Jump to content


Photo

Misfires of 2011


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 26 November 2011 - 07:24 PM

Well folks if you've made a movie that didn't go very far, don't feel bad. Even the big guns armed with zillions of dollars and A-list movie stars, miss the target from time-to-time.

Verifies the old saying....nobody knows anything:

http://ca.movies.yah...-001410495.html

R,
  • 0

#2 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 27 November 2011 - 04:47 AM

Well, Though it maybe true "Nobody knows anything." These guys should have SUSPECTED SOMETHING!

1)The Rum Dairies.
A. Where the Buffalo Roam....FAILED at the Box office WITH Bill Murrey in it.
B)Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas....FAILED at the Box office WITH Johnny Depp AND Benico Del Toro IN IT.
C) The Rum Dairies FAILED at the Box office with Johnny Depp in it? The Devil you say!

2)Mars Needs Moms
A) A Disney movie who's name is a play on a 1967 made for TV movie, Mars Needs Women, about Martians sent to Earth to kidnap five fertile, single human women to breed with them which includes strippers, co-eds and flight attendants....Now considering THAT was the best title they could come up with AND that the movie they decided to associate themselves with was a 60s TV mildly suggestive exploitation B movie, WHO decided spending $190 MILLION DOLLARS on it was a GOOD IDEA?

3)Larry Crowne
A)Tom Hanks is a terrific actor, but trying to market him as you would a 20 something romantic comedy star is essentially putting a shotgun against your foot and reenacting the scene from Straw Dogs.
B)Julia Roberts....ditto
C)There is a market for movies MADE BY adults, MADE FOR adults and STARING adults to exploit. WHY wouldn't they try to SELL such a movie to ADULTS. WHO could have POSSIBLY thought a movie poster with 2 middle aged, somewhat out of shape movie stars cruising on a Vespa MIGHT not appeal to 14 year olds, go figure.

4)Cowboys and Aliens
A)Again, THAT was the BEST title you could come up with??!! That's a Disney ANIMATED 3d title (See Mars Needs Moms)NOT a Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford movie.
B)I can just hear the pitch meeting " OK, this group of creatures capable of transversing the universe faster than the speed of light, lands a starship next to a town where guys ride around on buckboards and carry six guns....and THE guys with buckboards win." That failed, who'd a thunk it.

5)The Green Lantern
IF there's a sequel, it ain't a failure besides Ryan Reynolds wasn't half bad as a badass in Blade Trinity.

6)Conan The Barbarian
A)OK, you chose Jason Momoa to carry a 90 MILLION dollar picture....Kevin Sorbo had the LEAD in his series and all they trusted him with is Kull the Conqueror.

7)Your Highness
A)Danny McBride is playing a medieval prince....OOOOkay...what??!!

8)The Dilemma
A)Ron Howard, who I think is an unbelievably good director, seems to have lost his mojo a little after Frost/Nixon and putting Kevin James in one of his pictures during this period is just tempting fate.

9)The Big Year
A)My impression of the writer, "Hey Here pass it.....Man, I am SO messed up......Ok,Ok,Ok....(sssssssssssshhhhhh....ppphhhhh)so we get Jack Black, No shut up, shut up we GOTTA have Jack Black....aaammm, who else, who else, OH, OH, OH Steve Martin.......maybe with a hat.....and say, that blond guy that did that Jackie Chan movie with the cowboy hat....I love hats....no shut up, I'm gettin' to it...what was I sayin' oh yeah...and their (giggle, snicker) bird watchers, That would be HILARIOUS!"

10)The Thing
A)Any movie with Mary Elizabeth Winstead in it is not a failure...WHY because I say so damn it!! :rolleyes:

Edited by James Steven Beverly, 27 November 2011 - 04:49 AM.

  • 0

#3 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1605 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 27 November 2011 - 07:41 AM

A movie like Cowboys and Aliens makes $175 million (so far) and it's deemed a turkey?

Larry Crowne and Green Lantern both make back $20 million more than their budgets yet they're failures too?

The only real flop among that list was Mars Needs Moms (though I agree there were some questionable choices made in some of the others).

It's not like the opinions of critics matter here - Michael Bay's atrocities are never deemed failures. And some of the greatest movies in history were commercial disasters at the time. I thought the whole movie business was predicated on the assumption that most films will make a loss or barely scrape back their cost, but it's a numbers game, and as long as one or two give a good return the wheels can keep turning. Otherwise why would anyone bother making art-house or niche films that will never become blockbusters?

I'm curious, does it make a big difference to producers if a movie gets critical acclaim but still posts a loss? Or would it be preferable to have made a film that got universally panned but made a small profit?
  • 0

#4 Marcus Joseph

Marcus Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 27 November 2011 - 08:33 AM

A movie like Cowboys and Aliens makes $175 million (so far) and it's deemed a turkey?

