Is the Hollywood Movie Star a Dying Breed?
Are movie studios finally getting the message that original concept and well-told stories are more profitable than expensive run-of-the-mill star vehicles? This past weekend, we saw the much hyped Jennifer Aniston vehicle The Bounty Hunter pull out a measly $20.7 million on its opening weekend. This would be a fairly good opening weekend for many movies until you realize that it was outperformed by Alice in Wonderland which is in its third week as well as Diary of a Wimpy Kid, a children movie that was made with half the budget and almost no marketing or star power whatsoever.
Sinking to new lows, oh and worse: she is single at 41!
The Bounty Hunter, made on a $40 million production budget, saw very heavy marketing and hype leading up to its release which makes its demise even more humiliating than its 8% Rotten Tomatoes score. It will most likely not even recoup its total cost and joins the long line of movies that boast a high profile movie star and ended up under-performing at the box office. Over the past year, we have seen that most of the top grossing movies did not have a bona-fide movie star. Avatar, the highest grossing movie to date, had a decent cast of familiar names but none of them were A-list movie stars when the movie was released. Same story with Transformers 2, Up, The Hangover, Star Trek, or District 9.
TABLE 1: MOVIE STAR VEHICLE FLOPS OF 2009
| FILM | US BOX OFFICE | BUDGET | MOVIE STAR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did you Hear about the Morgans? | $29.58 millions | $58 million | Sarah Jessica Parker, Hugh Grant |
| Surrogates | $38.58 millions | $80 million | Bruce Willis |
| Duplicity | $40.57 millions | $60 million | Julia Roberts |
| Year One | $43.33 millions | $60 million | Jack Black, Michael Cera |
| Land of the Lost | $49.44 millions | $100 million | Will Ferrell |
| Funny People | $51.86 millions | $75 million | Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen |
| The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 | $65.45 millions | $100 million | Denzel Washington, John Travolta |
| Terminator Salvation | $125.32 millions | $200 million | Christian Bale |
| Angels and Demons | $133.37 millions | $150 million | Tom Hanks |
TABLE 1A: TOP 15 GROSSING MOVIES OF 2009
| MOVIE | US BOX OFFICE | MOVIE STAR? | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Avatar | $736.9 million | No |
| 2 | Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen | $402.1 million | No |
| 3 | Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince | $302.0 million | Negligible |
| 4 | The Twilight Saga: New Moon | $296.6 million | Negligible |
| 5 | Up | $293.0 million | No |
| 6 | The Hangover | $277.3 million | No |
| 7 | Star Trek | $257.7 million | No |
| 8 | The Blind Side | $254.3 million | Yes, Sandra Bullock |
| 9 | Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel | $218.7 million | No |
| 10 | Sherlock Holmes | $207.5 million | Yes, Robert Downey Jr |
| 11 | Monster vs. Aliens | $198.3 million | No |
| 12 | Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs | $196.6 million | No |
| 13 | X-Men Origins: Wolverine | $179.9 million | No |
| 14 | Night at the Museum 2 | $177.2 million | Yes, Ben Stiller |
| 15 | 2012 | $166.1 million | No |
First thing first, what is a movie star and how do they differ from actors? Simply put, when you watch an actor’s actor perform, you are watching a character. Most of the time, when you watch a movie star perform, you are watching Tom Cruise, George Clooney, Jennifer Aniston or whoever that may be. They are basically playing a version of themselves with slight variations in appearance, voice or persona. Michael Caine had a fantastic quote that I often go back to:
“The difference between a movie star and a movie actor is a movie star gets a script — movie star Michael Caine gets a script and he says, “Now how can I change this script. It’s not quite Michael Caine. I’ve got to change it.” And they say things like, “Michael Caine wouldn’t wear that kind of thing. Michael Caine wouldn’t say that to a girl. Michael Caine wouldn’t drive that sort of car. So we’ll have to edit the script.” And everyone says, “Oh, of course, Michael, we’ll change all that.” They change the script to suit them. A movie actor, he changes himself to suit the script. He wears glasses, puts on a fat belly, gains weight, loses weight, grows a beard, moustache, any bloody thing.”
