Denzel Washington - Consistency Personified

[John Marston]

Dude you really need to stop using just budget to gross ratio and use a little more perspective. American Gangster may have not made a ton of cash for the studio, but 130m domestic for an R-rated crima drama is by all accounts a huge hit. Yeah, Safe House(which is also R-rated) may have only broke even but I think it might actually be a little more impressive because its a mediocre movie with a dull co-star(Ryan Reynolds) and still made 126m domestic.

Then of course you have the big domestic hauls of his other relatively recent R-rated movies:

Book of Eli: 95m

Flight: 94m

The Equalizer: 101m

Inside Man: 89m

Who else alive can consistently bring in that kind of dinero by pretty much himself?

As fucking great as JOHN WICK was this year, I bet if Denzel Washington was the star of that movie instead of Keanu Reeves, it would've made about 150m domestic.

But why do they keep giving these movies such high budgets then? Most of these movies cost a lot and are not small budget movies

[Goffe]

Do you take into account TV rights/home video when you arbitrarily declare most of all of his movies are failures? How can you say that a movie that probably gross its budget back at the worst is a "flop" when all said is done? Because that's the case of most of those movies minus Out Of Time. A movie that grosses its budget back is not a flop or a failure.

it's a simply math

55% DOM + 45% OS - production budget - marketing

marketing usually cost 50% of the production budget or more, in cases like The Equalizer, I think the marketing cost something like 65-75% of the production budget (smaller the budget = the higher percentage)

and if you have to rely on TV rights and home video for your film to profit, then you're not very bankable, are you?

And if he was constantly making studios losing money, how do you think he would have those movies greenlighted on his name then...Betting on a money loser?

I'm not saying he is a BO poison, I'm saying that he is not the most bankable actor in the industry like the original poster said. Also, studios can be quite dumb when green lighting their movies

The point is all those movies you listed would have grossed peanuts if Washington didn't headline them.

if if if if if

That's the point, in an era driven and saturated by CBM and franchise blockbusters as adult dramas get drowned and put at the margin during Oscar season, there are less place left for mid-budget movies, Denzel Washington can carry those R-rated movies on his name and starpower only over 100M. I mean The Equalizer has a devoted fanbase? Please. (Even a movie like Gone Girl breaking out can't be attributed solely on Ben Affleck's name. Did you see how EOT struggled like crazy to pass 100M and it was a 200M Tom Cruise summer vehicle, is EOT a flop and Tom Cruise is not bankable anymore for you then?).

Affleck had nothing to do with GG success and Cruise had nothing to do EOT failure. GG broke out because it was a fucking great movie (the lead could have been replaced by anyone with decent acting skills). EOT failed because the marketing was not effective and because it wasn't good enough to create a monster WOM.

that's what I think, no actor can carry a movie (BO wise) with his name alone these days, the impact of a well known actor on a movie's BO is small compared to what once was.

"Bankable" has nothing to do with the acting range and much to do with "name accountable for getting back your investment and more on every bet".

where did I say that?

[Goffe]

You kinda missed the addendum...He's not the most bankable actor of Hollywood.(duh!)

well, you liked jb007 post and he said Denzel is the most bankable actor in the industry.

 

For exemple, take Out Of Furnace, that R-rated movie starring Christian Bale coming off the heels of TDKR, it only grossed a pitiful 11M domestic and 4M WW against a 25M budget, that's what I call a big fat flop. Denzel headlining that same kind of movie could have propelled it way higher, that's the point.

Out Of Furnace was released in the Oscar season, so I take it was supposed to be a Oscar contender (in other words, it catered to movibuffs). Bale is more artsy and moviebuff friendly, Denzel is more GA kinda of guy with his action and thriller films. As I said before Out Of Furnace was supposed to be a Oscar contender. Logically conclusion is that If it had Denzel instead of Bale, Out Of Furnace would have grossed more or less the same (probably less).

Now, only if I believed that an actor can significatnly affect a film's BO

Edited December 20, 2014 by Goffe Ascending

[Goffe]

Dude you really need to stop using just budget to gross ratio and use a little more perspective.  American Gangster may have not made a ton of cash for the studio, but 130m domestic for an R-rated crima drama is by all accounts a huge hit.  Yeah, Safe House(which is also R-rated) may have only broke even but I think it might actually be a little more impressive because its a mediocre movie with a dull co-star(Ryan Reynolds) and still made 126m domestic.

perspective doesn't make a movie any more successful to the studio, only to BO nerds. I agree with you, AG did quite good all things considered.... except the budget

55% 131m

+

45% 136m

-

143m (production + marketing budget)

=

-10 million

Denzel highest grossing movie and that's not even including actors fees, director fee, etc..

