MovieChat Forums > Austenland (2013) Discussion > Why didn't this movie get wider release?

Why didn't this movie get wider release?

posted 11 years ago by denniskriz
13 replies | jump to latest

My sense is that this movie is going to do really well when it becomes available on dvd / streaming.

What I honestly don't understand is why Austenland didn't get wider release in the theaters. Jane Austen is read in every Junior High / High School in the United States producing 1-2 lifelong fanatics in every classroom in which she is read every year. Further, the film was produced by Stephenie Meyers of Twilight Saga fame. Tens of millions of Jr High/High School girls (and their mothers) would have gone to see the film for that reason alone.

But instead they were given the much more problematic "Mortal Instruments" (every high school classroom in America may have an Austen fan, but also every high school classroom in America would have 1 or 2 girls who cut themselves ...) and the completely vapid "One Direction" rock-group documentary while "Austenland" was consigned to "art theaters" in big cities. I just don't get it.

(Fr) Dennis Kriz, OSM
Austenland: http://frdennismoviereviews.blogspot.com/2013/09/austenland-2013.html
Mortal Instruments: http://frdennismoviereviews.blogspot.com/2013/08/mortal-instruments-ci ty-of-bones-2013.html

[–] lunaarwen 11 years ago

I completely agree. But I see it all of the time. Movies I want to see are hard for me to go see while movies like "Riddick" are released in every theater.

[–] scottiecruz-891-336570 11 years ago

I really wish I knew why this movie had only a limited release, especially when Stephenie Meyer's name is attached to it. With the small budget, even if it had disappeared from the movie theaters after only 1 or 2 weeks, it would have been a financial success. And it was put out by Sony, which is a big company.

Would someone please explain to me who decides a movie is going to be in limited release and why.

I wish every big theater chain with multiple viewing areas, would have one small theater designated indie theater on the premises and bring in those films that would only get limited release, for even one week. There are so many good indie films out there that no one sees until it goes to DVD. The experience is not the same as seeing it on the big screen.

[–] chesterpepper719 11 years ago

The distributor decides how wide of a release a film gets. Sony Pictures Classics wasn't involved with the making of the film, they merely bought the finished product at Sundance. So the budget might have, kind of, sort of come in to play during negotiations with the filmmakers, but SPC put down $4 million dollars for the distribution rights and that's the only number they care about.

The more screens a film is shown on, the more expensive it is for the distributor - plus they're responsible for marketing costs. Sony Pictures Classics is extraordinarily cautious about their release strategies and because of that they often make a profit. If a film is extremely successful with its limited release, the distributor might invest in a release expansion, but going from dozens of screens to hundreds is very rare.

Just a quick note: Austenland wasn't put out by Sony, it was put out by Sony Pictures Classics, which is the small-scale distributor within the larger Sony family. They're definitely related, but two completely different distributors.

[–] scottiecruz-891-336570 11 years ago

Thank you for the explanation of how this all works. I guess I just don't understand how a distributor, any distributor, can make a profit on a film only a handful of theaters play and few people see.

[–] blondee661 11 years ago

Yeah I don't understand how this didn't get a much wider release either. Is it me or does it seem like more and more movie studios are targeting towards male movie goers? Every summer it seems like there are more and more superhero movies, don't get me wrong I understand studios need to make money and to run but still. I remember being frustrated when Jane Eyre came out a few years ago and it was in select cities.

Does anybody know when this will be released on DVD?

[–] remembervhs 11 years ago

Because it appeals only to a small demographic.

I sat it through it the other day and I didn't find it funny or charming. I am not a fan of Jane Austen, so this wasn't too surprising. Still, you'd think that the writers would be able to make me laugh once or twice throughout the entire movie.

Jenifer Coolidge is ridiculous. Keri Russel and the rest of the cast are solid, but don't seem to realize they're in a comedy. Are they in a comedy? If they aren't then why is Coolidge playing her character from Legally Blonde?

Movies like the Mortal Instruments aren't any better but the young teen/pre-teen market is much bigger than the Jane Austen fan market.

[–] lala360 11 years ago

I just saw the movie via DVD.

This movie has a ton of flaws. I liked it, I'm a massive Jane Austen fan, a fan of most of the cast (JJ Fields, Bret Mackenzie, Callis, Keri Russell), and a HUGE fan of period movies but even for me the movie was a bit much. I don't feel it would have been worth the money to see it in the theater.

Plus, as others said, obviously the audience is very small. This is the very definition of a chick-flick. Even more, the audience grows smaller because not every lady/romantic movie fan enjoys Jane Austen-type novels and movies.

[–] Keelai 11 years ago

Most small budget movies are not getting wide releases anymore. Studios and movie theaters believe they can only make money with big budget formulaic 3D action movies. Austenland was released in only 52 theaters in the U.S.

This is the umpteenth movie I recently had to download off Amazon or watch on DVD because they're not shown in theaters near me and I live in NYC. Shame because I prefer to see them in the movie theater.

[–] holycow92883 11 years ago

The DVD distribution is just as dismal! It is sold out in every store in the state I'm in.
No joke.
It’s good to dream

[–] bunchesoffun 11 years ago

I never even heard of the film until REELZ started advertising it that it was available on pay per view. Directv had it only if you had their upgraded box, so I was out of luck. But then it became available through Netflix so I just now watched it. It was better than I expected. I really didn't know how it was going to end. I knew she'd end up with someone, but who? Glad I watched it.

[–] TopFlight 11 years ago

Is Jane Austen really required reading in the US public schools? I've never been required to read any of her books in my entire life (I didn't major in English), but I went to better than average public schools and have a BA degree. I'm only now starting to read Jane Austen books.

[–] Pat ODay 10 years ago

That is because public schools are no longer in the business of education. They are in the business of indoctrination. Many high school "graduates" are hardly literate. Is it any wonder that colleges and universities now must offer remedial courses to college freshmen?

[–] shagmefrida 11 years ago

This is not the movie I would waste on this argument. Just because it frequently referenced Jane Austen doesn't make it worth watching by anyone, because it is pretty bad and very disappointing. In fact I think it has more in common with One Direction as cheap exploitation than any positive value.