Predicting the Movie Bombs of 2012

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, May 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jack White

    Jack White Senior Member

    Location:
    Canada
    Again not a prediction since it's already been released, but I thought that "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" would have done much better with the younger demographic than it apparently has and could (would) have been a surprise hit this summer.
     
  2. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I'm very surprised this didn't do better. But an even bigger disaster was Piranha 3D-DD, which hasn't even made $1M yet (on a budget of $20M). Not good.

    No problem, Jeff. I totally cop to it -- both movies were clearly much better than I ever would've predicted from seeing the trailers 3 or 4 months ago. I really enjoyed Ted quite a bit, and I have to tip my hat to Seth McFarland for coming up with a very original, unusual idea that goes into some very unpredictable directions. I enjoyed the movie very much.

    Magic Mike looks so damned ugly (in terms of color), it'll be very hard for me to sit through this. Why Soderbergh has to go so far into extreme looks, I'll never know. I'm actually curious to see it because I grew up in Tampa, which is where the movie takes place. I do respect the fact that it was a very, very inexpensive movie to make (reportedly $5M), so it'd make money even if it had only grossed a fraction of what it did. Clearly a big success by any measure.
     
  3. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Like I mentioned earlier, it only ran on 86 screens, and it was out of those in about 12 seconds.

    Clearly the producers never expected to make money theatrically - if they had hopes of decent box office, it would've run on more screens. You can't make money if no one can see the movie!

    It just got one of those super-token runs that happen sometimes. For all intents and purposes, it's a direct-to-video movie...
     
  4. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

    Shirley, most direct to video movies don't have $20 million budgets? Right?
     
  5. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    Hey! we enjoyed John Carter.:D
     
  6. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I'm not saying "Piranha 3DD" was INTENDED as a direct-to-video movie, but there are lots of flicks with decent budgets that go straight to video.

    Take "Trespass", for example:

    http://www.dvdmg.com/trespass.shtml

    Two big stars - Cage and Kidman. IMDB says it cost $35 million.

    And it played on 10 screens in the US and earned - wait for it - $16,000.

    Sometimes movies are meant for big screens but don't make it there. I suspect this happens because those involved feel the movie will be a flop so they don't want to invest in the millions required for promotion - they dump the movies to video and cut their losses.

    My guess? The suits behind "Piranha" felt that way. Rather than throw good money after bad with a major release - and all the requisite promotion - they threw it out on a token basis and hoped they'd recoup some of the investment on video.

    I see direct-to-video - or close - DVDs/BDs with major stars/decent budgets all the time. Again, I don't think "Piranha 3DD" was originally MEANT to get such a minor release and essentially be direct-to-video, but it's not alone...
     
  7. Tristero

    Tristero In possession of the future tense

    Location:
    MI
    Yeah, you made a similar call with Battleship and look how that turned out. ;) I could easily be mistaken, but I still predict that the Amazing Spiderman will do respectable but not outstanding numbers in the States. Yeah, it's a popular brand and I assume that it's competently made, but the preview I saw didn't do much for me. I can't shake the feeling of "been there, done that" with this reboot and the fact that they don't really have a memorable villain here could be a problem. They might have been better off continuing from where the third movie left off just with new actors, rather than going back to the origin story with Uncle Ben again.

    So how did MIB 3 end up doing? It seems like it got decent reviews, but I didn't hear much buzz about it after the first weekend. I can still remember how huge the first one was, but I think the whole alien invasion angle was much more in tune with the pop culture zeitgeist back then.
     
  8. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Yes, other critics have noted the same thing. To me, a lot of this stuff boils down to timing: what other films are out at the moment, what's the mood of the audience, and will this movie give them something they can't get from any other entertainment at that moment in time? I think Spiderman will succeed, just not on a billion-dollar level. I could see it winding up with $650M-$700M, which is still a reasonable success. But it'd need to make 50% more to be a blockbuster.

    And BTW, I started an entire separate thread predicting that Battleship would be an enormous bomb. Not only did it bomb, they fired 11 people at Universal over it (mostly in ad/pub and marketing).

    $600M worldwide. But it cost a lotta money to make (reportedly $225M + about $75M P&A), so it may only make a small profit in the end.
     
  9. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I think the producers were in "rock and a hard place" territory. The Raimi Peter had gone so far from the character's high school roots that it would've been awkward and limiting to pick up from the end of "Spidey 3". I can totally understand the desire to "go younger" with the character, and that means they kinda had to tell the origin again; if they simply put Peter back in high school with no origin, then it'd be confusing.

    That said, "Amazing" is a major disappointment. I'm fine with its many changes to the Spidey myth - heck, the Raimi films played semi-fast and loose with "history" as well, and I loved them.

    But Raimi got the TONE 100% right, while "Amazing" is wrong, wrong, wrong. It's Peter as sullen jerk... :thumbsdn:
     
  10. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

    Makes sense, and, yes, I'll stop calling you Shirley. I suppose if those limited engagements had done some decent business, then things could have changed. Just to add to our fun, I found this article today (it's older, April of last year) :

    http://dvd.ign.com/articles/116/1161784p1.html
     
  11. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Interesting list. I've seen a few of them, and the ones they mention are pretty good.

    Not all direct-to-video movies skip theatrical release because they suck, but most do! :) If you see major actors, I think you gotta assume the film wasn't MEANT to be d-t-v, though. If it stars Dolph Lundgren? D-t-v all the way. Nic Cage and Nicole Kidman? Probably not! :D

    BTW, I think the most famous "intended to be direct-to-video but went theatrical" movie must be "Toy Story 2". It's amazing to think that started as a relatively cheap video product!

