Stephen Follows (Film Industry Data Analyst) on Getting the Greenlight and Film Profitability

In this episode of Don't Kill the Messenger, host Kevin Goetz welcomes UK-based film industry analyst Stephen Follows for a discussion about film profitability and its connection to data. Stephen's digital book Greenlight Signals analyzes over 10,000 films and 4 million audience responses using secondary data (existing reviews, ratings, and comments from across the internet) to discover what makes a film successful. Together, Kevin and Stephen explore the same mission from different angles: ensuring filmmakers can make money while making the movies they're passionate about.

From Film School to Data Research (2:32) Stephen shares his path from producing micro-budget features to becoming an entertainment data analyst, driven by his love of cinema and his passion for solving problems through logic and research.

The Numbers Don’t Lie (9:59) Stephen recounts the eye-opening experience of helping a producer friend with a business plan, only to discover that every similar film had lost money.

Why Experience Doesn't Equal Success (12:47) Stephen reveals his surprising research finding: there's little to no correlation between a producer's experience and their film's profitability, showing how passion can interfere with business sense.

Two Books, One Goal (22:01) Kevin and Stephen discuss their approaches to data: Kevin's How to Score in Hollywood focuses on pre-greenlight capability testing using audience data, while Stephen's Greenlight Signals uses secondary data to identify patterns across genres. Both emphasize that data guides decisions rather than dictating them.

Horror Films: Control and Atmosphere (33:50) Stephen and Kevin discuss what makes horror movies work, from declaring your genre early to shot-length and how controlling what audiences see and when they see it is essential to creating fear.

Every Movie Should Make Money (45:50) Kevin and Stephen discuss Kevin's theory that every film, if made and marketed for the right price, should be profitable.

Universal Rules Across All Genres (47:49) Stephen and Kevin identify critical commonalities of successful films: emotional authenticity, clear character wants, visible stakes, avoiding confusion, respecting established rules, and maintaining consistent tone throughout.

This episode offers invaluable insights for anyone interested in the intersection of art and commerce in Hollywood.

If you enjoyed this episode, please leave us a review and share. We look forward to bringing you more behind-the-scenes revelations next time on Don't Kill the Messenger.

Host: Kevin Goetz
Guest: Stephen Follows
Producer: Kari Campano
Writers: Kevin Goetz, Darlene Hayman, and Kari Campano
Audio Engineer: Gary Forbes (DG Entertainment)

For more information about Stephen Follows:
Website: https://stephenfollows.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/stephenfollows/
IMDB: https

For more information about Kevin Goetz:
- Website: www.KevinGoetz360.com
- Audienceology Book: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Audience-ology/Kevin-Goetz/9781982186678
- How to Score in Hollywood: https://www.amazon.com/How-Score-Hollywood-Secrets-Business/dp/198218986X/
- Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Substack: @KevinGoetz360
- LinkedIn @Kevin Goetz
- Screen Engine/ASI Website: www.ScreenEngineASI.com

Transcript

Podcast: Don't Kill the Messenger with Movie Research Expert Kevin Goetz
Guest: Stephen Follows

Interview Transcript:

Announcer (00:03):

From script to screen, every film is brought to life by visionary creatives and executives all sharing one mission – to captivate the audience. Hosted by award-winning movie strategist Kevin Goetz, our podcast Don't Kill The Messenger, offers a filmmaking masterclass through intimate conversations with Hollywood's most influential voices. And now your host, Kevin Goetz.

Kevin Goetz (00:29):

Helping filmmakers get their films funded, shot and seen. That's the mission of my guest today and his latest book, Greenlight Signals, is a groundbreaking data report that distills years of research into what audiences respond to and what separates profitable films from those that fall short using secondary data, millions of existing reviews, ratings and comments from across the internet. Stephen mapped audience reactions by genre against box office results. Stephen Follows is a UK-based film industry analyst who specializes in data-driven research. He's consulted for Guinness World Records, advised both studios and independent filmmakers and taught at top institutions like the National Film and Television School and NYU. I wanted Stephen on the show because we both explore the same topic, film profitability but from very different angles. Two perspectives meeting in the middle of art and commerce. Stephen, welcome to my show.

Stephen Follows (01:36):

Thank you so much for inviting me and I loved your book. I dunno whether people come on and say this to you all the time, but I genuinely really loved it and it was great to see the same things as you just said that we were both looking into from different places.

Kevin Goetz (01:46):

Let me ask you something, are you talking about audienceology, my first book or are you talking about How to Score in Hollywood? Because I know we sent you an advanced copy.

Stephen Follows (01:53):

It's the exclusive one, the new one.

Kevin Goetz (01:55):

About How to Score in Hollywood.

Stephen Follows (01:56):

Yeah, that was very eyeopening and also hugely relieving 'cause had you found the opposite things to me, we might have had beef

Kevin Goetz (02:02):

Thank you by the way, for that plug without even talking for two minutes. So I'm very appreciative of that. Stephen, we really do have so much in common. We share a very similar philosophy. I'm curious to know what got you into even taking this project on? Are you a movie guy? Do you come from movies first and foremost like myself Or are you more of a research guy that comes from it from a, this looks like a compelling area to explore. Why not?

Stephen Follows (02:32):

<laugh> Well I can tell you that the only people that think I'm any kind of scientists are people in the film industry. Real scientists do not. And I know 'cause I have plenty of friends who are. So my background is that I knew as a teenager that I wanted to do something in film and something in thinking. I like working things out from first principles and I didn't know where that would lead me. And everyone told me go to college and study film because I'm a contrarian. So I went to film school and I became a producer and I made short film content and I'm made professional short form content and I actually have a production company where we raise money for charities using storytelling and we make commercials and things like that. So that sort of evolved over the last 20 years, but maybe 15 years ago as it was starting to take off and I was starting to realize that I could make short form content online and then commercials, it was moving further and further away from feature films, which has always been a big love of mine, both as a consumer but also just being involved in the industry.

(03:25):

And so I thought, you know what? I will take on the mission to myself of using that part of my brain, the thinking part within film. And very few other people are doing it as you know. So I started sharing these things I would find. And then over doing this now for a decade and a half, I've started to find people come to me with strange questions. They come to me with strange requests and I look where other people aren't looking 'cause that's what's interesting to me. So I have no useful career advice for anyone who wants to follow in my footstep 'cause I have no idea how I've done this. But I definitely feel I am a film person primarily. And then I use logic and data to try and just explain what we already know sometimes or see what's happening and perhaps understand why.

Kevin Goetz (04:06):

Well I think very interestingly, you and I come from a similar place of left and right brain and the idea that we would not be satisfied if we didn't scratch both of those itches. Would that be a fair statement?

