Worst Box Office Disasters

[vukxfiles]

OMG, nobody mentioned Showgirls

[Doggett]

Motherhood, with Uma Thurman, reportedly made only $23.

I think it only opened in one cinema here and took in about £80.
I think thats all it made in the UK.

[The Gravekeeper]

And this is why most movies that hit the box-office these days are remakes, adaptations and sequels to already successful or well-known franchises. I mean, the idea itself already has a fanbase, so there's at least some guaranteed tickets right there on top of all the people who'll go to see it because the trailers got them interested or they just heard about the franchise and are curious.

[AndyC]

And this is why most movies that hit the box-office these days are remakes, adaptations and sequels to already successful or well-known franchises. I mean, the idea itself already has a fanbase, so there's at least some guaranteed tickets right there on top of all the people who'll go to see it because the trailers got them interested or they just heard about the franchise and are curious.

Today's corporate thinking. Returns without risk. Better to make a crap film that will earn a predictable return than take a chance on something new that might turn out better or worse than expected.

[Jim H]

And this is why most movies that hit the box-office these days are remakes, adaptations and sequels to already successful or well-known franchises. I mean, the idea itself already has a fanbase, so there's at least some guaranteed tickets right there on top of all the people who'll go to see it because the trailers got them interested or they just heard about the franchise and are curious.

I think if they were really smart, they'd just start making lower budget films again.  They could afford to make more mistakes, and they'd be able to figure out better what new ideas audiences like.  Everyone would win.

[AndyC]

And this is why most movies that hit the box-office these days are remakes, adaptations and sequels to already successful or well-known franchises. I mean, the idea itself already has a fanbase, so there's at least some guaranteed tickets right there on top of all the people who'll go to see it because the trailers got them interested or they just heard about the franchise and are curious.

I think if they were really smart, they'd just start making lower budget films again.  They could afford to make more mistakes, and they'd be able to figure out better what new ideas audiences like.  Everyone would win.

We could be seeing the effects of changes in film distribution of the past 20 years or so. The low-budget films that once set the trends for the industry have been essentially shut out. Used to be that theatres were full of indie films, obtaining a wide theatrical release along with the big studio pictures. Not so today. The multiplexes have become a corporate old boys' club, with smaller companies relegated to quiet direct-to-video release. Direct-to-video, meanwhile, carries a stigma of being not good enough for theatres, which also goes back to the first decade of home video, when more indie films were seen in theatres, and a higher proportion of crap was going straight to video.

Home video itself might be to blame. The moviegoing public is less likely to invest the time and money in seeing a movie theatrically unless it's a big-budget spectacle. Even for those, many people will wait for the DVD. The smaller filmmakers get a much better bang for their buck by going directly there, and marketing their movies to video store chains and specialty cable channels, which makes them money, but doesn't quite get them into the public consciousness the way a well-publicized theatrical run does.

Plus, you have a sort of reversal of influence. While the big studios once copied the successes of little guys like Roger Corman, a big chunk of the low-budget, direct-to-video industry is devoted to knocking off big-budget movies to cash in on their hype. Meanwhile, the public largely perceives the term "independent film" to be synonymous with "artsy-fartsy" instead of meaning something in the vein of Corman, Band or Golan-Globus. Those of us who were kids when those guys were in theatres didn't see any difference between them and the big studios, so those who do not have a particular interest in the movie industry simply don't see something like Chuck Norris movies being independent films. Mind you, it seems to be mainly with the artsy-fartsy films that independence gets a huge emphasis. Independent studios that make genre pictures generally want to look bigger than they are, especially when they aren't getting released alongside the big studios.

So basically, that whole system in which the low-budget filmmakers test ideas, take risks and break ground for the rest of the industry has become FUBAR, and we are seeing the result. Not so much related to box-office flops as why low-budet films and originality have disappeared from theatres. I suppose it relates in that financial risks prevent Hollywood from filling in the gaps.

