What's it like to flop?

[JWD75]

I'm a big Conan fan - I have most of the comics and books and I've been wanting a new movie for years. Unfortunately the trailer was unable to spark any interest in even me for actually going to see the movie. In fact I saw the trailer a while back on TV and promptly forgot all about it until now. Because this film is a flop there probably won't be another Conan movie for a long time to come; which is a shame because I think a series of movies based on Conan would have a lot of potential if they were well written, given a PG-13 rating, and more effort was put into promoting them.

 

[Captain Craig]

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.

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

Glad this has been addressed cause along with those films are R rated comedies like 40Yr Old Virigin, Wedding Crashers, both Hangovers etc that are hits while things like Cop Out or Hall Pass that don't catch(sure there are others). Being rated R as a limitation can hold some truth but if the audience seeks it out it will make it's money.

I saw Conan. I wouldn't pretend it's Oscar material, that's not it's goal. What it did was service it's genre in an entertaining and enjoyable manner. My only issue was it is about 10-15min too long. I don't think people really knew it was coming out. Where were the ads? I saw no internet banner ads, no bus stop posters, billboards or even TV commercials in the week leading to release. Was their hope for marketing mostly viral based?

Likewise I saw Cowboys and Aliens and that was fun.
Both films are more enjoyable and entertaining than their receipts show.

 

[Cmndr J Crichton]

If The Rock played Conan, this movie would've at least been number one for one weekend. Mamoa was great in Stargate, and Thrones, but he's not Conan. Arnold wasn't Conan either, but at least he fit the description of the title Barbarian. Mamoa seems just like a nice guy, not a fierce Barbarian warrior as Arnold portrayed. When he tried to look tough/angry it felt forced. Arnold did that naturally. When Arnold lifted the Atlantean Sword, he looked believable in that role. You believed that Arnold's Conan can rip apart horrdes of monsters, bandits etc. with his bare hands! Mamoa was barely bigger than Kevin Sorbo. If they couldn't find a big enough guy to spark our imaginations with his past travels, and back story like that, then they shouldn't have cast Mamoa. Also, the script should've been one, or two of the books, not just the first two movies put together.

 

[Maurice]

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.

Bets?

I don't know what needs to be bet on. People such as the set designers and the SFX folks (whom I was referring to) are generally part of a larger company who work on multiple projects at at time. They are paid for their work (their work was part of the budget) and move on to the next contract the company has.

If they do a good job, then other filmmakers will notice that and possibly hire them for their own projects regardless how popular or successful the previous film did.

Take a look at ILM, for example. They have had a number of successes and flops in which they've worked on. Their work has always been pretty good regardless of the overall product, and they continue to be used.

ILM stands out because it has the STAR WARS films and many other blockbusters to its name, which overwhelms any films they did which were misfires. Their reputation is for good work on a lot of good films. If your track record is a lot of mediocre films and outright bombs you won't be attractive. Clients want to work with a winner, even just a perceived winner.

 

[NuFan]

Better to have made it and flopped than be whining from the sidelines.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Better to have made it and flopped than be whining from the sidelines.

That much is certainly true.

Bets?

I don't know what needs to be bet on. People such as the set designers and the SFX folks (whom I was referring to) are generally part of a larger company who work on multiple projects at at time. They are paid for their work (their work was part of the budget) and move on to the next contract the company has.

If they do a good job, then other filmmakers will notice that and possibly hire them for their own projects regardless how popular or successful the previous film did.

Take a look at ILM, for example. They have had a number of successes and flops in which they've worked on. Their work has always been pretty good regardless of the overall product, and they continue to be used.

ILM stands out because it has the STAR WARS films and many other blockbusters to its name, which overwhelms any films they did which were misfires. Their reputation is for good work on a lot of good films. If your track record is a lot of mediocre films and outright bombs you won't be attractive. Clients want to work with a winner, even just a perceived winner.

Also, people who create things have feelings about their work.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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

Any film production, like a long grueling campaign over months and years, is filled with crisis, compromise, exhaustion, conflict, elation, and blind faith that if one just works harder, the results will turn out all right in the end. During that process whatever anger, frustration, or disagreement you have with the candidate/film you keep to yourself. Privately you may oppose various decisions, strategies, or compromises; you may learn things about the candidate that cloud your resolve and shake your confidence, but you soldier on, committed to the end. You rationalize it along the way by imagining that the struggle will be worth it when the candidate wins.
.
.
.
You tell yourself to just enjoy the process. That whether you succeed or fail, win or lose, it will be fine. You pretend to be Zen. You adopt detachment, and ironic humor, while secretly praying for a miracle.

Worth a read.

The writer has even more to say...

