Comments on: No More Movie Stars

By: BJ

BJ — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:45:48 +0000

I 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.)

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:31:13 +0000

Sorry 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 exceptions 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?

By: kranky kritter

kranky kritter — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:29:31 +0000

Mike, 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.

By: kreiz

kreiz — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:16:36 +0000

The 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.

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 03:26:49 +0000

El Pollo:
Dos enchiladas con pollo, por favor, y uno Negro Modelo. Fria, eh, amigo? Gracias.

By: El Pollo Frito

El Pollo Frito — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:28:43 +0000

Lo 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.

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:23:08 +0000

Let’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.

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:14:46 +0000

Justin:

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.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 01:43:15 +0000

Mike, 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.

By: Cloverfield » No More Movie Stars

Cloverfield » No More Movie Stars — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:01:50 +0000

[...] 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? [...]