Bridget Jones's Baby trailers, chat shows etc

WORKING TITLE exclusive SUPRISING ED SHEERAN, 20th September 2016




WORKING TITLE PLAYLIST,

Bridget Jones's Baby boom? Smart marketing, modernised values

DIRECTOR: Sharon Maguire
BUDGET: $35m
BOX OFFICE: UK $60m, US $24m, World $212m
PRODUCTION COMPANY CREDITS: Miramax*, StudioCanal, Universal Pictures, Working Title Films *presumably they retain rights as original film co-producer with WT
DISTRIBUTION: Universal, UIP 62 countries 'Universal is releasing in most territories with Studiocanal handling France, Germany and Austria' [Deadline]
AGE RATINGS: BBFC 15, MPAA R, Lux EA.


Much more to come on one of the most significant Working Title productions for years. They have multiple highly successful franchises (Nanny McPhee, Bean, Johnny English...) but none are as iconic and central to their identity as BJD, the franchise based on Helen Fielding's hit novel.

LINKS:
Wiki.
BoxOfficeMojo.
IMDB.
The-Numbers.
Working Title page.
Daily Mail. #1 in 24 countries; biggest UK September opening ever


AGE RATINGS
Quite an extraordinary variation on this one: BBFC 15 and MPAA (US) R, but U in Luxembourg!

PRODUCTION HISTORY
I've blogged on this for a few years now (here; here on novel + musical; here in a wider post on WT franchising): BJD3 was announced in July 2009! It was then formally greenlit by Universal + WT in October 2011 ... but would take another 4 years for shooting to commence, with Hugh Grant dropping out and a change of director (Paul Zeig was originally attached, but with the film seeming dead in the water Sharon Maguire wasn't attached until negotiations with the principal cast resumed again in June 2015). [details from Wiki]

DIRECTOR
Sharon Maguire was overlooked for the first sequel...

Sharon Maguire, who directed the original Bridget Jones’s Diary in 2001, returned to direct the feature film from a script she co-wrote with David Nicholls (One Day) [source]

FRANCHISE HISTORY

BoxOfficeMojo BJD franchise page.

BJBABY too British? Japan, Greece, US etc considered

IN THIS POST:

A nuanced view of WT's strategy.

Starting with Saunders' excellent Telegraph article I'll look at arguments that BJB is too British for the US market; non-English markets experience a radically different Bridget through culturally-weighted translations (eg Spain) - and even censorship (Japan). Japanese subtitles reposition Jones as closer to a traditional stereotypical female through certain formalities of grammar. Greeks were among many non-UK/US (Australia/NZ/Canada?) audiences to be left none the wiser when Aretha's Respect kicked in at a key point in the original movie - iconic tunes that 'everyone knows' don't necessarily cross Western, English-language borders.

Saunders cites a number of academic studies in doing so - this is a much-studied franchise and cultural phenomenon, so challenge yourself and look out for more in-depth reading!

One such example that I will re-read in due course, not least as it presents intriguing arguments on the tensions between WT and Richard Curtis' script between appealing to the domestic and US markets: Jones is at once Americanised and critical of American culture ... is the book Falling in Love Again: Romantic Comedy in Contemporary Cinema (Abbott, Jermyn eds. (2008)). 

I'll get to view the film in due course - but your own (or second hand) observations from this would be welcomed (post a comment).

TOO CULTURALLY ALIEN FOR THE US MARKET?

Headline for the Saunders piece.

BOX OFFICE COMPARISON Working Title v Warp Films

TBC
(but here's a start)

WORKING TITLE

BJ:Edge of Reason The-Number.com report; box office report; with the 2001 original taking $282m and the 2004 sequel $264m, only Les Miserables (2012) keeps the franchise off WT's all-time top spot ($442m) [the-numbers all-time list].

Other films that come close: Bean (1997) $257m, Love Actually (2003) $248m, 4 Weddings (1994) $242m [their most profitable film as a $4.5m budget!], Everest (2015) $204m. Those are the 7 WT films that grossed $200m+ worldwide.