WOOHOO! Now I can make rom-coms for the rest of my life!!!!
A movie star is someone who can draw audiences and whose sole presence in a movie is expected to significantly affect how profitable a movie is going to be. The so-called A-list is not some fancy subjective list that anyone can make up with big names that they like (sorry!). It is a 100-pt method called the Ulmer Scale that ranks actors in terms of their financial profitability and is (still) used by industry insiders to finance motion pictures. Generally, movie stars can generate so much revenues that the quality of the film itself is not the main driver in terms of profitability. As Caine said in the quote above, movie stars like Will Smith, Tom Cruise, Reese Witherspoon, Tom Hanks, Adam Sandler, or George Clooney are some of the highest paid Hollywood stars because they can fill the seats, simply by playing a variation of themselves over and over and over again. You watch them in interviews, talk shows and movies, their persona doesn’t vary much, if at all but people love them! Movie stars mostly play in high profile, high budget Hollywood vehicles although they may try something different every once in a while.
On the other hand, an actor plays a wide range of character and actively seeks to expand his craft. Although the actor’s presence may draw some audiences, it is not the primary factor in how a movie fares at the box office. You will usually see actors straddle the line between higher profile movies and low budget arthouse-type productions. They are the ones who end up playing supporting roles next to your big movie stars, revel in ensemble cast movies, and disappear into lower budget movie characters. More than being bankable or not, being an actor or a movie star is also a state of mind. Some actors desire to become movie stars while others have no interest in that and revel in acting as a skill and form of art. The opposite is also true and some movie stars eventually become actors as they get older much like Michael Caine’s metamorphosis over several decades.
The Quintessential Actor: Daniel Day Lewis
Forbes compiled a list of the top 10 most bankable actors and actresses relative to their salaries and the overall budget of each of their movies. The return on investment (ROI) shows how much a particular actor returns for each dollar he or she is paid. What is striking is that it diverges significantly from expectations of who should be on that list and doesn’t include as many people that we would refer to as bona-fide “movie stars”. The actors who offer the bigger return on investment are often the ones who are paid more modestly and tend to make lower budget movies that end up doing better than expected at the box office.
TABLE 2: FORBES’ MOST BANKABLE ACTORS AND ACTRESSES
| Actors (08/24/2009) | ROI | Actresses (10/05/2009) | ROI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Shia LaBeouf | $160:1 | 1 | Naomi Watts | $44:1 |
| 2 | James McAvoy | $114:1 | 2 | Jennifer Connelly | $41:1 |
| 3 | Michael Cera | $102:1 | 3 | Rachel McAdams | $30:1 |
| 4 | Daniel Radcliffe | $93:1 | 4 | Natalie Portman | $28:1 |
| 5 | Robert Downey Jr. | $78:1 | 5 | Meryl Streep | $27:1 |
| 6 | Javier Bardem | $73:1 | 6 | Jennifer Aniston | $26:1 |
| 7 | Ryan Reynolds | $61:1 | 7 | Halle Berry | $23:1 |
| 8 | Christian Bale | $55:1 | 8 | Cate Blanchette | $23:1 |
| 9 | Aaron Eckhart | $45:1 | 9 | Anne Hathaway | $23:1 |
| 10 | Dennis Quaid | $43:1 | 10 | Hillary Swank | $23:1 |
Most people do not go to Transformers to see Shia LaBeouf incredible portrayal of Sam Witwicky or flock to Juno to watch Michael Cera fantastic range. People are there to watch robots blowing each others up or to see a witty comedy. Naomi Watts and Jennifer Connelly are talented actresses but they definitely do not strike as people you would think are bankable. James McAvoy, Rachel McAdams and Natalie Portman are young thespians who tend to avoid being in the spotlight and don’t seem to be interested in movie stardom. The first real movie stars who appear on the list are Robert Downey Jr. at #5 and Jennifer Aniston at #6 (in bold). Where are the Tom Cruise, George Clooney and Johnny Depp of the world? If you think about it, it does make sense though. Shelling out $15, 20, 30+ million for the lead actor may be the single biggest expense on a movie budget and it is more and more difficult to recoup the cost as the budget increases and I think movie studios are starting to realize that they can be much more profitable without having to spend as much money on a single actor. Next, look at the Forbes’ most overpaid actors using the same method. Almost exclusively people considered movie stars:
TABLE 3: FORBES’ MOST OVERPAID HOLLYWOOD ACTORS
| Most Overpaid | Actors (11/18/2009) | ROI | Movie Star? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Will Ferrell | 3.29:1 | Y |
| 2 | Ewan McGregor | 3.75:1 | N |
| 3 | Billy Bob Thornton | 4:1 | N |
| 4 | Eddie Murphy | 4.43:1 | Y |
| 5 | Ice Cube | 4.77:1 | ??? |
| 6 | Tom Cruise | 7.18:1 | Y |
| 7 | Drew Barrymore | 7.43:1 | Y |
| 8 | Leonardo DiCaprio | 7.52:1 | Y |
| 9 | Samuel L. Jackson | 8.59:1 | Y |
| 10 | Jim Carrey | 8.62:1 | Y |
I rest my case!
So what do you think? Is the era of the movie star coming to an end? Are the higher end movie stars overpaid? Let it be known in the comments!
40 Comments
The primary reason those star vehicles flopped was because they were subpar movies.
The Proposal and Blind Side could just as easily be used to prove stars are still valid.
Wow I posted this barely a couple minutes ago, that was fast! I think you are missing the point of the post though. Star vehicles flop now and then, that comes with the terrain but even when they do well, the return on investment is small because the cost are so huge. As shown, last year, many of the top grossing movies didn’t have a bona-fide movie star and still went on to make huge amount of money.
I understood what you were saying, I was merely noting you could have gone several years back instead of just the past year. 2009′s flops were predominantly because the stories were awful.
Star vehicles are becoming a thing of the past.
I think the Bounty Hunter will easily make its money back by the time its theatrical run is over, but it prob won’t make 3:1+ ratio they would have liked. Then again Aniston and Butler both are in that “holy crap is there a movie they’re not in” black hole for actors and actresses. I give both their careers 5-8 more years tops if they don’t make something noteworthy soon.
It’s a nice premise, but I think too much of it has to do with what we consider star power to be. We’ve become so saturated with “celebrities” with all the reality shows, it seems to have spiked the cost big name actors are demanding. I’m thinking the $20m actors are weighing down the industry, and that’s allowed big budget vehicles to use cheaper quasi-names like Shia Lebouf to sustain interest.
Movies like The Bounty Hunter are supposed to be the bread and butter of the movie industry. A movie in its cost range and given the marketing basically needs to get 2x production cost just to break even.
I’m with you that the top echelon of movie stars are weighting down the industry but I will go farther and state that they are also responsible for all the crap movies that get released at an industrial pace. Because their mere presence almost guarantees the movie will make money, quality suffers and we get more craptastic movies instead of quality productions.
That’s a great article. It really is.
That’s all I have to say other than perhaps register my surprise that Ice Cube is a least bankable actor? I know his movies flop, but how much did they pay him for the “Are We [Verb] Yet?” movies? I wouldn’t be forking over $10m for him to star in my family tentpole.
“The Bounty Hunter” will bring back the money when it starts showing around the world and from the DVD market as well.
I need to make a post about when a movie breaks even but I doubt it will bring back $75 or $80 million which is approximately where break even is. One must realize that production cost is only a fraction of the total cost. There is also pre and post-production cost such as marketing (expensive!), distribution (expensive too!). Movie theaters, distributors etc all get their part of the pie and the studio only gets what’s left.
