Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

Only Two of the Top 30 Grossing Films of This Decade Are Original

Posted on Monday, November 16th, 2009 by Peter Sciretta

zz2e2c4bc1

Wikipedia has a list of the highest grossing films of this decade so far, and kottke noticed that of the top 20 films at the box office, only one movie was not based on a past film or tv show (remake/sequel), or an adaptation of an established property (be it a comic, book, play, toy…etc).

Which is the only original feature film to make it into the the top 20 grossing films of this decade (so far)? Answer after the jump.

Finding Nemo, which lands at #15 with $864.6 million.

If you take a look at the top 30 films from this decade, there is only one other original film property among the bunch, that being…

DreamWorks Animation’s Kung Fu Panda, #30 spot with $631.7 million.

In fact, out of the top 50 grossing films of this decade, there are only 9 movies based on original properties. And five of those nine films were created by Pixar Animation Studios. How sad…

Update: Or is it sad? Check out my follow-up post: Only Eight of This Decade’s Best Picture Nominees Are Original

You can check out the full list below.

1 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King New Line Cinema $1,119,110,941 2003
2 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest Disney $1,066,179,725 2006
3 The Dark Knight Warner Bros. $1,001,921,825 2008
4 Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone Warner Bros. $974,733,550 2001
5 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End Disney $960,996,492 2007
6 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Warner Bros. $938,212,738 2007
7 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Warner Bros. $929,022,922 2009
8 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers New Line Cinema $925,282,504 2002
9 Shrek 2 DreamWorks SKG $919,838,758 2004
10 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Warner Bros. $895,921,036 2005
11 Spider-Man 3 Columbia $890,871,626 2007
12 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Warner Bros. $878,643,482 2002
13 Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs 20th Century Fox $878,615,229 2009
14 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring New Line Cinema $870,761,744 2001
15 Finding Nemo Disney / Pixar $864,625,978 2003
16 Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith 20th Century Fox $848,754,768 2005
17 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Paramount $833,229,011 2009
18 Spider-Man Columbia $821,708,551 2002
19 Shrek the Third DreamWorks SKG $798,958,162 2007
20 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Warner Bros. $795,634,069 2004
21 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Paramount $786,636,033 2008
22 Spider-Man 2 Columbia $783,766,341 2004
23 The Da Vinci Code Sony / Columbia $758,239,851 2006
24 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe Disney $745,011,272 2005
25 The Matrix Reloaded Warner Bros. $742,128,461 2003
26 Transformers DreamWorks / Paramount $709,709,780 2007
27 Ice Age: The Meltdown 20th Century Fox $655,388,158 2006
28 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl Disney $654,264,015 2003
29 Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones 20th Century Fox $649,398,328 2002
30 Kung Fu Panda DreamWorks SKG $631,736,484 2008
31 The Incredibles Disney / Pixar $631,442,092 2004
32 Hancock Columbia $624,386,746 2008
33 Ratatouille Disney / Pixar $623,707,397 2007
34 The Passion of the Christ Newmarket $611,899,420 2004
35 Mamma Mia! Universal $609,841,637 2008
36 Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa DreamWorks SKG $603,900,344 2008
37 Casino Royale MGM / Columbia $594,239,066 2006
38 War of the Worlds DreamWorks / Paramount $591,745,540 2005
39 Quantum of Solace MGM / Columbia $586,090,727 2008
40 I Am Legend Warner Bros. $585,349,010 2007
41 Iron Man Paramount $585,133,287 2008
42 Night at the Museum 20th Century Fox $574,480,450 2006
43 King Kong Universal $550,517,357 2005
44 Mission: Impossible II Paramount $546,388,105 2000
45 The Day After Tomorrow 20th Century Fox $544,272,402 2004
46 Madagascar DreamWorks SKG $532,680,671 2005
47 The Simpsons Movie 20th Century Fox $527,071,022 2007
48 Monsters, Inc. Disney / Pixar $525,366,597 2001
49 WALL-E Disney / Pixar $521,268,237 2008
50 Meet the Fockers Universal $516,642,939 2004

photo via flickr

Comments 

 

Related Posts

Tags

Box Office, ,

  • smither
    This is very sad...we are so creative theses days.
  • Karmakaze
    Actually, this article get's it totally wrong!

