Mattflix

Likewise The Thing getting crushed by the much happier alien movie that is E.T.

cleaver

Didn't exactly bomb but Amazing Spider-Man didn't have legs because Dark Knight Rises came out after it had been out for 3 weeks

Jay G.

The Thing and Blade Runner opened on the same weekend, two weeks after E.T.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Th...lm)#Box_office
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner#Reception
I'd think it more likely that The Thing and Blade Runner somewhat cannibalized each other's audience, being dark, violent, R-rated sci-fi films, rather than a PG-rated kids film.

Likewise, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan did decent box-office despite being released a week before E.T., so it's not just proximity to E.T. that caused these films to not rake it in.

Why So Blu?

John Carpenter's The Thing. It opened the same year as E.T. Nothing was going to beat E.T. that year.

Ash Ketchum

I saw E.T. when it came out, but it took me a while to catch up with both THE THING and BLADE RUNNER. I saw both in theaters at least a year after their initial run.

Hokeyboy

In this day and age people still don't understand the difference between gross and net?

Jay G.

People understand gross and net, but they misunderstand how movies work and simplify it to:

Movie gross - production budget = net

The reality is much more complex, but the rule of thumb is:

(Movie gross / 2) - production budget = net


I just realized that besides Hocus Pocus, moviefan2k4 messed up both the estimated profits for Last Action Hero and ST: Nemesis.

Last Action Hero made $137 million domestic, but cost $85 million, so ended up losing around $16.5 million:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Action_Hero

Star Trek: Nemesis made $67 million domestic on a $60 million budget, so lost around $26.5 million:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Nemesis

Edit: the grosses listed here are combined grosses (domestic + foreign). See below for domestic grosses.

moviefan2k4

I was using simple math, thinking the total listed was worldwide gross, and subtracting the budget for a profit number.

Jay G.

Actually, you're right, those are worldwide grosses, making the situation even more dire for those films.

Last Action Hero made $50 million domestic, but cost $85 million, so ended up losing around $60 million:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...actionhero.htm

Star Trek: Nemesis made $43 million domestic on a $60 million budget, so lost around $38.5 million:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek10.htm

Now, these likely recouped some additional money from foreign and home video sales, but it's clear to see why they're considered bombs.


This is a good recent article about calculating how much money a movie needs to make to be profitable.
http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-mone...-be-profitable

This one goes into "Hollywood Accounting," and how even majorly successful films may be considered "unprofitable.":
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...ofitable.shtml


Some older articles, with possibly out of date information, but provides some additional info on how Hollywood has works:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/t...mystified.html
http://themovieblog.com/2007/economi...ts-us-so-much/

TomOpus

I think some films use the excuse of a bad release date for poor performance. Most times it's just a movie people don't enjoy watch very much.

wm lopez

I paid to see ST2, E.T. and THE THING in 1982.
I never understood this that people will go to a movie once if there are a bunch of good movies out at the time.
BLADE RUNNER looked boring and I saw it on pay t.v. and liked it.

Dr. DVD

Donnie Brasco- I think this would have been nominated for more than just adapted screenplay if it came out in November of 97 than February.

Zodiac- same as above. Should have come out in mid to late October or closer to awards season.

The Terminal- should have been a Christmas release

Eyes Wide Shut- would have probably gotten more awards buzz if released around Christmas

Sahara- Okay, this came out in early Spring, and should have been released in early summer '05 when people might have been more in the mood. Instead Kingdom of Heaven was released to kick off the summer and didn't do as well. Speaking of which:

Kingdom of Heaven- this is actually a different case. I think had they released the extended version of this (meaning use it as the theatrical instead of the actual theatrical) in November it would have been a contender for Best Picture among others.

Grindhouse- it was a niche audience to begin with, but as a rule one should NEVER release a movie whose predominant audience would be college students around a major family holiday. Those who would be interested will be busy doing family functions. I think the same fate awaits the Oldboy remake.

Mike86

I know I'm in the minority but I didn't think Nemesis was all that bad. The biggest problems it had if you ask me were that it tried to take a page from The Wrath of Khan but it didn't work because there wasn't a rivalry between Picard and Shinzon for years to make people care and the other problem it had was it shouldn't have been the send off film for The Next Generation crew. I don't think it's the best Trek film but it's a fun sci-fi popcorn action movie.

Lt Ripley

Summer of '82 was fabulous. The films I saw in the theater or drive-in that year were:

THE THING
BLADE RUNNER
CONAN
THE WRATH OF KHAN
ROAD WARRIOR
FIREFOX
POLTERGEIST
E.T.
SECRET OF NIMH
TRON
THE WALL
HALLOWEEN III
DARK CRYSTAL

Jay G.