*Stephen Follows (04:22):

Oh 100%. One of the things I love about film is that it's sort of unsolvable. It's not like checkers where you know, you can calculate the best possible move. There is no one single formula. And even if there were, we would all smash it to bits in the first six months and it wouldn't work. So what I love is that we have to keep thinking and re-imagining, but at the same time the audiences are similar. We're all humans. We all want stories, we all have the same sort of feelings.So there is this continuity and this demand for freshness and that's everything I need to keep my brain going.

*Kevin Goetz (04:50):

Yeah, the art is what I keep coming back to. It's an art form. And so we're playing in dangerous territory for people who are purists and just working with that part of the brain. But we are not trying to impede or interrupt or usurp your art, we're trying to help you make money doing what you love to do. Because I have a theory which we're gonna unpack in the second half of our program, that as you know, every movie if made and marketed for the right price should make money. And that's a big claim. But I do stand by it and I want to get your opinion on it in a moment. But I do wanna probe where Stephen sort of got formed in terms of his love of movies.

Stephen Follows (05:37):

<laugh>. Well I had a quite a formative experience. I mean I was outta film school, I produced a couple of micro budget features and so, and I decided that producing wasn't really for me.

Kevin Goetz (05:46):

I'm going back further, Stephen, I mean did something inform you? Did you see a particular movie? Did you go to the movies on a regular basis? Did you have a nostalgia and a sort of a sentimentality around movies?

Stephen Follows (05:59):

Well I remember seeing Jurassic Park with my dad in the theaters and that was quite an amazing thing. But I think there's a good story of teenage Stephen, which might reveal a little bit more about me as well.

Kevin Goetz (06:07):

Perfect.

Stephen Follows (06:08):

Which is that we were told, I dunno how old I was, maybe 14 or something, that we could do any sport we wanted to on Wednesday afternoons. And I didn't wanna do their, all the sports they were offering. So I said, can I organize my own thing? Can we go tenpin bowling? And the school said, you know what? You go do that. And the first week we went bowling. But then the second week we realized there was a movie theater next door. And for the next two years me and about 10 of us went to see a movie on our parents' dime on school hours every Wednesday afternoon, some weeks there wasn't another movie out or something went to the see. So we'd see the same movie twice. So I saw my Best Friend's Wedding, the Julia Roberts film two weeks in a row. We just saw movies at least once a week and then at the weekend as well.

(06:48):

And I think that came from my love of movies. I don't think that built my love of movies, but at a time where, I mean there were VHSs, this is just before dvd, so it was harder to sort of overdose on movies but having a regularity to it. You start to see things beyond just the experience of the movie. You're like, why did I like that? Why did I not like that? Or you see a genre you wouldn't normally see. And there was an art house cinema down the road from me, which was separate to this bowling expedition where I learned to trust whatever they programmed. So I saw Pi, you know, Aronofsky's first film, not knowing anything like I walked in just one please. Or I saw Double bills where they would show two hitchcock films and I just learned that whatever they were showing I could just turn up and I would be experiencing something fascinating. And I think that is what really connected me with the wider thing of cinema. It wasn't just I had a genre or a particular actor or director that I followed. I liked cinema and then whatever came to me this week was that flavor of cinema.

Kevin Goetz (07:41):

What were some of your favorite movies back then?

Stephen Follows (07:44):

I really liked when I started watching Hitchcock films. I think there was a retrospective at the BFI and the British Film Institute in in the South Bank of London. And they started showing all the Hitchcock films and I started to go and see all of them over the course of a few months. And that was kind of special because I had to get over something. I had to get over the fact they seemed very derivative.

Kevin Goetz (08:03):

Ah,

Stephen Follows (08:04):

I had to get over the fact I'd seen them in The Simpsons and I'd seen them here and here and then I had to really understand, no, no, no, they've been copied and then once the penny drops you're like, oh my goodness. There was an audience who sold that thing for the first time.

Kevin Goetz (08:16):

That's right. Alfred Hitchcock was indeed a very singular talent. It's funny, we just had several guests on my program who we're talking about the kind of filmmaker like a Billy Wilder or a Willie Wyler or a Steven Spielberg or a Ron Howard who do so many different genres and don't have necessarily a distinct style, but they're good in everything they touch. I just saw a documentary on George Stevens, same thing. Yet there are some filmmakers like a Quentin Tarantino, Scorsese, Hitchcock for example, that when you see the style of the filmmaking, you know who the filmmaker is. And I just think that's an interesting juxtaposition. I wanna ask you though, for me sitting in audiences, and you know what I do, I test movies. I mean I do a lot of things in the movie business, but one of the things I'm most known for is the testing of pre-released movies.

*(09:15):

So I've worked on over 5,000 titles and I've been in thousands and thousands of screenings. And one of the things that got me to write the book had a score in Hollywood was that I would look and say, how did they make the movie for that? I heard that the budget was so and so and that is ridiculous. This is such a particular movie, it's not a broad recommendation. They've gotta be losing money. And then I would unpack that this is the over years and it finally got me so interested I suppose, and maybe frustrated as well that I wrote the book. Do you have a similar story around why you ended up getting into Greenlight Signals?

Stephen Follows (09:59):

Yeah, I do actually. So 15 years ago when I started doing my own little data research projects, it wasn't intentional to publish them, I started helping friends who are writing business plans. And I had one particular friend who I think he had done a favor for me or something, but I really wanted to help him above and beyond a really, like this is my chance.

Kevin Goetz (10:14):

Like for a production company or something, Steve?

*Stephen Follows (10:16):

Yeah, yeah. He was a producer putting together a package. He'd produced some films before he was putting together his business plan. He knew I was a number literate and interested in doing this and he said, can you come and help me make a credible case for this movie? And I'm like, yep, I'm there. I can do it. So I read the script and I started gathering data on all sort of similar movies. And then I started understanding more about the flows of money. I understood some before, but I did lots of deep research and I kept proving that all the films I looked at lost money. Mm-hmm. And I kept thinking, how have I done this wrong? Honestly, I was apologetic to him and I'd go back to people and at some point, and I can't remember exactly when the penny dropped, oh my God, they did lose money.

(10:54):

And so I was like, what? I was initially sort of confused and I was like, oh, I don't understand how that's happened. But then I thought, oh my God, I'm gonna have to go back to this guy and tell him I'm really sorry all these ones lost money and I dunno why. So I sat down with him and I said, look, I can't explain why, but all of the films that are similar to yours have lost money. And he said, yeah, I know I'm still gonna make mine. And I was like, oh, that's why they lost money <laugh>. Because people are making them for passion reasons, certainly on the lower budgets and they're not listening to the data. And maybe they shouldn't, I didn't then tell him not to make it or whatever. It was a really important moment, a two punch where one where you realize there's a lot of films that lose money. And second of all, clearly the number one driver in the film industry is not money. It's just not, these people would do other things if they exclusively wanted money. Now they do want money but not exclusively.

