Analysts from PartyCasino, a unit of the GVC gaming group, have studied box-office data from 1980 to 2017 and found that the “Young Guns” star delivered the best return of any top-billed male actor who has starred in at least 10 films. Specifically, for every $1 spent on the leading man’s films, Estevez generated $6.70 at the box office.
Link - (
New Window )
On a humorous side not, when I read it I said to myself 10-1 DanMetro starts a thread about it LOL
I think I remember reading once that he maybe bought a vineyard.
Freejack?
there are so many big movies he shows up in.
The article refers to “top billed” stars...while Samuel Jackson has been in a zillion movies that have likely grossed a bazillion or more combined, he’s rarely been the top billed star so wouldn’t register as well in this study
most of Estevez's films seem like they were low(ish) budget.
Outsiders
Breakfast club
St. Elmos Fire
Wisdom
Stakeout
Young guns series
Might Ducks series
that's really all I know, but nothing sci-fi, nothing with crazy effects or locations that (in my uneducated opinion) would cost a lot of money to make.
Their methodology is flat-out ridiculous. Like, all over Hollywood people are falling out of their chairs laughing.
That is not REMOTELY close to a measurement of profitability. I mean, this stuff is common knowledge. There have been famous lawsuits over Hollywood accounting. One Google search would have you tossing this in the garbage or clicking delete. The only reason to run this story is clickbait.
First, it doesn't consider who gets a percentage of the gross. A movie can have a huge gross and still not deliver any "profit" on paper because so much was taken off the top in "gross points."
Second, the production budget doesn't include "P&A," prints & advertising. Without those marketing costs, you're not even in the ballpark for actual costs. Movie marketing costs are enormous, even on indies. On a big studio "tentpole," they can be $100M or more. That's not in the production budget.
Third, the period they're studying includes the growth, peak and collapse of the home-video sell-through market. There is no reliable, complete, publicly available data for VHS, DVD and Blu-ray revenue. It doesn't exist, never did. (I worked for a home video trade mag. We were always chasing that info. Wal-Mart wouldn't release their data, and without it, you have nothing useful.) Without that you have NO IDEA what the true revenue stream of these movies was.
A lot of movies (Seriously, A LOT of movies) used to get made because the studio's home video distribution arm knew they could sell them on DVD. The theatrical release was essentially a commercial for the video release. There are movies that seem like flops, but succeeded on video.
Finally, if you're really talking about ROI, you have to measure "film ultimate," which includes marketing and other ancillary streams. For Marvel, DC and Star Wars films, there's so much ancillary revenue (theme parks, toys, clothing, lunchboxes) that the gross is almost irrelevant to whether it turns a profit -- the movies can "flop" and still deliver a profit off the licensing revenue. They love that a Star Wars movie makes a billion dollars, and when a film like that underperforms, the opportunity cost is huge, but it could still turn a profit when all the revenue and costs are figured in. The reverse is also true: A film can have a big gross but if the ancillary streams are limited, it can be a lot less profitable than it appears to be.
Bill James once said about new baseball stats: A new stat that is never surprising probably isn't worth much. A new stat that is always surprising is probably wrong. I think this is in the second category.
most of Estevez's films seem like they were low(ish) budget.
Outsiders
Breakfast club
St. Elmos Fire
Wisdom
Stakeout
Young guns series
Might Ducks series
that's really all I know, but nothing sci-fi, nothing with crazy effects or locations that (in my uneducated opinion) would cost a lot of money to make.
he was the bomb in Freejack yo.