Category Archives: German Cinema

Genre trends in five European countries, 2006 to 2010

This post is an updated and extended piece I wrote last year on genre trends at the box office in five Eurpoean countries with the data cleaned up and new variables considered. Although the numbers have changed slightly from lasty year’s version the orignal conclusions remain valid.

The pdf can be accessed here: Nick Redfern – Genre trends in five European countries


This paper analyses box office trends of the genres for the top 50 grossing films in each year from 2006 to 2010, inclusive, in five European countries – France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. We find that, generally, the frequency of genres is homogeneous and that the same types of films dominate the highest reaches of the box office charts; while the number of films unique to a country and the variation among production sources within a country is strongly associated with the distinction between international ‘technology-friendly’ films (action/adventure, fantasy/science fiction, and animated family films) and domestically produced ‘technology-unamenable’ genres (comedy, drama, crime/thriller, romance, and non-animated family films). The results suggest the concepts of national cinema and genre are closely interrelated, and that for audiences in these five European countries the decision about which films to see presents itself as a choice between genres that is often also a choice between Hollywood films and domestic films.


Genre and European box office, 2006-2010

UPDATE: This post has now been superseded by a revised version that cleans up the data and extends the analysis and should be referred to in place of this. See here for the new version.

To round off a series of posts on genre and box office this August, I look at the frequency of different genres in five European countries – France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK – to see what we can learn about different national markets.

For each of the five countries, I accessed the data from Box Office Mojo for the top 50 grossing films in each year from 2006 to 2010, inclusive. (For some reason, Box Office Mojo lists some films twice in the same year if they have slightly different titles; and I removed these duplicates to replace hem with the next film in the box office rankings). This gives a total sample size of 250 films for each country, and a total of 1250 data points overall. Obviously this does not mean we have data on 1250 films because many of the films reached the top 50 in more than one country. Overall, this sample has data on 596 different films.

Usually I use a system of nine categories for sorting films according to genre; but due to the fact that the number of horror films reached double figures for Spain and the UK only (with 11 and 10 films, respectively) and were very small in number for the other countries (France = 2, Germany = 7, and Italy =6), I have put this films into the category of ‘Other.’ Obviously the fact that horror infrequently reaches the top of the box office charts is interesting in itself, as is the French aversion to horror.

The eight categories used are, therefore, Action/Adventure, Comedy, Crime/Thriller, Drama, Family, Fantasy/Science Fiction, Romance, and Other. Alongside Horror films, Other also includes Westerns, War films, Musicals (including concert films), and Documentaries.

First, we look at the frequency of films occurring in each country in each genre (Table 1).

Table 1 Genre frequency in the top 50 grossing films in five countries, 2006-2010 (NB: the Total column to the right is the number of data points for each genre and NOT the number of different films)

Overall, the number of films from each genre to make it into the top 50 films in the five years covered is similar in each country. To test if the proportion of films from each genre was the same in the five countries, I performed a chi-square test of homogeneity (corrected α = 0.0131, based on 8 tests and an experiment-wise error rate of α = 0.10). These results are presented in Table 2, and show that the only statistically significant difference occurs for the comedy genre. Post-hoc analysis of the adjusted standardized residuals (based on a two-tailed critical z-value of 2.5596) revealed that this is due to Spain having fewer comedy films than expected (z = -3.6880), but the effect size for omnibus test is small (V = 0.1122).

Table 2 Chi-square test of homogeneity for the proportion of films in each genre in five countries

With the exception of the missing comedy films in Spain, these five different markets appear to otherwise very similar for each genre. However, this does not mean that audiences in these five countries are necessarily watching the same films.

To find out if the same films were making it into the top 50, I counted the number of times a film featured in the list of films for each genre. For example, if a film only made it into the top 50 in Germany (e.g. Elementarteilchen (Atomised)) then it would appear only in the list of drama films only once, while a film that made it into the top fifty in all five countries (such as one of the Harry Potter films) would appear in the list of Fantasy/Science Fiction films five times. This is a somewhat crude measure, but it does allow us to see some basic commonalities and differences. This information is presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Frequency with which individual films make the top 50 highest grossing films in five countries from 2006 to 2010 (NB: the Total column to the right is the number of different films in each genre in the overall sample)

Table 3 reveals three distinct patterns:

  • Action/Adventure films tend to feature in the lists for four or five different countries (59%). This is the only genre for which this is the case.

Generally, these films a big-budget Hollywood franchise films such as The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift and Fast and Furious, Iron Man and Iron Man 2, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, and the like. Just less than a quarter of these films feature in only one list, but even these tend to be Hollywood films (e.g. Watchmen or Resident Evil: Extinction*).

* Resident Evil: Afterlife did much better though, ranking everywhere except the UK.

  • The genres of Comedy, Crime/Thriller, Drama, and Romance and dominated by films that appear in one list only.

If Hollywood is able to dominate the global market with its action movies, then it is much less successful when it comes to these four genres. Comedy, in particular, seems to be very different with 78% of films appearing in the list for only one country. Some of these are individual Hollywood films that have performed well in one country not the others; but many are films that only feature in the list of the country in which they were produced. For example, the series of Christmas comedy films from Italy directed by Neri Parenti has performed exceptionally well in that country: one film has made the top 5 grossing films in each year in the sample, with Natale in crociera (2007) and Natale a Rio (2008) both taking the number 1 ranking. However, these films have not made any impact at the box office in any of the other European countries included here. Four comedy films made it into list of each country (Burn After Reading, Mr. Bean’s Holiday, The Devil Wears Prada, and The Hangover).

The Crime/Thriller genre features several big-budget Hollywood films that were successful in all five countries (The Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons, No Country for Old Men, The Bourne Ultimatum, etc), but again these five markets are more different than they are similar. Some films that appear only once are Hollywood films (e.g. The Taking of Pelham 123, State of Play – neither of which are as good as the originals); but most are successful only in the country in which they originate. So Un prophète and Ne le dis à personne feature in the French box office charts only; and Gomorra and Milano-Palermo: il ritorno only in the Italian charts.

