2005 at the Box Office (1 Viewer)

[Malcolm R]

It's not a question of "worth." It's a question of whether they can get a studio to pay them at that level.

Throughout the economy, many people are paid much more than they're "worth," but as long as someone is willing to pay their grossly inflated salaries, they're golden.

 

[TerryRL]

The problem is that Rock has only one hit as a headlining star. That was 2001's "Down to Earth" which earned a little over $64 million. Having big hits this summer with "The Longest Yard" and "Madagascar" does help his cause tremendously though.

Rock earned $3 million for his role in "The Longest Yard" (Sandler took $20 mil) and he pocketed about $1.5 mil for his voice-work in "Madagascar". The $5 million deal he inked for the Murphy/Ratner flick (plus a small share of the profits) is the result of those two films being big hits.

Rock needs to carry another hit or two before studios are ready to anoint him as a big box office draw. Between this year and 1998's release of "Lethal Weapon 4", Rock starred in a string of flops such as "Nurse Betty", "Pootie Tang", "Osmosis Jones", "Bad Company" and "Head of State".

Studios are far more willing to trust that Eddie Murphy will put asses in the seats because 20 out of the 30 films he's headlined turned into big studio hits. For a studio exec, it's simple numbers. Murphy's stars are simply better than Rock's at this point in their careers.

If the Murphy/Rock pairing ends up being a big hit, than Rock will probably get another small spike in his pay for his next starring role.

 

[Arjan S]

I thought Ben Affleck would on the list with: Good Will Hunting, Armageddon, Shakespeare in Love, Pearl Harbor,The Sum of All Fears, and Daredevil being big grossers.

Wasn't Vin Diesel offered 20 mil for XXX sequel?

How about Jackie Chan. If Tucker gets 20, so should Chan.

Out of curiosity, is it true, that Stallone was the first 20 mil actor for Rambo III?

I was also wondering about Pierce Bronson for Bond, I thought 20 mil for sure.

How about Spiderman's Tobey.

 

[Kevin Grey]

Now, I'm not advocating that Rock should get $20 million or even more than $5 million I'm saying that Murphy's track record in the last decade shows that he isn't worth $20 million unless its family oriented which it doesn't sound like the Rock/Murphy/Ratner collaboration is.

In the last ten years the best non-family Murphy opening was Life at $20 million in 1999. He's only had two others open at greater than $15 million: Showtime and Bowfinger. And the other five all were less than $15 million.

 

[Kevin Grey]

Never happen. Sony already demonstrated they wouldn't hesitate to drop him when they had Jake Gyllenhaal standing by for Spidey 2 if Maguire proved too difficult.

 

[Tino]

I thought Gyllenhall was considered due to Toby's back injury, not studio displeasure.

 

[Kevin Grey]

I forgot the whole story but the gist was that Maguire expected quite a few accomodations due to the injury and assumed that Sony would bend over backwards to work around it. Sony, already having delayed the film to July 4th from May (due to said back injury I believe), had a very tight schedule to get Spidey filmed and into post and was more than ready to drop Maguire. I believe it was the president or chairman to Universal (Maguire was dating his daughter) who sat Toby down and explained to him that he was overestimating his importance to the Spiderman franchise and that he better play ball before the window of opportunity closed.

That's just going off memory though.

Of course after writing all that I see that Maguire got $17 million for Spidey 2 so I was way off in assuming he wasn't worth $20 million for the franchise.

 

[EricW]

Pearl Harbor well but less than expected (at least domestically). Sum of All Fears also did less than expected. so did Daredevil. then you got Jersey Girl, Gigli, Paycheck, Surviving Christmas and GIGLI... all about as entertaining as a Carson Daly monologue.

 

[TerryRL]

Ben Affleck received $15 million for "Paycheck", that represents the most he's ever made for a film role. He's been undone by high profile flops such as "Gigli" (he earned $12.5 mil), "Jersey Girl" (he earned $10 mil) and "Surviving Christmas" (another $10 mil).

Vin Diesel's $20 million pay demands are what led to him missing the sequels to both "The Fast and the Furious" and "XXX". Neither studio (Universal and Sony) thought he was worth that price. He earned about $12 million to do "The Chronicles of Riddick" and it turned into an expensive disappointment (but it has done big business on DVD).

Diesel pocketed $10 million for "The Pacifier" and it turned into a big hit, but I really hope he and his agents won't be expecting a $20 million paycheck for his next movie. Work your way to $15 mil first.

Stallone got $15 million for "Rambo III". His first $20 million payday came courtesy of "Judge Dredd", thus becoming the first actor in Hollywood to command such a salary (Jim Carrey quickly followed with his $20 million salary for "The Cable Guy"). Since 'Dredd', Stallone has collected $20 million checks for all but two of the films he's appeared in, "Cop Land" and "Spy Kids 3D".

Pierce Brosnan was contracted for four 'Bond' flicks and despite the fact that all of them represent the biggest hits of the franchise, MGM looked to replace him because they didn't want to have to fork over $20 million check.

Brosnan pocketed $17 million for "Die Another Day" and even though he's become hugely popular in the role of 007, the studio is in no hurry to give him $20 million for a fifth film, hence why they've spent the last three years looking for a replacement.

