web
counter
 

The 28 Most Successful Commercial Directors of All Time Based on Box-Office Average

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Seriously Random Lists | Comments (28)



spielberg_dnc.jpg

Yesterday, I ran a SRL on the Box-Office Sweet Spot, listing those directors who had a $20 - $25 million average box office, and recognizing that it’s those sort of directors — like Wes Anderson or David O. Russell — responsible for a lot of creative, but not terribly popular, films. It wasn’t my intent at all to stir it up, but there was some conversation in the comments about the correlation between “popular” and “good.” In light of that, I thought we could take a look at the 28 directors, all time, who have maintained a box-office average of over $100 million (and have directed at least four films).

As to that question: It’s a mixed bag. There are a lot of very successful commercial directors who have managed to make quality films and maintain a very high box-office average. Spielberg, for one. And Christopher Nolan and even Jon Favreau, who is not a name I really expected to see on this list. I’m actually more impressed with those directors, like Spielberg, who have managed to maintain a high box-office average even while taking on the occasional passion project. Some directors actually do use their box-office clout for good. Others, not so much.

A few observations about this list: It’s a shame that there’s only one female on the entire list, and she’s at number 27 (and she’s not very good); several of these directors, of course, have had the benefit of directing exclusively franchises, so it’s kind of a cheat. In some of those cases (Rob Minkoff, for instance), you’ve probably never even heard of that director. Likewise, there are a lot of Pixar directors on this list, who have had the best of both worlds: They’ve made incredibly good films, and they’ve been hugely successful. But the directors themselves — outside of John Lasseter, really — aren’t particularly well known outside of movie circles. It’d also be interesting to see how they fared outside of the comfy confines of Pixar.

But again, back to the popular vs. good correlation, it’s pretty evenly split. I count 13 1/2 good to really good directors among this list of 28 (George Lucas gets the 1/2, and for some reason, I give M. Night the benefit of the doubt based on his early work). So, no: Popularity doesn’t mean bad. But it doesn’t always mean good, either. It is a truly remarkable director, however, that can make a critically successful movie that also manages to click with mainstream audiences. And whatever your problems with Spielberg, Peter Jackson, Nolan, or even Cameron, you have to at least appreciate that about them. As for Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich, you don’t have to appreciate anything about them.


1. Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3) — $295 million million average

2. Andrew Adamson (The Chronicles of Narnia, Shrek) — $285 million average

3. George Lucas (Star Wars, THX 1138) — $283 million average

4. Andrew Stanton (A Bug’s Life, Wall-E — $281 million average

5. James Cameron (Titanic, Avatar) — $211 million average

6. John Lasseter (Lady and the Tramp, Toy Story) — $211 million average

7. Michael Bay (Transformers, Bad Boys) — $187 million average

8. Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean, Weather Man) — $186 million average

9. Jon Favreau (Iron Man, Elf) — $167 million average

10. Steven Spielberg (Jaws, War of the Worlds) — $156 million average

11. Jay Roach (Meet the Parents, Austin Powers) — $154 million average

11. Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, Memento) — $147 million average

12. Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings, The Frighteners) — $146 million average

13. Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, 2012) — $138 million average

14. Rob Minkoff (Stuart Little, The Lion King) — $132 million average

15. Mel Gibson (Braveheart, The Passion of Christ) — $130 million average

16. Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future, A Christmas Carol) — $129 million average

17. The Wachowkskis (The Matrix, Speed Racer) — $128 million average

18. Tom Shadyac (Bruce Almighty, Patch Adams) — $127 million average

19. Brett Ratner (X-Men: The Last Stand, Rush Hour) — $122 million average

20. Shawn Levy (Cheaper by the Dozen, Night at the Museum) — $121 million average

21. Chris Columbus (Adventures in Babysitting, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone) — $119 million average

