Biggest Movie Flop of All Time

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: minendo
Waterworld was also a huge flop.

I watch the Dateline interview with Diane Sawyer and Keven Cosner (sp?) and he said that the movie was indeed not a flop. Dateline looked up all of the profit that the movie made throughout the world, and it easily topped 70 million. I guess it wasn't as much of a flop as everyone thinks

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: v3rrv3
Bombs Away! <-- Article I was looking at.

- Kevin

I liked Howard the Duck. Lea Thompson....yummmm...

 

[UNCjigga]

I've never even heard of Pluto Nash. What about that movie with Chris Rock--Pootie Tang?

 

[Encryptic]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: pandego
Rhinestone or Glitter?

Actually, Glitter was a very cheap movie to produce (watch it, you'll see). I I think that it made somewhere around 2.5 million, which should have paid for it.

If Mariah Carey had gotten nekkid or at least flashed her funbags, they probably could have recouped their losses several times over.

 

[Hauk]

Another vote for Waterworld. Huge budget, big losses, and it sucked...

 

[Spoooon]

Originally posted by: SteelSix
Another vote for Waterworld. Huge budget, big losses, and it sucked...

I think one of the articles said that it made a little bit of money. My vote, at least for a Costner flop, is for The Postman.

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: minendo
Waterworld was also a huge flop.

I watch the Dateline interview with Diane Sawyer and Keven Cosner (sp?) and he said that the movie was indeed not a flop. Dateline looked up all of the profit that the movie made throughout the world, and it easily topped 70 million. I guess it wasn't as much of a flop as everyone thinks

I read somewhere that it cost over $200+ million to make.

 

[anxi80]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: yukichigai
Let's not forget Reindeer Games. Oh man was that an awful flick.

:Q

Hey...it had a topless Charlize Theron!

but if you watch the 'devils advocate', you see the whole charlize theron show.

 

[Encryptic]

Originally posted by: anxi80

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: yukichigai
Let's not forget Reindeer Games. Oh man was that an awful flick.

:Q

Hey...it had a topless Charlize Theron!

but if you watch the 'devils advocate', you see the whole charlize theron show.

She was all scratched up though.

Connie Nielsen was SMOKING in that movie though....

 

[TheNinja]

depends what you call "a flop"

1.lost the most money total
2.brought in the least amount of money
3.worst return on investment percentage wise
4.people went to it so it did bring in some money, but almost everyone hated it.

 

[Spoooon]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: minendo
Waterworld was also a huge flop.

I watch the Dateline interview with Diane Sawyer and Keven Cosner (sp?) and he said that the movie was indeed not a flop. Dateline looked up all of the profit that the movie made throughout the world, and it easily topped 70 million. I guess it wasn't as much of a flop as everyone thinks

I read somewhere that it cost over $200+ million to make.

"For starters, "Waterworld" cost about $175 million to make. To earn a profit it would, at the same time, have to have become one of the highest-grossing movies of all time -- an entirely unrealistic goal to set. But gross profits don't indicate anything about a film's overall take -- "Forrest Gump" (1994) and "Batman" (1989), two of the most popular films ever, are both supposedly profitless. They are still in the red, especially after paying all their wealthy actors and entirely essential publicists."

"Waterworld," on the other hand, made more than $70 million domestically, and much, much more worldwide. It is one of the most popular American exports of the year -- the highest-grossing movie ever in Israel, as a matter of fact. So what is REALLY a financial failure?"



One of the articles I found claimed that it grossed $4400 million worldwide.

 

[Sepen]

Originally posted by: v3rrv3
MSN Entertainment claims that the movie "The Adventures of Pluto Nash" is the biggest flop of all time. Costing between 90-100 million and only taking in Approx. 4.4 million. Sad to see Eddie Murphy hit such a low.

- Kevin

Excellent read, thanks!

 

[Mr N8]

Originally posted by: minendo
Waterworld was also a huge flop.

That was my first thought. Terrible movie. I can't believe Costner is trying to direct again.

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: Spoooon

One of the articles I found claimed that it grossed $4400 million worldwide.

Do you have an extra 0 in there?

 

[Spoooon]

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: Spoooon

One of the articles I found claimed that it grossed $4400 million worldwide.

Do you have an extra 0 in there?

I'm afraid not. That's why I'm a little credulous about the claim. But, it does seem like the movie made a fair amount of money.

 

[Schlocemus]

Originally posted by: Spoooon

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: minendo
Waterworld was also a huge flop.

I watch the Dateline interview with Diane Sawyer and Keven Cosner (sp?) and he said that the movie was indeed not a flop. Dateline looked up all of the profit that the movie made throughout the world, and it easily topped 70 million. I guess it wasn't as much of a flop as everyone thinks

I read somewhere that it cost over $200+ million to make.