    Disney makes the occasional pretty good direct-to-video sequel - most are bland to bad, but every once in a while, they put out a surprisingly enjoyable animated video...
     
  12. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Did you ever read the comic book? Believe me, Peter Parker was plenty sullen in the 1960s and 1970s.

    I'll report back in the other thread once I see the film in a few days. But I'm expecting to think it's gonna be an OK film, but probably not great.
     
  13. progrocker71

    progrocker71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I think the "R" rating didn't exactly help it in that regard.
     
  14. progrocker71

    progrocker71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Just curious, how is that not a profit if it brought in double the production/marketing cost?
     
  15. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Read these:

    Hollywood Accounting

    Art Buchwald vs. Paramount Lawsuit ("Coming to America")

    Harry Potter 5 Makes $938 Million -- Still Hasn't Made a Profit

    There's "profit," and there's PROFIT. A lot depends on where in the food chain you get paid, and how profit is defined in different contracts.

    The usual definition is that nowadays, a picture has to make about 2.5X the negative cost in order to break even. But that frequently has to take into consideration the P&A (print & advertising) costs, which can run as high as 25% of the budget. I bet for a film like Spiderman, Sony will spend more than $50 million just for that. And the inside word is also that this film was way overbudget (as was Men in Black 3).
     
  16. Rocker

    Rocker Senior Member

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I've actually been curious to see that movie. I've liked several of Joel Schumacher's other films, although he can be somewhat hit-and-miss. And I find Nicolas Cage to be an interesting actor, even though he's been in some pretty awful movies during the past few years. ;)

    The last Schumacher film I saw was 2009's Blood Creek, which I don't think got a theatrical release at all... (correct me if I'm wrong, though).
     
  17. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Yes, I read the comic book - Spidey is one of my two favorites. Peter could be introverted and mopey, but he still was a nice guy. This Peter's just a jerk...
     
  18. daglesj

    daglesj Forum Resident

    Location:
    Norfolk, UK
    I reckon some of these movies are created purely as tax loss projects. They are not made with profit in mind.

    Most Nicholas Cage movies it seems.
     
  19. progrocker71

    progrocker71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Interesting. Seems like a really high stakes shell game. Sounds like the accounting practices are more complex and sneaky than your average espionage thriller.

    :D
     
  20. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Yes and no. I think if you lose too much money, that can be a red flag to tax investigators as well. And nobody is rich enough that they can afford to finance movie bombs, year after year.

    The 1992 book Fatal Subtraction: How Hollywood Really Does Business. The Inside Story of Buchwald V. Paramount goes into this in great detail. Buchwald spent a fortune on legal fees and eventually won about 10% of the "profits" of Coming to America... only Paramount proved on paper that the movie made no profit. And it cost $39M and made $289M -- seven times the negative cost. When a movie can't make a profit even with grosses like that, you realize the system is pretty twisted. Eddie Murphy (on the witness stand) famously called Net Profit Points "monkey points," on the reasoning that only a monkey would believe he'd ever make any money that way. Buchwald later commented that there's a tennis court on the Paramount studio lot, but nobody can play... because there's no Net. (It's a little inside, but it's funny.)

    This kind of thing still happens today, to some pretty big names. For example, Peter Jackson sued New Line after they didn't come up with very much money for him on the Lord of the Rings movies, and those made over $3 billion. I have been told by some studio insiders that the only movies that generate "profit" are the ones that cost very little money (like under $5 million) and wind up making about $100 million. Animal House would be a good example, or more recently, the Paranormal Activity movies. You can't hide the money when the movies make this kind of money.
     
  21. Russ Gary

    Russ Gary Engineering Legend

    Do you have a prediction for Paramount's "Jack Reacher" which is scheduled to open in Dec 2012? In the thriller novels written by the former English TV producer/director Lee Child, Reacher is a 6' 4" 220 pound perfectly formed human specimen.
    I just watched the trailer and guess who is cast as Reacher? Non other than Tom Cruise, who in real life has to stand on a box to pet his dog.
     
  22. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    If they rewrite the story for a shorter actor, I don't necessarily see a problem. But if that's a major compromise for the story, then I'm sure the novelist will be unhappy with the casting.

    On the other hand, Cruise has done this kind of thing before. In Interview with the Vampire, Lestat is supposed to be a 6'4" blond French guy with blue eyes who's about 25 years old, like a rock star with long flowing hair down his back. Instead, we get Cruise, who couldn't be more wrong for the part. It was an interesting movie, but a giant leap away from the book.
     
  23. ElevatorSkyMovie

    ElevatorSkyMovie Senior Member

    Location:
    Oklahoma
    It sounds like the motion picture industry has the same accountants as the record labels. They do whatever they can (legal or otherwise) to make sure and not pay the people that created the content that the companies make their obscene profits on.
     
  24. john greenwood

    john greenwood Senior Member

    Location:
    NYC
    I'm a big Reacher fan. His size is an important element in his character. Rewriting that will make him someone other than Reacher.

    Given the immense popularity of the series, I'm surprised Lee Child went along. Or maybe he sold the rights before they became successful.
     
  25. McLover

    McLover Senior Member

    McLover and his McBombs:

    McBomb #1: The Battleship gets sunk and bombs in epic proportion.
    McBomb #2: Piranha gets eaten and the ticket sales are eaten up. A pity it is not on film so incompetent wannabe projectionists could misthread a print or two and they get eaten by the Simplex.

    I do think The Dark Knight will make decent profit. The Avengers will do well.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine