Tuesday, October 22, 2013

MAYBE THEY SHOULD'VE CONSULTED NATE SILVER: Vulture has crunched the numbers, and generated a list of the 100 Most Valuable Stars, based on a mixture of box office, studio exec's views on how much a star adds to box office, likability scores, Oscar nominations, Twitter mentions, gossip mag attention, and critical appreciation.  Some folks seem tremendously overrated (Daniel Craig at 17 when all his non-Bond or -Dragon Tattoo films have underperformed?  Mila Kunis at 20?) while some seem underrated (Adam Sandler at 43 when he's generally pretty invincible as long as he stays in his broad comedy wheelhouse?  Tyler Perry at 99?  I don't care for his films, but they do quite well, and he's all over them in terms of branding).  Much to discuss.


  1. Jordan10:32 AM

    I read an article a little while ago (sorry, don't remember where) about Tyler Perry that said while his branding does quite well, his films do not. Madea movies tend to be modest successes (will make money, but not much), while non-Madea movies struggle to make back their budgets. His last couple movies have flopped. Studios are souring on him because his budgets continue to rise while his profits have not. In constant dollars, he has a diminishing returns problem.

  2. Perry's movies are insanely cheap, though. His lowest grosser that he directed/starred in did 31M in domestic box office, and likely had a budget of under 10M. That's a money-maker. His bigger issue is that he has basically ZERO appeal outside of the US, and very low appeal outside of his demographic (heavily African-American and heavily female).

  3. Jordan12:24 PM

    I think this was more on the "Tyler Perry Brand" vs. the "Madea Brand." I pulled the numbers (slow day) and the last three non-Madea "Tyler Perry" movies averaged $32 million box office gross on $22 million pre-advertising budgets (all ten averaged $41/$20M). Throw in the flop of Alex Cross and you see why studios are more interested in Madea than Tyler Perry.

  4. The Pathetic Earthling5:39 PM

    Does anyone else brand their movies like Tyler Perry? Not that, say, a new Martin Scorsese film isn't a big draw but it's not "Martin Scorses's Goodfellas" it's not even "Woody Allen's Neurotic People on Display"

  5. Adam C.12:40 PM

    I can't think of anyone else doing it today, but not uncommon in the horror genre in the recent past -- there was a time when films and especially TV movies/miniseries based on Stephen King books were branded that way, at least initially (later to be dropped for home video). And "Wes Craven's New Nightmare," as well as a bunch of forgettable films released under the "Wes Craven Presents:..." banner. I won't count "Bram Stoker's Dracula."

  6. Adam C.1:40 PM

    I also should have included "Roger Corman's Frankenstein Unbound." But not "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein."