2009 Oscars doomed? – FROST/NIXON, THE READER and MILK are among the 6 weakest grossing Best Picture nominees of the last decade!
by Steve MasonThere is a phenomenon known as “the Oscar bounce.” When a movie receives Academy Award nominations, especially one of the five coveted Best Picture slots, ticket-buyers generally follow. The Oscar seal of approval used to mean something to the rank-and-file moviegoer, but that seems to have changed.
Only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees has inspired any real passion from the broad public. The almost-certain Best Picture winner is Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight), and its devotees, including critics and members of the Academy (not to mention yours truly), have made it a word-of-mouth smash hit. The Danny Boyle-directed feel-good Bollywood fusion movie made for a meager $14M added another $2.05M or so on Friday and is charting a 3-day course for about $7.4M. That will give the Slumdog a $77.4M take, and it could reach $90M-$95M before it’s through in American theatres.
David Fincher's The Curious Case of Benjamin is the only 2009 Best Picture nominee to top $100M
The other four Best Picture noms are The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount), Milk (Focus), The Reader (Weinstein) and Frost/Nixon (Universal). I approached Benjamin Button as a little kid might approach broccoli. (You’re not allowed to leave the table until you eat it, and it’s supposed to be good for you.) It’s very long, a bit pretentious, and not nearly as good as other David Fincher-directed films like Se7en and Zodiac. After opening strong, the movie is now fading despite 13 Oscar nominations, selling about $640,000 in tickets Friday for a likely $2.24M 3-day. The cume will be a respectable $120M by Monday, but how many people have you actually heard saying, “I love Benjamin Button!”
The Reader, Milk and Frost/Nixon are now on as many screens as they will ever be, and they are certainly not setting the world on fire. Here’s how the five movies nominated for Hollywood’s biggest prize are performing this weekend.
BOX OFFICE PERFORMANCE OF BEST PICTURE NOMINEES FEBRUARY 6-8
Slumdog Millionaire – $2.05M Friday – $7.4M 3-day – $77.4M cume
Benjamin Button – $640K Friday – $2.4M 3-day – $120M cume
The Reader – $605K Friday – $2.3M 3-day – $16M cume
Milk – $285K Friday – $1.1M 3-day – $25.2M cume
Frost/Nixon – $189K Friday – $753K 3-day – $15.6M cume
Aside from Slumdog Millionaire, there’s not much box office upside here. Ben Button is unlikely to reach $130M, while Milk will probably fall short of $30M. The Reader could add a possible $8M before its done, and Frost/Nixon won’t even get to $20M domestic.
Frank Langella and Michael Sheen in Frost/Nixon, unlikely to top $20M domestic
PROJECTED CUMES OF 2009 BEST PICTURE NOMINEES
Benjamin Button – $127M cume (projected)
Slumdog Millionaire – $95M cume (projected)
Milk – $29M cume (projected)
The Reader – $23M cume (projected)
Frost/Nixon – $19M cume (projected)
Combined projected cume: $293M
If those numbers hold, the 2009 awards season will have given us three of the six weakest performing Best Picture nominees of the last decade.
TOP 10 LOWEST GROSSING BEST PICTURE NOMINEES OF THE LAST DECADE
1. 2006 – Letters From Iwo Jima – $13.75M cume
2. 2009 – Frost/Nixon – $20M cume (projected)
3. 2009 – The Reader – $25M cume (projected)
4. 2005 – Capote – $28.75M
5. 1999 – The Insider – $29M
6. 2009 – Milk – $30M cume (projected)
7. 2005 – Good Night & Good Luck – $31.5M cume
8. 2002 – The Pianist – $32.5M cume
9. 2006 – Babel – $34.3M cume
10. 2008 – There Will Be Blood – $40.2M cume
Now just two weeks away, the 2009 Oscar ceremony could be a Waterloo of sorts for the Motion Picture Academy. First-time Oscar producers Bill Condon and Lawrence Mark have promised something daring. A re-imagining of the Academy Awards telecast, coming off last year’s all-time lowest ratings.
Hugh Jackman, the talented Australian actor, will serve as host. He previously won an Emmy for his hosting of the Tony Awards a few years back (Here’s his opening musical number from the broadcast.) Yes he can sing and dance, but can he overcome the lack of appeal of the movies that the Academy has chosen to honor?
As a hardcore movie fan, I will be watching, but the average American doesn’t care about enough of these movies to draw a substantial audience. This group of Best Picture nominees seems destined to be the second-least popular group of nominees in the past fifteen years with an ultimate combined cume of just $293M.
Thandie Newton and Matt Dillon in Best Picture winner Crash, which grossed $54.5M domestic
WEAKEST TOTAL GROSS FOR BEST PICTURE NOMINEES
- last 15 years -
1. 2005 – $245M
Crash, Brokeback, Capote, Good Night & Good Luck, Munich
2. 2009 – $293M (projected)
Slumdog, Ben Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Reader
3. 2006 – $296M
Departed, Babel, Letters from Iwo Jima, Little Miss Sunshine, The Queen
4. 1996 – $306M
English Patient, Fargo, Jerry Maguire, Secrets & Lies, Shine
5. 2007 – $357M
No Country, Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, There Will Be Blood
6. 1993 – $368M
Schindler’s List, Fugitive, Name of the Father, The Piano, Remains of the Day
7. 1995 – $378M
Braveheart, Apollo 13, Babe, Il Postino, Sense & Sensibility
8. 2004 – $401M
Million Dollar Baby, Aviator, Finding Neverland, Ray, Sideways
9. 1998 – $440M
Shakespeare in Love, Saving Private Ryan, Life is Beautiful, Elizabeth, Thin Red Line
10. 1994 – $543M
Forrest Gump, Four Weddings & a Funeral, Pulp Fiction, Quiz Show, Shawshanke Redemption
I would love to be wrong. I’d love to believe that keeping the identities of presenters a secret, and a song-and-dance man from Down Under, and the sight of Brad and Angelina on the red carpet, and a gutsy, little independent movie from Mumbai, and a guarantee from producers that the show won’t exceed three hours, and the dramatic posthumous recognition for Heath Ledger – that it will all work to draw a huge television audience. But I am feeling more certain that ABC’s Oscars telecast this year may go down as the lowest rated ever.
Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
71 Comments
Who’s Oscar?
Slumdog Millionaire rocks! (I think you mean it’s a gutsy little film, right?)
Now, if they had nominated “The Dark Knight” in place of “The Reader”, can you imagine the excitement? Just the thought of a superhero movie getting Best Picture would sure pique my interest!
Dark Knight or no Dark Knight the ratings were still going to stink. Why waste 3 hours of your life when you can get the highlights on youtube the same night?
James Hudnall is right about Nixon being a rather liberal president. He really got affirmative action started, he cut military spending and raised public assistance spending. He ended the Vietnam War. If he had been a Democrat, he’d have been praised. But Nixon was LOATHED by the establishment in a way that I’ve never seen until Bush came along. Nixon will be loathed until the current generation is gone and future historians can be more objective.
That is, if there are any after The One finishes his term.
Sort of agree with you that the Oscars seem to go out of their way to pick non-popular movies, but on the other hand, what have their options been in recent years? Most of us would agree that Dark Knight got hosed this year, but what other movies in the BO Top 20 for last year were great movies? Iron Man, maybe (but 2 comic book movies seems a but much) and perhaps Gran Torino, but it would be real hard to make an argument for the rest of the Top 20 (Chrystal Skull? Get Smart? Horton?)
Even in other years, it’s hard to point to any great and popular movie really getting screwed. Crash sucked ass, but the rest of the Top 20 that year didn’t produce much greatness (Sith was #1, and War of the Worlds, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and The Pacifier also stunk up the Top 20). Perhaps Narnia and The 40 Year Old Virgin were robbed, but I think that’s really stretching the meaning of the word “robbed.”
Things have changed. We go to movies for their entertainment or “event” potential, but I don’t think we really expect greatness when we go. And if the Academy believes it is still awarding greatness, it seems to be missing the boat as well. The Oscars are no longer must-see, and perhaps they should no longer be treated as such by the press and the networks. Put them on a cable channel opposite the ESPYs. Not a lot of difference
Let’s face it: it was a weak year for movies. It seems everything coming out these days is warmed-over, feel-good pap or hyper-violent, nihilistic crap. So I find myself staying home more and more and only renting movies or seeing retrospective showings.
[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » 2009 Oscars doomed? – FROST/NIXON … (bighollywood.breitbart.com) – February 08, 2009Braveheart, Apollo 13, Babe, Il Postino, Sense & Sensibility 8. 2004 – $401M Million Dollar Baby, Aviator, Finding Neverland, Ray, Sideways 9. 1998 – $440M Shakespeare in Love, Saving Private Ryan, Li… [...]
In my opinion, films have denigrated to nothing more than mouse driven special effects, extreme low frequencies for the subwoofer crowds, and immature political diatribes by what appear to be supercharged bimbos and bimbets. I invested considerable monies on a home theater system and I must say the following. Edison’s “Great Train Robbery”, Korda’s “That Hamilton Woman” on Laserdisc, plus “Since You Went Away” and the newly released “High and the Mighty” never looked better. Margaret Lockwood’s roles in Hitchcock’s pre-Hollywood movies are light years ahead of the high definition dribble dispensed today. Thank goodness for Criterion DVD’s. I see the Blu-Ray disc codes have been cracked. I suppose this will be interesting to all those 35-40 somethings going on 18 but frankly, why bother.
Is it possible that the General Public is bored with tuxedoed and sequined botox beauties flaunting thier excess? There is nothing so irritating as public displays of humility from the castle.
Old school stars kept some mystery about them and it fascinated us. In the internet era, there is nothing hidden, all is revealed and it isn’t as interesting as we hoped. Temper tantrums, political ramblings or worse, interventions, all serve to disenchant and distance the GP from the business of the movies.
Surfing YouTube is more entertaining than the Oscars.
Really bad year. But at least with Slumdog they won’t even be close Best Picture-wise to that putrid American Beauty – aka The Worst Best Picture Ever Made.
It would be one thing if these box office losers were great films. But they’re not. This year, the Oscars are getting it from all sides. The populists want TDK, Wall-E, and Gran Torino. The film lovers want those three and/or other assorted films (Rachel Getting Married, The Wrestler, Happy-Go-Lucky, etc.). The ultra-film snobs, if they cared, would want Wendy and Lucy, Silent Light, etc.
This isn’t a case of the artistes versus the popcorn-munchers. The nominees this year aren’t high art. They are distressingly middlebrow. And they are on subjects that do not exactly light a fire. Nixon has been dead fifteen years, and he’s a history-book figure to anyone under 40.
That said, last year’s field was actually one of the best ever, quality-wise. And a couple before that, as well. The 2005 nominees collectively had a pretty low box office, but most of the nominees (sans Crash) were quality movies. So I don’t groan about that year.
Gee, I love spending money and time so that I can have play actors tell me what a beast and moron I am.
Who wouldn’t love that?
No Gran Torino, just a bunch of sick puppy poop like Milk.
I will record the show just to see who the sponsors are.
And to elimiate those sponsor’s product lines from my home and family.
Make a choice
Its what America is really about, not some rich elitist group, the vast majority of whom never had to fight in a real war, work a real job or go to a public school.
BTW, it was a typo, not a spelling error, on eliminate.
Nor a joke on public shcooling.
The second was a joke, lighten up.
Schooling, if you missed it. :}
memomachine, you make a good point with your comment. I’m pretty sure the last time a comedy won a major Oscar, it was directed by Woody Allen. I know Mighty Aphrodite won an acting Oscar; just don’t know if it was Best Actress or Best Supporting Actress, and I know Bullets Over Broadway took home a Best Supporting Actress Oscar.
I stand corrected; the last time an acting Oscar was given for a comedy was to Roberto Benigni for Life Is Beautiful (it was for Best Actor). As for Best Picture, the last time a comedy won was in fact Annie Hall. Terms Of Endearment won in 1983, but I consider that a melodrama more than an actual comedy.
By the way, Woody Allen didn’t direct the last comedy to date to win a major Oscar (Best Picture, Actor or Actress); it was Roberto Benigni.
Judging from the numbers you posted, it looks to me like a trend that movies in general don’t gross as well on the screen. I wonder what those numbers would like like if you factor in international and video receipts.
Pete:
“Letters” got it’s nomination in large part because of the protests on the right against it over its seeming moral equivalence between the U.S. and Japan, and the tingling feeling up their legs that many in the Academy got thinking Eastwood had gone over to “their” side, and the movie’s portrayal of American soldiers was some sort of allegory for the Iraq War.
“Gran Tornio” on the other hand is being superficially tagged as “Dirty Harry in Retirement”. How you can watch the ending and think that was all Eastwood was going for, I don’t know, but it’s odd that the less Eastwood’s recent movies tick off conservatives (and I’m including the ending of “Million-Dollar Baby” here that sparked the assisted suicide debate), the more acclaim they receive on the Hollywood awards circuit.
In 1926, when Harry Warner’s brothers were trying to convince him to take
their studio, Warner Brothers, into the talking-pictures sound era, he
famously retorted: “Who in the hell wants to hear an actor talk!”
Never more true than today…
Well, the Oscars just isn’t that interesting anymore, are they? I mean, they are dullsville and everything has been chewed over before you watch. The excitement goes out with the announcements of the nominees and the prior Golden Globes.
I mean, what do want to bet that the musical Slumdog number (there will be one, right) will be dull? And, how can you make a big fat Bollywoodish dance number dull? The broadcast will manage it, of course. If it was about entertainment, the numbers would rock, the speeches would be witty, and some movies like TDK would be thrown in to hook the crowd.
It’s not about entertainment.
*I actually liked a lot of movies this year and I’m still not sure I’ll watch. I probably will, but……
Er, regarding my messed up comment above, please edit out all mistakes in your mind, as you read, please, and sorry about that. Eh, it’s a lazy sunday….
I’d be more inclined to watch the Oscars if they would bring back Steve Martin as host. He was very funny and spared the audience tedious political diatribes. God knows the nominated movies aren’t enough of an inducement to watch.
