Favorite Box Office Flops

[white avenger]

AS many people here know, the movie that I have waited most of my life to see, "John Carter," was released this year to totally underwhelming reviews and box office returns, despite the very outspoken praise of the vast majority of the people who bothered to ignore the poor reviews and actually go and see it. That has raised my curiosity about the so-called "flops," and I did a little checking. Below is a list of what have been classified as the biggest flops as of 2012 and then a list of what might be called "dishonorable mentions." Oddly enough, I both saw and enjoyed several of these movies, and even list several among my all time favorites.

So, here is my question. Am I the only one who saw and enjoyed at least some of these movies, are were they all terrible, a total waste of time, and should never have been made? So, confess up. Which ones did you see and enjoy? Or did you hate them all?


Top Box-Office Flops of All-Time
(as of 2012)
The box-office figures for total cost (production budgets), and domestic and worldwide grosses are fairly accurate, but must be taken as estimates only.
The figures for total net loss are inflation-adjusted for the year 2012.

The following list (written up in detail in the pages that follow) comprises the films that lost the most revenue*:
Top 10 Box-Office Flops of All-Time
Film Title
Year

Total Cost and
Worldwide Revenue

Total Net Loss

Total Net Loss
(inflation adjusted)

Cutthroat Island (1995) Total cost: $115 million
$18.5 million revenue
$96.5 million $147.2 million

The Alamo (2004) Total cost: $145 million
$25.8 million revenue $119.2 million $146.6 million

The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002) Total cost: $120 million
$ 7.1 million revenue $113 million $145.9 million

Sahara (2005) Total cost: $241 million
$119.3 million revenue $121.7 million $144.9 million

Mars Needs Moms (2011) Total cost: $175 million
$39 million revenue $136 million $140.5 million

The 13th Warrior (1999) Total cost: $160 million
$61.7 million revenue $98.3 million $137.1 million

Town & Country (2001) Total cost: $105 million
$10.4 million revenue $94.6 million $124.2 million

Speed Racer (2008) Total cost: $200 million
$94 million revenue $106 million $114.5 million

Heaven's Gate (1980) Total cost: $44 million
$3.5 million revenue $40.5 million $114.3 million

Stealth (2005) Total cost: $170.8 million
$77 million revenue $94 million $111.7 million


Other Major Box-Office Flops
Film Title
Year

Total Cost and
Worldwide Revenue

Total Net Loss

Total Net Loss
(inflation adjusted)

Green Lantern (2011) Total cost: $325 million
$220 million revenue $105 million $108.6 million

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001) Total cost: $167 million
$85.1 million revenue $81.9 million $107.5 million

The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964) Total cost: $19 million
$4.75 million revenue $14.25 million $106.8 million

Supernova (2000) Total cost: $90 million
$14.8 million revenue $75.2 million $101.5 million

Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000 (2000) Total cost: $103 million
$29.7 million revenue $73.3 million $98.9 million

Inchon (1982) Total cost: $46 million
$5.2 million revenue $40.8 million $98.3 million

Raise the Titanic (1980) Total cost: $40 million
$7 million revenue $33 million $93.1 million

Treasure Planet (2002) Total cost: $180 million
$109.6 million revenue $70.4 million $91 million

Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever (2002) Total cost: $90 million
$19.9 million revenue $70.1 million $90.5 million

The Postman (1997) Total cost: $80 million
$17.6 million revenue $62.4 million $90.3 million

Red Planet (2000) Total cost: $100 million
$33.5 million revenue $66.5 million $89.8 million

K-19: The Widowmaker (2002) Total cost: $135 million
$65.7 million revenue $69.3 million $89.5 million

Windtalkers (2002) Total cost: $145 million
$77.6 million revenue $67.4 million $87 million

Soldier (1998) Total cost: $75 million
$15 million revenue $60 million $85.6 million

Gigli (2003) Total cost: $74 million
$7.3 million revenue $66.7 million $84.3 million