    The list being shown is a TOP GROSSING list... it is not the fault of the movie makers that we - YOU AND ME, THE AUDIENCE - won't turn out in our millions, money in hand, for an original story. Original movies are made all the time, but WE, the PUBLIC, turn our nose up at them and race out for the latest comic book remake crap.

    Don't blame the film industry for giving us what we seem to want.
  • lainiemarie
    isn't Hancock a novel?
  • it's actually a signature.
  • capawesome
    hahaha
  • miketoomey
    Hancock was a graphic novel about a spaceman who was really frustrated because he couldn't have sex with women on earth. It was (obviously) changed but the word is that they went in intending to shoot a pretty faithful adaptation called "Tonight He Comes" (it's a double entendra) then chickened out in the end.
  • sk
    Actually we are very creative. A lot of those films are amazing pieces of Cinema and they weren't made by non-creative people. Hollywood just doesn't want to take chances on unknown stories, so they don't get made. It doesn't mean that there is no creativity in the film business.
  • MrCavanagh
    Just a lack of spines.
  • lajy
    Get back to me when you're willing to gamble a couple hundred million dollars and a few years of your life on a completely original piece of art with no guarantee that anybody is going to want to see it.
  • hmm
    it's all about getting on the band wagon-before sin city was made I don't remember graphic novels being turned into films. Trends run the business not properties. Someone goes out and makes a western-makes a billion dollars. Suddenly everyone is pitching westerns etc etc. Dark knight imax- now everyone is doing it. If avatar is a hit than 3d is here to stay.
  • MrCavanagh
    There's no reason to gamble hundreds of millions. It's this exact type of logic, where every weekend needs to be a blockbuster in order to maximize profit margins, that is putting yet another roadblock in front of original stories getting made.
  • existenz
    If you can't read a script and be able to tell if it's a great piece of material that audiences would love to see, you shouldn't be a movie studio exec.

    Anyway, who's to say it requires $100s of millions to make a cool movie? District 9 cost $15 million.
  • higgs
    @hmm:

    First off, Sin City is not a graphic novel at all. While there was one original graphic novel made with the Sin City story line, 90% of that story line was in pamphlet format (a "comic book") and short stories in anthologies, later collected into trade paperbacks. Also, comics (you used the snobby hipster term "graphic novel") have been being made into films since the forties (and also as serials). So to say that you had never heard of them being turned into films before Sin City just shows your ignorance on the subject. From just the 60's up, there have been tons of films, including these (i'm only listing live action films, animation is a whole other huge list):

    American Splendor
    Barbarella
    Barb Wire
    Batman
    Batman Returns
    Batman Forever
    Batman & Robin
    Batman Begins (same year as Sin City)
    Blade
    Blade II
    Blade III: Trinity
    Bulletproof Monk
    Constantine (same year as Sin City)
    Crow, The
    Crow: City of Angels, The
    Crow: Salvation, The
    Crow: Wicked Prayer, The (same year as Sin City)
    Daredevil
    Elektra (same year as Sin City)
    Fantastic Four (same year as Sin City)
    From Hell
    Ghost World
    Hellboy
    History of Violence, A (same year as Sin City)- an actual Graphic Novel
    Howard the Duck
    Hulk
    Josie & the Pussycats
    Judge Dredd
    League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The
    Man-Thing (same year as Sin City)
    Mask, The
    Men In Black
    Men In Black II
    Mystery Men
    The Punisher (1989 & 2004)
    Return of Swamp Thing, The
    Road to Perdition- an actual Graphic Novel
    Rocketeer, The
    Son of the Mask (same year as Sin City)
    Spawn
    Spider-Man
    Spider-Man 2
    Steel
    Supergirl
    Superman
    Superman II
    Superman III
    Superman IV: The Quest for Peace
    Swamp Thing
    Tank Girl
    Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
    Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze
    Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III
    Timecop
    Virus
    X-Men
    X2