9 more top $100m: Burn After Reading (2008) $168m, Johnny English Reborn (2011) $165m, The Interpreter (2005) $163m, About a Boy (2001) $131m,  Atonement (2007) $130m, Everest (1998 44min IMAX film) $128m, The Theory of Everything (2014) $122m, Billy Elliot (2000) $110m [2nd most profitable as a $5m WT2 production], Paul (2011) $101m.

Thats 16 grossing $100m+ in total, with several more at $90m+.

The-Numbers.com provides estimated average figures for WT:

AVERAGE BUDGET: $23M
AVERAGE US BOX OFFICE: $26M
AVERAGE GLOBAL BOX OFFICE: $80M

FRANCHISE Universal rev up £25m Fast Furious live show

Guardian feature

Disney are the kings of brand extension, with Disneyland a big business in its right and the Pirates of... franchise a neat reversal in being a movie spin-off from a Disneyland feature.

Universal are staking a claim as the barons of franchise extension though, with their own theme parks, multiple TV adaptations of movies (eg About a Boy by WTTV), theatrical adaptations (notably Billy Elliot, a big hit, and Bridget Jones, both spun off from Working Title productions).

Bridget Jones Baby marketing

I'll add to this - your own photos etc would be very welcome

This post builds on an earlier post, which itself is long and detailed, looking at the international nature of the campaign and the trailers especially, but also looking back at the scale of this franchise - so lets start there.

The latest movie is at $180m worldwide - a good return, but well down on past entries. There should be a 4th based on those numbers. See my post on the Gant Rule (with BJB as an exception) for more details - such as this, the only territories with 8-figure returns:

• Australia $13m
• France $14m
• US $24m
• UK $60m

The basic: Premieres
This generates TV news and wider media stories (eg Mirror):

BOX OFFICE: Gant Rule in 2016

IN THIS POST:
A definition of 'the Gant Rule'; testing it out with the summer 2016 UK/US box office; why is this so profoundly significant for understanding the British cinema market; how satirical cartoon Curtisland illustrates this; why does it not always work (including Bridget Jones example).

I was surprised just now to find that 'the Gant Rule' doesn't bring up many relevant hits ... until the phrase 'box office' is added to the search.

Lets have a fresh look at this...

A SHORT DEFINITION OF 'THE GANT RULE'*
Box office analyst Charles Gant (who has a weekly Guardian column, but whose writing appears in many other publications worldwide) has long argued that a typical transatlantic hit (a success in both the UK and US markets) will make ten times as much in the US ($ figures) as in the UK (unadjusted £ figures).

In short, for a UK/US hit, UK £box office x10 roughly = US $box office

*it is highly advisable to put such terms in '' to help denote them as technical terms; the media world is so vast and complex, no single examiner will be familiar with every conceivable term

Is he right? Usually, yes!

READ MORE:
I have blogged on this a few times...
Use the Gant Rule tag to find previous posts - or simply make your own comparisons with films' UK/US box office!

TESTING THE GANT RULE: SUMMER 2016 UK v US BOX OFFICE

 Captain America: Civil War + The Secret Life of Pets examples

Using figures from his ScreenDaily column, Gant looked at the 2016 summer box office on both sides of the Atlantic. Jump straight to the number one hit and you'll see a prime example of the Gant Rule in effect: Captain America: Civil War took £37m in the UK and $407m in the US. That's precisely x11 the UK figure - pretty accurate forecasting there!

WT Billion Dollar Baby Brit Record

Catherine Shoard reports the landmark figure for the British production co

Well hello, hooray! For their competition its welcome to my nightmare, but school's out for the unrivalled masters of the British cinema market...the first British billion dollar babies of the UK (though Rep. of Ireland figures are often combined) cinema audience.

If you're bewildered by the intertextual puns in the above, it may be that you're not old enough to remember Alice Cooper in his prime (the artist in the video below) - Working Title don't go back nearly 50 years in the biz like Cooper, but they do go back 31 years at the time of writing (2016), so their bold social realist (with a comic edge) debut feature My Beautiful Laundrette (they're associated with 1984's The Man Who Shot Christmas too).

