Then over Christmas Sherlock Holmes shocked the industry by making a huge amount of money. Holmes isn’t the most exciting of properties, director Guy Ritchie was coming off of a series of flops, and co-star Jude Law could never be considered a big seller (as evidenced by Repo Men). This means that the presence of Downey was the main driving force behind the movie’s financial success. Is he the last of the big box office stars, or does he signal the return of the bankable actor?
Last year’s box office draws were big licenses, not big stars. Consider the highest grossing movies of 2009. There’s no denying Robert Pattinson is hugely popular with a particular set of fans. But this popularity is down to his association with the Twilight franchise, so the success of New Moon can’t reasonably be attributed to his presence, it is actually the other way around. Transformers II: Revenge of the Fallen was the highest grossing film of last year, but this could actually be considered to be despite Shia Labeouf’s appearance rather than because of it. He has his fans, but just as many can’t stand him, and the performance of Jennifer’s Body rules out any influence Megan Fox could be said to have had. The other big grossers, Star Trek, GI Joe and 2012 featured casts that were almost B-list, so their success is surely down to property recognition, marketing and blockbuster appeal. There is no denying money goes to money, and that was certainly the big theme last year.
Back in the eighties and early nineties, there was a set of actors considered to be superstars. Action heroes like Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger were paid a huge amount of money, because the movies they starred in did big business at the box office. When these actors went on to try different types of movies, however, their fan bases didn’t follow them. Leading men like Tom Cruise, Kevin Costner and Mel Gibson were given great power because of their popularity, but they all suffered high profile failures, and the illusion was shattered. It seems clear now that it was the types of movies these actors made, as much as the stars themselves that drew audiences in. The notion of the box office superstar was a fallacy.
How about the new generation of ‘big names’? Sam Worthington starred in Terminator: Salvation and Avatar last year, both of which drew hundreds of millions of dollars. So were all the people who went to see Clash of the Titans paying to see Worthington? Or the 3D action? Disney’s next big tentpole is Prince of Persia, but lead actor Jake Gyllenhaal, though respected, has never been in financially successful movies, and his last movie Brothers made less than $40M at the worldwide box office. Anyone could have been cast as the star of Prince of Persia, it will make a lot of money regardless.
The man considered to be the last big bankable star, the actor who could guarantee big box office was Will Smith. But Big Willie was smart. By his own admission, he noticed that the highest grossing movies throughout his childhood were big sci-fi movies, so he followed a formula for his career. Save the world in one big blockbuster movie, then take on a smaller personal part for the next. By alternating like this, he remained a huge star whilst making movies on a regular basis that didn’t take in a huge amount of money. Whilst smaller personal project The Pursuit of Happyness made hundreds of millions, his last dramatic picture Seven Pounds performed disappointingly, and his most personal project of all, his Ali biopic, made a loss.
This is borne out by Downey himself. Yes, his movies have made a lot of money in the last couple of years, but not his low profile drama The Soloist. His presence wasn’t enough to draw audiences in, and that is clearly proof that even the hottest stars can only sell a movie with a big marketing push to back it up. The other ‘bankable’ star still plying his trade is Johnny Depp. The Pirates of the Caribbean movies were hugely successful, and sold almost singularly on the presence of Depp and his massively popular Jack Sparrow character. This year’s highest grossing movie to date, Alice in Wonderland, also starred Depp. But his appearance in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus didn’t help it make any dent in the pockets of the movie going public.
The notion of guaranteed box office stars is crumbling. Maybe the bankable box office star NEVER existed, and movie studios have been throwing money away for years on huge pay packets for big name actors. Based on the casting of last year’s hits 2012, Star Trek, GI Joe etc.. Hollywood may actually be beginning to wise up to this. Why pay out $20M plus for a successful actor with a huge ego, when that money can be better spent on additional marketing, the true star of any tentpole movie. There’s no doubting Iron Man II will make a whole lot of money this weekend, and i personally believe the presence of Robert Downey Jr is definitely a factor. I’ve seen the movie, and the performance and sheer presence of Downey elevates the movie. However, i can’t help also feeling that the $100M+ spent on marketing is a bigger factor, and if his paycheck had been instead used on a shoddy post-production 3D conversion, Iron Man 2 would make just as much money. And that is really a very sad thought.
Bazmann – You can follow me on twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann
Why is Robert Downey Jr. being attributed as the one that brings the box office but not Robert Pattinson? Iron Man was not invented by RDJ. It is based on a comic book and had a fanbase before and RDJ brought it to life just like Twilight had a fanbase before and Robert Pattinson brought it to life. Did you know about Twilight before the first movie was released? Sherlock holmes is the same. A previous fanbase that RDJ brought to life. I'm sure if Robert Pattinson did another movie that had a previous fanbase it would be the same result. I don't get the difference here. When RDJ comes in a movie with absolutely no previous fanbase and he is the only person that can bring in the money – not Tropic Thunder which had a million stars including Tom Cruise and Ben Stiller. Once he does this in a difficult to sell movie and still blow away the box office, then I'll call him the last box office star. If you're going to use this criteria then Sam Worthington certainly fits the bill. He's in Terminator Salvation, Avatar and Clash of the Titans. All have blown away the box office. I don't credit him for it but this article should if this is the criteria.
Why is Robert Downey Jr. being attributed as the one that brings the box office but not Robert Pattinson? Iron Man was not invented by RDJ. It is based on a comic book and had a fanbase before and RDJ brought it to life just like Twilight had a fanbase before and Robert Pattinson brought it to life. Did you know about Twilight before the first movie was released? Sherlock holmes is the same. A previous fanbase that RDJ brought to life. I'm sure if Robert Pattinson did another movie that had a previous fanbase it would be the same result. I don't get the difference here. When RDJ comes in a movie with absolutely no previous fanbase and he is the only person that can bring in the money – not Tropic Thunder which had a million stars including Tom Cruise and Ben Stiller. Once he does this in a difficult to sell movie and still blow away the box office, then I'll call him the last box office star. If you're going to use this criteria then Sam Worthington certainly fits the bill. He's in Terminator Salvation, Avatar and Clash of the Titans. All have blown away the box office. I don't credit him for it but this article should if this is the criteria.
Will Smith says hi. He has MIB 3 and Bad Boys 3 in the works. He is just fine.
I'm a fan of both Robert's but I have to disagree with your commentary. As Chris has mentioned both Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes have a fanbase without the movies. So, lets compare two non-franchise movies of RP and RDJ. The Soloist (starring RDJ) made under $38mill worldwide, Remember Me (starring RP) has made over $54mill worldwide, and it is still playing in theatres around the world and has yet to open in certain markets so it could reach a worldwide box office or around $60mill. The Soloist did make more domestically however, $31mill compared to $19mill (so far) for Remember Me. Neither The Soloist or Remember Me are huge blockbusters and they are not supposed to be, however Remember Me has certainly made a profit theatrically, I highly doubt that The Soloist has. So, to sum up, what these numbers do suggest is that RP is the larger worldwide box office draw in comparison to RDJ.
I'm a fan of both Robert's but I have to disagree with your commentary. As Chris has mentioned both Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes have a fanbase without the movies. So, lets compare two non-franchise movies of RP and RDJ. The Soloist (starring RDJ) made under $38mill worldwide, Remember Me (starring RP) has made over $54mill worldwide, and it is still playing in theatres around the world and has yet to open in certain markets so it could reach a worldwide box office or around $60mill. The Soloist did make more domestically however, $31mill compared to $19mill (so far) for Remember Me. Neither The Soloist or Remember Me are huge blockbusters and they are not supposed to be, however Remember Me has certainly made a profit theatrically, I highly doubt that The Soloist has. So, to sum up, what these numbers do suggest is that RP is the larger worldwide box office draw in comparison to RDJ.
This hole article is ridicolous. I don´t think that Downey is the reason that all the people watch his movies. I am from Europe and believe me, a lot of people still don´t know who he is. I like him, but I just want to say the truth. The reason so many people watch the movies he is in is because they are big movies and the people always watch those. And by the way your stupid assumption about the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is bullshit, the movie didn´t go so well because the movie could only be seen in selected theaters and in the most areas people couldn´t watch it, even though they wanted to.
This hole article is ridicolous. I don´t think that Downey is the reason that all the people watch his movies. I am from Europe and believe me, a lot of people still don´t know who he is. I like him, but I just want to say the truth. The reason so many people watch the movies he is in is because they are big movies and the people always watch those. And by the way your stupid assumption about the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is bullshit, the movie didn´t go so well because the movie could only be seen in selected theaters and in the most areas people couldn´t watch it, even though they wanted to.
Did this article get updated. I feel as if half of what is being said now wasn't in the original article I read.
The article remains completely unchanged from when it was originally posted. I was a bit confused by some of the comments, i assumed some people hadn't read the article properly. The conclusion of the article is that it has always been marketing, and particuar types of movies, as much as the stars themselves that have drawn large box office numbers.That is the point of the article.
Did this article get updated. I feel as if half of what is being said now wasn't in the original article I read.
The article remains completely unchanged from when it was originally posted. I was a bit confused by some of the comments, i assumed some people hadn't read the article properly. The conclusion of the article is that it has always been marketing, and particuar types of movies, as much as the stars themselves that have drawn large box office numbers.That is the point of the article.
The way to check out your assumption that it was the limited release that crippled Doctor Parnassus is to look at the average take per theatre, rather than the overall gross. It was very poor, comparable with the average per theatre gross of a film like Repo Men. This means that even at the theatres where it WAS available, people didn't want to see it. No marketing means no buzz means no audience.
The way to check out your assumption that it was the limited release that crippled Doctor Parnassus is to look at the average take per theatre, rather than the overall gross. It was very poor, comparable with the average per theatre gross of a film like Repo Men. This means that even at the theatres where it WAS available, people didn't want to see it. No marketing means no buzz means no audience.