*Kevin Goetz (11:42):

I do talk about that in my book. In any industry that you are driven by, the driving force of money is never a good idea. It is just not a good motivating factor for success. You have to have the passion and the goods behind it. But again, my theory is that why wouldn't you try to make money each and every time out so that you could make another one if for no other reason? Because you may have a passion project, it loses money and that person who gave you that money is not going back to give you more. And so that's why I wanted to help filmmakers primarily and studio folks so that they could stay in these jobs for a long time. Not to mention any business is about making money and it is a business first and foremost. And that doesn't mean you can't also make great art. I also wanna ask you, was there a moment when you realized that data could illuminate patterns that most people in Hollywood only sensed sort of intuitively?

*Stephen Follows (12:47):

Yeah, I think so. I mean I did a series of projects for about three or four years with Bruce Nash who runs the numbers website, the box office site and consultancy site. And they do amazing stuff. They have really good data and he and I got to know each other and we managed to convince the AFM, the American Film Market, they gave us a little bit of money three or four times a year to do some little data projects and then they put it out in their newsletter exclusively. And we gotta to research this. And it was a lovely deal. It was all pre pandemic and stuff. And one of the ones we looked at was we looked at the correlation between the number of films a producer had made in the past. So how, how experienced are they basically in making films and the chances of their next film being profitable?

(13:24):

Just if there was no other information about it, you know, what are the patterns? Because what you'd expect to see is experience equals better outcomes. You'd hope to see that generally, right? It may be bumpy, but you'd expect as you get better at doing the job, you have better outcomes. And we found no correlation or even a slightly negative like correlation. And we went back to the afm and said, I think we've proven that experience means nothing when it comes to profitability. Are you okay with that? We're not gonna change the results, but like this might cause a riot. And and Jonathan at the AFM, just said, oh a riot's fine. You know, I'll go out on the newsletter. But it really made us stop and think and think, okay, well what is going on here? Because again, we wanted to, in this case, check whether we were right or not. It was counterintuitive. Sure. And then we thought about it and we're like, okay, what is the feedback loop here? What are the negative consequences of making a film that loses money? Well actually in the real world, they're very small. You don't get your artistic license revoked. And most producers on the lower end are bouncing between investors anyway because an investor,

Kevin Goetz (14:21):

that's not true when it comes to directors

Stephen Follows (14:24):

Exactly, we have completely different rules because we judge directors based on the art and all that kind of stuff. Whereas the producers, they have different investors along the way. And actually the real job of a producer is to convince someone it will get made so that it does get made. Now I think ethically they should also be returning the money. And I'm not advocating for a new fool every week. Sure. But it is true that actually if you only had to have one skill as a producer, it's in convincing people that you'll money, you're not actually making money. And so you obviously want to do all the things. But it was interesting to see in the data that actually the integrity and the business sustainability and professionalism are choices producers make. They're not essential into,

Kevin Goetz (15:04):

I think honestly you need both. That's my feeling. And I've also produced more than a dozen movies and more than a dozen means 13 <laugh>. So I know something about producing and making money doing it. I would not agree that a producer is there to just convince people. I wouldn't trust that person if they're going to sell me. I recently had a friend who produced a movie that failed at the box office and he sold it to the studio head as this is not an independent film as you all think this is cannes meets Kansas <laugh>. And I was like, okay, I heard that and I said no, this is cannes meets and Antibes <laugh>. Do you know what I mean?

Stephen Follows (15:53):

Yeah, it's just in the mountains.

Kevin Goetz (15:55):

This is just like really within the zip code of can. And yet it was made for way too much money as a result. And the rest is history. Very, very sadly. 'cause it's a wonderful picture, but it was never going outside of what it was in its DNA. And so that's one of my points. I do also want to ask you, do you find that filmmakers and executives today are more open to using data than they were like 10 or 15 years ago?

Stephen Follows (16:23):

That's a great question. Honestly, I think they think they are. I'm not sure they actually are because I think that most of the people in the film industry are there for reasons in large part to do with passion, whether it's art or passion for a story or because of a lifestyle. And so if the data were to show that you shouldn't do something, what would you then do? Would you change the project? Would you cancel a project or would you carry on regardless? Making tiny tweaks and, and I think this is a good thing by the way. I'm not suggesting people are ignorant or that data should lead anything. I don't want to live in that world. It would not be better. Obviously the effect of the streamers and Silicon Valley's influence in the film industry over the last 10 years has had a major effect.

*(17:03):

And we all do need to be far more data literate. But I would say that the core of being a film professional is about creating work that moves people, stories that move people outside of the art. So like how can you convince people this film should get made and the story of yourself and your company. I mean there is a point where the rubber hits the road. If you've lost money, 10 features in the road, indeed, not only do you not have any money, you're not gonna have any more. And I do think a good producer finds it easier and easier as their career goes on. And a bad or incompetent or shady producer finds it harder and harder as time goes on because word gets around.

Kevin Goetz (17:39):

That's my point, Stephen. Yeah, yeah, that's exactly my point. People will be found out because you still need to get in those rooms and sell. And if your credibility is questioned, you're gonna have a far more difficult time getting something greenlit.

*Stephen Follows (17:54):

No, you're totally right there. I think the thing is that you can get very far on words alone, but you can't make something good. And most crucially, and and as you know, the audience don't care about any of this stuff. So you say it's a hotly anticipated movie, it was on the blacklist, this person was bidding versus that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever. When it comes to the theater or watching it on tv, they're ruthless. They'll turn it off, they won't buy it, they won't recommend it. Or if you had to work uphill for 20 years and had to cut the budget a hundred times and you make something that moves people, they'll tell everyone they know, they'll buy it again. They'll buy the soundtrack. And so I think there's a lot that goes on in the industry where we have to do stuff for gatekeepers and we become gatekeepers and we echo the same truism, some of which are entirely true, some are kind of true and some are downright false. But if the person standing in front of you believes something, you have to functionally kind of believe it. But all of that has just something to get over because the audience will be honest and the audience will do what they wanna do. And so that's why your kind of work is so useful because you are trying to use the evidence of what will happen inevitably. That's what's gonna happen early in the process to improve it. And also to show the gatekeepers who might have a different view. No, actually you're wrong. In this case.

