Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Six Reasons Why Six Oscar Nominees Delivered Highest Awards Season Grosses in Recent History

Box Office
by Tom Brueggemann
February 24, 2013 6:15 AM
  • |
Leonardo DiCaprio in 'Django Unchained'

Six of the nine Oscar Best Picture nominees have already passed the $100 million mark, the highest level since the number was increased from five in 2009. These are the biggest numbers, even with ticket price adjustments, in recent box-office history. A number of factors contributed to the result-- the quality of the films, with studio-financed budgets requiring films with wide audience appeal, apart from any Oscar bonus--but the most significant was the calendar. (See grosses chart below comparing 2012 and 2011.)

The nine nominees (spawning many acting contenders) make a diverse group of films. None were among the top ten grossers released in 2012 and none reached the $200 million mark, which 11 other commercial pictures did. This is a long-term trend --in just three over the previous 10 years were Best Picture nominees among the top grossing films ("Avatar," "Toy Story 3" and "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"). And this year, acclaimed mass-audience smashes such as "Skyfall," "The Dark Knight Rises" and "The Avengers" earned just a handful of craft nominations.

Still, the total grosses for the nine nominees have a combined domestic gross of over $920 million, of which more than $250 million has come since they became Oscar finalists. This compares to a total of about $600 million last year, of which only $72 million came between the nominations and the awards.

So what made this year so much better? Here are six reasons:

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

Historically, the bulk of the top contenders are late-year releases. But studios have priorities, and releasing films at peak periods (like Christmas) with mass appeal that can play at 2,000+ theaters is at the top of the list. Marketing "prestige" films with mass appeal is a tough two-fer to pull off.

This year, starting in November, the majors released a group of films that, coincidentally or not, all were made by directors who had previously made films that won Best Picture and/or won Best Director themselves -- Steven Spielberg, Sam Mendes, Ang Lee, Robert Zemeckis, Kathryn Bigelow, Peter Jackson, Tom Hooper -- an almost unheard of confluence of talent with past box office appeal. All but one of their films was released initially in over 2,000 theaters, rather than platformed liked the majority of top Oscar contenders most years --which is the usual sign of high awrads expectations.

And all of them found commercial success as well as at least favorable consensus reviews. Of the ones from studios that made it into Best Picture, only one ("Zero Dark Thirty") did most of its business after the nominations, suggesting their appeal existed on their own, without the awards being their major marketing hook.

The studio hook is a critical factor this year. A low-budget indie nominee can be a success at $25 million, while a studio film usually doesn't get made without the expectation of a chance at grossing far more. So the total gross this year comes simply because of where many of the nominees were generated.

The increased grosses come from films that on the whole had higher production budgets. Four of this year's nine cost more than $60 million to make, compared to only two last year. And one of those two, "Hugo" (as disappointment in relation to cost) accounted for nearly half of the total production or acquisition cost of all of last year's nominees. Higher grosses are to be assumed (or at least hoped for) for films that cost more to make in the first place, and these costs of course cut down on the increased profit that they make, even with their Oscar boost.

2. More films came out later this year than usual

Seven of the nine nominees were released in November and December, and with their initial success, all were still legitimately playing in theaters both during the prime Thanksgiving (for the earlier films) and later Christmas playtimes, helping elevate their grosses. And three of them were wide-release films that initially entered the market in two cases ("Les Miserables" and "Django Unchained") with their third weekends coinciding with the nominations, and one ("Zero Dark Thirty") which timed its initial wide break at that time as well.

This meant that more of the gross naturally came during Oscar season, as well as a good portion after the nominations. And, of course, the awards publicity does help get audiences in to see the films. But even in the case of "Silver Linings Playbook" -- a November release that gradually added theaters, hitting its maximum late in the game [- it is likely that an early wide playoff would have resulted in a reasonably similar gross. The difference with the later expansion is that this film managed to hit its stride with the public during the peak of the campaigning, which Weinstein had hoped would add to its chances for top awards.

3. The earlier nomination announcements enhanced grosses

By two weeks, this was the earliest ever date for nominees to be named. The rest of the calendar -- the cutoff date for being released to be eligible, getting films in theaters by Christmas -- didn't change. But the date on which the impact of nominations occurred came much earlier, enhancing their impact and likely to some extent helping all the films involved. With the films newer -- with the result that they are in more theaters still, have less competition from newer non-award related releases -- all helped add to these films' grosses.


  • bilko | February 24, 2013 8:15 PMReply

    The history of this award tells it all. It was set up in the days of yore to sell more movies. No one really believes any of this trite, do you?

  • bilko | February 24, 2013 8:12 PMReply

    NOT FADE AWAY & BERNIE 2 best movies of the year, with all due respect.

  • Jamie | February 24, 2013 8:25 AMReply

    To read some of the comments on line, you would think Les Miserables was the biggest disappointment to ever appear on the screen. The hate machine vitriol has been extreme. DDL will probably walk off with the statue but justice would give it to Jackman. Someone needs to explain to me how a movie can make almost $400 million worldwide and counting, have a best-selling soundtrack that topped the music charts internationally, have millions on pre-order for the DVD while boosting the sales of a 150 year old novel, and still be seen as not living up to expectations?

  • Edward Copeland | February 24, 2013 6:29 PM

    It's the Internet. You can find just as much vitriol tossed at Argo or Silver Linings Playbook. Grosses prove nothing. In that case, Porky's should have been a best picture contender way back when. All opinions are subjective. There is no right and wrong concerning a movie's worth. If you loved Les Miz, that's your opinion. I did not. That's my opinion. We are both right. One thing to remember: The Oscars also are subjective. It's a glorified opinion poll reflecting the plurality of votes cast by the 6,000 or so members of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences. The Oscars are not the final word in movie excellence. Not even close.

  • Michael | February 24, 2013 11:49 AM

    The Phantom Menace! Enough said, I think.

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

Email Updates

Most "Liked"

  • Why Weinstein Is Re-Releasing Summer ...
  • First Gurus 'O Gold Pre-Festival Top ...
  • Emmy Watch: As TV Enters the Future, ...
  • Emmy Awards: Lena Dunham Wins the Red ...
  • The Radical World of Avant-Garde Master ...
  • Participant Joins DreamWorks' Spielberg ...
  • How David Byrne Collaborated with Jonathan ...
  • WATCH: Live Stream Emmys Red Carpet ...
  • Participant Media, Changing Its Stripes, ...
  • Remembering Actor-Director Richard Attenborough ...