No More Movie Stars
Filed under: General News — Michael Reynolds on February 3, 2008 @ 6:40 pm CET
Two movies. Both “monster” movies. One has a huge star. Maybe the biggest star in the world. In addition to a megastar in the lead, it has a megastar director. The biggest director in the world.
The other movie’s got no one you’ve heard of.
The star vehicle had a summer release. Humongous publicity and marketing. The other movie opened toward the end of January, a dead time in theaters.
So, which movie opened bigger? War of the Worlds, starring Tom Cruise and directed by Steven Spielberg? Or Cloverfield, starring Mike (who?) Vogel and directed by Matt (um…) Reeves?
Cloverfield takes the prize, 69 million to 65 million, in round numbers. War of the Worlds cost 5 times as much to make. 5 times! And given the gigantic slice of the gross taken by Tom Cruise to “open” the movie, to lend his “star power,” there’s no doubt at all that Cloverfield will make a much higher profit.
Who made Cloverfield? JJ Abrams. The Lost producer. A TV guy. You know who director Matt Reeves is? The guy who directed Felicity.
The movie star is dead. Dead. A corpse. Jim Carey, Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts, Russell Crowe, George Clooney, Johnny Depp, Will Farrell? They don’t pay their own way. They are money losers. They are a drag on a movie. Concept is king. When will Hollywood figure this out?
Well, part of Hollywood, the TV part, already has. Who the hell was James Gandolfini ten years ago? Not a star, that’s for sure. TV has figured out that we long ago stopped watching “stars” and started watching concepts. There was no major star attached to Sopranos, Lost, CSI, Desperate Housewives, 24 or Grey’s Anatomy. What those shows had was concept.
There were two major stars — Kelsey Grammr and Patricia Heaton — attached to the Fox sitcom Back to You, and you know what? No one gave a damn. Lesson taught yet again, to the slow few in TV.
Concept. Writing. Directing. Acting.
Stars? Not so much.
In this day and age, a studio executive who writes a 20 million dollar check and signs over a piece of the back end to any actor — any so-called star — is a damned fool. Period. Not only is the movie star not a guarantee of success, he is a destructive presence, a drag, a loser. Make the sign of the “L” on Tom Cruise’s forhead: he is a waste of money.
Top ten grossing pictures in 2007? In descending order: SpiderMan 3, Shrek the Third, Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean Yet Again, One More Harry Potter, I Am Legend, The Bourne Ultimatum, 300, National Treasure Book of Secrets and Ratatouille.
How many of those are, by any stretch, the result of star power? One: I Am Legend. Six are “pre-sold” sequels, none of which relied primarily on a then-established star in the first round. 300 was made for very little, starred no one, and had a 70 million opening. Transformers starred some toys, and opened at 70 million before racking up better than 300 million in b.o.. Ratatouille starred a rat. It opened with just under 47 million and broke 200 million domestic. A cartoon rat.
Mike Meyers isn’t the “star” of Shrek. You know who the star of Shrek is? Shrek. Shia LeBeouf isn’t the “star” of Transformers. Optimus Prime is the star of Transformers. Johnny Depp’s contribution to Pirates is not his star power, it’s his acting talent. Pay him for his phenomenal acting, but don’t pay him as a star to open your movie.
What’s the difference between a star and an actor, even when they are the same person? An actor is being paid for what he does. He’s being paid to act in a role. A star is being paid to ensure a big opening weekend. As an actor Depp is worth a lot. So is Cruise, for that matter. As stars, they’re both a waste of money. One is maybe a 5 million dollar deal, the other is many, many times more.
Look at the 2007 hits another way, and you have two comic books, two cartoons, a theme park ride, a kid’s book and a toy. Concepts. Not stars. Concepts. And who creates concepts? Who came up with the concepts that made all this lovely box office possible? Two kid’s book writers, (Shrek and Harry,) a toy maker, (Transformers,) a Disneyland imagineer, (Pirates,) a graphic novelist, (300.) A science fiction writer, (I Am Legend.) And of course, the great Stan Lee, (Spiderman.)