Sorry about that! I think I read the headline and then the first 3 paragraphs and then wrote my opinion because I don't recall reading anything that you said after that. Maybe the rest didn't show up for some reason or maybe I just thought the article would be more of the same of the first three paragraphs. I actually agree with you now on almost all your points except I think you need to revisit the RPattz part again but it will be years before we can actually be sure. RDJ’s appealing for sure and I doubt Sherlock Holmes would have made so much money without him but the point is that Sherlock Holmes is still a known entity. Based on books that have been beloved for year s and years. When people saw that Sherlock Holmes was now kind of an action star and modernized played by a movie star they love, it made them want to go even more and that's why it was a huge hit. But Will Smith could have done the same, so could many other action actors that people find appealing. RDJ's success as a star that sells movies just on his name alone will have to do what RPattz did with Remember Me. Come in a low budget movie with very little appeal because of the subject matter and get slammed by critics and still manage to make $55m worldwide. Megan Fox did this to far less success with Jennifer’s Body but at least I feel as if most of the money made was because of Megan Fox. I don't think stars like Sam Worthington who come in big budget movies with big name directors that would be smash hits even if they weren't present show proper bankable star appeal. I think their appeal and RDJ's appeal and Will Smith's appeal is as you said, put them in a certain genre of movies, big budget action flicks and people will flock to it because they trust that they will enjoy a movie like that with that guy at the helm.
I think Leonardo DiCaprio is starting to look like one of the most bankable actors as well but like with Johnny Depp, is it because he's associated himself with a big name director? Is it Chris Nolan/Martin Scorcese that's selling or is it Leonardo Di Carprio? For POTC Johnny Depp is certainly by far the most appealing aspect of that movie but it’s the storyline as well and it’s a Disney movie. People tend to be fascinated with pirates and the first movie which also stars Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom was actually a very great and fun story. Again, like with Johnny Depp and Leo, I need to see them go the RPattz route in this day and age and come in a low budget movie with a little known director and a completely original script by an unknown screenplay writer that's not appealing to the masses for me to be sure they were the ones that completely sold it and not other factors like Alice in Wonderland being a big budget movie, done by Tim Burton, coming in 3-D and based on a children's classic that's been around for years and years.
I don't think there's ANY bankable star that can make $100m just by him being in any type of movie. People usually go to the movies based on whether or not the story is appealing. Bankable star to me nowadays means that if you have a big blockbuster movie it will do great no matter what, put one of these really appealing guys at the helm and it will get a lot of free marketing due to their popularity and it will make what would have been a big box office without them much, much bigger.
Sorry about that! I think I read the headline and then the first 3 paragraphs and then wrote my opinion because I don't recall reading anything that you said after that. Maybe the rest didn't show up for some reason or maybe I just thought the article would be more of the same of the first three paragraphs. I actually agree with you now on almost all your points except I think you need to revisit the RPattz part again but it will be years before we can actually be sure. RDJ’s appealing for sure and I doubt Sherlock Holmes would have made so much money without him but the point is that Sherlock Holmes is still a known entity. Based on books that have been beloved for year s and years. When people saw that Sherlock Holmes was now kind of an action star and modernized played by a movie star they love, it made them want to go even more and that's why it was a huge hit. But Will Smith could have done the same, so could many other action actors that people find appealing. RDJ's success as a star that sells movies just on his name alone will have to do what RPattz did with Remember Me. Come in a low budget movie with very little appeal because of the subject matter and get slammed by critics and still manage to make $55m worldwide. Megan Fox did this to far less success with Jennifer’s Body but at least I feel as if most of the money made was because of Megan Fox. I don't think stars like Sam Worthington who come in big budget movies with big name directors that would be smash hits even if they weren't present show proper bankable star appeal. I think their appeal and RDJ's appeal and Will Smith's appeal is as you said, put them in a certain genre of movies, big budget action flicks and people will flock to it because they trust that they will enjoy a movie like that with that guy at the helm.
I think Leonardo DiCaprio is starting to look like one of the most bankable actors as well but like with Johnny Depp, is it because he's associated himself with a big name director? Is it Chris Nolan/Martin Scorcese that's selling or is it Leonardo Di Carprio? For POTC Johnny Depp is certainly by far the most appealing aspect of that movie but it’s the storyline as well and it’s a Disney movie. People tend to be fascinated with pirates and the first movie which also stars Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom was actually a very great and fun story. Again, like with Johnny Depp and Leo, I need to see them go the RPattz route in this day and age and come in a low budget movie with a little known director and a completely original script by an unknown screenplay writer that's not appealing to the masses for me to be sure they were the ones that completely sold it and not other factors like Alice in Wonderland being a big budget movie, done by Tim Burton, coming in 3-D and based on a children's classic that's been around for years and years.
I don't think there's ANY bankable star that can make $100m just by him being in any type of movie. People usually go to the movies based on whether or not the story is appealing. Bankable star to me nowadays means that if you have a big blockbuster movie it will do great no matter what, put one of these really appealing guys at the helm and it will get a lot of free marketing due to their popularity and it will make what would have been a big box office without them much, much bigger.