Week Of April 10, 2006 - List Week - Mon / Wed / Frii

April 14, 2006

Another week is rolling to an end and after looking at actors here at The Hot Button and the summer movie season on MCN, I thought it might be nice to take a look at some stats that might come into play in analyzing these pieces.

For instance, the most consistent comment about the Summer Preview was that people felt the $135 million domestic estimate for The DiVinci Code was too low. After all, a lot of people really love the book. So what's the history?

Here are the seven highest grossing films all-time based on hit books that were written for adults and aren't the sequels -

1. Jurassic Park - $357m/$558m
2. Jaws - $260m domestic/$211m international
3. The Exorcist - $193m/$208m
4. Gone With The Wind - $190m/$202m
5. The Perfect Storm - $182m/$146m
6. Schindler's List - $96m/$225m
7. A Beautiful Mind - $171m/$143m

A Beautiful Mind seems to be the book most similar to The DiVinci Code, though the number gets much smaller domestically when you look at the gross before the Oscar nomination.

Number eight on the list, The Green Mile grossed $137m/$150m, though there was also an Oscar run there. Then, Bridget Jones' Diary, with $72m/$210m. Then Silence of The Lambs ($131m/$142m).

So it is possible to gross more than $140 million domestic on one of these films, but it's hardly a walk in the park. The bottom line is that with the possible exception of Gone With The Wind, the movies that went through the roof were either Oscar movies or thrillers that delivered in what is remembered as an even bigger way than the book. Jurrassic Park, Jaws, The Exorcist, and The Perfect Storm.

The Perfect Storm, clearly, is the least legendary of the book-based films that live in this ether. And as you can see, $200 million domestic for The DiVinci Code would make it the only adult-focused book to generate that kind of money in its initial release here in America other than Jaws or Jurassic Park. Records are, of course, made to be broken. But history also teaches.

NEXT - In the survey of stars, the most letters that came in were about Jack Black. And they were right. I put an addendum onto the list to deal with that mistake. Another mistake that no one sent e-mail about were The Wayans Bros, who may to be one person, but are certainly worth mention. $71 million domestic for White Chicks is no small achievement. And I am projecting Little Man to do nearly as much this summer.

Other stars who I am projecting into the Top 20 this year are Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise, Adam Sandler, Tom Hanks, Vince Vaughn, Jamie Foxx and Colin Farrell.

Major stars MISA (Missing In Summer Action) for the second straight summer are Harrison Ford, George Clooney, Bruce Willis, Jim Carrey, Eddie Murphy, Julia Roberts, Robin Williams, Mel Gibson, and Will Smith.

Since yesterday's column, Apocolypto has made its move to the awards season with a December release. Here is a replacement movie….

The Proposition - May 5 - I'm cheating with this first film because even though First Look has it scheduled to launch on only two screens, it may turn out that this is the finest film of the summer. (Of course, Almodovar may have something to say about that.)

NEXT - What is the summer movie season likely to look like as we gaze backwards next September? Well, here's a little summer history lesson.

These figures, indicating how many movies made how much money, are progressive, so don't add them up. So last year, there were 5 films that grossed over $200 million…and the 10 that grossed over $100 million included those 5. (The Under $20 million stat is based on films that were released on more than 1000 screens.)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Over $200 million xxx5xxx 3xxx 5xxx 4xxx 3xxx 1
Over $100 million xxx10xx 12xx17xx 13xx 11xx 12
Over $50 millionxxxx 21xx 26x 22xxx20xx 24xx 22
Under $20 millionxxx 11xx 9xxx 8xx 11xxx 7xxx 8

Though I didn't do this analysis as I ranked and estimated the 50 films on my chart, it did come out 4, 12, 22 with the Under $20 million stat hard to be sure of because varying release plans. Pretty standard.

Where are the big differences from one year to the next? Look at the roundly estimated grosses of the Top 3 films of each year.

2005 - $830 million
2004 - $1.06 million
2003 - $925 million
2002 - $930 million
2001 - $695 million
2000 - $585 million

Though I am bullish on this summer and the theatrical market, if my estimates came true, I am sad to say, the summer would be a little weaker than last year based on the Top 3 standard, with $805 million.

We soon shall see. Have a great weekend.

(edited - 12:05p, April 14, 200)

READER OF THE DAY: IAN O' LONDON writes: "I would find it hard to disagree with the substance of your list. I think largely your choices and positions are on the money. However, I would have two gripes. The first is the placing of Rachel McAdams above Jodie Foster and Nicole Kidman. Now I love Rachel; I think she has wonderful taste and masses of talent, but she is surely not the box office star that Kidman or Foster are, especially internationally. For most of their films, Foster and Kidman are arguably the main draw and they tend to easily match (if not surpass) domestic earnings with foreign. McAdams simply doesn't have that name recognition yet - maybe in 3 years time she will be the biggest female star (she needs a Something About Mary or Pretty Woman to put her over the top), but she isn't there yet."

And MAMA CASS adds: "You're all over the place with your list. Some I agree with but, just as examples, of where you must have been smoking some funny weed or something when you made up the list:

1)Jennifer Lopez??!? WTF - she doesn't even belong on the list let alone at 21! Her last 3-4 movies have sunk, both at the box office and critically. Among my friends and acquaintances as well as reading various messages boards, sites, etc on the internet, she is a non-entity as far as a movie star people want to see on the big screen - her offscreen antics of course haven't helped her any and let's face it, she is considered over the hill in Hollywood at her age - if she were a great acting wise she would still have a chance to make a comeback but since that's not the case I predict she won't be making any more films in the near future.

2) Leo - now placing him at 35 I may not have an argument with you but I do have an argument with your reasons. Why is the fact that he's chosen to make films with notable directors like Spielberg and Scorsese a mark against him? He most likely could have gone the Cruise and Damon route and made more commercially attractive films and done just as well box office wise instead of picking something like The Beach where he played a pretty jerky character.

And what's your point about Scorsese? I believe the best he ever did at the box office was with Cape Fear - both GONY and The Aviator are the best b.o. Scorsese ever enjoyed. As far as Spielberg, I believe he did make one film with Tom Hanks that didn't do to well at the box office - so even those 2 are not automatic successes. As far as The Departed, if it does well at the box office, you wont give Leo any credit for it - it'll be because of Scorsese, Nicholson and Matt Damon. You know, if you like back on the careers of Johhny Depp and Matt Damon, they've made quite a number of films in the past which were stinkers and bombs but people easily seem to forget them. Maybe the trick is to make so many films that those are forgotten."

E Me: No funny weed, sorry. One of the treacherous parts of making these lists is that you can't survey your friends to come up with answers. Monster In Law's $83 million may seem like chump change to you, but it's not. And I will be happy to give Leo a lot of credit for The Departed, just as I credit him with is other successful films. But $100 million for the $100 million budget The Aviator is not as strong as, say $83 million for the $50 million Monster In Law. And Leo hasn't proven to be worth as much money as he is hype overseas.

The McAdams thing was my real indulgence on the list. But it makes for an interesting conversation, no?