[...] original post here: Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » 2009 Oscars doomed? – FROST/NIXON … academy, benjamin-button, Entertainment, hollywood, Interesting, movies, oscar, picture, reader, [...]
There is a line that sums up my take on the movie “Milk.”
“Nothing should go in, the out hole!”
If Steve Martin hosted the Oscars, even I would watch them.
Has it ever occured to anyone that the reason *some* of these movies have been boycotted IS due to the Liberal’s starring OR directing *some* of these movies? Hollyweird is making a lot of people mad with their political banter.
You mean people still watch the Oscars?
Pete –
I’m not saying either “Letters” or “Million Dollar Baby” were bad movies — they’re both pretty good (“Baby” moreso, but neither as good as “Torino”) — But both gained an added level of street cred within the Hollywood community by who their naysayers were on the right.
That’s not really hard to do with many on the left (as the reviews to any recent anti-Iraq war movie can attest), and I’m not even saying Eastwood was trying to do it, or gave a damn what messages were being read into his stories by people on either the right or the left. But the fact is the more a movie’s storyline angers people on the right, the more likely it is to get reviews and awards that are above its pay grade (see Ferrell, Will and his current GWB extravaganza on Broadway and the mainstream reviews of it for the most recent example of liberal critics putting their politics above their aesthetics).
“Gran Torino” came with early buzz of it being similar to Eastwood’s “Dirty Harry” movies, which are not held in high regard by the cultured classes. Maybe Eastwood should have gotten Rush Limbaugh to attack it before the nominations came out, and then it would have eased minds on the coast that Clint had done another knuckle-dragger shoot-’em-up film for flyover country and gotten the nominating committee to take a closer look at it based on the actual content, not the perceived storyline.
The novelty of seeing celebrities on award shows finished earlier this decade. The abundance of entertainment news shows, YouTube and celeb magazines have made Oscar irrelevant. If I were an advertiser I’d be taking my ad dollars out of the Oscar telecast and moving it to something more relevant.
Actually, both Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima were criticized by the Right. IIRC, there were a bunch of critical blogs on NRO about both films.
And I do tend to agree that politics was the reason for Gran Torino getting the snub. I’ve seen all the nominated films and it’s a better movie than Milk, The Reader and Benjamin Button, imo.
BTW, Mickey Rourke gave the best performance of any actor (male or female) this year. But he’ll lose to Sean Penn due to the PC nature of Milk.
The Academy Awards sealed their own downfall this year by snubbing The Dark Knight and Christopher Nolan. Not only did the movie and its director deserve to be nominated, but these nominations would have brought back both interest and credibility to the awards themselves. Oscar has deteriorated in the eyes of the movie going public for awhile now. When Shakespeare in Love beat out Saving Private Ryan, the Academy Awards showed themselves to have a total disconnect with the movie going public and reality. It appears that Oscar has “jumped the shark” and isn’t coming back until the ship has totally sunk….Gold Man overboard!
So, in 2007, what exactly did you want to be nominated for Best Picture?
Yep, the Oscars can hold their event and have the liberal stars get up there and rant about how great PEBO is and how bad Bush was. I might have taped it to watch if they had given a few films I LIKED the nominations that were deserved. But they didn’t so all their advertising spots will not be watched by me or anyone in my house.
Pete, regardless of what you “believe”, Eastwood made a great film, one I paid to see and a lot of others, unlike the liberal snore fest that were the other nominees. So in a couple years when Milk is rotting on the DVD shelf the vindication will be even sweeter.
Aleric, where did I say that Gran Torino was or wasn’t a great film? I simply said that Clint mishandled the Oscar campaign for it by waiting so long to get the film in theaters and screeners in front of Academy voters. Granted, this late release strategy arguably was successful with Million Dollar Baby and to a lesser extent Letters from Iwo Jima. For all we know, the Academy had a bit of Eastwood fatigue, having nominated him for Best Film and Director six times this decade.
By the by, how exactly do you figure that Benjamin Button and Slumdog Millionaire (who commanded the majority of the major nominations) are “liberal” films? What, pray tell, were the “agendas” that these films were putting forth?
As for “Milk”, it’s made back its shooting budget and will probably end up turning a profit. The way some of you freak out over homosexuality would be a lot funnier if it wasn’t so sad.
I agree with the previous writer who said he hadn’t watched the Oscars in seven years. Me either. The only movie that captures the flavor of this age NEVER got an Oscar or nomination. That movie: IDIOCRACY.
Say it with me now – “Electrolytes, it’s What Plants Need.”
[...] Is the Blockbuster film dead? Maybe noone can afford to go to the movies anymore? ~~~~~~~ From Big Hollywood: WEAKEST TOTAL GROSS FOR BEST PICTURE NOMINEES – last 15 years – 1. 2005 – $245M Crash, Brokeback, [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.