THEORY TIP: Stuart Hall argued that semiotics, and much early media theory, had one major flaw: assuming that meaning was completely tied to the producers of a text and their intentions (what they attempted to encode). He argued that meaning is also generated by the audience, and that the meaning they take will be influenced by their age, gender, nationality, cultural tastes, education level etc. Adult readers may pick up on my Alice Cooper intertextual puns, but younger readers may not - though they may generate their own independent meaning too.

If you followed my meaning, thats a preferred reading (the textual author would prefer that); if you follow some but not a substantial part, a contested or negotiated reading; if you reject or interpret in a very different way, thats an oppositional reading.

Today's juggernaut company, with its latest ultra-commercial hit Bridget Jones's Baby yet another franchise release featuring major US stars to boost its international appeal, is barely recognisable from the radical young company that produced a gay, inter-racial romance tale at the height of 1980s Thatcherite homophobia and race riots in Britain, following it up with an edgy wartime drama making a star of its young (unknown, just like the MBL leads) female lead and her catchphrase, up yer bum!

Disney bank on franchise not A-List stars selling

Dreddful...star power meant unmasking
Sly to exploit his appeal, rather obviously
ruining the concept of the masked Dredd

I've picked up on this theme a few times, and there is strong evidence to argue the point either way, but there clearly is some doubt emerging over the continuing veracity and vigour of the star system; movie marketing being centred on attaching and selling star names.

The now well-established dominance of the franchise system appears to offer an alternative - though its only Disney currently that seems to be banking on this, its tentpole productions shaving many $10s of millions from CGI-heavy budgets by casting young unknowns in key roles - AND tying them into multi-film contracts that will keep them on relatively low salaries, avoiding awkward renegotiations where actors have a strong hand. Look at the budgets for the first two Scream movies, or BJDiary, for examples of how actors can up their demands to stay in a franchise.

The Disney examples (Star Wars: Force Awakens and much of the MarvelCU, excepting Robert Downey Jr) shouldn't, i think, be seen as typical enough to dismiss the rule #1 of the film business, and Disney currently are an exception amongst the Big Six in taking this approach.

Some franchises/IP have sufficient pre-existing audiences to cope without stars. Harry Potter and the Hunger Games are good examples, so too Twilight (as horrible as those movies are, at least to non-teen, non-girl viewers like myself!).

Shocker: critics and audience hate this movie.

Hollywood showed repeatedly before The Dark Knight kick-started the current MCU hegemony that shoving a big name into an iconic costume is often box office poison: Stallone's abysmal Judge Dredd is the classic example; whether his star brand or performance, or the script, were to blame, fans hated it and a general audience couldn't suspend belief for 90 minutes to really get into Rockie/Rambo as the meanest (robo)cop of them all.

Gant Rule, British exceptions and the China factor

UK box office of $60m rivalled the US ('domestic') take

Cinema is at once BOTH a highly globalised industry utterly dominated by the big six US conglomerates AND a highly localised industry in which local stars, settings, even IP/cultural reference points, sell.

The Gant Rule is a useful means of explaining the US dominance, even as this is swiftly undermined by the surging scale and value of the Chinese market, pushing the typical US box office share of a typical global hit to well below the traditional 50%+ (closer now to 40% and falling). This has seen Hollywood squeeze in Chinese stars and settings, shoot alternative endings and extra scenes for different markets, buy up or partner with Chinese firms (with the complication of strict Chinese laws on exporting money), and generally be more sensitive about portraying Chinese as villains or simply the traditional crass stereotype of inscrutable, unemotional, indistinguishable masses (not that this has entirely disappeared).

Headline from  The Wrap

Universal spent millions altering the plot of World War Z (reshoots) so that the epidemic didn't start in China in a doomed attempt to get into the Chinese market. Censors there frown upon horror ('The country has strict laws outlawing any movies that deal with magic, horror or superstition.'). China limits the number of non-Chinese productions allowed in cinemas to just 34 a year - though this may rise in 2017 following negotiations with the WTO (World Trade Organisation). It is not making it easy for Hollywood to extend its global dominance:

...in other cases studios don’t alter their movies until post-production. Chinese censors cut large chunks out of several movies released last year, including 40 minutes from “Cloud Atlas” and 12 minutes from “Men in Black 3,” excising all scenes in Chinatown.
They also cut parts of the latest James Bond film, “Skyfall,” including a scene that featured the assassination of a nameless Chinese security guard.

