Biggest Top Ten Movie $ Losers.

[Smokey]

In the following top ten list, the worldwide gross was deducted from the budget.

1. Town and Country
Money lost: $ 95 million


2. Pluto Nash
Money lost: $ 93 million


3. Cutthroat Island
Money lost: $ 82 million
The movie that sank production company Carolco, a company before then known for megahits like Terminator 2 and Total Recall.


4. A Sound of Thunder
Money lost: $ 74 million


5. The Alamo
Money lost: $69 million


6. Monkeybone
Money lost: $65 million


7. The 13th Warrior
Money lost: $ 64 million


8. The Postman
Money lost: $ 63 million
Kevin Costner made a lot of movies that were considered to be flops, but this is the only one that really lost a huge amount of money


9. Stealth
Money lost: $ 63 million


10. Osmosis Jones
Money lost: $ 61 million

[Groundbeef]

What about "Ishtar" wasn't that a money loser?

According to WIKI, the movie D-Tox was made in 2002 Budget costs were $55 million. Domestic gross was .... wait for it....wait for it....$79,161. Thats 79 THOUSAND. That has to be some sort of record.

In 2001 Final Fantasy movie cost $137 million. Domestic Gross was $32 million. Thats a loss of $102 million...give or take a few.

The list is endless:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...x_office_bombs

[tin ear]

I liked The Postman.

OTOH, it might have been a long movie, ala Kevin Costner (I don't remember), too long for movie-goers. Great for HT, though.

[paul_pci]

Mock me if you will, but if it wasn't for me, Pluto Nash would have lost 7 more dollars.

[ericl]

Mock me if you will, but if it wasn't for me, Pluto Nash would have lost 7 more dollars.

lol, i was wondering who actually saw that movie.

[jrhymeammo]

I Loved The Adventure Of Pluto Nash. I Highly Recommend It!!

-JRA

[Dusty Chalk]

I've seen Cutthroat Island several times, and own in on laserdisc. Wonderful movie, great fun, and I much prefered their battle-at-sea scenes to Master & Commander.

[PeruvianSkies]

Well, the list is a bit skewed for the reasons that most of the bigger ones are going to be more recent since nowadays they just seem to throw $100million into any movie without a second thought. Sadly though that money never seems to make it ON SCREEN! For Pluto Nash....where'd that money go? It wasn't on screen that's for sure. Sounds to me like it fed a few cocaine addictions. ISHTAR was a huge bomb, likewise HEAVEN'S GATE is infamous as well for that fact, and the list goes on and on and on... However, the biggest difference is that every movie on this list deserved to do poorly.

[KaiWinters]

13 Warrior is one of my favorites and I liked, but not loved, The Postman.

[Dusty Chalk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...x_office_bombs

So I sent that link to a friend of mine who collects DVD's. His response? "I see a few wholes that I'll have to fill, otherwise I have a complete collection." You can't blame him for the decline of movie sales...

[Kam]

In the following top ten list, the worldwide gross was deducted from the budget.

i think the list is a lil unfair given your formula, because there are other factors that can be taken into consideration. the marketing/print budgets on some movies is upwards of $50mill (not included in production budget), and then the DVD and international sales on some movies easily balances out that loss. So while a movie might tank at the box office, it can have a huge resurgence in DVD... which is another reason why you see movies show up on dvd about 3-4months after leaving the theater, the studio's are in a rush to recoup that money or make even more money.
KAMRANT TIME:
back in the day (not that i'm all that old, but the industry has severely changed) it used to be close to a year that it took after a movie came out to see it in the rental stores and hbo, etc. but they also let movies run their course in the theaters and it was a time when movies could have actual legs.... (of the top list of most weekends ranked at #1 10 of those movies are from 1990 or before, and only titanic stands out from 1997, the others are in the 80s and the same holds true for most times appearing in the Top 10 boxoffice #s for the weekend, just add in Forest Gump from 94, and the rest are all earlier than 1990).
take one of last years biggest grossers, Dead Man's Chest... what was it's rank for most weekends at #1.... 71. but all that matters now is where its ranked in the fastest to 300mill, which is #1. if movies don't make their money IMMEDIATELY, they are never given a chance to make their money in the theaters. Dead Man's Chest made a THIRD of its entire box office gross on opening weekend. Titanic made less than FIVE percent of its gross on opening weekend.
KAMRANT OVER:
so back to the original idea... some movies may be bigger box office losers than others and some not as bad as you think because of DVD. Take into consideration that Town and Country didn't have a huge marketing budget, but (as far as i know) didnt have a stellar dvd sales record either, so their numbers might be accurate but i think there could be bigger bombs when you take into consideration the added loss of marketing and no dvd sales to even bigger movies... i would think Fun with Dick And Jane is up there but i haven't seen its #'s...