I almost wished TBH doesn’t break even because mediocre (read: awful) films should NOT be rewarded! Hopefully that’ll get GB to move on to better things even if it means smaller paycheck! You’re right Castor, the production cost isn’t the only thing to account for. Judging for how many banner ads I saw of that flick, I’d say it’s quite expensive to market it.
It’s funny that Jennifer Connelly and Naomi Watts are the two highest on that list, because I kind of think that each could play the other if she only put on a blonde/brunette wig.
The natural next step in this discussion is the idea that studios may be able to do away with actors entirely, one day. If, as you say, a movie does not need a bankable actor to succeed, why need an actor at all? Or maybe just a star’s voice, which comes a lot more cheaply, with a digitally created character? Perhaps Avatar is the future indeed … except, ironically, that was NOT a particularly good story.
Unrelated, but thought you wanted to know Chris Evans isconfirmed as the Captain
http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/03/22/confirmed-chris-evans-is-captain-america/
Thanks for the heads up!
@ Darren: Thank you sir! I definitely was surprised to see Ice Cube on the list ahaha
@ Vancetastic: Interesting idea. In Avatar, all the actors had to work just as hard even though their characters were computer generated so I don’t think we are close to getting rid of actors at this point. I’m not saying that the studios don’t need bankable actors. They just don’t need the higher end movie stars if they are going to be that expensive
Studios should reconsider how profitable/costly some of their choices in terms of casting can be.
I was thinking the same thing the other day and you know interestingly enough it’s also happening in a way in non-Hollywood cinema, where obviously there has never been a big movie star culture but you still recognize a face or two and people stand out relying on star charm.
I think with the rise of the blockbuster, the disappearance of Julia and the Toms and the creation of exchangeable character series, as opposed to actors becoming the character, the disappearance of star culture is at risk.
But then something like the Pattinson mania appears out of the blue and everything we think becomes irrelevant.
I don’t know if the movie star era is coming to an end because this past weekened I sat through The Bounty Hunter for one reason: Jennifer Aniston. I’m usually not somebody who is obsessed with stars, but the ocassional movie star (Julia Roberts, Jennifer Aniston, Leonardo DiCaprio) can get me into a theater on their name alone. If there are more people like me, which I assume there are, then I think the movie star era will continue, if only on a smaller scale.
The thing is Duplicity is actually a good movie.
I beg to differ Andrew, sorry, but that thing is a bore. Neither Roberts nor Owen can save this flick, prove that star power – decent script = mediocre flick!
Great article! I love talking about this sort of phenomenon.
As far as the age of the movie star ending, I think that until Hancock sort of ruined things, Will Smith was the reigning king of movie stars the past couple decades. And as far as the one to take over for Julia Roberts and Meg Ryan, it seemed like Reese Witherspoon was poised to do so until post-Walk the Line, she sort of slipped away from fame. I rest happy in the thought that it seems the new age of movie stars are actually great actors – Robert Downey, Jr. and Meryl Streep come to mind as part of the new Movie Actor-Star hybrid.
@ Jose: I don’t think star mania will disappear in the foreseeable future but I could see those upper-end movie stars gradually becoming less attractive for movie makers and hence their stardom will decline some.
@ Jude: Thanks for commenting and welcome! I totally agree with you that movie stars will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. People will always have some sort of fascination for a life they don’t have. I only see the upper range of movie stars who might be at risk of being “downgraded”
@ Andrew: I can’t agree or disagree about it, I haven’t seen it yet
Definitely possible that some good movies don’t get good traffic. It happens almost every week.
@ Luke: Thank you sir! Will Smith is still the only actor I think can open anything and everything. Hancock was a mediocre movie but it still racked very good box office numbers. As for Reese Witherspoon, I’m very disappointed that she hasn’t done anything noteworthy since winning her Oscar. That’s exactly what I feared would happen and now she is just playing it safe with her usual rom-coms. Hope she challenges herself again soon, she was at her best playing in those little indies productions.
Great article, good food for thought!