Marvel had initially planned “Iron Man 3” as a Chinese co-production, a tactic that has been taken with films like “Looper” and “The Karate Kid,” in part because co-productions are not subject to China’s quota for imported films. Chinese censors must still approve them. [The Wrap]

Just 20 years ago China banned all foreign cinema:

China only opened its market to the Hollywood studios in 1994, when its own film industry had reached its nadir. “It wasn’t out of admiration for Hollywood but to save the Chinese film industry,” Rosen said. “People weren’t going to the movies.”
At the time, China only permitted 10 foreign movies to screen, then increased it to 20 before the current total of 34. Those additional 14 slots are all reserved for IMAX or 3D films. [The Wrap]

There is no questioning the ongoing utter dominance of the UK market by Hollywood - for figures read the annual BFI reports. BUT ... localised content still often retains an edge.

The US star helped market the film globally, but the British setting did not help US box office: boxofficemojo.

Localised here is a very broad concept - as is the legal definition of 'British production' for tax purposes:

The UK box office has consistently punched above its weight with family films adapted from British-authored material, fromCharlie and the Chocolate Factory (£37.8m) and Alice in Wonderland (£42.5m) toThe Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (£44.4m) and, of course, Paddington (£38m).

These are mainly Hollywood productions, but with enough of a lingering element of Britishness to give them a home market boost, and so undermine the Gant rule. The Bridget Jones franchise is a more direct example, although it too is ultimately Hollywood fare (Brit producer WT being an NBC-U subsidiary, Polygram at the time of the original).

Gant's latest box office column highlights The BFG as the latest to benefit from this element of Britishness.

He also noted the latest example of event cinema, an annual classical concert now programmed in an incredible 534 screens, plus a stylized limited re-release earning more than the original run:

Also flying the flag for event cinema was Secret Cinema’s presentation of Dirty Dancing. ...  The run of just six dates delivered a final box office of £1.90m. That’s more than the combined runs of the original 1987 release (£1.62m) and the 20th-anniversary rerelease in 2007 (£224,000).

The BFG towers over UK box office while Star Trek Beyond fails to prosper.

A little bit more on the rising influence of the Chinese market, from an article which looks at directors outraged by remakes of their movies, in this case Red Dawn. The original 1980s flick saw Russians invade a US town, the recent remake swapped Chinese forces for this...until it dawned on the money men that they'd lose out on the Chinese market...so this was belatedly switched to North Korean forces:

Milius was partially vindicated when MGMchanged the invading aggressors to North Koreans for the final cut, though that move was made to appease the lucrative Chinese market more than to cheer up the original film’s director.

How dare you remake my classic! When directors attack

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2016/sep/16/how-dare-you-remake-my-classic-when-directors-attack?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Bridget Jones's Diary v This is England

TBC!!!

We've been exploring the similarities and differences between these, and I'm going to note some of the points we raised below - I've blogged extensively on both, and I'm not trying to reflect the full range of that in this one post!

BJD tag

TisEng tag

To add:
BJ:Edge of Reason The-Number.com report; box office report; with the 2001 original taking $282m and the 2004 sequel $264m, only Les Miserables (2012) keeps the franchise off WT's all-time top spot ($442m) [the-numbers all-time list].

Other films that come close: Bean (1997) $257m, Love Actually (2003) $248m, 4 Weddings (1994) $242m [their most profitable film as a $4.5m budget!], Everest (2015) $204m. Those are the 7 WT films that grossed $200m+ worldwide.

9 more top $100m: Burn After Reading (2008) $168m, Johnny English Reborn (2011) $165m, The Interpreter (2005) $163m, About a Boy (2001) $131m,  Atonement (2007) $130m, Everest (1998 44min IMAX film) $128m, The Theory of Everything (2014) $122m, Billy Elliot (2000) $110m [2nd most profitable as a $5m WT2 production], Paul (2011) $101m.

