We all owe you a thank you, big time. Because they went and made Blade Runner 2049. I doubt it'll ever happen again but someone believed it was gonna make its money back and we got this absolute gem to keep.
I'm sure its been mentioned before but surely Inception is the yardstick by which all films that tick the boxes that you mentioned should be measured against. Massive budget, risky but intelligent idea, stunning visuals, a-list star(s) Result: Box-office gold
He never said that it isn't possible to make a box office success if one of those factors is missing, just that it's impossible to make a box office flop if all of them are present.
The Mummy definitely went with a dependence on international moviegoers but forgot that China generally bans anything dealing with the supernatural or the occult
Looks like The Lone Ranger will become a flop. Loads of special effects-check Not a comedy-check Budget-250 million Big star-Depp is arguably the biggest on the planet Shaping up to become #2 to Despicable Me 2 this weekend at the US and with dire reviews I doubt it will get good word of mouth stop massive drops. Looking forward to Kermode's review, though.
I think james camerons Titanic proves your point, everyone prior to the films release said it would sink like the ship and had an overwhelming budget for its time, this money helped it with its spectacular visual effects and although not a big A list star it had leonardo dicaprio who was a hit with the ladies with him only recently coming from romeo and juliet and yet the film managed to be th highest grossing film for 11 years with over a billion $
It was a good movie, but it wasn't a pop corn movie, when I goto the cinema I want to switch of my brain for two hours, at home I will tend to watch something with a bit more substance.
Blade Runner 2049 made $259 million off a budget of $150 - $185 million. It wasn't what you'd call a success - it's certainly not considered one - but it at least gets close to Kermode's 2 x budget.
Cloud Atlas: big A list star: Tom Hanks - check loads of special effects. - check Not a comedy - check Budget $102 million,(big budget) return $130 million, has to make at least €72 in DVD sales.. Somewhat of a flop
"I'd like to talk to you about flops", Mark, there are valid arenas, and there are valid arenas. But, seriously, a film flopping does not mean a film is bad. There have been some "flops" which don't deserve the disdain that was hurled at them. Also, consider that Disney deliberately let John Carter fail for complex financial reasons (I kid you not).
I thought that Avatar would be a flop based on its subject matter and the fact that none of the leads were major stars (Sigourney at one point but she's supporting in the film). The fact that it was successful was surprising. The fact that it was as successful as it was, blew my mind. Incidentally I'm sure its been mentioned before but surely Inception is the yardstick by which all films that tick the boxes that you mentioned should be measured against.
Wild Wild West. It grossed $222m with a $170m budget, which is a flop according to your definition. It had the visuals and an A-List star, is it an exception?
Studios never want to just make their money back and break even with a film. They either want to lose or make money. Losing money is a tax deduction and making money means profit. Just breaking even means they wasted two years of their life for nothing. Show business is now more than ever just big business.
Farrell wasn't then and isn't now an A list star. He can't open a movie. There are very few true A listers in the sense that Kermode means them. Maybe only a handful: Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Will Smith, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert Downey Jr (who'd ever have thought that six years ago), Angelina Jolie, Sandra Bullock... and I'm struggling now. Amazingly we might have to add Channing Tatum to that list soon. I wish I could think of some more women. :(
Would David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson be consider A list? if so X-files 2 was a flop. Or Cutthroat Island back when Geena Davis was a big star, or Hudson Hawk with Bruce Willis.
I think there's probably another hidden rule you could get out of that- something to do with £x amount of money being spent on marketing. If there are any exceptions to Kermode's rules, we wouldn't know about them because the budget wasn't spunked on bus posters and trailer saturation.
The Lone Ranger A-list star: Johnny Depp - Check Loads of stunts and action - check Not a comedy - check Budget $232 million return $75 million during it's opening weekend. There is no way it will make double its money back.
I tweeted you that very question re After Earth last week, I'm not convinced by your reply though, ok so 'after DVD and TV rights etc' it might make its money back eventually, but I think your point in your book was that these films would have cinema success. Taken to the nTh degree... even Cleoptatra made a profit eventually. But I agree, WWZ will makes its money back at the cinema, it helps that the film is pretty good whereas After Earth is a stinker
I would argue that there's a shift happening away from Star power. With the stars being increasingly the directors or producers the highest grossing film Avatar hardly had a Tom Cruise fronting it but Titanic man. Even the new superman has big Chistopher Nolan writing on the poster. I think as film viewing is becoming expensive a throwaway blockbuster with the budget etc is decreasing slowly. Another example that back this up is 'from the director of' lines on Elysium.
