But if you’re right, then it makes little sense to keep making the movies that they keep making with him; and yet they keep making them.
And, if you’re right, then tons of other movies that look worse before applying each rule of thumb would be disasters after applying each rule of thumb; and yet they keep making those, too. Various big-budget films that at first glance look to have barely broken even would surely be bitter poison once each rule of thumb was factored in; yet those keep getting cranked out, as if (a) it’s not that big a deal and (b) stuff Dwayne Johnson does more than makes up for it. And stuff that at first glance fails to even break even should be Grim Death once we apply the rules of thumb; but they motor along as if making enough money the rest of the time.
Between pre-production, filming, post-production and marketing, it can take two or three years to see a return on investment, this reducing the payoff to somewhere around 21.5% to as low as 11%. And that’s on a highly speculative investment, as profitable movies are not a slam dunk.
I was worried when Ahnold stared getting old. Who else, I asked, can fill the role? Someone with imposing size, sufficient acting skills AND a sense of humor?
Mr Rock fills the role perfectly. I hate wrasslin’. But I like Mr Rock.
I remember an interview with Woody Allen where he basically said what he was proudest of as a filmmaker was being able to deliver his movies on time and on budget.
It seems that Hollywood appreciates talent that’s professional, dependable and knows how to get the job done, even if the result isn’t necessarily a “blockbuster.”
His movies average domestic box office is 108 million. George Clooney average 61 million, Julia Roberts averages 68 million, Tom Hanks averages 96, Jonny Depp 76, DiCaprio 100.7.
So his movies make money even though most of his movies have not been great.
That is changing, especially over the last decade. Earlier, films would be distributed only after the N American run was done, and the box office take there decided where and when a film would be released overseas. Nowadays you have more or less simultaneous global releases for large films. Studios have long standing agreements with foreign distributors and the deals are made in advance. Earlier the US studio was at a disadvantage; unless the film was already a smash hit in the US of A, they were going overseas to make any money and they would be at the mercy of foreign partners who would as you say at best send a fraction of the take back Stateside.
Now Studios have a much better hand than before, especially for two types of films. The franchise guaranteed hit like the Fast and Furious films and the next tier below that, which are the summer action adventure flicks. Both kinds of films Dwayne excels in.
Now add to the fact that its not just foreign cinema box office which makes money, but also ISP based VOD (very big in China/Far East and South Asia), DVD/Blu-Ray and Movie channels, so the film will keep a nice trickle going into the pocket of the Studio for years.
A lot of movies are successful with relatively low box offices because they don’t cost a lot to make. To take a current example, look at Girls Trip. It had a $19,000,000 production budget. Add in the marketing campaign and you’ve got a movie that cost under forty million. And that movie’s already made $109,000,000 domestic. That movie’s already passed the 2-for-1 mark.
But with an action movie, you’re looking at a production budget of over a hundred million. The production cost for Spider-Man: Homecoming was $175,000,000. For Wonder Woman - $149,000,000. Transformers: The Last Knight - $217,000,000. The Mummy - $125,000,000. War for the Planet of the Apes - $150,000,000. Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets - $177,000,000. These movies are all going to have to hit the three hundred million mark or higher to have a chance at making a profit.
No, I get that. But looking at the budget for VALERIAN, for GHOST IN THE SHELL, for that lastest KING ARTHUR abomination, and so on, and so on: they’re flopping with big fine action-movie budgets. So if Dwayne Johnson’s stuff is doing a lot worse than it first looks, then shouldn’t stuff that looks lousy even before factoring in the rest be like unto the end of everything, or something?
I’m pretty sure Vin would disagree with most of this. The series dipped when Diesel left over pay issues, and mostly Johnson and Statham were brought on as a hedge against the somewhat difficult Diesel leaving again over “creative differences” (like his demand that his character can never lose a fight on screen).
Because he is. Also, the Fast franchise (and Vin Diesel’s career) was almost dead at one point. The Rock may have a lot of misses, but Diesel only has cult hits outside of the Fast franchise, and I guess “The Pacifier” kids movie 12 years ago. There’s nothing wrong with that - Chris Tucker did well for himself only doing Rush Hour movies for 15 years. I would also say that the WWE is more popular than people realize and he’s pretty recognizable in the fitness industry and social media (93 million Instagram followers with a min. 300k interactions per post, for example) as well. So he has wide appeal in checking all of the boxes “action stars” generally have, as well as more range than someone like Arnold or Sly.
So you are saying it paid a 43% return in a very short period of time? I doubt that’s below average. It is below average compared to the very best earning blockbusters and surprise hits.
No, movies don’t pay off in a very short period of time. New Line Cinema began pre-production of San Andreas in 2011. The movie didn’t complete its theatrical run until October of 2015. That’s a four year investment.
Fair enough, but, again, compare it to other movies: Monster Trucks started filming in 2014, and left theaters in 2017 – and its $125m budget, not counting advertising, resulted in less than $65m in ticket sales; and, since you rule-of-thumb the foreign box office in half, you’d effectively figure it failed to pull in $50m, right?
Okay, that one’s an unfair outlier. But take Captain America: The First Avenger; it had a $140m budget, and it grossed $370m – but, if I’ve got your reasoning right, we should figure it effectively had a $280m budget, and it effectively grossed less than $280m, right? So compared to that, San Andreas was a godsend?
X-Men: First Class had a $160m budget, and grossed $353m; and, if I follow you, that means it effectively had a $320m budget and grossed $250m. So, again, it’d be a damnable catastrophe compared to San Andreas miraculously turning a profit?
Batman Begins had a $150m budget, and grossed $374m; and, as I understand it, you’d say that’s really a $300m budget, and you’d figure the gross is down below that. Is that right? You figure it lost money, the way San Andreas didnn’t?
But there’s also a “delta ticket sales” factor to consider. What is the difference in ticket sales with him in a movie? I think it’s generally considered quite positive.
Hollywood is a crap shoot. You have no idea going in if a movie is going to be a success or not. But you make moves to increase the chances of more money coming in. Trying to “win 'em all” is a fool’s game. Trying to do better is the plan. You pay a person $X hoping that the effect will be more than $X coming in. The numbers people in Hollywood like The Rock’s odds. In particular his Q Score is very high. That matters.