Only a few drama films appear in the top 50s of all countries (Australia, Blood Diamond, Brokeback Mountain, Shutter Island, and The Pursuit of Happyness), while 73% feature in one list only. Romance films show the same pattern, with only seven (13%) films featuring five times (and three of these are from the Twilight franchise), and 65% of films featuring once only. The drama and romance films that appear once tend to feature only in the country from which they originate, but when drama films do cross borders they go between the continental countries and not tot the UK. For example, Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others) features in every country except the UK. There does not appear to be the same level of cross-over for the romance films, and when a film from this category appears more than once it tends to be a Hollywood film.

Laughter and love do not apparently travel well – in the cinema at least. And nor do crime and drama. The five markets are much less homogenized in these categories, unlike the Action/Adventure films where they are much more consistent in terms of the films in circulation. This clearly raises question about the extent to which we can speak of the Americanization or globalization of European cinema, as it appears to affect some categories of films more than others.

Finally, the third set of genres:

  • The genres of Family and Fantasy/Science Fiction are split between films that feature in one list only and films that feature in the box office charts of all five countries.

For the family genre, 41% of films feature once and 39% of films feature five times. For the Fantasy/Science Fiction films, the equivalent statistics are 42% and 29%. This suggests that there is a divide in the market for these films. The majority of the films in these two genres are Hollywood blockbusters no matter how many time they occur. But we do see a clear split between films that are broadly successful against films that do not travel across borders so well; especially when it comes to animated family films that perform well in all markets (e.g. Cars, Flushed Away, Ice Age: The Meltdown) alongside several European animated films that appear – yet again – only in the country of their production (e.g. Konferenz der Tiere in Germany, El ratón Pérez in Spain, or Azur et Asmar in France). Separating out the UK is much harder as many of the Hollywood films are produced here anyway.

As Other is a category comprising films from several other genres it makes little sense to speak of trends, but it is interesting to note that the three films that feature in all five lists are High School Musical 3: Senior Year, Inglorious Basterds, and Mamma Mia!

As I said before, this is a crude way of measuring differences in audience taste, and I won’t have a much richer picture until I start to compare the box office gross of films in each country directly. But what the information in the above tables provides is a means of describing the national specificity of film a markets based on the types of in circulation and which achieve the highest box office rankings. There are many similarities between these five countries, but we should want to know why the Spanish do not go and see as many comedy films as the British, Germans, French, and Italians? Why do we all seem to watch the same Action/Adventure films but not the same Drama films? Perhaps the specificity of a national cinema is only evident in some categories of films and not others; or Hollywood has cornered the market on such blockbusters to the exclusion of all other producers. Why, if the audiences in these five countries are watching mostly different Romance films, is the proportion of films from this genre in the 250 films for each country so similar? Is there a common underlying structure to European film a markets? Why did the British not pay to see Resident Evil: Afterlife unlike the rest of Europe? And where are the French horror films?

The romance genre at the box office in five European countries, 2006 to 2010

Assuming I have not been defeated by the rivers Wharfe, Aire, and Ouse I shall today be presenting a paper at the International Association for the Study of Popular Romance conference in York (though it is entirely possible that I’m stuck in York railway station). Below is the basic text of my presentation from which I will have inevitably digressed enormously. The pdf file is below. This is based on the same data I used in earlier post on genre and European box office although it has been cleaned up a little so the results are slightly different, though this does not have any impact on the conclusions.

Nick Redfern – The romance film at the box office in five European countries

We analyze the box office performance of romance films in five European countries – France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom – from 2006 to 2010, inclusive, based on the top 50 grossing films in each country in each year. The results show that romance films account for only a small proportion of the films to reach the top 50 highest grossing films, and that there is no statistically significant variation in the proportion of romance films among the highest grossing films in each country. However, few romance films achieve a high box office ranking in more than one of these countries, indicating a lack of commonality across different markets with different audiences watching different romance films. Romance films achieving top 50 rankings in Germany, Spain, and the UK originate almost exclusively from outside these countries, whereas domestically produced films account for a larger proportion of romance films in France and Italy. Romance films perform consistently at the box office in three of the five countries, albeit lacking the very high grosses achieved by action/adventure, family, and fantasy/science fictions films; while this genre performs particularly poorly in Italy and Spain. Romance films emerge as a fixed part of the exhibition market in all five countries, but the variation in the films viewed, source of productions, and box office grosses indicates some important national differences.

Sequels and remakes in European cinema

In recent years there has been increasing interest in remakes and sequels in the cinema such as Constantine Verevis’s Film Remakes (2006), Anat Zanger’s Film Remakes as Ritual and Disguise: From Carmen to Ripley (2006), and the essays in Andrew Horton and Stuart Y. McDougal’s Play It Again Sam: Retakes on Remakes (1998) and Jennifer Forrest and Leonard R. Koos’s Dead Ringers: The Remake in Theory and Practice (2002) on the one hand and Carolyn Jess-Cooke’s Film Sequels: Theory and Practice from Hollywood to Bollywood (2009) and the essays in Carolyn Jess-Cooke and Constantine Verevis’s Second Takes: Critical Approaches to the Film Sequel (2010). See my earlier post on Hollywood remakes and sequels here.

In this post I look at the number of remakes and sequels to make the top 50 grossing films in France, Germany, and the UK from 2006 to 2010 (see here for a description of the sample).

To take remakes first the first thing we notice is that there are so few of them: seven in Germany, five in France, and nine in the UK. Given that the sample used here covers 250 films over a five-year period, it is clear that remakes constitute only a small proportion of the highest grossing films in these countries. Three action and adventure (AAD) films are common to each country (Casino Royale, Clash of the Titans, and The Karate Kid), while of the comedy (COM) films The Pink Panther features in both Germany and the UK. The Departed made the top 50 in all three countries, while Fun with Dick and Jane achieved a high-ranking in Germany and the UK in the crime and thriller genre (CTH). Only one Fantasy and Science Fiction (FSF) remake made the top 50: the 2008 version of The Day the Earth Stood Still. The 2007 version of Hairspray made the top 50 in the UK. Interestingly, there are no remakes in the drama (DRA) genre. It is notable that these remakes are all Hollywood films. The only remake to make the top 50 in any of these countries that was not a Hollywood film was St. Trinian’s, which ranked in the UK only.

Sequels account for 62 films in the total sample for Germany and the UK, and 54 in France. Figure 1 shows the percentage of sequels in each genre for each country. What is immediately apparent from Figure 1 is that sequels account for a large proportion of film in some genres but not others, and that the proportion of sequels in each genre is similar in each country with the exception of films classed as ‘other’ (OTH).

Figure 1 Percentage of sequels in eight genres in the top 50 grossing films from 2006 to 2010 in three European countries

Sequels account for between 43 and 52 percent of action and adventure films, and these are all Hollywood franchise films (The Dark Knight, Spider-man, Mission Impossible, Die Hard, Pirates of the Caribbean, Transformers, etc). Similarly, between 26 and 31 percent of fantasy and science fictions are sequels from Hollywood franchises (Harry Potter, Terminator, The Chronicles of Narnia, etc). Although many of the films in these genres are Hollywood productions produced in Europe (and can thereby classed as some sort of co-production), there are no sequels in the top 50 of these countries that can classed as domestic productions.

Sequels also account for a substantial proportion of family films in these countries (between 26 and 34 percent). In France and Germany this includes some domestically produced films that belong to franchises (e.g. Asterix and Arthur in France and Die Wilden Kerle in Germany), though the majority of the sequels are films from Hollywood series (Garfield, Ice Age, Shrek, Toy Story, Madagascar, etc). In the UK family films that are sequels are all Hollywood films and there are no domestically produced series of family films.

Sequels account for a much smaller percentage of the other genres. Comedy film sequels in Germany and the UK are dominated by Hollywood films, but in France there are some domestically produced sequels (Camping 2, the OSS 117 series). Crime and thriller sequels are all Hollywood films (Ocean’s Thirteen, The Bourne Ultimatum) in each country. The single drama sequel in Germany and the UK is Elizabeth: The Golden Age. The sequels in the romance genre are exclusively Hollywood films (mostly Sex and the City and Twilight films), with the exception of Zweiohrküken in Germany. France has a much smaller percentage of sequels in the ‘other’ genre due to the lack of horror films and dance films. In both Germany and the UK films from the Saw and Final Destination franchises made the top 50, as did films such as Step Up 2 and Step Up 3D.

In summary, remakes comprise only a small proportion of films to make the top 50 in France, Germany, and the UK between 2006 and 2010, while genre is clearly important in understanding the frequency with which sequels occur in these countries. Though there are some remakes and sequels of European origin the overwhelming majority of these films are from Hollywood and this accounts for the consistency of the proportion of films across the different countries. Some European films have produced sequels but many have not and it is a key area of research on this type of film to understand why not. Another question to address is the lack of European remakes: why is that Hollywood is able to remake both its own films as well as films from other countries while European film industries can do neither? It is perhaps the absence of European remakes and sequels that is the most interesting thing about them.

Gini coefficients of five European film industries

Back in May 2010 I looked at the Gini coefficient of the opening grosses in the UK in 2009 (see here).

The Gini coefficient (G) is a measure of the inequality of a statistical distribution, ranging from perfect equality when all the members of a population have equal share in some property such as income (G = 0) to perfect inequality when all the property is owned by a single person (G = 1). This inequality can be represented as a Lorenz Curve, which shows the cumulative proportion of a property belonging to the cumulative proportion of a population. This can be interpreted in reference to the line y = x, which represents perfect equality, and the further away the Lorenz curve lies away from this line the more unequal distribution.

The Gini coefficient and the Lorenz Curve are useful for comparing the inequalities of different populations, and so this week I compare the Gini coefficients of the total grosses of films distributed in five European countries – France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK – in 2011. The data used is from Box Office Mojo and all box office grosses are in US Dollars.

Table 1 shows the Gini coefficients for the total sample sizes and for the top 100 grossing films in each country. It is clear that the distribution of grosses in each country is very unequal, with the vast majority of the gross accumulated by a small number of films. The UK is more unequal than the continental countries. The highest grossing film in the UK in 2011 – Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part Two) – grossed $117.23 million, accounting for 6.4% of the total accumulated gross. However, this was not the most dominant film in any of these countries: in France the highest grossing film was Intouchables, grossing $116.13 million and accounting for 9.5% of the total accumulated gross. Nonetheless, the overall distribution of the other four countries are less unequal, indicating that the UK box office tends to have fewer mid-range films. For example, it appears from the Lorenz curves in Figures 1 through 5 below that the comparatively high value of G for the UK is the result of the larger number of very, very low grossing films in the UK that are not present in the other countries and the very rapid shift to very high grossing films at the top end of the distribution. This is not present in Germany (Figure 2) or Italy (Figure 3), for example, which show much smoother transitions from the lowest to the highest grossing films.

Comparing the Gini coefficients for just the top 100 grossing films shows the UK to be no more unequal for this sub-group than France, Germany, or Italy. This sub-group does account for a higher proportion of the total gross than in these other countries but the distribution of grosses is no different from these three countries.

The Gini coefficient for the top 100 in Spain is much lower than the other countries due to the lack of a film like Harry Potter or Intouchables whose grosses are so much greater than those of other films. The highest grossing film in Spain in 2011 was Torrente 4 with $29.03 million (3.4% of the total accumulated gross), and the top 100 declines steadily with rank. This gives a different distribution to that seen in the UK, France, and Germany – see here and here for examples – which have a large drop off between subgroups of the top 100 grossing films, and between the top 100 films and the others on release.

