WotW was an awesome movie. Imho, of course. My daughter loves it as well… “Daddy, can we see the Scary Monster Alien Robot Movie again?” (aka SMARM) 
And she loves Orlando Bloom, especially in the LOTR movies - Legolas is called Legolove in our household for his ability to draw out such comments as “Mommy, isn’t he just dreamy?”
I’ll go ahead and beat the dead horse and mention Uwe Boll.
Fran Drescher. One magazine called her “The actress you can’t forget in the films you can’t remember.” She admits “my agent says it’s better to be shit in a hit, but I always seem to get it the other way around.”
Am I the first to mention Nicole Kidman? Among the big stars working today she perhaps has the longest streak of films which do poorly to averagely at the box-office. I think her only real hit in a starring role is The Others and even that didn’t make 100 million in the US.
As for Woody Allen let’s not forget that he has been a successful stand-up and writer for decades so it’s not surprising he is rich. His movies don’t make much but they probably don’t cost much either and he has probably made a decent amount of money from his few early hits. The 40 million or so movies like Manhattan and Annie Hall made was big money back then.
Kidman is an excellent choice for this thread - a fine actress, but her name seems to spell box-office death. According to BoxOfficeMojo, her average gross per movie is about $41million, but if you take out the voice-over work for her one cartoon (Happy Feet) and her fourth-billing spot in Batman Forever, her average drops over 10% to $36.2 million over 39 films.
Ewan McGregor isn’t all that popular (BO-wise) either. While his total lifetime gross is a respectable $1.6 billion for 28 films, averaging $58 million per movie, when you remove the built-in audience for the three Star Wars movies and his voice-over work for* Robots*, he’s more box office poison than Ms. Kidman: his films average plummets to a mere $16.4 million in box office grosses. His biggest film, box office-wise, is Big Fish, with $66 million in grosses, and he’s been in no less than twelve films that have grossed less than $3 million at the box office and 17 films that have grossed less than $5 million.
But, but, he’s hot! I see all his movies- me and three of my friends, apparently…
Steven Spielberg.
No, seriously.
I was looking at his page at IMDB. He has directed 50 movies and how many of them have I watched more than once? Five: Duel, Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, Jurassic Park.
I’m not saying the other 45 weren’t any good, but none of them made me want to see them a second time.
You didn’t read the thread, did you, A Dodgy Dude?
Anyway, I think the OP’s use of financial terminologies implies that he’s more concerned about moneymaking than quality for the purposes of this discussion, and on that line, Spielberg’s already been pretty well defended.
Though he may make crap films Michael Bay, who was mentioned earlier, is one of the most commercially successful directors working in Hollywood today. His latest film, Transformers was a huge hit, and apart from The Island, his other films have been successful as well.
I disagree - it features Leo DiCaprio’s finest performance, by far. I wish he’d work with Spielberg again, but apparently Marty Scorsese called dibs.
I agree that Spielberg is going through a bit of a slump; still, he’s had slumps before, and he’s always rallied. Remember *Hook *and Always? His career looked over in 1992, before he came back with the one-two punch of *Jurrassic Park *and Shcindler’s List.
Actually, at least up until recently, Woody Allen’s films never lost money. Allen keeps a tight eye on expenses and rarely uses expensive effects. The actors usually work for scale (he’s so well regarded that they’re happy to), and he is very popular outside the US. You’ll note that he has had the same producers throughout his career, Jack Rollins and Charles Joffe; that’s because he consistently makes money for them.
Take his latest. Vicky Cristina Barcelona cost about $15 million; it grossed $23 million in the US alone. It looks like about another $4 million in the UK and about $2 million in Brazil. Add other countries, and it makes a nice profit.
Match Point cost $15 million and made about the same amount; Scoop cost $5 million and made twice that.
All these made big profits on expenses even before the video was released.
Other than Annie Hall, none of his films have been blockbuster hits, but his films nearly always made money.
Robin Williams’s successful output has been surprisingly small.
M. Night Shyamalan.
Had his 15 minutes with The Sixth Sense and it’s been downhill ever since.
And he still gets Hollywood A-listers to be in his films???
After 2 absolute duds in a row (Lady in the Water / The Happening) I’m surprised he’s still getting work writing and directing The Last Airbender.
Often, people stop using their heads with hollywood grosses. We’re so used to looking at the top box office hits and the massive amounts of cash they bring in, they we forget that most investments make about 10% return.
Look at those Woody Allen movies again, he’s probably bringing in about 30-50% return on average. John Sayles does the same thing. Don’t forget about all the tax breaks filmmakers get, as well. I understand that Uwe Boll gets about 50% of his budgets back in German tax incentives.
Keep in mind that the box office numbers are only a small part of the picture. You have to figure in the budget, foreign grosses, TV rights, DVD sales, etc.
Someone needs to stop putting Dane Cook in movies. Honestly there ought to be a law.
Ben Affleck’s had a row of seemingly stinkers going back to Gigli and maybe even before.
You folks are missing something in your facts & figures. The domestic grosses that everybody are throwing around really matter very little in modern Hollywood. They are a drop in the bucket when compared to the overseas (global) market, and the money generated over time from DVD sales and ancillary merchandise (like, for instance, the amount of royalty money that Time Warner gets for every product sold with a Superman ‘S’ or the Batman logo.)
A director like Terry Gilliam may not produce instant smash box-office money, but the amount of money his DVDs generate is certainly staggering (he’s a critically-lauded artist with a large cult of devotees who rave about him, guaranteeing a steady stream of DVD rentals into the forseeable future.)
Don’t we need to add Jennifer Lopez on that one? Or was it just the two of them together whose movies tanked miserably?
Spielberg has hardly directed 50 movies. He has 50 directing credits listed on IMDB, but that doesn’t equal 50 theatrically released movies. Less than half of those credits - 24 of them - are features Spielberg directed solo and released to a theatrical audience. If you count “Duel,” which was released theatrically in Europe, that brings the list to 25. If you count his participation in the anthology “Twilight Zone” (a flop for which Spielberg can hardly be saddled with sole blame), that brings it up over half, to 26. The rest of the list is made up of his early TV work, recent shorts made for special occasions like “A Timeless Call,” from the 2008 Democratic convention and “The Unfinished Journey,” from a 1999/2000 New Year’s Eve event. Hell, the earliest three credits it lists for him are backyard Super8 movies he made when he was a kid - and while I know that bits and pieces of those have made it into A&E “Biography” shows and DVD special features, I’m don’t think they’ve ever been made available to the public in their entirety.
Cite for Gilliam’s films doing really well on DVD? It’s true that box-office figures are only part of the equation but it’s the part on which data is most easily available. It seems reasonable to suppose that DVD/TV rights will be roughly proportional to boxoffice numbers.
As for overseas boxoffice, the numbers for those are easily available and have been discussed in earlier posts. However it’s not necessarily true that the overseas market is more important than the the US one. What I have heard is that studios get roughly half the US domestic take but a smaller proportion: maybe a quarter of the overseas take. DVD sales also tend to be relatively low outside the US IIRC. A typical blockbuster may get 60% of its boxoffice from overseas but the share of studio profits is almost certainly smaller.
Another important variable is marketing costs which could easily be 40 million for a big film. That pulls in the other direction and to some extent compensates for the ommission of revenue sources like TV rights.
Overall you get only a rough picture from publicly available information but enough to separate the hits and flops with the rest being in between. That’s all you need for this thread.