« Box Office Hell - SuperAug | Main | Movie Mergers »
August 17, 2007
Interesting Stat
In responding to a comment in another entry that was trying to make the case for agents - the unfortunate and self-serving source of most "news" in this town... as in "Both Limato and Morris CEO Jim Wiatt kept telling me this afternoon how "very, very" excited they are." - not thinking more creatively about how to get their clients paid in the industry's current Insider Recession, I noticed this...
Of the Top Ten grossers so far this year, only the top three – all of which cost over $250 million to make - Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, had actor gross point players who got paid “traditionally.”
Of the next seven - Transformers, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, 300, Ratatouille, Wild Hogs, The Simpsons Movie, Knocked Up – only Wild Hogs even had a gross point actor starring in the film (they had three)… and none of the trio got paid their “traditional” quote.
This is not to say that there was not a lot spent in effects to overcome the lack of an opening star in Transformers or Potter. But the point is… how can any studio rationalize paying so much upfront and so much of the gross and so much for production if the results are just as possible without such a deep dip into the profit potential… and this is well beyond “studio accounting.”
If you can pay Will Ferrell and Jon Heder on Blades of Glory and still keep the budget under $65 million, you can make money. Add 50% to that budget – and gross points for Ferrell – and you cannot.
If DreamWorks can make The Heartbreak Kid go with The Farrellys and Ben Stiller for a reasonable amount, it is a viable business choice. If you’re paying out 30% of the gross against $30 million, it is not… unless every movie turns into the Fockers franchise… aka A Fool’s Bet.
Anyway… I thought it was surprising how much the proof that stars – who I do think can bring real value worth the mega dollars – was in this year’s pudding. And how this hasn’t kept every star in town from selling their last pre-strike slots like they were at Christie’s with two billionaires with paddles in the front row.
Posted by poland at August 17, 2007 11:55 AM
Comments
I don't know to whom and for which movies gross points are given, but the fact you've limited your analysis to Top 10 grossers may be a factor. I'd only consider Wild Hogs to be a star-driven vehicle. Looking over this past decade, very few star-driven movies make year-end top 10 box office lists (e.g. Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Bruce Almighty, Ocean's Eleven). The big grossers almost always have much bigger hooks than star power (established brands, sfx vehicles, CG, etc).
Is this year different in terms of top 10 box office and gross points than previous years?
Posted by: mysteryperfecta ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 17, 2007 02:47 PM
Yes; the effects are important. However, Miami Heat, makes a good point. It does seem a bit -- daft -- to spend that much money upfront on a film. Especially when damn near every other film released this year will most likely not be that TOP HEAVY. Again; people gots to get paid. There just has to be a better way to GET EVERYONE INVOLVED... paid.
Posted by: IOIOIOI at August 17, 2007 07:48 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)