The inevitable conclusion that follows from this, of course, is that there are a great many movies on release that no one is watching. The lowest grossing film in the UK is Fuk sau che chi sei (Revenge: A Love Story), which is listed as having a total gross 0f $45 (~£29).

Film policy in the UK is intended to remedy this problem by getting a more diverse range of films onto the cinema screens most people have access to (i.e. multiplexes), but the problem suggested by these results is the that of the squeezed middle. Showing Green Lantern in so many multiplex screens isn’t taking audiences away from thrillers produced in Hong Kong since no one is watching these films anyway. The films that suffer are films like Neds ($1.58) or Submarine ($2.37), which have limited opportunities to find an audience. This may explain why the UK film production sector is seen to be less successful in comparison to, say, France or Italy despite the fact that the UK is the largest film market in Europe. Film policy in the UK should be directed at reducing the inequality in the UK exhibition sector to a level comparable to that of the continental countries by boosting the earning power of the middle grossing films.

Table 1 Gini coefficients and total grosses for the total sample (N) and the top 100 grossing films in five European countries in 2011 ($US millions)

The Lorenz Curves for each country are in Figures 1 through 5, with the total gross shown in black, the top 100 grossing films in blue, and the reference curve (G=0) in red.

Figure 1 Lorenz curve for the total gross of films released in France in 2011

Figure 2 Lorenz curve for the total gross of films released in Germany in 2011

Figure 3 Lorenz curve for the total gross of films released in Italy in 2011

Figure 4 Lorenz curve for the total gross of films released in Spain in 2011

Figure 5 Lorenz curve for the total gross of films released in the UK in 2011

An online module for calculating Gini coefficients and Lorenz curves can be accessed here.

Determining box office success

I had not actually planned to write anything this week because someone said that the world was going to end on Saturday.

It didn’t.

And so this week I present a collection of papers on the factors that shape the box office performance of films. The majority of these papers are the final versions from university research depositories, but some may be pre-prints or drafts so check before you cite.

The best place to start is undoubtedly this paper from Jehoshua Eliashberg, Anita Elberse, and Mark A.A.M. Leenders from 2006, which provides a summary of research in this area and illustrates the type of research carried out in the fields of economics, retailing, and marketing that is entirely absent from film studies texts.

Eliashberg J, Elberse A, and Leenders MAAM 2006 The motion picture industry: critical issues in practice, current research, and new research directions, Marketing Sceince 25 (6): 638-661.

The motion picture industry has provided a fruitful research domain for scholars in marketing and other disciplines. The industry has high economic importance and is appealing to researchers because it offers both rich data that cover the entire product lifecycle for many new products and because it provides many unsolved “puzzles.” Although the amount of scholarly research in this area is rapidly growing, its impact on practice has not been as significant as in other industries (e.g., consumer packaged goods). In this article, we discuss critical practical issues for the motion picture industry, review existing knowledge on those issues, and outline promising research directions. Our review is organized around the three key stages in the value chain for theatrical motion pictures: production, distribution, and exhibition. Focusing on what we believe are critical managerial issues, we propose various conjectures—framed either as research challenges or specific research hypotheses—related to each stage in the value chain and often involved in understanding consumer moviegoing behavior.

The web page of Jehoshua Eliashberg at Wharton is here, and that of Anita Elberse at Harvard Business School is here. The webpage for Mark Leenders is here, and features the intriguing quote, “Hollywood movies and medicines are very similar from a marketing perspective.”

Basuroy S, Chetterjee S, and Ravid SA 2003 How critical are critical reviews? The box office effects of film critics, star power, and budgets, Journal of Marketing 67 (4): 103-117.

The authors investigate how critics affect the box office performance of films and how the effects may be moderated by stars and budgets. The authors examine the process through which critics affect box office revenue, that is, whether they influence the decision of the film going public (their role as influencers), merely predict the decision (their role as predictors), or do both. They find that both positive and negative reviews are correlated with weekly box office revenue over an eight-week period, suggesting that critics play a dual role: They can influence and predict box office revenue. However, the authors find the impact of negative reviews (but not positive reviews) to diminish over time, a pattern that is more consistent with critics’ role as influencers. The authors then compare the positive impact of good reviews with the negative impact of bad reviews to find that film reviews evidence a negativity bias; that is, negative reviews hurt performance more than positive reviews help performance, but only during the first week of a film’s run. Finally, the authors examine two key moderators of critical reviews, stars and budgets, and find that popular stars and big budgets enhance box office revenue for films that receive more negative critical reviews than positive critical reviews but do little for films that receive more positive reviews than negative reviews. Taken together, the findings not only replicate and extend prior research on critical reviews and box office performance but also offer insight into how film studios can strategically manage the review process to enhance box office revenue.

The web page of Suman Basuroy at The University of Oklahoma is here, and has links to his many papers on the marketing of motion pictures.

Craig S, Douglas S, and Greene W 2003 Culture matters: a hierarchical linear random parameters model for predicting success of US films in foreign markets, Manuscript, Department of Marketing, Stern School of Business, NYU.

Culture matters in ways that are salient for products with significant cultural content. In particular, the cultural context in which a product is launched plays an important role in its success. The present study examines the impact of cultural context on the box office performance of US films in foreign markets. A hierarchical linear random parameters model is used to assess the impact of national culture, degree of Americanization, US box office and film genre on performance in eight foreign markets. The model allowed for film-specific heterogeneity to be accounted for and for hypotheses to be tested at both the film level and the country level. Results indicate that films perform better in countries that are culturally closer to the US and those that have a higher degree of Americanization. The genre of the film and US box office success also had a significant impact on performance. Some implications are drawn for managers releasing films in foreign markets.

