Geez, the carnage is piling up this year. 150 million plus P&A for Pan? What a disaster.
One again proves that in Hollywood, nobody knows anything.
Jump to content
2015 Big Budget Flops
40 replies to this topic
Posted 11 October 2015 - 11:08 PM
seems every Pan movie is doomed.. there have been a few other big fails too I believe.. even Robin Williams couldn't do it..
Posted 11 October 2015 - 11:16 PM
Sometimes I think they overestimate the size of the audience for these beloved childhood classics -- at least with Harry Potter, you had the popularity of the books to indicate the enthusiasm of the potential audience for a movie version. On the other hand, Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" was a hit so what do I know.
Posted 11 October 2015 - 11:55 PM
Bottom line is no matter what the content.....a 150 million dollar hurdle is a 150 million dollar hurdle, end of story.
Posted 12 October 2015 - 12:05 AM
Even a Disney ride can make billions .. if you have J.Depp .. playing Keith Richards.. if he were ever a pirate ..
Posted 12 October 2015 - 12:11 AM
It's funny they put "Tomorrowland" with the flops. It's already made money world-wide, so that's not TOO muc of a flop considering it hasn't hit VOD yet.
Posted 12 October 2015 - 12:45 AM
Well, the US studios collect far less from foreign ticket sales than they do domestically as the money passes through a lot more hands. Plus everyone forgets the staggering P&A costs that get tacked onto the budget. And of course the exhibitors take a good chunk that gross.
This is why the 3X rule is usually applied, so a break even point for Pan would be, 450 million gross. So at 15 million only 435 million to go. Hmmmmm, I sure hope they like the Peter Pan story in China.
Posted 12 October 2015 - 01:01 AM
Got ya, so 3x is generally the consensus for world wide.
Posted 12 October 2015 - 02:09 AM
Yeah but Alice in Wonderland has a huge following and is very cool whereas Peter Pan is... well.. and there's Wendy... and the Michael Jackson thing... and it's all a bit too much Swallows and Amazons or something.
Posted 12 October 2015 - 02:11 AM
I heard that in China the studios get a tiny percentage of the take but I guess the volume helps a bit.
Posted 12 October 2015 - 02:40 AM
The thing I find strange about a lot of these projects is that they never seem like they would have had much hope from the get go and they always want to spend absolutely ballistic amounts in making them too. John Carter from Mars seemed like a strange choice to start with but then they pumped vast quantities of money into it for example. The Fantastic Four thing seems cursed and the best version so far is still the Roger Corman version. I think that could have had a good chance back in the 80's. There is something oddly commercial about it in a sort of strange Teenage Ninja Turtle sort of fashion. I think it possibly could have made a lot of money but they chose not to release it. Tomorrowland might have been something but it was never that clear why anyone would want to see it and I'm still not sure what it is supposed to be about after all this time. The Lone Ranger was a really strange idea but at least it had Johnny Depp in it I guess. I assume the whole idea behind that one was that Mr Depp would create a compelling character that would draw the crowds in.
I mean there seems to be an understanding when people make westerns these days that they aren't going to pump huge amounts of money into making them and even then they seem to go too far some times but there does seem to be the understanding that they are something that has at best a niche audience and are generally a bit archaic at this point.
Pixels was another weird one. Why did a movie that revolves around 80's video games have to cost so much money. This could surely have been made more cheaply but again it's not obvious to me why this might be a huge hit. It just seems a bit like ghostbusters but without the more interesting aspects.
Posted 12 October 2015 - 03:33 AM
Basically no one has any idea.. look at all the massive box office films from way back.. you read about them and see it took years to get them made.. studio heads said they would be crap.. actors turned them down.. thats why they run with hits for ever till the well runs dry.. the budgets are so big they don't want to gamble.. although I read somewhere some study showing actually to make 10 $15m films instead of one.. the studio,s had much more chance of making money off a few hits.. lets hope that thinking comes around.. the endless spin off comic book stuff is getting really dull.. thank god for TV..
Posted 12 October 2015 - 04:42 AM
I thought John Carter was fantastic. It could have been better, sure, but so could a lot of things.
John Carter, like Jupiter Rising at least HAD a decent story - what the screenwriters did to the stories is another thing entirely.
I haven't been able to see Tomorrowland, and missed it in cinema here.
I haven't seen PAN, but I would likely rather just watch HOOK. It always seems to me, again such as in the case of Prince Caspian that the screenwriters make a script that has some dialogue in it,
they shoot the picture, then turn all the footage over to the digital effects house where the producers then send barrels full of $100 bills with a little note asking for as much over the top digital effects
as possible because American audience will only go to the cinema for explosions and no one cares about story. Personally I wasn't impressed with The Martian, but it seems everyone else was. I'm glad they were able to use a GoPro camera to achieve the effect they wanted to but it doesn't seem all that amazing to me. Interstellar is still a far better film.
Perhaps that's not entirely true. Did PAN have an interesting story? Were there explosions?
Why do they keep remaking the Fantastic 4?
Why do they keep splitting books into three films?
Why did the Scorch Trials suck? Well other than they decided to completely re-write most of the plot.
Speaking of Box Office hits - you know what I thought was fantastic.... Mr. Shamalan's The Visit. Didn't see too many visual digital effects in that.
Posted 12 October 2015 - 04:45 AM
This is why the 3X rule is usually applied
This makes no sense.
If someone's claiming a movie had a budget of x, then it needs to take x to break even.
If we're claiming the break even point is 3x, then the effective budget was also 3x.
Hollywood accounting forever!
Posted 12 October 2015 - 04:50 AM
No, the multiple allows for the exhibitor's and distributor's take.
The studio only gets 1/3 of the gross.
Years ago that figure used to be more like 1/5-1/6 IIRC.
Posted 12 October 2015 - 04:53 AM
Well, they do know that as long as they can afford to bet $150M 10 or 20 times they're bound to throw a couple of sixes.
Posted 12 October 2015 - 09:57 AM
I agree and after watching, I had absolutely no idea why it did so poorly. It looked good, the story was engrossing and rich with characters and details. The filmmakers tried to do as much in-camera as they could, which always gets a gold star in my book. So when you see how much of a flop it was, its really sad.
However, 'Tomorrowland' had some HUGE problems and I can tell that people walked out disappointed, at least I was.
I can't wait for the tentpole movies to be no more. I think that day is coming because the studio's are loosing a lot of money on them and actually making money on more regular films like animation.
What bothers me is, most of these tentpole movies are for kids and teen's right? But the animation films of the last few years have been absolutely awesome. I think kids are kinda over animation yet again, it's not "cool" enough for them, so maybe they stay away? All I know is in terms of characters, story and even cinematography, some of the most recent animation films have blown me away.
Posted 13 October 2015 - 01:27 AM
Like I've said before: I want every movie to make money so we can all keep making movies. And believe me. The studios have this all figured out. They don't blindly gamble with their money. Just like with the Vegas casinos, the House always wins over time.
Posted 13 October 2015 - 02:50 AM
I also tend to doubt most of the 'quoted' production budgets you hear. It's Hollywood accounting afterall...
Posted 13 October 2015 - 02:54 AM
No, the multiple allows for the exhibitor's and distributor's take.
Well, that's not what the movie really took, then, is it.
This may be a point of principle, but you can't seriously contend that "the movie cost X amount but we have to take 3X to be in profit" is a sane statement no matter how you approach it. If the take needs to be 3X, you just aren't including some costs. Like the cost of having people distribute it.