The Biggest Flops of 2008

Tuesday

30Dec2008

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 at 1:33PM

We all know 2008 was a bad year economically. You don't have to look very far or watch the news for very long to see the repercussions of the worst financial and employment market in at least 30 years, and possibly 80 years.

For the most part, movies retained their success seen in previous years. Why is that? It's still a relatively cheap night out, even if you're talking about a family of four hitting a matinee. It's also one of the few things you can't get anywhere else. You don't have to eat out at a restaurant, you can watch the baseball games on TV. But if you wanted to see The Dark Knight, that meant for most of you paying $10 or so to watch it in theaters this summer.

Another reason for the success of films overall is that the studios have such specific marketing for them now that they target the people most likely to see that film over another. That can't be the only measuring stick, and in fact, quality was a big factor this year. At least six of the top ten films of the year got great reviews, and the only movie that wasn't critically acclaimed that really even needed good press was Hancock. The others - Indy Jones, Madagascar, and Twilight - all had built-in fan bases, and you could really only argue that Twilight was a bad movie, although I'm not sure I'd go that far.

The point is, audiences responded to really good films this year and avoided some junk.

But how do we know what's a hit? It's not as easy as just making more money than your movie cost. These are never completely isolated things. A studio or producer could make $40 million on one movie but lose $60 million on another, or a movie with an A-list star and A-list director could have to split a lot of the profits because of contractual incentives, or the marketing could be irresponsibly pricy.

A good example of weird movie math came this summer when Jeff Rubinov - whose studio, Warner Bros., is the big winner in 2008 - said that the company was a little disappointed in the performance of Get Smart. Just so we know what we're dealing with here, Get Smart cost about $80 million plus marketing and advertising and all of that stuff, and in the U.S., it made back its money. The movie earned $130 million here at home, plus another $100 million internationally. You'd think an $80 million movie that rang up nearly a quarter of a billion dollars worth of business before DVD and cable kicks in would be a smash.

Now, it doesn't work that way for every movie, but it's worth thinking about; how high were the expectations for Get Smart if it fails to meet those expectations at $230 million? Wouldn't expectations be just as high on some of these other films?

Some of those figures are easy: Australia is a bomb. It cost at least $130 million and it won't make that much even with the international box office. Considering all the little add-ons, like marketing and distribution costs, Fox spent more on that movie than it can make back. DVD changes those figures significatly, but it's not exactly free to make and promote DVDs, either.

Warner Bros. had the biggest hit of 2008 - The Dark Knight - but it also released arguably its biggest and most celebrated failure in Speed Racer. Although I think that film will build a small cult following over several years (you just can't deny how good it looks), Speed Racer stumbled out of the gates and never recovered.

The studio also had a few other black eyes en route to $1.7 billion in box office, with Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, 10,000 B.C., Body of Lies, and Star Wars: The Clone Wars falling below expectations. Most of those films will eventually make some money, but nothing along the lines of, say, The Strangers, which is one of the year's more profitable films.

The big loser in 2008 was 20th Century Fox, which probably had the worst slate of films among any major studio. Fox only had one film in the top ten (Horton Hears a Who!), and no other film charting until number 30, What Happens in Vegas, one of the studio's biggest moneymakers. Of course, when we look back at 2008 in February or March, some of the numbers will change; Horton won't be in the top ten, but the studio's underperforming Day the Earth Stood Still might be in the top 30. When it's all said and done, Marley & Me might be the crowning glory for Fox this year. Oh wait, no, that's Meet the Spartans.

And because Fox didn't have a lot of hits, its middle-of-the-road performers look that much worse. They had to want more out of Max Payne, Space Chimps, Mirrors, Babylon A.D., and The X-Files. All of them exceeded their budgets when you add everything up, but the profit margins are nowhere near what you would've thought at the beginning of 2008. Factor in its big flops, Australia, Meet Dave, and City of Ember, and you get a more complete picture.

Now the question becomes, how do you rank flops? The bottom lines on most of these movies has yet to be written, and only a handful of people are truly privy to how much is spent, how much it needs to make, and how much it's projected to make. We can't just assume the movie that cost the most and missed making its money back is the biggest flop; only a handful are unqualified disasters. We'll list the ten worst flops alphabetically with the standard financial information.

Australia
$130 million budget
$44 million domestic/$90 million total worldwide

Bangkok Dangerous
$45 million budget
$15 million domestic/$39 million total worldwide

City of Ember
$55 million budget
$8 million domestic/$13 million total worldwide

Delgo
$40 million budget
$700,000 domestic/$700,000 total worldwide

The Express
$40 million budget
$9 million domestic/$9 million total worldwide

Leatherheads
$58 million budget
$31 million domestic/$41 million total worldwide

The Love Guru
$62 million budget
$33 million domestic/$41 million total worldwide

Meet Dave
$60 million budget
$11 million domestic/$50 million total worldwide

Miracle at St. Anna
$45 million budget
$7 million domestic/$9 million total worldwide

Punisher: War Zone
$35 million budget
$8 million domestic/$8 million total worldwide

Speed Racer
$120 million budget
$44 million domestic/$93 million total worldwide

Colin Boyd |

Permalink | in

Australia,

Bad Movies,

Speed Racer |

Print Article |

Email Article |

6 Comments |

Reader Comments (6)

"The big loser in 2008 was 20th Century Fox..."

Now I see why they want Watchmen back.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 |

MRPigg

Yes, it certainly is difficult to calculate how much money a film EVENTUALLY makes or loses. Production, marketing, and distribution costs of films and DVDs must be compared to worldwide grosses and rentals. The final figures might not be known for one or two years after the movie is initially released.
It would appear that the list of films you provided will almost certainly be regarded as FLOPS when all the accounting is done.

Thursday, January 1, 2009 |

Allan

Sorry to say, but this is quite misleading regarding Australia. At the time this article was written the movie had only just been released in the majority of the world with the previous box office primarily from America and Australia - it opened on boxing day in dozens of countries. As at January 4 2009 the worldwide box office is $129.3 million, and rising rapidly. I'm not saying it will be a profitable film, but may end up with a worldwide gross approaching $200 million.
As for Get Smart... it's an entertaining picture that will do well on Blu-Ray/DVD. No doubt we'll see a sequel.

Monday, January 5, 2009 |

David Warner

How did Stop-Loss do overall? Don't get me wrong, I loved that film. But how did it do financially?

Thursday, January 15, 2009 |

The loss on Delgo is just astonishing.

Monday, January 26, 2009 |

SeanO

Those figures are just plain wrong re "Australia"

First of all the budget was not 130 million,it was 78 million and secondly Rupert Murdoch stated last week this film will make a profit

Its nearly up to 200 million worldwide also

Its not a bomb

Friday, February 13, 2009 |

Jimmy

Post a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »

Author:

Author Email (optional):

Author URL (optional):

Post:

↓ | ↑

Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>