Hollywood's Star Power Failure
2003-08-04 03:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archershipshttp://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cx_da_0619stars.html
Hollywood's Star Power Failure
Dan Ackman, 06.19.03, 6:30 PM ET
NEW YORK - Celebrities may sell magazines, but they don't sell movie tickets. A year ago, we postulated that movie stars are vastly overrated in terms of their box office clout. Now, we've got statistical proof: Our study of more than 200 recent films revealed that fewer than half of the highest-grossing hits featured a star.
That's nothing new: Since 1975, when Jaws inaugurated the blockbuster era with an animatronic fish in the title role, half of Hollywood's most popular movies have lacked a flesh-and-blood star (see "The Myth Of Stars").
While movie stars are synonymous with box office, it has long been the case that the biggest movies of all, whether E.T., Star Wars or Jurassic Park, don't necessarily need them. In recent years, Spider-Man and the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings films fit this pattern as well: plenty of action and special effects, but no stars.
More surprising was My Big Fat Greek Wedding, which has grossed $241 million to date without stars and without special effects. (For purposes of this story, we define a star as an actor who has already had top billing in at least one movie that grossed at least $60 million. Tobey Maguire, for instance, wasn't a star before he played Spider-Man, though he is one now.)
"Ocean's Eleven" was long forgotten, but Clooney and Pitt revived interest.
In Hollywood, of course, stars are needed not so much because they pull people in, but because they push movies out. Without a recognizable name, it is vastly more difficult to get a green light from a studio or financing based on the presales of international territories. Remaking Ocean's Eleven, a mediocre movie that did modest business, may sound like a lousy idea; but remaking it with George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts--as AOL Time Warner (nyse: AOL - news - people ) did--that's a no-brainer. When it winds up grossing $183 million in the U.S. alone, that's genius!
Star-Driven Hits
Movie Studio Stars U.S. Box Office* ($mil)
Men in Black II (2002) Columbia Tommy Lee Jones, Will Smith $192.6
Catch Me If You Can (2002) DreamWorks Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks 164.4
Bruce Almighty (2003) Universal Jim Carrey 171.4
Hannibal (2001) MGM and Universal Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore 165
Anger Management (2003) Columbia Adam Sandler, Jack Nicholson 133.4
Bringing Down The House (2003) Walt Disney Steve Martin, Queen Latifah 130.8
*All grosses as of June 10, 2003. Source: Boxofficereport.com
Indeed, inside Hollywood, stars are defined largely in terms of their bankability--that is, their ability to attract money to a project. The studios know that stars cannot guarantee box office success, but they can safeguard against the downside risk. A star is a form of insurance.
For that reason, most movies do have stars, and these big-name actors do seem to provide some form of protection. The protection is highly imperfect, however, and stars grace even the worst flops. Sometimes, to borrow a phrase from Sam Goldwyn, the people stay away in droves, star or no star.
Since the start of 2001, 252 movies (not counting animated features) have earned at least $10 million at the U.S. box office, according to data provided by Daniel Garis of Boxofficereport.com. One hundred and fifty six, or 62%, feature at least one star. But stars are less prominent at the top of the heap. Of the 36 top hits that grossed $125 million or more, just 16, or 44.4%, had stars.
In the middle of the pack, stars were more present, giving credence to the insurance theory. Twenty-nine films grossed between $75 million and $125 million, and 72.4% of these featured a star.
Neither Angelina Jolie nor Ed Burns could make "Life" worth watching.
But a star--or even two--is no guarantee. A studio can hire Pierce Brosnan and Geoffrey Rush, and buy a book by John Le Carré, and still bomb, as Sony's (nyse: SNE - news - people ) Columbia Pictures did with The Tailor of Panama.
All told, 56.8% of the worst flops--films that grossed less than $20 million--had a star and failed nonetheless.