    These films have been here all along, you (and most of mainstream America) just never noticed. Please do some research and learn what the terms actually mean before you throw them around so loosely.
  • Brown
    Applauds Higgs
  • chromey
    What Cavanagh said.
  • Isaac Cervantes
    "Jennifer's body", lack of spine?? That was an awful movie which I'm glad I didn't sit through. Hollywood will take a gamble when they can exploit an attractive woman, otherwise nope.. not so much.
  • hmm
    so you're creative? I would laugh if my heart was not so heavy...
  • iec
    actually, it has nothing to do with creative people not getting to make films. creative people make films all the time.

    what a film grosses has to do with how many people go to see it. it has absolutely nothing to do with the studios. sure, studios advertise and produce the film, but the actual AMOUNT OF MONEY IT MAKES has to do with the people that see it.

    example? Paranormal Activity, obviously. how much a movie makes is no mark of its quality, of the studio, of the director, or of the actors. it is a mark of how many people wanted to see it. and these films? everyone wanted to see them. they're enjoyable, they're related to things we know, and they make us happy to go to the movies. that is the only common theme here.
  • selena
    good point.
    what's wrong with making a movie out of a book if the book was good?
  • john n
    Go Pixar.
  • Ben
    It's not really all that surprising. Movies based on other properties are already going to have established fanbases, and are also going to get bigger budgets (for the film and marketing) because of that proven fanbase. It doesn't mean films are getting worse or audiences are getting dumber, just that people are much more likely to see a movie if they liked the first one or if they liked the book without waiting for reviews or ads.
  • MadmanMundt
    To be fair Pirates OTC was very very loosely based on a ride. Pretty much took the idea of pirates and ships.
  • Jimmy
    I am going to make a new, reboot movie based on the original Pirates movie, which was based on the ride, of course, which itself was partially based on pirate movies from the 1930s.

    I CAN'T LOSE!
  • Colin Farquhar
    That is thoroughly depressing. I don't know whether to blame the industry or the public.
  • iec
    you can't blame the industry. the public chooses what it enjoys. these are the kinds of movies MOST people enjoy. even if you're a movie snob, you might enjoy these movies. what we should be looking at is the common denominator, which has much more to do with writing, and the fact that people like remakes or continuations of what they liked in the first place, than budgets or A-list actors.
  • existenz
    Actually, you can blame the business. They very rarely put serious money behind original material, despite a long history of such material being a big hit. Look at Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T. All original ideas. You can bet that such movies would not be made today if some 30-year-old filmmaker brought those scripts in.
  • Tabor
    To be fair no one would have given Spielberg a chance to make Indana Jones or E.T. If Jaws (an adapted screenplay) hadn't made a ton of money.
  • The Ghost Of Jack Warner
    Don't be so sure. For starters, of the three titles you listed, the only wholly original one is E.T. "Raiders" owes a great to old 12-chapter cliffhanger serials (which Lucas and Spielberg have never denied), and "Star Wars" owes enough to "Flash Gordon" that I hope royalty cheques were forthcoming (which Lucas has likewise never denied).

    If anything, that only serves to illustrate what I've been saying for years: it has little if anything to do with the "what". It does, however, have everything to do with the "how". It doesn't matter that a piece of material is from shopworn origins, if the filmmaker applies equal parts talent and conviction. The studio's main fault lies in trying to shoot the moon with $500 Million-grossing tentpole pictures and little else. The risk that such costs bring means that approaching a project as anything than other than simply piecing together commercial elements in an assembly-line fashion is going to make a lot of people very nervous. More to the point, they will simply balk at it. Quick: how many of the movies on this list were made by directors who had final cut? And if directors are only there to direct traffic and keep your money-spinning enterprise running smoothly, what's the point in letting them have it? Strong directors with an interest in original stories are for the arthouse divisions, they figure. Too risky. Too stubborn. Too unpredictable. Movies that take a great many chances seldom find their way back to profitability...they DO, however, tend to find their way onto "Greatest Pictures Of All Time" lists with some regularity. The difference is, the business model as it currently exists in Hollywood doesn't give a shit about the latter. Once upon a time, studios anticipated losing money on "prestige" pictures, but to a one they understood the need for having them. Mind you, most studios were also privately owned, and run by men who gave a damn about movies as much as money. That they also found the time to become greatly wealthy goes without saying.