Around the World in 80 Days (2004) Total cost: $140 million
$72.2 million revenue $67.8 million $83.5 million
Ishtar (1987) Total cost: $55 million
$14.4 million revenue $40.6 million $83.1 million

Hudson Hawk (1991) Total cost: $65 million
$17.2 million revenue $47.8 million $81.5 million

A Sound of Thunder (2005) Total cost: $80 million
$11.7 million revenue $68.3 million $81.3 million

Hart's War (2002) Total cost: $95 million
$32.3 million revenue $62.7 million $81 million

*Total Net Loss (inflation-adjusted for 2012) =
Total Cost (the film's production (budget) + marketing expenses) minus
Total Worldwide Theatrical Gross Revenue

And for those who have bothered to read this far and are curious, the ones that I liked are:

The Alamo
The 13th Warrior
Stealth
Green Lantern
Fall Of The Roman Empire
Battlefield Earth
The Postman
Red Planet
Soldier
Hudson Hawk

So, now it's your turn...

 

[funsmiley]

I personally think that the movie industry in the past decade has completlety changed. it seems to take a lot more to impress an audieunce and make a good film.

I personally enjoyed some of the films listed.

 

[JCoatsworth]

I have watched The 13th Warrior and I've enjoyed it. The movie Miller's Crossing by the Coen Brothers is also considered a box-office failure with a budget of $14 million and making only $5 million. However, the movie made profits through very high DVD sales. I enjoyed that movie very much.

 

[funsmiley]

I have watched The 13th Warrior and I've enjoyed it. The movie Miller's Crossing by the Coen Brothers is also considered a box-office failure with a budget of $14 million and making only $5 million. However, the movie made profits through very high DVD sales. I enjoyed that movie very much.

WHAT?!! i never knew that!!! i love that film!!!

 

[JCoatsworth]

it seems to take a lot more to impress an audieunce and make a good film.

It also seems to me like movies have gotten more expensive in general. You can't find many movies that have cost less than... let's say $50 million. Back in the day, E.T. made $793 million worldwide with a budget of about $11 million. Of course, I've picked one of the most profitable movies of all time, but as you said, it takes a lot more to impress an audience, which I think is rather sad.

WHAT?!! i never knew that!!! i love that film!!!

You mean Miller's Crossing? Yes, it's really cool. But it doesn't matter now, because, as I said, the high DVD sales made up for it.

 

[dexeded]

I haven't watched most of those films, but--Treasure Planet flopped?! No way! It was so awesome!

 

[Robb Stark]

$200 million to make Speed Racer? *Shudders*

Seriously though, not all of those movies are "bad". I loved Treasure Planet when I was a kid (Joseph Gordon Levitt, who just starred in the new Batman). Also, it's nice to know that I'm not the only person on the planet who actually enjoyed Green Lantern. I'm about as big of a GL comic book fan as you'll ever find, and I really liked the movie. At the same time though, I can see the problems it had in translating from the comic medium to the big screen. Still, I like it a lot.

What kind of baffles me is how some of these major studios like Disney, Warner Bros and others, with hugely successful track records and obviously some of the most talented people in Hollywood behind them, green light some of these projects. I'm not talking about movie quality here, I'm just going with a simple look at risk/reward return on investment. Green Lantern I understand because of the super hero movie craze and how widely praised the comic has been. But some of the others, regardless of how good or bad they are, are difficult to grasp. I mean, I've never read the books John Carter is based on, so looking at the premise from an outsider's perspective, it didn't look great. It was difficult to understand and looked pretty wacky. And yet, it had a $250 million budget before advertising. I read on wikipedia that the film lost over $160 million. I mean, someone has to get fired over that, no matter how good the movie is.

If we're talking "bomb/flop" actors, I really like Taylor Kitch. I was a big Friday Night Lights fan, and he was awesome there. But for whatever reason, he's done what can only be considered a truly remarkable job at choosing massive box office bombs. John Carter, Battleship (which I haven't seen but actually thought looked decent) and Savages all flopped hard. I feel kinda bad for him. I mean, he's a very good actor, but I don't think any studio will invest in him as a leading man in any type of big role again, or at least for some time. Good actor or not, he's proven that he can't draw, and at the end of the day, that's what matters.

 

[EVIL UU]

I LOVE Hudson Hawk.

It's "Princess Bride" of 80s action movie genre.

 

[Vamp Jenny]

I think the only movies I saw on this list are Pluto Nash (which bored me to death) and Treasure Planet (not too bad but I don't remember much of it).

I know they didn't made that much of a flop since they're not on your list, but Jumper and Push: Division are 2 movies I absolutely love. Still, they must have been badly received because both should've had a sequel and neither did.

 

[Enemies]

I enjoyed Green Lantern, I didn't realise that had been a flop. I don't recognise most of the films on that list though.

 

[Username]

I've only seen a few of those movies, I didn't like any of them though. ew Gigli, that was wretched.. but there are others that I like, I think that Grindhouse by Tarantino/Rodriguez did really bad in box office, Death Proof is one of my all time favorites, I don't understand how that movie could've flopped..

 

[Robb Stark]

[MENTION=6758]white avenger[/MENTION]: I think the way they marketed and advertised John Carter was a massively big problem. There was zero explanation of the plot or what the movie was supposed to be about. All we saw was Taylor Kitch jumping around and some odd looking wooly mammoth type things (to quote the immortal Mr. Trick: "I ain't never seen that before"), and then JOHN CARTER in ridiculously big block writing. I don't know who designed that ad campaign, but I'm willing to bet they're no longer Disney-employed.

 

[white avenger]

[MENTION=6758]white avenger[/MENTION]: I think the way they marketed and advertised John Carter was a massively big problem. There was zero explanation of the plot or what the movie was supposed to be about. All we saw was Taylor Kitch jumping around and some odd looking wooly mammoth type things (to quote the immortal Mr. Trick: "I ain't never seen that before"), and then JOHN CARTER in ridiculously big block writing. I don't know who designed that ad campaign, but I'm willing to bet they're no longer Disney-employed.

The thing is, you HAVE "seen that before," in the original "Flash Gordon," "Highlander," "Star Wars,"and literally dozens of other science fiction/fantasy/adventure/romance movies and books, up to and including "Avatar." Just about everybody was inspired by and borrowed from (or downright stole) material from these original stories. But you're right, Burroughs' thoats looked nothing like what Stanton portrayed on screen. They looked much more like George Lucas' banthas, which were, themselves, inspired by some of Burroughs' Barsoomian beasties, and actually named after the banths, Barsoomian lions that were mentioned, but never shown in "John Carter."

"John Carter" was definitely marketed badly. The sad thing about it is, bringing "A Princess Of Mars" to the big screen was a true labor of love for Stanton, a book, series, and group of characters that he grew up enjoying and being inspired by. Unfortunately, he became, I believe, just too close to the material to see its flaws. As I said, the movie itself, despite what the critics claimed, was an excellent story, though totally incomplete and therefore difficult for someone not familiar with the source material to truly understand. The original book took place over a period of more than 10 years, while the book gave the impression that Carter was on Barsoom for only a few weeks, at best. Stanton took the beginning, a small portion of the middle, and part of the ending of the book and fused them together badly. Fully 80% of the plot, 90% of the action, and 100% of the romance were left out entirely. This is Stanton's story, not Burroughs'.

"A Princess Of Mars," and its sequels, were written to be serialized in various men's adventure magazines, and each of the (I think) twenty installments had to be basically a story within itself, sometimes, but not always, ending in a classic cliff hanger, and all building toward a single ending where all of the various threads were brought together for the ending, which, in itself, was a cliffhanger leading into the next novel, finally reaching a truly spectacular climax at the end of the third novel of the trilogy. There was just too much happening in that first book to cover it all in a singe movie, and it really needed all of that material to truly make sense.

(I TOLD you not to get me started on "John Carter." rather than rant on for several thousand more paragraphs, I'm gonna stop now, unless someone foolishly goads me into continuing)

(Is it possible to hijack your own thread?)