Not a star in the mix. The stars were utterly irrelevant. The actors were important, but the stars were irrelevant or worse. You know who really mattered? The writers and the directors.
More often than not, as in War of the Worlds, stars just got in the way and killed the bottom line.
It’s way past time for the movie end of Hollywood to figure out what the TV end learned long ago: concept stars, not movie stars. Something to remember as we see rumors that the writers may be coming back soon.
1 No More Movie Stars - PoliGazette | Search Celebrity
February 3, 2008 @ 7:30 pm CET[…] Original source Leave a gossip […]
2 Cloverfield » No More Movie Stars [PoliGazette]
February 3, 2008 @ 8:58 pm CET[…] lulzawmbee wrote an interesting post today on No More Movie Stars [PoliGazette]Here’s a quick excerptOr Cloverfield, starring Mike (who?) Vogel and directed by Matt (um…) Reeves? […]
3 Proman
February 3, 2008 @ 9:30 pm CETThis is an incredibly poorly written and researched article. FYI, “War of the World” will be a lot more profitable than “Cloverfield”. You should really research how the money is split between theaters and studios as well as how movies make revenue from TV rights, rentals and DVD sales.
4 michael reynolds
February 3, 2008 @ 9:40 pm CETProman:
If so, then make your case.
Cloverfield will gross at least what WoW did, but with a fifth the initial budget, (25 vs. 130 million) and neither Cruise nor Spielberg lined up to take a big chunk of the money. So explain to me — use words of a single syllable, because I’m obviously slow-witted — how WoW, with 100 million higher budget and 2 greedy megastars waiting to take big slices, makes more profit.
5 michael reynolds
February 3, 2008 @ 9:41 pm CETProman:
And by the way, we don’t have numbers on DVD sales yet, but I guarantee you Cruise and Spielberg have a bigger slice of that market than either JJ Abrams or any of the talent on Cloverfield.
6 kranky kritter
February 3, 2008 @ 10:02 pm CETMike Myers is definitely the star of Shrek. To suggest otherwise is laughable. Jack Sparrow?He’s the entire franchise, and no one else could do him like Depp. And while I’m not a big Cruise fan, I thought WotW was fantastic. It simply got an anti-Cruise/Spielberg discount. The wrongest thing about this silly post is the suggestion that there is only one way to git er done. Lots of stuff goes into making an entertaining film, and the better you do at maximizing your resources in all the areas, the better. Concept is "king?" Maybe, but it’s nothing without talent and execution. See I think the reason stars can get a bad rap is that film finance morons will green light crap if a star has been inked to the project. Even a star usually can’t make chicken shit from chicken salad. I tend to think content is king, and in movies content is concept, a well-written story, and good acting. That’s why so many comics have finally made it big, as well as things like LotR. A well-written and well-developed story that gets respected when converted to a movie tends to be a winner.
7 kranky kritter
February 3, 2008 @ 10:04 pm CETBTW, by comics I mean Spiderman etc, not Adam Sandler etc. Data from Adam Sandler etc ss upports the thesis that it’s moronic to greenlight a crappy idea beciase you inked someone talented or popular.
8 Jimmie
February 3, 2008 @ 11:33 pm CETMy suspicion is that there really aren’t many movie stars working in films anymore.
Look at the stars of yesteryear who did what we could safely call action movies: Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, Lee Marvin, Errol Flynn, or even someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Hanks, or Harrison Ford. Those guys could hold a camera’s gaze. When they were on screen, they captured your attention with how they delivered their lines, how they moved, their sheer screen presence.
Now who do we have? Matt Damon, Tom Cruise, Ben Affleck, Brad Pitt? None of these guys could hold a candle to anyone on the first list. They’re strictly second-string actors who can do romantic comedies but who are, essentially, interchangeable.
The only youngish actor working to day who I think could work with the real stars is Will Smith. He definitely has the chops to be a true leading man.
