George Clooney’s name above a movie’s title won’t guarantee ticket sales these days. The same holds true for Jim Carrey, Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks.
Sure, they all score big now and again, but they can’t do it every time out. Even Will Smith faltered with last year’s “Seven Pounds.”
And then there’s Tyler Perry.
The self-made movie star/director/writer/fill-in-the-blank just keeps cranking out movies as often as Woody Allen does. Except Perry’s film’s make money. Every single time.
This weekend, “Tyler Perry’s I Can Do Bad All By Myself” scored $24 million to lead the box office pack. That’s with no bankable stars, little publicity and no opening day reviews. Perry eschews film critics, opting not to show his films to them before opening day.
So how does Hollywood repay him?
“Bad” rolled out on just 2,255 screens. That’s far fewer than a typical mainstream release, and even less than “Inglourious Basterds,” now in its fourth week (“Basterds” was shown on 3,215 screens over the weekend according to boxofficemojo.com)
Why not roll “Bad” out on 3,000-plus screens? Is there a safer bet these days than a Tyler Perry film?
And why aren’t we seeing a dozen Perry clones at the local cineplex? It’s not like Perry’s formula is tough to decode. Take a larger than life figure (Madea), add a melodramatic fall from grace and find the redemptive arc through faith and family.
Voila, a Perry clone practically films itself.
UPDATE: Spoke to a learned film professor tonight on this issue. He suggested Lionsgate, Perry’s studio, purposely underplays the no. of screens his films are shown on to build grassroots support. It’s like building new baseball stadiums with less seats than the structures they replace. More sellouts, more fan interest and hunger to get those remaining seats.
Sorry, can’t resist a baseball analogy.
It’s intriguing, but I’m guessing the studio bean counters would still love to see what a Perry film could make in wider release.
(Photo: Tyler Perry returns as Madea in “Tyler Perry’s I Can Do Bad All By Myself.” Photo credit: Quantrell Colbert/Lionsgate Films)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
As tempted as I am write off Perry’s success to him catering to a certain demographic, that would be an injustice. As much as I have reviled everything I’ve seen with his name on it, it would be foolish of me to dismiss his obvious talent for taking the pulse of his audience and making films and such accordingly.
It is sort of odd that he doesn’t get more cred; you’d think TPTB would see dollar signs…
I’ve had mixed feelings about his films … silly and manipulative at times, but also sweet and sincere the rest of the way.
But he’s on to something. He’s tapping something few other filmmakers can hope to grasp … and I give him credit for that.
And every time he comes off with a hit there’s always a few ’shocked’ feature pieces on his success. At this point, we should only be shocked if one of his movies failed.
Perry is the last filmmaker making family movies aimed at adults. It’s simple – Moneyball simple. He found a gaping hole and is taking advantage of it.
As usual, he’s resented for his success. If you aren’t Spike Lee or John Singleton, Hollywood doesn’t consider you a black director.
I would guess the limiting of screens has a lot to do with his targeted demographic. Putting a Tyler Perry film in an area with a 90 + % white or Hispanic demographic would probably be silly. I’ve never watched a Tyler Perry film and have always just dismissed it as cinematic FUBU / segregationist entertainment much like BET.
Brandon,
You should see a couple of his films … very flawed, but with big hearts.
I’m not a BET watcher (i don’t watch a ton of tv these days, but I suspect it’s not the way you describe.
Tyler Perry’s movies have too many family values in them for Hollywood. Yes, sometimes they are predictable, but give me Madea anyday over George, Tom, and the rest.
@Christian Toto
You’re not the first to ask why Perry gets little respect from Hollywood. The “problem” is that Perry’s films are chock full of elements that liberals in Tinseltown despise.
*The movies are Christian and proud of it.
*There are clearly defined moral boundaries in the films. For example, “Daddy’s Little Girls” (a favorite of mine) exalts the hardworking, loving, God fearing dad while scorning the drug dealers. Too many “mainstream” Hollywood films sneer at such moral clarity.
*His films portray traditional marriage as something worth achieving and defending. Naturally, gay activists aren’t happy with Perry. (I also think these activists are still smarting over being lampooned in Perry’s “Why Did I Get Married?”)
*His films tackle various taboo evils in society (incest, wifebeating, adultery, etc.) and how one can beat them through faith in Christ.
*Perry realizes that the list of Black actresses in Hollywood doesn’t end and begin with Halle Berry. Thus, he creates jobs for underemployed Black actresses as well as giving his audience a wider vision of his community.
*Perry’s films don’t club you over the head with their Blackness.
*Perry’s films do have a likable sweetness to them even when the quality isn’t there.
*Perry is truly independent with his own studio. Hence, he doesn’t have to worry about the powers that be mucking up the final product (i.e., his movies).
Hence, it’s no surprise that Hollywood hasn’t cloned Perry’s films. The first attempt to do so, “This Christmas,” didn’t get a warm welcome from Perry’s audience because it felt too formulaic and by committee.
Thus, Perry has a niche all too himself, enabling him to truly profit from his target audience. So, I wouldn’t feel sorry for this outsider.
@cftoto
You’re correct that the messages of Perry’s films are nothing like BET’s output.
*BET declares gangbangers are examples of “true Black manhood.” Perry’s films accurately portrays gangbangers as domestic terrorists.
*BET says that prostitution is a noble profession. Perry portrays it as modern day slavery.
*BET says Christians are kooks. Perry’s films says that Christians are loving, bold, smart, law-abiding, and appealing.
And so on.
The only thing BET and Perry’s films have in common is the color of their performers.
Yes Tyler Perry’s films are melodramas and they have an unashamed praise of faith. His success is a tribute to recognizing a demand for Af-Am films suitable for all ages.
Yet as fan of Tyler Perry I must point out something else that is very unique to Perry’s films. I can’t remember a filmmaker who injects class/class differences in his motion pictures. In every TP film the politics of race are seldom seen. However there is always gulfs of education, family and wealth that separate many of the characters. In most TP films class is just as important as religion.
I can’t think of another major American director working today who honestly recognizes and depicts class differences in our society. Perry’s films are good (they could be better, he makes the same mistakes as other actor/writer/directors) and his impact on motions pictures should no be diminished
I think what Spike Lee said about Tyler Perry was immoral, cruel, thoughtless, and inconsiderate because we as a black population need to learn to each when we do a good thing in this world and not sit back and belittle each other so I say to Mr. Tyler Perry you keep on making them stage plays and movies and do not let what Spike Lee get you because he is jealous because you are the first black person to have your own movie theatre so keep the faith and do not let the devil get the best of you.