What actors/filmmakers seem to have more lacklusters than blockbusters

Cafe Society
1

Actor can mean actor or actress and filmmaker can mean director/producer/etc… I say lackluster so that you can include movies that may not have actually flopped (i.e. lost money) since it’s hard to tell whether a movie’s a flop sometimes. In the first place a lot of box office flops will eventually make money from the international audience or DVD, but didn’t perform great (critically panned and not a big moneymaker) and due to Hollywood accounting a movie can cost $50 million, gross $125 million, and somehow lose money. It’s easier to tell when a movie is lackluster rather than an unqualified hit, however.

Woody Allen- I love some of his films but I don’t understand how he’s as rich as he is. If you look at hisbox office mojo listing he’s had many films that didn’t break $20 million. Even assuming the A-list stars who are in his movies worked for far less than their usual fee it’s doubtful they worked for scale, and by the time you pay for the production crew and the distributors and the advertising it’d be hard to make a profit on a gross like that unless he just absolutely cleans up in the video market.

Several actors seem to have an indordinate number of lackluster projects:

Matthew McConaughey:

Fools Gold had a budget of $70 million, took in $111 million- that may or may not be a profit depending on Hollywood Accounting, but it’s certainly not a huge hit

We Are Marshall- budget unavailable, world gross $44 million

Sahara- budget $130 million/world gross $120 million

Frailty- budget $12 million/gross $17 million (another “may or may not” be profitable, but certainly lackluster)

Terry Gilliam- only 12 Monkeys seems to have been a big hit (and that only due to the overseas box office). It took it $168 M, though the budget info isn’t available. Time Bandits may have been- it grossed around $50M but not sure what the budget was. His other movies include:

Brothers Grimm- budget $88 M/ gross $105 M

Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas- budget $18 M/ gross $11 M

The Fisher King- grossed $42 M (budget unavailable, but with Robin Williams and Jeff Bridges- both when they were bigger than they are now- and many other name actors and filming in NYC it wasn’t low budget)

Adventures of Baron Munchausen- budget $47M/gross $9M

Brazil- Gross $10 M (budget unavailable)

Gilliam also directed The Man Who Killed Don Quixote which after millions were spent was never completed.
Who are some others whose names and reputations (and their movies) may be great but whose box office is “risky”?

2

I can’t add much, but I do remember an interview with Marshall Brickman (who wrote four of Allen’s films) who said Woody Allen always brought his films in on-time and within (or under) budget.

Allen may not have made blockbusters, but he seems to have a knack for spending wisely.

3

Reminds me of similar things I’ve read about Roger Corman, Kevin Smith, and John Waters. Their films may never be blockbusters, but still turn a decent profit since they make relatively inexpensive films.

A studio might pine for a $400 million blockbuster that cost $200 million to make, but those types of films are few and far between and risky bets to make. A film that cost $3 million and brings in $10 million might not cause their stock price to go up, but it’s a nice bit of profit that can help offset those mid-level disappointments like the Matthew McConaughey films the OP mentions, and are fairly low in risk.

I think Madonna might fit the bill. (All using BoxOfficeMojo.com)

She’s had two decent showings in big-budget films: Dick Tracy and A League of Their Own. Evita might also fit, since it did fairly well overseas. She’s had a few profitable minor movies (like the Allen/Corman/Smith stuff above): Desperately Seeking Susan, Truth or Dare, and possibly Who’s that Girl.

She’s had a bunch of flops.
Shanghai Surprise: budget $17 million, domestic $2.3 million.
Bloodhounds of Broadway: budget ?, domestic $43,671. Somehow I’m betting the production of this movie cost more. Heck, catering must have cost more.
Shadows and Fog: budget $14 million, domestic $2.7 million.
Body of Evidence: budget $30 million, domestic $7.4 million.
Dangerous Game: budget ?, domestic $23,671. Again, I’m betting the catering costs alone beat the earnings here.
Next Best Thing: budget $25 million, domestic $15 million, foreign $9.3 million.
Swept Away: budget $10 million, domestic $0.6 million.

Her directorial debut, Filth and Wisdom, earned $22,406 domestic, $172,934 foreign. No idea on the budget.

4

It’s been a while since Robin Williams, Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts has justified a huge payday. Among directors, I would be very hesitant to invest in any recent film by Tim Burton, Steven Spielberg or Terry Gilliam.

5

Terry Gilliam seems to be a hell of nice guy, by personal experiance, which may be why his movies don’t net huge “profits”? Maybe he gets walked on and his artistic vision get prostituted?

Just a guess. I only met him briefly. But thats what our brief talk left on me.

6

WTF, Krokodil? Spielberg is probably the most successful director in Hollywood history. His films have probably grossed $100 billion or more. I’m quite sure that there are thousands of investors who would give up their favorite grandmothers into white slavery to lend Spielberg millions even if he said he intended to stuff it up his butt.

But I guess if you don’t want to invest in a Spielberg film, no one will force you.

7

Or, more like 8.5 Billion.

8

Woody Allen’s films, I read years ago, are very popular in several European markets. That, plus the fact that he works with relatively small budgets, is the reason why he can continue making the movies that he wants.