THE CONTENDERS

Bridget Jones' Diary (Sharon Maguire, 2001)

Working Title, StudioCanal, $26m budget. £42m UK box office ($61m), $72m US ($281m world)

The money and the lead are American; the marketing in the UK featured Grant and Zellwegger, but everywhere else it was only Zellwegger featured on posters, sleeves etc. (Stereo)typically London/South setting, and comfortably middle-class (and upwards) white characters. A female director ... who wouldn't work again for several years despite the success with this (she didn't direct the sequel). A franchise, an increasingly key part of a successful film company's output and strategy, with considerable merchandise too - and even tie-ins (Does my Butt Look Big In This 2-for-1 London-New York seat?). 

Female gaze?

UPDATE, 2015: Rather than add another post, I'll add to this one which looked at the example of Magic Mike as an exemplar of an emerging female gaze. That was rather limited to the notion of objectifying; I've added more below on an article for Media Magazine by Sean Richardson in which he challenges us to think more carefully about how a female viewer (de)constructs and receives media images. Yes, media and not least cinema remains somewhat patriarchal overall, but it is just too simplistic to view media entirely through the prism of sexist objectification.

UPDATE 2: TODD HAYNES ON WHY IT TOOK HOLLYWOOD LONGER TO MAKE A MAINSTREAM LESBIAN MOVIE THAN A GAY MALE MOVIE...

The director, Todd Haynes, agreed that same-sex female relationships had been even less well-served by mainstream movie-makers than those between two men. The reason that the likes of Brokeback Mountain and Milk had preceded Carol was, he suspected, “because male audiences will not be excluded [by them]. They are the prime audience Hollywood are marketing films for.” (From a feature on Cate Blanchett, star of Carol)

The Female Gaze: Rethinking Representation
Following quotes are from an article in the always excellent Media Magazine (subscription needed - ask the Librarian or me for login details). Sean Richardson wrote in April 2015 on this topic, starting with a simple statement on the impact of male gaze:

Research suggests that advertising campaigns for a female audience are dominated by heterosexual Caucasian size 0 to 2 models. This is a fact, despite what we might think or want, in a multicultural, complex world. Increasingly, accusations have been made by the likes of Naomi Campbell and Dame Vivienne Westwood that representations of women in advertising are too white and nearly exclusively under size 6.

CONVERGENCE All the world's a Marvellous stage/silver screen

See Marvel section below for analysis; image source.

Age Of Ultron marks Whedon’s swan song in the Avengers director chair but it’s hardly the end of the saga. The two-part Infinity War story has been set in stone for 2018 and 2019, along with eight other Marvel titles. DC, looking to get its comic-book universe up and running, has also announced a hefty release schedule. In tandem with a fresh batch of X-Men sequels, Spider-man spin-offs and Fantastic Four reboots, that’s at least 25 new superhero movies over the next five years.  - Bernstein, 2015.  See later sections below for analysis of the Marvel universe, UGC, web 2.0 and extended narratives...

I'll add to this shortly [done!]; having blogged on convergence (TV-film) this morning, this caught my eye, and made me think of theatrical adaptations of Bridget Jones, Billy Elliot and such. This can go the other way - West Side Story being an early example, Les Miserables  a more recent (Working Title) example. WT have a long track record of exploiting IP (intellectual property), especially novels, for adaptation (Atonement, BJD...).

Do you believe in fairies? Does Harvey Weinstein?
The famously fractious producer has spent millions of dollars and run through a couple of casts and creative teams in a diehard attempt to transform the 2004 Miramax film Finding Neverland into a Broadway show. - Soloski (2015) - Finding Neverland review – Gary Barlow's dull songs sink muddled show.

Once more, if we consider Working Title and Warp, we can see how a process evangelised by some (take a bow Dan Gillmor, or Chris 'long tail theory' Anderson) as democratising, levelling the playing field, actually seems to favour the conglomerates (...take a bow Andrew Keen, John McMuria, maybe even Anita 'blockbuster [ie tentpole] strategy' Elberse)!

REPRESENTATION Curtisland - Monkey Dust cartoon

NB: Whilst animated, this does contain some fairly adult humour

Often mentioned, this animation sharply satirises some of the widely perceived issues with Richard Curtis' Working Title productions (it extends to Red Nose/Comic Relief Day, which RC also came up with).

