Every once in a while I get on a Didn't-You-Know-Women-Rule-the-World-Hello! soap box. Something mundane usually kicks it off. This last time it was hearing that Sandra Bullock broke a box office record with The Blind Side. (And no, I don't want to talk about her not-worth-the-time-it-took-to-type-this husband or the new baby.) The Blind Side is the first ever "driven solely by a top female star" movie to top the $200 million mark at the domestic box office.
I had a similar reaction when the Sex and the City movie came out and the media was all abuzz with the turn-out. That flick grossed over $150 million.
What I don't get is what is so darned surprising about any of this? So I decided to set out and do a little research. Do chick flicks routinely under-perform when compared to the manly-man movies? Let's see a comparison. And I'm just pulling movies off the top of my head. I swear.
Chick Flicks Box Office Gross (lifetime):
Pretty Woman - 178 million
While You Were Sleeping - 81 million
Pride and Prejudice (Kiera Knightly version) - 38 million
When Harry Met Sally - 93 million
The Bodyguard - 122 million
It's Complicated - 113 million
Thelma and Louise - 45 million
Manly Man Flicks Box Office Gross (lifetime):
The Hunt for Red October - 122 million
Master and Commander - 94 million
Rambo - 43 million
The Godfather - 134 million
The Departed - 132 million
Rocky - 117 million
Patton - 62 million
For the heck of it, I added them up.
Total Chick Flicks - 670 million
Total Manly Man Flicks - 704 million
Interesting, isn't it? Now are there any guesses as to how much those movies cost to make? Hollywood. Pay attention.
One might argue that Titanic (box office gross of $600 million) was a chick flick. How many guys do you know have watched it more than once? That is ... without the promise of a reward!