As for someone with more duds than hits, Dennis Quaid comes to mind. I told my wife a few years ago that the man is like box office kryptonite. He would’ve sunk Titanic (the movie, not the ship), had he starred in it.

9

I did say “recent.” Pre-2000, your description of him was spot on; since 2000, let’s have a look:

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Budget $185,000,000 (estimated)
Munich (2005) Budget $75,000,000 (estimated)
War of the Worlds (2005) Budget $132,000,000 (estimated)
The Terminal (2004) Budget $60,000,000 (estimated)
Catch Me If You Can (2002) Budget $52,000,000 (estimated)
Minority Report (2002) Budget $102,000,000 (estimated)
Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001) Budget $90,000,000 (estimated)

None of these movies was a runaway hit. I’m sure Indiana Jones made some coin, but we’re talking serious diminishing returns here. He made three movies in this decade with budgets of over $100 million (Probably four; that estimate for AI looks a little low) and none of them had the box office legs of a Shrek sequel (Apples and oranges, I know, but can you tell me without looking it up who directed Shrek?). Two of them have called Tom Cruise’s value as a leading man into question. Catch Me If You Can was pretty charming, but not a highlight in the career of anyone involved. Munich had some filmmaking gravitas, but less than Schindler or Private Ryan. By every measurable standard, this is a very impressive career in steep decline.

10

Comparing any period of any director’s output to Spielberg’s golden age (even Spielberg himself) is going to look lackluster by comparison.

While fans disliked Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it made some serious money.

And War of the Worlds, The Terminal, Catch Me If You Can (2002) and Minority Report were all critically acclaimed and most of them made some decent cash.

But none of them were Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, Schindler’s List or Jurassic Park because no director could compete with a run like that.

11

Krokodil: You haven’t shown the whole picture, have you? You might not have thought much of those films, and they didn’t all have the glitz or the huge grosses of some of Speilberg’s earlier films, but let’s look at how much those seven films earned worldwide, not just how much they cost:



Title				Budget	Gross	Net
Indiana Jones/Crystal Skull	$185	$  787	$  602
Munich				$ 70	$  130	$   60
War of the Worlds		$132	$  592	$  460
The Terminal			$ 60	$  219	$  159
Catch Me If You Can		$ 52	$  352	$  300
Minority Report			$102	$  358	$  256 
Artificial Intelligence		$100	$  236	$  136
Total				$671	$2,674	$2,003

So those seven films have grossed four times their production budgets. The rule of thumb in Hollywood is that after a film doubles its budget it’s in the black. By this measure, only Munich hasn’t “broken even,” and taken altogether, they have generated $1.33 billion in “profit.”

And this is before you take into account DVD sales, revenues from cable TV, merchandise, or the myriad other ancillary revenue streams.

Furthermore, very few directors can claim six profitable films out of seven produced.

Now, (as Justin_Bailey points out) there is no doubt that some of Spielberg’s earlier films generated much larger numbers, so in that sense you might say that his is a “career in decline.” But that’s like saying that a billionaire who lost 50% of his net worth in the stock market is now “poor.”

And my point that Spielberg is having no problem getting investors for his films these days still stands.

12

I take your point (Your numbers are different from the ones I saw, but not by a whole lot, I suppose).

13

Since Spielberg has already been defended, I’ll just say your appraisal of Tim Burton is also a bit off. Whatever you have to say about the quality of his movies, I think his box office stats, if not spectacular, are at least fairly solid. Also, you have to keep in mind Burton is one of those directors who alternates between films “they” (i.e., the studio heads) want him to do and films he wants to do. Generally, the movies he does for “them” (e.g., the first two **Batman **movies, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and especially the Planet of the Apes “re-imagining”) are a lot more mainstream (for him anyway) and commercially successful than the movies that are more his projects (e.g., Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Big Fish, and Sweeney Todd).

14

Sylvester Stallone since about 1985. I don’t think he’s had a $100 million grosser since Rocky IV.

15

What about the masterwork “Stop, Or My Mom Will Shoot!”…?

16

How did the thread get this far without mentioning Nick Cage, Kevin Costner, Owen Wilson, or Michael Bay?

17

Because those names have had blockbusters?

As far as leading man material goes, my vote goes to Orlando Bloom. He’s had success in the LOTR and POTC movies, of course, but he was third billing (or lower).

However, for those films in which he was the leading man, the figures are nowhere near as good:

Haven (2006): $142,000
Elizabethtown (2005): $26,000,000 (a $57 million budget! Where’d the money go?)
Kingdom of Heaven (2005): $47,000,000 ($130,000,000 budget)
Ned Kelley (2004): $87,000

18

Wasn’t Heath Ledger the lead in Ned Kelly?

But your point stands.

19

I have a curious inability to suss box office nets and grosses, I admit. But when I compare the promise certain directors showed in the 80s and 90s to the promise they’ve shown since Y2K, I see a glaring disparity.

But hey, who am I to tell you that you didn’t really enjoy **War of the Worlds **and Sweeney Todd?

20

Shee-it, yeah, you’re right.