The next power list featuring Hollywood’s most bankable stars should include Freddy, Jason and Michael Myers.
The respective homicidal leads behind venerable horror franchises “Nightmare on Elm Street,” “Friday the 13th” and “Halloween” -- and we should probably throw in Cruel Fate itself for the “Final Destination” series -- remain among the most reliable assets in the movie business.
And the cheapest to produce and market.
Just look at the numbers from the last weekend in August.
Warner/New Line’s “The Final Destination” opened to a domestic box-office-leading $27.4 million, and it already has made back its $40 million production budget. With half of its 3,121 screens in 3D, it was the best premiere yet for the four-film, nine-year-old franchise.
Weinstein/Dimension’s “Halloween II” took in a respectable $16.3 million, earning back its $15 million budget its first weekend -- just two years after Weinstein/Dimension “rebooted” the 31-year-old franchise with Rob Zombie. The director’s first “Halloween” in 2007 scared up $26.4 million.
Of course, horror produces the occasional home run. Lionsgate’s original “Saw” yielded a worldwide gross of $103 million on a production investment of just $1.2 million. And all five sequels have generated around $150 million.
But for the most part, almost always coming in R-rated and targeting a narrow young-male audience, few could be considered blockbusters.
And that seems just fine with the studios and producers. With small budgets by Hollywood standards, profitability hardly ever comes into question. Better yet, there aren’t a lot of duds to be found.
“Our goal is to try to give the studio back its budget on opening weekend,” said Brad Fuller, producer on New Line’s recent remakes of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” “Friday the 13th” and “Nightmare on Elm Street.” “That’s why our budgets are pretty much all the same -- we try to stay below $20 million.”
Weinstein Co. co-chairman Bob Weinstein agreed: “$15 million is the right budget” for a movie like “Halloween II,” which will “probably top out at around $40 million,” he told TheWrap.
“If the film costs $15 million to make and grosses $40 million, that’s a very profitable exercise for any company. It’s low risk with a good return."
Likewise, Weinstein said that marketing costs are also typically reasonable for horror remakes -- usually around $20 million. “It’s less expensive to market because people already know the franchise,” he said.
Those venturing out of the $20 million-and-below budgetary guidelines for production and marketing do so at their own peril. In 2005, Warner’s Joel Silver-produced remake of “House of Wax” generated $68.8 million worldwide, but its profitability was undermined by a production budget that exceeded $40 million.
With the majority of horror remakes and sequels turning a profit, it’s no surprise that even more such titles are on the way.
This weekend, Summit will release “Sorority Row,” 26 years after the premiere of “The House on Sorority Row.”
