« Great Button Backgrounder | Main | Top Ten 2008 »
January 04, 2009
A Tale of Two 008s
Yes, it is a cliché, but 2008 truly was the best of times and the worst of times.
The box office broke new records, including a brand new #2 domestic film of all-time increasing the standard by more than 15%, yet New Line – as constituted from Day One – was dumped by Warner Bros, three studios (including Warners) dropped their Dependents, a fourth found a sucker to snap up a Dependent Dependent (Rogue), and a fifth (Searchlight) basically shut down their DD without so much as an announcement.
Paramount had another excellent year with the DreamWorks product, yet DreamWorks left the stunningly brief marriage, in the-most-popular-kind-of-gay-marriage terms, the second the ink was dry on their green card.
MGM made big shows of landing Tom Cruise, Paula Wagner, Dennis Rice, and Mary Parent as they broke away from Sony’s “friends with few benefits” phony marriage, yet in the last year we have seen Wagner and Rice exit as the funding for UA became iffy at best, Press and Vollman enter in the heels of exiting Paramount/DreamWorks and resurrecting Valkyrie (though perhaps not enough so to be profitable), and the question of whether Mary Parent will have the opportunity to actually roll cameras on any more of her many interesting developed projects hanging in the air. (Plus the question… will MGM/UA be acquired again this year… perhaps by Sony in another version of the library play?)
Paramount Vantage started the year with two Best Picture nominees, splitting with Miramax on both No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood, yet died – for all intents and purposes and dangling contracts - shortly thereafter as John Lesher took his high-profile cash-burning ways to the big studio.
Universal toiled all year under the shadow of potential sales efforts by GE, yet had its best year ever, both domestically and worldwide.
Superheroes were good for over $2 billion in box office with three films, yet did not profoundly impact the immediate future of Warners, Paramount or Universal as all three deals were split or distribution-only.
Marvel had some very big numbers with Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, yet spent so much on production that the profit margins didn’t make them the kind of success they seemed. Outlays on Iron Man seem to be about $310 million versus about $320 million in theatrical rentals, leaving a lot of profit in DVD and other ancillaries. But the $250 million against about $145 million in rentals on The Incredible Hulk is probably red ink against those Iron profits.
The Golden Globes were killed off by the Writers Guild of America strike, which left the big show slot to The Academy Awards alone, yet the ratings were still down.
Dreamgirls was not nominated two years ago, yet The Academy hired Bill Condon and Larry Marks to produce this year’s show, hoping to set a new standard that will redefine the show for the future.
The producer/studio exec behind some of the biggest, most popular films of all time was nominated for The Thalberg Award, seemingly a great opportunity to exploit that popularity, yet The Academy Board decided that Jerry Lewis would get the only special award this year.
Focus Features had a pretty terrible first eight months, picking up Hamlet 2 for over $10 million at Sundance and grossing under $5 million, unable to get the very well reviewed In Bruges rolling to more than $7.8 million, and seeing Amy Adams’ follow-up to Enchanted do just $12 million, inspiring rumors of a shut down, yet they created the biggest Coens Bros opening ever, have a major Oscar contender in Milk, and are in position to reap the benefits of being one of just three bigger budget Dependents (and one tight Sony Classics) left in the industry.
The Weinstein Company will barely reach $125 million total after releasing eleven movies (themselves and via MGM), had to make a security deposit for their slots in their still-not-as-good-as-under-MGM output deal with Showtime, have had legal troubles trying to move Project Runway to Lifetime from Bravo, couldn’t keep some of their relationships with filmmakers going for financial reasons, and seems to be treading water with the hopes that Inglorious Basterds, yet… uh… uh… uh… well, they won the fight over The Reader, right?
20th Century Fox had just two $100 million movies domestically all year, yet is looking at five films doing over $100 million overseas, is starting 2009 off with one of the season’s biggest grosser with one of the season’s smallest budgets, has been handed a big piece of Watchmen by a judge, and have six big time releases on the way, including the first Jim Cameron feature since Titanic.
New Line was shut down, yet had 3 of Warner Bros’ 5 biggest domestic hits of the year including Sex & The City, which as a wholly TW-owned film will probably be almost as profitable as the funding-split The Dark Knight which did more than twice the business. (WB passed on the TV-based film.)
Slumdog Millionaire will be enormously profitable and could win Searchlight its first Best Picture Oscar, yet WB sold off half of the film (or more) to Searchlight (which had passed on the film as too expensive two years earlier) after shuttering WIP and deciding that they could not market the film themselves.
Variety attacked Will Smith for both of his movies in 2008, as well as smacking down Steven Soderbergh’s Che’ at every turn, yet Smith’s Hancock turned out to be the second biggest hit of his career, Seven Pounds will be the #2 or #3 theatrical drama of the year (behind Ben Button and perhaps, 21), and Che’ is well on its way to be IFC’s biggest release of 2008 in spite of being 4.5 hours long.
Roger Ebert’s medical efforts to return his gift of gab have failed, yet his writing has been more aggressive, vigorous, and daring than at any time since early in his career.
Mamma Mia! SUCKED, yet it is easily the highest grossing musical in the history of the movies, more than 45% ahead of Grease’s $395 million worldwide.
Bolt cracked $100 million for Disney non-Pixar, yet it was only the second such success of this millennium. (A: Lilo & Stitch)
Quantum of Solace smashed the domestic Bond opening record by $26 million, yet will just barely pass Casino Royale as the best Bond domestic gross ever and may not be the worldwide best ever, with only Japan left to open (worth as much as $20 million, with $55 million in ground to make up).
Summit broke new ground with Twilight’s near-$200 million domestic gross, soon to pass Dances With Wolves to be the biggest indie grosser behind only The Passion of The Christ and My Big Fat Greek Wedding, yet Summit still hasn’t made or released anything else to get to as much as $25 million and the rush to get the next film out may be as much about collecting the Twilight revenues as about giving the fans what they want.
Overture didn’t break much, yet they have a threat to Summit’s big franchise, an English-language version of the pre-teen vampire thriller/love story/mr masterpiece Let The Right One In, due next January, which might also explain Summit’s rush to get Twi2 in theaters first.
There was a ton of talk about studios screwing up by focusing too closely and spending too much on the award season with certain films, yet so far, it seems that the vast majority of these movies are doing all the business they could have expected and more.
Big grosses are beautiful, yet a look at the box office charts from this last year remind clearly of the present danger of chasing the mega-numbers over taking bigger profits from more modest efforts. Only two films in the domestic Top Ten cost less to produce than $150 million. Only one of the Next 10 cost more than that to produce. True, the domestic gross for the first 10 doubled the second 10. But then again, because of the expense, 5 of the Top 10 were split revenue films and only 2 of the Next 10 were the same. This is a guide to the future.
Happy New Year.
Posted by dpoland at January 4, 2009 08:08 PM
Comments
Great piece.
I'm surprised Searchlight has held "Slumdog" so close to the vest, but it certainly has worked. $30 million in total was probably around the initial expectation, and certainly is enormous considering the film has never expanded beyond 700 theatres. It could threaten Juno's total from last year as it has already broken into IMDB's top 50, behind only TDK and Wall-E from 2008.
Posted by: EthanG ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 4, 2009 09:35 PM
Seriously: Doesn't it look like, right now, Valkyrie will outgross Seven Pounds?
Posted by: Joe Leydon at January 4, 2009 09:37 PM
Dave, do you think "Inglourious Basterds" will be the Weinsteins "make or break" release for the TWC? Their other 2009 films, with the exception of "The Road", look dead in the water. "Shanghai" is an expensive piece of Oscar bait, that is unfortunately saddled with director who is known for making strictly middling films. And John Cusack in serious mode is never great for the box office. "Fanboys" seems like it has been delayed to the point where no one cares anymore. Same deal with "Killshot" (and unless Rourke takes the Oscar and does a tap dance on stage, the ride they're expecting on the back of "The Wrestler" will be minimal). "Crossing Over" is suffering from a poorly received trailer and grumblings that Wayne Kramer was kicked out of the editing room.
2009 may just be the year the Weinsteins are no longer relevant. As for "Inglourious Basterds" I predict it will suffer from the "Snakes On A Plane" phenomenon -- a lot of pre-release hype that only fanboys will care about that won't translate into box office. No matter who you are, a 2.5 hour WWII exploitation flick -- even with Brad Pitt -- is a hard, hard sell. The trailer is going to have to be kick ass and do something for the ladies if this is going to have any traction.
Posted by: montrealkid at January 4, 2009 09:40 PM
Joe - Valkyrie is a thriller, not a straight drama, according to MGM.
And Kid - The Weinsteins are already... well...
Posted by: David Poland at January 4, 2009 09:57 PM
Maybe this is a slight misperception on my end, but I don't think so: Does Paramount release far, far fewer films than any of the other majors, excepting possibly MGM?
Sometimes seems like WB, Sony and the other big guns drop four, five titles a month -- hell, I think I've seen WB drop two movies on the same weekend before. Does Paramount even release a dozen movies per year?
After a few years of this conservative, less-is-more approach, is there a consensus on which is the more profitable business model?
Posted by: LexG at January 4, 2009 10:10 PM
Montreal, you forgot Nine. Could do well if it's good and considering it's Marshall behind the camera and not some stage director there's a good chance it will be good.
And, yes, I would like to point out that Australia has now made $130mil worldwide and could definitely get to around $200mil. Sure, nothing world-beating, but throw that alongside a 40% budget rebate from the Australian government that all Aussie and most made-in-Australia films get it surely won't be the disaster many expected after viewing the American numbers. It's looking at a 20/80 split between US/International.
