The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/bloc...rently-flopped

A nice list of the films that are constantly cited by people on boards like this one as being flops, when they really weren't. I just had an online "argument" the other day with someone who called Waterwold's box office as "abysmal". It wasn't.



For the lazy, the titles are:

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2
PLANET OF THE APES (Burton)
SUPERMAN RETURNS
JOHN CARTER
THE LONE RANGER
THE HANGOVER: PART III
RISE OF THE GUARDIANS
WATERWORLD

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

Isn't it called Box Office Gross for a reason...as opposed to Box Office Net?

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

CLEOPATRA (1963) made a nice piece of change, but because it had been so expensive ($43 million at the time), it didn't make a profit. Had it been made for $6 million, like EL CID or THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, or $12 million, like SPARTACUS, it would have been considered a hit. I think.

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

I remember King Kong (1976) getting that as well.

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

Superman Returns may not have flopped but its box office certainly underwhelmed for WB's expectations. They spent a fortune in marketing that movie and realized it wasn't the start of a new franchise like Batman Begins.

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

Some of them are flops only because most of the internet doesn't know how numbers work.

The rule of thumb is a studio does not start making money on a film until it usually doubles its budget at the box office. The production budget of a film does not include advertising and distribution. While distribution has gotten significantly cheaper since most theaters have switched to digital, studios still have to pay for that infrastructure to exist. In addition, you also have the theaters taking a cut of the film's box office gross too.

John Carter cost $250M to produce. It made $284M at the box office. Even if Disney spent $0 to advertise or distribute the film, it still flopped as Disney did not break even once theaters walked away with their share of the gross. Disney even flat out fucking stated they lost $200M on the film at their shareholders' conference call that followed the release of the film.

Didn't Sony also spend upwards of $300M in just advertising the abortion that was The Amazing Spider-Man 2?

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

Based on the comments on this forum, I would count PACIFIC RIM among these. Yet it made $400m worldwide.

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

In theory, if a film has to do twice its budget to break even, Pacific Rim made at least $30M profit out of its theatrical release. :lol:

It has done pretty decent numbers in regards to Blu-ray and DVD rentals and sales. It's no surprise that Legendary green lit a sequel as people are now aware of the original.

Using films mentioned by the OP:

• The Amazing Spider-Man 2: $700M+ ($200M domestic/$500M international) on a production budget of $255M. Not a flop, but disappointing compared to the Raimi films and even the last outing.
• Burton's Planet of the Apes: $360M+ ($180M domestic & international) on a production budget of $100M. Nowhere near a flop and did gangbusters on DVD.
• Superman Returns: $390M+ ($200M domestic/$190M international) on a production budget of $270M. FLOP.
• John Carter: Mentioned in previous post, FLOP.
• The Lone Ranger: $260M+ ($90M domestic/$170M international) on a production budget of $215M. FLOP.
• The Hangover Part III: $360M+ ($110M domestic/$250M international) on a production budget of $100M. Not a flop and did better overseas than the first.
• Rise of the Guardians: $305M+ ($100M domestic/$205M internationally) on a production budget of $145M. Barely broke even. Barely.
• Waterworld: $265M+ ($90M domestic/$175M internationally) on a production budget of $175M. FLOP.

So in reality, even the original post is bullshit as half of those films did flop. The rest of the list is just films that disappointed the studio as their previous outings made significantly more.

I'd also consider the distribution costs on Planet of the Apes, Superman Returns, and Waterworld to be higher than the rest of the films on the list list as 35mm (and 15/70 in 3D for Superman Returns) had to be made for them. Rule of thumb is usually $10K-$40K per print per film.

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

Like others have said...they were all disappointments (except for POTA imo)... about half lost serious money, the rest made some or broke even. We'll never really know the real numbers...

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

The idea about a film being profitable and being a hit have become completely convoluted in many people's eyes. If a movie that costs $20 million to make earns $80 million, they say, "What a surprise hit!" Then if a film that costs $200 million makes $250 million, they say, "What a flop!" That, frankly, is ridiculous. Three times as many people went to see the second film. Three times! Yet it's the failure? Wrong. It may not make the studio as much money as they wanted (and unless you own stock, who really cares), but that doesn't mean it was a box office failure. Flop, to me, means that no one went to see it. Whether it made money or not is irrelevant.

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

A rule of thumb that came out of nowhere. It was invented out of whole cloth, and perpetuated on boards like this by people like you (and me, don't get insulted). We all know about how Raiders of the Lost Ark and Coming to America have yet to turn a profit, on paper. Hollywood accounting is complete BS. They can roll expenses into a film's production that had nothing to do with it, just to keep from paying people they don't want to. Or they can claim that a film made zillions on a tiny budget to make a story. It's all a mystery to any of us. The only REAL numbers we have are the production costs and the box office. Anything else is pure speculation.

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

Even if a film cost $200M after production, advertising, and distribution costs and it pulls in $250M, there's still a chunk of money that's going directly to the theaters playing it. The studio gets back 80-90% of its grosses from that first weekend and that percentage decreases as each week progresses. That's why theaters prefer having films with legs as they see more money.

Depending on how long that film was in theaters, the studio might only see $150M once all is said and done, still leaving them in the red.

Granted, there's syndication sales, video sales, and other things to take into account. However in today's market, most networks now wait until after the release of the film to buy television rights and video sales are no longer where they used to be say ten years ago.

