-
Website
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ -
Original page
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/a-much-closer-look-a-list-actors-and-box-office-performance.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I have one word to add: Fox.
Fox has been spewing out more garbage into cinemas than China has been polluting the world. lets have a look at what Fox movies will be offering us: Bride Wars, Street fighter, all about steve, taken (which for some reason they are refusing to market and refuse properly), Australia (which tanked), night at the museum, the day the earth stood still. Great lineup Fox douchebags. seems to me Watchmen alone might pull in more money than everything Fox has to offer this year. No wonder they wanna stop it being released.
F**k you fox!
(apologies, that rant had nothing to do with the article. Just had to get it off my chest)
And with lesser known actors you can lose yourself in the character, you aren't noticing who's playing the part, you are just following the story. That's my opinion anyway.
as an aside, when sales are reported, is Canada included in the domestic or foreign numbers? I know we are a foreign country but usually people use the term "overseas" to describe the foreign markets, so I always wondered if that included us up here in the north.
And, in terms of the star burning through their rules, I completely agree with you... I actually had this exact same discussion with a buddy last night. When you see a Will Smith film... you're seeing Will Smith.
then able to spend more to fully flesh out the directors vision for the film. Also
transformers didn't have any big stars and it was a successful film and an enjoyable
blockbuster. And I think independence day was before Smith was a big star and that
shows how movies that are well cast can make stars.
2) My point was addressed towards your statement that "box office performance does not directly hinge upon a film’s A-list cast." I'm not claiming casting is the sole factor in box-office performance, but to again use Sleepless In Seattle as an example... would that have made $135 million without its two leads? SFX based movies don't need stars necessarily, although I think they can play a major part in it's success, but dramas? Romantic comedies? Obviously there are exceptions, but the rule requires a name to sell it to the masses. The concept of the "Movie Star" is a part of Hollywood, and it always will be.
3) If Watchmen's budget is $100 million, it'll need more than $135m to be considered a success.
And I was serious about the article being well-written. I look forward to future "Much Closer Look" postings. Keep 'em coming! I promise not to argue on every one.
1) Regarding Adam Sandler as an exception... six of his last fifteen movies have grossed under $100 million compared to four by Smith. His movies seem as guilty as the others when it comes to studios shoving crap out to theaters counting on the audience to show up for the star. When Sandler deviates (Reign Over Me, Spanglish, Punch Drunk Love) his box-office takes a beating.
2) A film has to have a draw of some kind, a built-in audience that responds to it. A movie like 300 didn't need stars because the hook was the source material, the visual style, and the promise of bloody battles. Would Sleepless In Seattle have been such a big hit if it's recognizable stars were traded in for unknowns acting in front of highly stylized computer generated backdrops? Watchmen falls under the same category as 300, but it doesn't mean WB "learned" anything from the experience. Big-name stars aren't needed because the attraction is the source material and Snyder's visual style.
3) Watchmen will not break $200 million domestically.
4) I understand the aim of the piece was directed towards actors, but excusing those behind the camera by calling them "hardworking directors and writers... scapegoats" implies they're not responsible for a movie's success or failure. The list of big bombs with name directors and no big stars is substantial. (Speed Racer? The Adventures of Baron Munchausen? Arthur and the Invisibles?)
1) Right, I probably should have mentioned "when he sticks to comedy."
2) This doesn't disagree with anything I've said, in fact you seem to be arguing with a point I never made, but was actually dismissed when I wrote: "So what? Isn’t it obvious that films sometimes perform poorly regardless of whom they star..." Regardless of whether a major movie ever "needs" stars, studios tend to put them in anyway--this article is about how that's completely unnecessary. Perhaps you should re-read it :). Big-name stars are almost never "the" attraction, as I already touched upon in my article, but rather they are "more likely the result of studios sweetening already buzz-worthy films with some seemingly buzz-worthy actors for the sake of selling DVD’s to the uninitiated elderly and foreign markets." So, regardless of what makes a movie attractive to moviegoers, WB still certainly learned that they don't have to be worried about whether they're dealing with an even remotely known cast when they're laying down tens of millions of dollars on an action flick.
3) I wouldn't be surprised if that was the end case. Either way, it'll likely be a 135Mplus domestic film aka... it will at least be a moderately *successful* film. So, I don't really see how this disagrees with my article (I mentioned that it's "seemingly poised to be met with a box office success similar to that of 300"), but I do appreciate the point--and, you're probably right.
4) Great point, but you're reading into things far too much. I was providing an example of one way that producers talk and reason themselves out of a flop. If I were intending to imply that writers and directors are all, and always, innocent do-gooders, then I likely would have addressed the issue further.
P.S. This entire rebuttal sounds like I can't take criticism--and, I certainly can--I just happen to genuinely disagree (in some respects) with your own disagreements :)
2) This doesn't disagree with anything I've said, in fact you seem to be arguing with a point I never made, but was actually dismissed when I wrote: "So what? Isn’t it obvious that films sometimes perform poorly regardless of whom they star..." Regardless of whether a major movie ever "needs" stars, studios tend to put them in anyway--this article is about how that's completely unnecessary. Perhaps you should re-read it :). Big-name stars are almost never "the" attraction, as I already touched upon in my article, but rather they are "more likely the result of studios sweetening already buzz-worthy films with some seemingly buzz-worthy actors for the sake of selling DVD’s to the uninitiated elderly and foreign markets." So, regardless of what makes a movie attractive to moviegoers, WB still certainly learned that they don't have to be worried about whether they're dealing with an even remotely known cast when they're laying down tens of millions of dollars on an action flick.
3) I wouldn't be surprised if that was the end case. Either way, it'll still be 100M+, likely 135M+, domestic film aka... a rather *successful* film. So, I don't really see how this disagrees with my article (I mentioned that it's "seemingly poised to be met with a box office success similar to that of 300"), but I do appreciate the point--and, you're probably right.
4) Great point, but you're reading into things far too much. I was providing an example of one way studios try to write themselves out of a flop. If I were intending to imply that writers and directors are all, and always, innocent do-gooders, then I likely would have addressed the issue further.