"For starters, "Waterworld" cost about $175 million to make. To earn a profit it would, at the same time, have to have become one of the highest-grossing movies of all time -- an entirely unrealistic goal to set. But gross profits don't indicate anything about a film's overall take -- "Forrest Gump" (1994) and "Batman" (1989), two of the most popular films ever, are both supposedly profitless. They are still in the red, especially after paying all their wealthy actors and entirely essential publicists."

"Waterworld," on the other hand, made more than $70 million domestically, and much, much more worldwide. It is one of the most popular American exports of the year -- the highest-grossing movie ever in Israel, as a matter of fact. So what is REALLY a financial failure?"



One of the articles I found claimed that it grossed $4400 million worldwide.

Uh, according to IMDb if we only take the US sales, Forrest Gump is extremely far from the red (unless they spent $100+ million on advertising). Of course I just could be reading this incorrectly, but I assume that budget includes the payment of actors and other expenses in making the movie. *shrug*

Forrest Gump:

Budget
$55,000,000

Opening Weekend
$24,000,000 (USA)

Gross
$2,500,000 (China)
$578,200 (Czech Republic)
$1,300,000 (Denmark)
$2,241,845 (Finland)
$344,100,000 (Non-USA)
NOK 29,987,869 (Norway)
SEK 61,344,695 (Sweden)
$4,818,500 (Sweden)
$2,983,000 (Switzerland)
?4,063,611 (The Netherlands)
£15,803,823 (UK) (16 April 1995)
£13,423,129 (UK) (11 December 1994)
£11,302,303 (UK) (13 November 1994)
$329,691,196 (USA)
$673,800,000 (worldwide)

Admissions
700,000 (Austria)
255,715 (Finland)
3,511,776 (France) (30 May 1995)
7,578,000 (Germany)
988,470 (Sweden)
625,852 (The Netherlands)

Rentals
$156,000,000 (USA)

Edit:
URL: http://www.imdb.com/Business?0109830

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: SchlocemusUh, according to IMDb if we only take the US sales, Forrest Gump is extremely far from the red (unless they spent $100+ million on advertising). Of course I just could be reading this incorrectly, but I assume that budget includes the payment of actors and other expenses in making the movie. *shrug*

Movie studios can (and do) use "Enron Accounting" to play little financial games like this. They then don't have to pay people who's payments are based on the net take.

Hence the .sig I've seen: "Always ask for a part of the gross, never the net. The net is a fallacy." (paraphrased.)

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Spoooon

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: Spoooon

One of the articles I found claimed that it grossed $4400 million worldwide.

Do you have an extra 0 in there?

I'm afraid not. That's why I'm a little credulous about the claim. But, it does seem like the movie made a fair amount of money.

THe movie industry is only 8 billion / year domestically. Are you trying to tell me that Waterworld took in 1/2 of the yearly profit in the US worldwide? I call shananigans.

 

[Spoooon]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Spoooon

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: Spoooon

One of the articles I found claimed that it grossed $4400 million worldwide.

Do you have an extra 0 in there?

I'm afraid not. That's why I'm a little credulous about the claim. But, it does seem like the movie made a fair amount of money.

THe movie industry is only 8 billion / year domestically. Are you trying to tell me that Waterworld took in 1/2 of the yearly profit in the US worldwide? I call shananigans.

I'm not saying anything. The article I found is saying it. Maybe that total is for money made up to now, I don't know. You can email the person that made that claim if you want.

 

[911paramedic]

Originally posted by: glen
Ishtar starring - Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman

Wow, I thought I was the only one that saw Ishtar.

 

[Sid59]

poor Eddie.

 

[icecap]

I enjoyed Waterworld. I thought the whole concept of the movie was great especially since it was made when global warning alerts started to reach peak levels. It definately isn't the biggest flop of all time considering how much money it took in internationally.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: Spoooon

One of the articles I found claimed that it grossed $4400 million worldwide.

Do you have an extra 0 in there?

An extra '4'

 

[Wuffsunie]

Originally posted by: 911paramedic

Originally posted by: glen
Ishtar starring - Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman

Wow, I thought I was the only one that saw Ishtar.

There, now you know the other person who pumped money into that turkey

Waterworld wasn't that bad. I've seen lots more that stunk up the screen. Yes, its budget was insane for the time, but is actually only a little excessive now. T3 was made for $170 million of today's money according to IMDB. Die Another Day was $142. Of course I wouldn't mind someone doing an actual comparison, relating what $175 mil. then would be the equiv of now. BTW, Waterwrold rakes in $225 mil. from the rest of the world.

In terms of Blockbuster flops, Pluto Nash, definetly. The HUGE margin between cost and return clinches it. What no one has mentioned here was that it was finished filming in like 1999 or so. It sat on the shelf for three years before being released due to "the FX needing to be finished" according to the studio. I think that they knew they'd constructed a monsterous bomb and were unwilling, for a time, to unleash it on the public.

-- Jack

 

[TheeeChosenOne]

Ishtar
Cleopatra (Liz Taylor)
Waterworld (Kevin Costner)


Could have been "Titanic" added to this list if Cameron didn't pull a bunny out of his hat with the masterful editing of this movie