 

[VisionGirl]

I haven't seen all of those movies, but I did like Windtalkers. GL was OK but not as good as the Marvel movies.

I know it's going to break your heart WA, but I was so disappointed in John Carter. Th book is fabulous and yes I know that it was hard to adapt to a film. But it was way too Disney-fied. It could've been serious sci-fi- should've been. I mean, the book is classic, early sci-fi, it deserved better. The only thing I didn't mind is the female strength- lets admit that the book is a bit sexist & racist. But I can forgive it, it's a product of its time.

 

[white avenger]

I know it's going to break your heart WA, but I was so disappointed in John Carter. Th book is fabulous and yes I know that it was hard to adapt to a film. But it was way too Disney-fied. It could've been serious sci-fi- should've been. I mean, the book is classic, early sci-fi, it deserved better. The only thing I didn't mind is the female strength- lets admit that the book is a bit sexist & racist. But I can forgive it, it's a product of its time.

No, it doesn't break my heart. In fact, I agree, I would have loved to see a much closer adaptation of Burroughs' original text, and still would, even as a TV miniseries or a series, live with a lower special effects budget or animated movies with the picture and animation quality of "The Incredibles" or even "Heavy Metal," with at least 8 hours devoted to each of the 3 books. What made me happy about the movie was its quality and how much closer it did follow the original text as compared to any other of Burroughs' books that have been made into movies, especially, but not limited to, any Tarzan movie that has been done to date. John Carter and the world of Barsoom were actually recognizable to fans of the series.

 

[Jodast]

[MENTION=6758]white avenger[/MENTION] [MENTION=11975]Always Bangel[/MENTION] The headmaster at my junior school was called John Carter! I wish I was making it up. The title doesn't tell you anything about the film at all unless you're already a fan of Burroughs' work in which case you might think 'oooh I hope that's about the John Carter I know of' otherwise it could be a documentary about an accountant, or indeed the bio-pic of my first headmaster.

Call it 'Princess of Mars' and all of a sudden thoughts of space exploration, daring rescues and romance spring instantly to mind. You hook people in with a title that may be a little cheesy, but it is certainly evocative. If they insisted on calling it John Carter they could have given it the Indiana Jones treatment and called it 'John Carter and the Princess of Mars', which admittedly sounds like a bad mid-80s adult movie but it's still better than just John Carter. I thought it was a good movie. It didn't blow my mind but I certainly enjoyed it and will be asking for it as a Christmas gift.

I really liked Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within...kinda. The visuals are stunning and the story is decent enough until the inevitable

Spoiler

Gaea is the life force drivel that plagues some of the Final Fantasy games which spawned the movie

In a similar thread a few months ago I mentioned that I am a fan of The Lastt Action Hero, a film which flopped badly enough to bankrupt its production company. I don't see how, though, it was tremendous fun and poked fun at itself and the genre it belongs to. A few years later Scream does exactly the same thing and becomes a smash hit. Maybe TLAH was just a little too post-modern for its time?

Soldier wasn't bad, either. I have only watched it the one time when it came out on DVD back in the day but I remember enjoying it.

For the most part, though films that flop deserve to. It is usually because they are poorly conceived or executed ideas in the first place and the budgets are so high that the required number of people just are not going to go to the cinema to watch it and recoup the money. I do agree, however, that in the case of John Carter, it could easily have made its money back in theatres if Disney hadn't dropped the ball in the marketing department, even if it had not made a huge profit.

 

[AmelRIOT]

I'm not a huge fan of the film listings but I watched on E news! That Little Nicky with Adam Sandler was his worst film but I LOVE it and so does nearly everyone I know from my city and friends. There are properly other films that most people hate that I love but can't think on the top of my head.

 

[VisionGirl]

[MENTION=11853]Jodast[/MENTION]- ITA about calling it John Carter rather than A Princess of Mars. Also I'm an ER fan and when I think John Carter I think of DR. John Carter. Now of course the book was published long before the television show but it was a very popular show & I would wager that more people have seen that show than have read Burroughs' book.