 

Book of Eli: 95m

Flight: 94m

The Equalizer: 101m

Inside Man: 89m

Who else alive can consistently bring in that kind of dinero by pretty much himself? 

it wasn't "pretty much himself". Flight was awesome, a truly crowd pleasing film. Both The Equalizer and Book of Eli had effective marketing campaigns and they were released in wastelands like Junuary/10 and September/2014

As fucking great as JOHN WICK was this year, I bet if Denzel Washington was the star of that movie instead of Keanu Reeves, it would've made about 150m domestic.

I think it's useless to argue with arguments that begin with "If"

besides, I don't think John Wick could ever make 150m, it is being released by Lionsgate/Summit.

[jb007]

Without any data regarding ancillary income and marketing budgets, it is ridiculous to call almost all Denzel movies to be failures. First of all, none of his movies need a huge marketing budget worldwide like tentpoles or other expensive movies. I would not be surprised if the marketing budget is a very small amount for his movies.

 

The share that the studios receive vary greatly.The way Goffe has projected failures would make failures of 90% of movies released. Anyway, industry people/media constantly rate him the among the top most bankable if not as the most bankable star.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-08-05/why-denzel-washington-is-hollywoods-most-bankable-star

 

"Interstellar," bolstered by strong international results (it dominated foreign markets with $80 million with several major territories still to come), is already at around $130 million domestic thus far.  But it has to, as production and marketing costs combined might reach $300 million. .

 

 

 

Using this ridiculous way of determining profitability, Interstellar would be a mega flop financially since the second biggest market, China would return only a reported share of 17% of its $121 M gross to the studio.

 

Geez.

 

 

[Phil in the Blank]

But...But I thought there were no bankable coloured stars in Hollywood. That's what Ridley Scott and his financiers told me though...(Bankable enough to play a gangster but not a former king like Hannibal Barca, right)

Classic Dash.

[Goffe]

Without any data regarding ancillary income and marketing budgets, it is ridiculous to call almost all Denzel movies to be failures. First of all, none of his movies need a huge marketing budget worldwide like tentpoles or other expensive movies. I would not be surprised if the marketing budget is a very small amount for his movies.

hypocrisy much? see guys, I can't call a movie a flop without officials "ancillary income and marketing budgets", but I can say that the marketing budget "was very small" based on intuition, not providing any link whatsoever.

first: it's widely known that the marketing budget these days are, at very least, +50% of the production budget.

Second: it had a good marketing (talking about Equalizer specifically here), so we can assume that it wasn't cheap

Third: I got my marketing numbers from BoxOffice.com

 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-08-05/why-denzel-washington-is-hollywoods-most-bankable-star

god, you quoted the same clueless article that Dash posted, the article without one single convincing argument.

 

Using this ridiculous way of determining profitability, Interstellar would be a mega flop financially since the second biggest market, China would return only a reported share of 17% of its $121 M gross to the studio.

Interstellar is like American Gangster, it did good all things considered except the budget. Hyperbole aside, Interstellar will lose some money in the theatrical run. Interstellar situation is much more complicated though. Edited December 20, 2014 by Goffe Ascending

[jb007]

hypocrisy much? see guys, I can't call a movie a flop without officials "ancillary income and marketing budgets", but I can say that the marketing budget "was very small" based on intuition, not providing any link whatsoever.

first: it's widely known that the marketing budget these days are, at very least, +50% of the production budget.

Second: it had a good marketing (talking about Equalizer specifically here), so we can assume that it wasn't cheap

Third: I got my marketing numbers from BoxOffice.com

god, you quoted the same clueless article that Dash posted, the article without one single convincing argument.

Interstellar is like American Gangster, it did good all things considered except the budget. Hyperbole aside, Interstellar will lose some money in the theatrical run. Interstellar situation is much more complicated though.

But your silly and bogus assessment of his movies profitability with incomplete data is the greatest thing since sliced bread? Give me a break. You are just making stuff up to justify your laughable assertions.

Claiming that movies not profitable from theatrical run alone are failures just shows your knowledge of the industry revenue model.

[Goffe]

But your silly and bogus assessment of his movies profitability with incomplete data is the greatest thing since sliced bread? Give me a break. You are just making stuff up to justify your laughable assertions.

