Only in Hollywood could $20 million — or even $50 million — be considered a disappointment.
Obviously, I'm not talking about actor salaries (though there are probably a couple of prima donnas who would be disappointed). I'm actually referring to box-office earnings, or ticket sales.
The films in question are "Around the World in 80 Days" (at "only" $19 million as this is written), "The Stepford Wives" ($50 million) and "The Chronicles of Riddick" ($52 million).
And the reason they are considered box-office duds is that they cost so much to make: $110 million for "Around the World," $90 million for "Stepford" and $105 million for "Riddick."
In fact, even some films that earn $100 million — once the benchmark for "blockbuster" status — are now box-office disappointments: "Troy" is sitting at $131 million in ticket sales, but because its production costs were $175 million, it is considered a failure. Ditto "Van Helsing," whose $119 million in earnings falls short of its $160 million price tag.
Of course, these are North American box-office figures, and when you figure in worldwide box-office grosses and eventual video and DVD sales, "Troy" and "Van Helsing" will probably become profitable. But both movies performed well under their respective studio's expectations for U.S./Canada theaters.
Believe it or not, even the grosses of $177 million for "The Day After Tomorrow" and $215 million for "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" aren't cause for studio celebration. Higher expectations were held for both.
On the other hand, "Mean Girls," which hasn't even cracked the century mark — at $80 million — is a smash hit because it cost "only" $17 million to make. And Michael Moore's low-budget documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" is already a runaway hit, with $35 million — making it the highest-grossing documentary of all time.
All is not lost for big-budget studio movies, however. "Shrek 2" may not have been a cheap film to make (conservative estimates put it at $70 million), but with $400 million at the box office, the film should pass the first "Spider-Man" on the all-time chart this weekend.
Ironically, Shrek's biggest competition this summer should be that film's sequel, the $200 million "Spider-Man 2."
Speaking of "Spidey 2," it may have a hard time beating "Spidey 1," considering that it's getting a late jump on the summer and that there's some serious competition.
Still, early box-office reports are encouraging, so there it could be race between "Spidey" and "Shrek" as to who will rule the summer.
THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT BEN. One thing . . . well one person . . . who seems to guarantee success is Ben Stiller, who really isn't in every comedy that makes money these days — it just seems like it.
Stiller starred in both "Along Came Polly" and "Starsky & Hutch," each of which made $88 million (hmm . . . ), and now he's in "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story," which is at $72 million and climbing.
True, "Envy" tanked (earning less than $14 million), but that was expected. (Rumor has it that at one point the studio was thinking about sending the film directly to video.)
Needless to say, Hollywood is anxious about this December's "Meet the Fockers," the sequel to Stiller's second-biggest hit to date, 2000's $166 million-grossing "Meet the Parents." (His biggest hit was "There's Something About Mary," at $176 million.)
QUOTE OF THE WEEK: "If we gave (the character) a British accent, it's a bit like giving it away right from the start. It's a bit like carrying a big sign above your head, that goes, 'Movie Villain.' " — "Spider-Man 2" co-star Alfred Molina, who masked his natural accent in his role as the villainous Dr. Octopus.
E-mail: jeff@desnews.com