22. Chris Weitz (About a Boy, Twilight: New Moon) — $118 million average

23. M. Night Shyamalan (Sixth Sense, The Village) — $117 million average

24. Tim Burton (Batman Returns, Alice in Wonderland) — $116 million average

25. Bryan Singer (X-Men, The Usual Suspects) — $114 million average

26. Jan deBont (Speed, The Haunting) — $113 million average

27. Nancy Meyers (What Women Want, It’s Complicated) — $110 million average

28. Frank Caraci (The Waterboy, Click) — $101 Million million average


Here’s the list of $100+ million directors who have not yet directed four films: Pete Doctor — $274 million (Up, Monsters, Inc.); J.J. Abrams (Star Trek, Mission Impossible III) — $195 million average; David Silverman (The Simpsons Movie, Monsters, Inc.) $163 million; Brad Bird (Iron Giant, The Incredibles) — $163 million; Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen) — $125 million average; Michael Patrick King (Sex and the City) — $123 million average; John Lee Hancock (The Blind Side, The Rookie) — $118 million average; Adam McKay (Step Brothers, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy — $111 million average; Judd Apatow (Funny People, Knocked Up) — $103 million average; Anne Fletcher (Step Up, The Proposal).









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



Words I've Never Thought I'd Say "Too HOT for Comic-Con!" | Piranha 3D Footage "Banned" from Comic-Con 2010 | Pajiba Love 13/07/10









Comments

Did you account for inflation?

Posted by: Jacob S at July 13, 2010 11:46 AM

dude, john lasseter didn't direct 'lady and the tramp.' he was born 2 years after it was released.
he did however, direct 'lady and the lamp', but i doubt that figures into his box office numbers.

(Oops. Yeah. Stupid misread. Noted and corrected. -- DR

Posted by: dg at July 13, 2010 11:47 AM

Why would anybody have a problem with Nolan? Granted, I don't passionately love every single film he has made, but that's true about every director who has ever worked -- even Tarantino, the Coens, Malick, Almodóvar and Soderbergh.

Posted by: SB at July 13, 2010 12:03 PM

Sorry, but how has anyone eclipsed Cameron? He has directed about a dozen movies and 2 have made over 3 billion. My head hurts.
Looks like we will never see an end to animated movies.

Posted by: smithee at July 13, 2010 12:11 PM

18. Tom Shadyac (Bruce Almighty, Patch Adams) — $127 million average

Now this guy is impressive. He also directed the first Ace Ventura, Liar, Liar and The Nutty Professor. Tom Shadyac is the f'ing King Midas of movie making. He turns any piece of crap he touches into pure, sparkly gold.

Posted by: EricD at July 13, 2010 12:20 PM

What's the projection for Inception? Nolan could jump up more. Plus he's a stand in body and stunt double for Leo di Caprio right?

Posted by: bananapanda at July 13, 2010 12:52 PM

Inception by rights should overtake Karate Kid and The Last Airbender, so that would be c. $170m?

Posted by: SB at July 13, 2010 2:08 PM

The most depressing detail from this list is the complete lack of diversity. After Nancy and M. Night you're left with a bunch of white men. I know it's easier to just brush past that glaring detail, but it is important to keep in mind.

While television appears to be on a "let's make a diverse cast" trend, it shouldn't let the rest of Hollywood off the hook. When's the last time you saw an Asian, Indian or Latin actor or actress nominated for an Oscar, let alone win one?

Posted by: Barnes78 at July 13, 2010 2:11 PM

Penelope Cruz

Posted by: Rykker at July 13, 2010 2:14 PM

@Rykker,

Yep. Penelope Cruz. The fact that one, single name comes to mind pretty much says it all.

Posted by: Barnes78 at July 13, 2010 2:19 PM

@Barnes78

Halle Berry, Denzel Washington, Penelope Cruz, John Singleton, Sidney Poitier, Jaime Foxx, Forest Whitaker, Louis Gossett Jr., Cuba Gooding, Morgan Freeman, Whoopi Goldberg, Mo'Nique, Quincy Jones, Spike Lee, Anthony Quinn, Salma Hayek, Javier Bardem, Pedro Almodovar, Rita Moreno, Benicio Del Toro, Ben Kingsley, Yul Brinner, Ang Lee, Akira Kurosawa, Hayao Miyazaki...and this is only a sampling of minority winners for the "Major" categories in the past 50-60 years.

I am not saying that film making in the US is not dominated by white men, just don't sweep the accomplishments of so many wildly talented and hard working people under the rug to try and prove your point.

Posted by: androstarr at July 13, 2010 4:29 PM

is there a reason for 2 #11's? considering that maybe some listee's shared co-director titles..or something that doesnt make me feel snide for bringing it up?

also..so many kids movies/grasping at the right (all ages) straws - to nab top spots. i want to assume that its difficult to foul up a kids movie though...

