Why did 7 Best Picture nominated movies top $100M in B.O.?

That’s the focus point of a recent IndieWire article. Here are the seven movies with their cumulative worldwide box office:

Life of Pi: $580M

Les Miserables: $379M

Django Unchained: $369M

Lincoln: $236M

Argo: $205M

Silver Linings Playbook: $153M

Zero Dark Thirty: $102M

People are making a fuss about this because the situation is particularly unusual. There have been times in the last few years where none of the Best Picture nominees did much in the way of box office.

The article lists 6 reasons for the success of this group of films:

1. The studios were more aggressive about producing would-be contenders

2. More films came out later this year than usual

3. The earlier nomination announcements enhanced grosses

4. Less competition from other films

5. Longer period between nominations and the awards

6. Concentration of acting nominees among Best Picture contenders

All good points. But I’d like to think the biggest single reason is something the article tosses off in the lead paragraph: “the quality of the films.”

I can’t speak for Les Miserables as I haven’t seen it, but the other six films on the list are excellent movies. I would imagine much of their success has to do with BWOM: By Word Of Mouth, the best advertising a movie can have. Good movies tend to generate lots of BWOM. Emphasis on good.

So kudos to everyone involved with those movies with regard to their scheduling, marketing, and so forth. But special plaudits to the filmmakers themselves for creating such quality entertainment.

Comment Archive