« Geek Get Their Movie... Kinda | Main | It's The Backdoor, Stupid. »

March 24, 2008

Twinkle, Twinkle Little Gross?

Richard Corliss is not altogether missing the point in his piece on “The Post-Movie-Star Era,” but what he is doing is analyzing a shift from a rather odd point-of-view.

Yes, there are fewer stars that guarantee a gross than in the past. Yes, there are fewer stars that can actually generate a box office opening with their names and faces.

Let’s look at the facts. Of the 28 films that grossed $100 million-plus domestically last year, half were driven strongly by stars. That includes Bruce Willis, who is not one of the Top 10 box office stars in the U.S. anymore, but is a key to opening a Die Hard sequel. That includes Nic Cage, who can’t make an art film huge, but is a master of action success, delivering 2 $100m movies. That includes Johnny Depp, Will Smith, Matt Damon, John Travolta (twice), Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell, a rising Steve Carrell and the combos of Denzel & Russell, Chan & Tucker, and Pitt/Clooney/Damon.

What about the other 14 films? All but 4 of the 14 are children’s/family films. Of the others, 2 are R-rated comedies (Knocked Up and Superbad), Juno was as close to R-rated as a comedy can get, and 300 was its own odd phenomenon.

How about this stat? Of the non-star 14 films, 10 – yes, 10!!! – were either animated, included animation or were based on a cartoon or comic book.

And this… half of the 14 star-driven films were sequels or threequels. But of those, you really can only make the argument that The Machine was bigger than The Star – Pirates 3 and Evan Almighty – even though casting was surely a big part of the success.

But my conclusion is that the big grossers that didn’t come to the theaters pre-sold as high concept were films that were, indeed, sold by stars.

The problem with Corliss’ logic, to me, is that just because Will Ferrell failed to open Semi-Pro wider does not mean that his star is burnt out. It might be. Anything is possible. But he might have just gone to the same well too many times. He is likely to recover (especially as the film opened to 8 figures, even if that was seen as a disappointment).

Stars are not a lock. But like all other marketing tools – and that is what they are, much more so than acting talent – they have their uses and they sometimes work and they sometimes don’t and very, very few are 75%, much less 100%.

It is one of the bits of weak thinking we all fall into at times… being disappointed by the failure of something to live up to our ideals, when those ideals were never the reality at all.

The Top 28 list after the jump…

1 - Spider - Man 3 - $336,530,303
2 - Shrek the Third - $322,719,944
3 - Transformers - $319,246,193
4 - Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - $309,420,425
5 - Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - $292,004,738
6 - I Am Legend - $256,227,323
7 - The Bourne Ultimatum - $227,471,070
8 - National Treasure: Book of Secrets - $217,684,901
9 - Alvin and the Chipmunks - $215,760,497
10 - 300 - $210,614,939
11 - Ratatouille - $206,445,654
12 - The Simpsons Movie - $183,135,014
13 - Wild Hogs - $168,273,550
14 - Knocked Up - $148,768,917
15 - Juno - $141,099,121
16 - Rush Hour 3 - $140,125,968
17 - Live Free or Die Hard - $134,529,403
18 - Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer - $131,921,738
19 - American Gangster - $130,164,645
20 - Enchanted - $127,807,262
21 - Bee Movie - $126,631,277
22 - Superbad - $121,463,226
23 - I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry - $120,059,556
24 - Hairspray (2007) - $118,871,849
25 - Blades of Glory - $118,594,548
26 - Ocean's Thirteen - $117,154,724
27 - Ghost Rider - $115,802,596
28 - Evan Almighty - $100,462,298

Posted by poland at March 24, 2008 07:04 PM

Comments

The vast majority of those were star-driven, especially if you count fictional characters with a proven track record as stars, i.e. Fantastic Four, Optimus Prime, The Chipmunks, Bart Simpson, Spider-Man...

Posted by: LYT [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 24, 2008 08:50 PM

We were counting Will Ferrell's last moments of fame after Bewitched and Kicking and Screaming just to see him return with a vengeance in Talladega Nights. Semi-Pro was being derided when Blades of Glory was being released, it was a tired concept. Ferrell will be back with Step Brothers unless it starts getting smashed by the press. He's still a star.

Posted by: Bartholomew Richards [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 24, 2008 09:51 PM

Also, of the stars you mentioned, only Smith and Denzel can open a movie regardless, the rest need to be there in combination with some sort of brand, whether it be sequels (Depp, Damon), high concept (Travolta, twice), broad comedy (Sandler, Ferrell). Damon released The Good Shepherd not too long ago, Depp had the Libertine, Travolta had Lonely Hearts, Sandler had Reign Over Me, and Chan hasn't had anything worthwhile since the last Rush Hour movie. If these are our top 10 stars, that's pretty pathetic.

Posted by: Bartholomew Richards [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 24, 2008 09:58 PM

In fairness, Bartholomew...

Wild Hogs was Travolta AND Tim Allen AND Martin Lawrence. You could give them the worst script in the world and they'd make it a hit. Which is pretty much what happened.

