
20th Century Fox Uses ML to Predict a Movie Audience - xTWOz
https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/how-20th-century-fox-uses-ml-to-predict-a-movie-audience
======
josteink
I know I’m not the average movie-goer, but I strongly prefer to see movies at
either end of the spectrum: really bad or really good. Those are usually
experiences I can fully immerse into and enjoy.

Anything in between (I.e. mediocre) does nothing for me, no matter how well
produced or marketed it is or how many hundred millions it cost to make. It’s
just gonna be a dud.

Most movies made to please the most people end up here: high budget, great
looking, but mediocre, predictable and utterly boring.

To me, using ML to optimize movie audience targets sounds like something which
will make a bad situation even worse.

I guess cinema as an _art form_ is truly dead.

Edit: This news seems to confirm a claim made by screenwriter Max Landis[1] in
a RLM podcast: Hollywood used to have a recipe for making “successful” (i.e.
profitable) movies, but these days none of the recipes work anymore and they
are desperate, feeling blinded, and as a result being even more risk-averse in
their productions.

This definitely sounds like a desperate move.

[1] [https://youtu.be/DR-Dry8Qb4A](https://youtu.be/DR-Dry8Qb4A)

~~~
jdietrich
Most movie-goers are primarily _goers_ and only secondarily _viewers_. They
decide to go to the movies, then they decide what they want to watch. Major
blockbusters change the equation and draw in non-habitual consumers (hence
their importance to Hollywood), but most movie productions aspire to little
more than an appealing trailer, a bit of star power and sufficient
entertainment value to avoid alienating their core customers. Retaining those
customers is much easier than persuading someone like you to make a special
trip to the theater for a critically acclaimed movie.

The rise of Netflix and the decline of Blockbuster has decimated the secondary
market for movies, further pushing the industry towards conservatism. It's
much harder to convince people to pay to see a quirky indie picture or a
sleeper hit at home, so movies that don't do well in the opening weekend are
pretty much a dead loss. As with Spotify and the music industry, $12/mo
subscriptions can't make up for the loss of $9 cinema tickets, $4 rentals and
$15 DVD sales.

Cinema isn't in a healthy place right now, much to the benefit of television -
the economics for broadcast and streaming TV are much more favourable and
there's an influx of talent.

~~~
eropple
_> Most movie-goers are primarily goers and only secondarily viewers. They
decide to go to the movies, then they decide what they want to watch._

Any cites for this? I am _very_ curious to read more about this.

~~~
0xADEADBEE
Me too - it's a really insightful statement. I'd never thought about it
before, but in social settings, the actual film watched is frequently an
afterthought; it is secondary to the plan of 'going to the cinema'. Plans
changing because someone is late is another factor. I really enjoy when this
website makes me think of something obvious I'd never considered!

~~~
eropple
I was thinking about it from the other way around: because I'm not sure I know
_anybody_ who would go to the theater without really wanting to see the film
being shown.

~~~
derefr
I don’t think that’s exactly what is being talked about; rather, people _say_
“let’s go see a movie”, and then look at the movies app to see what’s in
theatres lately. Of course they won’t end up going if there’s nothing worth
seeing—but their criteria for “something worth seeing” is a much lower bar
than it would be if they didn’t already want to “go see a movie.”

When a new movie comes out, I say either “that looks like it would be a good
movie to watch in theatre”, or (far more often) “I think I’ll wait for that to
come out on iTunes/Netflix/etc.” When I’m making _that_ decision, the bar is
high. But that’s because watching-at-home really is good enough for the vast
majority of movies—it doesn’t remove anything from the experience.

~~~
eropple
I understood what was being said. I am questioning the point of it. Everybody
I know who I've ever talked about going to a film with (and my girlfriend
really likes going to the movies so it comes up with her and her friend group
a lot) _always always always_ has a movie in mind when they come up with it.
The most recent example for them (I didn't go) was the new Spider-Verse movie.
They weren't going to see "a movie", they were going to see "that movie", and
it was from that movie's release that the impetus originated.

