web counter
 

The 25 Highest Grossing Movies of 2011 Are Dominated by the Same Highest Grossing Movies of 2009, and 2008, and 2007 ...

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Box Office Round-Ups | Comments (36)

the_help.jpg

Greetings, folks. I hope you all had a wonderful holiday and a fantastic New Year filled with Anderson Cooper giggles, Lady Gaga oil slicks, and uncomfortably funny jokes at (poor) Dick Clark’s expense. I also hope you magically obtained the ability to drink yourself silly without a New Year’s Day hangover.

Welcome to 2012, the year of the never-ending end-of-the-world joke. If you ever run into a Mayan, punch him in the throat and piss on him. However, before we can fully let go of 2011, we must first spend the first week of the year reminding you of all the good and bad of the year that was in movies. We begin with the 25 highest grossing movies of the year, a year that had the fewest number of moviegoers since 1995, and a year in which gross receipts were $500 million less than last year.

Why? Much of it can certainly be attributed to the lack of original projects, the 3D gimmickry, as well as sequel and remake fatigue. Nevertheless, the top 25 films of the year are largely comprised of those very things.


1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: $381 million
2. Transformers Dark of the Moon: $352 million
3. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1: $275 million
4. The Hangover Part II: $254, million
5. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides $241 million
6. Fast Five: $209 million
7. Cars 2 $191 million
8. Thor: $181 million
9. Rise of the Planet of the Apes : $176 million
10. Captain America: The First Avenger: $176 million
11. The Help $169 million
12. Bridesmaids: $169 million
13. Kung Fu Panda 2: $165 million
14. X-Men: First Class: $146 million
15. Puss in Boots: $145 million
16. Rio: $143 million
17. The Smurfs: $142 million
18. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol: $134 million
19. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows: $132 million
20. Super 8: $127,004,179
21. Rango: $123 million
22. Horrible Bosses: $117 million
23. Green Lantern: $116 million
24. Hop: $108 million
25. Paranormal Activity 3: $103 million

So, as you can see, 14 of the top 25 movies of the year were sequels, prequels, or spin-offs (including the top 7), and another five were based on existing properties. That means that only six of the top 25 were original movies: Bridesmaids, Super 8, Rango, Horrible Bosses, Rio and Hop. But then again, Bridesmaids was a female version of an Apatow film, Super 8 was an attempt to recreate the tone of one of Spielberg’s Amblin films, and Hop was about an Easter Bunny who shat jelly beans.

We could trot out the same refrain, that Hollywood has run out of new ideas, but the truth is: Audiences don’t demand anything new. Box office grosses were down, but the hits were still the sequels. Where does that leave us? 2012, which already has 25 remakes, reboots, or sequels on the release schedule plus two twists: Dark re-imaginings of fairy tales (Jack the Giant Killer, Snow White and the Huntsmen and Mirror Mirror) and 3D re-releases of Titanic, Beauty and the Beast and Star Wars.

What will save the box office? A sequel, of course: The Dark Knight Rises.










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← I'd Rather Not Be the One Behind the Wheel: The Best Movie You Saw Last Year | YouTube's 25 Most Popular Trailers of 2011 →









Comments

I'm shocked that “The Help” grossed $169 million.

Posted by: Pookie at January 2, 2012 12:36 AM

The fact that the Smurfs is on this list makes me nauseous. Twilight and Transformers I've grown to deal with, but the SMURFS???

WHY GOD???? WHY????

Posted by: Becca at January 2, 2012 1:06 AM

Forget THE HELP , HOP made over $100 million. I'd go kill myself because obviously this world is too horrible to live in but since the worlds going to end this year I'll just wait for it to take me.

Posted by: Jen at January 2, 2012 1:07 AM

And now I have the sad.

What is art? What is commercial entertainment?

Someone kickstart Sundance NOW.

Posted by: Jerry at January 2, 2012 1:44 AM

"Welcome to 2012, the year of the never-ending end-of-the-world joke."

Here's hoping you'll have the last laugh in December. And not the Mayan people will punch in the throat and urinate on.

Posted by: PG13 at January 2, 2012 2:08 AM

In fairness, the quality of movie sequels has gone up exponentially in the past several years. In the past, fifth sequels to movies on the level of Mission Impossible or Fast and the Furious would be on a level below the last half dozen Friday the 13th movies, and the recently released Ghost Protocol and Fast Five were by far the best films in their series, hell, they were just fantastic fucking action films period.

Regardless of the efforts of production moguls, art always finds a way. Hell, by the time the fourth or fifth Grown Ups film is released, Happy Madison might wind up making a funny movie, assuming the government doesn't use up the last of our Agent Orange supply on Adam Sandler for the good of humanity in 2014.

Posted by: Devil Child at January 2, 2012 2:45 AM

Shush. I'm reading through the list of Sundance films in competition.

Posted by: Jerry at January 2, 2012 3:38 AM

@Becca Oh, sweety, it's because even a shitty movies can make money.

It's one of life's mysteries - sort of like that homely guy in high school who comes to reunion and he's gotten someone to marry him.

Posted by: Jim at January 2, 2012 5:12 AM

If you ever run into a Mayan, punch him in the throat and piss on him.

Done and DONE!

Posted by: Uriah Creep at January 2, 2012 5:53 AM

I'd much rather see a sequel than a remake. At least you stand a chance of encountering an original plot with a sequel (shut up, Hangover II).

Posted by: Craig at January 2, 2012 9:07 AM

Adaptations and Remakes and Sequels...oh my.

Part of the reason why these movies make the money they do is that exponentially they take up such a large portion of the menu to begin with. Studios do not have to invest as much time and effort into making them because they already own them, already have actors and crew attached to them, and know that if something is successful the first few times, that largely they will have at the very least enough success to justify doing so again and again.

How?

Because there's a generation of moviegoers who have become lazy consumers. They look for a popular brand name and go with that rather than taking a risk and trying to go out and find something worthwhile in the unknown. Studios are more willing to funnel their advertising dollars on something that moviegoers will go to in Pavlovian masses because it "looks cool" and they've seen it before. Lazy movie-going begets lazy studio output. Remember that TV show, comic, cartoon, or book? You liked them, right? Well here you go, it's the same thing. You remember that movie you liked before? Here's the next chapter...or previous chapter....or side chapter featuring someone in the same universe. Or better still, here's the same story you saw before, but now played by new sexier people! No wait! it's the exact same movie, we just paid a warehouse in Korea to cut out the characters and make a crude 3-D diorama. Who-Hoo! 3-D! Isn't that great?

You've probably noticed the word "same" coming up a few times. People out there want the same. They want safe. They would rather be bored to tears consuming the same thing every time rather than take a risk that something might be better by risking that it might not. And because there are so many people like that out there who will mindlessly fork over their money just to not be subjected to something assuredly bad, studios have cultivated a viable demographic; Those who are willing to be mugged so long as you don't hit them too hard. These people have bullshit themselves into thinking a slap in the face for money isn't as bad as a kick to the groin, not realizing that if they actually put some effort into choosing their movies rather than what's forced down their collective gullet they might get a far more favorable outcome. I mean really, it's just a movie. Stop settling on garbage and start searching the quality you deserve.

Demand more from your entertainment.

Posted by: bleujayone at January 2, 2012 9:42 AM

@bleujayone, good points all. But, just as there's a financial incentive for the studios to play it safe and churn out more of the same, for myself, and maybe for a lot of people there's also a financial part of the equation. The average ticket price at first run theatres where I live is a little over $13. As ticket prices have increased I've gotten more selective about which movies I feel I have to see in a theatre (and yes, those tend to be the big studio action or SciFi films), and which ones I can wait for on DVD/Blu-ray or Netflix. I probably saw 100+ movies last year, but only went to the theatre 5 or 6 times. I wonder what would happen (besides chaos), if the studios, distributors and theatre chains indexed the ticket price to the cost of the movie. Maybe there'd be more bums in seats? It always seemed odd to me that a ticket for a $5 million movie is the same as a $200 million movie.

Posted by: Groundloop at January 2, 2012 10:10 AM

Demand more from your entertainment.

Posted by: bleujayone at January 2, 2012 9:42 AM
---
You're asking this of a nation with a McDonald's on every corner? (The U.S., I meant; would be a "Tim Horton's on every corner" in yours, wouldn't it? Or maybe McDonald's.)

Posted by: , at January 2, 2012 10:13 AM

It always seemed odd to me that a ticket for a $5 million movie is the same as a $200 million movie.

Posted by: Groundloop at January 2, 2012 10:10 AM
---
It costs the same to see the Pirates play the Phillies as it does to see the Pirates play the Astros. Though I believe some ballclubs experimented with leveraged pricing depending on the opponent (prices go up when the Yankees are in town vs. ... well, the Pirates). Don't know if they're still doing that. I think some tried changing ticket prices with the weather too, maybe. Seems like a ticket for a Saturday game in July, when it's likely to be sunny and warm, ought to go for a little more than for a Thursday afternoon in April, when it's likely to be cold and rainy (at least in the northeast). Or rather, that a fan who takes that April ticket ought to get a big discount. But, generally, no.

As for movies ... 99% of the time I can't tell who the voice talent is in an animated movie, and couldn't possibly care less anyway, and I seriously doubt any 8-year-old knows the difference much either. So why don't the makers of animated movies use unknown (but still talented) voice talent and cut the production cost of the movie by half and then give the customers a break (especially since they're bringing kids) by cutting the ticket price in half?

Oh, that's right: Because a ticket for a $5 million movie has to be the same as a ticket for a $200 million movie.

Never mind.

Posted by: , at January 2, 2012 10:23 AM

How are those delurk resolutions coming for the vast majority of the readership? Surely this post warrants an outburst? The Smurfs? The fu*king SMURFS! The Hangover II?! Aren't you angry? Don't you want to yell at something? Vent your spleen! Give your rage full rein! Surely this is the time to unleash your manifesto.DELURK!

Wait I'll help...