*Kevin Goetz (19:05):

Somebody asked me the other day in an article promoting the book, are you ever wrong in your assessment of movies and pre greenlight research or playability research as we call a screening? I said, I'm wrong every day. I'm always wrong. The audience on the other hand, is never wrong <laugh>. And I mean that because all the audience is doing is giving you their opinions, their unfettered opinions based on what they're seeing. So they don't have an agenda, they just wanna enjoy something. Maybe if you wanna call that an agenda, they just wanna be entertained. But they don't come in with their arms crossed, say, show me. They just wanna sit there and really enjoy it. And so when you ask them, did you enjoy it? And what was the level of your enjoyment and how intense was that? And your passionate advocacy is either there or not there, why not listen to that if in fact you're making it for these people. I think you need to include them from the get go as soon as the art is formed and ignore them at your own peril.

*Stephen Follows (20:11):

Well I think it also reveals why people are doing things like, because if you are into the industry hypothetically, let's say somebody who's only in there for their own ego, their own power, whatever, then actually there's not much interest in them listening to this stuff 'cause it could prove them wrong. But if you're genuinely trying to make a good piece of art, you're trying to make a responsible business decision, you're trying to make a sustainable career with people who are gonna trust you, you absolutely should listen to it. And so if I were to advise, and I do quite often advise investors and people doing slates and things like that, the questions that you really want to ask not is do you think this will make money? But like what evidence would change your mind about the investment?

Kevin Goetz (20:45):

Yes, yes, yes.

Stephen Follows (20:47):

And would make you go back into something you said no. Or vice versa. 'cause if people say no, data would prove, oh, we shouldn't make this. Well then you're not making a rational decision.

Kevin Goetz (20:55):

Well that's exactly my next question, which was, in your view, what's the biggest misunderstanding that filmmakers, particularly filmmakers have about data in general?

Stephen Follows (21:06):

They think it's prescriptive and it's not. It's just the weather forecast. And that means two things. Number one, it means that it might be wrong, but also it means that even if 19 out of 20 things have failed, first of all, not all of 'em failed. But also everything is based on the past performance. Pirates don't work until Pirates of the Caribbean. You know, historical films don't work until Gladiator. I dunno, people overinvest in the specificity of the whole thing. And I think there's a danger in looking what has happened and then saying that will happen. And that's not how we live our lives. I mean, it's useful information, but ultimately you have to take a really good look around, really understand what's happened before, watch the films, listen to the audience, and then choose what you make. And that is your artistic voice. That is your business opinion. That's what makes you you. That's what you were talking earlier on about the creative voice that threads through directors films, even when they're telling different stories of different characters. There's the same for business as well.

Kevin Goetz (22:01):

Yeah. You and I both talk about the fact that data doesn't dictate decisions, it guides them. And what do you think are the most valuable questions that good data helps creative leaders ask?

*Stephen Follows (22:15):

I think the question to ask is what will your audience be expecting from your film? And then part two, what are you gonna do with that expectation? So if they're turning up to a western, you've titled it a certain thing, you know the color of the poster, you know what it looks like. Okay, so you can tell me now that based on the information the audience are recently gonna get, which is the tiny bits of fragments we give them, they're going to expect this kind of journey. And then there's a whole side journey you can go down with. Is that a big enough audience? Can you find them? Blah, blah, blah. But number one, what are the reasonable expectations your audience are going to have when they are presented with a little bits of evidence about your movie? And then they sit there and the movie opens. Secondly, what are you gonna do with those expectations? Because if you are just on some fronts, gonna deliver really well, make sure you deliver really well. What is the core tenets of a thriller? What do they want? But if you are gonna subvert them because that's what your art is, then great. But really subvert them.

Kevin Goetz (23:06):

Mm,

Stephen Follows (23:06):

Don't misalign them.

Kevin Goetz (23:07):

Yes.

Stephen Follows (23:07):

Don't kind of give them, because as you put in your book, you're giving them like a fudge of things. So what are your audience's expectations and what are you going to do with those expectations? I don't think that is in any way limiting to art in any way. 'cause it doesn't tell you what to do. It just forces you to be aware

Kevin Goetz (23:23):

A hundred percent. The other part of that, of course, is how big is that audience?

Stephen Follows (23:27):

Absolutely.

Kevin Goetz (23:28):

Size them up correctly. That's where most people fail. They don't know what they have.

Stephen Follows (23:34):

Yeah,

Kevin Goetz (23:34):

Every movie should work because there's an audience for everyone. When we come back, we're gonna talk to Stephen Follows specifically about some of those tenets that he just referenced. And also unpacking my theory about every movie if made in marketed for the right price, should make money. We'll be back in a moment. If you are curious about how movies actually turn a profit, I've got something for you. My upcoming book How to Score in Hollywood dives into the intersection of creative instinct and audience insight, and where the business of film meets the art of storytelling. The book is available for pre-order now on your favorite bookseller platform. I'm also putting together a book launch team and I'd love for you to be a part of it. We're looking for people to help spread the word ahead of our November release and also to leave a short book review after its release. In exchange, you'll get early access to the book, exclusive behind the scenes content and more. Sign up to join my launch team or for book updates at KevinGoetz360.com. And as always, thank you for your support. We're back with Stephen Follows. Stephen, you've analyzed more than 10,000 films and over 4 million audience responses. What surprises you most about the difference between what audiences say they like and what they actually respond to?

*Stephen Follows (25:04):

That's a really good question. I think people will say they want things that are more complex than they actually want. I think when you look at people's behavior, it's a lot easier to intuit it and, and it just doesn't sound as impressive to say it when you ask people what do you want from a movie? They might give you a highfalutin answer. But if you look at their behavior, what they actually want is to be entertained and immersed and to live a life with somebody else. Whether it's they're jumping off a rooftop or crying 'cause their child has died. Whatever the journey is emotionally that people want to go through, they want to be taken somewhere else and really feel it. And they want it to be an emotional experience that compliments the way they want to feel. The way that if you're having breakup, you might listen to certain music or something like that. But I think it sounds almost dumb to say it out loud.

*Kevin Goetz (25:52):

I think that's right. And I like to say, I'm not so sure audiences can tell you what they want. And many of my colleagues agree, I think they can absolutely tell you what they don't want. <laugh>, for example, I am holding up my iPhone here. And if Steve Jobs had said, what would you like to see in the future with your telecommunications or your cameras or your computer? They would not have the ability to identify a three in one device that's five inches or whatever long and so forth, what they f this can't be right. And yet they could say, I want that. I've got to have that. And so I think an example, very similar to a movie, when I do what we call capability testing, which is pre green light testing, essentially concept testing on steroids. And you're adding sequentially lift items to see if this influences your decision or if this influences. But what I love is when I test a concept and right out of the gate people are like, oh yeah, I am in <laugh>. You know, you have something, period. Full stop. So let's educate our listeners on some of the ways you unpack the tenets of different genres. First of all, you deal with about 18 genres. Is that correct?

Stephen Follows (27:12):

That's right, yeah.