'CURTISLAND' EXPLAINED IN 11 SCREENSHOTS...

Glamorous (A-list/star) American (bimbo; RC's female representation is also questioned) + English middle-/upper-class fop; a black youth runs in the background...

Working Title franchising: new Bridget Jones, About a Boy TV series...

It is abundantly clear when we compare Warp Films With Working Title that the former's typically no-star, low budget (predominately) social realist slate does not lend itself to sequels/prequels/re-imaginings, although This is England is a notable exception, with a possible second film to add to the existing film and two TV series. WT's slate is full of franchises: Elizabeth, Bean, Bridget Jones, Nanny McPhee... its a long list.

...And it is about to get longer! Adapting films for TV is nothing new - the Coen brothers' Fargo is enjoying new life as a US TV series, and as noted above This is England has enjoyed two sequel TV series so far. WTTV is an increasingly important Working Title subsidiary, with big-name directors and stars increasingly viewing TV as at least on a par with cinema, a dramatic reversal of years past. Have a look at Working Title's IMDB entry and you'll find ever more TV entries in there. Amongst these is a new series for - naturally! - NBC in America: About a Boy is now a US TV series.

WOMEN BJD Rene Zellweger - Just a pretty face?

There has been quite a commotion over Rene Zellweger's re-appearance in the media spotlight this past week, specifically surrounding her radically altered facial appearance. This is an actress, lets not forget, who piled on extra pounds to play a 'chubby' Bridget Jones (actually still well below the average size/figure of a British, never mind American, woman of her height, a quite invidious representation).

Steve Rose posts an interesting article which argues (quite briefly!) that, irrespective of gender, an actor's trade is centred on their face; it's their brand he effectively argues, with the close-up a key tool of cinema.

On the other hand ... Jennifer Gerson Uffalussy writes that this scrutiny is inherently sexist, and symptomatic of the objectification women in the media (and beyond) face:

“Where did Renee Zellweger’s face go?”

'British' Cinema? Some egs to consider

With the Scottish referendum looming, this question could become ever more complex, but we need to think when using the term British to describe cinema that may be as much American, or more accurately linked with one of the UK nations/regions.

here's a few examples to consider:

Withnail and I (Bruce Robinson, 1987)

Handmade Films, budget £1.1m, box office £0.5m UK, $1.5m US.

Typically unglamorous? Typical production finance issues - only rescued by Beatle George Harrison stepping in when the film was about to be abandoned! London features, though not a Southern setting in the main (albeit, the locals up north are portrayed as eccentric). A 'cult' movie.

Ali G Indahouse (Mark Mylod, 2002)

WT2, £5m. £10m, $0 ($27m)

American stylings and genre, though a satire of each and the UK fascination with US culture - it failed to get a US release nonetheless; few UK Indies ever do. The opening scene in gangland LA proved impossible to get insurance for - it alone swallowed up a good chunk of the budget. The Palace of Westminster is used as a key backdrop/location, although the drum'n'bass that fired up as Ali G drives (following the opening scene and over the opening titles) is likely to leave many non-UK viewers (and many of all ages here unfamiliar with that genre) a tad confused/bewildered!

Audience previews: 'A degrading, revolting film'

The UK poster

I've blogged previously on how BJD initially looked doomed at its key stateside preview, with Miramax's head honcho Harvey Weinstein sat in with a US audience utterly baffled by the film's opening, with its very UK-centric turkey curry references (only for Colin Firth's oh-so-hilarious reindeer jumper to set the place roaring and BJD on to franchise fortunes).

Here's an example of a test audience utterly loathing the Alex Cox (Indie auteur) movie they'd just seen - usually a kiss of death, killing off any hopes of a distribution deal, but not in this case...

[Sid and Nancy] had a preview in LA - one of those events where the invited audience fills out forms and answers a studio's questions. these were some of the responses from the preview audience:
I feel this film was totally evil.

BJD3 cancelled, but novel + musical not?

bridgetjonestheedgeofreason.co.uk still active (just - see below)

UPDATE 2015: Still awaiting confirmation (Wiki)

UPDATE 3RD JUNE 2013: NOVEL OUT, FILM STILL LIKELY? read more.

Surprising (welcome?!) news that the 3rd BJD movie, announced back in 2011, looks set for a delay at best. When it was announced in 2011 there seemed to be considerable audience interest, and prospects looked strong for a hit. With fem-friendly movies like Bridesmaids proving box office gold in the meantime, the timing seemed spot on, but the movie seems to have entered development hell (a term employed by famous producers such as Art Linson to describe movies stuck in the pre-production stage), although the 3rd novel is set for UK and US releases in 2013.

I'd previously blogged on the 2011 announcement here.

Here's the Chicago Sun-Times with the updated news:

Although a third film was said to be in the planning back in 2011, actor Colin Firth today tells the Chicago Sun-Times that plans for another sequel to Bridget Jones's Diary may be some time off.

WT Box Office History to 2010

Data from http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/production-company/Working-Title-Films.

Av budget $29m, av worldwide gross $73m!!!!

The RC rom-coms contribute nearly $2bn of the $5bn (nearer $6bn by now) all-time total, BUT the last major RC hit was back in 2004 with the BJD sequel Edge of Reason. Just as with the horror movies we looked at, it seems even WT may be somewhat reliant on franchises too: a 2nd sequel is due out soon. The horrid TBTRocks was a flop, increasing the attractiveness of a return to a proven winner.

WT has produced the worldwide, all-time 199th (NHill) + 292nd (BJD) + 319th (BJD2) biggest movies: see http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/worldwide.php Full Monty was 331st!

BJD is the 175th biggest film franchise of all time: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/franchises.php

Box Office History for Working Title Movies

Release Date	Movie	Production Budget	Domestic Opening Weekend	Domestic Box Office	Worldwide Box Office	Trailer
May 19, 1989	For Queen and Country			$191,051	$191,051
Jan 1, 1990	Fools of Fortune			$83,000	$83,000
Apr 19, 1991	Drop Dead Fred			$13,746,300	$13,746,300
Aug 21, 1991	Barton Fink			$5,726,463	$5,726,463
Sep 4, 1992	Bob Roberts			$4,300,703	$4,300,703
Mar 9, 1994	Four Weddings and a Funeral	$4,500,000		$52,700,832	$242,895,809
May 5, 1995	French Kiss		$9,018,022	$38,863,798	$98,393,930
Dec 29, 1995	Dead Man Walking	$11,000,000	$118,266	$39,387,284	$83,088,295
Mar 8, 1996	Fargo	$7,000,000	$730,265	$24,567,751	$51,204,567
Oct 17, 1997	Bean		$2,255,233	$45,334,169	$256,574,128
Feb 13, 1998	The Borrowers	$29,000,000	$6,075,079	$22,619,589	$54,045,832
Mar 6, 1998	The Big Lebowski	$15,000,000	$5,533,844	$17,498,804	$46,189,568
Mar 6, 1998	Everest		$364,244	$87,178,599	$127,990,128
Nov 6, 1998	Elizabeth	$25,000,000	$275,131	$30,082,699	$82,150,642
Oct 13, 2000	Billy Elliot	$5,000,000	$215,681	$21,995,263	$109,280,263
Dec 22, 2000	O Brother, Where Art Thou?	$26,000,000	$195,104	$45,506,619	$75,763,814
Apr 13, 2001	Bridget Jones's Diary	$25,000,000	$10,733,933	$71,500,556	$281,527,158
May 25, 2001	The Man Who Cried		$93,455	$747,092	$1,790,840
Aug 17, 2001	Captain Corelli's Mandolin	$57,000,000	$7,209,345	$25,528,495	$62,097,495
Mar 1, 2002	40 Days and 40 Nights	$17,000,000	$12,229,529	$37,939,782	$95,092,667
May 17, 2002	About a Boy	$27,000,000	$8,557,630	$40,803,000	$129,949,664
Dec 31, 2002	Ali G Indahouse			$0	$25,936,616
Nov 7, 2003	Love Actually	$45,000,000	$6,886,080	$59,472,278	$247,967,903
Jul 30, 2004	Thunderbirds	$55,000,000	$2,766,810	$6,768,055	$28,231,444
Sep 17, 2004	Wimbledon	$35,000,000	$7,118,985	$16,862,585	$41,666,476
Nov 12, 2004	Bridget Jones: The Edge Of Reason	$50,000,000	$8,684,055	$40,203,020	$263,894,551
Apr 22, 2005	The Interpreter	$90,000,000	$22,822,455	$72,708,161	$163,954,076
Oct 27, 2006	Catch a Fire	$14,000,000	$2,026,997	$4,299,773	$5,699,773
Jan 26, 2007	Smokin' Aces	$17,000,000	$14,638,755	$35,662,731	$56,047,261
Oct 12, 2007	Elizabeth: The Golden Age		$6,153,075	$16,285,240	$74,769,388
Dec 7, 2007	Atonement	$30,000,000	$796,836	$50,980,159	$130,200,290
Feb 14, 2008	Definitely, Maybe	$7,000,000	$9,764,270	$32,241,649	$55,863,786
Aug 1, 2008	Sixty Six		$9,359	$224,614	$224,614
Sep 12, 2008	Burn After Reading	$37,000,000	$19,128,001	$60,355,347	$163,415,735
Dec 5, 2008	Frost/Nixon	$29,000,000	$180,708	$18,622,031	$28,144,586
Apr 17, 2009	State of Play	$60,000,000	$14,071,280	$37,017,955	$91,445,389
Apr 24, 2009	The Soloist	$60,000,000	$9,716,458	$31,720,158	$38,454,152
Oct 2, 2009	A Serious Man	$7,000,000	$251,337	$9,228,788	$30,360,570	Play
Nov 13, 2009	The Boat That Rocked	$50,000,000	$2,904,380	$8,017,467	$37,472,651	Play
Mar 12, 2010	Green Zone	$100,000,000	$14,309,295	$35,497,337	$97,523,020	Play
Aug 20, 2010	Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang	$35,000,000	$8,407,685	$29,197,642	$97,799,865	Play
Mar 18, 2011	Paul	$40,000,000	$13,043,310	$37,412,945	$100,179,947	Play
Aug 12, 2011	Senna		$73,497	$1,612,430	$11,856,854
Oct 21, 2011	Johnny English Reborn	$45,000,000	$3,833,300	$8,305,970	$164,539,660	Play
Dec 9, 2011	Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy	$21,000,000	$310,562	$24,149,393	$81,452,811	Play
Jan 13, 2012	Contraband	$25,000,000	$24,349,815	$66,528,000	$98,406,855	Play
Feb 3, 2012	Big Miracle	$40,000,000	$7,760,205	$20,157,300	$25,615,524	Play
Nov 16, 2012	Anna Karenina	$49,000,000	$320,690	$12,816,367	$70,939,105	Play
Dec 25, 2012	Les Miserables	$65,000,000	$27,281,735	$148,809,770	$442,169,052	Play
Aug 9, 2013	I Give It a Year		$5,436	$34,657	$28,237,364
Aug 23, 2013	The World's End	$20,000,000	$8,811,790	$26,004,851	$47,214,446	Play
Aug 28, 2013	Closed Circuit		$2,464,931	$5,750,995	$5,883,157	Play
Sep 20, 2013	Rush	$38,000,000	$187,289	$26,947,624	$95,224,595	Play
Nov 1, 2013	About Time	$12,000,000	$1,076,250	$15,323,921	$88,787,551	Play
Sep 26, 2014	The Two Faces of January		$43,116	$445,817	$1,570,506
Nov 7, 2014	The Theory of Everything		$207,000	$207,000	$207,000	Play
Sep 18, 2015	Everest			$0	$0
Dec 31, 2015	Vikingr			$0	$0
Feb 5, 2016	Hail, Caesar!			$0	$0
Dec 31, 2017	Bridget Jones's Baby			$0	$0
	Totals	$1,324,500,000		$1,586,173,879	$4,763,438,890
	Averages	$22,075,000	$5,066,842	$26,436,231	$79,390,648