Dellarocas C, Farag NA, and Zhang X 2005 Using online ratings as a proxy of word-of-mouth in motion picture revenue forecasting, SSRN Working Paper.

The emergence of online product review forums has enabled firms to monitor consumer opinions about their products in real-time by mining publicly available information from the Internet. This paper studies the value of online product ratings in revenue forecasting of new experience goods. Our objective is to understand what metrics of online ratings are the most informative indicators of a product’s future sales and how the explanatory power of such metrics compares to that of other variables that have traditionally been used for similar purposes in the past. We focus our attention on online movie ratings and incorporate our findings into practical motion picture revenue forecasting models that use very early (opening weekend) box office and movie ratings data to generate remarkably accurate forecasts of a movie’s future revenue trajectory. Among the metrics of online ratings we considered, we found the valence of user ratings to be the most significant explanatory variable. The gender diversity of online raters was also significant, supporting the theory that word-of-mouth that is more widely dispersed among different social groups is more effective. Interestingly, our analysis found user ratings to be more influential in predicting future revenues than average professional critic reviews. Overall, our study has established that online ratings are a useful source of information about a movie’s long-term prospects, enabling exhibitors and distributors to obtain revenue forecasts of a given accuracy sooner than with older techniques.

Elberse A 2007 The power of stars: do star actors drive the success of movies?, Journal of Marketing 71 (4): 102-120.

Is the involvement of stars critical to the success of motion pictures? Film studios, which regularly pay multimillion-dollar fees to stars, seem to be driven by that belief. This article sheds light on the returns on this investment using an event study that considers the impact of more than 1200 casting announcements on trading behavior in a simulated and real stock market setting. The author finds evidence that the involvement of stars affects movies’ expected theatrical revenues and provides insight into the magnitude of this effect. For example, the estimates suggest that, on average, stars are worth approximately $3 million in theatrical revenues. In a cross-sectional analysis grounded in the literature on group dynamics, the author also examines the determinants of the magnitude of stars’ impact on expected revenues. Among other things, the author shows that the stronger a cast already is, the greater is the impact of a newly recruited star with a track record of box office successes or with a strong artistic reputation. Finally, in an extension to the study, the author does not find that the involvement of stars in movies increases the valuation of film companies that release the movies, thus providing insufficient grounds to conclude that stars add more value than they capture. The author discusses implications for managers in the motion picture industry.

Elliot C and Simmons R 2007 Determinants of UK Box Office Success: The Impact of Quality Signals, Lancaster University Management School Working Paper 2007/012.

This paper analyses the roles of various potential quality signals in the demand for cinema in the United Kingdom using a breakdown of advertising totals by media category. Estimation of a two stage least squares model with data for 546 films released in the United Kingdom shows that the impacts of types of advertising on box office revenues vary both in channels and magnitudes of impact. We also offer a more sophisticated treatment of critical reviews than hitherto by examining the spread (entropy) rather than just the mean rating.

Hennig-Thurau T, Houston MB, Sridhar S 2006 Can good marketing carry a bad product? Evidence from the motion picture industry, Marketing Letters 17 (3): 205-219.

We examine the relative roles of marketing actions and product quality in determining commercial success. Using the motion picture context, in which product quality is difficult for consumers to anticipate and information on product success is available for different points in time, we model the effects of studio actions and movie quality on a movie’s sales during different phases of its theatrical run. For a sample of 331 recent motion pictures, structural equation modeling demonstrates that studio actions primarily influence early box office results, whereas movie quality influences both short- and long-term theatrical outcomes. The core results are robust across moderating conditions. We identify two data segments with follow-up latent class regressions and explore the degree of studio actions needed to “save” movies of varying quality.We finally offer some implications for research and management.

Hennig-Thurau T, Walsh G, and Bode M 2004 Exporting media products: understanding the success and failure of hollywood movies in Germany, Advances in Consumer Research 31 (1): 633-638.

Rising production costs in the US motion picture industry make overseas markets essential for movie studios’ economic survival. However, movie marketers can rarely build on systematic research when attempting to customize movies or movie-related communications to different cultural settings. In this paper, we draw from cultural theory to develop a conceptual framework of US movies’ success in foreign markets. Propositions are then developed that offer insight into the differing impact of a number of factors on movie success in the US and Germany. Marketing implications will be discussed.

The webpage for Thorsten Hennig-Thurau at the Cass Business School is here.

Sharda R and Delen D 2006 Predicting box-office success of motion pictures with neural networks, Expert Systems with Applications 30 (2): 243-254. [NB: although there is no specific URL associated with it, there is a downloadable version of this paper which you will find if your search for the title in Google Scholar].

Predicting box-office receipts of a particular motion picture has intrigued many scholars and industry leaders as a difficult and challenging problem. In this study, the use of neural networks in predicting the financial performance of a movie at the box-office before its theatrical release is explored. In our model, the forecasting problem is converted into a classification problem-rather than forecasting the point estimate of box-office receipts, a movie based on its box-office receipts in one of nine categories is classified, ranging from a ‘flop’ to a ‘blockbuster.’ Because our model is designed to predict the expected revenue range of a movie before its theatrical release, it can be used as a powerful decision aid by studios, distributors, and exhibitors. Our prediction results is presented using two performance measures: average percent success rate of classifying a movie’s success exactly, or within one class of its actual performance. Comparison of our neural network to models proposed in the recent literature as well as other statistical techniques using a 10-fold cross validation methodology shows that the neural networks do a much better job of predicting in this setting.

Terry N, Butler M, and De’Armond D 2005 The determinants of domestic box office performance in the motion picture industry, Southwestern Economic Review 32: 137-148.