Sony also is in no hurry to give Tobey Maguire $20 million to play Spidey, which means that "Spider-Man 3" will probably be the last time we see Maguire donning the suit. While the movies are hugely successful, they are also insanely expensive to make. "Spider-Man 2" cost a record-breaking $250 million. Sony doesn't want to become the first studio to officially have a movie with a price tag of more than $300 million.

I say officially because WB will have spent well over $350 million by the time "Superman Returns" is finished. This counts all the money spent on the pay-or-play deals Tim Burton ($10 million), Nicolas Cage ($20 million), Brett Ratner ($7 million), and McG ($5 million) all had. The money they gave the various writers since 1997 (including Kevin Smith), the sets that went up, but had to be destroyed when the plug was pulled on filming not once, but twice. And a whole host of suits (for Cage) and props that were made and subsequently discarded, as well as all the R&D done by a few major FX houses that WB paid for. But that's a whole other topic.

As for Eddie Murphy, I'm not saying if he's worth the money or not. I'm just trying to give you an idea of how a lot of studio execs see him as being a more reliable box office draw than Chris Rock.

 

[Rob Bartlett]

I think people seriously overestimated the potency of the franchise. While the first was considered a surprise in light of the production budget, there may well have been no movie that was more highly hyped that year. While many found it to be a pleasant guilty pleasure--you don't get money selling something as a guilty pleasure. Many accuse adueinces of being dumb, but they don't like to be told they're dumb. Even if the first CA had a wry innocence amongst the cleavage and explosions, the campaigns for both films said "Come, feed from our troth, we know you'll jump off any big-budget cliff, America". As I understand it, the dvds and rentals were kind of soft. Because of the fashion elements, the press seemed obsessed with this movie's status, but all things considered, it was merely a costly success, not a runaway hit.

There's also something to be said about charging the public something they get for free.

 

[DavidPla]

What I find amazing is that Stallone is STILL getting 20 M a picture even for film that were released Direct to Video (such as "Eye See You" aka. "D-Tox"). Are his films really that profitable overseas?

 

[Kevin Grey]

Even 'Get Carter'?

 

[TerryRL]

Stallone's pay situation mystifies me because despite the fact that he collects $20 million per-film (yes, even for "Get Carter"), "Antz" (a supporting player) and "Spy Kids 3D" (albeit the main villain, still a supporting role) are the only hits he's been involved with since "Cliffhanger" in '93.

While not nearly as big a worldwide box office star as he was in his heyday of the 1980s, I have heard that his recent films are especially popular overseas on home video.

Disney gave Stallone his first $20 million payday with "Judge Dredd", than he inked a 3 to 5 picture deal (I don't remember which) with WB that would pay him $20 million for every film he starred in for them. "Assassins", "Get Carter" and "Driven" were all done for WB and earned the actor $60 million.

He likely signed a similar deal with the studios that released "D-Tox" and "Shade", both of which he also earned $20 million. I have to applaud Stallone's business sense though. The guy is still wheeling and dealing these huge salaries despite not being anywhere near as big a star as he was 20 years ago.

Ya gotta give it up to Sly.

 

[EricW]

Stallone got $20 mill for those?!?!? didn't they go straight to video? there's no way...

 

[TerryRL]

Stallone is probably shrewd enough to realize that he can no longer command such a salary with no hits to back it up. No wonder he's been trying to revive both the 'Rocky' and 'Rambo' franchises the last few years.

 

[Alex Spindler]

I don't know that I'd agree there. Charlie's Angels was pretty well received on all fronts, especially considering the out of the blue director. The sequel was far less so, but the box office doesn't bear this out. The original (which got a 65%/66% on RottenTomatoes) opened in November and ran 7 weeks earning more than $1million to a $125m total. The sequel (which got 37%/40% on RT) opened in June and ran 5 weeks over $1m before landing at an even $100m. The only real error I could perceive is that they had far too much confidence in it as a summer movie. I thought the sequel was very inferior to the first movie, but the trailer (which scored images of the film to My Sharona) was very well done and effective in my opinion.

Had the film been better, I don't doubt that we'd be facing trailer barrage from CA3, but the sequel just wasn't as cohesive as the first. But I don't think the result was because of apathy in the franchise. They opened to similar numbers ($40m vs $37m) after all.

I'd love to know how they respectively have done on DVD, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was just as marginally off as the box office was. The movie underperformed because the result wasn't very good. But the audience was there, and showed up to see the result. I'd have expected a far more lackluster showing if they had such a negative image of the franchise concept.


I'm struggling a bit, but is there an example of a franchised series having sequels underperform despite positive critical reception? I know a lot of films perceived to be excellent opportunities for a franchise have fizzled (like The Hulk), but people still show up to see what's going on even if they don't end up liking what they saw. I mean, we (the movie-going public) showed up to see I still Know What You Did Last Summer which is probably the most obvious extension of a limited premise I can recall.

Very interesting discussion so far (as is par for our yearly Box Office threads). I'm curious as to what the thought is behind non-summer blockbuster films. While we're certainly still seeing a massive glut of films all in the narrow spring/summer corridor, I was sort of hoping that support for some of them to be moved to 'safer' months like September would give some of these films a chance. Literally, every week has some relatively conspicous release which threatens to silence the previous week's thunder. As we've seen, the opposite has happened and the new release just flounders. Say what you will about the merits of the film, but would The Island have floundered after the summer months when it wasn't just the next week's action flick?

What got me thinking about this was the relatively uncommon happiness I've been finding in original (or semi-original) cable programming this summer. What with Monk, Rescue Me, Stella, Reno 911, Battlestar Galactica, The 4400, The Dead Zone, and (tentatively) The Closer, Over There, and Wanted, I've been more than happy in what is normally a DVD-catch-up time period. They, being the cable channels, have really capitalized on the blank space the studios are leaving and making me seriously forget that this was normally a dead blank space in terms of new content. If a nicely made Pirates of the Caribbean sequel came out in October and didn't have to worry about a new Men in Black being released right on its heels, wouldn't it just rake in the dough. Or are we still operating on the assumption that we only spend blockbuster dollars in blockbuster months?

I guess our speculation about Cinderella Man is in contrast to this idea, but the rerelease has been unspectacular, right? I'd say it's more a victim of period than of time period, being that a depression era film is tough to get motivated about.

 

[EricW]

there's actually an inconsistency in that logic. we've seen a string of flops this whole summer, so that would mean a quality film would actually have an ~advantage~ in this busy schedule. if, for argument's sake, The Island was a good movie, then the following weekend's new release of duds would be in The Island's favour. which would lead me to believe the poor showing of The Island is due either to A) it is in fact a bad movie, or B) it's a good movie but the perception is that it's bad due to a 'sucks-by-association' perception because the whole summer has had bad movies. i would discount B since i assume we all WANT to be entertained. and Wedding Crashers has certianly done well.

 

[Rob Bartlett]

I'm not saying CA wasn't a success, I'm just saying for a 90 million movie in 2000 with the attention was not the alias for money that many people seemed to think it was. There was sort of a "one that got away" to its box-office. It made about as much as The Patriot, which was generally considered a dissapointment. The overseas money (where ready-made films are more likely to make what people think they're going to make) was a little more lucrative, but then, Full Throttle didn't have problems in foreign box office either. The sequel opened to thirty million, and it's not like people were flocking to see The Hulk that weekend.

If 120+ million is a reasonable number for the film, then 100 million for the second is not too surprising, as two thirds is the rule of thumb for sequels. We've been spoiled by Shrek 2, but in general, that's how it usually works.

(and I'm speaking of the first movie's numbers on home markets)



It might have done better released in May, when there is more of an excitement for special effects-based films, not a weariness of them. But I don't think it was ever going to be a huge movie, and it's sort of hard to release bigger action films in the fall-besides having a hard time attracting high school and college audiences who have school to deal with, there's also the perception that if your film is released in Septemeber or October, it's because it didn't have enough commercial appeal to compete with the big boys. Hits can be fostered in that period, but it's considered just too dangerous to tlize 100-million plus project. (And November/December is not very kind to science fiction, either)

I don't like the "if it's good" argument because that's so subjective. The Island's lack of success can be attributed to Dreamwork's inability to so much as drum up awareness for the film, and that very schizophrenic science fiction films (hard sci-fi with patchworked Bay action sequences) turn audiences off. As well as the aforementioned genre fatigue.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Eric,
Ah, I see where you're headed. Interesting ideas for certain. But if you get an action movie a week, I think there exists the possibility of being lost simply by dilution of audience interest and awareness.

But would a film like Kingdom of Heaven or Hitchhiker's Guide have done better had they not been lost in the deluge of Star Wars, Batman, and War of the Worlds rabidness? What if King Kong were attempting to open in the narrow space between SW:E3 and WotW. Not only would it be an absolutely awesome 6 weeks of movie watching, but wouldn't at least one of the three of them suffer from the close-ish proximity? Kind of 'I wouldn't mind seeing that Star Wars film again but...BIG APE!'.


I'm very, very interested to see how King Kong does. It has some built in fan-base of its own owing to Peter Jackson/LOTR connectivity, but has a riskiness in the whole concept altogether (what with a very old source film and with what I think are only moderately successful remakes and a laughable sequel). The first two Lord of the Rings films had direct competition in the form of Harry Potter films, but both managed to prove successful. If King Kong manages to rake in big bucks with good reception and [ii]The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe[/i] does as well, it'd probably dent my whole theory entirely. My theory being that there is, with some obvious elasticity, a limited about that people will spend at the theater in a span of time. If you plop three really good films that are up their alley, they'll see two of them and skip the other for DVD. The counter is that they'll spend whatever it takes to see all the movies that interest them with less regard to how close they are together, and will give a repeat viewing while another desireable release is out.

 

[EricW]

i think genre-wise, KoH and HGttG were pretty safe in their release windows. KoH was obviously trying to replicate Gladiator's success. i haven't seen either movie but i definitely want to check them both out on DVD.

but it's always the same story. everybody can explain why a a movie succeeds or fails ~after~ the fact