I'd really like to get your opinion on how Pacific Rim fits your rules. It seems to meet all but the last of your criteria, an A List star. How do you think it will perform?
Colin Farrell is not a movie star. (And he wasn't a movie star in 2004). Although that movie was rated R. The problem with Kermode's calculation is that studios (generally) only make 50% of the reported box office figures (and slightly less on international distribution). He talked about DVD sales, but those have been on a long decline. The studio that made Cowboys vs. Aliens figured it had money in the bag, but film did 200 million internationally, but was probably a genuine profit loss.
Not only that, whole scenes are created in such a way as to accommodate the comedy aspect purely, so comedy is in fact the driving force behind this movie, making it its main genre. Claiming this is not comedy is like claiming Alien was not a horror but only a sci-fi movie.
I don't know if it had the kind of BIG visuals Kermit is talking about. Also I think they were trying to make a proper classic, not just a blockbuster.
Or maybe it is BECAUSE of the generic 'Hollywood concept' that these movies don't fail. If the directors were to experiment, the greater mass would not feel familiar with the conept of the movie, making it a failure (people don't like the unfamiliar). The mindless scenarios of most blockbusters is what keeps them from failing. In most cases, 'experimenting' is considered a bad thing.
Well, looks like the rules were completely broken for both After Earth and Lone Ranger. After Earth will be lucky to break even at best with home video sales...and Lone Ranger is dead on arrival.
He makes a good point. Stupid people will watch anything. Intelligent people will only watch intelligent films. You might as well make all films intelligent because it caters for everyone.
James Cameron is the A List star of Avatar....and it made $2+ billion. I think that's probably something Kermode is leaving out on his rules. Transformers no big star...except Michael Bay-spolosions.
i thought the reason Adam Sandler is still in business is be cause his comedies make a constant amount of money, ie between $200m - $300million, twice a year: $600m? Then you could look it the other way, you don't laugh therefore not a comedy?
Colin Farrell's has never really been an A list star, always flirting just outside the realm of stardom. A world away from the Will Smith's, Brad Pitt's and Tom Cruises's.
As of today
World War Z $190m to make. total box office $502,658,107
After Earth $130m to make. total box office $244,641,740
We all owe you a thank you, big time. Because they went and made Blade Runner 2049. I doubt it'll ever happen again but someone believed it was gonna make its money back and we got this absolute gem to keep.
And another stern reminder of why we can’t have (big budget) nice things
I really hope Dune is good and that it'll make back twice its budget.
I liked Waterworld. I realize I may be the only one. But I think it's underrated.
and it did get it's money back , and then some....
I liked water world as well.
I'm sure its been mentioned before but surely Inception is the yardstick by which all films that tick the boxes that you mentioned should be measured against.
Massive budget, risky but intelligent idea, stunning visuals, a-list star(s)
Result: Box-office gold
WWZ doesn't convince me even in the trailer, since all I see is Glasgow.
He never said that it isn't possible to make a box office success if one of those factors is missing, just that it's impossible to make a box office flop if all of them are present.
The Mummy with Tom Cruise!
The Mummy definitely went with a dependence on international moviegoers but forgot that China generally bans anything dealing with the supernatural or the occult
Gemini Man says hello.
And now we have Dune coming out
Looks like The Lone Ranger will become a flop.
Loads of special effects-check
Not a comedy-check
Budget-250 million
Big star-Depp is arguably the biggest on the planet
Shaping up to become #2 to Despicable Me 2 this weekend at the US and with dire reviews I doubt it will get good word of mouth stop massive drops. Looking forward to Kermode's review, though.
I wonder if any studio execs have viewed this and are thinking 'thank christ mark you have finally given me something i can use'
God's of Egypt with Gerard Butler couldn't be saved with a A list actor.
It has absolutely terrible VFX.
Did someone mention "waterworld".......
I think james camerons Titanic proves your point, everyone prior to the films release said it would sink like the ship and had an overwhelming budget for its time, this money helped it with its spectacular visual effects and although not a big A list star it had leonardo dicaprio who was a hit with the ladies with him only recently coming from romeo and juliet and yet the film managed to be th highest grossing film for 11 years with over a billion $
I thought world war Zee was cos it rhymed with 3, world war 3... get it?
You should add a rule:
The Film isn't too long.
It was advertised with Johnny Depp goofing around, so it was advertised as a comedy.
Sadly, Blade Runner 2049 - which is an excellent film - demonstrated that if you follow Kermode's 3 rules, but make it intelligent, it will flop 😔
It was a good movie, but it wasn't a pop corn movie, when I goto the cinema I want to switch of my brain for two hours, at home I will tend to watch something with a bit more substance.