Posted by: Dphunkt001 at July 13, 2010 6:06 PM

@Androstarr,

While you make a valid point, I'll stand by mine. The accomplishment of black actors and filmmakers has only recently been highlighted by the Academy. Spike Lee has yet to win an Oscar. He's only been nominated twice (1. Screenplay for "Do The Right Thing" and 2. Best Documentary for "4 Little Girls"). It's a travesty alone that he hasn't been nominated more, let alone won. Also, John Singleton never won an Oscar. He was nominated for Best Director and Best Original Screenplay back in 1992. Nothing since, Academy wise. Quincy Jones, while nominated 3 times, never won in competition. Rather, he was given Hersholt Humanitarian Award in '95.

My comments weren't made at the expense of degrading previous nominees and I apologize that it came across that way. Unfortunately, I think your list proves my point even further. The recognition of black actors didn't really hit its stride until Denzel and Halle won in the same year. And even then, the pool of selection has been small. And 'Precious' isn't an exception to the rule. It found itself on a train of buzz and goodwill, deserved or not. Not only has the selection pool been small, but many of the black actors you've listed above haven't come close to reaching that status again, let alone consistently find material deserving of their talent.

Posted by: Barnes78 at July 13, 2010 6:09 PM

I don't think The Rat should get credit for The Last Stand as it didn't happen. It was a nightmare I had and then I woke up and all was well with the world. Stop lying, Dustin.

Barnes and Androstarr, I believe you both have a point, and this is not a problem particular to Hollywood, you find the same issues in the corporate world, politics, science, art, etc. It's a general problem in Western society. And I'm afraid it's not going to change soon. So let's discuss what a horrible actress Halle Berry is and how that Oscar was a sham.

Posted by: joker at July 13, 2010 6:49 PM

@Joker,

Halle in "Monster's Ball". The more I think about it, the more tempted I am to just swear off the Academy and their choices altogether. While the lack of diversity is one thing, the "performances" they tend to choose...baffling. If I have to see one more actor (regardless of race) win an Oscar because of their portrayal (i.e. impression) of a real person in history...I may likely, literally vomit. Halle was awful in a movie that was awful. That award is as dubious as Cuba's win for "Jerry Maguire".

P.S. While Ben Kingsley plays a middle eastern minority convincingly, he's not technically a minority. That talented brother was born in the UK.

Posted by: Barnes78 at July 13, 2010 7:05 PM

the academy awards are a joke, a shame, and using them to judge the whole system is an insult to everyone's intelligence. But just for the sake of it:
take Androstar's list, remove blacks, remove non-winners and honorary winners, remove winners for non-Hollywood-produced films (since we are talking about HOLLYWOOD's lack of diversity), who do we have left?

Anthony Quinn (1952, 1956) (Mexican American)
Yul Brynner (1956) (Russian)
Rita Moreno (1961) (Puerto Rican)
Ben Kingsley (1982) (British, of Indian father)
Benicio Del Toro (2001) (Puerto Rican)
Ang Lee (2005) (Taiwanese)
Javier Bardem (2008) (Spanish)
Penelope Cruz (2009) (Spanish)


not really that impresive now. that's 4 in the last 10 years and 6 in the last 50
...and Brynner or Kingsley aren't exactly what comes to mind when i think about minorities, and Bardem and Cruz are both Spaniards, so, ethnically, they are probably about as Latin as Sophia Loren or Gerard Depardieu... but, yeah, whatever

Posted by: pfranks at July 13, 2010 7:44 PM

Mr.Spielberg! Yo! Steven! Yeah, down here!
The guys and I were planning to go out for lunch. We heard Subway was offering a deal. Could you tell us how much they're charging for a footlong meatball?

(scroll up for the answer)

Really? That cheap?

Sweet! Want us to pick one up for you too? According to this list you seem to be good for it.

Posted by: bleujayone at July 13, 2010 8:35 PM

@pfranks,

How is that an insult to everyone's intelligence? What a bizarre thing to say considering the list Dustin provided to begin with, highlights the problem even more. It's a matter of who has access to what and how far they can get, in sharing their product, i.e. their film. It's a perfect indicator of the system as a whole. How many black filmmakers have the same type of studio and financial resources available to someone like Spielberg or James Cameron? Spike Lee is the only (male) black filmmaker who has maintained a mainstream presence over the last 25 years. I suppose the near non-existence of any black, female filmmakers doesn't stand out as well. And the disgraceful display that the Academy puts on each year isn't an indicator of the system as a whole? Really?

