One of the most well-known names in the world of cinema is Kevin Costner. The affable actor is a two-time Oscar winner, a two-time Golden Globe winner, and an Emmy winner, as well as the star of such iconic films as Bull Durham, Dancing With Wolves, and Field of Dreams. However you'll notice the brunt of that success came from the late '80s and early '90s.
This weekend Costner starred in 3 Days to Kill, his second of (at least) four films due out in 2014. Yet the action thriller failed to deliver big and settled for a distant second place $12 million opening. Granted the film was only made for $28 million. But for someone with Costner's name recognition, it should have been higher. With that in mind many have started asking the question, "Is Kevin Costner still a bankable box office lead?"
Check out the numbers. They are pretty surprising.
The Bankability Breakdown
"The Bankability Breakdown" model isn't that complicated. It takes an actor's five most recent wide release films (where they were the lead and not a member of an ensemble) and then looks at the film's overall profit or loss when compared with its production budget. From there we have a basic, but telling, representation of their recent drawing power. Again, it's a bit simplistic, but it works.
In Costner's case it looks like this:
Domestically it is clear Costner's ability to open a movie on his own name has waned. His last five headlined movies have lost a total of $16.7 million, with only two of them profitable. Yet international audiences are still a major factor in today's box office and usually help lift movies into profitability. Strong oversees grosses have worked in Costner's favor as he's always been a big name worldwide. As a result when those numbers are included four of those five become moneymakers and his overall totals jump to a profit of $117 million.
You also have to look at the intangibles to give you a clearer picture. In Costner's case, there are two massive ones. First, Costner starred in the History Channel original mini-series Hatfield & McCoys, which earned him a number of accolades including an Emmy. Moreover the TV program was a ratings juggernaut and remains one of the most watched non-sports programs in cable TV history.
Secondly, Costner was part of the Man of Steel ensemble in the substantial role of Superman's human adoptive father, Jonathan Kent. The film was a huge success earning nearly $300 million domestically and over $650 million worldwide. Again, because Costner wasn't the lead the film is not included in his bankability breakdown, but it also can't be discounted. Both Hatfields and Steel were milestone pop culture events and Costner had a pivotal role in both.
Costner will have two more chances to up his profitability this year. Lionsgate (NYSE:LGF-A) is banking on him to boost its April football drama Draft Day and Disney (NYSE:DIS) is looking for him to keep its streak of feel-good sports films alive with November's McFarland.
So putting it all together, Costner is actually a stronger box office lead than people give him credit for ... namely because he still carries with him international appeal. While he may not be the movie star he once was, he's still a "name" and that counts for something.
Brett Gold has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.