Showing posts with label year-end. Show all posts
Showing posts with label year-end. Show all posts

Monday, December 30, 2013

End of Year lists














In Hollywood, Angelina Jolie is often regarded as the first female action hero. In 2013 she has cut a similar figure on the world stage, breaking the familiar mould of the celebrity who does charitable work and becoming a fully fledged activist in her own right.
























.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

Sunday, January 6, 2013

2012 Box Office

The lack of a consistent yardstick undermines the credibility of this particular effort.  For example, Safe House is rated as an underperformer with $208M at a cost of $85M while Jack Reacher is a hit with $81M / $65M.  Same with Snow White vs. Prometheus.  Snow White made 91% of cost in the U.S., 2.32X cost worldwide. Prometheus made 97% of cost in the U.S., 3.09X cost worldwide.  But Snow White is a hit while Prometheus is an underperformer. 
If a purely mathematical standard was used instead of what appears to be subjective judgement, the rankings would probably be more consistent and make more sense.  -- Fussy


From TOH

2012 Box Office Wrap: Wide Release Blockbusters, Underperformers and Bellyflops, Studio Winners and Losers


by Tom Brueggemann
January 6, 2013 5:35 PM

 
"The Avengers"
It's not easy figuring out what films were hits or misses (or something inbetween). Domestic gross totals don't tell the whole story. You need to look at revenue as well as production and marketing costs to assess global returns. (Remember, theaters return about half of what they take in at theater wickets to distributors.) Here's our stab at sorting out 143 films initially released in  2012 that played wide (750 screens or more) for at least one week. The titles have been divided into eight categories, from biggest hits to flops (some year-end pictures haven't yet gone wide). The list in each category is in order of U.S./Canada gross, but in determining placement, the total world-wide gross is a significant factor. Although the normal pattern for studio films these days is to gross more internationally than domestically,the degree of difference varies widely.
Keep in mind the following caveats:
  • Listed production budgets are estimates derived from a variety of sources.
  • Distributors retain only part of the revenue that comes into theaters. The overall average in the U.S. is somewhere around 50%, but this also varies, with biggest hits often taking in considerablty more, while other lesser films sometimes falling below this.
  • Marketing expenses are a major factor in calculating ultimate profit, but exact figures are hard to come by. In the U.S., a wide release backed by TV and other media, extended over several weeks, fully paid for by the distributor can reach $50 million or more for a major film that opens during a prime playtime, and costs of at least $25 million at least are normal. The distributor also bears costs for prints and their shipping (less common) and digital delivery.
  • Later revenues -- DVD, Blu-ray, cable and TV showings (a much higher share of which goes to the studio than theatrical receipts) and other ancilliary items, including licensing, games, merchandising and other side businesses that increasingly are part of the overall plan for a major movie-- also aren't known, but are factored into the financial picture.
  • In many cases films are acquired by a distributor after production, or deals are made with a distributor to handle a film's release for a fee. Also, some movies with U.S. distributors were released by multiple parties overseas. Figuring a film's ultimate success comes down to the fortunes of the original producer, irrespective of the film's distributors. (Two exceptions are "The Secret Life of Arriety," which was released originally in 2010 in its native Japan and elsewhere, and which Disney released in the U.S. as part of its deal with Studio Ghibli, and "Red Dawn," which FilmDistrict distributed after the film was acquired out of the MGM bankruptcy.)
  • For late-year releases, current grosses are listed, but we are making projections on their ultimate success. Those films have (****) listed after the titles. A handful of these which have not yet gone to wide release are listed under "To be determined."
  • NA means not available (in the case of international grosses, usually because a film hasn't opened, but in others because they have not been reported).
  • Grosses are through Jan. 4, 2013 for U.S./Canada, generally the previous weekend for international (which is less exact in reporting).
A separate report will cover specialized/limited releases for 2012, including "Intouchables," which has grossed $420 million worldwide, a large portion of it during last year, although the U.S./Canada share was only $13 million.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Year end bits


From well+good nyc

Surprising celebrities who meditate

 Lately, it seems everyone's been jumping on the meditation bandwagon, er, pillow. And not just spiritually inclined celebs like Gwyneth Paltrow and Russell Simmons…

Now even celebs not known for following a particularly spiritual lifestyle are just as likely to be headed down a Buddhist path as down the red carpet. Check out this surprising list… —Carla Vass


 
Angelina Jolie
The poster girl for overextended mothers everywhere, the actress, director, activist, and mother of six says she finds “meditation moments” in everyday things, such as playing with her children. Here’s to meditation on the go.

Read the rest at well+good


Deadline Awards Watch With Pete Hammond, Episode 6

By PETE HAMMOND | Wednesday December 26, 2012 @ 3:12pm PST

 Here’s Episode 6 of our audio podcast Deadline Awards Watch With Pete Hammond, our year-end look at the best of 2012. Listen to Deadline Awards Columnist Hammond and host David Bloom discuss the year’s best films, TV shows and performances in each that shouldn’t be overlooked as voters for Oscars, the Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild and other organizations consider their year-end awards.








I'm on the cover of the Village Voice dressed as Angelina Jolie, leg and all. You will gag.






 From boxoffice.com

Boxoffice's Bankable List: Why Forbes Is Wrong

 December 26, 2012 by Phil Contrino

bankable2013.jpg
How should Hollywood define "bankable" in 2013?
Should it be based more on the relationship between salary and grosses? Or should it be based on the ability to consistently pick quality projects that do well at the box office? At Boxoffice.com we put more stock in the ability to consistently pick quality projects, but the other factors are also very important. With all due respect to Forbes, we have a different, more fluid definition of bankable than the one that led them to put Natalie Portman and Kristen Stewart at the top of their new list. Portman and Stewart are talented actresses, but they are not what we would call reliable draws. Portman's post-Oscar career is all about taking artistic risks--such as the upcoming Knight of Cups from director Terrence Malick--and then falling into the safety net that is the Thor franchise. While she is a vital part of Thor's world, she's not the main reason that those films are successful. As for Stewart, her recent track record is littered with failed indie flicks and we're betting that Twilight fatigue will seriously hinder her in the future.
So who would top our list? Well, here are a few:
Jennifer Lawrence
Yes, her salary ballooned from $500,000 for The Hunger Games to $10 million for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. She's worth it. Unlike Stewart, few critics accuse Lawrence of not being able to act and casual movie-goers have also recognized her talent. Lawrence's strong screen presence is a big reason why The Hunger Games made $686.5 million worldwide--she added a realism to the role of Katniss that few other young actresses could muster. Compare the Hunger Games haul to the $384.8 million take of the first Twilight and Lawrence's stature only grows. Catching Fire should have no problem topping the $686.5 million total of its predecessor.
Lawrence is also one of the main reasons that Silver Linings Playbook is on its way to becoming a serious hit. The Weinstein Company release has already earned $31 million worldwide and it'll explode after Oscar nominations are announced on January 10. Many pundits consider Lawrence a shoe-in for her second Best Actress nomination.
Lawrence is bankable for three main reasons: 1) She has proven talent; 2) She will have a huge amount of clout after (and during) the release of the Hunger Games series and 3) She has a knack for picking strong films and then nailing her roles in them. That kind of insight means she's built to last.
Emma Stone
The 24-year-old actress can do no wrong these days. She's been on fire ever since Easy A turned into a sleeper hit with a $75.3 million worldwide haul. Since then Stone has starred in Crazy, Stupid, Love ($145.1 million worldwide), The Help (210.7 million worldwide) and The Amazing Spider-Man ($753.9 million). She's got an impressive slate on the horizon: Gangster Squad, The Croods and The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Stone is here to stay because she has established herself as a strong comedic actress, a viable love interest and someone who can carry a serious drama. That's a deadly combination. Few actresses can master that trifecta and the ones that do go on to huge success. Hiring Stone at this point in her career is a wise investment.
Channing Tatum
2012 was a groundbreaking year for Tatum. He succeeded in the worlds of romance (The Vow, $197 million worldwide), comedy (21 Jump Street, $201.9 million) and drama (Magic Mike, $160.7 million). Tatum is in a rarefied space that few other actors have made it to. Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt are also familiar with said space. The horizon looks just as promising for Tatum. G.I. Joe: Retaliation will do serious damage at the box office this coming March, and June's White House Down should be another massive hit from director Roland Emmerich (2012, The Day After Tomorrow).
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Forget that Gordon-Levitt stumbled a bit this past August with Premium Rush. There's little doubt that he's going to be a major presence for years to come. Some of the most talented (and profitable) directors working today love to hire JGL. Rian Johnson picked the 31-year-old to anchor Looper, a $166.7 million worldwide hit. Christopher Nolan is also clearly impressed. Nolan put Gordon-Levitt in Inception ($823.6 million worldwide) and gave him a VERY important role in The Dark Knight Rises ($1.08 billion). If there are more Batman films in the future--and we're betting there will be--Gordon-Levitt will likely be the one to move the franchise forward. You can't put a price on that power.
Posted by at
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)