What have you seen lately?
Are revenues good indicators of performance for movies? The narrative, the source material, the cast and the soundtrack – are any, old ninety-minute features warranted because they blow out the box office? The mind wanders at night, after a long week, seeking ease and comfort. Pray tell it finds something nice.
Troublesome Creek (1995) pictures some striking non-fiction study of an Iowa family going under. Stories that hold you are one with reality checks, paid in full. They suspend disbelief, often times for the fact life defies all reason, sometimes. Lives torn apart by natural disaster, economic; high cinema mystifies and petrifies at the same time. How do we define it, when greatness exists somewhere between- is there a way to recognize the signs of a good picture?
Synchronicity, the connection of seemingly unrelated instances draws out a thing thread of fate. When an actor’s favorite video is a documentary about a resort, that town has a musical piece written for it, with that score used for another film- the various details bear no relationship, but it’s a sign they’ve gotta be good. This random selection doesn’t mean much, save for the fact the selection chose these seemingly wanton variables by which to formulate.
Is there a recipe to films? Can we automate that art, anymore than we automate another? Photography, for example.
Making movies... and money
This author took the liberty of viewing Mississippi Burning featuring Willem Defoe. Readers might recognize the name from the 2002 Spider-Man film. A film on an entirely different note, the plot centers on 1964 murder investigation of three boys in Mississippi. With a budget of $15 million dollars, the film distributed by Orion Pictures garnered $34.6 million, a multiple of 2.3 times.
Out of curiosity, the Peter Parker flick raked in $825 million on a budget of $139 million, a multiple close to 6 (5.93x) times.
For the sake of empirical information, I indicate the method to quickly calculate profits. Revenue deducted by costs equals profits. The multiple highlights the fold by which they multiplied the cost of production.
825 (million) – 139 (million) = 686 (million) / 139 (million) = 4.93x (also, subtracting 1 from the multiple, for the costs, would calculate profits)
Now, this line of thinking leads to the film the author viewed for the first time this afternoon, The Lord of The Rings: The Return of the King. Released 20 years ago this year, the third installment of the trilogy, a noteworthy saga originating from the written word of J. R. R. Tolkien defied all expectations. On a budget of $94 million, New Line Cinema scored $1.146 billion for the effort. A multiple of 12x, the production profited eleven times over.
Do true stories touch a nerve? The unfair reality given to all; hard truths do not discriminate. Tales of heroes tend to inspire the populace it seems, with a dosage of high fantasy to taste. The observations aren’t to generalize but approach a conclusion about the formula for cinematic, nay success in self-expression.
Turning to the data, we might cement our speculations upon a concrete foundation.
Box office blowouts
Eight of the twenty most successful movies by box office revenue, of all time in the United States and Canada as of last month1 , are superhero films. The rest of the cadre involve episodes in sagas, like Star Wars. The outliers include animated sequels like Frozen II and Finding Dory.
A glib jest, but the whimsy of a live action musical of an already animated picture must be what inspire these myriad tone-deaf live action films. Today’s share will not dive into the subtleties and lack thereof in live films.
Curiously enough, the highest revenue earning film didn’t have such a high multiple, only 6.76.
Did the discussion arrive at one conclusion about the success and consequently, value of box office pictures? Several similarities, but no evidence to claim causation, only correlation.
Perhaps, a good story always sets the pace for a runner-up or marathon film series. On a scale, perhaps the truth hits too hard at one end with fantasy too unbelievable at another. After all, who would want to believe the world turns with such hardness?
Post Summary
- The quality of a movie isn't only measured by monetary values.
- Art unifies the seemingly unrelated, in a way some call synchronicity.
- Revenues and quality do correlate, but we cannot draw conclusions about causes.
- Successful motifs seem to include engaging stories, superheroes and animation. These aspects all seem to hinge on levels of imagination and creativity unforeseen.