This paper examines the determinants of box office revenue in the motion picture industry. The sample consists of 505 films released during 2001-2003. Regression results indicate the primary determinants of box office earnings are critic reviews, award nominations, sequels, Motion Picture Association of America rating, budget, and release exposure. Specific results include the observation that a ten percent increase in critical approval garners an extra seven million dollars at the box office, an academy award nomination is worth six million dollars, the built in audience from sequels are worth eighteen million dollars, and R-rated movies are penalized twelve million dollars.

The Top 100 in Three Countries

In some earlier posts I looked at the clustering of films at the UK box office based on their opening and total grosses from 2007 to 2009: see here and here. This post updates the UK data to include the top 100 films at the UK box office in 2010, and also looks at the top 100 in France and Germany in the same year.

Data on the total and opening weekend (including previews) box office gross was collected from Box Office Mojo. Gross data on Box Office Mojo is given in US dollars, and – unless otherwise stated – to make direct comparisons between the different countries I have left this as it is and have not corrected the data to pounds and Euros. (To compare this UK data to that in earlier posts it is necessary to multiply the box office gross in US dollars by 0.65 to convert to pounds). To sort the data into groups, the opening weekend gross (including previews) and the total box office data were entered into PAST (v. 2.06) and then allocated by using k-means clustering into 5 groups. Data was missing for some films so the plots do not actually include the top 100 for each country: 3 films are missing for the UK data, four from Germany, and 2 from France.

It is clear from the data in Figures 1 through 3, that there is a strong correlation between the opening weekend gross of a film and its total box office revenue in all countries. The Spearman rank correlation for the UK is rs (95) = 0.8988, p = <0.0001. For Germany, rs (94) = 0.8537, p = < 0.0001; and for France rs (96) = 0.8991, p = <0.0001. In the UK the mean proportion of a film’s total gross accounted for by its opening weekend is 0.30 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.32). For Germany, the mean proportion is 0.27 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.29); and for France it is 0.34 (95% CI: 0.32, 0.37). This indicates that the opening weekend in France is a stronger predictor of overall box office gross in France than in Germany or the UK, though not by much.

The UK data is presented in Figure 1, and looks very like the plots of the box office grosses from earlier posts covering the period 2007 to 2009. We have two films (Toy Story 3 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part One)) that easily outperformed everything else. The black cluster includes four films (Alice in Wonderland, Inception, Shrek Forever After, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse) that are what we would expect to see in this part of the graph: they are the big budget Hollywood movies that dominate the UK box office. Note that four of the top six films are franchise movies. The red cluster is made up of 10 Hollywood films (e.g. Robin Hood, Iron Man 2, Little Fockers) that probably disappointed a little; British audiences are possibly a little tired on non-English Robin Hood’s (comedians have even stopped making jokes about the fact that he is never English) and they don’t appear to be over-enthusiastic about the Iron Man films. The character of Iron Man doesn’t have the same resonance with non-comic book readers as a Spiderman, Superman, or Batman, and so the premium derived from the prior source material is not as evident. It will therefore be interesting to see what happens to Green Lantern when it opens here on 17 June 2011, as this also does not have any major resonance for UK audiences – the best the producers may be able to expect is a red cluster rather than a black cluster film. The green group is also composed entirely of Hollywood films, with no UK films (other than those produced with US studios) making it into the top 40. This suggests that 2010 was a bad year for British cinema (if we don’t include Hollywood blockbusters as British). In fact, the green group is largely made up of Hollywood stinkers: Knight & Day, The A-Team, Tron Legacy, and The Expendables. The blue group contains 58 films, none of which grossed over $9.3 million ($6 million), and is the usual mixture of British films that made it into the Top 100 (Made In Dagenham, Tamara Drewe) and Hollywood films that performed very poorly (The Book of Eli, The Blind Side, The Last Airbender). The Book of Eli performed poorly in all three countries: it was the 64th highest grossing film in the UK, but only achieved a rank of 80 in Germany and 84 in France.

Figure 1 Top 100 films at the UK box office in 2010

The mean gross values for the different UK clusters in US dollars and pounds is presented in Table 1. Note also that dividing the opening weekend gross of a cluster by the cluster above it (e.g. purple/black) is approximately 0.5. This is also true for the total grosses, except when dividing the total gross for the blue cluster by the green cluster, which produces a ratio of 0.4.

Table 1 Cluster size, and mean total and opening weekend grosses for the top 100 films at the UK box office in 2010

Turning to the data for Germany (Figure 2) and France (Figure 3), we see that the same clear pattern evident in the UK is not present. The clustering is fair less satisfactory (I have not altered the clustering produced by the software in the graphs used here). In part, this is because I am using the same approach of clustering into 5 groups that I used for the UK, and there is no reason to think that the clustering in on country should apply in another – in fact it’s fairly obvious from looking at Figures 1 and 3, that if we are going to use 5 clusters for the UK box office data we would be better off using four (or even three) for the top 100 films in France. Germany is probably OK with 5 clusters, but I think that the clustering results presented here could be improved by reclustering the data from the black and red groups to give a better breakdown. That said, it is nonetheless instructive to see how these two countries differ from the UK by using the method in all cases.

In Germany, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part One) clearly outperformed every other film by some distance, but the differences between the other clusters are not so clearly marked as they are in the UK.The black cluster looks like it could be broken into two groups, with the 7 highest grossing films forming a single group while the remainder look as though they belong with the red cluster. The 7 highest grossing films in the black group all grossed ore than $24 million, while the remainder grossed between $18 and $13 million. These 7 films include franchise movies like Shrek Forever After and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, along with blockbusters like Alice in Wonderland and Inception – but NOT Toy Story 3. The other 14 black films include big Hollywood films like Clash of the Titans, Sherlock Holmes, and Robin Hood; but also, and unlike in the UK and France where their performance was poor, Resident Evil: Afterlife and The Last Airbender. Included in the black group is Konferenz der Tiere, which at 20, is the highest ranked German film – its animated film released in English as Animals United. The red cluster is made up of the same type of films as the lower 14 black films – the type of Hollywood films that dominate the box office charts of Europe (Iron Man 2, Knight & Day, The Expendables). German film titles start to make more frequent appearances once we get to the green group (e.g Vincent will Meer, Zeiten ändern Dich, Groupies bleiben nicht zum Frühstück), and there are also some big Hollywood films that have badly underperformed (The A-Team).

In France, the data shows less variation in both the total and opening weekend grosses than the other countries. The purple cluster contains a more films (8) than in any of the other countries or years looked at in this or the other posts. Six of these films are the same top 6 we saw in the UK, along with Les petits mouchoirs and L’arnacoeur. The red group looks at little lost, and could perhaps be included with the black cluster. Included in this group are films such as Iron Man 2, Knight & Day, Clash of the Titans, Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood, and other Hollywood films that appear to have opened reasonably well, but which have perhaps underperformed in terms of their overall box office gross – hence the separation from the black cluster. The difference between the green and blue clusters in France is not clear-cut, and could realistically be placed within a single group. These groups contain a mixture of yet again failing Hollywood films (The A-Team, Knight & Day) and French films that become increasingly more frequent once we get to these last two groups.

Figure 2 Top 100 films at the German box office in 2010

Figure 3 Top 100 films at the French box office in 2010

It is interesting to compare different European countries in this way because you can see where the variations in audience taste lie: Germans were apparently eager to watch the latest Resident Evil film, whereas the French and the British were not. There were less inclined to go and see Toy Story 3, unlike the French who enjoyed the film in large numbers and the British who made this film the highest grossing film of the year by some way.

You can also find the similarities: for example, everybody hated Letters to Juliet – it ranked 94th in Germany, 100th in the UK, and still hasn’t been released in France.

Shot scales in 1920s French cinema

Earlier posts have looked at shot scales in Hollywood and German cinema (here and here), and the films of Max Ophüls (here) and Alfred Hitchcock (here). This post follows those up with a quick look at French cinema of the 1920s using data from Barry Salt’s database (which can be accessed here).

The mean relative frequencies for a sample of 18 silent French films released between 1920 and 1929 (inclusive) are presented in Table 1, and Figure 1 is the rank-frequency plot for this data. The slope of the linear trendline in Figure 1 is -0.0456 (95% CI: -0.0682, -0.0231) and the intercept is 0.3254 (95% CI: 0.2245, 0.4263). From Figure 1 it is clear that this trendline is a poor fit for this data ( = 0.8440, SE = 0.0464). Exponential ( = 0.9580) and logarithmic ( = 0.9685) trendlines give a better fit.

Table 1 The mean relative frequencies of shot scales in French cinema of the 1920s (n = 18)

Figure 1 Rank-frequency plot of shot scales for French cinema of the 1920s (n = 18). The error bars are the 95% confidence interval.

Comparing these results with those of 1920s Hollywood cinema and German cinema (available here), we can see that the poor fit for the linear trendline French cinema is consistent with German films ( = 0.8606, SE = 0.0505) but different from Hollywood cinema ( = 0.9902, SE = 0.0106). Like German cinema of the 1920s, a single shot scale dominates the style of these films while other shot scales occur much less frequently. For German films of the 1920s the mean relative frequency for the first-ranked shot scale is 0.3804 (95% CI: 0.3181, 0.4428) – an estimate that is clearly in line with that of the French films described here. By contrast, the equivalent figure for Hollywood in the 190s is 0.2967 (95% CI: 0.2697, 0.3166). Elsewhere I have argued that the change evident in the rank-frequency plots for Hollywood cinema occurs with the introduction of continuity editing and the change representation of on-screen space in the classical style. We may infer from these results that 1920s French cinema did not break down space in the same way as contemporary Hollywood films, and that they held onto the same pre-classical style as German filmmakers. The dominance of a single scale in French cinema is evident in the summary given in Table 2 and in Figure 2. The long shot is the first-ranked scale in 17 of the 18 films included in the sample; and for the only film where this is not so, the medium long shot is the most frequently occurring. Although Barry Salt’s data on shot scales does include many French films of the 1930s, it covers a narrower range of directors than for the 1920s (which is useful in different ways), and so any analysis for this period will reflect that limitation rather than a broader historical style. We cannot be certain that, as in Germany, the French cinema went over to a classical Hollywood style in the 1930s, but it is worthy of further research. to determine if there is a European-wide lag in the take-up of Hollywood’s style or if this true only for some countries. Interestingly, Hitchcock’s British films of this period are consistent with Hollywood cinema in this respect.

Table 2 The mean relative frequencies of shot scales in French cinema of the 1920s (n = 18)

Figure 2 Normalized sample medians of shot scales in French cinema of the 1920s.

Shot length distributions in German cinema, 1929 to 1933

This post compares the shot median shot lengths and the dispersion of shot lengths in German films from 1929 to 1933, inclusive. The films are grouped by year, and can also be divided into the silent films of 1929 and the sound films of the other years.


Shot length data was collected from the Cinemetrics database for 67 films released from 1929 to 1933, inclusive.

As the distribution of shot lengths in a motion picture are typically asymmetric with a number of outliers, the median shot length is used as a robust measure of location because it is not dependent on an underlying probability distribution and has a high breakdown point. The estimator Qn is used as a robust measure of scale, and calculates the distance of each data point from every other . Qn has a breakdown point of 50% and a bounded influence function, and is therefore robust. As this estimator is not dependent upon an underlying probability distribution or a measure of location, it is appropriate for the asymmetric distributions typically encountered in the cinema. For details on how to calculate Qn see here.

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance (corrected for ties) was used as an omnibus test of the difference between the films grouped by year, at a significance level of 0.05. If this test returned a significant result Dunn’s post-hoc test (corrected for ties) was employed for the pairwise comparison of groups, using a critical z-value of 2.3263 at a significance level of p = 0.01.

