your second question is whether 13 Going on 30 will make a profit (Note to Michael: A profit is what remains of revenue after you subtract expense). Again, this is a seemingly easy question with an annoyingly nuanced answer. We aim to please. The movie had a production budget of $37 million and a marketing budget of $35 million and has grossed $43 million through last weekend. It looks to top out at under $60 million in its domestic run. So the answer is no, right? Wrong. While it won't break even in the US alone, the movie will certainly be released all over the world, adding roughly another 100% of US box to the tally (at least - really successful movies in the US do much better internationally. For a moderate hit like 13 Going on 30, 100% seems about right). Then there's the rental market. Consider Drumline, a modest hit in US theaters to the tune of $56 million. Drumline has earned another $51 million through rental channels, almost as much as its domestic run. That doesn't even count DVD sales, pay-per-view, cable and network TV rights, and a host of other ways for movies to bring in the cash. By my math, a conservative total top-line gross for 13 Going on 30 will be in the range of $180-$200 million. So the answer is yes, right? Not necessarily. All those other revenue streams have associated production and marketing costs as well, so while $180 million looks good compared to $72 million, the actual total costs will be much higher as well. And Hollywood is not so good at reporting all these associated costs and revenue streams in one easy to find place so curious folks like you and me can easily find them. Having said all that, I think it is fair to say that 13 Going on 30 will be a profitable venture when all is said and done. I know I profited immensely from watching Jennifer Garner run around in a teddy. Thank you for the feedback.

Linda wonders what's so funny:
"Re: your paragraph: "... but leaving the Harry Potter series midstream seems like it should be a campfire story ending with the phrase, "...and he was never heard from again." One minute you're on top of the world, the next you're Anthony Michael Hall." Yeah, I guess being the star of a TV show in its third season, a show which premiered to the highest ratings on cable TV, *is* pretty lousy. AMH stars in the Dead Zone on USA Network. Maybe you're the only one who's never heard of it."

Like to split hairs, eh, Linda? You know, the jokes are less funny when you do that. And, to be fair, 17 years passed between AMH's last great film role in Weird Science and his current TV gig, The Dead Zone. That's a lot of down time, know what I'm saying? Though who can forget his turn as "Nick" in the 1996 classic Exit in Red? I mean, Hall's resume from that era - and please, let's call that era the dead zone, can we? - is one only Troy McClure could envy. "Hi, I'm Anthony Michael Hall. You might remember me from such films as Dirt Merchant: Alternative Investigator, and Who Do I Gotta Kill?" Thanks for your feedback.

Sal was miffed, but only at first:
"Great Job! I hate change. When I saw your site was "updated" I was miffed. I had no problem with the way it was, I was baffled why this was done. Then I went looking for my favorite stories and found that I didn't need to scroll down, let alone cross my fingers in hopes that the weekend update was done yet. I could see everything! And it was so neat! AND you didn't take away the fantastic captions for every photo (why don't other sites do this?!) So, I must congratulate you on a redesign well done! Great Job!"

Keith rails against genericism:
"The home page now looks just like every other movie site. I do like how the Top 5 changes every time the page is refreshed, but it's generally too cluttered. Oh well. I fear change, so maybe it's just me. I'll get used to it."

Jeff is in a deleting mood:
"What happened to your site? The new layout is terrible. Confusing and over-categorized. Very user UN-friendly. And where are the boxoffice tallies per week? Always fixing things that aren't broken - your site is now deleted from my fave list."

Floyd is feeling lost:
"I don't like it. Your new format makes it difficult to find new content. The old "Newest is at the top" format worked very well. This.....Let's just say that I'm not interested in wasting my time hunting over the page for things I haven't read yet."

Well. Clearly some people like the redesign and some don't. Putting aesthetics aside, I'm going to quote from David Mumpower's blog as a way to address those of you with navigation issues:

David Mumpower blogs to his heart's content:
"The beauty of the redesign is that the newest content always shows up in one of two places. It's either in the Feature Update window on the right half of the front row or it's the left-most window pane in row two. The two updates prior to it are the middle and right window panes in row two. Columns filter across the page then fall down to the next level as new content replaces them. The "above the fold" area now contains four times as many new updates as before. The only exception to this is BOP News, which has proven so popular that we created a permanent link for it in the middle of the "below the fold" section.

Everything you see when you pull up the front page is the newest content. For people who don't want to scroll around, the very look you are complaining about is the one which the BOP staff decided was the most elegant solution to your concerns of not having to scroll for content."

The only thing I will add to that is if you like the old format better, try rolling over the drop down menu "New!" and then select "Recent Updates". This will take you to a page with a top-down list of all our newest content, with the exception of BOP News, BOP Movie of the Day, and This Day in Film History, all of which have their own links under "New!" as well.

In closing, thanks for the praise, Sal; we hope you get used to it, Keith; we hope we earn our way back on your faves list, Jeff; and we hope the solution described above gives you what you're looking for, Floyd. And of course, thank you each for your feedback.