web counter
 

The Box Office Sweet Spot -- Your Favorite Directors Aren't Very Popular

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Seriously Random Lists | Comments (26)

kevin-smith-sweet-spot.jpg

As I was once again scouring box-office figures yesterday, specifically the average overall box-office gross for particular directors, I picked up on a quirky little trend. It’s not a life-shattering trend or anything, but a neat observation, if you will. And it is this: The Box-Office Sweet Spot might just be $20 - $25 million.

In other words, these directors are “pop-niche.” They’re not obscure, but they’re not huge money-makers, either. They make films that appeal to a certain limited audience, and that limited audience tends to be readers like the ones here on Pajiba. In many cases, the directors themselves are more famous than their movies, and while many (most/all) have received critical acclaim, their box-office ceiling is probably around $20 - $25 million, with a few outliers that put that average in that sweet spot.

Now, of course, Whedon obviously won’t be on this list very long — The Avengers will rocket him off, although I suspect he’ll be replaced by Edgar Wright, whose overall average box-office right now is $18 million. My guess is that Scott Pilgrim will make around $40 million and put Wright in the sweet spot. Spike Lee usually makes enough low-earners to average out his occasional hit, so he’s likely to remain in the sweet spot, as well. As for the other eight: My guess is that they’ll exist in this sweet spot for most, if not all, of their careers. I kind of appreciate that, if only because I’d consider seven or eight of these directors to be among my very favorites, and their films do well enough so that they can continue to make (low-budget) movies for years to come, but not so well that they’ll likely be co-opted by mainstream America.

Here are the ten pop-niche directors whose average overall box-office gross rests in that $20 - $25 million Box Office Sweet Spot.

Wes Anderson — $21 million average gross

Paul Thomas Anderson — $21 million average gross

Kevin Smith — $22 million average gross

Joel and Ethan Coen — $25 million average gross

Sofia Coppola — $21 million average gross

Terry Gilliam — $24 million average gross

Mike Judge — $21 million average gross

Spike Lee — $20 million average gross

David O. Russell — $22 million average gross

Joss Whedon — $25 million average gross









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

← The Loved Ones Trailer | She Will Hide In Silence, Then Her Day Will Come | Pajiba Love 12/07/10 →









Comments

Dustin, it's not a sport, and definitely not a competition. The unhealthy obsession that we all have with a movie grosses has to stop. Let the studios worry about the money.

Posted by: Thaf at July 12, 2010 11:41 AM

But is that a bad thing?

Look at the Coens. No Country for Old Men was such a hit, commercially and critically, that they can spend the next few years making stuff like Burn After Reading and A Serious Man -- which appeals to them but isn't a hit.

Same thing with Lee or the Andersons. They make enough money to do what they want, how they want and with whom they want.

I'd rather that career -- movies that appeal to a small niche with the occasional break-out hit -- than something like the Baynis or Shyamalan -- where anything less than $100 mil is seen as a failure.

Posted by: Fredo at July 12, 2010 11:42 AM

I always love this logic: If anything is popular it cant be "good". If anything I deem to be "good" becomes popular it is no longer "good".

Posted by: logan at July 12, 2010 11:43 AM

The Coens....really?

I don't get it. Every single film they've ever made (mostly) has been great, either stylistically, script-wise, plot-wise, or all. They have numerous Oscar noms (23) and wins, nothing but acclaim for everything they do. When will America realize that, instead of watching the Sandler bunch try not to shit down their own legs on opening weekend, (unless it's in the script, of course) seeing a Coen film will be money and time better spent.

Arguments like this make me want to falcon-punch America.

Posted by: PissBoy at July 12, 2010 11:43 AM

FALCON PUNCH!!!!!

Posted by: PissBoy at July 12, 2010 11:44 AM

If anything is popular it cant be "good".

You walked in here with that hat, Tex. We didn't make you wear it.

Posted by: twig at July 12, 2010 11:45 AM

I have to disagree, Thaf - If you go to sites like 538.com, it's clear the numbers in the end are the best predictors. I can't base The Avengers' success unless I look at the previous success of the actors in the film as well as the director. There is no other indicator aside from REALLY LIKING a performer or director and rooting for their success. If I like Kevin Smith and thought he should direct the Green Lantern movie, looking at his grosses and success with higher - budget fare clearly shows he's not right for the job. Perhaps Rowles isn't looking at ALL the numbers - but the numbers really are the only predictors of future behaviors, and learning to read through them and not just read them is highly educational.

