Why do people still cast Heigl? She hasn't made a film money in over five years.
Does she have blackmail on someone or something?
False: all conservatives are stupid people;
True: most stupid people are conservative
Ok I get that you don't like her but what you're saying isn't accurate.
In the last 5 years she has made The Ugly Truth, Life As We Know It, and The Nut Job, all of which have turned a profit in the US box office alone.
As for her duds: Killers still managed to make a profit with overseas box office added in, as did New Year's Eve. Her only true failures (financially speaking) are One For the Money and The Big Wedding (which was an ensemble cast with a lot of big names so that one wasn't all on her).
Your statement is incorrect.
I did my homework before posting. Here are the numbers:
The Big Wedding
Budget: $35,000,000
Gross: $21,784,432
One for the Money
Budget: $40,000,000
Gross: $26,404,753
New Year's Eve
Budget: $56,000,000
Gross: $54,540,525
Life as We Know It
Budget: $38,000,000
Gross: $53,358,964
*However, I know, as a big fan of Pacific Rim, that a movie needs to make DOUBLE it's budget to break a profit. It's what was stopping a sequel. Why double? Apparently budget doesn't cover advertising costs and money invested in tie-in products.
Killers
Budget: $75,000,000
Gross: $47,000,485
And, finally, her last film to make a profit, The Ugly Truth:
Budget: $38,000,000
Gross: $88,915,214
And, FYI, I do like Heigl. I was a fan going back to her days on 'Roswell' and I was proud of her for the way she stood up to Shonda Rhimes over the T.R. Knight/ Isaiah Washington ugliness. I'm just curious why producers and studios are still putting her into her own vehicles.
False: all conservatives are stupid people;
True: most stupid people are conservative
You're completely ignoring what these movies pulled in at overseas box offices. Check out boxofficemojo if you really want the specifics.
A movie doesn't need to make double its budget to break even. You made that up. Advertising is a variable cost.
But even if her movies are turning a profit, clearly it's not by a wide enough margin for the huge studios to consider her a major box office draw anymore. And that's why they aren't taking her on for the same roles she was doing just a few years ago. Her only upcoming films are all low budget indie flicks. Probably the reason she's going back to television, hoping that lightning strikes twice and that it reinvigorates her career. Which I hope it does, I like her as well.
No, I did not.
http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/08/30/pacific-rim-is-the-highest-grossing-live-action-movie-worldwide-of-the-year-based-on-new-ip/
False: all conservatives are stupid people;
True: most stupid people are conservative
a random article from comicbook.com to prove your point? That says nothing about the movie industry at large. Maybe Pacific Rim did need that much to recoup its marketing costs, but that doesn't mean every movie does.
shareIt proves I didn't make it up, duh.
False: all conservatives are stupid people;
True: most stupid people are conservative
Guessing she's a deal at this point. And it's probably an ensemble cast, right?
jrichardsingleton.blogspot.com
The reason that a film needs to make more than its budget is that clearly the distributor of a film doesn't get ALL the gross from a film's release- some has to go to the theatres as well. 2-3 times the budget is just an estimation since we don't know the exact advertising figures and share between theatre/distributor for each film.
But OP you're wrong: Life As We Know It was a modest commercial success, $106 million worldwide on a $38 million budget. And the Ugly Truth is still within 5 yrs ($205 million on a $38 million budget).
And if we include ensembles then there's New Year's Eve (even though it was a disappointment): $142 million worldwide on a $56 million budget.