I'd like to see evidence of assertions to the contrary, because to me they
don't jibe with reality.

~~~
derefr
Dates. The time when people go to the movies _to_ “go to the movies” is when
they’re on a date. (Not just at first, but also later in the context of a
steady relationship where they want to see a movie together “because we
haven’t seen a movie together in a while.”)

For me, seeing a movie in a theatre vs. watching at home is a bit like going
to a restaurant vs. eating at home. I used to “go to restaurants” to try
specific things I’d heard about, when I was single. Now, though, I mostly only
go to a restaurant _to go to a restaurant_ , because that’s a nice thing I can
do with my wife. With restaurants, this is the difference between choosing by
word-of-mouth (“they have great X!”) vs. choosing by reviews (“this restaurant
seems like they’d have _something_ we’d enjoy, let’s go and find out.”) Movie
theatres don’t really have the same element of diversity (unless you’re going
to independent cinemas), so it’s more just a choice of whether to go to “the
movies” at all.

On the other hand, everything I said about restaurants applies exactly to the
other kind of theatre. There’s a Shakespeare troupe here (Vancouver) that,
each year, puts on three of the bard’s plays (several showings apiece.) You
can certainly want to “see The Tempest”, and therefore go watch them perform
it; but what I hear much more often is people wanting to “go to _Bard on the
Beach_ ” (the troupe), and so then they look at what they’re putting on this
year to see if it’s anything they could stand to watch. In this context, the
theatre troupe is exactly like a restaurant: they want to go to it, as long as
it has something they’d be okay trying.

------
freediver
"Success in the movie industry relies on a studio’s ability to attract
moviegoers—but that’s sometimes easier said than done"

No it isn't. Just make a good movie. Forrest Gump didn't need any machine
learning.

The only reason someone might use this is when your strategy is "spray and
pray", create crappy movies that insult everyone's intelligence and you need
to figure out is it worth launching at all.

~~~
msla
> Forrest Gump didn't need any machine learning.

No, it just needed a massive demographic the studios could exploit the Hell
out of by taking a semi-popular novel and Spielberging all over it.

You have a good point, but you used an imperfect film to demonstrate it.
_Forrest Gump_ was just about as cynical a film as you could imagine, and
succeeded precisely as predicted. That kind of cynical filmmaking, explicitly
targeted at demographics with earnings projections in place before casting
begins, is precisely what this AI-driven concept will end up with at its
worst.

A better example would be the works of the Coen brothers, or David Lynch: Even
if you don't like them personally the fact remains they have an audience, and
they most certainly weren't made to order based on market forecasts. They
represent the _auteur_ theory in action, being the products of distinctive
creative minds who impressed their equally distinctive visions upon them.

~~~
StevePerkins
This is being a bit too "edgy" for me. Not to defend _Forrest Gump_ as an all-
time great or anything, but is there really something wrong or unsavory about
its conception?

What you call "exploiting a demographic" is more like "having a target
audience instead of trying to be all things to all people". Sure, Boomers are
a huge generation. But they were entering their 50's when _Forrest Gump_ came
out... and studios usually aim at 18-34 year olds because that's who spends
the most time and disposable income at the movies.

What you call "Spielberging" is probably just a combination of cinematography,
soundtrack, and accessibility over hipster snob appeal. In other words, good
mass-market filmmaking.

Maybe this particular movie isn't your cup of tea, but there's nothing
negative or cynical about this. "Cynical" would be hijacking HN threads to
bring up urban walkability, UBI, random potshots at Baby Boomers, or any of
the other standard hot buttons that typically guarantee upvotes and
validation.

~~~
ethbro
I believe the cynicism would be when a studio chooses demographic and
marketability over art.

There is no "best" art (sorry, high art world), but there are absolutely
choices you can make for marketing rather than artistic reasons.

I _like_ Robert Zemeckis and Ron Howard films, but they're boring ideas, well-
executed. And I have a sneaking suspicion that given their copious directorial
output and uniformity of end product... some of those choices were made for
monetary rather than creative reasons.

Nobody says "I want to make a mind-bending _Dune_ film, get me Robert
Zemeckis!"

~~~
StevePerkins
> " _there are absolutely choices you can make for marketing rather than
> artistic reasons_ "

That is fair. I believe it's also the case that when evaluating art, it's easy
to conflate those reasons with one's own POV and demographic biases.

In other words: _Forrest Gump_ is cynical pandering to Baby Boomers... but
[this-year's-Marvel-superhero-movie] is an artistic gem, and _The Dark Knight_
or _Black Panther_ got robbed at the Oscars, etc.

------
nimbius
Six terminators, Seven transformers, eleven Madea films, and nine aliens
films. If the strategy is to waterboard us with progressively more pointless
sequels, no ML in the world is going to improve the outcome when the writers
have clearly checked out.

~~~
dudul
At least these are "sequels". Reboots are even worse in my book.

~~~
overcast
I think the issue is when remakes happen in quick succession. When generations
go by magic like The Fly, Oceans 11, and the greatest remake of all time, The
Thing, happens.