Kevin Goetz (27:13):

Can you rattle them off really quickly? Because I want people to hear how you and your analytical mind see movies separated by genre.

*Stephen Follows (27:22):

Genre is such a broken system that works in the sense that whenever you try and pick it up, it's like sand between your fingers. And yet we all know what it is. And so I think of genre as a shorthand to the emotional experience. So what's the difference between say, thriller and action? The lazy answer is the budget. The real answer is to do with, I think, emotional danger. I think a thriller is unsettling, whereas an action film doesn't necessarily have to be. And so the same between a music based film or a musical, you know, do they know their singing? But also what's the kind of experience we're gonna get? You probably get a rawer journey in a music based film than you do in a musical. Musical is much more,

Kevin Goetz (27:59):

Right, music based musicals. Do you separate them for example?

Stephen Follows (28:03):

I do. Yeah.

Kevin Goetz (28:04):

So do I, because I'm working on the Springsteen movie right now. I worked on the Bob Dylan movie, and you're gonna compare it to say Bohemian Rhapsody or Wicked <laugh>. You know, they're totally different experiences or the word. I know you use animated as a catchall, but animated is a proxy probably for children's animation or for all audience animation. But you know, there's animation that is strictly adult animation. So it's not really a genre per se, but we've kind of adopted it, haven't we, as a genre?

Stephen Follows (28:37):

Of course. And almost all the genres are kind of broken in some way. You know, like about,

Kevin Goetz (28:41):

I love this one, we don't use it anymore. And I don't think you do either. Foreign films,

Stephen Follows (28:45):

No <laugh> Indie. Yeah,

Kevin Goetz (28:47):

You're a Brit. But in America, a foreign film included in that would be a British movie with people speak like, like you talk Leo know. And that's how <laugh>. But that is not the case because even foreign films are separated into genres. So I find it very fascinating. So can you rattle off your 18? Do you have that list?

Stephen Follows (29:08):

Yeah. So I mean, and you're right that by the way, you know, animation is a format, Western is a setting, comedy is how you're gonna feel. Drama is 60% of movies and I a

Kevin Goetz (29:17):

Hundred percent

Stephen Follows (29:18):

That's not effective. But yeah, so I've got thriller drama, action, comedy, horror. I've got family as well, which is an audience one. But you know, romance, animation, biography, fantasy, sports, sci-fi, music, war. It's interesting, Western is a genre, but I couldn't study westerns 'cause there are so few and they perform so poorly that studying the long-term trends of successful westerns is incredibly hard.

Kevin Goetz (29:43):

But there was a time in the 1950s and sixties where the western ruled, so you can go back and look at some of the data to see what was it about that time. And it really has a lot to do with the frontier and the American dream at that point. It touched particularly Americans and people around the world of a certain feeling. And that's from my own analysis that I've conducted. But there's a lot to learn from historical films as well. It's not all about post COVID <laugh> as I know you would attest to. Yeah. Or agree with.

Stephen Follows (30:19):

Quite often two things may look very similar, but then you use a different dimension and they look very different. So music and musical, for example, the levels of swearing and drug taking in music based films is very high. And in musicals it's very low, like in a Moulin Rouge may have absinthe, but it's fundamentally not a druggie film. Whereas Almost Famous is,

Kevin Goetz (30:38):

What would you call, I Wanna Dance with Somebody, the Whitney Houston biopic.

Stephen Follows (30:42):

There is a huge amount of crossover. So I'm not gonna start, like I'm not gonna go around.

Kevin Goetz (30:46):

No. 'cause I worked on that. It was very challenging because here it is, it's a biopic at its core. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. Right? But yes, there's a lot of drug use in it because obviously she had substance abuse issues, Whitney, and really throwing away her talent on these terrible drugs. So you are right. It could be very much a part of the fabric, but it's not what it's about.

*Stephen Follows (31:09):

No. And it all depends on audience expectations. If you were to tell someone only this is a musical, what would they expect? And the thing is that often different people can be sold the same movie in different ways and still get what they want from it. And I noticed this recently when I was looking at romances and the Tom Hanks’ film, Castaway is listed as a romance at IMDB. And I thought, is it him and the ball? Yes. I'm not sure <laugh>, that's a different kind of romance. But it's interesting because it depends on whether you think of that as having a romantic driver. And the real truth is we are making two hour long, incredibly complex narrative emotional journeys and multiple things can apply. Where it really matters is how are you going to package it and how are you gonna market it, and who are you gonna attract with it? Because that really does make a difference. Once they're in the theater, you can take them on a nuanced journey. But if you are promising them something and then they say, okay, I accept your promise, I trust you, I will give you my time and my money, and then you don't deliver on that. That's a real problem.

Kevin Goetz (32:07):

Yes, it is.

*Stephen Follows (32:07):

So one of the strongest signals I found was matching the expectation with the movie. So when people feel mis-sold, for whatever reason, I think the Danny Boyle film for many years ago, sunshine is a horror film, really, or at least it has horror film vibes. But it was sold as a big budget sci-fi because there weren't any big budget sci-fi out that week or that month. And so a lot of people, myself included, felt mis-sold. Now have we been sold what it was, we might have enjoyed it already. This isn't actually the comment on the movie,

*Kevin Goetz (32:34):

This is why my book focuses on the pre-greenlight stage. This particular book, audienceology, my first book focused on the playability stage. What you're referring to is marketability, which very few filmmakers have any control over. So the difference of our interpretations are analysis of what makes a successful movie or doesn't is really centered on using secondary data after the movie's released, looking back on it. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. As opposed to stuff that I'm doing, which is more first party data, talking to hundreds, thousands, I don't know, could be in the millions of moviegoers over nearly four decades that I've been doing this. But at the end of the day, there are certain truths and it's great to impart these things. And if somebody can have that power over a campaign or an influence in a campaign, certainly do it with a lot of what you're saying. I just wanna point out that the frustrating part is what can a filmmaker do early on to look out for what are some of those pink flags or yellow flags that we should know? So let's unpack horror for just a moment.

Stephen Follows (33:49):

Mm-hmm <affirmative>.

Kevin Goetz (33:50):

Talk to me if you would, Stephen, about what you would say to a filmmaker saying, I have a new horror movie. I don't know if it should be PG-13 or R, I don't know if it should be slasher creature, sci-fi, exorcism slash ghost, torture porn, all of these sub genres of horror. What do you say to them?

*Stephen Follows (34:15):

Well, horror is a genre where it's an emotional experience. It's one where the audience strap themselves in and they lose control. They lose control of where they're looking, what they're hearing, what they're feeling, and they give it over to the filmmaker. So you have to think about what's the ride you're taking them on. And that is so much bigger than just the jump scares or the graphic details. Even if you are making something that is designed to be very graphic, the whole thing, the atmosphere, the anticipation, that is what it is. So it's about making fear feel like it's part of a world. So you want to create a world that they're excited and maybe a little bit worried to get into. And then you need to take on that responsibility that what you've done is build a rollercoaster. You've strapped them in super tight, they can't get out, they're not gonna move, and you now have to take them up, up, up, up, up and down and down and left them right and all that sort of stuff.