Posted by: Byrd at July 12, 2010 11:48 AM

Thaf >> Like it or not, those studios do very much worry about that money. Consequently, it's worth monitoring. Box office drives whether or not these directors will be allowed to make another movie within the system. Of course it's not a competition, and of course box office success by itself has no bearing on the quality of their work. But if the people on this list fall below that "sweet spot" and are forced to stop making relatively widely released films as a result, I would be extremely sad. It's an interesting bit of equilibrium with these folks sitting in the eye of the storm.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at July 12, 2010 11:48 AM

Personally I like it when small directors go mainstream, a la Christopher Nolan doing a Batman movie and Jon Favreau doing Iron Man. These movies end up being a little smarter than they would have otherwise. There are plenty of talented hungry young directors I'm sure who would be more than happy to move up the ranks into the $20-25 million spot. We just haven't heard of them yet.

Posted by: Jonzo at July 12, 2010 11:55 AM

I don't think Whedon should be included on this list. I like his stuff, but that $25M number comes from his only directed movie, Serenity, and it had a $40M budget. That is certainly not a "sweet spot"; it's a commercial failure. In order to analyze whether a sweet spot actually exist, you've also got to look at the movie budget as well as the box office intake. Gross box office profit compared to budget would probably be a better indication of where the spot actually lies.

Posted by: russmunki at July 12, 2010 12:15 PM

Isn't the really important number profit, not box office? Because if something takes a shitload of money to make and promote, it has to make so much more to get that money back than a "small" $20 million-$40 million movie. I would think MGM's bankruptcy, despite co-owning the Bond franchise, would prove how much more valuable a standard profitability is (as opposed to box office).

The most profitable movie of all time is supposedly (and unfortunately) "Blair Witch Project," which made $140 million on a production budget of $35,000.

Posted by: Slash at July 12, 2010 12:21 PM


I always love this logic: If anything is popular it cant be "good". If anything I deem to be "good" becomes popular it is no longer "good".

Posted by: logan at July 12, 2010 11:43 AM

There's some truth to it.

When film began, it was pure spectacle. People paid good money to watch 24 seconds of just about anything moving. It was magical.

And then it was porn. This is the natural progression of all media. Magic -> Porn -> Mainstream -> Art.

To get from Porn to Mainstream, you have to overcome societal prejudice that insists the medium is only fit for the gutters of society. Once that happens, the medium becomes massively popular.

Then, some people start to create actual art with it. But art has this tendency to engender actual thoughts and emotions. Not everyone is OK with certain thoughts and emotions being examined. Therefore, "good" "art" will always be less popular than safe media that deliberate avoids challenging thoughts or deep, meaningful emotions.

Of course, there's also a tendency in places like this to wear an "Iconoclast" badge like it's the secret decoder ring of the Awesome People Club. That kind of anti-populist tripe is simply elitist and stupid.

So, like most things, there's a Dark Side to go with the Light Side.

(And I manage to bring another media diatribe around to a Star Wars reference. Nerd points gained +10)

Posted by: ZombieScientist at July 12, 2010 12:34 PM

I like this idea of a "sweet spot." SLW should graph it up and then we can really see if the awesome directors just hang out together in the $20-25 Million Cafe. I can totally see it happening: "Hey, Joss Whedon, how's tricks?" "Oh, tricks are tricky, Coen Brothers. Try the quiche -- it's excellent today!" "Hey, Spike Lee, stop hitting on Sofia Coppola! I know she's the only woman here, but it's not classy!" "Well, I would, David O'Russell the secret Irishman, but I've already had 8 cups of coffee and I have to get my excess quirk out somehow!" Man, I want to hang out with these guys.

Posted by: esme at July 12, 2010 12:56 PM

I agree with the above, that gross doesn't make nearly as much sense as profit.

Posted by: Brenton at July 12, 2010 1:29 PM

FALCON PUNCH!!!!!
Posted by: PissBoy at July 12, 2010 11:44 AM

I'm sorry, but I will always, for the rest of my life, say that in the Kirby voice from Super Smash Brothers. And so it turns into something equally awesome, but less manly and more cute.

Posted by: Bequafina at July 12, 2010 1:49 PM

This is the natural progression of all media. Magic -> Porn -> Mainstream -> Art.

I don't agree with this at all. Music has never turned pornographic. Television is barely able to support nudity 65 years later (for the cost of a subscription). The printing press became widely used because of the Bible, not because of boobies.

Posted by: superasente at July 12, 2010 1:50 PM

I disagree with the profit idea. The point was to illustrate a certain sub-grouping of directors who are considered successful or talented, despite limited financial success. If a movie cost $100 million to make and makes $120 million, do they really belong on a list with the Coens and Wes Anderson?

I say they do not. Most of the directors listed here probably break even, or generate a slight profit on their movies.

The idea is that the general readership of this site tends to skew towards a certain type of director, and those directors typically generate a certain level of box office receipts.

The profit margin isn't particularly useful for that discussion.

Also, I want to hang out in esme's bar.