Blade Runner 2049 made $259 million off a budget of $150 - $185 million. It wasn't what you'd call a success - it's certainly not considered one - but it at least gets close to Kermode's 2 x budget.
Pretty sure it costed like 220 mil and advertising would have easily had it over 350 mil, so yeah it definitely lost a bunch of money
I just consider it lucky that it got made
Waterworld. Sorry Mark ;)
he's not saying only films with the formula will make money, he's saying that if it does have the formula it certainly will
There was an A-list star...he just didn't appear in the movie. James Cameron. He, like Spielberg, is a star name even though he's not an actor.
Also, I was just reading about you making this point in your book the other day. Really enjoying it by the way!
Cloud Atlas:
big A list star: Tom Hanks - check
loads of special effects. - check
Not a comedy - check
Budget $102 million,(big budget) return $130 million, has to make at least €72 in DVD sales..
Somewhat of a flop
"I'd like to talk to you about flops", Mark, there are valid arenas, and there are valid arenas.
But, seriously, a film flopping does not mean a film is bad. There have been some "flops" which don't deserve the disdain that was hurled at them.
Also, consider that Disney deliberately let John Carter fail for complex financial reasons (I kid you not).
Geena Davis wasn't exactly an unknown in Cutthroat Island...
I thought that Avatar would be a flop based on its subject matter and the fact that none of the leads were major stars (Sigourney at one point but she's supporting in the film).
The fact that it was successful was surprising.
The fact that it was as successful as it was, blew my mind.
Incidentally I'm sure its been mentioned before but surely Inception is the yardstick by which all films that tick the boxes that you mentioned should be measured against.
Though not a primarily a comedy, it was also sold as being a comedy/western/action movie.
good point at the end Kermode.
Wild Wild West. It grossed $222m with a $170m budget, which is a flop according to your definition. It had the visuals and an A-List star, is it an exception?
God Bless you Kermode, that is a very good point, sir.
Looks like the Lone Ranger will be testing this formula out very soon.....
Studios never want to just make their money back and break even with a film. They either want to lose or make money. Losing money is a tax deduction and making money means profit. Just breaking even means they wasted two years of their life for nothing. Show business is now more than ever just big business.
Farrell wasn't then and isn't now an A list star. He can't open a movie. There are very few true A listers in the sense that Kermode means them. Maybe only a handful: Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Will Smith, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert Downey Jr (who'd ever have thought that six years ago), Angelina Jolie, Sandra Bullock... and I'm struggling now. Amazingly we might have to add Channing Tatum to that list soon. I wish I could think of some more women. :(
Would David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson be consider A list? if so X-files 2 was a flop. Or Cutthroat Island back when Geena Davis was a big star, or Hudson Hawk with Bruce Willis.
I would say that district 9 is an exception ( budget 30 mil., took 210+ mil.)
Wasn't Oblivion considered a financial flop? I don't know the figures but it follows the rules.
I think there's probably another hidden rule you could get out of that- something to do with £x amount of money being spent on marketing. If there are any exceptions to Kermode's rules, we wouldn't know about them because the budget wasn't spunked on bus posters and trailer saturation.
Avatar didn't have a listers but it did have publicity, and a lot at that.That was enough for it to do well.
Balabans Law says a film has to make back _three times_ its "negative cost" - everything spent to get the negative - to break even
Desperately trying to think of an exception...
The Lone Ranger
A-list star: Johnny Depp - Check
Loads of stunts and action - check
Not a comedy - check
Budget $232 million return $75 million during it's opening weekend. There is no way it will make double its money back.
I tweeted you that very question re After Earth last week, I'm not convinced by your reply though, ok so 'after DVD and TV rights etc' it might make its money back eventually, but I think your point in your book was that these films would have cinema success.
Taken to the nTh degree... even Cleoptatra made a profit eventually.
But I agree, WWZ will makes its money back at the cinema, it helps that the film is pretty good whereas After Earth is a stinker
Great lighting
Hollywood is scared to take any creative risks. Look at all the remakes and reboots and sequels.
Look at Green Lantern 218 million spend, A-list cast, like mark strong and Ryan Renolds. And that movie flop with only make worldwide 219 milion.
I would argue that there's a shift happening away from Star power. With the stars being increasingly the directors or producers the highest grossing film Avatar hardly had a Tom Cruise fronting it but Titanic man. Even the new superman has big Chistopher Nolan writing on the poster. I think as film viewing is becoming expensive a throwaway blockbuster with the budget etc is decreasing slowly. Another example that back this up is 'from the director of' lines on Elysium.
I think Blade runner 2049 broke the rule
Didn't really have an a-list star pushing the film though.
Kermode formula still stands strong.
Green Zone starring Matt Damon cost $100 million made $95 million worldwide, but the formula does normally work.
2012. Wouldn't consider John Cusack a big A-list star but took a while to go through films
Cloud Atlas is a comedy in part. What about the segments of Timothy Cavendish?
I'd really like to get your opinion on how Pacific Rim fits your rules. It seems to meet all but the last of your criteria, an A List star. How do you think it will perform?
Colin Farrell is not a movie star. (And he wasn't a movie star in 2004). Although that movie was rated R.
The problem with Kermode's calculation is that studios (generally) only make 50% of the reported box office figures (and slightly less on international distribution). He talked about DVD sales, but those have been on a long decline.
The studio that made Cowboys vs. Aliens figured it had money in the bag, but film did 200 million internationally, but was probably a genuine profit loss.
Not only that, whole scenes are created in such a way as to accommodate the comedy aspect purely, so comedy is in fact the driving force behind this movie, making it its main genre. Claiming this is not comedy is like claiming Alien was not a horror but only a sci-fi movie.
I don't know if it had the kind of BIG visuals Kermit is talking about. Also I think they were trying to make a proper classic, not just a blockbuster.
Has anyone TRIED on purpose to make a flop as a “statement” ?
Alexander from 2004 starring Colin Farrell
Or maybe it is BECAUSE of the generic 'Hollywood concept' that these movies don't fail. If the directors were to experiment, the greater mass would not feel familiar with the conept of the movie, making it a failure (people don't like the unfamiliar). The mindless scenarios of most blockbusters is what keeps them from failing. In most cases, 'experimenting' is considered a bad thing.
4 WORDS: Shawshank & Cloud Atlas
WWZ did ok AND was fine. After Earth was awful. You are right K. Shame about John Carter.
Well, looks like the rules were completely broken for both After Earth and Lone Ranger. After Earth will be lucky to break even at best with home video sales...and Lone Ranger is dead on arrival.
congratulations
Can you look at Solo then? Is that a flop?
Scott Pilgrim vs The World.
Green Lantern maybe, I'm not sure if Ryan Reynolds could be classed as an A list star though.
The 13th Warrior might be one, at least for its time when Antonio Banderas was still a big name.
do they have cinema in Middle Earth?
The movie execs dont believe you because they have other people with their own interests telling them their formulas.
Pacific Rim has no A-list stars, will that film succeed?
Green Lantern ?
Maybe you should add another rule: if you don't want to be a flop, don't do anything exciting.
ishtar and town & country were also both warren beatty films, so maybe the comedy just shouldn't star him?
Hello Jason Isaacs.
After Earth is gonna lose money.
I enjoyed WWZ, could of done being a 15 or 18 but i thought Pitt was good and the film was entertaining and quite intelligently done
He makes a good point. Stupid people will watch anything. Intelligent people will only watch intelligent films. You might as well make all films intelligent because it caters for everyone.
James Cameron is the A List star of Avatar....and it made $2+ billion. I think that's probably something Kermode is leaving out on his rules. Transformers no big star...except Michael Bay-spolosions.
i thought the reason Adam Sandler is still in business is be cause his comedies make a constant amount of money, ie between $200m - $300million, twice a year: $600m? Then you could look it the other way, you don't laugh therefore not a comedy?
Tangled = Cost 260 mil and made over 590 mil & no big name stars.!
$217 million, it made a profit.
Terminator: Dark Fate
Unless you're Sony
Didn't actually lose money. Didn't make a lot, but it wasn't a "flop".
Waterworld......?
What about Avatar? Sigourney Weaver is not an A-lister, and the film was not a comedy (though it was a joke).
30 million is not a big budget at all, especially for a sci fi movie.
Well done young man :bd
battlefield earth, waterworld, sahara
And a damn shame because its great
Lone Ranger
sorry but the lone ranger stands today has the big flop of all time, its cause its a comedy? lol
Colin Farrell's has never really been an A list star, always flirting just outside the realm of stardom. A world away from the Will Smith's, Brad Pitt's and Tom Cruises's.
vimeoDOTcom/65060864
Soderbergh speaks about this theme
Why bother to do something exciting when they will make money no matter what.
Ryan Reynolds is great but he is no A lister. B+ at most.
waterworld
Gods of Egypt.... 'Nuff said. Worst. Film. Ever.
Glasgow !!
Blade runner 2049