(35:00):

But you are in control of what they hear. You know, you are in control of what they see. You're in control of what they know. And you should use that to take that atmosphere as long as you can. And it's interesting how different studies, looking from different angles will discover the same thing as you just said. And one of the things that I discovered a few years ago was I was looking at the average shot length. How long is the average shot? And obviously the shortest genre is action. That's not a surprise. But the longest was horror. When I initially did it, I was a bit surprised. And then I realized, no, no, no, no, that's because you can't see round the corner. You have to wait until that thing comes out. The shadows, this is about control. Horror is essentially about controlling everything the audience know and feel and using that to take them constantly on their edge and occasionally drop them in something with a jump scare or graphic detail or a revelation, whatever it is, whether it's physical or an emotional journey. But it's not just those moments. You're not just filling time until those jump scares.

Kevin Goetz (36:00):

I'm gonna give you a few areas in many horror films that come up as problematic in the testing process. Number one, they have not declared themselves as a horror movie until too far into the movie.

Stephen Follows (36:15):

100%.

Kevin Goetz (36:16):

You're finding that too in your research.

Stephen Follows (36:18):

100%. And audiences hate that. They hate that. They hate that so much.

Kevin Goetz (36:22):

That's right.

Stephen Follows (36:23):

And also they don't deserve that because horror is not a genre that anyone should be unclear. We don't have to use the word consent here, but it's kind of that. I mean, that's what happened with Terrifier 3. Remember there were those stories in the press about audiences storming out. That's because the previews that they did this for, they weren't told it's a horror film. And Terrifier 3 is not a movie you should see unless you wanna see Terrifier 3. And so they got the news and PR value they wanted. These weren't horror fans walking out of a horror film. But to do that on a mass scale with your normal release is just wrong. Yeah. And not gonna work.

Kevin Goetz (36:54):

Yeah. It comes out as a cash play.

Stephen Follows (36:55):

Yes.

*Kevin Goetz (36:56):

The other thing that we discover is that there are not enough scares in the movie. One of the kisses of death are, when I ask filmmakers, we're about to test their movie, describe your movie to me. They say it's kind of a psychological thriller. <laugh> and psychological thriller is a thriller. It is not a horror movie. And I think just what you were saying before is very true. It usually is a proxy for, it's not very scary, but it's intriguing. You know what I

Stephen Follows (37:29):

Mean? I've got another one of them.

Kevin Goetz (37:30):

Yeah.

Stephen Follows (37:30):

A dark comedy isn't funny and obviously there are great dark comedies. But the idea of what are you fundamentally delivering, scarce humor, emotional journey, rollercoaster, adrenaline, what is the drug that you're injecting into people?

Kevin Goetz (37:43):

Right?

Stephen Follows (37:43):

And are you delivering enough of that to give them what they're paying for?

*Kevin Goetz (37:47):

To that point, are you delivering enough? Is your operative word there? Because I think that what I'm sensing is what is working now in the theaters is elevated this or elevated that. It's elevated horror, it's elevated comedy, it's elevated drama. It's why Oppenheimer, for example, as a drama where dramas typically are much more challenging to work, theatrically has a very underlying tension and intensity that elevates it. Plus the cast they have and the Christopher Nolan of it all. But even innately of what that subject matter is, is elevating a horror movie. Like what makes a horror movie crash and burn versus one that sort of really takes off. Megan, the first Megan was an example of something that was different enough and had enough humor in it that elevated it. It the Stephen King book of course helped elevate it or The Conjuring. Those are elevated what makes black phone and black phone 2 now more elevated than another movie? And the answer is, I think the stakes, the number of scares, those set pieces and a certain rhythm. The other thing, and I'd like to hear your opinion about this, is of course the all important ending.

Stephen Follows (39:10):

Hah.

Kevin Goetz (39:11):

The ending of a horror movie can't just end. It has to deliver something else. Whether it's a twist that no one saw coming, that usually is a way to amp up scores. And when I say amp up scores increase your definite recommend, which is what the goal is.

*Stephen Follows (39:30):

I couldn't agree more. I mean there's a theory which I'm sure you know about from psychology called Peak end theory, which is that the two bits that people remember most of an experience is the peak and the end. And they discovered this through I think, colonoscopies where they were like, you know, whether they <laugh> and if they made the last bit of the process, whatever, that would be the most uncomfortable. People rated it quite negatively. But if they made the procedure longer in time, but the ending was less of a problem, people rated it better. And so I have a theory that we'll move on from colonoscopies to movies, totally different. But we'll talk about peak end where you've got two emotional experiences you have to consider with the movie or two of the ones you may not the only two, but the two heightened ones.

*(40:09):

What's the peak of this movie and what's the end? And my theory is when those two align, when the ending is the peak, it creates an extra like the feeling squared. And you look at movies like Argo, I think quite an average movie with a terrific ending went on to win best picture. And the Shawshank redemption obviously a great picture throughout, but at the same time that ending is elevating. So I really believe that it works across all genres. Although you're absolutely right that things like horror and thriller need more of a resolution. And family films need a resolution. One of the most important things about family films is catharsis. It needs to be a sealed box. Whereas you can probably get away with a drama being like, well, did they ever really love each other? That's fine. But with horror, definitely it needs to be a nice contained box. You've been on a ride and ideally the ending is inevitable but surprising. I never saw that coming, but now I think about it. That makes perfect sense.

Kevin Goetz (41:05):

Exactly. I think your protagonist has to solve whatever was in their way and has to have some kind of catharsis and a feeling of, I went through this for two hours with you all <laugh>, or we went through this with you protagonist, and therefore I wanna know that you're gonna be okay.

Stephen Follows (41:26):

Yeah.

*Kevin Goetz (41:27):

When you have what I call a zombie ending, and I don't literally mean a zombie ending, I mean like of somewhere where you're left hanging in a very ambiguous way. Usually those don't work. And I try to tell people that it could work, but often the audience needs to be pushed in a direction as opposed to leaving it completely up to them. I will say that one of the things I'm very intrigued about and I'd like to talk about now across all genres, so forget the genre, what are some of the commonalities of success period. Now I wanna say to our listeners, and I know Stephen's gonna support me in this, we are not advocating for one way or another, the world is scattered with all kinds of examples that defy the generalizations. But we, Stephen and I live in research, we are talking in terms of most movies or a majority of films or a preponderance of a particular genre. Does this, does that? We are not talking about the exceptions. I have about five or six movies in my company that no one is allowed to bring up because they defied all odds. Like my big fat greekwedding, I just can't.