9 michael reynolds
February 4, 2008 @ 12:19 am CETMike Myers is definitely the star of Shrek. To suggest otherwise is laughable.
It’s a kid movie. Kids wouldn’t know Mike Meyers if he stole their popcorn. Mike Meyers is a mediocre SNL alum whose career has crashed. Any number of people could have voiced the movie and it would have done as well and made more money.
Jack Sparrow?He’s the entire franchise, and no one else could do him like Depp.
You’re missing the point. depp is a great actor. He’s great in the movies. But Depp does not "open" movies. I assume you understand the difference? It’s a question of whether audiences say "Let’s go see that new Depp movie." They don’t. As Sweeney Todd demonstrates pretty convincingly.
Before you call me names, at least understand the terminology.
In fact, what is particularly silly about your point is that Depp would be the first guy to shrink from the role of "star." He’s an actor. He knows the difference, even if you don’t.
The wrongest thing about this silly post is the suggestion that there is only one way to git er done. Lots of stuff goes into making an entertaining film, and the better you do at maximizing your resources in all the areas, the better. Concept is "king?" Maybe, but it’s nothing without talent and execution.
Which is why I wrote: "The stars were utterly irrelevant. The actors were important, but the stars were irrelevant or worse. You know who really mattered? The writers and the directors."
See I think the reason stars can get a bad rap is that film finance morons will green light crap if a star has been inked to the project. Even a star usually can’t make chicken shit from chicken salad.
Which is you arguing that stars are not able to open movies when other factors are not attended to, which is you arguing in support of my point. Thanks.
10 Cloverfield » No More Movie Stars
February 4, 2008 @ 1:01 am CET[…] LAS HORAS PERDIDAS - CRITICAS Y NOTICIAS DE CINE wrote an interesting post today on No More Movie StarsHere’s a quick excerptOr Cloverfield, starring Mike (who?) Vogel and directed by Matt (um…) Reeves? […]
11 Justin Gardner
February 4, 2008 @ 2:43 am CETMike, you should take a look at BoxOfficeMojo.com because War Of The Worlds made over half a billion worldwide on tickets sales alone. DVD sales were probably less than that, but it probably ended up making close to 3/4 of a billion. And given the love it/hate it response to Cloverfield, I doubt it’ll come anywhere close to WoW’s total. Still, it was a great film and I understand why you’re excited. I am too and I can’t wait to see what the filmmakers (who have already signed on for a sequel) have in store for us next.
12 michael reynolds
February 4, 2008 @ 3:14 am CETJustin:
We can’t compare worldwide BO because we don’t have the numbers for Cloverfield. There’s no telling how it will go, but for my money Cloverfield is a much better movie. WoW was a series of nice set pieces, but the movie had no heart, and the ending was lame.
In any event it’s unlikely to alter the math. Cruise had a standing deal at Paramount for 30% of gross. Yes, that’s not a mistype: 30%. Spielberg would have no doubt had a favored nations clause which at very least would put him close. So, let’s guess that between them they take half the studio’s gross.
Start with a production cost 5 times higher than Cloverfield, add probably 100 million marketing cost — far more than Cloverfield spent — plus the "star" take. Did it make a profit? Maybe. But that’s not the point. A "star" is supposed to "open" the movie. A star is supposed to do for a movie what a non-star cannot. He’s supposed to bring audience merely because of who he is. Cruise opened WoW below what no-names made for Cloverfield.
The issue with stars is not whether they are good actors, or even whether the movie made money. The issue is whether they are worth it in light of the bottom line. It’s profit not gross. The shareholders don’t get the gross, they get the profit. The evidence is strong that stars do not pay their way.
There’s a reason Sumner Redstone threw Cruise off the lot. He was already a drag on profitability of his movies, and when he went loopy he undercut that further.
13 michael reynolds
February 4, 2008 @ 3:23 am CETLet’s put it another way. Transformers opened bigger than War of the Worlds. So by the star logic Optimus Prime is a bigger star than Tom Cruise.
