I’m not bragging, of course. Indeed, I’d be downright embarrassed if that weren’t true.
The central problem with this Times article is the false premise that there even exists anymore a group of “A-List Stars.” Regular readers here know there are few deceased equines I flog more diligently than the fact that we are now living, and have been for a while, in the post-star Hollywood era. Indeed, Hollywood now boasts but one reliable ‘star’*, Will Smith. Smith has, with far greater consistency than anyone else out there right now, opened movies in a big way, and moreover in a variety of genres. I can’t think of anyone else remotely in his class right now.
[*Again, let’s forstall arguments about what constitutes a ‘movie star.’ From a literalist standpoint, if you star in a movie, you are therefore a movie star. In traditional parlance, however, it is somebody whose name in the case guarantees (or close to it) a strong opening weekend, and has a track record of success over the long haul. That is that basis from which I continue my argument here.]Johnny Depp can also be a name to be reckoned with. However, other than the Jack Sparrow movies, he remains at best a vital component in a savory cinematic stew. Team him up with Tim Burton, and he’s got a fairly good chance of being in a hit. Other than that…not so much.
Still, Depp seems to be one of the important elements in the upcoming Public Enemy which might make it big, but again, it’s the sum of the ingredients, including director Michael Mann (hopefully the Mann of Heat, and not of Miami Vice the Movie) and, to a far less important degree, co-star Christian Bale. Right up there with Depp, though, I would contend the other major element likely to make the film a hit is ’30s chic: The suits, the coats, the hats, the cars, the guns. It was a gorgeous era, and Mann seems likely to exploit it beautifully. On the other hand, this seems like the sort of film that middling reviews can hurt (unlike, say, the generally scathing critiques for Transfomers 2), and the movie’s current Rotten Tomato rating of 63% is far lower than I’d like it to be.
Therefore the article is proceeding from a false position. Look at this key paragraph: “The studios stocked this summer’s release schedule with so-called star vehicles, including “Land of the Lost” with Will Ferrell, “Year One” featuring Jack Black, the comedy “Imagine That” with Eddie Murphy, and Denzel Washington and John Travolta in a remake of “The Taking of Pelham 123.” But rather than igniting ticket sales, the star-studded movies have dramatically underperformed.”
Well, one problem with that list is that not a single person listed is, in a proper sense, a movie star. Hugh Jackman stars in successful movies about…well, Wolverine, really. Therefore he’s generated a box office figure well over a billion dollars. However, he’s not a movie star, he’s a replaceable cog. Don’t get me wrong, Jackman is an entirely serviceable Wolverine, and will remain so until they get another perfectly serviceable actor to play Wolverine some years down the line. That doesn’t make Jackman a movie star, though.
Let’s examine those actors the LA Times mentions. Will Ferrell is a movie star, if you restrict the phrase here to mean “in low budget comedies.” There’s little evidence that Ferrell is, or will be, a breakout movie star. He could be, maybe, but Land of the Lost sounds like a dreadful misfire, a film marketed as a family film while so fearful of chasing away Ferrell’s slob comedy fans that it was apparently packed with women getting their breasts fondled, lots of light profanity and other non-kiddie material. Word quickly got around that if you brought your children to see this, you’d either walk out halfway through or at best sit next to your kid in stony embarrassment.
Oddly, the film Ferrell should have been bright enough to emulate was his first (starring), sweetest and, oh yeah, easily most successful film, Elf. Had Land of the Lost satisfied family audiences nearly half as well as Elf did, it probably would have made twice as much money, at least. Instead, it’s tanked, and there’s a good chance that like many comics before him, Ferrell will see the popularity of his bread and butter movies decrease—the recent Semi-Pro actually made less than his arthouse flick Stranger Than Fiction—while the Land of the Lost debacle will make it that much harder for him to headline any film with a more ambitious budget.
Jack Black? Really? Same thing. Put him in fairly low-budget comedies, and he’s fine. However, this only two ‘hit’ movies were animated films, A Shark’s Tale and (especially) Kung Fu Panda. He was in the fairly successful Tropic Thunder, but as the “guy everyone forgot was in the movie.” (Same thing for his appearance in King Kong.)
Eddie Murphy and John Travolta? Bookends to each other. Both are old enough that they worked in movies back when there really were movie stars. And at various times, both earned that title for themselves in the days of yore. However, those days are gone. Will either of them be in successful films again? Sure, probably. But that will be based on whether the film’s concepts draw audiences more than because they’re coming to see either of those two. In the right movie, their presence might be considered a mild extra inducement to see the movie, like the way Jeff Goldblum goes down easy in flicks like Independence Day or Jurassic Park. But few now look in their papers and say, “Hey, Murphy / Travolta’s got a new movie out! I’m there!”
As for Denzel Washington…good grief. Folks, the guy is not a movie star. He never has been. He’s like George Clooney in that regard. He’s a good actor, and he just seems like the kind of guy who should be a movie star, or would have been in the old days. However, those days are gone. Washington is a solid presence who can bolster a movie that already has a lot of appeal. However, the stats don’t bear out the idea that he himself draws people to movies. Jack Black has more movies under his belt that crossed the $100,000,000 line, and frankly, that’s not even much of a line these days.
Washington’s most successful movie is American Gangster, co-starring the similar good actor / not really a movie star Russell Crowe. Made for a fairly modest $100 million, the movie was solidly profitable. However, you wouldn’t want Washington to try to carry too many $100 million films. The recent Taking of Pelham One Two Three, co-starring fellow ‘star’ John Travolta, isn’t an example of a bad summer, as the LA Times article indicates, but entirely predictable. At best, the film may have been marginally profitable, like American Gangster. However, it was more likely to crash and burn, and it has.
Since 2000, Washington has starred in Remember the Titans ($115 million), Training Day ($76m), John Q ($72m), Antwone Fisher ($21m), Out of Time ($41m), Man on Fire ($78m), Manchurian Candidate ($65m), Inside Man ($88m), Déjà vu ($65), American Gangster ($130m), Great Debaters ($30m), and The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (currently $53m). Now, that doesn’t cost foreign take and home video, etc. However, remember also that you basically have to take in roughly double what the film cost at the box office to what it cost to make and market before you hit the black.
From that list, it’s pretty clear that you’re in pretty good shape having Denzel Washington star in your movie if you keep the budget in the $30-35 million range. Occasionally you’ll lose a bit of money, but mostly you’ll make some, and once in a while you’ll make an extra nice if not exorbitant amount. Past that, you’ll risk a lot of dough, and except for American Gangster, there’s little indication that you’ll win a $100 million bet on the guy. Pelham has made $58 million worldwide at this point, meaning that the studio will see about $30 million on its investment at this point, and that the film will lose tens of millions of dollars when all is said and done. I’m sorry, that’s not a ‘movie star’ to me.
I guess the bottom line is this: Will Smith is the only guy, or maybe one should say the last guy, who if an agent calls and says “Will Smith wants to make a movie with you” you say yes without asking what kind of movie and how much. That doesn’t mean it’s a sure thing, but it’s a good enough percentage play that you should say yes anyway, until he has a run of films that don’t do so well…as will eventually happen.
Everyone one else, you say first, “What kind of movie, how much, and who’s attached?” If the first two questions are answered satisfactorily, then you greet the name Black or Murphy or Crowe or Jackman or Washington or pretty much any other known actor in Hollywood with a “that sounds great!” If the answer to either of the first two questions is unsatisfactory, though, give it a pass. It’s a sucker bet.
