Anatomy of a Flop

It is estimated that Swept Away, Madonna's new flick, sold only 3 tickets per show, per theater in NYC. It's a Madonna flick you say after I ask how that can be.

But what I'm wondering is what makes a flop a flop?

I mean Tom Cruise is not such a great actor, niether is Kevin Costner, but their movies seem to rake in the box-office dough.
Even Attack of the Clones, to some, might be considered a tanker.

How, when does a movie become a flop?

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

I have no answer, but it'd take one funky-a** standard to consider AOTC a flop. Sure, TPM took in over $430+ million, but AOTC's $300+, even by that standard, can't be considered a bomb of any sort. TPM benefitted from the fact that people had been waiting twenty years. AOTC couldn't match that...even though it was almost universally hailed as a superior film.

True.

But how much did AOTC cost to make(merchandising, distribution in digital format, etc.)?

Subtract that from your bottom-line. That makes investors a little nervous.

I think Tom Cruise is a superb actor, and his films are usually very solid indeed...that`s why his movies perform well.

Ditto, Tom Hanks.

Kevin Costner...

__________________
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Vale Tudo (adv.301)><"Fighting Evil with Evil"
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Actually, I believe Lucas financed the thing himself. Quite the businessman. He's making buttloads, too. Tons on the merchandising. TONS. Truckloads of cash.

I figure to make a flop all you have to do is put Eddie Murphy or John Travolta in your movie, or let Kevin Costner direct...

I figure any movie that doesn't entertain me is a flop, no matter how much money it makes. Some of the biggest money-makers in recent times have been really bad. (Titanic, Moulin Rouge, Armageddon: HORRIBLE, but big "hits." and to a smaller extent, the new Star Wars prequel trilogy just isn't doing it for me.) I think artistic failure is much worse than financial failure. Nobody else sees it that way, so Julia Roberts and Freddie Prinze Jr. get to keep making movies.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

Well, a flop to me is always about money never about the artistery of the film. The film industry is a business and like in all businesses profit is all that counts. Now, when a film really reach the status of a flop, that's another question. I don't know if a film that costs $100 million to make and "only" brings back the $100 milllion is considered a flop by the big companies. If a small indie production brings back, say, the million put into it, I would think everyone is happy.

The Star Wars prequels can never be flops, it's almost impossible. The films are long commercials for all the products that is the main income source of that "project". Lucas can't fail with those even if he tried. (Making lousy movies obviously didn't stop him).

About Tom Cruise, I think he's not a great actor but a decent one. I have to give him credit though for picking (mostly) interesting projects. Unlike Hanks, for example, who only chooses more or less safe and not very daring projects nowadays. Tom Hanks would never starr in a film like "Eyes Wide Shut".

About Tom Cruise;

You're right, I forgot about "Eye's Wide Shut". And I agree with your saying Tom is "decent", not "great". But, in my opinion, Tom always plays Tom, just in different circumstances.

True.

[quot]Titanic, Moulin Rouge, Armageddon: HORRIBLE, but big "hits."[/quote]

Firstly, I fail to see how someone can liken Moulin Rouge to Titanic and Armageddon.

Secondly, I actually read an interesting piece about Titanic yesterday. It was in retrospect and discussed how our views of the film have changed since 1997 when everyone loved it to now when we all dislike it. I swear to God it as a result of us feeling that we were better than it, when truly it appealed to everyone on the same visceral level. People dicussing their profound "hate" for it, nowadays, just seems like an act of pretention, I think.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

Titanic was a marvel. I don't think you understand the sheer magnificence it required to make it come to life and look realistic at all. Maybe the love story was a little sappy, and the title song made me want to pound my head onto the barrel of a gun, but it was a magnificent movie. Moulin Rouge, I don't care for, but it should never be compared to Armageddon.


Don't knock Titanic, the magnitude of the project was amazing. And I don't like James Cameron at all, so that is something coming from me.


I suggest you revisit the early scenes panning the boat showing people living. It is remarkable.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

I just don't like Moulin Rouge, is all.

And I NEVER liked Titanic. My opinion of it has never changed. It's trite, one dimensional, and only gets good in the last half, I.E. the ship sinking. THAT was a marvel of filmmaking. The rest was crap.

I thought "Moulin Rouge" was very entertaining and something different. I did have some problem with the fast MTV-ish editing though.

"Armageddon" is so sh*tty...

I think "Titanic" is kind of great if you accept it for what it is. It's a Hihg Concept film: Big BIG budget, A Story that everybody heard of (the ship), Superstars (Di Caprio), A skillfully depicted plot that even the stupides idiot can follow, Romance, Spectacle/Costly action scenes and A Smash hit that sells the movie (Celine Dion).

I knew all this when I saw it and didn't expect an artistic masterpiece. But as a High Concept film I think it was excellent. "Armageddon" is an example of a lousy High Concept-film, I think.

The editing was one of the big things about the film that I didn't like. It was so quick and seemingly random it distracted from the story, and I also hated the acting, which was always loud, fast, and unsubtle. The characters came off like cartoons and I hated the constant use of fast motion in a lot of the "comedy" scenes. I think it could have been a good movie with a different director, but I honestly dislike Baz Luhrmann's campy, over the top style.

I totally see your points. But besides the editing I thought Luhrmann's style suited this kind of muscial movie. The fact that I enjoyed it is perhaps a result of that I thought I was going to hate it; I was positively surprised.

I think I've only seen one film by Luhrmann besides "Moulin Rouge" and that is "Romeo and Juliet". It has the same, and in this film totally annoying, style and that one I didn't like at all. (To be perfectly honest, I fell aslepp, so I might have to take that back in the future).