I have never been very captivated by movie stars, because I think they actually distract from the story. When I watch a movie, I want to be entranced by the world, the plot, and the characters. Having a movie star like Tom Cruise actually distances me from the film, because then I’m just watching “Tom Cruise as…” which is stupid. It is much more entertaining and awe-inspiring to see an actor become a character (in this case it is quite interesting to see how Johnny Depp seems to straddle the movie star and movie actor line). For example, I love Daniel Day-Lewis for the fact that every time you see him he is something completely different; he disappears so completely into his role. Robert Downey Jr. too, is brilliant (although he too seems to straddle the line).
I think some new “serious” actors these days are realising that being labelled as a “movie star” is actually going to be detrimental to their careers, because then they are more likely to be typecast, and so they are trying to stay away from it. I don’t know, that’s kind of how I see actors like James McAvoy or Marion Cotillard or Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It seems like they’d rather stay out of the limelight and concentrate on the work instead of on their star quality, and therefore their public personas don’t get so ingrained in the public consciousness, leaving them free to adapt and change to each character they play.
Excellent point Kirsten. It’s fairly easy to recognize who wants to be a movie star from the people who want to be actors first and foremost. Like I said in the article, some actors want to become movie stars and they don’t mind signing up for any big Hollywood production as long as it gives them exposure and a fat paycheck.
Others are more selective and mindful of what kind of role they sign up for: they are the ones who will try new genre, often play different characters, mingle on the indie scene every now and then, and don’t mind taking supporting roles in a nice cast. They will also play by the rules of Hollywood and be part of a larger budget Hollywood film. There is nothing wrong with that. Take the paycheck and go back to develop yourself as an actor. Actions speak louder than anything else.
Yes, which brings to mind Paul Bettany. After he found success in films like The Knight’s Tale and A Beautiful Mind he turned down bigger budget films to be in Dogville, which was extremely indie.
You never cease to amaze me, Castor, yet another thought-provoking post! I for one am glad the movie star is a dying breed. I mean, every once in a while I see a movie ‘because’ of a certain actor, but they’re actually NOT the movie star category like Cruise/Pitt/Clooney, but more like Day-Lewis or Christian Bale. RDJ is probably one of the rare breed of movie stars who fits into the ‘actor’ mold who ‘plays a wide range of character and actively seeks to expand his craft.’
Kristen, your argument that ‘some new “serious” actors these days are realising that being labelled as a “movie star” is actually going to be detrimental to their careers’ is exactly what I wish NOT to happen to Gerard Butler.
Thank you Ruth! I absolutely share your feeling about seeing some actors but not the upper end movie stars. It just gets boring real quick to see what amounts to the same person being in a different situation or background. That’s pretty much what some of those movie stars are doing.
Actors I HAVE to see their movies in at the moment: Still Brad Pitt, what can I say? Christian Bale, Edward Norton, Sigourney Weaver, and Leonardo DiCaprio who consistently makes amazing films. Of these actors I only occasionally am disappointed in their roles.
If you look at comedians careers. Their best comic films are usually in their earlier career and then things go in the pooper, to eventually where they stop making original films and start starring in family films or RomComs, and still they are expected to play the same character or a ridiculous idiot. Jim Carrey has tried to stray away from this and while hasn’t been wholly successful at least has pulled himself away from Ace Ventura. This is why I think Will Ferrell is so high on the “I SUCK” list. ha.
The Michael Caine quote has it in a nutshell and unfortunately some of those big names can do more (Tom Cruise, Will Smith, etc….) but some like Julia Roberts, Aniston, Adam Sandler, and George Clooney don’t have the ability to do more.
I’m willing to say goodbye to the movie stars and hello to a world where it’s more about the movie and less about them.
Insanely awesome article Castor.
