Predicting Sci Fi Movie Returns

Guest post by Charles Johnson

In the latest issue of Esquire, there’s a fascinating profile of Sam Worthington, the leading actor of James Cameron’s new, $300 million dollar film, Avatar. (The trailer looks downright amazing.)

Apparently, Cameron wanted the Australian actor to play the part, but the studio opposed this casting, as they hoped that a big name actor might draw more people to the film and help recuperate their initial expenditure. After much discussion, Cameron got Worthington to play the part.

The real question, though, is why did they think that a big name star would gross more money?

What if stars and the director are totally irrelevant? And that all that matters is the story? So are the findings of Epagogix, a British firm that uses neural networks and scanning scripts, makes a tidy sum predicting with uncanny accuracy. (You can read all about their work in Malcolm Gladwell’s article or in Ian Ayres’s book, Supercrunchers.)

So if Epagogix finds that the story, not the stars, masters most to a box office return, and they predict box office returns better than the studios, why do studios continue to insist that pretty faces are what gets people to see the movies?

If history is any indication, sci fi films tend to do well based upon how good of a world they have created, not on the value of the actors that are in them. Star Wars, E.T., and Jurassic Park all come to mind. Most recently, District 9, put together on a shoestring budget of $30 million dollars, grossed $37 million opening weekend, without any big name stars on its payroll. As of right now, it has grossed over $81 million and continues to grow. 

The gains don't seem to be limited to sci fi. Another film, Slumdog Millionaire, grossed over $375 million worldwide on a budget of $15 million, with totally unknown actors. 

So why haven't studios gotten around to realizing that star power is limited and why haven't wages for moviestars adjusted? Is there a lack of entrepreneurial studio executives? 

Comments

[Anon]

If story was that important, Michael Bay would be out on the street homeless and the summer movie industry wouldn't leave producers wallowing in their riches. For every "good story" (subjective) District 9, there is a Transformers. Shudder.

Additionally, does that mean Will Smith and other actors and actresses that routinely produce big box office results are outliers? I can point you to a plethora of films with "good stories" that failed to make a dime. Big stars are typically reliable; they representative a low risk with stable rewards to producers. You can't take a few examples of successful Sci-Fi films and generalize to an entire genre or industry.

[Andy]

There's been some research on this (search Google Scholar for "movie star") and it seems that stars do indeed have significant value, though perhaps only the top ones.

[solar garden light]

why did they think that a big name star would gross more money?

[louis vuitton]

The comments seem to be talking all around the question but not addressing the heart of the entreprenurial debate. The issue should be: How to get state capital around the financial logjam and into the hands of the entrepreneur.

[replica watches]

The comments seem to be talking all around the question but not addressing the heart of the entreprenurial debate. The issue should be: How to get state capital around the financial logjam and into the hands of the entrepreneur.