Mister Tee wrote:
I don't get why people would even question the relationship between box office and awards. We've talked for weeks here about how First Man and Widows -- each with a Metacritic score of 84, the same as Get Out last year -- have faded as awards hopefuls, because they've fizzled commercially. And, conversely, how Bohemian Rhapsody is soaring as a possibility because of its unexpected near $200 million gross...with many thinking Mary Poppins Returns, a dire 67 on Metacritic, could make the best picture list as well, because it's thought a likely smash hit. It's not exactly a secret that films perceived to be successful (relative to their niche -- $40-50 million for indies like Three Billboards or Lady Bird is considered boffo) often do well with Oscar voters, while films that crash and burn (like Detroit) don't.
I think its perceptive of failure that plays a part too.
As per Box Office Mojo (which one should keep in mind shows lower actual b.o. results because some countries b.o. is only reported to a certain level - once the film is out of the top ten or twenty or thirty, then they stop reporting the figures but I admit that it doesn't make a huge difference):
First Man: Worldwide gross $100,503 million against a budget of $59 million (+ advertising costs?) (44.6% gross US, 55.4% international)
Widows: Worldwide gross $67,108 million against a budget of $42 million (+ advertising costs?)(59% gross US, 41% international)
I think the general rule of thumb is a film should make roughly 3 times it cost at the global box-office to 'break even', but the ultimate outcome of profitability is more complex than that. For example the studio's get more of the cut from the US box office than they do from the international box office.
They may come near to at least recouping their cost with ancillary earnings (downloading, physical media, TV, etc). I think the biggest handicap that both films faced is that audiences were very mixed on them. Though they both made very decent amounts of money they are perceived as flops due to their budgets against their respective box office.
Can You Ever Forgive Me? would have been made on a much lower budget and as yet to hit most of the international market. I can understand it perceived as a failure box office wise but I get the impression that audience reaction to the film is less divided.
I'm hopeless at predicting what a film is going to make at the box-office but I find it fascinating looking at the end result on a global level. I cannot begin to stress how important global box office is nowadays.
If there is a success story against the odds this year it has to be Bohemian Rhapsody.
Bad publicity during the making, ho-hum trailer(s) that barely hinted at Freddie Mercury's sexuality and then lots of negative reviews. On a modest budget of $50 the film has amassed $604,873 reported as of now (US $176,298 million, international $428,575) 29.1% vs. 70.9%. Its still number one in South Korea since it opened on 1 November and made another $5 million there last weekend. The only thing stopping the film making $1 billion worldwide is that the Chinese 'market' is not familiar with Queen. Prior to the films release who would ever have guessed that this film would recite a SAG ensemble nomination. But kudos that saw it coming because I've not come across another film that, despite its mediocracy, is already beloved by the movie-going public virtually around the world.
Its another example of 'perception'.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)