Effect sizes of difference between groups were estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann median difference of pairwise comparisons (HLΔ), and this result is reported with a distribution free (Moses) confidence interval.

All calculations were performed using Microsoft Excel 2007.


The statistical data for each film is given in Tables 1 through 5. Shot length data for these films is presented in Figure 1 for the median shot lengths and Figure 2 for Qn.

For the median shot lengths, the results show that there is a statistically significant difference (KW-ANOVA: Hc = 14.0359, p = 0.0064). Group comparisons were carried out using a Dunn post-hoc test, which provided significant results for the silent 1929 films with the sound films in 1930 (Tc = 3.5482), 1931 (Tc = 2.4476), 1932 (Tc = 2.5739), and 1933 (Tc = 2.8444). There are no significant differences in the distribution of the median shot lengths for any other pairwise comparisons.

Turning to Qn, the same patterns we see for the median shot lengths are evident. There is a statistically significant difference (KW-ANOVA: Hc = 19.4967, p = 0.0006); and that this difference occurs in the pairwise comparisons between 1929 and 1930 (Tc = 4.1611), 1929 and 1931 (Tc = 2.9438), 1929 and 1932 (Tc = 2.9669), and 1929 and 1933 (Tc = 3.2416), while there are no significant differences for any other pairwise comparisons.

Table 1 Median shot length and Qn for German films released in 1929 (n = 12)

Table 2 Median shot length and Qn for German films released in 1930 (n = 11)

Table 3 Median shot length and Qn for German films released in 1931 (n = 14)

Table 4 Median shot length and Qn for German films released in 1932 (n = 17)

Table 5 Median shot length and Qn for German films released in 1933 (n = 13)

There is clearly a difference in the style of the silent films of 1929 (n = 12) when compared with the sound films from 1930 to 1933 (n = 55). The sample median of the median shot lengths for films released in 1929 is 3.8s (95% CI: 2.8, 4.7) with an interquartile range of 1.6s, and for Qn is 2.6s (95% CI: 1.6, 3.5) and IQR = 1.5s. The sample median of the median shot lengths for films released between 1930 and 1933 is 6.1s (95% CI: 5.5, 6.7) with IQR = 2.9, and for Qn is 5.5s (95% CI: 4.9, 6.1) and IQR = 2.4s. Dividing the sample into silent and sound films, the change in the median shot lengths is estimated to be an increase of HLΔ = 2.2s (95% CI: 1.0, 3.4) and the change in the dispersion of shot lengths is estimated to be an increase of HLΔ = 2.6s (95% CI: 1.5, 3.5). From these results we can say that the stylistic changes that occur in German cinema with the coming of sound is (1) a slowing in the rate at which films are cut and (2) an increase in the dispersion of shot lengths in German cinema. This difference can be clearly seen in the box plots of these samples in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1 The distribution of median shot lengths for films produced in Germany 1929 to 1933, inclusive

Figure 2 The distribution of Qn for films produced in Germany 1929 to 1933, inclusive

Comparing these results to earlier results posted on this blog for Hollywood and German cinema (see here and here), we can that the change in film style that occurred in Hollywood with the introduction of sound technology occur in Germany, only after they have already occurred in Hollywood.

Shot scales in Hollywood and German cinema, 1910 to 1939

This week’s post presents a first draft of a piece on shot scales in Hollywood and German cinema from the 1910s to the 1930s. The methods applied have been discussed on this blog before, but this paper presents a more systematic use of a regression than has previously been the case. The file is available as a pdf here: Nick Redfern – Shot scales in Hollywood and German cinema, 1910 to 1939, and the abstract is presented below.

Shot scales in Hollywood and German cinema, 1910 to 1939

Statistical analysis is an important part of an inductive programme of research into film style enabling large groups of films to be analysed, identifying key trends, and identifying changes in film style between groups of films from different countries and time periods. In this paper, the use of shot scales in Hollywood and German cinema between 1910 and 1939 is analysed using linear regression of rank-frequency plots and nonparametric analysis of variance. The results show that Hollywood and German cinema underwent a similar change in the use of shot scales but that this change occurred at different times. The shift from a non-linear to a linear distribution of mean relative frequencies and the increased use of close-ups and medium close-ups for Hollywood cinema in the 1920s may be explained by formal and stylistic changes as the ‘classical’ Hollywood cinema superseded a more ‘primitive’ style, with the analysis of space through continuity editing replacing the distant framing and staging of an earlier film style. A similar change occurs in the style of German films but not until the 1930s, and this supports the argument that the development of film style in German cinema was influenced by that of Hollywood.

The results of this paper demonstrate what a simple and effective method the use of linear regression of rank-frequency plots can be: changes in film style over time and differences in nation style between Hollywood and German cinema were identified precisley where historical research said they should be.

I still haven’t solved the problem of the most consistent model from a nonlinear distribution of the mean relative frequencies of shot scales. One possibility suggested by the results presented here is that different models may work for different periods or groups of films.

One of the things I’m most concerned with here is analysing groups of films. Film scholars tend to focus on individual films (in the way literary scholars or art historians focus on individual paintings). This is fine but I think it is a limiting approach if not accompanied by the analysis of large groups of films, and statistics can make this process much quicker and easier by identifying patterns of film style. In the words of André Bazin from (‘La politique des auteurs’):

The American cinema is a classical art, but why not then admire in it what is most admirable, i.e. not only the talent of the this or that filmmaker, but the genius of the system, the richness of its ever-vigorous tradition, and its fertility when it comes into contact with new elements …

The same also goes for German cinema.

Feel free to point out any typing errors (I am the world’s worst typist).

Any suggestions on further research or where to get this published are also welcome.

UPDATE (5/10/2010): This file has been updated to correct a really obvious error in the presentation of the results, but is otherwise unchanged.