Stephen Follows (42:42):

Napoleon Dynamite <laugh>.

Kevin Goetz (42:43):

Yeah. Well even that wasn't a huge financial success. Maybe it was from profitability, but my big fat Greek wedding, there's no way it should have done what it did, but it did. And it was whatever the timing was, lightning in a bottle, et cetera. There's several movies like that. Even paranormal activity to a degree was like that. But even more than that, Blair Witch Project. Why did that suddenly that newfound footage movie? And maybe because it was the first one out of the gate that really touched an audience. But those movies are almost inexplicable as to why they so dramatically succeeded. Okay. So some of the things that I see in overall movies are that an ending needs to be both intellectually satisfying, but maybe even more importantly emotionally satisfying. Both together working in tandem. So you're getting your questions answered intellectually, you're getting the i's dotted and the T's crossed, but you're also feeling something like you've been through this experience and it doesn't have to be a happy ending, but it has to be a fulfilling and satisfying one. Would you agree with that?

*Stephen Follows (43:54):

Oh, 100%. And I think those two things can also be in conflict sometimes. And they talk in screenwriting about you give your character what they need, not what they want and the conflict of those two things. But they have to resolve. You have to feel like there was a literal truth to it. It has to make sense, but it has to be an emotional truth to it as well. It has to feel like it makes sense. And I think that those two things are not always the same. And I think sometimes they'll say, well this logically makes sense, but if it doesn't feel authentic, if it doesn't feel like it works, then it's for nothing. You need both. And you're absolutely right. By the way, I do second everything you just said, and I also think that these aren't hard rules, every single one. But the way I think about it, rather than see this as a checklist of things you do, I would see this as the more of these rules you are violating, the higher risk you are going down the path.

Kevin Goetz (44:37):

That's exactly what I'm saying. Mitigating risk is what my whole book is about. How do I help you and how do you do the same in your book, Stephen? Help?

Stephen Follows (44:47):

Yeah.

Kevin Goetz (44:47):

Not only filmmakers, studio executives, producers, or anybody starting a business of any sort. If you think about it, the principles are very, very similar. How can you understand what are commonalities causes, causations or correlations? What are the different elements, alchemy that seem to make successful movies? Do you agree or not agree with my theory of every movie if made and marketed for the right price should make money.

Stephen Follows (45:21):

Yeah, I think so. I think it's, I meanly, it's actually no, even if I think of the weirdest possible movie.

Kevin Goetz (45:25):

You got it.

Stephen Follows (45:26):

They’ll be somebody else that they'll want it.

Kevin Goetz (45:27):

That's exactly right. But if you know that only six people wanna see that. And as you read in my book there, I use the example of a movie called Dirt. It's a movie about dirt soil. You may have one botanical garden YouTube channel that will give you $6,000 for that. But if you make it for 7,000, you're gonna lose a grand.

Stephen Follows (45:49):

Yeah,

Kevin Goetz (45:50):

Because

Stephen Follows (45:50):

Exactly.

Kevin Goetz (45:50):

Shame on you to not know that there are only that few number of folks that wanna see it and doing research beforehand to know from the buyers out there what they're willing to pay. Because I can't tell you how many people have said over the years, guess what I made this movie for? You're not gonna believe this. $125,000. And I go, Uhhuh, what does that mean? You might have made it for a hundred thousand too much. And so understanding what you have the size of that audience and mitigating your risk all along the way is so important. You said something additionally very important. You used the word authenticity, probably one of the most important words across genres that I can think of.

*Stephen Follows (46:34):

Yeah, you're absolutely right. That was one of the ones that came up across everything. People wanted to feel authentic. And it becomes especially interesting in historical films because we don't know whether it's authentic, but we know whether it feels authentic. So the language, there's actually a psychological theory here called the Tiffany problem, which is that the first name Tiffany is actually quite an old name. There were people in the 1300s in England called Tiffany. But it doesn't feel like that. It feels like that should be a valley girl or something. And so when you have a character in the 1600s called Tiffany, it feels wrong even if it's actually accurate. So the emotional accuracy is incredibly important. But you were talking before about like what are the signals that work across most genres in most cases. And I've got a few here, so I think make sure people know what's going on. So for example, there's a big difference between

Kevin Goetz (47:20):

World building, right?

*Stephen Follows (47:21):

Yeah, absolutely. I mean there's a big difference between mystery and confusion. We like mystery. Not knowing is fine but is uncomfortable. And even in a horror film, if you take the genre where you wanna feel most uncomfortable, confusion can't last a long time. It's mysterious. Wanting to know, feeling out of the loop. That's all good.

Kevin Goetz (47:40):

I call it intrigue versus frustration.

Stephen Follows (47:43):

Well there we go. And those things are so different.

Kevin Goetz (47:45):

So different. Good confusions versus bad confusions, if you will.

Stephen Follows (47:49):

Exactly. So number one, don't confuse people for any length of time. Ideally not at all. I think don't make it too long, I'm not gonna give a hard list to it, but the number of times people have said that movie was too short is probably can count on one hand. And how many people have seen a film that's too long? That's definitely something I think from the data that sort of came out were

Kevin Goetz (48:06):

Yes,

Stephen Follows (48:07):

Give characters, clear wants and visible stakes that you know at least what they're after. Even if they don't reach it, even if it's a McGuffin, that's fine, but we need to know 'cause we need to invest in them. You've already talked about one of them, which is ending on a very clear and emotional note. Know where we're going.

Kevin Goetz (48:22):

Oh wait, before you go on, going back to the stakes.

Stephen Follows (48:25):

Sure.

Kevin Goetz (48:26):

Villain, the antagonist. Specificity around your villain. So important. I wanna save the world. Or they wanna save the world is not a good reason. <laugh>, for a villain to do what they're doing, we wanna know why. What's motivating them. They're as important as a protagonist, you need to have a fully fleshed out antagonist, which speaks to the stakes again as well. Don't you agree?

Stephen Follows (48:51):

Oh, 100%. And you have such a rich opportunity when creating a villain. You could do something simple like create the antithesis of the hero so that you've got difference. Or you can do something slightly more complicated, which is to make them overlap. Isn't that interesting? They both went to the same high school, they're brothers, he's your twin.

Kevin Goetz (49:05):

Exactly.

