John Nolte and the Box Office: Why We All Need A Crash Course in Film Economics

It takes a special sort of article to stoke a reader's passions. It takes an unbelievable article to launch a blog made solely to refute it. John Nolte has written just such an article. So thank you, Mr. Nolte, for rousing my spirit, inflaming my passion and stirring my loins.

For obvious reasons.

So, without further ado, I present to you: "John Nolte Is Wrong. So Very, Very Wrong."

Now, it's no secret that the film industry is struggling with recent box office receipts. The solution is by no means clear, which is why John Nolte has thoughtfully compiled a list of suggestions to save Hollywood, based on what appears to be a single Pew Research Poll hidden inside a sandwich of his own moxie.

I'm going to separate his arguments into two categories: Angry Grandpa and Whiny Conservative. Category A covers recommendations 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10; the other 3 are in Category B.

Category A: John Nolte as Angry Grandpa

Ah, the early days of movies. When stars like Bogart and Fairbanks could seduce women by wearing a fedora at just the right angle.

You don't even notice his crazy eye.

But times are, as always, worse now then they were then, so the obvious solution is to do what worked in the past. Or as Nolte puts it: "You can trace most of Hollywood’s problems back to the death of the movie star...Today we’re down to Sandra Bullock, Will Smith, and Denzel Washington — the only three people I know who can still draw a crowd based solely on their name."

He's right, of course. Bullock, Smith, and Washington are all we've got left, ever since The Punisher went on a murderous rampage in Hollywood after watching "Jack and Jill."

"Si vis pacem, para bellum...and stop giving Adam Sandler money."

Oh wait...nevermind, that's actually the dumbest thing I've ever heard. There are dozens of movie stars and to claim otherwise is moronic. Nolte's justification is that "Men want to be John Wayne and Robert Mitchum. Women want to Ava Gardner and Barbara Stanwyck." He dumps on Shia LaBeouf and Michelle Williams for not fitting this mold, and declares that Orlando Bloom will never be a movie star.

"I've been discovered! And I was fooling them so well, too." 

I feel that the incredibly sexist nature of Mr. Nolte's statement about women is pretty self-explanatory, so instead I'm going to focus on the economic aspect here. In Hollywood, there is the concept of a "bankable star," i.e., a big name actor with a high return on investment in terms of salary-to-box-office ratio. Mr. Nolte is clearly familiar with the idea, as his main justification for his first point is that Hollywood can use stars to attract bigger audiences. Helpfully, Forbes magazine compiles an annual list of the top 10 bankable stars. Let's take a look-see (this will also address point number 5):

(Rank. Name---amount of box office revenue made per dollar of salary---recent popular movies)

10. Johnny Depp---$12.48---Pirates of the Caribbean

9. Meryl Streep---$13.54---It's Complicated/Julie & Julia

8. Cate Blanchett---$15.17---Robin Hood/The Curious Case of Benjamin Button/Hannah

7. Matt Damon---$15.83---True Grit/The Adjustment Bureau/Hereafter

6. Robert Downey Jr.---$18.74---Iron Man 2/Sherlock Holmes

5. Shia LaBeouf---$29.40---Transformers

4. Daniel Radcliffe---$34.24---Harry Potter

3. Robert Pattinson---$39.43---Twilight: Eclipse/Water for Elephants/Remember Me

2. Anne Hathaway---$45.67---Alice in Wonderland/Love and Other Drugs/Bride Wars

1. Kristen Stewart---$55.83---Twilight: Eclipse/Twilight: New Moon

(Source: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mfl45idih/hollywoods-best-actors-for-the-buck/)

Why, if it isn't old "Shia La-what's-his-name" and "Rachel Getting Married and Acts Like A Slut" themselves (also no black people...that's troubling). Now, admittedly, some of these names will disappear because their "brands" are coming to a close, and those are the only things they're famous for. With that logic, we can strike the Twilight stars, Daniel Radcliffe, and maybe Shia LaBeouf. That still leaves Anne Hathaway, Robert Downey Jr., Matt Damon, Cate Blanchett, Meryl Streep, and Johnny Depp, all of whom are able to draw huge returns (and those are just the top 10 recorded by Forbes. Factor in the number of stars that make anywhere from $2-$12 in box office gross per dollar of salary, and you have a large amount of bankable stars). 

So why did I mention point number 5? Because with the exception of Meryl Streep, all of these stars were featured in films that were marketed to the 18-30 year old demographic. That's how they were able to make such huge returns, as were the top 10 films of 2011:

(Rank. Name---Worldwide Gross)

1. Harry Potter 7 Part 2---$1.33 BB

2. Transformers 3---$1.12BB

3. Pirates of the Caribbean 4---$1.04BB

4. Kung Fu Panda 2---$666MM

5. Twilight 4 Part 1---$657MM

6. Fast Five---$626MM

7. The Hangover 2---$582MM

8. The Smurfs---$562.5MM

9. Cars 2---$560MM

10. Rio---$485MM

(Source: http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2011&p=.htm)

Almost all sequels, all marketed to the two youngest demographics (children and young adults). You have to dig pretty deep on that list to find a movie marketed to adults that did well. The Help? 28th Place, with $203MM. The King's Speech? Better, coming in at 13th on last year's list with $411MM, but that's an exception to a year where the dominant movies were Toy Story 3 and Alice in Wonderland. Young people go to the movies a lot. Adults don't. Simple supply and demand.

Or simple lightsaber battle, if you are so inclined.

So, what about the next few points? Well, I'll give Nolte credit where it's due: points 6 and 7 are true, in that they're meaningless platitudes that are no more constructive than telling a football team to "go give 110% out there." 8 is actually a fair point, so I'll leave that alone, and Nolte doesn't give any real advice in number 9, so there's nothing really to engage there.

Ah, but point number 10. The whole reason for this article. Mr. Nolte clearly has never studied how the film distribution networks work, which is odd, considering that he runs a website about Hollywood. The simple version is, Hollywood distributors agree to let theater owners show their films, in exchange for a certain amount of ticket revenues (usually something like 90% of opening weekend sales, followed by sharply diminishing percentages every week). Unfortunately for theaters, most films make the lion's share of their revenue during the opening weekend, meaning the studio profits while the theater barely makes enough to maintain their operations. So how do they stay in business? Well, they can raise ticket prices, but a) that doesn't help all that much and b) that discourages moviegoers from choosing their theater. So their only recourse is concessions. 

Here's the great secret: movie theaters are really just snack bars that use movies to get you inside. They don't care what movie you see, as long as you buy something to eat or drink. Concessions are the only source of income that they retain complete control over, and as a result, it's practically their only real asset. Unfortunately, charging regular prices for concessions would put them out of business just as quickly, as only a fraction of the movie-going public actually buys concessions. So, they raise prices to compensate, and thus, survive. Quit yer' bitchin'.

T.I. agrees.

Category B: John Nolte as Whiny Conservative

Naturally, as John Nolte works for Andrew Breitbart, some playful liberal-bashing is to be expected. It goes with the territory.

Ha ha! We have fun.

Take for example his criticism of A-listers like George Clooney and Tom Hanks for being too vocal about their liberal views. Fair enough, I suppose that celebrities can run off at the mouth sometimes, and Mr. Nolte is entitled to dislike that.

But when it comes to some of the other things he says, well, it's just downright repulsive. I already mentioned his sexism, but his anti-left rancor reaches new heights with such gems as: "What were you thinking making films opposing a War on Terror we were still fighting and still could’ve lost?...Do you have any idea how selfish, narcissistic, and treasonous that was? Do you have any idea how your propaganda encouraged the enemy, which means that more of our troops and innocent Iraqis and Afghans died as a result? You have blood on your hands. Making those films was an act of evil...Your industry is packed with immature, ungrateful, moral illiterates..." etc.

*Sigh* Where to begin? I guess with the first sentence: "a War on Terror we were still fighting and still could’ve lost." Mr. Nolte does realize that the stated goal of the War on Terror was/is to destroy Al Qaeda and Associated Movements, right? (Source: http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-20/us/gen.bush.transcript_1_joint-session-national-anthem-citizens?_s=PM:US) 

Killing Bin Laden does not equal destroying AQAM. We ARE still fighting and we ARE not making progress, and it's been that way for years. I'll admit I'm liberal, but I'm still a big believer in US unipolarity. I think that the WOT has done nothing but cause military overstretch of forces we need in places like the Korean peninsula, and more importantly, fueled anti-american sentiment.

I mean, really, Mr. Nolte. Try reading your own words aloud and listen to how inane they are. Do you HONESTLY think that al Qaeda fighters are/were more motivated by In the Valley of Elah than they were by getting their homes leveled by unmanned drones?

And narcissistic? In the Valley of Elah was made in September of 2007, when less than 30% of Americans supported the War on Terror (Source: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/09/snapshot_terrorism.html). It isn't narcissism if it reflects public will.

Finally, Mr. Nolte mentions in point 4 that Hollywood kids films like The Muppets are filled with insidious propaganda. 

I'm not sure what he's refer...HOLY SHIT

I assume Mr. Nolte is referring to the fact that the Muppets are working to stop an oil magnate from tearing down their theater to drill for oil. Some nonsense about being anti-business, I suppose. That would be to completely miss the point of the movie of course, which is that the oil tycoon only cares about money (which is bad, mmmkay?) and that we all need to cooperate...oh shit, I guess that is pretty Socialist.

I'm going to be straight with you, Mr. Nolte: most kids films promote similar ideas of caring for one another and treating other people with dignity, in some form or another. Social darwinism and resource exploitation are not exactly easy things for 6 year olds to root for. If that strikes you as left wing, then that speaks pretty poorly of the right.

Well, that pretty much covers it. John Nolte, you are wrong. You are very, very wrong.