Star Maps
I feel a burning urge to respond to Anne Thompson’s “Fluke Zone” piece, but I am having a hard time nailing down what she is actually arguing.
First, the idea of a “Fluke Zone” is demeaning to the efforts of the talent being discussed and misses the point… it’s anything but a fluke.
There is no such thing as “can’t miss.” There is such a thing as being “can’t miss in a vehicle that connects with your primary demographic.”
There are almost never more than 2 such stars in the business at any one time.
There are stratifications of this principle as well.
Adam Sandler and Denzel Washington are completely reliable stars in America… and reliably have not translated overseas, though Denzel seemed to be improving his standing with Déjà Vu… but then crept back with American Gangster, even with Russell Crowe by his side.
The reason Brad Pitt is “such a big star” is not America, but overseas. He hasn’t had a film perform better in the US than overseas in many years. He has 15 titles with over 60% of their revenue from outside North America, including a 73% overseas stake on Jesse James last year. As a result, he’s only had two films do less than $100 million worldwide in the last 15 years and 10 that have done at least $100 million overseas alone.
Will Smith is the biggest star in the world right now because his films play worldwide and has had just two of his thirteen movies starting in 1996 (ID4) come up short of $100 million domestic and $220m worldwide. And it’s now been seven years since Ali, the last “flop.”
Part of this run, however, is that he’s only gone away from his base once in these last seven years… for The Pursuit of Happyness, which did over $300 million worldwide.
Being a mega movie star is, in great part, about knowing what people want to see you do and doing it.
The decade-long run of Tom Hanks was 13 movies long, the only box office “underperformer” being Philadephia, which did $77 million domestic, $202 worldwide, and won him an Oscar. It was also the only film that Hanks did that was out of the two stock characters he player – Earnest & Goofy.
Tom Cruise’s big run was 14 years and 14 films, though he had two underperformers with Eyes Wide Shut and Magnolia, two efforts to work with top drama directors and/.or to win awards that were not won. But aside from that, a dozen $100 million+ domestic/$200m+ worldwide hits.
Conversely, Julia Roberts run was four years (1997-2000), seven films… with only four of the films cracking $100 million domestic and all for doing over $30m internationally. While she became as star in 1990 with Pretty Woman, she never seemed to be able to deliver the nine-figure grosses more than a couple times in a row. Sleeping With The Enemy would be followed by Flatliners… Hook and Pelican Brief by I Love Trouble and Something To Talk About. That kind of thing.
Harrison Ford, by the way, always felt huge. But he was forever coloring out of the lines and never had The Big Run. The only time in his entire career when he has done $100 million domestic back-to-back were the two times he did Star Wars and Indy back-to-back. In fact, aside from those franchises, he’s had only four films gross $100 million domestic… and one of those was a franchise movie (Jack Ryan). And only three of those four cracked $200m worldwide. Beloved movies like Witness and Working Girl and Presumed Innocent were hits, but not blockbusters. And he always had the tendency to throw some real duds – often ambitious duds – in between the hits.
Stars are valued by their ability to open movies. Mega stars are valued by their ability to open and then deliver $100 million-plus consistently.
Robert Downey Jr. and Shia LaBeouf are talented, but there is no indication that either one is a sure opener. Not even close. The only film LaBeouf has ever opened to real business was Disturbia ($22m) and the film didn’t manage $100 million domestic in spite of great reviews and it came up short of $120 million worldwide. Good for Disturbia, but not a money-in-the-bank star. And anyone who even tries to argue that he had any significant role in opening or delivering on Transformers or Indy 4 needs shock treatment. He may become a star – I imagine not – but he is not close to being money now.
As for Downey… love the work… but if you would gamble money on him delivering a $100 million gross in anything but Iron Man, I’ll sell you a bridge and the papers on Tobey Maguire to boot.
Anyway… this is why this is a difficult conversation. Perception is not reality… but it is real.
And Hollywood wants us to believe in stars because that makes them more valuable as commodities. But as commodities go, very, very few ever have even a remarkable short run, much less the decade or so that the very biggest stars manage to get through.
Paging Norma “I am big, it’s…” Desmond!
Good article, DP.
But you made a fairly big error regarding Denzel Washington.
AMERICAN GANGSTER wasn’t a step back for Washington as an overseas draw, as you seem to infer. It was pretty much a confirmation that DEJA VU wasn’t a fluke, and that he probably had as much to do with the overseas take of INSIDE MAN as Jodie Foster, if not more. And Denzel gave Russell Crowe his first international hit in several years.
Check box office mojo. In Keeping with Washington’s last 3 wide releases, AMERICAN GANGSTER made more overseas than it did in America. AG made 130 million domestic, compared to 135 million overseas. Washington is becoming a slightly bigger deal deal overseas, than he is in America. Denzel is still consistent in America, but he’s now more likely to crack the 100 million dollar mark in a commercial movie overseas, than he is in America (INSIDE MAN came close to making 100 million overseas, but missed out by about 5 million and DEJA VU did an impressive 116 million overseas). I think THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3 remake with Washington is a guaranteed money-maker overseas, and that MGM are so eager to make Robert Ludlum’s Bourne-esque thriller THE MATERESE CIRCLE with Denzel, because it’ll be an easy sell internationally with Washington in the lead. You really can’t put him in the “he doesn’t translate overseas bracket” anymore.
Washington’s late career overseas bankability and domestic dependability, means he’s now very much in the upper echeclon on bankable movie stars, worldwide. Among dramatic actors, he might be second only to Will Smith now. Which is an achievement considering Washington rarely does anything that might be called an outright action vehichle, summer blockbuster or special effects heavy movies (like a HANCOCK, MEN IN BLACK or I,ROBOT). He consistently makes challenging films, with a political or social current. Washington has beome an overseas draw mainly thanks to the quality and consistency of his dramatic vehicles this decade, and his own performances. A talky, 3 hour crime drama like AMERICAN GANGSTER does not make 135 million dollars overseas without a star the calibre of Washington in it.