Hood seems like a very smart man and a class act. I admire his positive outlook at the end, his honest reflection and insights, and his willingness to stick up for the other writers on the film when he thought what he said might be misconstrued as a criticism of them.

I'm sure that's not why he wrote it, but I think this article might end up helping him with future job prospects more than his association with Conan will. I know reading this solidified his name in my mind as someone I'll be looking out for in the future and wishing his career goes well.

 

[Gojira]

Cowboys and Aliens is just shy of making a profit when you combine domestic and oversees box office. But it hasn't made a profit domestically. Would this be considered a flop?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=cowboysandaliens.htm

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The total box office is only about equal to the budget, so no. Still very floppy.

Sometimes foreign BO will rescue a domestic flop but I don't think C&A has enough time on the meter for that to happen now.

 

[USS Kongo]

Nobody knows enough about Conan enough to want to go see it, but everybody knows about it once it falls flat on its face. What really sucks about films bombing like this is that it's so damn public. When you fail, you go down in flames before a mass audience.

But I guess this is tempered by the B.O. successes--which, I'm sure for most people working in the industry, doesn't happen nearly as much as they'd like.

Sean

 

[TremblingBluStar]

If your track record is a lot of mediocre films and outright bombs you won't be attractive. Clients want to work with a winner, even just a perceived winner.

I don't know. M Night Shyamalan keeps getting to do movies!

Even Joss Whedon, who I love as a writer and director has had very few successes but is still highly regarded and keeps getting work.

I don't work in the film industry, but I imagine there are other gauges to success in films other than box office profits for things like special effects or makeup.

For example, awards. There have been films win the Oscar for best visual effects without being box office hits. The Golden Compass, for one.

Stargate SG1 also won numerous television awards for visuals, and it was never a hit show.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

Cowboys and Aliens is just shy of making a profit when you combine domestic and oversees box office. But it hasn't made a profit domestically. Would this be considered a flop?

Not a flop, but an under performer. When I consider a film a flop, it means the movie failed to garner any interest at all.

But Hollywood has it's own opinions. Superman Returns, for example, made well over it's budget worldwide and was still considered a flop.

Even Poseidon made more than it's budget worldwide, and that film is considered to be one of the biggest flops in the history of cinema!

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Cowboys and Aliens is just shy of making a profit when you combine domestic and oversees box office. But it hasn't made a profit domestically. Would this be considered a flop?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=cowboysandaliens.htm

Certainly a movie that fails to make a profit at all is a flop. Movies might be flops for other reasons, but this one really isn't questionable.

I suppose a movie that doesn't make a profit might not be a flop if it is an underrated cult classic instead, but I don't think a movie with Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig qualifies as that.

 

[Samurai8472]

Ah.

Never met anybody who watches that.

Some guys in my Windows 7 class talk about it during break. I also heard two 50 year old men arguing about it.

 

[Noname Given]

For recent Flops, I don't think any film will top the new Conan The Barbarian for years to come. It bombed nuclear.

 

[Anwar]

Have you forgotten about the Dragon Ball movie a while back?

 

[TremblingBluStar]

For recent Flops, I don't think any film will top the new Conan The Barbarian for years to come. It bombed nuclear.

I'm not sure if that is something to be happy about. There were good people who did put a lot of time and effort into the film.

Either way, the film cost $90M and made about $50M worldwide. I don't think that nearly qualified it as the biggest flop, neither by total lost nor percentage lost.

If you go by this article, The Alamo rules with a $145M budget and $25M worldwide gross.

The 13th Warrior had a $160M budget and made $61M worldwide.

Pluto Nash, $100M budget, $7.1M worldwide (ouch!)

Town & Country, $90M budget, $10M worldwide

A Sound of Thunder, $80M budget, $12M worldwide

Basic Instinct 2, $70M budget, $38M worldwide

So Conan would definetly be on the this top 50 list if revised. But not in the top 10.

 

[Python Trek]

Given that LOTR was so popular in theaters, and is still a hit on home vid...and given that the public seems to like their popcorn movies on the bloody (and dumb) side these days, I actually thought that a sword 'n sorcery flick like Conan might be a modest hit, even if it sucked...hell, especially if it sucked. Good thing I didn't put any money on that bet.

 

[StarTrek1701]

^^ Conan wasn't properly advertised and even if it was, there were no 'star draws' to it. We may know Momoa from SG:A, but the average movie viewer has no clue who is this skinny guy and why is he playing Conan. Public perception is that Arnold is still Conan even people who never watched that movie! So there.

 

[spooky spice]

Mamoa was great in Stargate, and Thrones, but he's not Conan.

Really? Most of the online hype I'd seen was people saying how much he resembled the novel version of Conan...

I've not seen Conan yet as I don't go to the cinema (the joys of living in the middle of nowhere) it will go on my DVD rental list as soon as it appears on the rental website.