Discuss: Who Would be the Most Profitable Director if ...
Filed under: Fandom
.jpg)
What if a new movie was coming out and the only information we had was the name of the person directing? This was a discussion my friend and I had over the long holiday weekend, where we pondered a situation where a heavily-marketed film was coming out, and in the TV spots, trailers and billboards, all we were told was the date the film was arriving in theaters alongside the director's name. We then began to wonder which director would not only create the most buzz, but would also make the most money. Whose name is the strongest commercially right now -- is this person also the most talented, and if not, then what does that say about us and why we choose to spend most of our money on a weaker product?
Of course the first three names we spit out were James Cameron, Michael Bay and Steven Spielberg. In our opinion, these three men would make the most money at the box office if all we knew was the simple fact that they were coming out with a new film and nothing else. Seeing as Spielberg can go either small or large, we then narrowed it down to Bay or Cameron -- mainly because both are known for event-type films. My friend ultimately chose Cameron, whereas I went with Bay only because I feel he's a little more relevant at this moment in time and for this specific generation (though Avatar may certainly change that).
A second tier of names included Quentin Tarantino and the Wachowski Bros., though keep in mind the marketing cannot mention the other films these folks have directed -- only their name and the release date. For argument's sake, we're giving it a rating of PG-13 (just to take that off the table).
So, then, have at it. In your opinion, given the circumstances, who would be the most profitable director?
2011 Will Not Feature a Summer Pixar Film?
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
11-30-2009 @ 12:27PM
Chris said...
I'm 21 years old and I can honestly say that half the people around me that are my age don't even know who James Cameron is. They think Avatar is a cute CGI romp (and a ripoff of Ferngully...). I'd have to say Michael Bay would win among my age group. Also, Tarantino's name is golden and most people are still upset with the Wachowskis for the Matrix 2, 3 and Speed Racer.
Reply
11-30-2009 @ 12:32PM
filmsuki said...
JJ Abrams. That guy is on a hot streak right now.
Reply
11-30-2009 @ 1:35PM
jim said...
I second Abrams.
11-30-2009 @ 12:48PM
Wayne said...
David Fincher and Todd Phillips would get my attention, but the PG-13 restriction would be difficult to ignore. It would likely compromise their artistic visions.
Reply
11-30-2009 @ 1:18PM
MarkH said...
I would have to go with Bay as well. His movies lately have been a license to print money.
Reply
11-30-2009 @ 12:58PM
Rachit Agarwal said...
Chris Nolan. Think about it, all we know about 'Inception' is that it's a Chris Nolan movie, and little else. And still, we have such huge buzz about it. Nolan definitely fits the bill!
Reply
11-30-2009 @ 7:11PM
Wayne said...
How could I forget Nolan?
He tops my list.
11-30-2009 @ 1:12PM
Paul Nicholson said...
You have to at least mention George Lucas in that category. Again - you know nothing else about the movies, so you don't know - he could be going the "Radioland Murders" or "THX 1138" way, but everyone will assume "Star Wars" and go see it. period.
Reply
11-30-2009 @ 1:13PM
Paul Nicholson said...
George Lucas. People may pan his movies as bad (post-1977), but everyone will still go see it.
Reply
11-30-2009 @ 1:27PM
taybo20 said...
I agree with Rachit. Assuming it was just name and date...people could infer Batman 3. I would go to see a Chris Nolan film over a Michael Bay film any day anyways.
But ultimately, if just the director's name and date were given, I would say that it would probably go to Spielberg. His name reaches past more boundaries and age brackets than possibly any other director. It's akin to the name John Ford or Frank Capra. You go to the film because of the director if for no other reason.
By adding in the "small or large" factor you are kind of taking away the simplicity of "director and date".
Btw Chris, I actually love Speed Racer!
Reply
11-30-2009 @ 1:44PM
Colin said...
Martin Scorsese?
Reply
11-30-2009 @ 8:30PM
jon said...
I second the Scorsese post, hes definitely someone who would draw attention. Tarantino is another one, he just makes movies for a more specialized audience, but when he makes something they all come. I like abrams too, huge lost fan, but hes not in tier 1, yet. I would have put judd apatow up there but funny people was a terrible movie in my opinion, which i hate to admit becasue I like everyone who made it individually. Id say cameron and speilberg would draw the biggest crowds and rightfully so. they make great movies that appeal to a huge audience and they are both meticulous in how they work.
11-30-2009 @ 2:07PM
Industry guy using fake name said...
The only way a director really matters is if their name is a brand, one that anyone in a mall would know, and that's a pretty short list:
Steven Spielberg
Other possibilities:
Michael Bay
Tim Burton
James Cameron
Clint Eastwood
George Lucas
Martin Scorsese
Quentin Tarantino
Reply
11-30-2009 @ 2:12PM
Kevin said...
I consider my family to be the sort of middle-class America norm, and they honestly would not know Michael Bay, Christopher Nolan or the Wachowskis from a hole in the ground. They might know Tarantino, but they wouldn't go to see any of his movies.
Spielberg has been a household name for the past three decades. Say his name to anyone on the street -- I'm not talking about cinephiles here, or even armchair cinephiles, but just random Joe Lunchbox -- and you'll get a recitation of his classics: E.T., Raiders, Jaws, etc. You'll probably even get a few wrong, yet beneficial for the purposes of this experiment, answers. There are plenty of folks out there who think Spielberg directed things like Star Wars and Transformers. Most people aren't movie geeks; most people are pretty far from being movie geeks.
So if ALL you're showing is the name of the director, it's Spielberg by a country mile.
Reply
11-30-2009 @ 3:25PM
kevin said...
People like Bay movies, but not Bay, so think about that.
Speilberg is a living legend, and a household name.
Cameron has been in a cave for ten years, albeit working on something beautiful.
Scorcese, Fincher, Tarantino etc. are famous for cult films or films which have a certain special niche, not big money movies.
Lucas is irrelevant, and has been for a while.
Speilberg wins.
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 7:14AM
Scott said...
I don't even need the director. Just tell me its from Pixar.
Reply
11-30-2009 @ 6:07PM
Rick said...
I think when it comes down to name value, and name value only, Spielberg will always win out. Spielberg could put out only crappy movies from now on and still be cemented as one of the greatest film directors of all time. People would still be excited to hear what he has in the pipeline.
It has to be Spielberg
Reply
11-30-2009 @ 7:52PM
uforeader said...
The easy #1 answer is Spielberg. Everyone knows him and everyone likes most his movies (at least the older ones).
I don't think Michael Bay would have much pull. His name isn't that recognizable, and most people who know his name don't like him.
I think Tarantino would be #2. He's a well-known brand.
JJ Abrams might be a good bet right now, although I think that may fade soon (although I hope not!).
To me, Tim Burton is probably #3. People know his name and they like what he offers.
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 8:33AM
josephfinn@gmail.com said...
Clint Eastwood. Always under time and under budget.
Reply
11-30-2009 @ 9:15PM
Jen said...
I see no one's mentioned John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, and Brad Bird yet.
Reply