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at January 2, 2012 10:26 AM

I haven't seen most of these movies. Some of them were pretty bad. I liked a couple of them.

(Now, I've posted an incredibly inane comment. I've set the bar so low that no comment can possibly crawl beneath it and all are free to leap in. Let the delurking commence.)

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at January 2, 2012 10:29 AM

I've set the bar so low that no comment can possibly crawl beneath it.
---
You underestimate us.

Posted by: , at January 2, 2012 10:33 AM

There is only one female written and starring vehicle on this list, and you dismiss it as a "female version of an Apatow film". So, Bridesmaids doesn't count as original now? Are you saying that if Apatow hadn't produced it it would have been shit, or are you saying that Kristin Wiig went out of her way to copy an "Apatow" film and therefore doesn't deserve any credit?

Way to start the new year.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at January 2, 2012 10:44 AM

Nineteenth!!! WOOOOO!!!

Beat that lurkers.

(I'm not helping am I?)

Posted by: Groundloop at January 2, 2012 10:47 AM

You can count Bridesmaids as original - say it was 'inspired' by the success of the Apatow movies.

Just don't say it was good.

TWENTIETH!!

Posted by: TheOtherGreg at January 2, 2012 11:12 AM

To be fair, PG13, it's not the Mayans fault that almost no one these days actually bothered to find out what the end of the Mayan calendar means.

(Hint: It means it's time for a new calendar. You know, like most of do when the month changes from December to January.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at January 2, 2012 11:17 AM

As you said, "a year that had the fewest number of moviegoers since 1995, and a year in which gross receipts were $500 million less than last year."

The people have already spoken.

Posted by: OldSchool60 at January 2, 2012 11:18 AM

a year that had the fewest number of moviegoers since 1995, and a year in which gross receipts were $500 million less than last year. Why? .. the lack of original projects, the 3D gimmickry, as well as sequel and remake fatigue.

Yeah, everything sucked including THE ECONOMY.

Posted by: sunny at January 2, 2012 11:52 AM

Well, I guess I'm part of the problem. I only saw two in the theater, and the rest I either torrented or redbox/netflix'd. Going to the theater is expensive and time consuming, and with a baby, I'd rather spend the evening at home.

I really think people's priorities are shifting and the days of spending $20 on a night at the movies is no longer possible.

Posted by: tawnia at January 2, 2012 12:07 PM

"You can count Bridesmaids as original - say it was 'inspired' by the success of the Apatow movies.

Just don't say it was good."


Haven't seen it. My point is that if Dustin doesn't count that as original, then indeed nothing is. Horrible Bosses is a comedic ripoff of Strangers on a Train (which has already been done by Throw Momma From the Train), but Dustin doesn't call it out as being unoriginal.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at January 2, 2012 12:28 PM

Continued because for some reason my entire comment didn't post:

I haven't seen any of the other movies Dustin put in the "original" category, but I bet most if not all of them could be traced back to earlier "inspirations" as much as if not more than Bridesmaids. Dustin deciding to point out the only female-centric movie as unoriginal just pissed me off.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at January 2, 2012 12:36 PM

WTH is on that womens head? Is that an acorn?

Posted by: logan at January 2, 2012 12:41 PM

Look, if Hollywood is going to do remakes and sequals they could at least pick better movies. Birth of a Nation with Mel Gibson, Michael Richards and Kirk Cameron. Flash Gordon with Ryan Gosling and Lady Gaga. Staying Alive with anyone (I just want to see that musical about Satan again). And of course The Warriors-with the entire cast of Glee as the Baseball Furies.

Posted by: Mrcreosote at January 2, 2012 2:11 PM

That version of Flash Gordon MUST BE MADE! Just use the original soundtrack and don't let Gaga re-record it. I'm sure she's do fine, but nobody touches Freddy.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at January 2, 2012 2:43 PM

It's just Maya, not Mayan. Mayan refers to the language the Maya people spoke.

I'm so sorry to be that guy, I just couldn't help it. You can now use that tidbit to make your friends, family, and coworkers hate you even more.

Posted by: Freller at January 2, 2012 3:43 PM

I'll just link them to your comment so they can hate you.

Posted by: Craig at January 2, 2012 4:25 PM

Fair enough

Posted by: Freller at January 2, 2012 5:35 PM

@Jerry- I hate to tell you, but Sundance is corporate, and has been for years. Just look at what gets played there, who goes there, and what companies are represented there. Warner Independent... a subsidiary of AOLTimeWarnerGod. Try Slamdance or, God forbid... TromaDance if you're gonna be that cred-conscious.

Posted by: Butt Soup at January 2, 2012 8:30 PM

I'd like to see that list cross referenced with their ratings on Rotten Tomatoes...

Posted by: Nick at January 2, 2012 9:51 PM

Tons of free porn on my site. check it. Please visit www.worldofbestporn.com

Posted by: Gregory Despain at January 4, 2012 10:28 PM

Quit smoking benefits… If we see you smoking we will assume you're on fire and take appropriate action….

Posted by: Soldes at February 17, 2012 9:31 PM