2011's biggest bombs

[the G-man]

Movie rubble of 2011: Domestic loss leaders for ’11, in millions

• 
  1. Mars Needs Moms – $128.7
  
  2. Cowboys & Aliens – $63.0
  
  3. Sucker Punch – $45.7
  
  4. The Big Year – $33.9
  
  5. Green Lantern – $33.4
  
  6. Shark Night – $9.2
  
  7. Bucky Larson – $2.6
  

The figure is the amount, in millions, that the movie lost, as measured by the difference between production budget and the domestic box office. I would guess that there's also a percentage factor at play, which is why some of the small numbers at the end are there (ie, Bucky Larson only "lost" $2.6 million but the budget was so small that was a big percentage loss).

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I never even heard of 4, 6 and 7. And it's not like I hide from marketing and advertising for stuff.

But the days are long over when only domestic BO counted for the big-budget type of popcorn movie. Green Lantern, for instance, made a considerable amount of money overseas as well. Maybe not enough to be a success, but if you factor in global BO, the "biggest bombs" list may look very different. Sometimes it can turn an apparent flop into a hit - Tron: Legacy for instance.

I did a quick spot check of that list, and it doesn't look like there are any Trons on the list, but Sucker Punch did make more money in foreign BO than domestic, for what it's worth.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=tron2.htm

 

[Shanndee]

Can anyone point me to a reliable explanation of how foreign box office works? For example, If I'm having a discussion with someone about movies and I say "but it can't be considered a total flop, look how well it did internationally", that person usually tells me that it is not significant because studios sell their shares of the profit to the foreign distributors, so very little money is actually made.

I realize that each studio will be a unique case, but I'd love to see a basic explanation somewhere. Thanks!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Hollywood accounting is notoriously funky.

Foreign BO is often strongly influenced by domestic, so that a movie (say, Cowboys and Aliens) that flops in America will make foreign distributors nervous and that alone will lessen foreign BO, even if in theory, Cowboys and Aliens would have done gangbusters overseas if everyone hadn't run for the hills.

In general, movies with a lot of glitzy eye candy and bankable movie star names, do disproportionately well globally - remember, a lot of the global audience can't understand English and subtitles are always annoying - so that visual factors (explosions, familiar faces) are more important globally than verbal stuff like dialogue and plot. That goes a long ways towards explaining why we're getting Transformers and POTC thrown at us all the time.

 

[Snaploud]

Can anyone point me to a reliable explanation of how foreign box office works? For example, If I'm having a discussion with someone about movies and I say "but it can't be considered a total flop, look how well it did internationally", that person usually tells me that it is not significant because studios sell their shares of the profit to the foreign distributors, so very little money is actually made.

I realize that each studio will be a unique case, but I'd love to see a basic explanation somewhere. Thanks!

You're bound to get a lot of different answers to that question. It mostly stems from the fact that Hollywood accountants are paid to confuse the issue.

I've heard everything from 10% (of gross revenues) going back to the studios to 50%.

 

[nvek86]

How can you make a list of biggest bombs and not take into consideration the money films made overseas? Also: Where did they get their budget estimate for "Green Lantern"? In most places I've seen it listed at around 200 Mio, like:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=greenlantern.htm
I also really like "... of the Year" lists that are published before the year is over.


Re: Foreign Box Office: It's complicated and not only varies from film to film, but also from country to country. An often mentioned rule of thumb is that a film has to make twice its production budget worldwide to be in the clear.
A quick Google search found this article, which seems to be pretty accurate:
http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

 

[Marc]

Re: Foreign Box Office: It's complicated and not only varies from film to film, but also from country to country. An often mentioned rule of thumb is that a film has to make twice its production budget worldwide to be in the clear.
A quick Google search found this article, which seems to be pretty accurate:
http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

and yet there have been instances where studios have made money on a film but some who manage to make a loss on the whole thing.

Hollywood - where the accountants are just as creative as the film makers.

 

[Starbreaker]

Rotten Tomatoes is either helpful or hurtful towards a film now. All of these movies were critically trashed.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Rotten Tomatoes is either helpful or hurtful towards a film now. All of these movies were critically trashed.

The movies on that list are the sort that reviews generally don't matter that much to; plenty of critically trashed films make money (Breaking Dawn, for instance).

Reviews matter most to "prestige" films targeted at adults.

 

[Starbreaker]

That's not true here. Green Lantern was the only poorly reviewed super hero film of the year and look how it fared. It had a huge star and some decent trailers, too. The film was doomed when the reviews came out. The character has about the same second or third tier popularity as Captain America or Iron Man.

Cowboys & Aliens had two bankable stars but did poorly.

Twilight is geared toward screaming tweens. Reviews don't really apply there. If it's not a sequel or the third or fourth movie in a series, people need a reason to go see it.

 

[Shanndee]

Thanks for the responses re: foreign box office. It seems that I still may be able to make my points in film debates with friends if I can back it up with the creative accounting argument!
Thanks!

 

[CaptainCanada]

That's not true here. Green Lantern was the only poorly reviewed super hero film of the year and look how it fared. It had a huge star and some decent trailers, too. The film was doomed when the reviews came out. The character has about the same second or third tier popularity as Captain America or Iron Man.

Cowboys & Aliens had two bankable stars but did poorly.

Ryan Reynolds isn't a huge star; neither is Harrison Ford anymore (he hasn't had a hit since Air Force One in 1997), and Daniel Craig's track record outside the Bond franchise is poor.

GL has a bad advertising campaign, and didn't generate good word of mouth. Blockbusters are among the least review-dependent movies.

 

[sidious618]

Movie reviews tend to only matter for smaller films. Large blockbuster films tend to do well even if they get shitty reviews.

 

[Amaris]

Movie reviews tend to only matter for smaller films. Large blockbuster films tend to do well even if they get shitty reviews.

Exactly.

I have a few reviewers I trust to give me the straightforward scoop (James Berardinelli and Roger Ebert), and that's it. I go to IMDB to look in the fora to see how people react to the film I'm considering, but that's it. I only check reviews on films that I'm paying for. If it's free, I'm more willing to give it a shot, sight unseen and unspoiled.

 

[the G-man]

That's not true here. Green Lantern was the only poorly reviewed super hero film of the year and look how it fared. It had a huge star ...

Ryan Reynolds isn't a huge star...

I agree. Reynolds is likeable and has talent but I don't think he's ever opened a movie by himself. With the possible exception of Van Wilder (which is probably more of a cult film), his hits have been ensemble films and/or films where he plays a supporting role. His biggest hit was probably "the Proposal," and that was a Sandra Bullock movie that he just happened to play "the guy" in. It made money solely on her star power, not his.

 

[Caliburn24]

The year isn't over quite yet.

Happyfeet 2 could well make it onto that list.

Deadline and other sites are reporting that 600 of the 700 employees of the production company that made the movie were laid off in part because of the movie bombing hard.

 

[Data Holmes]

Green lantern and sucker punch both got screwed by idiot reviewers (both) and studio interference (sucker punch). They don't deserve to be on that list.

 

[Harvey]

Both Box Office Mojo and The-Numbers report Green Lantern had a $200 million budget, not $150 million. Considering its reportedly immense advertising budget, soft sales on home video (reportedly $12 million and change in the US), and weak foreign box office (less, in fact, than the weak domestic box office), a $33 million loss would be welcome news to the studio at this point. Even if they got those numbers right, the article's numbers still don't account for the exhibitor's cut of box office, nor do they consider television sales. In other words, they just don't add up (then again, it is the New York Post).

 

[FPAlpha]

Movie reviews tend to only matter for smaller films. Large blockbuster films tend to do well even if they get shitty reviews.

Not necessarily.. they may open huge but the dropoff for the second and third week will be very sharp if the movie is shit. People do talk amongst themselves and word of mouth is very powerful.

 

[Maurice]

Also, bear in mind that the amount the studios get for a film typically changes the longer the film is in the theater. The studio might get 90% on the first week, then a lesser cut on subsequent weeks, ergo the box-office (which never goes 100% to the studio) correlation is rather dodgy to figure out.