Fifty Shades of Grey made $570 million worldwide, on a budget of about $40. It had a 25% fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes.
No… uh, opposite of love for Fifty Shades of Grey?
How do you figure? LITTLE NICKY didn’t break even. PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE didn’t break even. EIGHT CRAZY NIGHTS didn’t break even. SPANGLISH didn’t break even…
…I’ll grant that REIGN OVER ME grossed $22m on a $20m budget, but FUNNY PEOPLE didn’t break even. THAT’S MY BOY didn’t break even. THE COBBLER didn’t break even. And like the man said, MEN WOMEN & CHILDREN didn’t break even.
The way he operates is throw a ton of stuff at the wall and some of it sticks and some of it doesn’t and yes it’d be better if he consistently brought home the bacon but at least he doesn’t consistently fail; he can operate the way he does precisely because he’s so inconsistent – er, and so prolific: lotta misses, lotta hits.
Which is a mouthful, but an accurate one.
From Wikipedia:
Out of 35 Happy Madison films listed that have grosses available, only 8 didn’t break even.
Kevin Smith once said that he’d be able to make movies forever if he wanted. The budgets on his movies were so low, they’d all make a profit even if none of them was ever a major hit.
Of course, this was back before he decided to start making really bad horror movies.
Well, if you go that route, then some of the Sandler flicks I mentioned as not breaking even – like SPANGLISH and PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE – apparently fall off the list; but then we have to factor in STRANGE WILDERNESS and BUCKY LARSON, both of which apparently failed to break even. (Likewise, we lose REIGN OVER ME barely making it; but then we pick up DICKIE ROBERTS barely making it.)
(And that “have grosses available” caveat is kinda the point, innit? I mean, we can see how many millions THE SHORTCUT got for its budget back in '09 – and we can see how it eventually went direct-to-DVD; as mysteries go, that’s pretty short.)
They were still money laundering operations. Keeping the theaters open with little to no customers still helped their business. They’d report X tickets sold at $Y dollars each, and sure enough there’d be $X*Y in the till at the end of the day. The Mafia squeezed out everybody else with a share in the movie, none of this “income” had to be shared with anyone.
They ran for years not because they were popular, but because they were famous. So the Mob could claim a lot of tickets sold without drawing too much attention.
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse has the same RT score, but grossed more money.
The Twilight Saga: New Moon has a lower RT score, but grossed even more money.
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 has an even lower RT score, but grossed even more money – so the obvious conclusion is, you start work on a finale that gets a zero RT score, and nobody ever has to work again, right?
Bafflingly, they went in another direction: Breaking Dawn Part 2 earned the same RT score as Passion of the Christ, and – well, yes, granted, earned hundreds of millions more than Passion of the Christ did; but just think of what could’ve been!
To be fair, Spanglish and Punch Drunk Love, starred Sandler but were not produced by Sandler’s company.
Well, that was my point; as I said in the rest of the post, if we use that reason to subtract those two that didn’t break even, then we should add in two that were produced by his company but didn’t star him or break even.
Is it that he’s “almost guaranteed” a certain return as an actor, or as a producer?
Oh, and while I’m here: remember Roland Emmerich’s The Day After Tomorrow, which got worse reviews on RT than Passion of the Christ did? Yeah, it didn’t do nearly as well at the box office; so why am I mentioning it? Because he soon took another shot at putting a cinematic disaster movie in theaters with 2012, which earned an even worse score on RT but earned $150 million more than PotC.
Out of curiosity, how about the other end of the spectrum?
Take, say, Attack The Block, with an RT score of 90% but a $5m-$6m gross that didn’t make it halfway to breaking even – or Anomalisa, which got an even higher RT score and an even lower gross – or Rogue, which is at 100%, and got an even lower gross, and on a higher budget than both those films put together!
Batman and Robin was a flop by the standard of making a profit, but it did draw $107 million in domestic ticket sales.
There are several family friendly films that are under a 5 on IMDB and yet drew big money, but I figure that’s just kids being not too demanding about quality as long as they see their heroes on screen: Scooby Doo, Inspector Gadget, and the Flintstones all made huge money and all have under a 5 score on IMDB.
Nutty Professor 2 is just atrocious, $123 million. For quite a long time, Eddie Murphy was like Adam Sandler, he could draw huge money regardless of quality.
Staying Alive made $63 million, which is actually pretty awesome for 1983.
The Haunting made almost $100 million.
Now that you mention it, while the first ICE AGE films don’t qualify, they eventually cranked out ICE AGE: DAWN OF THE DINOSAURS (which has a lower RT score, and a bigger gross, than PASSION OF THE CHRIST) and ICE AGE: CONTINENTAL DRIFT (likewise). And I see there’s another one set to hit theaters this summer!
No need to speculate on how to analyze Adam Sandler movies: FiveThirtyEight has done it already. Walt Hickey takes you through the “Paydays”, the “He’s Trying” films and the amusingly-christened “Pineapples”.
The 1976 remake of A Star is Born, starring Barbra Streisand and Kris Kris Kristofferson got terrible reviews, yet it did make $80 million.
As per ROTTEN TOMATOES, I agree that it’s gotten terrible reviews – but didn’t it win the Golden Globe for Best Picture, thanks to Streisand winning the Golden Globe for Best Actress and Kristofferson winning the Golden Globe for Best Actor?
That’s not everything, but it’s not nothing.
Max Baer Jr became very rich, not by playing Jethro Bodine on “Beverly Hillbillies” (sad that he is the sole surviving cast member) but by producing low budget films aimed for a certain audience (drive ins) such as “Macon County Line” and “Ode to Billie Joe” (based on the Bobbie Jo Gentry song). If they were reviewed, they probably weren’t very well received. But enough people saw them to make them profitable. But Baer does have a college degree in business administration so he never was a real Jethro
The Golden Globes were very easily bought back then. E.g., the infamous New Star of the Year award won by Pia Zadora for Butterfly in 1981. She also won a Golden Raspberry for Worst New Star for the same film.
They have cleaned up their act some, but they still expect some kowtowing and such if you want to get nominated/win. But even at these levels of corruption, they are sometimes better indicators of quality than the Oscars at times.
ASiB won one Oscar and had 3 other nominations: all for music. It won five Golden Globes, 2 for music.
The general summary was: good music, not so great elsewise. Something of a wash overall. Hence the 31% Rotten Tomatoes. Sans music (like the original) it might have been in the single digits. But why would Streisand and Kristofferson been in it? With real actors, it could have fared better … or worse, financially.
Family friendly movies are a special case because in an average 15 screen theater, maybe 2 movies are family friendly. Scarcity is the family friendly movie’s ally, along with kids having different taste than adults. Not to mention repeat viewing since kids can watch the same movie 100 times. In the 80s there was a glut of them from what I’ve been able to tell from research and studios lost some big money. Now there seems to be the sweet spot, with Disney, Dreamworks, and Sony releasing animated films on a fairly regular and predictable schedule, and there always being one or two live action family films in theaters at any one time. So it’s practically guaranteed profit these days.
I think it’s less about the studio for those two films, and more about the formula. Sandler made his fortune on juvenile, lowest-common-denominator gross out comedies. Punch Drunk Love and Spanglish were his attempts at being a “legitimate” actor. Including them in a discussion of the popularity of his Happy Gilmore stuff is a bit like trying to include Bo Jackson’s baseball stats in a discussion about his football career.