*Stephen Follows (49:06):

Or you can do things that are so much more complicated. But what a great opportunity because you actually have three things going on. You have everything that the hero is, you have everything that the villain is, and then you have the interplay of those two things where they overlap, where they just disagree, where they're not connected. And that is such rich opportunity that we are so movie literate as consumers and as audiences that we know that there should be a lot going on. So if you then don't use that, if it just happens to be that one's tall and one's short for no reason, what a waste, what a checkoffs gun experience. And also I'm then confused. 'cause I'm thinking, oh, this is gonna come into play and it doesn't. And it feels like there's threads everywhere and it's very unsatisfying. Whereas when you have a villain that properly does something for the story and for the hero and for our journey, it feels so satisfying. Especially if it's really conflicting. You know when the villain has a great point, when the villain is fighting for something that we actually would support. I mean Thanos did Nothing Wrong was a hashtag that went round during Endgame. And it's fantastic that you have in this fictional world, the person who has killed the most beings ever. And you have the audience going well, I mean he had a point like that is great. Sure. Character world building and it really makes you enjoy the journey more.

Kevin Goetz (50:18):

The other thing is don't break the rules. That's another huge no-no. You cannot up a character as having super strength. For example, let's say they can pick up an object and throw it kind of like Superman but then you can't have Superman if that were the case, walk through a wall in the third act and say, well how was he able to do that?

Stephen Follows (50:45):

Yeah, why didn't you show me that before?

Kevin Goetz (50:46):

Exactly. Audiences will believe whatever you throw at them, if you justify it in the world you're building, but if you breach that they will turn on you.

Stephen Follows (50:55):

There was a great example not that long ago where I was talking to a friend who was railing against the Last Jedi, the second Star Wars film from the more recent trilogy, and this is the Rian Johnson one, and it's the bit where Leia is in a spaceship and it explodes and she's in space and we think she's dead. But actually she flies like Superman back into safety right now. This person was saying, Jedis can't fly and you have to pause for a second and say, in this sci-fi world set, in a fantasy land, a thing that's made up called Jedi's that already have special powers. Suddenly this friend of mine felt so empowered to say what was and was not possible and it's because he had never seen a Jedi fly before and it was late in the movie. And it violated exactly what you're saying. It violated what he understood as the rules had they set it up from the beginning, Jedi can fly. You would've gone. Well, yeah, of course they can fly. And it was just the order of the information and the feeling the audience felt that wasn't earned and it was just such a fantastic example. They're in space, they're already mythical beings that can move things, but for some reason that offended him.

Kevin Goetz (51:58):

Isn't that interesting? Any others that come to mind about commonalities?

*Stephen Follows (52:02):

Stick to one tone, I think, and that doesn't mean you have to paint with a simple color. The only exception I can think of as a consumer now this is not to do the data, is I love dust till Dawn changing, but I was told it would, and I dunno what it would've been like to have been through that movie and see it change.

Kevin Goetz (52:18):

What did you think of Sinners?

Stephen Follows (52:20):

I haven't seen sinners yet.

Kevin Goetz (52:21):

Okay. Sinners is a genius movie and part of it's genius is the fact that it changes tone. It starts out more as a historical kind of drama and moves into this heavy zombie action movie towards the end. But the way in which Ryan Coogler sort of modulates it just works. But that's very tricky.

Stephen Follows (52:42):

Yes.

Kevin Goetz (52:42):

And dare I say, highly sophisticated and requires a very deft hand, but generally speaking, when you change your tones, it does not work

Stephen Follows (52:52):

Completely. I mean, think about it, when you're listening to a randomized playlist on Spotify and there's music, whether you're actively listening there with headphones or it's in the background. Yeah.

*(53:00):

If it suddenly has some other tune that you weren't expecting, it will feel incredibly discordant. Even if it's a tune you like, you know you're singing to Bohemian Rhapsody and then Tube of Bells comes on, it doesn't feel like it fits. The job of a DJ is to make it feel like there's a set that works and when they get it wrong, it's incredibly apparent. And it's the same with a movie. You can't have that with a scene or with a character or a line because fundamentally, one of the biggest things I've found across all genres is about immersion. You know when people feel like they're lost in the world of the movie, they are onboard, but when they're aware they're watching a movie or they're aware that they're late or did they did the parking correctly or my bum itches or whatever it is, then they're out of the movie. And I know this from giving lots of talks over the years I'm teaching in classrooms, but also keynotes and speaking in front of large audiences. I know they're with me when they move as one, when it feels like there is one audience and they either sit still or they're taking notes together or they're looking to the left together. 

Kevin Goetz (53:59):

Do you know we record our audiences, by the way for the exact reason you are saying. 100%, keep going. That's exactly right.

Stephen Follows (54:05):

Yeah. So when they school, when they go together like fish and they go left together right together, or they're silent together, you've got them, whatever you are doing is working. When they are moving in different directions or fidgeting, I've lost them no matter how intellectually great what I've said, well how much they laughed at the joke three minutes ago. Fundamentally, they are either one being and that's success or they are individuals and I have failed. And I think that that's true with immersion in movies.

Kevin Goetz (54:29):

I would add to that, that set the stake up in the ground as early as possible to give the audience the ability to be on the same page as opposed to having to slowly figure out, do I have permission to laugh here?

Stephen Follows (54:44):

Yes.

Kevin Goetz (54:45):

Do I have permission to be scared here, <laugh>? Do you know what I mean? And so that's why

Stephen Follows (54:49):

100%

Kevin Goetz (54:50):

Laying that out as early as possible is super important. We can talk forever. <laugh>, I think that you and I really are probably Soul Brothers <laugh>, and I think we need to do a panel together and I'm gonna invite you to Los Angeles.

Stephen Follows (55:06):

Oh, thank you.

Kevin Goetz (55:06):

And come and we can do something together 'cause I think we are so aligned, come at it from slightly different ways, but the fact that I have an ally is very exciting for me. I thank you so much, Stephen, for all of your contributions and the amount of work you've put in to come to these conclusions. There are certainly things that will help mitigate your risk along the way.

Stephen Follows (55:32):

Thank you so much for inviting me. I loved your book and I've really enjoyed chatting. I feel very grateful.

Kevin Goetz (55:38):

To our listeners, I hope you enjoyed this conversation. I encourage you to check out Stephen's book, Greenlight Signals, and to follow him on Substack. For more insights into filmmaking, audience testing, and the business of Hollywood, I invite you to check out my books, Audienceology and How to Score in Hollywood at Amazon, or through my website at kevingoetz360.com. You can also follow me on my social media. Next time on Don't Kill the Messenger,I'll welcome former advertising executive, studio marketing head, and president and COO of Screen Engine, Bob Levin. Until then, I'm Kevin Goetz and to you, our listeners, I appreciate you being part of the movie making process. Your opinions matter.

Host: Kevin Goetz
Guest: Stephen Follows
Producer: Kari Campano
Writers: Kevin Goetz, Darlene Hayman, and Kari Campano
Audio Engineer: Gary Forbes (DG Entertainment)