Larry Crowne and Green Lantern both make back $20 million more than their budgets yet they're failures too?

The only real flop among that list was Mars Needs Moms (though I agree there were some questionable choices made in some of the others).

It's not like the opinions of critics matter here - Michael Bay's atrocities are never deemed failures. And some of the greatest movies in history were commercial disasters at the time. I thought the whole movie business was predicated on the assumption that most films will make a loss or barely scrape back their cost, but it's a numbers game, and as long as one or two give a good return the wheels can keep turning. Otherwise why would anyone bother making art-house or niche films that will never become blockbusters?

I'm curious, does it make a big difference to producers if a movie gets critical acclaim but still posts a loss? Or would it be preferable to have made a film that got universally panned but made a small profit?

I'm not sure how they decide to fund films in Australia, but it's like they are constantly fund these low-budget million dollar depressing overly dramatic films and they often don't even look their budget, have bad execution and they're so depressing that no one wants to watch them more than once (or if once at all). I think they should start funding more Red Dogs, but then again how can anyone know if that'll continue to work? It can be such a gamble.

But you have an interesting question, I think the producer would be most happy with something that is critically acclaimed and can be rightfully advertised as so. If you look at trailers and posters these days, they're bombarded with quotes and magazine stars, more so than the content. But I really do think they'd rather have a panned film that makes money, cause then at least they'll get paid, and probably continue to get work (many terrible filmmakers and producers continually working over good ones).

Slumdog Millionaire and King's Speech come to mind of two films that probably made a large chunk mostly based on their critical acclaim.

Edited by Marcus Joseph, 27 November 2011 - 08:34 AM.

  • 0

#5 Deji Joseph

Deji Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Student
  • London

Posted 27 November 2011 - 08:36 AM

A movie like Cowboys and Aliens makes $175 million (so far) and it's deemed a turkey?

Larry Crowne and Green Lantern both make back $20 million more than their budgets yet they're failures too?

The only real flop among that list was Mars Needs Moms (though I agree there were some questionable choices made in some of the others).

It's not like the opinions of critics matter here - Michael Bay's atrocities are never deemed failures. And some of the greatest movies in history were commercial disasters at the time. I thought the whole movie business was predicated on the assumption that most films will make a loss or barely scrape back their cost, but it's a numbers game, and as long as one or two give a good return the wheels can keep turning. Otherwise why would anyone bother making art-house or niche films that will never become blockbusters?

I'm curious, does it make a big difference to producers if a movie gets critical acclaim but still posts a loss? Or would it be preferable to have made a film that got universally panned but made a small profit?


Studios only reap half of the gross, the theaters take the other half. Don't forget of the 50 percent the studios take, the talent like actors producers and directors may take up to a 20-25 cut. So a studio might end up with 40 percent or less of the gross if it uses big names. Add the advertising costs and then you get a bomb in the studios eyes. Most of the time producers just want their film to tur a profit so they can put food on their table and continue to do so. Niche and art house productions are done for arts sake sometimes and turning a profit isnt as big a deal if the financial backers are pleased with the final product.
  • 0

#6 Marcus Joseph

Marcus Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 27 November 2011 - 08:57 AM

Studios only reap half of the gross, the theaters take the other half. Don't forget of the 50 percent the studios take, the talent like actors producers and directors may take up to a 20-25 cut. So a studio might end up with 40 percent or less of the gross if it uses big names. Add the advertising costs and then you get a bomb in the studios eyes. Most of the time producers just want their film to tur a profit so they can put food on their table and continue to do so. Niche and art house productions are done for arts sake sometimes and turning a profit isnt as big a deal if the financial backers are pleased with the final product.

I believe that directors and actors taking residuals from the profits is only after the movie breaks even and makes a profit (which can be always smudged by dodgy accounting), so that can be quite tricky. Also I don't believe there's any profit percentage for any cinematographers yet? Is there any support happening for them to get something if a film becomes insanely successful?

Edited by Marcus Joseph, 27 November 2011 - 08:57 AM.

  • 0

#7 Matt Stevens

Matt Stevens
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 November 2011 - 09:40 AM

Top A listers take gross point, the rest, profits points, which are a myth in Hollywood.

But ALL of those films lost money. Every single one. A few, like MARS and CONAN, were disasters for their studio.
  • 0

#8 Deji Joseph

Deji Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Student
  • London

Posted 27 November 2011 - 01:23 PM

Also I don't believe there's any profit percentage for any cinematographers yet? Is there any support happening for them to get something if a film becomes insanely successful?


I doubt it will ever happen, only actors, producers, directors and SOME writers enjoy mainstream brand recognition.
  • 0


Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

CineLab

CineTape

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Visual Products

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Opal

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Abel Cine

CineLab

Tai Audio

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies