THR: Top 10 Worst Box Office FLOPS of 2011

R

Ratchet & CAG

CAGiversary!
THR Article: Current Top 10 Box Office Flops for first half of 2011:

1) Mars Needs Mom

Robert Zemeckis’ motion-capture pic was one of the most expensive bombs in Hollywood history, costing at least $150 million to produce and grossing $21.4 million at the domestic box office. Overseas, it didn’t do much better, grossing $17.6 million for a total $39 million.
Click to expand...


2) Your Highness

The raunchy comedy, set in medieval times, didn’t go over well with audiences, even if it starred newly anointed Oscar winner Natalie Portman (along with James Franco and Danny McBride). Costing $50 million to produce, the film cumed $21.6 million domestically and a paltry $3 million overseas.
Click to expand...


3) Arthur

The remake of the classic Dudley Moore comedy failed to rustle up many laughs, topping out at $33 million domestically. Starring Russell Brand, Helen Mirren and Jennifer Garner, Arthur did even less overseas, earning $12.7 million for a global total of $45.7 million. The production budget was reportedly $40 million.
Click to expand...


4) Prom

Prom, cuming a mere $10.1 million at the domestic box office, was the first movie greenlit by Disney chairman Rich Ross to hit theaters. It’s the lowest grossing studio film of the year so far, but luckily for Ross, Prom cost only $8 million to produce.
Click to expand...



5) Judy Moody

Smokewood Entertainment and Relativity Media were hoping to launch a new film franchise based on the popular kids book series. But the $20 million film, distributed by Relativity Media in the U.S., has grossed just $13.4 million to date.
Click to expand...


6) Green Lantern

Costing at least $200 million to produce, Green Lantern needed to do a big number worldwide to be financially solid (think $500 million plus). Now, it looks like the Ryan Reynolds superhero pic will top out at roughly $250 million or $260 million worldwide. It didn’t help that the movie was bashed by critics.
Click to expand...


7) Priest

The supernatural action film, based on the Korean graphic novel, was the most expensive movie ever made by Screen Gems, costing $60 million to produce. It had a soft $29.1 million domestically, but made up some ground overseas, where it earned $46 million
Click to expand...


8) Sucker Punch

Zack Snyder’s female action-fantasy written and directed by him simply couldn’t find its groove, grossing $36.4 million domestically and $53.4 million overseas for a worldwide total of $89.8 million. The movie, which cost roughly $82 million to produce, came in No. 2 on its opening weekend behind Diary of a Wimpy Kid.
Click to expand...


9) Hoodwinked Too

The first Hoodwinked! was a sleeper hit at the worldwide box office, grossing $51.4 million domestically and $58.6 million internationally. The sequel, however, came and went quickly, earning only $10 million in North America and $3.6 million overseas. Its production budget was a reported $30 million.
Click to expand...


10) The Beaver

There was heat around Jodie Foster’s high-profile movie for months, but it quickly disappeared at the domestic box office, grossing less than $1 million. Many saw it as a referendum on Mel Gibson, who stars in the film opposite Foster, who also directed. The specialty pic cost $20 million to produce.
Click to expand...
 
Anyone else think it's a little too early to be releasing this list, when we still have half of the year left?

Also, I'm sure a few of these movies will make up some ground when going to BD / DVD.
 
[quote name='shrike4242']Anyone else think it's a little too early to be releasing this list, when we still have half of the year left?

Also, I'm sure a few of these movies will make up some ground when going to BD / DVD.[/QUOTE]
Article did say 1st Half of 2011.

I'm guessing they'll put together a Top 20 once Decembers done.
 
[quote name='Ratchet & CAG']Article did say 1st Half of 2011.

I'm guessing they'll put together a Top 20 once Decembers done.[/QUOTE]The title of your thread didn't. ;)
 
[quote name='davo1224']Wow I didn't even know about the movie Beaver. I've been still wanting to see Sucker Punch.[/QUOTE]

People went to the latter hoping to see more of the former.
 
[quote name='PopcornBandit']The only one I think is undeserved (out of the ones I've seen) is Sucker Punch. It's pure eye candy but it's fucking gorgeous![/QUOTE]

I agree... watched the Extended Cut last night and loved it. Not much story, it's pretty basic, but it's a visual masterpiece.

Beaver was dead in the water once Gibson had his second huge meltdown.
 
Hoodwinked Too and The Beaver are pretty funny.

For some reason I have no interest in movies where the director is also acting in the movie.

I'm sure Sucker Punch/Green Lantern will make back their money with DVD/Blu sales.

Also Priest was pretty good. Sad it bombed.
 
I'm surprised Dylan Dog wasn't on the list. It cost $20 million to make, and made only $4 million. BTW, I liked Dylan Dog
 
Sucker Punch was fucking awful but I'm surprised to see it made this list. Easily the worst film I actually paid to see in theaters this year, so far.
 
I don't know, I might actually go to see that one but only because I'm man-crushing on Ray Stevenson right now. THIRTEENTH!
 
[quote name='shrike4242']Anyone else think it's a little too early to be releasing this list, when we still have half of the year left?

Also, I'm sure a few of these movies will make up some ground when going to BD / DVD.[/QUOTE]

That is true but that is not how Hollywood really judges a films success. The vast majority of films are ultimately profitable when you consider global box office sales +rental and home video sales + licensing fees for TV.