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

I remember learning that rule of thumb in film school 40 years ago, although the commonly accepted required figure, as I've heard it, was always two-and-a-half times its budget to break even. As Mr. Chmiel points out, the replacement of film prints with digital delivery has reduced some of the distribution costs, so the double-its-budget figure may be more accurate on some films, although it seems like the increased promotion budgets for certain films may offset that.

Granted, the "creative accounting" at the studios has traditionally stymied various profit participants' attempts to get their points from the net, which is why certain Hollywood players with the clout to do so, e.g. Jack Nicholson, have always managed to make sure their points began with the gross, "dollar one." Oftentimes, a studio would add overhead costs of running a studio to different films' budgets on paper to make it more difficult for net profit participants to begin collecting their shares.

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

Cleopatra was the top grossing film of 1963 making $26 million.

The budget, translated into today's dollars was $334 million.

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

To be fair to Superman Returns (which really doesn't deserve fairness) the actual film budget is kind of unknown, and that $270m accounts for the years of attempts and failures, and many legal issues.

Yeah but there's still a ton of money here, especially with money from HBO, FX (who seems to buy everything), and Netflix.

After Man of Steel, I feel more charitable towards Superman Returns. Video sales don't mean what they used to, but downloads must count for something?

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

Mmmmmm.... Internet money.....

http://i62.tinypic.com/ap6vie.jpg

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

While digital rentals and sales make the studios far more than physical media (studios take back 60-70% per rental and sale) and is cheaper to distribute, studios haven't been forthcoming with that information. It also doesn't help that there's multiple companies in the game (e.g. Amazon, Google Play, iTunes, Vudu, and so on) and studio's pre-existing contracts with other companies (like HBO) end up having those films removed from digital distribution for a few months at a time.

However, studios are trying for a harder push with digital distribution. That's why films now see as early as a four week release on digital platforms over their physical media equivalent. When a studio sells you a film at $20 on iTunes, that studio makes anywhere from $12-14 on the deal. Hell, even renting it at $5 nets them a few dollars. When a studio sells you a film at $20 on Blu-ray, the profits are significantly less. Forget if you rent it from Redbox where the studio sees next-to-nothing.

IIRC, the production budget was around $220-230M. However, as you mentioned, Warner's past attempts in reviving Superman the past fifteen years prior to that film and the legal issues are included in that budget. That's what you get for signing people up like Tim Burton and Nic Cage up for pay-or-play deals worth nearly $10M each.

The problem with premium television rights now? The studios want more money and want their own ways of distribution. HBO, Showtime, and Starz all get package deals from the studios for a specific length of time.

• HBO: First-run television rights from films distributed by Fox, Universal, and Warner.
• Showtime: As of now? First-run television rights from live-action films distributed by DreamWorks. :lol:
• Starz: First-run television rights from live-action films distributed by Sony. :lol:

Why do you think HBO, Showtime, and Starz are fighting one another with original programming? The studios are all jumping ship for the most part.

When Paramount, Lionsgate, and MGM's deals expired with Showtime, they went ahead and created their own channel Epix which is available to anyone who has or doesn't have a cable subscription. It's more money from them as people can subscribe to them directly or through another provider. Like Netflix. Netflix who also has the first-run rights to films from Disney, DreamWorks Animation, FilmDistrict, Open Road, Relativity, Sony Pictures Animation, and The Weinstein Company amongst others. This is in addition to all of the television deals they've made with studios too. No wonder Amazon is trying to get into the game, but nobody is watching their original programming or exclusive content (the A24 library).

FX is the only cable network really fighting for film rights anymore, especially now as they have to program three channels. However, the money isn't as big as it was a few years ago as they're unable to show films sometime between 18-24 months after they've aired on a "pay" network.

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

Now that everyone's doing trilogies and what not, what would have happened had ASM 2 really flopped financially? I haven't seen it, but they're basically setting up for the next movie, would they really scrap the next one? It's relatively simple to do if the first movie flops, but two movies into a franchise with that much name recognition?

But I do think expectations come into play. If you look at Sony's projects, they're betting a lot on that one franchise.

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

I think Sony has just ASM as their cash cow.

Paramount has Star Trek, Mission Impossible, Transformers, and I think that's it for money franchises.

Disney has itself, SW, and Marvel. Oh! Pixar too.

Fox has Avatar, Aliens, and X-Men

WB has its DC and.....is that it now? Hangover is done. HP still has like movie related thing going, no?

Universal has Fast and Furious.

What else am I missing?

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

Lionsgate: Hunger Games
MGM: Bond

Bourne is still chugging along, isn't it?

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

WB does have a few Harry Potter related movies in the works. Movie based on the writers of one of his text books. Seems like a stretch but they see the $$$.

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

WB - Lego?

Universal - Jurassic Park (if the upcoming movie successfully revives it)

Re: The films that grossed $250m+ and apparently flopped
 

Sony also has the Robert Langdon franchise (Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons, Inferno)

Warner has Godzilla, although it's more under Legendary Pictures' umbrella.

Universal has Despicable Me and Fox has Ice Age. I'm probably forgetting a bunch of other animated franchises.

Despicable Me is HUGE in the merchandising world, we sell tons of Minion stuff at work, I'm sure Universal struck major good with that. Those things are so frigging cute, it's ridiculous.