Northwestern University and Evanston's Only Daily News Source Since 1881

The Daily Northwestern

39° Evanston, IL
Northwestern University and Evanston's Only Daily News Source Since 1881

The Daily Northwestern

Northwestern University and Evanston's Only Daily News Source Since 1881

The Daily Northwestern

Advertisement
Email Newsletter

Sign up to receive our email newsletter in your inbox.



Advertisement

Advertisement

Back to formula

To most people, $48 million sounds like a lot of money.

But when that amount is the opening weekend box office return of Mission: Impossible III, studio executives get worried. Not only did the movie earn less in its opening weekend than Mission: Impossible II – despite opening on more screens – it also cost more to make.

Though studios don’t like to release production budgets, estimates from the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com) and The Numbers (www.the-numbers.com) say the third Mission: Impossible cost around $150 million to make. The second weighed in at $120 million and grossed $57.8 million its first weekend, despite less-than-stellar reviews.

But M:I-2 was released back in 2000, when star Tom Cruise was still married to Nicole Kidman and had a decent store of public goodwill. With the recent media circus surrounding Cruise’s marriage to actress/newly-converted Scientologist Kate “Don’t call me Katie” Holmes and the subsequent birth of their daughter, Suri, some critics are hinting that Cruise’s press overexposure is behind the dip in box office revenue.

“There were things (in the media) that didn’t have anything to do with the actual film that probably hindered audience perception of the it,” Northwestern film professor James Joyce says. The confusion of Cruise and his character, Ethan Hunt, may have told audiences to stay away, he adds.

But while publicity stunts – like Cruise’s memorable appearance on Oprah – may have affected M:I-3’s box office intake, Joyce says there are so many factors that contribute to box office business, it’s hard to tell how much of an impact there was.

“In general, films need to have really good reviews,” Joyce says. “A lot of people outside the industry rely on reviews.”

The battle of star power versus critics is often a tough one, says Tara Ariano, co-creator of the Web sites Fametracker (www.fametracker.com) and Television Without Pity (www.televisionwithoutpity.com). Fametracker acts is the self-proclaimed “Farmer’s Almanac of Celebrity Worth,” with features like the Fame Audit (Is Lindsay Lohan too famous for her skills?) and 2 Stars, 1 Slot (In the battle of Eva Mendes versus Eva Longoria, who wins?).

“It really depends on the movie,” Ariano says. “If it’s huge, some people might not pay attention to the reviews.”

Ariano and Joyce agree that poor reviews are not the ultimate cause of poor performance at the box office, though. Several other films in the past few years have been released amid a storm of both star “overexposure” and decent reviews with vastly different results.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith generated a hail of rumors that the onscreen chemistry of stars Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie signified a deeper personal relationship backstage. The movie opened with a $50 million dollar weekend and continued on to gross about $186 million in the United States.

What separates Mr. and Mrs. Smith from M:I-3 is really a fine line. What some consider media overexposure may be endearing coverage to others, Joyce says, and great reviews don’t necessarily equal box-office gold.

“Look at Capote,” he says. Though Philip Seymour Hoffman won an Oscar for his portrayal of In Cold Blood author Truman Capote and the movie was praised by critics, its total domestic gross was only about $28 million.

Joyce says that while using stars as advertising – purposely or not – is effective for a lot of movies, it can’t be the only thing on which the studios rely.

“It really comes down to trying to create a trailer that appeals to the right target audience,” he says.

Weinberg junior Karen Muth won’t even consider seeing a movie unless the trailer is good.

“I actually wanted to go see Tristan & Isolde,” she says. The trailer was so good that it wasn’t until the negative reviews came out that she decided it was a waste of money, Muth adds.

But while a good trailer is key, according to Joyce, the media does have a say in box office business.

“With larger-scale movies, sometimes the media can create enough hype to replace a lot of the advertising on the studio’s part,” Joyce says.

Such was the case with Star Wars: Episode I-The Phantom Menace. Joyce says the first trailer for the movie didn’t hit theaters until about a month before The Phantom Menace was released, but the media showed story after story about people buying movie tickets just to see the trailer. Meet Joe Black, a Brad Pitt flick from 1998, received record sales for being one of the first movies to preview the new Star Wars. The trailers built up so much hype that, despite a barrage of negative reviews, the new movie made $431 million in the United States alone.

But it appears there’s no real rhyme or reason behind what audiences will and will not see, leaving studios to guess at what to place their bets on – for better or worse.

“I don’t think there is a formula,” Ariano says. “Or, if there is a formula, they haven’t found it yet.”

Medill freshman Oriana Schwindt is a PLAY writer. She can be reached at [email protected].

More to Discover
Activate Search
Northwestern University and Evanston's Only Daily News Source Since 1881
Back to formula