Transformers cost 150m to make and took in 700 worldwide. War cost 132m to make and made 590 worldwide. (These are BO, not DVD.) So right off the top, Transformers comes out ahead. Hand Cruise and Spielberg half of the studio take from that WoW gross and you can see the deleterious effect of stars on the bottom line. I’m pretty sure Optimus Prime didn’t get 30% off the top.
14 El Pollo Frito
February 4, 2008 @ 3:28 am CETLo cosa que you no entiendo es porque ustedes no pueden simplemente divertir las peliculas sin argumentar tanto como ninos jugando en el patio. Deja eso quieto ya y vaya con tu vida, carajo.
15 michael reynolds
February 4, 2008 @ 4:26 am CETEl Pollo:
Dos enchiladas con pollo, por favor, y uno Negro Modelo. Fria, eh, amigo? Gracias.
16 kreiz
February 4, 2008 @ 2:16 pm CETThe guy who plays Spiderman is a huge megastar, MR. Toby what’s his name, right? Big muscles, square jaw. Yeah, I remember.
So when does Hollywood wake up and realize that you’re right, MR? How long, how long?
In the meantime, let’s not forget their ability to crank out wonderful uplifting films like Atonement-the latest in a series of great hits like The Hours, The English Patient and Leaving Las Vegas. After all, when I think ‘entertainment’, I think suicide, depression and guilt.
17 kranky kritter
February 4, 2008 @ 8:29 pm CETMike, you’re WAY too committed to your overstated version of the thesis. There are plenty of good points to be made about the interaction of various factors in making a good film. But you’re obscuring them with your hyperbole that says there’s no such thing as a star, or star power anymore. That’s plainly false in a world where ultimately celebrity fuels so much of whole shebang. There’s an awfully obvious truism here, that a star cannot simply by sheer force of existence guarantee a great or financially profitable movie venture. You’re taking that simple fact to signify WAY more than it does.
18 Justin Gardner
February 4, 2008 @ 9:31 pm CETSorry Mike, the numbers aren’t behind you.
I see what you’re saying about Transformers, but the star there is Michael Bay. He’s a "Star Director" brand like Spielberg, Lucas and M. Night Shymalan. It’s also a movie that had heavy CGI, and those have been very lucrative in recent memory (more on that soon). Also the movie delivered the goods, and the end of the day, that’s really the most important part. Bad word of mouth can kill a film even if it has a mega star in it.
Also, just look at the top movies from nearly any year and it directly contradicts what you’re saying: http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
The <b>exceptions</b> are CGI kids film, which are enjoying massive successes at the BO year after year. But those films nearly always use the voices of recognizable stars, so one could argue they have star power backing them too.
Listen, Cloverfield is great, and more films like it will get funded. I have no doubt about that, but I heard the same broad proclamations about Blair Witch back in ‘99. It didn’t happen.
Also, you can look at Cloverfield’s BO numbers and get a decent gauge of where it’ll end up. Most films make something like 80% of their final gross in the first 2 weeks of release. Cloverfield’s first weekend it made $39 million domestically, a great opening. However, lukewarm word of mouth hurt it and the next weekend it made just $12M. For the first 14 days of its release, it has made around $67M. This last weekend it made $5M. The total domestic gross will probably come in around $90 or so. Worldwide receipts may be able to push it up around $200M, but I don’t really think it’ll do much more business than that.
Back to "star power", at the end of the day there are some people moviegoers just like to see, and although Cruise’s star may be fading due to his loyalty to the Church of Scientology, somebody will eventually replace him. All signs point to Will Smith, who took the mediocre I Am Legend and propelled it to over $250M.
Thoughts?
19 BJ
February 4, 2008 @ 11:45 pm CETI think you picked some really bad examples for your thesis here, Michael. The fact that a piece of shit like War of the Worlds brought in the money it did is a clear example of the earning power of movies that have big names attached to it.
Same movie directed by a nobody and starring no-0ne? No way it makes a fraction of the money it did. (In truth, it probably wouldn’t have been made, which is a pretty good argument against star vehicles in its own right.)