And Rush Hour 3 was as much Chris Tucker's movie as Jackie Chan's. He hadn't even been seen onscreen since the last one, and there was a demand in some quarters.

Sandler in a drama is box office death, agreed.

Posted by: LYT [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 25, 2008 12:14 AM

I thought the star system was defined as going to see that "star" or actor regardless of what genre the movie was.

The idea is the audience was so enthralled with the persona of whichever particular star they saw them in whatever movie no matter what.

Going by that criteria, I feel the star system is pretty much crashed.

And can anyone name anyone younger than Will Smith male or female that has the potential to pull the same kind of box office draw as a Smith, or Ford or Hanks?

Yes, no one has a perfect track record, no one, but there is no one coming up the pipeline that has that magic that these guys did.

I know everyone says Will is still a star, and that Clooney is the last great movie star. But that's wrong...

There is one last great movie star in the era of Cagney, Bogart, Clift, Peck and Mitchum...

Harrison Ford, bitches.

The last true cinema Pimp.

Recognize.

Posted by: THX5334 [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 25, 2008 12:41 AM

Let's not forget Denzel had The Great Debaters not so long ago - domestic gross $30 million - which is pretty good for a movie of that type, but not exactly a megahit.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 25, 2008 01:30 AM

All I know is I gladly fork over my 11 bucks anytime ALBA, BIEL, BOSWORTH or SOBIESKI is clocking in to OWN my ass.

But I doubt that's relevant.


On a more serious note, pre-PR problems, I used to think MEL GIBSON was the MASTER on this issue; Sure, Hanks, Ford and Cruise practically guaranteed a BO bonanza every time out, but they almost always, ALWAYS did A-list MEGABLOCKBUSTERS. Same with Will Smith now.

But Gibson was fucking laying laws at the box office with mid-budget, middling-appeal B-movies like PAYCHECK, BIRD ON A WIRE, CONSPIRACY THEORY, even AIR AMERICA; Most of those made serious bank in their day. Swap out Gibson for any other actor, and you're talking about borderline cable movies there. Yet somehow Mad Mel could galvanize the masses to line up for even something like FOREVER YOUNG... maybe not a huge hit, but always many times bigger than they'd be with anyone else in command.

Posted by: LexG [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 25, 2008 02:35 AM

I even thought the 2005 Ferrell write-off was premature. Two movies that not very many people liked, K&S and Bewitched, opened to over $20 mil, and K&S did so on his strength alone. Hell, by today's standards, Bewitched's staying power wasn't even that bad! $20 million opening, $60 million gross? Isn't a multiplier of three pretty standard? Semi-Pro, following more hit movies and within his proven genre, seemed like a much bigger disappointment even before its second-and-third-weekend-nosedives. And even then, as Dave says, a $15 million opening for a movie that wasn't in strong demand or particularly well-liked... not really that bad.

THX, Harrison Ford hasn't had a big hit since 2001. And even before then, he wasn't exactly a "put him in anything!" kinda hit... though really, few actors in any era actually have that kind of pull. Tom Hanks was around his peak popularity when a movie he co-starred in and directed and wrote and promoted made about $30 million.

I think we're just seeing more specialized stars just as TV and music have become more fragmented. Sandler is gold in a comedy. (And Stiller and Ferrell are both pretty good bets, though obviously not invincible.) Denzel Washington is gold (or at least silver) in any kind of male/crime/cop type of movie. Travolta still works in anything broad that old people or Oprah viewers want to see. I don't know that this (the fragmentation, not the Travolta demo) is such a bad thing.

Posted by: jesse [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 25, 2008 07:24 AM

Some of Tom Cruise's movies relied on him as a star. Was it the script of "Days of Thunder" or "Cocktail" that brought audiences to the theater?

Still, I think he's a good actor, even if "Lions for Lambs" wasn't a hit.

Posted by: R Scott R [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 25, 2008 09:28 AM

Speaking of Mel Gibson, isn't it ironic that his biggest movies aren't typical Mel Gibson movies?
(What I would think of as typical anyway.)
"signs," "What Women Want," and as producer "The Passion of the Christ."

Posted by: R Scott R [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 25, 2008 09:38 AM

Apparently Steve Carell isn't that much of a star if he can't even get his name spelled correctly.

Posted by: Josh Massey [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 25, 2008 04:17 PM

The thing about Wild Hogs, which I never saw so can't comment, but it had an amazingly effective trailer that brought it from "oh that looks stupid" to "man, I gotta catch that."

I remember watching the trailer on a packed house on Friday night and that theater laughed at every damn joke. Granted, I knew it probably wasn't for me, but I sure as hell knew it would be a hit.

I usually like Corliss' essays, but this one I thought was kinda flat.

Posted by: Hopscotch [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 27, 2008 03:16 PM

Corliss hasn't been the same writer since he was the editor of Film Comment back in the 70s. Not sure what happened to him.
He's really become something of a joke in recent decades with his irrational 'toon love, et al.
I don't take anything Corliss has to say seriously anymore.

Posted by: movieman [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 30, 2008 07:56 AM

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.)


Remember me?