Star-Studded Flops
Movie Studio Stars U.S. Box Office* ($mil)
View from the Top (2003) Walt Disney Gwyneth Paltrow $13.6
Life, Or Something Like It (2002) 20th Century Fox Angelina Jolie, Edward Burns 14.44
Rock Star (2002) Warner Bros. Mark Wahlberg, Jennifer Aniston 16.99
The In-Laws (2003) Warner Bros. Michael Douglas, Albert Brooks 17.9
The Life of David Gale (2003) Universal Kevin Spacey, Kate Winslet 19.59
Hollywood's Star Power Failure
Dan Ackman, 06.19.03, 6:30 PM ET
NEW YORK - Celebrities may sell magazines, but they don't sell movie tickets. A year ago, we postulated that movie stars are vastly overrated in terms of their box office clout. Now, we've got statistical proof: Our study of more than 200 recent films revealed that fewer than half of the highest-grossing hits featured a star.
That's nothing new: Since 1975, when Jaws inaugurated the blockbuster era with an animatronic fish in the title role, half of Hollywood's most popular movies have lacked a flesh-and-blood star (see "The Myth Of Stars").
While movie stars are synonymous with box office, it has long been the case that the biggest movies of all, whether E.T., Star Wars or Jurassic Park, don't necessarily need them. In recent years, Spider-Man and the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings films fit this pattern as well: plenty of action and special effects, but no stars.
More surprising was My Big Fat Greek Wedding, which has grossed $241 million to date without stars and without special effects. (For purposes of this story, we define a star as an actor who has already had top billing in at least one movie that grossed at least $60 million. Tobey Maguire, for instance, wasn't a star before he played Spider-Man, though he is one now.)
"Ocean's Eleven" was long forgotten, but Clooney and Pitt revived interest.
In Hollywood, of course, stars are needed not so much because they pull people in, but because they push movies out. Without a recognizable name, it is vastly more difficult to get a green light from a studio or financing based on the presales of international territories. Remaking Ocean's Eleven, a mediocre movie that did modest business, may sound like a lousy idea; but remaking it with George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts--as AOL Time Warner (nyse: AOL - news - people ) did--that's a no-brainer. When it winds up grossing $183 million in the U.S. alone, that's genius!
Star-Driven Hits
Movie Studio Stars U.S. Box Office* ($mil)
Men in Black II (2002) Columbia Tommy Lee Jones, Will Smith $192.6
Catch Me If You Can (2002) DreamWorks Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks 164.4
Bruce Almighty (2003) Universal Jim Carrey 171.4
Hannibal (2001) MGM and Universal Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore 165
Anger Management (2003) Columbia Adam Sandler, Jack Nicholson 133.4
Bringing Down The House (2003) Walt Disney Steve Martin, Queen Latifah 130.8
*All grosses as of June 10, 2003. Source: Boxofficereport.com
Indeed, inside Hollywood, stars are defined largely in terms of their bankability--that is, their ability to attract money to a project. The studios know that stars cannot guarantee box office success, but they can safeguard against the downside risk. A star is a form of insurance.
For that reason, most movies do have stars, and these big-name actors do seem to provide some form of protection. The protection is highly imperfect, however, and stars grace even the worst flops. Sometimes, to borrow a phrase from Sam Goldwyn, the people stay away in droves, star or no star.
Since the start of 2001, 252 movies (not counting animated features) have earned at least $10 million at the U.S. box office, according to data provided by Daniel Garis of Boxofficereport.com. One hundred and fifty six, or 62%, feature at least one star. But stars are less prominent at the top of the heap. Of the 36 top hits that grossed $125 million or more, just 16, or 44.4%, had stars.
In the middle of the pack, stars were more present, giving credence to the insurance theory. Twenty-nine films grossed between $75 million and $125 million, and 72.4% of these featured a star.
Neither Angelina Jolie nor Ed Burns could make "Life" worth watching.
But a star--or even two--is no guarantee. A studio can hire Pierce Brosnan and Geoffrey Rush, and buy a book by John Le Carré, and still bomb, as Sony's (nyse: SNE - news - people ) Columbia Pictures did with The Tailor of Panama.
All told, 56.8% of the worst flops--films that grossed less than $20 million--had a star and failed nonetheless.
Star-Studded Flops
Movie Studio Stars U.S. Box Office* ($mil)
View from the Top (2003) Walt Disney Gwyneth Paltrow $13.6
Life, Or Something Like It (2002) 20th Century Fox Angelina Jolie, Edward Burns 14.44
Rock Star (2002) Warner Bros. Mark Wahlberg, Jennifer Aniston 16.99
The In-Laws (2003) Warner Bros. Michael Douglas, Albert Brooks 17.9
The Life of David Gale (2003) Universal Kevin Spacey, Kate Winslet 19.59
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 01:00 pm (UTC)isn't it odd to say that unit shifting movies don't need a star, but that once you have had top billing in one you qualify as a star?
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 10:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-05 11:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 01:01 pm (UTC)I think audiences -- maybe a result of aging, maybe simply boredom -- want to see stories with characters they can care about. And those types of films don't need "stars" to get people into the theater...
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 10:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 10:45 pm (UTC)I'm not sure it's "irrationality" per se that's the problem. There is a strong sense of adhering to the "tried and true." Therefore, "stars" are a known quantity. Obviously, this line of reasoning goes, they will draw audience to the theaters. It hardly matters that it isn't borne out by fact. There's a certain prestige in saying you're producing the latest Afleck film (I guess, even though the man can't act...)
This same reasoning is why we have so many dreadful films churned out that are exorbitantly expensive. There's a saying that no one ever lost his job by recommending IBM. The same is true in Hollywood. No one loses his job by going against the "accepted wisdom." As a result, the same crap gets made and re-made, because it's guaranteed to have some kind of audience. It hardly matters if they get into the black during the American theatrical release. Video rentals, DVD sales, and foreign box office will more than make up the difference. And even if they don't... eh?!?
But there is a growing backlash to the formulaic garbage that has been the mainstay of Hollywood for the last 10-20 years. I'm hearing from common folk that they want stories, they want likeable characters, they want storytelling techniques that screenwriting books and teachers instruct writers to avoid (like flashback and voiceover, and starting in the middle...).
It's heartening to see the rise of independent films -- "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" has now made over $240 million. Not amazingly stellar returns for a Hollywood blockbuster, but this was a small budget film... Imagine the return on investment for that?
Now if I can only come up with financing for my own scripts, I wouldn't have to go begging to the studios, nor would I have to allow my scripts to be subjected to being butchered (as they will if the studios get hold of them)... All I'd have to worry about is getting a distribution deal in place, and that's actually do-able...
What's the answer? Vote with your dollars. Don't see crap. Support well-written films.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-05 03:47 am (UTC)Would it not work the same way in films?
no subject
Date: 2003-08-05 09:49 am (UTC)Nevertheless movie people (generally) just don't grasp simple things like, movies should be good. V And no matter who's in them, if they're bad people often notice.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-05 10:07 am (UTC)Anyway, yes... the bottom line is even "gullible teens" will only sit through so much crap. That's why ticket sales are down even though revenue is up. (Don't even get me started on comparing gross receipts to number of tickets sold...)
Hollywood long ago lost the middle-aged crowd in theaters, and now even the young adults are straying. What everyone wants are good stories. Duh!
But there are certain accepted rules in tinsel town. Audiences don't like tragedy. (Therefore, the happy ending is mandatory.)
Who decided this? Based on what? Obviously not based on reason, because Romeo and Juliet is one of the most tragic stories ever told (okay, right behind Hamlet, in which everyone dies...). Shakespeare has been read, studied, and performed non-stop since he penned those plays over four hundred years ago... Maybe that's because people understand tragedy better than Hollywood gives them credit for doing.