Box office flops that won an Oscar?

[Canadian Bacon]

I'm sure there are some out there that won for special affects but flopped

[Jam Master Jay]

The Golden Compass

[Boba Fett]

THE HURT LOCKER.

Studio is to blame for that one, but $17mil US on a $15mil budget is sad.

[Rockmjd23]

The Wiz was a commercial flop, won 2 oscars.
Although nevert meant for a big box office, Ed Wood made less than a third of it's budget back.

[inri222]

The Last Emperor

[Rockmjd23]

The Last Emperor
Grossed ~$44 million on a ~$24 million budget, unless I'm reading wrong.

[Deftones]

THE HURT LOCKER.

Studio is to blame for that one, but $17mil US on a $15mil budget is sad.

I thought that the general consensus was that if a film made as least as much as it's budget back, it wasn't really a flop.

[brainee]

If you're counting any Oscar (not just Best Picture), there are a number of flops that have won them. 1963's "Cleopatra" is considered one of the biggest box office flops of all-time (over many years it eventually made back its money, but in the short run nearly bankrupted 20th Century Fox), but it still won 4 Oscars.

[Drexl]

Actually, there aren't many examples when it comes to the visual effects award, which tends to go to something with a high profile that did pretty well or better at the box office.

One exception would be What Dreams May Come, which grossed $55 million (US) against an $85 million budget.

[Daytripper]

The Golden Compass

It made 70M in the U.S. Yes, much lower than expected, but it made 302M in the rest of the world. With a total of 372M . And it made 41.8M in DVD sales just in the U.S. alone. I can't find any rental numbers. Is that really a flop?

[Jaymole]

If you're counting any Oscar (not just Best Picture), there are a number of flops that have won them. 1963's "Cleopatra" is considered one of the biggest box office flops of all-time (over many years it eventually made back its money, but in the short run nearly bankrupted 20th Century Fox), but it still won 4 Oscars.

I don't consider Cleopatra to be a flop in the general sense of that term. It was the #1 highest grossing movie of 1963....but because they spend a ridiculous amount of money on it, many people think that it flopped at the Box Office. There just wasn't any way that it could make back it's cost in one year.

[RichC2]

Just to get it out of the way, top 10 lowest grossing Best Picture winners:

1. The Hurt Locker (2009)

Domestic gross (inflation adj.): $17.5 million
Domestic gross: $17 million

2. Crash (2005)

Domestic gross (inflation adj.): $61.5 million
Domestic gross: $54.6 million

3. No Country for Old Men (2007)

Domestic gross (inflation adj.): $78.9 million
Domestic gross: $74.3 million

4. The Last Emperor (1987)

Domestic gross (inflation adj.): $85.3 million
Domestic gross: $43.9 million

5. Braveheart (1995)

Domestic gross (inflation adj.): $109.3 million
Domestic gross: $75.6 million

6. Amadeus (1984)

Domestic gross (inflation adj.): $109.3 million
Domestic gross: $51.6 million

7. The English Patient (1996)

Domestic gross (inflation adj.): $110.4 million
Domestic gross: $78.7 million

8. Million Dollar Baby (2004)

Domestic gross (inflation adj.): $117.2 million
Domestic gross: $100.5 million

9. Gandhi (1982)

Domestic gross (inflation adj.): $120.4 million
Domestic gross: $52.8 million

10. Shakespeare in Love (1998)

Domestic gross (inflation adj.): $135.5 million
Domestic gross: $100.3 million


A lot of documentaries and foreign films also fall under 'flop' by the traditional sense, even those that technically made money.

[Tarantino]

I'm really surprised The Hurt Locker only made 17 mil.

[brainee]

I don't consider Cleopatra to be a flop in the general sense of that term. It was the #1 highest grossing movie of 1963....but because they spend a ridiculous amount of money on it, many people think that it flopped at the Box Office. There just wasn't any way that it could make back it's cost in one year.

Well, isn't that how we're supposed to consider a movie's box office success - how much it cost versus how much it made? Cleopatra's inflation-adjusted budget is mind-boggling: $310 million!