Posted by: The Other Agent Johnson at July 12, 2010 1:51 PM

I love that you pointed out The Sweet Spot, Dustin. The $20-25 million range is pretty much exactly the bottomline where studios deem a director successful or not. At least, that's how Kevin Smith put it in one of his director commentaries (Chasing Amy or Dogma, I believe). Basically, he said that he got to make Mallrats because while Clerks didn't make any money, it was acclaimed enough to get him another gig, but when Mallrats failed to make that $20-25 million, he almost didn't get to make Chasing Amy. However, when Amy made something like $18-20 million, he was able to get Dogma greenlit and then that finally put him well over the threshold and he's been there ever since-- Black Cop/White Cop, notwithstanding.

So, yeah. The facts and figures above may be a little off, I'm basing them on what I remember from an egotistical director's commentary track to a movie(s) I haven't seen in 5 years, but the gist is that I think this post nails it. We don't need to be obsessed with a film's box office to determine whether we like it, or its director, but if we want to know whether that director gets another gig (or WHY, GOD WHY, they keep getting work), knowing The Sweet Spot really helps one's understanding of how the system works.

Like Pink Floyd said: Money.

Posted by: RobP at July 12, 2010 2:21 PM

This is the natural progression of all media. Magic -> Porn -> Mainstream -> Art.

I don't agree with this at all. Music has never turned pornographic. Television is barely able to support nudity 65 years later (for the cost of a subscription). The printing press became widely used because of the Bible, not because of boobies.

Posted by: superasente at July 12, 2010 1:50 PM

I was being at least partly tongue-in-cheek. And "porn" also includes "pulp" here. Anything "low" enough to be excluded from the category "art" out of hand.

The printing press is not exactly an exception, either. The Church push for literacy and its intended effects were Magic. Or, at the very least, magical thinking. Once you had a literate population who mostly all had Bibles, nearly the entire printing industry turned to.... porn and pulp. Sure, some of them took to printing the Classics, but porn and pulp made actual money and account for the bulk of what was actually printed. And still do if you poke your head into a Barnes and Noble or similar. Now there's some actual art to sit alongside all that, though.

The Bible was a nice subsidy for the printing press industry until they figured out how to actually make money, but it's an aberration from the typical form. Religious regulation that worked out fairly well for everyone in the long run.

Television is also an aberration for similar reasons, really. It's really just a subset of film that was government regulated from its inception, rather than regulated by the market directly. But the minute subscription channels came into being that could provide what the market wanted without farking Blue Laws, what did we get? Porn and pulp, including that wonderful mash-up of them, late night movie channels.

Music is a different beast. It's non-visual, which makes for bad porn if you're a primate. It also predates culture of any recognizable kind, so it's not really a fair comparison.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at July 12, 2010 2:23 PM

Different media have taken different paths, ZombieScientist -- those paths aren't easily ordered as "magic - porn - mainstream - art." More often than not the mediums diverge in all different directions at once, to different degrees at different times, depending upon social needs. No two medium share exact paths.

Posted by: superasente at July 12, 2010 4:22 PM

Again, partly tongue-in-cheek, partly over-simplified. This isn't even my field, so I won't be writing a peer-reviewed paper on it.

But I do think Magic -> Porn -> Mainstream -> Art (or possibly the variation WTF! -> Low brow -> High brow) is pretty consistent with visual media. It's just a numbers game that happens to be consistent with human predilections.

It takes a genius to invent a new medium. But for the vast horde who come next, one in a million will be capable of generating art, and the bulk of what is produced will be pulp or porn. At best, you could call it "low art."

That's not a bad thing. I love me some pulp, and I'm in favor of porn. And it's a good thing, too, because if you wanted to fill your life with nothing but high art, you'd run out of material fast.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at July 12, 2010 5:14 PM

The profit margin isn't particularly useful for that discussion.

Fair point. I'm convinced. Stick with the gross numbers! The shoe, follow the shoe!

Posted by: Brenton at July 12, 2010 5:46 PM

My favorite niche directors don't even come close to taking in that much per film. Shoot, some of them haven't earned that much in total. They are the few, the proud, the smart independent genre film directors who get suffocated by the big studio system the first time they dip their toes in Hollywood and scamper away like woodland nymphs for the rest of their careers.

Posted by: Robert at July 12, 2010 6:20 PM

Love me some low-brow.

Also love me some Wes Anderson. If "The Royal Tenenbaums" were a dessert, it would definatly be a popsicle.

Posted by: superasente at July 12, 2010 6:47 PM

I'm going to have to disagree with you, superasente. Bottle Rocket is a popsicle. Rushmore is devil food's cake, Royal Tenenbaums is a banana split/hot fudge sundae, The Life Aquatic is cheesecake, and The Darjeeling Limited is either gilatto or something flambe. I haven't seen Fantastic Mr. Fox, yet, but based on the trailers/reviews it strikes me as... pumpkin pie.

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

The reason profit is not included is because it's pretty much a given that the director's got a track record of making profits just to get big enough for a sample size.

Posted by: This Guy at July 26, 2010 1:24 AM