[kexodusc]

Excellent points Kam...Movies don't have enough gestation time now it seems because there's so many crappy movies being made and pushed to the theater. 10 years ago a movie with the plot dynamics of "Stealth" or "You Got Served" would never make it to theater.
The "fastest to 300 million" thing is a pretty stupid stat...every year the big blockbusters keep setting new records. Inflationary pricing has a big part to do with it, but so does the trend of having a 12 screen complex show "Dead Man's Chest" in 4 theaters, 8 times daily.

FWIW, I really liked the Postman. Dunno why, but I sure take a lot of abuse admitting it.

[Smokey]

You guys make a good point regarding movie loss and their budget.

IMO, another reason the movies that lose big tend to be of recent date is inflated price, but emergence of DVD and HT (in last 6 years) might also a big factor. In the old days (before DVD and HT), most people tend to go see the movies that interest them so they could experience the big sounds and picture.

But nowadays, alot of HT setups are even better than in the local theater, and even if a movie interest some movie goers, they might wait it out so they could see it in their home system.

[Kam]

You guys make a good point regarding movie loss and their budget.

IMO, another reason the movies that lose big tend to be of recent date is inflated price, but emergence of DVD and HT (in last 6 years) might also a big factor. In the old days (before DVD and HT), most people tend to go see the movies that interest them so they could experience the big sounds and picture.

But nowadays, alot of HT setups are even better than in the local theater, and even if a movie interest some movie goers, they might wait it out so they could see it in their home system.

i think that's part of it, but not exactly. home theater proliferation has definitely increased quite a lot in recent times with costs coming down and the public being more aware of widescreen experience in your home, but that's still a relatively recent phenomenon. sure there are far more households with some sort of home theaters in them.

i think its the cost of dvd's that's even more of a factor. but i think the biggest factor (in combination with cheap dvds and HT like you said) is the short shelf-life of movies in the theater. for e.g., say you're on the fence about seeing the latest James Bond movie. Just wait 4 months and you can rent it, or heck, buy it for the same cost (or far cheaper) as it would be to take yourself and sig other to the movies. add in the rude crowds, ridiculous prices, 20mins of commercials, and that would be a deciding factor right there. versus a half-generation ago, where if you were on the fence about seeing say, Empire Strikes Back... well, you'd have to wait over a year before renting it and the cost was fairly prohibitive to buy vhs tapes back then, barely any commercials other than the theater advertising for their own concessions and then trailers.
I want to see Stranger Than Fiction... but honestly, there is nothing really pulling me to the "theater going experience" when i can rent/buy it for less in about 4 months.

[Smokey]

i think its the cost of dvd's that's even more of a factor. but i think the biggest factor (in combination with cheap dvds and HT like you said) is the short shelf-life of movies in the theater. for e.g., say you're on the fence about seeing the latest James Bond movie. Just wait 4 months and you can rent it, or heck, buy it for the same cost (or far cheaper) as it would be to take yourself and sig other to the movies. add in the rude crowds, ridiculous prices, 20mins of commercials, and that would be a deciding factor right there.

I think you might have hit it on the nose Kam. And the bulk of money made might not be actually at the theater. But rather the after the DVD sale.

Also you are right about price of VHS tapes being too high. I remember back then when new VHS movie was premiered, it was listed at MSRP of $89

[Geoffcin]

I liked The Postman.

OTOH, it might have been a long movie, ala Kevin Costner (I don't remember), too long for movie-goers. Great for HT, though.

I seem to remember that movie also loosing like $50 million.

[Geoffcin]

What about "Ishtar" wasn't that a money loser?

According to WIKI, the movie D-Tox was made in 2002 Budget costs were $55 million. Domestic gross was .... wait for it....wait for it....$79,161. Thats 79 THOUSAND. That has to be some sort of record.

In 2001 Final Fantasy movie cost $137 million. Domestic Gross was $32 million. Thats a loss of $102 million...give or take a few.

The list is endless:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...x_office_bombs

There's a lot of R&D that got left out of the $137m cost because they charged it to the FF game R&D. Total for the movie with that included is more like $198m.