Coming Again to a Theater Near You

Give Rob Friedman points for candor. When I asked the Paramount Pictures vice chairman if he could cite one example in which a studio had ever successfully re-released a movie that had fizzled in its initial theatrical release, he responded with a blunt one-word answer: “No.”

Friedman has a herculean task before him this week: persuading moviegoers to rediscover “Wonder Boys,” the Michael Douglas-starring film that reopens Wednesday in nine cities. Paramount has its fingers crossed that the picture will somehow fare better than when it first opened last February and took in only $18.7 million at the box office. But re-releasing an unsuccessful movie, as one studio marketer put it, is like regaining your virginity. Once you’ve lost it, it’s gone forever.

Friedman knows from experience: In 1995, when he was head of marketing at Warner Bros. Pictures, the studio tried to revive “The Little Princess,” the much-adored family film that had flopped the first time around. Friedman put together a new campaign and did interviews “with any newspaper that would get on the phone with me.” It didn’t matter: The movie did just as badly the second time out.

Studio marketing wizards can often turn lemons into lemonade. But once the public makes up its mind about a movie, it’s nearly impossible to change it. “In today’s world, everything is so much about hits that it’s really tough to bring back a movie that didn’t work the first time,” says “Little Princess” producer Mark Johnson. “You can’t get reviews back in the paper. You can’t put people back on ‘The Today Show.’ ”

There are re-releases that do work, but they usually involve vintage films that were not only hits the first time around but have an enduring audience appeal, like the “Star Wars” series. The current example is “The Exorcist.” The 1973 horror classic has grossed $40 million in the past six weeks, which is almost pure profit for Warner Bros. Pictures, since the studio has only spent $15 million to market the film and prepare it for re-release.

Not every re-release is a Cinderella story. Disney’s “Fantasia/2000” was a hit in its Imax theater run this year, but bombed when the studio moved it into regular theaters. Miramax’s “Life Is Beautiful” was a smash in its initial run, but foundered when the studio brought it back in a dubbed version.

Does that mean Paramount is throwing good money after bad with “Wonder Boys”? Probably so. The studio’s biggest problem is that it hasn’t found a fresh way to sell the movie (an ironic, adult comedy set in the world of academia, a tough sell under any circumstances). The film’s poster and trailer are top-heavy with “see this movie” critic blurbs, a message that seems hopelessly outdated in an era when studios have tarnished the currency of reviews by using them to sell every dog that hits the multiplexes.

But Paramount isn’t giving “Wonder Boys” another shot just to make its investment back or even bolster its Oscar chances. It’s practicing the ultimate Hollywood art form: nurturing important personal relationships. After all, if the studio wanted to give a second chance to a film that got rave reviews and was mishandled in its first outing, why not pick “Election,” the razor-smart Alexander Payne film that was a box office bust, despite rave reviews, when Paramount released it in April 1999? Two words: Michael Douglas.

Payne is a well-regarded young filmmaker, but he’s yet to have a commercial hit. Hollywood weight class: bantamweight.

Douglas is an A-list movie star and standout producer who--and here’s the really important part--has a relationship with Paramount studio chief Sherry Lansing that dates back to her first days as a 20th Century Fox executive in the late 1970s. They have collaborated on such hits as “The China Syndrome,” “Romancing the Stone,” “Fatal Attraction,” “Black Rain” and “Face/Off,” which was made by Douglas’ production company. Hollywood weight class: super-heavyweight. As Douglas modestly put it: “I hope that I’ve earned some points somewhere down the line.”

*

Last April, “Wonder Boys” director Curtis Hanson approached Friedman with the idea of a re-release. By June, the studio had decided to give it a try. Paramount’s gesture (and an initial 15-theater release is more of a gesture than a full-scale relaunch) is also a way for the studio to make amends for possibly fumbling the original release. There was a heated debate last fall between Paramount, Hanson and “Wonder Boys” producer Scott Rudin over how--and when--the studio had released the film.

