DreamWorks' First $1 Billion Year
2004 was the best domestic box office year in the 10-year history of DreamWorks as a standalone company, led by Shrek 2, totalling $937.1 million.
This year, the studio, now technically under the Paramount banner, is at $987.5 million, their best year ever with four more movies on the way. The Heartbreak Kid, due October 5, should have them over the $1 billion mark by that Saturday at latest.
Meanwhile, Paramount w/o DreamWorks has had three more releases than the DW side (9)… and a total domestic gross of just over $200 million.
DreamWorks desperately needed a white knight to bail them out and Brad Grey took the bait. He’s gotten a few good stories out of it. But not only has he tweaked his #1 producer of product over and over again, but the newly muscular DreamWorks is getting cockier and cockier.
They say never to lend money to a friend because the friend will end up resenting you if they can pay you back or if they can’t. Not only does Team DW dislike Grey for being a glory hog, but even as they now do pretty much as they see fit with their movies, they even kind of resent him for bailing them out… because they are obviously so good, they didn’t really need the help.
Well, they did. But it is a very, very talented group and the Stacey Snider hire was quite a coup… especially as she now does exactly what she is best at and has less corporate weight on her shoulders to distract her.
It’s also looking like we will have the first year in history in which 5 studios cross the $1 billion mark domestically (also WB, Dis, Sony, and Universal, the last of which is only $255m away with 8 movies left to release). Paramount is already there, technically. But come October, you might want to revise the list with the real billion dollar company on Melrose.
I still can’t believe they were only able to get Zodiac to $33 million, with great reviews. Fucking Freedom Writers did better? You can’t tell me it didn’t provide the same edge-of-your-seat thrills as Disturbia, yet that managed almost $50 mil more.
Please tell me someone in marketing and promotion has been executed, or at least fired over there since then.
Lazarus – Although i feel your pain and have, indeed, over the years, called for many an execution, this is the reality in the market place. Zodiac wasn’t for kids over 25, unless they’re fans of Fincher’s. Young teen stars, in creepy trailers, based on tired (read: comfortably familiar) plot-lines (like Disturbia’s) will almost always deliver. Zodiac was a long, slow, well-crafted, detail-oriented procedural (which I enjoyed very much, mostly due to the actors). I’m not sure I was on the edge of my seat though to be honest, as there seemed to be more of an emphasis on the characters and their unravellings than on the thrills. I’m just not sure how you market a film like Zodiac when there is really little violence and “action” per se. I’m not sure mentioning “From the Director of Fight Club and Seven”, etc, will cut it anymore. I know I dont need to hear that, and I dont think Disturbia’s target audience really cares.
Paramount has been in trouble for awhile. The Dreamworks deal benefited them both.
Why can’t they all be happy the deal was mutually beneficial?
as for Zodiac, repeat after me:
Jake Gyllenhall cannot open a movie or sustain it, no matter how good it is.
Once again Hollywood is trying to manufacture the next generation of leading men. Gyllenhall feels like Ewan McGregor or Jude Law to me. A guy that gets put in all these movies and just doesn’t have the popularity to draw in people to the theater.
After the Harrison Ford/Tom Hanks/Tom Cruise/Bruce Willis generation of leading men, it feels like the guys 20 years back, i.e. the guys who should be the leading men of this generaation, really don’t have much charisma, except for Will Smith.
I mean right now, name an actor in their 30’s that is a box office draw.
i can’t think of one.
I just remembered having to come up with lists like “Male actor 30s”, A-list, B-list, whatever-list, while working at various production companies over the years. Not something I ever want to remember again, anghus. I don’t even know any actors in their 30s… Is Ruffalo one? I like him, but you’re right, can any of these kids open a movie? Does Sandler count? Oh who cares, I’ll just have my martini and watch Brazil. Hey, you think anyone studio would make a movie like THAT anymore?? Maybe i’ll need a second martini tonight.
You know, this is just ridiculous in many ways. Doesn’t Paramount get some credit for marketing this stuff so well? I mean, wow, Shrek the Third did $321 million!?
Norbit, Blades of Glory, Disturbia all opened much bigger than any one could have anticipated. And you have to give them SOME credit for the release strategy for Transformers.
As for Transformers, bow your heads to Don Murphy – the film will be the BIGGEST MOVIE OF THE SUMMER – they just announced an Imax re-release in September. That should get them the extra $15 million they will need to top Spiderman 3.
I think Adam Sandler just turned 40, and so did Will Smith.
It’s amazing that to me, the biggest draws in box office dollars are still guys 40+, and i don’t see that changing much.
I forgot the one 30’s actor who pretty much anchors the age bracket right now.
Matt Damon.
Maybe McCoughnahey could be on that list. Maybe.
Oh, when i forgot to add Josh Lucas to the list of ‘manufactured stars’. Yeesh.
And no, i dont think anyone would ever make a movie like Brazil anymore. Try to make a movie right now that isn’t
a) based on a best selling book
b) A remake of an old movie/tv show
c) based on a foreign film (horror/thriller only)
d) sequel to an existing property
And no, i dont think anyone would ever make a movie like Brazil anymore. Try to make a movie right now that isn’t
a) based on a best selling book
b) A remake of an old movie/tv show
c) based on a foreign film (horror/thriller only)
d) sequel to an existing property
Superbad?
Superbad, sure. But isn’t that just an ameliorated 21st century version of bad 80’s teen sex movies? Everyone’s salivating over it, partly justly, but come on, how original is it? Being overly cynical isn’t necessarily my M.O., but seriously, we really have to search long and hard for ground-breaking films. I think the 90s were the last hurrah (hopefully more to come) of serious filmmaking.
Superbad bucks the trend, but you named one film out of almost 8 full months of releases.
You could say Ratatoullie, but im almost inclined to say that “Pixar” is now a brand and classify them as a franchise.
It really seems that Matt Damon has the field pretty much to himself, as ben Affleck has dropped from the running. The only othet in a distant second might be Mark Wahlberg whose Shooter was not an embarassment.
You may have to look toward the Ice Cubes and Jamie Foxes for awhile until Shia Lebouf ages. Josh Hartnett and Lucas, Jake Gyllenhall, and some of these other guys just faded.
Christian Bale will receive a boost from Batman and maybe Heath Ledger if he puts a couple of action movies under his belt.
While I tend to agree that Gyllenhall ain’t getting butts in the seats, as much as I liked ZODIAC, it was pretty vapid and empty after all was said and done. There was no there there. It was like a very well designed and photographed episode of Law & Order, except with no resoultion.
A 2 1/2 hour period procedural with an unsolved mystery at the end and no true protagonist? This does not a hit movie make.
And I liked the film. But if you’re in it for story and not aesthetics, you’d be hugely disappointed.
After Ratatouille, the highest-grossing ‘original’ movie of the year is…Wild Hogs.
Zodiac is at least half art movie, so its gross isn’t that surprising.
“c) based on a foreign film (horror/thriller only)”
No Reservations was a remake of Mostly Martha, a german film that most definitely was not a horror or thriller title.
Can’t they all just get along? Paramount bought Dreamworks, Viacom owns them both. Everybody’s got a boss. Get over it.