Ten years ago, his recent string of low grossers would diminish his power, but today is a different world, where names on a movie poster don't mean what they used to. In the words of an agent, "Maybe he doesn’t guarantee an opening, but he makes a movie a ‘go.’ If you define ‘movie star’ as someone who opens a movie, then there are no movie stars anymore, except maybe Will Smith. But since almost no movie stars are opening movies, the definition of 'star' changes: Nowadays, a movie ‘star’ is someone who gets a movie made, and Damon definitely gets a movie made.” Says a manager, “If you see Matt Damon in a movie, it says, ‘good, classy, intelligent.’ He’s a movie star in that sense.”Is Will Smith, indeed, the last movie star, or does Seven Pounds (and nothing since) start to knock him out of the running too? (Sandra Bullock?)
Friday, October 22, 2010
HEY, LOOK. I'M SORRY I DRAGGED YOU AWAY FROM WHATEVER GAY-SERIAL-KILLERS-WHO-RIDE-HORSES-AND-LIKE-TO-PLAY-GOLF-TOUCHY-FEELY-PICTURE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THIS WEEK: This week's We're Not Calling it Fame Audit Anymore, But It's Totally The Fametracker Fame Audit is of Matt Damon, and while we can discuss the parallels to George Clooney's career (we assume he's smart and making smart choices, and accept that his films don't always make a ton of money but he's unquestionably A Star), there's a broader point about the Star Market that we've before which is worth noting:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"If you see Matt Damon in a movie, it says, ‘good, classy, intelligent."
ReplyDeleteApparently the writer has not seen "Stuck on You"
I liked that movie BTW...but classy, it is not.
Tyler Perry. Sorry, but it's true.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Clooney, Damon has a franchise driven by his starpower alone that he can go back to again in Jason Bourne. (The closest Clooney has is Ocean's 11, and he probably needs at least one other of Pitt/Damon/Roberts to make it work.)
ReplyDeleteI'll offer a name who's arguable--Robert Downey, Jr.--with the exception of "The Soloist," red hot since Iron Man. Also, Will Ferrell--even a tank (like Land of the Lost) does 50M,
Tyler Perry is not a movie star unless he's playing Madea. Perry's non-Madea films are consistently way less successful than the Madea ones. Madea-based movies average 68M, while non-Madea highest gross? 60M (and that was with the benefit of Janet Jackson). That said, he's doing that without any real critical support, with a niche audience, and makes a big profit every time. If he can get "For Colored Girls" to a decent gross, that'll be the test.
ReplyDeleteI think you just have to give up and accept that people are seeing Tyler Perry comedies because they're Tyler Perry comedies, not because they're Madea comedies. It's probably because of the overall Tyler Perry brand, not Tyler Perry qua actor, but the star of the Madea franchise and the Madea-world movies and Why Did I Get Married is the Perry brand, not anybody appearing in them. You cannot possibly think that Janet Jackson opened or even helped Why Did I Get Married and its sequel -- if not for those two movies, she's hasn't even acted in anything since Nutty Professor II: The Klumps a decade ago, and then Poetic Justice before that in 1993, before Tupac was even feuding with anybody.
ReplyDeleteSo Perry's movies in the last 5 years went $60MM (non-Madea), $51MM (Madea only in a supporting role), $90MM (Madea), $36MM (non-Madea, no Perry role), $42MM (Madea), $55MM (non-Madea), $31MM (non-Madea, no Perry role), $63MM (Madea), with minimal budget and only demographic-targeted marketing. So, basically, one huge Madea movie, a bunch of movies (Madea and non-Madea) all in the $40-$60MM range, and a few movies where Perry wrote and directed but didn't star that made less than $40MM. All were profitable -- not just successful, but profitable -- principally because of Tyler Perry.
Does Tyler Perry's name guarantee that a movie will be profitable on box office alone, before DVD/cable? Yes. Does Tyler Perry's name guarantee that a movie will get made? Yes. There are a lot of people for whom the answer to one of those questions is yes, but because of high quotes (Will Ferrell) and budgets, there are very few for whom the answer to both is.
I doubt For Colored Girls will be a big success -- it is neither Perry's brand nor something capable of reaching a wide audience. It's a college-term-paper play, a labor of love for Perry if it's anything (like Soderbergh's digital works, not something intended for mass consumption). It is wildly unfair and inaccurate to suggest that For Colored Girls will be the test of Perry's stardom. The only way a person could possibly say that Tyler Perry is not one of the most successful stars in the media is by defining stardom as a critical rather than commercial concept. Why are you so opposed to this?
I think it's because I define "movie star" as a generally recognizable person who drives movies to massive hit status across the general public (a "four-quadrant" person, as that term is tossed about). Tyler Perry, outside of Madea, isn't a terribly recognizable person I expect. (His name would have decent recognition, I agree. His face? Not so much.) He's a star (and, I'll agree, quite a big one) to his sub-quadrant/niche (African-American women 35+). But to the general, overall public? Not a movie star.
ReplyDeleteJulia Roberts.
ReplyDeleteDoes much better with two-word titles than three.
ReplyDeleteThough I would argue that Spielberg is arguably a movie star. Not every movie goes to blockbuster status, but 6 of his last 10 were 130M+ hits, and I think all have been profitable since "Always," with the possible exception of "AI."
ReplyDeleteDo you think more people would recognize Perry or Spielberg on the street?
ReplyDeleteNathan Fillion (in my dreams).
ReplyDeletei don't understand-- Tyler Perry is black, right?
ReplyDelete