Posted by: Barnes78 at July 13, 2010 8:39 PM

Tom Shadyac is the f'ing King Midas of movie making. He turns any piece of crap he touches into pure, sparkly gold.

Yeah, and unlike penelope (winner of this week's EE), he doesn't have to use his vagina.

Posted by: Uriah Creep at July 13, 2010 10:18 PM

I long for the day when people are all the same fucking colour and everyone is fucking everybody else and we can all just get over it already.

I am seriously goddamned sick of this shit. Sick of talented people being passed over because of the colour of their skin or the shape of their eyes or the size of their bodies or the formation of their genitalia or what they DO with that genitalia...

And I'm sick of keeping SCORE.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at July 13, 2010 10:50 PM

The real Midas Touch is Steve Jobs.

This list (and the list of directors who haven't yet done 4 movies) has a whooole lotta Pixar on it.

Jobs essentially has a license to print money.

Posted by: morganew at July 13, 2010 11:05 PM

I actually expected to see two names on this list: Martin Scorsese and Clint Eastwood. What does their absence mean: are they neither "popular" nor "good" directors?

Posted by: KV at July 13, 2010 11:05 PM

Who was keeping score? Was someone keeping score? Shit, did I read this entire thread wrong? I don't see a scoreboard. I've seen numbers, but no scoreboard. Is there a game being played? Is this a sport I didn't know about? Pointing out the lack of diversity, using actual numbers, is a way of keeping score? I love it when idealism is littered with aggressive profanity. The fact that it almost contradicts itself is what makes it fun.

Posted by: CreativeDeath at July 13, 2010 11:08 PM

How in the hell did MICHAEL BAY trump STEVEN SPIELBERG???

I mean REALLY?!?!?!

I guess people really do enjoy shitty movies.

Posted by: Holly at July 13, 2010 11:28 PM

You know what's sad?? Scorsese is the best director in Hollywood today, top 5 all time, and isn't on this list.

Posted by: mopery at July 14, 2010 1:37 AM

The problem I have with your numbers is they include only domestic results. If you go worldwide Andrew Adamson is #1 with $642 million per film, James Cameron is #2 with $640 million, with the rest trailing pretty far behind. Also worth noting is that James Cameron's average goes up if you consider only the movies he's written.

Posted by: Guy Incognitus at July 14, 2010 10:10 AM

CreativeDeath -- No, poiting out lack of diversity is not keeping score. Point missed.

It's just exhausting, all of it, is all. Having to continually point out the the sons and daughters of white privilege that things are not hunky dory, that if you continue to hire white writers, they'll most likely write all white characters... that all white casting directors tend to think in all white casts, for the most part... and so on... that white producers tend to hire white directors -- and so on...

It's fucking exhausting. And the fact that the collective human intelligence quotient AND imagination seem to be diminishing at an exponential rate doesn't HELP.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at July 14, 2010 2:16 PM

Had to comment on the race issue:
it's true that Academy tends to really only focus on the white ethnicity. But, that doesn't mean that there should be a kind of affirmative action enforced within the industry. If anything, I think it indicates that the system under which film production operates at the moment favors the white majority if only, as a previous poster pointed out, that's how it's been developed in the past.

But world cinema doesn't have to be American recognized to be great - it already is in its home country.

The problem stems from how within America there is this idea of equality that's supposed to be widespread. Then again, we're only guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself.

A noteworthy point is perhaps the in the film industry, different ethnic types are assumed to write a particular script or work on a particular piece. So a black director is suppose to do a certain kind of film, with a kind of flavor. Once that changes, more work can be developed.

But anyway, the directors on the list are an interesting blend. Making a financially successful project is a challenge. I think it's matter of tapping the right elements, in addition to great filmmaking, like good marketing, a good concept, and focusing on a niche audience. I don't think the 18-35 male demographic is the only one willing to spend money on films, but it is the demographic for which films are created.

Posted by: Jonathon Stevenson at July 27, 2010 12:38 AM