~~~
b_tterc_p
I... don’t think any of these movies have remakes?

If by the thing you mean the 2011 film, that was a prequel. It had few
redeeming qualities, but thing it did unreasonably well was faithfully
reproduce specific elements that were shown to have occurred previously in the
first film.

~~~
anoncake
The 1960 film Ocean's 11 does have a remake.

------
gerardnll
Tired that (machine learning) suggestions in Amazon, Youtube, Instagram and
other sites mean showing me more of the same. Is this the fabulous AI
revolution?

Yes, I like photos of food, but I can also enjoy other types of photos and
until I don't start searching for them, Instagram (or whatever service)
doesn't list them. What a great AI!

This is like that article that talked about increasing extremist political
videos being recommended depending on your views habits (Youtube).

I understand, no data can create predictions. But tastes are so depending of
the context you grow up in that it is normal not to be able to predict that.
And that uniqueness is what makes a person great.

~~~
crooked-v
[https://mobile.twitter.com/kibblesmith/status/72481708630914...](https://mobile.twitter.com/kibblesmith/status/724817086309142529)

~~~
chrismaltby
[https://mobile.twitter.com/chethaase/status/9257152892448194...](https://mobile.twitter.com/chethaase/status/925715289244819458?lang=en)

------
qntty
I guess _20th Century Fox Uses Statistics to Predict a Movie Audience_ doesn't
have the same ring to it.

~~~
dylan604
But I bet the 21st Century Fox could do it better.

------
everdev
> The top audiences for Logan were actually a combination of superhero (which
> we already knew) and “rugged male action lead” (which we didn’t know with
> certainty). This can be better seen by noting that key “rugged male action
> lead” predictions like The Magnificent Seven (in blue above), John Wick (in
> green above) and Terminator Genisys (in blue above) were also present in the
> top 20 list of actual audiences. This result is a win-win because the new
> audience “adds” to the core superhero audience, and can potentially be used
> to extend the reach of the movie beyond that core audience.

I wish they'd include saturation and release dates as factors as I'm sure
releasing a new rugged make lead superhero movie every week would have
diminishing returns at some point.

~~~
msla
> I wish they'd include saturation and release dates as factors as I'm sure
> releasing a new rugged make lead superhero movie every week would have
> diminishing returns at some point.

Hollywood has seemed... _constrained_ from noticing this.

~~~
sametmax
Nope, it just financially works so why do otherwise. People still pay no mater
how many bad movies they got fed with.

------
hmate9
One of the reasons why there are so many sequels and less unoriginal movies
from big studios.

Big franchise names almost always perform according to expectations, even if
the movie is bad.

~~~
basch
It's actually fairly rare for an animated sequel to outperform the original.

[https://filmrust.com/2019/02/12/where-lego-2-went-wrong-
an-5...](https://filmrust.com/2019/02/12/where-lego-2-went-wrong-an-50-movie-
analysis-of-the-best-and-worst-times-to-make-an-animated-sequel/)

Incredibles 2, Shrek 2, Spongebob 2, and Despicable Me 2 were really the only
ones worth making, vs gambling on a new property.

~~~
madebylaw
Maybe domestically? Toy Story 2, Monsters University, and I'm sure others
outperformed the original when you compare their global box office numbers.
[https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=monstersinc2.htm](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=monstersinc2.htm)
(nb foreign BO is 64% of the haul).

~~~
grogenaut
Personally I just consider every Pixar movie a sequel to the previous Pixar
movie. I treat Pixar more like a director or author. The stuff may be
different but I'm going to buy the next Neil Stephenson novel even if it's a
cook book.

~~~
basch
That was kind of my point. Pixar or Dreamworks or Disney Animation or
Illumination as a brand are bigger draws than being a sequel. "I want to go
see the new Pixar movie."

------
TrevorAustin
A data science consultancy I used to work at did box office predictions for a
major movie studio, and the fanciest techniques you could dream up gave only a
slight lift over the [https://www.hsx.com/](https://www.hsx.com/) prediction
market, which provided the overwhelming majority of the model's predictive
power.

------
rexreed
There was a great AI Today Podcast interview with 20th Century Fox CTO Hanno
Basse on how AI is being used quite intensely in the entertainment industry:
[https://www.cognilytica.com/2018/11/07/ai-today-
podcast-62-a...](https://www.cognilytica.com/2018/11/07/ai-today-
podcast-62-ai-in-the-entertainment-industry-interview-with-hanno-basse-
cto-20th-century-fox/)

------
JackFr
Here's an orthogonal idea which would make a great project - scrape IMDB for
all creative roles in the credits - actors, directors, writers, set designers,
make up, music, etc. -- all of them. Regress them against budget, revenue,
margin and revenue/budget.

Importantly it would allow for groundbreaking and genre bending movies to be
assessed.

See who's adding value and who's not. And see how well that predicts your
outcome.

~~~
selflesssieve
With enough orthogonal ideas you'll have a well rounded approach. Why would
20th Century Fox advertise their best idea?

------
yborg
> When combined with historical customer data, sequencing analysis can be used
> to create predictions of customer behavior.

When not combined with sequencing analysis, historical customer data can be
used to create predictions of customer behavior.

It watches movies and does classification which all studios do anyway for
decades on everything they and their competitors produce. I'm not really
seeing the value add here apart from having a "data science" team to excuse
your flops.

------
fuddle
JJ Espinoza goes into detail about the system on the twimlai podcast -
[https://twimlai.com/twiml-talk-220-building-a-recommender-
sy...](https://twimlai.com/twiml-talk-220-building-a-recommender-system-from-
scratch-at-20th-century-fox-with-jj-espinoza/)

------
borroka
Netflix is doing this at scale for all the content that it is on its platform,
where the audience is the number of Netflix member that have watched (or will
watch) a tv show, movie etc. There are limits of predictions that are reached
quite fast. For example, how much money you spend on the production for an
original show is the best predictor of the audience (more money spent means
more promising plot and actors and directors, more marketing and so on). All
the fancy AI, Deep whatever are largely irrelevant and a waste of time and
money, but can be sold very well internally and externally, at least for a few
more years.

------
commandlinefan
This strikes me as being classically anti-inductive: if they figure out the
"formula" for a successful movie, the formula will become useless as soon as
they try to apply it.

------
dschuetz
And this is going to ruin the current movie industry if it gets any traction.
Now that technology is highly available to everyone, this is going to cause
two major streams of movie making - industrial/predicted and
independent/auteur. Those exist already of course, but indie is a niche. Guess
who is going to remain in business if the movie industry collapses?

~~~
wolco
The indie lives if the industry dies. The industry will not die but it may
evolve.

------
jedberg
Netflix has been doing this for years. It's one of the inputs into how much to
pay to license a film or TV shows (but to be clear not the only input, at the
end of the day it's the buyer's gut instincts that determine what to buy at
what price, but the AI is a tool to help them make that decision).

------
yodon
For those interested in the economic factors driving media production and
distribution, Matthew Ball [0] is a great analyst to follow.

[0]
[https://redef.com/author/56d1e0f14f16158e36008235](https://redef.com/author/56d1e0f14f16158e36008235)

------
danmg
This is the reason 90% of their budget goes to comic book franchise movies. I
guess it also helps that the simple-formulaic plots translate easy and rarely
delve into any social issues that foreign (e.g., PRC) censors would find
objectionable.

------
selflesssieve
I bet this is one example of many on how they use ML. This is probably their
least capable predictor- but a good example to signal that 20th Century Fox
has entered the 21st Century.

------
tokyodude
Maybe someone here remembers the name but I read a short SciFi story about
someone who edited a mediocre movie into an amazing movie, posted it online,
got tons of hits, was offered a job by the movie company. When she arrived it
turned out they wanted her to be part of an audience of people with good
taste. Some AI made the movies, they'd play them to the audience with tracking
equipment on their heads. The AI would use the info to adjust the movie. Their
memories of having watched the movie would then be erased. Repeat several
thousand times until all readings are high. Release movie.

------
bluetwo
Why wait for a movie to be produced before running ML on it to predict
audience?

Why not just run it on SCRIPTS to see which to produce?

:-)

------
dewaine
Wow I didn't know you needed ML to decide to copy what disney and marvel are
doing

------
duxup
I'm a bit disappointed they didn't use some old movie terms ... maybe it's in
the code such as a "LEGS quotient". They used to ask if a movie "had legs"
because legs puts butts in seats.

------
Krasnol
So now we get even more of the same but machine certified?

------
opportune
if you apply machine learning to a creative effort you will only continue to
imitate what has already been done

------
blibble
google built the awesom-o 4000?

we're going to be getting a lot more adam sandler movies

------
anth_anm
Using ML to speed up the process of making bland blockbusters!

------
moocowtruck
is this why everyone makes shitty movies these days?

------
neves
Now every 20th Century Fox movie will be full of violence and sex.

Ops, It looks like the ML is already in production!