I'm making stuff up? you don't need to be an industry insider to know that the studio gets 55% from the DOM gross and 45% of the OS gross. You don't need to be an industry insider to know that the marketing budget is usually 50% of the production budget.

You just have to frequent this forum regularly.

Claiming that movies not profitable from theatrical run alone are failures just shows your knowledge of the industry revenue model.

the star is not really bankable if most of his movies depends on ancillary income to become profitable, is he?

[jb007]

I'm making stuff up? you don't need to be an industry insider to know that the studio gets 55% from the DOM gross and 45% of the OS gross. You don't need to be an industry insider to know that the marketing budget is usually 50% of the production budget.

You just have to frequent this forum regularly.

the star is not really bankable if most of his movies depends on ancillary income to become profitable, is he?

One would have to be the dumbest person in the world to assert the same model works across the board, To think that in all situations the same marketing cost of 50% of the production budget applies is delusional. A movie like Interstellar seems to have a $135M marketing budget over and above a $165M prod. budget. Is that 50% of the production cost? It is approx. 80%.The average marketing cost share number of 50% of the prod, cost comes from movies like Denzel's being way less than 50%. 

 

 

As the President of Fox Filmed Entertainment once put it, “the only way movies make money 95 percent  of the time is when all the markets are added  up”.  At one major studio, for example, an interviewee noted that  54 percent of their revenue on film comes from home video; 22 percent  comes from television; and only 24 percent comes from theatrical film.

 

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic152447.files/rosen_Hollywood.pdf

 

 

This was the case in the early to mid 2000s. The home video revenue has evolved in that the lower DVD sales are being slowly supplanted by digital sales.

 

 

Digital purchases of movies are increasing so rapidly they will have eclipsed slumping DVD sales by the end of 2014, returning Hollywood’s most important revenue stream to growth, according to one of the largest film studios.

 

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0282cc28-78d8-11e3-831c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3MRdwHT4W

 

There is evidence to prove your assertions to be completely wrong. So.....

Edited December 20, 2014 by jb007

[Lordmandeep]

I always laugh when people STILL think most people watch a film when its in theaters.

[Goffe]

This was the case in the early to mid 2000s. The home video revenue has evolved in that the lower DVD sales are being slowly supplanted by digital sales.

 

 

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0282cc28-78d8-11e3-831c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3MRdwHT4W

 

There is evidence to prove your assertions to be completely wrong. So.....

good arguments

 

ost comes from movies like Denzel's being way less than 50%.

can you provide any link? Edited December 20, 2014 by Goffe Ascending

[The Futurist]

exactly. He is consistent but many of his movies have way too high of a budget considering he is a total non factor overseas. He is a decent sized star but far from the most bankable actor in Hollywood 

 

And it puzzles me that he seems to get for a very long time now a 15-20m paycheck for every movie he does. I don't find him a good investment at all.

[The Futurist]

And lol at suggesting the idea that the current digital distribution model will bring as much money back than the glory days of VHS-Rentals-DVD markets which were Huuuuuge financialy for studios until it slowed down and died out at the end of the 2000's when piracy became a monster so that a 14 yo believes now in the mid 2010's that movies,comics,video games and music are free just because ...

Edited December 20, 2014 by The Futurist

[Phil in the Blank]

If Denzel Washington keeps getting thrown 15-20 Million at movies that you feel 'flop', then there really are two possibilities here.

 

1) Hollywood is full of morons who keep giving out large sums of money to Denzel despite his lacklustre BO performance.

 

2) His movies actually are profitable and they like the cash they bring in.

 

Choose 1 option.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Spottswoode

[rockNrollaDIM]

I don't really like his "brand" but there's no denying his star power. I totally respect that he's not a franchise whore and sells these crap movies on his name alone. He's his own genre.

[The Futurist]

I don't really like his "brand" but there's no denying his star power. I totally respect that he's not a franchise whore and sells these crap movies on his name alone. He's his own genre.

In other words, he is his own franchise because he is succesful in a very particular type of character.

[Kalo]

My Favorite Denzel Washington movie is Remember the Titans. incredible film. I don't watch a whole lot of his movies, because I'm not a big fan of most action movies. but he is a very good actor.

Edited December 24, 2014 by KaloVisor

[baumer]

I've never understood the budgets on Denzel movies nor do I understand why he gets such a huge paycheck.  The numbers for his films are there on Mojo, you can look them up.  Has he done any film that has made 300 mill world wide?  And if you look up his HV sales, they aren't much.  So where do his films make the money that justifies these  budgets?  

[James]

Tom Cruise is by far the most bankable. WW at least.