CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Drafts & Lists › 15 Biggest Box Office Bombs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

15 Biggest Box Office Bombs

post #1 of 82
8/24/10 at 11:59am
Thread Starter 
CNBC

Lesson: Moonies can't make movies. And Tom Petty will survive the apocalypse.
Reply
post #2 of 82
8/24/10 at 12:12pm
How the hell did Sahara and The 13th Warrior cost so much?

Speed Racer's failure still angers me. That movie is a classic.
Reply
post #3 of 82
8/24/10 at 12:13pm
How the hell did Sahara cost $240 million?!?

Still get bummed about Treasure Planet. It's not a classic, but it deserved better than the way Disney pretty much buried it in favor of hoisting Santa Clause 2 to the high heavens.
Reply
post #4 of 82
8/24/10 at 12:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
How the hell did Sahara cost $240 million?!?
Someone, I forget who, posted a link to the complete breakdown of the budget for 'Sahara'. It was a fascinating read, full of bribery allocations (for the foreign governments) as well as exhorbitant entourage fees for Cruz and McConoughey.
Reply
post #5 of 82
8/24/10 at 12:23pm
Where's 'Ishtar' on this list? That was the whipping boy of box-office flops for years and years.
Reply
post #6 of 82
8/24/10 at 12:25pm
It's still sad to see that financial defeat is forever lumped with Heaven's Gate. That film is due for a critical re-evaluation. Sure, the longer cut got some appreciation when it debuted of Z and the other channels. The film is still pretty amazing.
Reply
post #7 of 82
8/24/10 at 12:31pm
WOW...like others said, $240 for Sahara? I still have love for 13th Warrior and Speed Racer, so to hell with that boxoffice.

I wonder why Battlefield Earth is not on this list..
Reply
post #8 of 82
8/24/10 at 12:37pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick View Post
I wonder why Battlefield Earth is not on this list..
Yeah, this was the omission that had me baffled.
Reply
post #9 of 82
8/24/10 at 12:42pm
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within... that was bad.

And while Speed Racer was cute, it wasn't remotely great. I still dream of the kid brother and the monkey being digitally inserted in I Spit on your Grave as victims.

Sahara is surprising, but The 13th Warrior ain't. It marked the 1st time I could spot a movie suffering from intense reshoots.
Reply
post #10 of 82
8/24/10 at 12:43pm
It is a great film. People will come around it. Best bluray experience out there.
Reply
post #11 of 82
8/24/10 at 12:46pm
I saw it on Blu. Visually great, but I'll take Scott Pilgrim as a visually great movie that bombed over Speed Racer anyday.
Reply
post #12 of 82
8/24/10 at 12:48pm
Battlefield Earth is mentioned in the article's prologue. That movie only made back half its budget, but its budget was only $73 million. The damn thing might be the worst movie ever filmed in English, but it wasn't quite as big a financial loss as the ones that made the list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tati
It is a great film. People will come around it.
If you mean 13th Warrior, I agree. The only thing Speed Racer has going for it is the debut of the new hot, skinny Christina Ricci. Lo, there do I see my father! Lo, there do I see my mother!
Reply
post #13 of 82
8/24/10 at 12:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tati View Post
It is a great film. People will come around it. Best bluray experience out there.
I hated it. Thoroughly. Everyone that I know that has seen it hates it. People are not going to come around on it, sorry. This isn't an attack against you, Tati: I respect the fact that you like it, and I acknowledge the fact that the film has many champions on this site and on other sites.
Reply
post #14 of 82
8/24/10 at 12:49pm
I actually saw "Cutthroat Island" in the during its brief theatrical run. That was a lonely auditorium to be in.
Reply
post #15 of 82
8/24/10 at 12:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin S View Post
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within... that was bad.
What was even more of a crime is that you have years and years of Final Fantasy games and story lines, and they came up with that script?
Reply
post #16 of 82
8/24/10 at 12:58pm
SPEED RACER is not a "great" film. It's an OK film that perhaps deserved better than it got, but it's not the BLADE RUNNER of the oughts. It's bloated and silly and too convinced of it's own ingenuity. It will not be regarded as a classic but a curiosity. SCOTT PILGRIM has a much better shot at "classic" status and I think that's even questionable.
Reply
post #17 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:01pm
Who the hell would compare it to Blade Runner?
Reply
post #18 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:20pm
Because Speed Racer is all flash and no substance. Hence: not great, unlike Blade Runner.
Reply
post #19 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:23pm
I really can't believe how much Sahara cost... I'm flabbergasted. At least in Speed Racer's case you can kind of see the money on screen. Sahara looks pretty big, but not THAT big. Same goes for The 13th Warrior, really, but massive re-shoots will do that to you I guess.
Reply
post #20 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tati View Post
It is a great film. People will come around it. Best bluray experience out there.
I wouldn't dream of debating your take on how it looks on bluray, but the film left me disappointed.

From the list, Treasure Planet was really fun for me and the kids. I enjoyed Sahara too, but mostly for Steve Zahn.
Reply
post #21 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:29pm
God, I'd forgotten about Inchon. Oh, Larry, Larry, Larry...

I've never been tempted to revisit Heaven's Gate after sitting through the original theatrical release, but maybe after all these years I should consider giving the full version a look. Then again, maybe not.

And I recall reading somewhere that a huge part of the cost overruns on Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within were due to the obsessive determination to get her hair just right. Which I guess they achieved, but...

And personally, I thought Sahara was a real hoot.
Reply
post #22 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick View Post
What was even more of a crime is that you have years and years of Final Fantasy games and story lines, and they came up with that script?
Yeah, but you know what? if they'd have spent all that initial time and money and released Advent Children first? We'd still be having this conversation about it flopping.

In other news: Speed Racer is still brilliant.
Reply
post #23 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:32pm
Seconding/thirding the enjoyment of 'Sahara'. I was hoping that we'd see more Dirk Pitt adventures on screen.

I don't know if I've ever even HEARD of 'Town and Country', though.
Reply
post #24 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick View Post
What was even more of a crime is that you have years and years of Final Fantasy games and story lines, and they came up with that script?
There. They only had to include airships, or swords, or giant chickens, or magic. But they had to go "real", and add sci-fi. I doubt it wouldn't have flopped, but still, it would have had some chances.

And Sahara is fun.
Reply
post #25 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:40pm
I'll back Tati up on Speed Racer. While I do wish it had about 20 minutes shaved off in the middle, I still love that movie to pieces.
Reply
post #26 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:41pm
Thread Starter 
I had a good time with Speed Racer and Sahara. Neither deserve full on hate.
Reply
post #27 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:45pm
RE 'Speed Racer': In its defense, I will acknowledge that every single penny of that massive budget made it on the screen. You can't say the same for most of the other films on this list.
Reply
post #28 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:48pm
Racer's flaw is that it try too hard. Remove the visuals and it's a very average movie. Both performance and story-wise. Much like any Wachowski movie (V for Vendetta avoids this by having the graphic novel backing it up). It's a fun flick, I'll praise the cute visuals, but that's it. Most Pixar movies have better acting than Speed Racer.
Reply
post #29 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Clark View Post
Yeah, but you know what? if they'd have spent all that initial time and money and released Advent Children first? We'd still be having this conversation about it flopping.
I'm kind of tired of the FF7 story, so that film really did nothing for me. What I mean is that there was so much inspiration to feed off of..Not a direct lift from a story mind you, just inspiration.

Pretty much what Martin S said.
Reply
post #30 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:51pm
Matthew Fox defies that statement. His performance is simply great.

In other news. Sahara was really fun. Yeah. Too bad it had such a massive budget. I would have loved sequels.
Reply
post #31 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:52pm
I'm more amazed when something like Town and Country costs over $100+ mil when it basically a bunch of folks sitting in a house talking.

I'll also back up the Speed Racer love. It's the best family film in recent memory that isn't Pixar.
Reply
post #32 of 82
8/24/10 at 1:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
I'm more amazed when something like Town and Country costs over $100+ mil when it basically a bunch of folks sitting in a house talking.
I imagine it was salaries. They had a pretty big ensemble cast of A-list-ish actors.
Reply
post #33 of 82
8/24/10 at 2:00pm
I also love Speed Racer. And I love it more than I like Scott Pilgrim (which is a film I liked that has as much chance as SR as being a "hit" in a few years). I also love Treasure Planet and appreciate The 13th Warrior (Vikings should have a movie a quarter).

And Pixar has better acting than most films, not just Speed Racer.
Reply
post #34 of 82
8/24/10 at 2:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post
Where's 'Ishtar' on this list? That was the whipping boy of box-office flops for years and years.
Waterworld was another one that I expected to see on the list...all the way until I got to number 1 actually. And I hadn't even *heard* of the Alamo movie! Soldier, 13th Warrior and Speed Racer deserved more success I think.

And yeah, Speed Racer is awesome. It's much more engaging than people give it credit for. Yes, everything looks like it's been dipped in candy and polished by teams of elves...but there's a great movie under there. It's ridiculously pockmarked here and there with the boy and his ape, but as a whole it holds its own as a sports/competition movie, the visuals are spectacular, and it represents one of a bare handful of times that I've actually been *thrilled* in a theater.
Reply
post #35 of 82
8/24/10 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
I'm more amazed when something like Town and Country costs over $100+ mil when it basically a bunch of folks sitting in a house talking.

I'll also back up the Speed Racer love. It's the best family film in recent memory that isn't Pixar.
I love Speed Racer, and maybe I'm being a prude, but that "shit" line in the final race means I won't be showing it to my kids (almost 7 and 2 1/2) anytime soon. It's a great line, but it really limits the audience. It's an odd choice in a film that is otherwise *perfect* for a 7-year old.
Reply
post #36 of 82
8/24/10 at 2:09pm
Really? Shit?
He'll probably just miss the dialog and not make out what he's saying.
And again, Shit?
Reply
post #37 of 82
8/24/10 at 2:11pm
That's right, The Alamo was a film that came out in '04...everyone on here said it was great when it was released, and then...?

I still can't believe Sahara cost 240 big ones. That is ridiculous, and a horrible way to start off a supposed 'trilogy'.
Reply
post #38 of 82
8/24/10 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by First Class 782 View Post
I also love Speed Racer. And I love it more than I like Scott Pilgrim (which is a film I liked that has as much chance as SR as being a "hit" in a few years).
Thing is: Pilgrim has a backbone. A great story AND great performance.

Tati's right: Matthew Fox is good in it. Problem is the rest of the cast sucking. I get why people like/love it (look, Big Trouble In Little China is my favorite movie... I get it), but Pilgrim is a more likely cult movie.
Reply
post #39 of 82
8/24/10 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kush View Post
I still can't believe Sahara cost 240 big ones. That is ridiculous, and a horrible way to start off a supposed 'trilogy'.
Was there ever any word as to what the other movies of the Dirk Pitt trilogy would be?
Reply
post #40 of 82
8/24/10 at 2:16pm
It looks like the choices had to do strictly with the math (dodgy as the figures might be), so it's likely that, like Battlefield:Earth, Waterworld didn't lose quite as much relative to its cost. Because it's awfully hard to imagine them overlooking it otherwise.
Reply
post #41 of 82
8/24/10 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyeball Kid View Post
I love Speed Racer, and maybe I'm being a prude, but that "shit" line in the final race means I won't be showing it to my kids (almost 7 and 2 1/2) anytime soon. It's a great line, but it really limits the audience. It's an odd choice in a film that is otherwise *perfect* for a 7-year old.
You're being a prude.

ETA: *smiley face*
Reply
post #42 of 82
8/24/10 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva View Post
I imagine it was salaries. They had a pretty big ensemble cast of A-list-ish actors.
And the year-long wait to finish shooting.

Also, when a film starts shooting with no set script, I can't imagine it's cheap getting a screenwriter to crank something out over a long weekend.
Reply
post #43 of 82
8/24/10 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tati View Post
Really? Shit?
He'll probably just miss the dialog and not make out what he's saying.
And again, Shit?
We're trying to raise a polite and courteous kid. We try not to even say stuff like stupid, idiot, etc. around him. Though I have to admit these restrictions are coming more from my wife than they are from me.