It's hard to say exactly why a certain film didn't do well. There's always a lot of post analyzing, but it's never as clear cut as some would like it to be. Even "it's just a movie people don't enjoy [to] watch very much" doesn't actually work, since there's some pretty horrible films that perform well, while some really great films struggle and fail. It could be timing, or marketing, or a dozen of other factors. It's just impossible to say.

The same week that Star Trek 2 came out, Poltergeist was released. Both of those films did pretty well, even with E.T. being released the next week:
http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/cha...wknd=24&p=.htm

There's the concept that people only have finite money and time, so they can only go see so many movies. However, there's also the idea that a lot of people go and see different things on different nights or weekends, depending at least partially on their mood or companion. So while releasing two comic book superhero movies on the same weekend might not be the best idea, things like "counterprogramming" can work, where you schedule a film opposite a completely different type of film to capture a completely different audience. There's also the "rising tide can lift all boats" concept, where a popular movie that sells out could cause spillover to other films.

Decker

What people tend to forget now about blockbusters in the 70's and 80's is that there were only a finite number of screens and theaters - there weren't 18 screen theaters with the top movie showing on seven screens. Many times I would go to see a blockbuster film and not get to see it because it was sold out and I didn't want to wait three hours for the next show so I'd see something else instead. It took me months to get into Raiders and to Empire Strikes Back. Opening the week after a huge blockbuster wasn't such a death sentence as you might think.

moviefan2k4

See, I've never heard of the formula you're using for profit numbers, though I'm fairly familiar with the practice of "Hollywood accounting". Various laws have been sent to the states and Supreme Court, trying to get film studios' books opened so cheated folks get paid. A classic example is Winston Groom, who denied the rights to his second "Forrest Gump" novel after the studios ripped him off.

E Unit

Do movies really bomb solely based on when they were released? So far most that have been mentioned, like the OP's list of Hocus Pocus, Nemesis, and Last Action Hero all don't seem like they would have done significantly better had they had "better" release dates. I remember when I worked at the theater people saying how Hocus Pocus just wasn't that good. And Last Action Hero? That movie was DOA, no matter when it would have been released. But I have to agree, movies that go up against other movies, THAT can effect whether or not a movie bombs, such as Jurassic Park and Last Action Hero, although like I said, I think Last Action Hero would have failed no matter when it would have been released.

Reminds me of when Silence of the Lambs came out, on Valentine's Day 1991. Usually the time of year when the delayed movies are often dumped, but Silence cleaned house, and was even remembered the following year when the Academy Awards came around.

Numanoid

You also have to remember that back in '82, most theaters in the country were only one or two screens. No one was going to give up playing E.T. on one of their screens to make room for both The Thing and Blade Runner, so you end up with some theaters showing just one or neither. They would get relegated to the smaller theaters, or drive-ins, or have to wait and hit the cheap theaters -- all of which meant lower box office.

Numanoid

No, following on the heels of the shitacular Insurrection was its problem with getting a big opening weekend.

Abob Teff

This ...

... and ... While home video was in its infancy, it was not an anticipated alternative for movies. Today you almost have to see a movie in the first few weeks if you want to see it in a theater. If you miss it, you can catch the DVD or Blu-Ray in 6 months. In the early 80s it was still common for a movie to last for months in a theater. 3 or 4 "blockbuster" movies being released at the same time did not cause the canibalization it does today.

Jay G.

I actually may have conflated two things. From an old Usenet FAQ, question 18:
http://faqs.cs.uu.nl/na-dir/movies/f...ent-films.html
The studios, approximately, get about half of the domestic gross, so it's not as simple as just taking the gross and subtracting the production budget. However, the assumption is that if a film grosses its budget domestically, the other fields of revenue (foreign, home video, merchandising, etc) will mean that it likely made a profit or at least broke even. However, it's impossible to say how much profit it made, and making estimates would require more complex math.


Note that this is different than the "Hollywood accounting" mentioned, which uses complex accounting tricks to hide true profit. The tip for anyone working on a film is to get gross points, never net, because you're never going to see net.

Why So Blu?

Not even. Arnold was still a draw but they made the mistake of releasing during the Jurassic Park feeding frenzy, which cut into the box office.

E Unit

Jurassic destroyed Last Action Hero. But if I recall, the reviews and the very few people I remember seeing it, all thought it just wasn't good. Might have been the first movie that Arnold couldn't have saved.

Abob Teff

Last Action Hero was crap. Jurassic Park wasn't to blame.