What's it like to flop?

Because, you know, none of us ever having had that experience I'm sure we all wonder.

Worth a read.

 

I didn't even realize Conan came out already. And it opened fourth, losing out to two films that have been out a few weeks and a Spy Kids sequel? Jesus. I feel really bad for them.

 

Someone once said that no one (make that "relatively few" IMAO) makes bad movies because they want to make bad movies but that they don't know how to do better.

 

I would think no one, even Ed Wood, intends a flop. With so many people part of making a film, things can start going wrong long before anyone recognizes trouble, and once problems are recognized, production has gone on to the point that it is almost impossible to change shy of just remaking the movie from scratch. Pockets just are not that deep for movie makers and their investors, so like the writer quoted says- hope for a miracle.

 

I dare you to watch After Last Season and then say that.

 

I'm not surprised at the flop at all. Being R rated gave it little chance of wide success... while it may make some of the fen happy to see more gore, that only draws in the slasher crowd in numbers. DVD sales will be better, I'd imagine.

And I find it hard to believe anyone wants to make a bad movie outside of a The Producers kind of scenario.

 

Conan the Barbarian (1982), Gladiator and 300 were all rated R and were all hits.

 

I watch movies on DVD that flopped because I wanted to see them anyway. I often watch the BTS stuff regarding the making of the movie.

I'm amazed by the work and effort of the set decorators, the costumers, wardrobe, FX people, art designers.

Stuff that you wouldn't notice way in the background, but considerable effort is made to research it for historical accuracy, work is handmade for authenticity, only vintage materials are used (at quite an expense) and so on.

Tremendous efforts, and hardly noticeable unless you are an expert viewer or watch the making-of.

...and then the movie flops, and it's all for nothing.
That's gotta suck so hard.

If the director is nuts, or the actors are weak, or the writers are idiots, that's understandable, they got what's coming to them.

But the production people who go all out, really outdo themselves, and then the movie flops anyway. What a kick in the nuts.

I think, a movie rarely hits or misses if the villagers are wearing authentic and accurate clothing fabrics.
But that doesn't stop the costumers from doing exhaustive historical research and massive searching for genuine materials. And all for nothing when the movie flops. Damn.

 

Let me tell you about the time I flopped -

I was young and naive, she had been a deckhand on a Russian fishing boat. I first caught sight of her when I was skinning a.... [Cont'd Pg 94]

 

Eh, most guys just leave her hanging there.

Anyway...some of my favorite movies have been box office bombs. Serenity for example. I sure don't waste energy trying to persuade people that it failed for irrelevant or invalid reasons. The audience is always right...but what they're right about is that they do want to see a given movie or they don't.

 

Well, sometimes the audience is uninformed (if the movie isn't promoted enough) or misinformed (if the trailers are misleading or just plain bad). That would explain how some movies a box office flops but hits on DVD.

 

That's not necessary in order to explain the difference between theatrical failure and DVD success. Those are two different markets, with two different product life cycles and the competitive pressures are very different. Not everyone who's willing to buy a movie on DVD just didn't know about it when it was released or has "learned better" from a negative first impression.

 

I think most scripts fail in the story and script stage. It's the backbone of almost any film. The problem is, that's art. And art is subjective. And just because people don't go to see it, doesn't mean it's not 'good'. Whatever 'good' means. I'm not saying Conan's was.

And if you have a unappealing story and script, you'd better have giant, transforming 3D robots to make up for it. Conan sure as hell didn't have anything on that level.

 

Considering how often I hear of excellent scripts being butchered in the final product, I don't think you can make that claim. Even in the article Dennis linked, the screenwriter said most of his best material didn't make it into the final movie.

Everyone involved with the film bears some responsibility for the final product. A good script doesn't mean a good movie, though a bad script will usually guarantee a bad movie. And then there are cases like you say, where the script doesn't even matter. So I think you contradicted yourself a bit.

 

I feel more bad for Jason Momoa in all this, compared with the screenwriters. By all accounts, he's the best part of the movie, but it would be true to Hollywood form for the newcomer actor to get a disproportionate share of the blame.

The writer has even more to say...

 

Uwe Boll did it to cheat taxes, as far as I know.



I find it surprising how one can be surprised at Conan being a flop. Everyone I talked to thought it was going to bomb. The trailers were horrible to begin with. And Ronon Dex never had the star power to make such a movie a huge success. Actually, none of the involved had. Who the hell is Marcus Nispel? And then again, Conan is an Arnold vehicle. Yes, even after all these years. Yes, even though there are many, many, many Conan comic books. And yes, even if the original Arnold Conan movie wasn't high art.

A "Conan - The King" movie starring Arnold would instantly make more money on opening weekend than this movie makes in two weeks, I'd say. Heck, a Conan remake starring The Rock would do that.

 

Not every movie can open at number one. Or in the top ten. Or in theaters.

I don't like the blockbuster mentality. You don't have to make a billion dollars to be a success. A solid profit should be enough (which would be easier if the budgets for major studio movies weren't so inflated). And everything doesn't have to be marketed to the lowest denominator. There are niche markets. It's possible to make a modestly budgeted movie that makes money in regional theaters, on cable, on DVD.

I'd certainly love to be a millionaire, but, as a writer, I like having an audience that appreciates what I do, not just people who want to be dazzled by bread and circuses.

On the other hand, if anybody wants to offer me $500k for the movie rights to Marzman Needs Women, my PM box is open.

 

Only 500K? That sounds like a 5 million script! What a bargain!

 

I just find the making of this movie a bit odd. It's like there's no effort put into it or any expectations at all. It has no buzz, no interest, no advertising ... Not blaming Momoa but the casting is a bit odd. I haven't seen the movie so I don't know how he did, but this is budget casting and isn't going to attract any audience. And from what I've read, it's also badly written? This sounds like that last minute term paper

Spoiler

I bought for 5 bucks.

 

Most probably don't really care. I'm sure they want the film to do well. Who wouldn't? But whether or not a film is a box office success has little impact on their jobs. They were paid and are probably already off to the next job.

It is mostly the big shots involved such as the director, producers, cast, and, to some extent, writers who need the film to be a success in order for them to proceed to other projects more easily.