Moving on.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at January 4, 2009 10:14 PM
Including the DreamWorks pix, Par released 14 films this last year.. same as WB before New Line landed unexpectedly... 4 fewer than Universal... 1 fewer than Sony... 1 more than Disney... 6 fewer than Fox, which leads the list by far this year.
Posted by: David Poland at January 4, 2009 10:19 PM
Thanks for the correction/info, Dave.
I actually think that since Par stopped making their annual Mace Neufeld military courtroom movies and Ashley Judd potboilers, it's gotten harder to tell which flicks ARE Paramount.
Posted by: LexG at January 4, 2009 10:40 PM
Why not just mention Ladd by name? Weird.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley at January 4, 2009 11:07 PM
Montrealkid, I have a feeling even the Tarantino fanboys (this one included) are going to have a problem with Basterds. For years he sold it as his "Dirty Dozen" but it's subversive collection of so-so vignettes that tie together. Once everyone hears that almost all the action is in montage, expect the BO to fall out.
Posted by: sloanish at January 4, 2009 11:13 PM
Chicken Little also got over $100 million for Disney, along with Lilo & Stitch and Bolt
Posted by: futureman at January 4, 2009 11:39 PM
I couldn't agree more about Ebert. His blog's verbal smackdown of Ben Stein's intelligent design movie was a work of genius. His "Scorcese" book was also fantastic, and I think Scorcese is probably the most overrated director in America.
Posted by: repeatfather at January 5, 2009 12:17 AM
If you can't spell his name, you shouldn't be criticizing him.
Posted by: milestogo at January 5, 2009 04:06 AM
David: If Valkyrie is a thriller, as opposed to a "straight drama," then isn't Benjamin Button a fantasy and 21 a caper flick?
Posted by: Joe Leydon at January 5, 2009 06:58 AM
Joe: I, too, quibble, with calling "21" a drama given the overall light caper / coming-of-age tone. But I'd say "BB" is a drama first, fantasy second, and that would be the biggest straight-genre comparison for "Seven Pounds."
Posted by: Nick Rogers at January 5, 2009 07:03 AM
Please don't misunderstand: I liked Benjamin Button, Seven Pounds and Valkyrie. I think Will Smith is someone who has achieved a relatively rare state of grace: He's at the top of his form as an actor at precisely the same time he's at the peak of his popularity as a movie star. And, yeah, I had a lot of fun with 21 (especially since its success pissed off a few people I enjoy seeing pissed off). I have no dog in this hunt, and whichever one of these movies turns out to be the top-grossing "straight drama" is A-OK with me. I'm just a little curious how we settle on these definitions. I mean, by Golden Globes standards, wouldn't The Dark Knight qualify as a drama? (OK, I know, we don't use Globe standards around here, but you see what I mean.)
Posted by: Joe Leydon at January 5, 2009 08:54 AM
Joe: It's a great question. If I ran my own video store, I don't know where, exactly, I'd put "21." It's too light to be in drama, it's too consequence-free to be in thriller and it's got a touch too many moody moments to be in comedy. I guess that's why most chains just alphabetize.
On more of a B-movie front, what do you call "Doomsday" or "Cloverfield"? (Insert punchlines here for those who hated them.) SciHorAction?
Globes standards blow because they reduce everything fictional and live-action to two categories. At least Oscar just says Best Picture (although I'd argue, like a few others, that should include documentary, especially given that "Man on Wire" was my favorite film of 2008).
Posted by: Nick Rogers at January 5, 2009 12:28 PM
Aw come on David, sure Mamma Mia was campy, but "SUCKED" is a much harsher sentiment than you used in your review over the summer. Just some light summer fun that stuck a chord with the older female demographic that haven't had a decent movie targeted to them since "My Big Fat Greek Wedding."
Posted by: RedheadedWonder at January 5, 2009 03:35 PM
Clue to Weinstein woes: Not enough money to convert "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" to DLP. I found that out when I went to an all-DLP theater and discovered I would be seeing a 35mm film print.
Posted by: Chucky in Jersey at January 5, 2009 06:59 PM
Yes of course, all those people who were similarly disgusted at 35mm prints (blecchhh!) were the ones who made it Woody Allen's second- highest-grossing movie of the last 20 years, and the Weinstein Co.'s third biggest of the year.
Posted by: jeffmcm at January 5, 2009 07:35 PM
Nick, the Academy does allow documentaries in the BP race. They just don't get nominated.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at January 5, 2009 10:53 PM
Kamikaze: Good to know. As far as I'm concerned, then, "Slumdog's" spot can go to "Man on Wire." "Slumdog" entertained me, and is a good movie, but among all the likely BP nominees, it did the least for me.
Posted by: Nick Rogers at January 6, 2009 07:01 AM
Joe, I would've sworn I saw Seven Pounds listed as your worst of the year somewhere? nymag's site maybe? I think they were culling worsts from various critics lists and reviews, with or without their actual participation.
Posted by: yancyskancy at January 6, 2009 10:11 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.)