Wow, The Hurt Locker really stands out on that Best Picture list. Usually Best Picture winners get a big bump when nomination season starts. If I remember correctly, Hurt Locker is kind of unusual in that it was already on DVD and PPV before nominations were even announced. Taking that into account, it's not quite the flop it appears. An Iraq war movie with little star power and a limited release doesn't have much of a chance to make money at first. I'm reading that home video sales within a couple of months of the Oscars was over $30 million. So you can look at those figures subbing for the box office Oscar bump that most winners get.

[Drexl]

Hmmm, The Atlantic had a different list of lowest-grossing BP winners, which may be more accurate because it includes much older films. Adjusted for inflation, of course:

10. The Great Ziegfield (1936) — $95 million

9. The Last Emperor (1987) — $89 million

8. It Happened One Night (1934) — $86 million

7. No Country for Old Men (2008) — $74 million

6. Marty (1955) — $70 million

5. Crash (2005) — $67 million

4. An American in Paris (1951) — $67 million

3. Hamlet (1948) — $61 million

2. All the King’s Men (1969) — $60 million.

1. The Hurt Locker (2009) — $15.5 million.

[Jaymole]

Well, isn't that how we're supposed to consider a movie's box office success - how much it cost versus how much it made? Cleopatra's inflation-adjusted budget is mind-boggling: $310 million!



By calling it a flop, how many people would have guessed that it was the #1 grossing movie of it's year? Sometimes it is important to look more deeply into a particular film's situation instead of just throwing a label onto it (I know that's what we love to do today).

As I said, I don't consider it a flop in the general sense of the term as we use it today....I look at it as a studio's production nightmare. There was no way that film was going to make back it's cost in one year. Just labeling it a flop and then moving on groups it with movies like Meet Dave, Ishtar, Pluto Nash and Town and Country in people's minds....movies that people avoided like the plague, the exact opposite of Cleopatra's case.

[Numanoid]

That's because, for some reason, people equate PROFITABILITY with POPULARITY. If a film is a "hit", to me that means that lots and lots of people went to see it (at the going market rate, not using some cheap sales trick like Lady Gaga selling her new album for 99 cents to get the numbers up). A "bomb" to me doesn't have anything to do with how much money it made (though they usually go hand-in-hand), but with how many people went to see it.

So if something like Cleopatra, or more recently Superman Returns, has a huge production budget for one reason or another, and still brings out more moviegoers than a typical "hit", but because of its budget it's considered a failure? Meanwhile some little film that cost $250K to make and grosses $10 million is considered A HUGE HIT!!! Seriously? So if 20 million people go to see something it's less of a success than if 1 million people do? That's nonsense.

Unless you own a share of the film, I don't think profitability should matter when defining its success.

[Shannon Nutt]

The Golden Compass

$372 million worldwide ain't a flop, Jam Master.

[brainee]

Unless you own a share of the film, I don't think profitability should matter when defining its success.

Well, there's certainly a whole other argument over what defines a "flop". And your points (and those of Jaymole) are valid. But like it or not, profitability does matter when a movie's success is judged. And historically, Cleopatra is widely considered to be not just a flop but a flop of epic proportions (regardless of whether that label is unfair). Hell, I don't care - I'm neither an investor nor one of the filmmakers of Cleopatra. I just tried to add the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the thread title :)

[brainee]

Going to older movies, there are some surprise "flops" - movies whose reputations and popularity have greatly changed in the decades following their release. "Citizen Kane" lost money - and it wasn't a mega-budgeted, but still popular, type of flop like "Cleopatra". Which kind of makes sense. I can't imagine a typical moviegoer of the time "getting" what that movie's about (hell, typical moviegoers of today couldn't either). And there were the extenuating circumstances of Randolph Hearst putting the squeeze on to financially cripple the film (and it kind of worked, since a number of theaters wouldn't play it for that reason).

"It's a Wonderful Life" falls short for this thread by not winning an Oscar - though it was nominated for some major ones (including Picture, Director, and Actor). At the time, it was so unpopular that director Frank Capra's reign as America's most popular filmmaker was deemed over. And the studio famously let it fall into public domain - where it got played ad nauseum on tv, eventually gaining a following.

[JimRochester]

Actually, there aren't many examples when it comes to the visual effects award, which tends to go to something with a high profile that did pretty well or better at the box office.

One exception would be What Dreams May Come, which grossed $55 million (US) against an $85 million budget.

I think Poltergeist II won a FX Oscar and that was a huge flop.

[RichC2]

Poltergeist II still made over $40m (unadjusted) on a $19m budget, thats reasonable at least.

[Mr. Cinema]

I'm really surprised The Hurt Locker only made 17 mil.
I wasn't. A movie about the Iraq war, released in late June 2009, on a max of 500+ theaters. None of that would help a film's box office.

It's widest release occurred in late July/early August. The film also lacked star power, which is usually needed to get the sheep to show up at the theater.

[Mr. Cinema]

The Wolfman won for Best Makeup and barely made $60 mil in the US. The budget is listed at $150 mil, but I bet it's much higher than that given the very troubled production.

Zodiac is another one that under performed and didn't win any Oscars. Oh wait, that's right, it wasn't even fucking nominated for anything.

[brainee]

1967's "Doctor Dolittle" was a Best SFX winner (along with a couple of other Oscars) that was a flop by just about anyone's standards.

Just browsing through Oscar lists, Best Costume seems to be an award vulnerable to flops winning. Just in recent years, "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" ($55M budget vs $16M US gross) and "Marie Antoinette" ($40M budget vs $16M US gross) are examples.

[Drexl]

I think Poltergeist II won a FX Oscar and that was a huge flop.

Poltergeist II was nominated but didn't win. Aliens won it that year.

[Dr Mabuse]

Zodiac is another one that under performed and didn't win any Oscars. Oh wait, that's right, it wasn't even fucking nominated for anything.

One of the countless clues that Oscar is not about quality of the work.

[Defiant1]

The Golden Compass, while a decent global hit, was a major factor in the collapse of New Line Cinema as an independent entity. The studio sold off most of the international rights (oops).

But yeah, the most notable one in recent times is The Hurt Locker. Especially notable as it was a box office flop that won Best Picture against the biggest movie of all time.

[dhmac]

I thought Annie Hall was one of the lowest grossing Best Picture Winners (although it made money due its low budget). But I guess that must be when not adjusted for inflation. What's its adjusted gross?

[Matthew Chmiel]

I thought that the general consensus was that if a film made as least as much as it's budget back, it wasn't really a flop.
For a film to be in the black, the rule of thumb is usually take the production budget and times it by two because one has to account for the prints and advertising budget plus remove the percentage the theater gets to take.

[For example, a studio get 70-80% from a film's opening weekend box office and it decreases week after week; thus why weekend box office numbers are so important for that of an opener. The longer the film is in theaters, the less money a studio will make week to week.]

On a film like The Hurt Locker, I can't see the prints and advertising budget being significant as it never made it in more than 500 theaters at a given time. However, I can see Summit spending serious coin on promoting it during the Oscar race... by at this time, the film was already on DVD/BD.

[Drexl]

But yeah, the most notable one in recent times is The Hurt Locker. Especially notable as it was a box office flop that won Best Picture against the biggest movie of all time.

People compare that to Avatar, but I really didn't see it as an upset. From what I was reading, I didn't get the feeling that Avatar was actually going to win.

Now, Crash over Brokeback Mountain, that was an upset.

[movieguru]

I suppose it depends on the definition of "flop", but most movies that win Oscars for "best picture" are commerical flops. Some of the ones that win best picture and were commercial flops get a boost in ticket sales as soon as they win or are nominated making them profitable when the final tally comes in on domestic and international box office.

[Ash Ketchum]

I suppose it depends on the definition of "flop", but most movies that win Oscars for "best picture" are commercial flops.

I don't think the facts support that conclusion. Others here have cited lists of grosses for Best Picture winners that would indicate the opposite. Can anyone provide a link that would correct Movieguru's contention?

[movieguru]

I don't think the facts support that conclusion. Others here have cited lists of grosses for Best Picture winners that would indicate the opposite. Can anyone provide a link that would correct Movieguru's contention?

But it depends on how you define commercial success. If you look at most did ok but weren't stellar successes. Very few would have cracked the top 5 in domestic grooses for that year. Many did not crack the top 10 either.

Also most of the movies got a boost they otherwise would not have by being nominated for or winning the best picture Oscar. Had there been no Oscars most of these movies would not grossed a s much as they did.

King's Speech: $137 million
The hurt Locker $17
Slumdog Millionaire $141
No Country for Old Men $74
The Departed $133
Crash $54
Million dollar Baby $100
Lord of the Rings Kin $371
Chicago $176
A Beautiful Mind $170
Gladiator $187
American Beauty $130
Shakespeare in Love $100
Titanic $600
The English Patient $78

[Dr. DVD]

Zodiac is another one that under performed and didn't win any Oscars. Oh wait, that's right, it wasn't even fucking nominated for anything.


Do I detect bitterness? ;)

I agree 100%. I think that was a case where a great movie got released at the wrong time of year. Had it come out in mid November of 2007, it would have been on all sorts of top ten lists.

[Solid Snake PAC]

Do I detect bitterness? ;)

I agree 100%. I think that was a case where a great movie got released at the wrong time of year. Had it come out in mid November of 2007, it would have been on all sorts of top ten lists.

I think I have to agree about the timing...also..for some damn reason I never saw marketing for it. I dunno how but I didn't.

[Ash Ketchum]

But it depends on how you define commercial success. If you look at most did ok but weren't stellar successes. Very few would have cracked the top 5 in domestic grooses for that year. Many did not crack the top 10 either.

Also most of the movies got a boost they otherwise would not have by being nominated for or winning the best picture Oscar. Had there been no Oscars most of these movies would not grossed a s much as they did.

King's Speech: $137 million
The hurt Locker $17
Slumdog Millionaire $141
No Country for Old Men $74
The Departed $133
Crash $54
Million dollar Baby $100
Lord of the Rings Kin $371
Chicago $176
A Beautiful Mind $170
Gladiator $187
American Beauty $130
Shakespeare in Love $100
Titanic $600
The English Patient $78


1) Most of these would not be considered commercial flops. The lower-grossing ones also had much lower budgets than things like LOTR and TITANIC.

2) Would it surprise you to learn that the Oscars did not begin in 1996, the year of THE ENGLISH PATIENT? You seem to have completely forgotten 69 years of Oscar history. When you said most movies that win Oscars for "best picture" are commercial flops, you didn't specify only Oscar winners from the last 15 years. You're forgetting films like MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, GONE WITH THE WIND, MRS. MINIVER, CASABLANCA, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS, BEN-HUR, WEST SIDE STORY, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, MY FAIR LADY, THE SOUND OF MUSIC, PATTON, THE GODFATHER, THE STING, ROCKY, etc., etc., etc.

Why didn't you just say "most movies that win Oscars for best picture since 2008 are commercial flops."

[Jay G.]

But it depends on how you define commercial success. If you look at most did ok but weren't stellar successes. Very few would have cracked the top 5 in domestic grooses for that year. Many did not crack the top 10 either.
I think most would define a film as a commercial success if it was profitable, i.e. it made more money than it cost. Following the rule of thumb of a domestic gross at least twice that of the production budget, most of these were successful films, with The Hurt Locker being the only outright bomb.

As Ash Ketchum points out, most of the lower grossing films has respectively lower budgets. For example, the 2nd lowest grossing film on your list, Crash, only had a production budget of $6.5 million.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=crash05.htm

Also most of the movies got a boost they otherwise would not have by being nominated for or winning the best picture Oscar. Had there been no Oscars most of these movies would not grossed a s much as they did.
While the Oscar noms and awards undoubtedly help a film's box-office, it's impossible to say how successful these films would've been without nominations or wins. If the Oscars didn't exist at all, some other awards show would likely fill its place in marketing though (such as the Golden Globes, which is used heavily in marketing already), to varying levels of success. However, the Oscars do exist, and these films were successful, so they're not flops or bombs.

[movieguru]

1) Most of these would not be considered commercial flops. The lower-grossing ones also had much lower budgets than things like LOTR and TITANIC.

2) Would it surprise you to learn that the Oscars did not begin in 1996, the year of THE ENGLISH PATIENT? You seem to have completely forgotten 69 years of Oscar history. When you said , you didn't specify only Oscar winners from the last 15 years. You're forgetting films like MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, GONE WITH THE WIND, MRS. MINIVER, CASABLANCA, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS, BEN-HUR, WEST SIDE STORY, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, MY FAIR LADY, THE SOUND OF MUSIC, PATTON, THE GODFATHER, THE STING, ROCKY, etc., etc., etc.

Why didn't you just say "most movies that win Oscars for best picture since 2008 are commercial flops."

I only listed 15 years or so because of the time it would take to go back for 70 years. Also many of the older titles you mention have grosses that benefit from numerous rereleases over the years. Also as stated earlier, when a title is nominated for an Oscar, it will sell more tickets than it would have otherwise only because it was nominated and or won the Oscar.

It also depends on how you define a commercial success or flop. If you look at the titles listed, most do not crack the top 5 domestic grosses for the year, or the top 10 for that matter. Titanc and Lord of the Rings being the exception.

[Jay G.]

It also depends on how you define a commercial success or flop. If you look at the titles listed, most do not crack the top 5 domestic grosses for the year, or the top 10 for that matter. Titanc and Lord of the Rings being the exception.

I don't think anyone besides you defines a commercial flop as a film that doesn't break into the top 10 for a given year. For example, last year The Karate Kid remake was considered a breakout hit, but it only ranked #11 on overall box office for the year.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2010&p=.htm

[Ash Ketchum]

Also, to add to what Jay G said, most top ten boxoffice lists at the end of the year in recent decades are filled with animated films and CGI-heavy blockbusters that were clearly not meant to compete for Oscars. Unless you want films like TRANSFORMERS 1&2, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 1-3, MADAGASCAR, MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE 3, and INDY 4/CRYSTAL SKULL to win Best Picture Oscars. I would rather they didn't.

But calling something a "commercial flop" because it didn't make the top ten is outlandish.

[movieguru]

Also, to add to what Jay G said, most top ten boxoffice lists at the end of the year in recent decades are filled with animated films and CGI-heavy blockbusters that were clearly not meant to compete for Oscars. Unless you want films like TRANSFORMERS 1&2, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 1-3, MADAGASCAR, MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE 3, and INDY 4/CRYSTAL SKULL to win Best Picture Oscars. I would rather they didn't.

But calling something a "commercial flop" because it didn't make the top ten is outlandish.

So those movies that make the top 10 grosses should not be considered eligible for Oscars? Cgi heavy blockbusters weren't meant to compete at the Oscars. Remember Titanic is Cgi heavy as well.

[Jay G.]

So those movies that make the top 10 grosses should not be considered eligible for Oscars? Cgi heavy blockbusters weren't meant to compete at the Oscars. Remember Titanic is Cgi heavy as well.
I don't think that Ash Ketchum was saying that they shouldn't be eligible for Oscars, just that the majority of them aren't serious Oscar contendars, and weren't developed or made with Oscars in mind, at least Best Picture. This is in opposed to films like The King's Speech, which from subject matter to budget to casting to directing to release date screamed "Oscar bait".

That said, many of those blockbusters are nominated and compete for the visual effects and sound design/editing categories. And some major blockbusters are certainly aiming for being more than "just" popcorn entertainment (not that there's anything wrong with that) like The Dark Night, Inception, and District 9.

As for animated films, Up certainly deserved a Best Picture nomination, and I wouldn't be as dismissive of them as Ash Ketchum seems to be. Certainly not all animated films are Oscar contenders, but neither are all live-action films. However, due to animated films having their own category and the rules being changed for Best Picture noms, I except animated films being nominated for Best Picture becoming an extreme rarity again.

However, the core of the argument is, again, most of the Best Picture winners of the past 15 years have been commercial successes, and labeling a film as a "flop" because it didn't break into the top 10 for the year is just silly.

[dom56]

Jessica Lange won best actress award in Blue Sky (1994) which only made over $3 millions. She mentioned in her acceptance speech how disappointed the small film was not a box office hit.

[Jay G.]

Jessica Lange won best actress award in Blue Sky (1994) which only made over $3 millions. She mentioned in her acceptance speech how disappointed the small film was not a box office hit.
Good one. Wikipedia and IMDB note that the film was finished in 1990, and the director died in 1991, but the release was delayed because of Orion's bankruptcy. Then Orion basically dumped it into theaters to try and make some quick cash.

I wonder if it's the lowest grossing box office winner.

[Ash Ketchum]

Jessica Lange won best actress award in Blue Sky (1994) which only made over $3 millions. She mentioned in her acceptance speech how disappointed the small film was not a box office hit.

When Marcia Gay Harden won for Best Supporting Actress for POLLOCK, she thanked all the voters who'd watched the screeners that had been sent out.