And every kid is different. He thinks the opening race in "Cars" is too intense and still prefers to watch Nick Jr. - level stuff.
Reply
post #44 of 82
8/24/10 at 2:21pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeb View Post
It looks like the choices had to do strictly with the math (dodgy as the figures might be), so it's likely that, like Battlefield:Earth, Waterworld didn't lose quite as much relative to its cost. Because it's awfully hard to imagine them overlooking it otherwise.
Um, yeah. This is mentioned on the first page of the article. I guess Battlefield made some money off their ginormous cult of followers. They were probably told by watching this film they could cleanse their bodies so the thetans could reincarnate in them or something.
Reply
post #45 of 82
8/24/10 at 2:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyeball Kid View Post
We try not to even say stuff like stupid, idiot, etc. around him.
We're the same around our kids. I watched Speed Racer for the first time with my (then) six year old. He didn't catch that line, but I was a bit surprised that it was there -- and glad that I didn't hear it repeated.

A big part of Town & Country's budget was the need to pay the actors their full salary again when they were pulled back a year later to film the completed script.
Reply
post #46 of 82
8/24/10 at 2:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyeball Kid View Post


We're trying to raise a polite and courteous kid. We try not to even say stuff like stupid, idiot, etc. around him. Though I have to admit these restrictions are coming more from my wife than they are from me.

And every kid is different. He thinks the opening race in "Cars" is too intense and still prefers to watch Nick Jr. - level stuff.
That's admirable, but unless you're schooling him at home, he's heard all of that and more. My eight-year-old loves to rattle off who said what at school today. Carrie said the C-word today! Thankfully, so far she thinks the C-word is "crap". But yeah, don't let the presence of one bad word spoil showing your kids Speed Racer. And you don't have to be a prude to be polite!

Or do what I do when Blink 182 or the Beastie Boys come up in my music rotation in the car. Just exclaim loudly over the swears. Doesn't work for wall-to-wall stuff like Eminem or anything, but for the occasional "fuck" it works wonders.
Reply
post #47 of 82
8/24/10 at 2:57pm
Derailing, but you do see the difference between hearing it at school and hearing it at home, right?

Also, Paul Attanasio, Gary Ross, and Buck Henry were among those brought in to re-write Town & Country. That *** ain't cheap.

I watched in on Netflix Instant. Not nearly as bad as I expected.
Reply
post #48 of 82
8/24/10 at 3:17pm
Alamo isn't terrible. It establishes a mood of really being under a long siege very effectively, and still finds time to follow the story all the way through to Sam Houston's eventual victory over Santa Anna after the Alamo defenders are killed. I don't think it'll ever be rediscovered and embraced in a big way, but I liked it when I saw it.
Reply
post #49 of 82
8/24/10 at 3:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Rocco View Post
Derailing, but you do see the difference between hearing it at school and hearing it at home, right?
Yes Rob, I see the difference. Evangelizing for Speed Racer gets the better of me sometimes, but I know it's different. It just seems a shame to discount it because of one word that could have been left out without harming the film in the slightest. And more power to both you and Eyeball. The world needs more polite kids, and I hate to poo-poo any attempts (barring regular beatings and religious fanatacism) to foster that.

ETA: Apologies for the derail. I'll shut up now.
Reply
post #50 of 82
8/24/10 at 3:36pm
"Heaven's Gate" isn't a good movie, but it is a flawed work of art. Moments of jaw dropping beauty that are stretched to the point of tedium. All the same, those moments do exist, and it always kind of pisses me off to see it lumped with crap like "Pluto Nash".

The one I've always been intrigued with is "Inchon". Never saw it, but remember the previews as a kid. It looked like a great epic, but unless I'm missing something, there's absolutely now way to see it now. No DVD, no streaming, and as far as I know, not even a VHS floating around.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Drafts & Lists
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Drafts & Lists › 15 Biggest Box Office Bombs