[Jim H]

I think you rather beautifully summed that up Andy.  I might add I'm not suggesting truly small movies, I was thinking more features like District 9.  Movies in the 20-30 million range (IIRC, the kind of films people like Golan/Globus make are usually the equivalent of 5-10 million a picture in todays dollars, though some are much bigger).  Small by Hollywood standards, but still generally too big for straight-to-video. 

For comparisons sake, look at Grown Ups.  A movie about a bunch of men behaving like kids and finding themselves or some **** like that out in the woods and at a water park. 

It cost $80 million dollars.

Reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rubxM0BLMA&feature=related

[Chainsawmidget]

And this is why most movies that hit the box-office these days are remakes, adaptations and sequels to already successful or well-known franchises. I mean, the idea itself already has a fanbase, so there's at least some guaranteed tickets right there on top of all the people who'll go to see it because the trailers got them interested or they just heard about the franchise and are curious.

I think if they were really smart, they'd just start making lower budget films again.  They could afford to make more mistakes, and they'd be able to figure out better what new ideas audiences like.  Everyone would win.

We could be seeing the effects of changes in film distribution of the past 20 years or so. The low-budget films that once set the trends for the industry have been essentially shut out. Used to be that theatres were full of indie films, obtaining a wide theatrical release along with the big studio pictures. Not so today. The multiplexes have become a corporate old boys' club, with smaller companies relegated to quiet direct-to-video release. Direct-to-video, meanwhile, carries a stigma of being not good enough for theatres, which also goes back to the first decade of home video, when more indie films were seen in theatres, and a higher proportion of crap was going straight to video.

Home video itself might be to blame. The moviegoing public is less likely to invest the time and money in seeing a movie theatrically unless it's a big-budget spectacle. Even for those, many people will wait for the DVD. The smaller filmmakers get a much better bang for their buck by going directly there, and marketing their movies to video store chains and specialty cable channels, which makes them money, but doesn't quite get them into the public consciousness the way a well-publicized theatrical run does.

Plus, you have a sort of reversal of influence. While the big studios once copied the successes of little guys like Roger Corman, a big chunk of the low-budget, direct-to-video industry is devoted to knocking off big-budget movies to cash in on their hype. Meanwhile, the public largely perceives the term "independent film" to be synonymous with "artsy-fartsy" instead of meaning something in the vein of Corman, Band or Golan-Globus. Those of us who were kids when those guys were in theatres didn't see any difference between them and the big studios, so those who do not have a particular interest in the movie industry simply don't see something like Chuck Norris movies being independent films. Mind you, it seems to be mainly with the artsy-fartsy films that independence gets a huge emphasis. Independent studios that make genre pictures generally want to look bigger than they are, especially when they aren't getting released alongside the big studios.

So basically, that whole system in which the low-budget filmmakers test ideas, take risks and break ground for the rest of the industry has become FUBAR, and we are seeing the result. Not so much related to box-office flops as why low-budet films and originality have disappeared from theatres. I suppose it relates in that financial risks prevent Hollywood from filling in the gaps.

FIGHT THE POWER!  EAT THE RICH!  KILL WHITEY! 

... wait.  No.  Let's skip that last one. 

[The Gravekeeper]

FIGHT THE POWER!  EAT THE RICH!  KILL WHITEY! 

... wait.  No.  Let's skip that last one. 
[/quote]

Shall I fetch the torches and pitchforks? I don't know about the rest of you, but I sure could go for some angry mobbin'.

[Couchtr26]

The Good German (2006) also did pretty terrible.  About $32,000,000 to make and a little under $6,000,000 return.  Not a terrible film but I can see how it did poorly. 

Also to The Gravekeeper, I'll join your mob.  Misc. Torch Carrier #7.

[Sersonius]

* Roman Polanski's PIRATES
...

A real shame as it was for a long time the best pirate movie ever. It is perhaps only 2nd best today but come on ! It is a masterpiece in the (sub)-genre. It only became a financial disaster because it has a brilliant and funny ending instead of a trivial and boring happy ending.
That pirate movie with Geena Davis - made Carolco bankrupt - deserved it but Polanski's Pirates ?