The filmmakers were unhappy with the film’s poster, which made Douglas look like a disheveled pothead--an image that, while true to the film, apparently turned off many female moviegoers. The filmmakers also feel the movie would’ve done better if Paramount had released it in late 1999, in time for Oscar consideration, instead of pushing it back to February 2000.

Paramount executives insist the studio did its best. It was obvious that the quirky film was a marketing challenge; it didn’t test well in research screenings. In a highly competitive Oscar year, there was no guarantee that it would be an Academy favorite (especially when the studio already had two Oscar contenders: “The Talented Mr. Ripley” and “Angela’s Ashes.”)

“I know Curtis won’t admit it, but the film wasn’t ready in time for us to do the preliminary screenings you need to set up an Oscar campaign,” explains Friedman. “But we still believe in the film and we think that putting it out now, without the pressure of being in thousands of theaters, that maybe it can find an audience and also earn some Oscar nominations.”

“The Exorcist” has already won its Oscars, so the idea of bringing it back to the theaters was inspired by old-fashioned moviegoer buzz, not its Academy pedigree. When Warner staged a film festival to celebrate its 75th anniversary, “The Exorcist” was the hottest ticket of the series. When Entertainment Weekly did a cover story last year ranking the scariest movies of all time, it was the hands-down winner.

Warner distribution chief Dan Fellman didn’t need a pack of Tarot cards to figure out that he had a hot property in his back pocket, even if it was a movie made during the Nixon administration. “The Exorcist’s” age actually worked in its favor. It had a mythic appeal to the generation of moviegoers weaned on “Scream” and “The Blair Witch Project” who had never seen the granddaddy of all fright fests on the big screen. Still, Fellman knew he needed a marketing hook that would justify putting the film back in the theaters.

The traditional gimmick is to release a “director’s cut” version of a film. But “The Exorcist” had been released exactly as director Billy Friedkin wanted. However, screenwriter-novelist William Peter Blatty had a version of the film he’d always hoped would surface--with 11 minutes of additional footage that had been edited out of the original.

Fellman met separately with Friedkin and Blatty, then got the two men together in his office. The emotional meeting concluded with Friedkin saying to Blatty, “I’m going to recut the picture for you.” Fellman had his marketing hook: “The Exorcist: The Version You’ve Never Seen.”

The theatrical release was initially viewed as something of a loss leader: Warner would use the media coverage and subsequent moviegoer buzz to build interest in the studio’s Dec. 26 home video-DVD release, which is where the real money is made. So Fellman went to Warner home video chief Warren Lieberfarb and convinced him to bankroll the cost of Friedkin recutting the film and putting it back into theaters.

The movie is such a hit that so far it’s outgrossed all of Warner’s recent new releases, including “Pay It Forward,” “Bait,” “Get Carter” and “Art of War.” “The Exorcist’s” drawing power proves that certain key genres, especially horror, sci-fi and action adventure, have a primal appeal for young moviegoers, a key to any film’s success, whether new or old.

“It’s a staple of our industry,” says Warner marketing chief Brad Ball. “You still want to be in a theater being scared with 500 other people.”

You can bet that every studio has been digging through its vaults in the past month, looking for a diamond in the rough. Universal has already announced plans for a spring 2002 theatrical re-release of “E.T.” Fellman says he has a secret list of potential candidates and is quietly testing a “golden oldie” in an out-of-the-way market right now. Warner also has plans to re-release Stanley Kubrick’s “2001” sometime next year.

I couldn’t convince Fellman to reveal any movies on his secret list--he has them in a locked box. But the hunt is on. “Put it this way,” he says. “There isn’t a producer who’s ever made a picture here that hasn’t called in the last few weeks, saying, ‘What about my movie?’ *

Patrick Goldstein’s column, “The Big Picture,” will run every Tuesday in Calendar. If you have questions, criticism or ideas, e-mail them to patrick.goldstein@latimes.com.