Valentine’s Day has an 18% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Only 54% of audiences liked Gary Marshall’s 2010 ensemble rom-com, and it was almost universally panned by critics. The film, along with its director, has become a punch line, proof positive that there’s something wrong with Hollywood.
No, wait.
Mr. Marshall and company made an intellectual sequel (if you can call it that) to VD: Last year’s New Year’s Eve. (7% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes)
Why? Why, why, why, why, why? Not to insinuate that the director has ever been concerned with high art, but Pretty Woman, Beaches, and even Overboard stand head and shoulders above these cinematic war crimes.
The answer is simple: Money. VD made $200 million dollars worldwide. NYE brought in $140 million. These films are undeniable box office successes. In fact, the former is in the top 25 highest grossing Romantic Comedies of all time. These movies’ big business proves something deeply sinister about the Hollywood Studio system.
To uncover the truth behind the “success” of these movies, we turn to a movie half as lucrative as Valentine’s Day: 2011’s Moneyball*
In Moneyball, Brad Pitt’s Billy Beane desperately tries to revolutionize the game of baseball and bring a championship to his Oakland Athletics.
Conventional wisdom dictates that a great baseball player is a five-tool player. He (or she) can hit for average, hit for power, run bases quickly, throw powerfully and accurately, and field well. Fill a team with five-tool players, and you’ve got yourself a championship. What Beane (along with real-life assistants Paul DePodesta and J.P. Ricciardi) was banking on was that one stat, on-base percentage, was a better indicator of a successful player and a successful team.
Let’s now apply this to moviemaking. Movies also have tools typically associated with their success: Writing, Direction, Cinematography, Acting, Sound Design, Editing. If all these elements are great, a movie can’t help but be successful, right
It seems Marshall and his loyal army of Marshans have figured out what studios have been on the cusp of realizing for decades. The only thing that matters in making a movie a box-office success is star power. You see, you’ve got to get yourself a BUNCH of famous people – at least a dozen. Pay them each a fraction of what they typically make for only a few days’ work, and you can save yourself a bunch of money. Julia Roberts, who typically makes upwards of 10 million dollars per film, appeared in Valentine’s Day for 30% of that.
Don’t worry about a solid script – or any script at all, really. The directing can be mundane, along with the cinematography. As long as the film is barely coherent, everyone will be cashing major paychecks. Each star has his or her own built-in box-office. Some people will see Juilia Roberts, Ashton Kucher or Halle Berry in a movie no matter what that film is about and no matter how much screen time they have. Hire the stars just so they can go on the poster.
So what?
Hollywood has been making terrible movies forever and will continue to do so until the world ends. The problem is the breaking of a tacit agreement between filmmaker and audience. This social contract states, “You bring us a good movie, and we’ll give you money to see it.”
Mr. Marshall (and yes – he can directly be blamed because he’s proven he knows better) has a responsibility to try – to put in an honest day’s work at one of the most enviable jobs on the planet. There are directors who are simply bad directors. They try their best, think that they’ve made a great product, and it just so happens that they’re wrong. Gary Marshall is not one of those directors. He knows what he’s doing, and it seems he’s found a way to cheat the system. He just doesn’t care anymore. He has a responsibility not to turn in crap, and he’s been shirking that responsibility.
However, it’s not solely the filmmaker’s fault. We, the audience, are responsible for this mess too. We have to hold movies to some standard, and when certain films don’t meet our standards, we don’t see them, and we tell our friends not to see them. In the same way we can’t expect politicians to tell us the truth unless we punish them for lying to us, we can’t expect filmmakers to have a high-quality product until we tell them with our wallets that we deserve a high-quality product.
*Alll three movies each cost approximately 50 million dollars to produce.
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.












8 Comments
I think you are right Aviv.
My mother in law watches movies based on the actors. She would fall right into this trap.
My mom would go see “Hanukkah” the movie.
The power of star names has really been decreasing in recent years. Movies like Hangover, Avatar and Dark Knight were all MASSIVE hits, and they showed Hollywood that stars are irrelevant in predicting a blockbuster box office. Which also applies to the bombs like Rock of Ages and Dark Shadows where a-list stars flopped. Your theory about star power is from the 1950s when Hollywood would horde “Stables” of stars because that’s all the audience cared about. Those days are gone now.
If your theory was correct, then Cowboys & Aliens would have made big money!
Nothing has been proven more powerful than word of mouth in influencing box office performance. Your example of The Hangover is a great one: The word of mouth was so good on that film that it actually did better on its second weekend than its first. This is unheard of.
To bring it back to Moneyball, there’s a point in the middle of the film where everyone, Billy Beane included, starts to doubt that this system works. What they discover or decide upon is that the system has to be followed completely, not just partially.
Movies like Dark Shadows, Rock of Ages (barf) and Cowboys and Aliens (barf barf) aren’t going far enough in their plan to cram in as many stars as possible.
And before you (or I) make a comment about the genre of film or the gender of its viewer, think about The Expendables, which literally tries to cram every successful action star in the world into the film. — Huge hit.
Your rather bitter assessment fails to take into account why people really go to the movies. This is a rather lazy intellectualization that can easily be disproved with the number #1 movie of all time featuring such megastars as Sam Worthington and Giovanni Risbi.
Star Wars was literally responsible for the phrase “blockbuster” when people lined up around the block to see it. Did people chatter excitedly amongst themselves that they had to see the new Mark Hammill and Alec Guiness piece? I think not.
People see these movies in droves because they are stories they love to be retold again and again. Everybody has a story they love to tell or one from a friend they always enjoy hearing retold.
That explains the magic of movies, these classic tales retold over and over again. People want to hear the story of the man and woman who found love against all odds, the young apprentice guided to mastery by the wizened master, the group trapped in a confined location who must band together to fight off the monstrous threat.
These should all sound really familiar because they’re all the narrative framework for many of the most popular movies of all time. Pretty Woman, Casablanca, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Batman Begins, Jurassic Park, The Thing, Alien, etc. etc.
It really is about the story. People plop down their $10 to experience that same ole story they love being told again and again.
I agree with you completely.
(except
*Avatar is TOTALLY not the number one movie of all time.
*Jaws is responsible for the word blockbuster, which is a word not a phrase)
But seriously I don’t mean to nitpick, truly. I agree with you that people love to see the hero’s journey. I used to teach screenwriting, I’m all about story archetypes.
I’m not sure if it’s ALL about the story. I wish it were. I think it should be, but for every Jurassic Park, Or Empire Strikes Back, there are dozens of Transformers and Phantom Menaces that do just as well. So sadly, story is not always king.
My point (perhaps sloppily made) was the Gary Marshall doesn’t give a crap about telling any story. He’s not trying to change the world with movies, which is something that many filmmakers aspire to. He doesn’t want to set box office records. He just wants his paycheck at the end of the day, and he figured out a relatively low-risk high-reward way of doing that.
I don’t think any record will ever be set by using this strategy, because records get set by people having utter love, devotion, obsession with films. I met a guy today who saw Star Wars six times in its first week. You’ll never get that with Valentine’s day, but you’ll always make your money back.
please forgive typos.
@Aviv – I will not forgive typos!