How long it takes a film to become profitable is what Hollywood is more concerned with. Putting $100 million into a movie but not seeing an actual return on that investment for 18-24 months is not an attractive risk/reward proposition.

The basic model that most US studios use is for the movie to be at least breakeven on a total cost basis at the end of its US theatrical run, thus making all global sales and home video sales pure profit.
 
[quote name='Trakan']I think this will make the list eventually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2IULuYDKHM&feature=player_embedded[/QUOTE]

Ugh. I've been meaning to read the book for a couple years now thanks to Stephen Brust's Phoenix guards series.

But that trailer just looked bad. It looked like a well made, action filled film but just the style of it sets me off. I'm sick of the "you know this scene is bad ass because I slowed it down and zoomed the camera in real close". Method of filming.

It's like that fish-eye lens thing rap videos had 15 years ago. It was interesting the first time, but by the time the 5th person copied it, it turned you off to the whole video regardless of the concept.
 
I wonder if the marketing budget is included in the total costs of making the movie. Studios spend a shitload in marketing.
 
I like when a movie makes 5-10 million dollars and is still considered a flop. I am not arguing but a flop that makes 10 million dollars is still pretty good business.
 
Uhhhhhh........yea slickkill? Thats why I said makes and not losses. Thats what I am saying, its strange that a movie can turn a profit of 5-10 million and still be considered a huge flop.

It always seemed to me that the line is drawn in a strange spot, "we only made 30 million off this movie....what a effing disappointment." Flops should really be reserved for huge profit losses not how many people like or dislike the movie. Movies like all creative things are subjective it means very little the amount of people who like or dislike it in terms of business....if it makes money its a success...if it losses its a flop.
 
Because if a movie costs say, 200 million to make, and only makes 10 million after expenses, well you can see the problem here.
 
Alright, let me re-clarify.

These list are usually just a way to bag on the most popular movie at the time. There are dozens of movies that lose millions of dollars each year. So...how can a movie that makes any amount of money be a bigger flop than a movie that losses vast amounts.

I get what they are doing...I really do, like I said the line in the sand is drawn funny imo in which a movie that cost 200 million and makes 30 although disappointing is a bigger flop than a movie that cost 90 million and lost 30 million.

Again, I just find the line to be drawn funny I would call it a disappointment not a flop.
 
Depends on whether you mean a financial flop or artistic flop. A movie could be both. Transformers 3 will probably make bank, but honestly, it can't be a masterpiece. On the other hand a movie could be a wonderful work of art and barely make any money if at all.
 
Bingo, I agree but realize that art is subjective so you cant really count whether people like it or not as a determination of what it is.

Remember though, I work in TV/Film/Broadcast Production so I am coming from the opposite side of the coin. When I make things....making a profit is either number 1 or a close 2 on the priorities list. (Got to eat, pay bills, medical etc etc) lots of people liking it is 3rd or 4th. That bullplop of making movies for art's sake and expressing feelings is left for dumbass film students and people who are already made dozens of movies and are millionaires. You only get more opportunities if you make money...no one pays anyone to lose it.

Investors have a right to consider it a flop because they always want more money but its odd that the general public would consider a product that made 30 million plus a flop.

In fact if you read some of the comments on that page many people are saying about the same thing.

Meh, its neither here or there....I am just talking from my point of view.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Alright, let me re-clarify.

These list are usually just a way to bag on the most popular movie at the time. There are dozens of movies that lose millions of dollars each year. So...how can a movie that makes any amount of money be a bigger flop than a movie that losses vast amounts.

I get what they are doing...I really do, like I said the line in the sand is drawn funny imo in which a movie that cost 200 million and makes 30 although disappointing is a bigger flop than a movie that cost 90 million and lost 30 million.

Again, I just find the line to be drawn funny I would call it a disappointment not a flop.[/QUOTE]

It's also about expectations.

A movie can still be considered a failure if its budget was $20 million and it makes $25 million but the studio had actually expected it to make $50 million.

That is kind of the situation GL is in. It will probably turn a decent profit when all is said and done. However, WB was expecting this movie to be HUGE. It has drastically underperformed expectations, that IMO, makes it the biggest flop of the year.....thus far at least.
 
Just in case you missed my last post BillyBob, you (at least I can assume) are not a investor in the movie. You are the general public...you only think its a flop because this guy told you it was. In a perfect world an investor would invest 5 dollars and be pissed that it only make 5 million because he would assume it should make 50.

You can not bank on anything in a subject field and they know that. Its like the stock market everyone is pissed when they lose money, pissed if they break even and only happy when they break records for profit.

I promise everyone who worked on this movie cashed their checks with pride and will put it on their resume and when they move on to their next job they will talk about how they much money a film they worked on made. On the flip side if a movie lost millions I promise that everyone will rush to the bank and hope to christ their checks clear and then downplay that they were every associated with it. Not that they are ashamed that no one liked it but because it didnt make money...and you never want to seem like you dont make money.

Of course the studio is pissed because investor expect Avatar profits from every big budget movie that comes out. Since they have all the money everyone nods their head and says yes it will even though everyone knows there is really no control over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top