    Oh, and to the poster somewhere above who said that a studio executive ought to know a good project from a bad one just from reading the script...have you ever actually *read* a script? Because an inability to make heads or tails of a script's potential doesn't just extend to hapless studio suits. Even the most experienced actors, directors and producers will admit to having drawn a blank even on material that they subsequently turned into masterworks. Getting a handle on a screenplay is a damned sight harder than you probably think is, which seems to be the difference between being able to discern a good finished product from a bad one. Big difference. At that stage, it's a night and day difference.
  • Jeffrey
    Although original, the PIXAR movies should be considered a brand.
  • simmy25
    I think you meant to say the Dreamworks movies should be considered bland
  • Mako
    Actually... you're pretty bland too.
  • Dave
    well for many of these films they have built up large followings due to their source material or are entrenched in pop culture. they SHOULD attract more viewers and more money
  • ...
    How many of these films won Oscars?
    That's be interesting to see as well...
    at least to me.
    ...
  • iec
    very few outside of animation or special effects/sound editing.
  • I wont be surprise about the Oscars because a lot of those won but not the major ones like picture picture, actor, etc. I think most won Oscars for the behind the scenes type awards. I know Pixar alone won many awards.
  • evilninjax
    These days, Oscar season is about 2 weeks in December on about 10 screens in LA and NY. Those films generally don't gross too much!
  • lockmm
    Return of the King won 11
  • lockmm
    and the third, Dark King, won an acting Oscar.

    Then again a lot of the movies you probably love and consider original are adapted from something else - nothing is completely original.

    Also, do you know who votes for the Oscars? Not exactly the best group of people to use to determine what a good movie is - actually, I'm not sure why any of these movies need to have won an oscar to be demended worthy.
  • sk
    And some of the greatest films of all time aren't fully original ideas. i.e The Godfather.
  • jakept
    Also only 2 of the Top 10 rated films on IMDB are original ideas.
  • Dan
    What was the source idea for "Night at the Museum"?
  • good question
  • samboni
    American Museum of Natural History
  • From the first line of the movies Wiki:

    Night at the Museum is a 2006 American adventure comedy film based on the 1993 children's book with the same name by Milan Trenc.
  • this is sad but at the same time most of these movies are high budget blockbusters anyway...there is no way you can convince a studio to give your script $200 million unless it's already based on an established property or if your studio has already built up a good enough reputation to ensure a good gross (Dreamworks PDI or Pixar)
  • joker93
    There is a way. You just have to make an enormous hit which everybody loved, and then $200 million you get. Just look at Avatar and Inception.
  • Sam
    There's nothing wrong with that. I enjoyed watching a lot of these movies. Lamenting about the lack of originality just seems a snob thing to do.
  • and lamenting about us folks who complain about the lack of originality... is the sign of a slob.
  • tmitch1109
    a slob? haha I completely agree with your point but we should come up with a better word...even if slob does rhyme :P
  • Sam
    I am far from lamenting. I am just pointing out the fact that movies don't need to be original to be enjoyed. From the audience point of view, the movie industry is there to entertain. And if in this process, it happens to be original, than that's great. Some of most enjoyable movies are based on pre-existing IPs.

    And I fail to see the logic of calling me a slob... it does not bother me, but what are you trying to say? It does take some effort to type my comments :p
blog comments powered by Disqus

gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2009 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.