Thanks Heather! I also enjoy Christian Bale although he had somewhat morphed into a movie star as of late but he is moving back in the right direction with an upcoming romantic drama with Terrence Malick. I really enjoyed his turn in The New World so I’m very glad to see them reunite. Personally, I like to follow Russell Crowe, Bale, Gary Oldman and Ed Harris. On the ladies side, I only go out of my way for Amy Adams and Rachel McAdams. As you can see, no big movie star although some could argue Crowe is, but almost all his movies are actually critically acclaimed
I would put Crowe up there too. If it weren’t for him (and Ridley Scott I suppose) there would be no way I’d be going to see Robin Hood.
I have to agree about Will Smith. He still makes consistently good or at the very least entertaining movies and people line up in droves to see them.
I’m rather surprised to see that Will Smith didn’t end up on the most bankable chart. Of the past decade, one could argue that Will Smith was the only TRUE movie star that cinema had. Did “Seven Pounds” really bring his numbers down that much?
But I agree with you Castor on how little some people realize how much money a movie has to make to break even. You said 2x the production cost, but I’ve always been told it was 2.5x the production cost. Oh, that movie made $200 million at the box office, did it? Well too bad the production cost was $150 mil, so it still fell $175 mil short of what it needed to. And to somewhat tie into another point, with all the distribution costs and theatre costs, I think the number out there is that only about 10% of the nation’s theaters are able to make anything close to a profit from the movies they bring in. That’s why concessions cost as much as they do.
And while I agree with everything that you are trying to get at here Castor, there are times where the movie making money is misinterpreted, which leads to the Paul Blarts and the Alvin and the Chipmunks in the world. Here is an interesting article that I found back in November that talks about how studios think primarily in money rather than art.
http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-brightest-2009/ryan-kavanaugh-1209-2
Here’s a quote that will wet your whistle, and if you are like me, it just might enrage you;
“Do you know how many people saw The Assassination of Jesse James?” Kavanaugh asks, referring to one of his most beautiful early efforts. “You and seven other people. Paul Blart grossed nearly $200 million worldwide. I’ll take Paul Blart all day, every day.”
Of course Hollywood is all about the bottom line and Kavanaugh is a former venture capitalist so no surprise that he loves money more than he loves movies. Though according to that article, he seems to love movies ‘a bit more’ than other studio honchos. Hence, he backed ‘Brothers’ despite its lack of box office appeal. I’ve been reading quite a few things about this guy, he is ruthless but still fascinating nonetheless given his young age. I’m quite surprised he loved ‘Somewhere in Time’ which is one of my personal faves.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I think Hollywood would need a bit of both (the Paul Blart kind and the artsy indie kind) in order to survive. Just like actors can’t survive on tiny indie movies all the time and there’s nothing wrong with signing up for something that’s financially-rewarding. But I sure hope that those $20 million dollar salaries are over, they should use that $$$ to find great scripts/screenwriters instead!
How much to have Kavanaugh killed?
Will Smith is definitely the biggest movie star of them all. The crowds would come to watch him even if it was a movie about him watching TV. I guess he did not make the list simply because of the humongous fee he commands as well as the fact that he tends to star in very expensive movie hence the profitability is reduced even if the box office number looks good on paper.
I am definitely aware that the studios think in terms of money Red! We have gone over this many times
Financing movies relies heavily on WHO is going to be in a movie. The simple fact that a certain movie star has the lead role can easily be the difference between a film that gets the green light or a script that rots in the vaults for the next 2 decades. Studios even force certain movie stars on directors even though they are not his primary choices for a lead role simply because they can make a movie more profitable.
great piece Castor. figures or no figures, i maintain there is only one true movie star left – the Clooney.
his face and his voice are just so watchable and listenable
I absolutely love this post – or article, whichever term shows the proper respect. This is a great thing having something like this online for people to refer back to when they’re making their own points about the decadent idiocy of Hollywood execs.
The tragedy of this situtation is that even though there seems to be an emerging backlash against the traditional star vehicle model, is that eventually the unknown stars become known, their salaries go up and they become the fallback position for putting butts in seats when producers know the writing/plot/effects/budget is weak.
Kudos on this one, this must have taken a lot of work ans research.
Thanks Steve for the kind words, it is much appreciated
You are absolutely right that the next wave of movie stars is probably coming with the likes of Sam Worthington, Shia LeBeouf, Kristen Bell and whatever young up and coming “talent” out there. Maybe someday, studios will realize that making great movies can more profitable than this star culture. Or maybe I’m dreaming lol
I dont see what the whole issue is about. Fact is that people have finally started to realize that Hollywood is nothing but bull. Took them long enough too. Hollywood has always been about the big busty bimbo or the rude badass hero, they simply cant tell a proper story. Now that the economy is going downhill people are taking a good look at how those dollars are spent and fact is that Hollywood isnt the place to spend anything. Same thing is happening to music too, look at the loads of trash that comes out.
Quite frankly I think two major things have happened:
1) This generation isn’t fascinated by Hollywood and simply wont waste cash on them unless they release something proper.
2) The current crop of actors/actresses just plain suck. Theyre more noted for some scandal than for being in a good movie.
Ahah Yawn, you may be onto something but let’s face it, people are still wasting cash even (and especially) on terrible movies (as you can see on the table above) and Hollywood isn’t really hurting financially as shown by last year’s box office intake.
Actually if you look at 2009 you will see some good movies. Well forget Transformers 2 that was a truly horrible movie. But note a couple things about that list, we see animated and we see stuff based off books doing well. Then you have Avatar which I know a lot of people went to see out of curiosity and a lot were disappointed.
But bottomline, if you have something based off a book, a quality book like Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes, then you will draw crowds. Not the mindless numbskulls that go gaga over Ben Stiller and that rabble, but people who actually want to see the onscreen depiction of the stories they read. Now you would think that Hollywood can’t screw that up since they have something solid to start with, but they managed to do that quite nicely with the newer Harry Potter movies. They usually butcher the stories, I am still extremely angry about Lord of the Rings but the Sherlock Holmes movie was reasonable, still can’t understand the overly aggressive Watson but it’s decent.
The problem for Hollywood starts when they dont have a book to work with and they have to start from scratch. Animated is usually very good since it requires a lot of thought given the cost of production. Good stories or movies that come out with the impression of having good stories are making money. It seems to be a generational change from the John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, James Bond idolizing crowd and it is something I find very refreshing. There are actor obsessed groupies but they’re not in a majority anymore !
Hollywood is hurting, there are a lot of actors out of jobs, but the squeeze is felt most by the low echelon of staff and studios are going out of business. You just won’t see that broadcast all over the place, look at year on year revenues for Holloywood that tells the story.
There is good movies every year. The vast majority of them don’t make all that much money at the box office. If anything, people tend to spend their money on mediocre and brainless movies as much as ever. Book-based movies always to tend to do fairly well because of their built-in fan base. I agree that studios tend to meddle too much in the creative process and mess up perfectly fine scripts with rewrites and studio-imposed demands.
Certain actors and movie stars will continue to attract fans like they always have done. Sometimes, the tipping point for most people on whether to see a movie may just be a recognizable face. I don’t believe this generation of actors is worse than any others.
As for Hollywood hurting? I don’t see it. Revenues were up year-over-year in 2009 with $10.6 billion in box office intake despite the global economic crisis.
http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/2010/03/mpaa-statistics-who-goes-to-the-movies/
Small studios are going out of business but it’s a re-structuring of the industry which was a long way coming as they have no way to compete with the 7 major studios. Some actors may be seeing a leaner paycheck but again, this is something that studios have been working on for a very long time as compensation were getting out of control.
Um …
I personally don’t have anything against “movie stars.” For example, even though ANgelina Jolie is someone who even though is probably considered by most to be a “movie star” in everything i’ve seen her in she has given a believable well acted performance. But i’m usually not someone who is all over a movie because a certain actor or actress is in it. I may discover it because of a fav actor or actress in it, but they can’t make me excited for a movie by themselves
But then again, i haven’t been to the theaters in a while and i see most movies through my dads netflix que or dvds, so i’m not afraid of losing hard earned cash over a movie.
Trackbacks