I am sure that there was a good amount of politics involved for Mars Needs Moms but it should have cleared at least $50m domestically and $100m WW.

I look at August 1996 and so many bad films came out then, it's kind of hilarious. So many Flops

Escape From LA (Russell had a lot of hits up to that point, and coming back to his most iconic role, definitely had high expectations)

In addition Kingpin, Chain Reaction, Carpool, House Arrest, Jack, The Fan, Bordello of Blood, The Island of Dr. Moreau, Solo, She's the One, First Kid, The Stupids, The Crow: City of Angels, Trigger Effect. And Bulletproof and Bogus the first week of September. Tin Cup is really the only good film from that whole area. Kingpin too, but that was a big flop.

Zemeckis' motion-capture process was hated by that point, and not just by geeks. There were articles in legitimate publications talking about the uncanny valley.

And I wouldn't rule out some sort of cosmic retribution for Zemeckis threatening to remake Yellow Submarine.



Well, August has long been a dump month. But yes, that's hilarious. I mean, TWO failed attempts at Tom Arnold starring vehicles, opening on two adjacent weekends?

What is wrong with that guy?!?

He used to be such a talent up until 1994 - - he's been lost in the wilderness, lured by the siren call of technology, ever since. (Same thing happened to Peter Jackson.

When he was still with Disney, he mulled over an even scarier project: A sequel/prequel/something to Who Framed Roger Rabbit where (from what I can gather) the toons would have been 2D animated...but the humans would have been mocap. At the time, I was imagining de-aged digital versions of Bob Hoskins and Joanna Cassidy... :jibblies:

But to get this thread back on track:

One more example I cannot believe it's taken this long to mention. The Adventures of Pluto Nash. $100m budget (in 2002); opened with $2m, at #10, in August. Total worldwide gross: $7 million. And it wasn't just dumped into release - WB spent $20m on marketing, and I vividly remember seeing the TV spots on Comedy Central about a jillion times.

Not sure why 47 Ronin hasn't been mentioned yet. Is it just because it's so recent, or has everybody already forgotten about it? I definitely remember knowing with absolute certainty that it was going to flop - which, of course, it did. It was the only Christmas release last year to make less on Fri-Sun than on Wed-Thurs - even Walter Mitty made more, albeit only $170k more. And even though it made 3 times more internationally, its WW total still came in under its reported budget of $175m (let alone the $225m number I've also seen thrown around).

And would Mitty fall into this category too? Not sure if it was a "wannabe blockbuster" but it cost only $10m less than Transcendence, and it was pretty much DOA as well (though it seems to have basically broken even WW).

47 Ronin is surely a complete flop but was it supposed to be a blockbuster? Maybe a medium-sized hit or maybe a bit more but most likely not a blockbuster IMO.

Waterworld

Although strictly it was a blockbuster and not a wannabe. But it was certainly DOA.

[quote

Waterworld is so disppointing that Universal Studios STILL tries to milk it at their parks. GO AWAY.

Waterworld wouldn't nearly get any of the hate it has today if all production problems didn't occur. If all the sets and the original budget of 100 million stayed in tack the 265 million WW gross would have been more than solid enough.

Pluto Nash was also never going to succeed. Films like The Postman, Hudson Hawk, and Cutthroat Island were definitely major miscalculations by the studio.

George Lucas became increasingly inspired by the same kool-aid.

I wonder why you say 1994 though. Zemeckis made one of my favorite movies in 1997 -- Contact. Cast Away and What Lies Beneath were alright, those were 2000. Definitely jumped the photo-realistic mo-cap shark in 2004 with the abominable Polar Express..... scay!!!!

Also, flop or not, Waterworld is awesome. And I remember Pluto Nash bombing, but didn't realize it was that bad....

Granted, Waterworld is awesome (but it's not Zemeckis). As were Cast Away and A Christmas Carol. I have Flight ready to watch. Wow, Zemeckis is a really good director. Romancing the Stone is also great.

Add Cutthroat Island to that list. $140 million disaster that was dead meat to begin with, and held the record for the biggest money loser for a while.

Ender's Game is not a YA film by any stretch of the imagination - - it is a full-on SF film.

Starring a YA, multiples in fact with a chance of love blossoming. If that was the case twilight would be full on horror films

I expect more from you, Thegun.

Unlike KJ's Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum (C & A), you have demonstrated a real skill for thoughtful analysis in the past. However, since I don't see your review in the Ender's Game review thread, I'm just going to hope for the best and assume that you haven't seen the film, and pray that you're just talking out of your ass.

Excuse you.

Ender's Game is not a YA book/movie. At all.

Yeah, haven't seen it yet. I just lump basically any film starring a kid or teenager into the YA section. Thanks for the recommendation, outside of Ford I haven't really wanted to see it, but I hear anyone that hasn't read the book thinks the film is rather good though.

What would you classify it then, a sci fi film that happens to star a YA. Does Harry Potter not count as YA either? I'll admit books is not my best area of judgment.

Ender's Game is a kiddie flick. And not particularly good one either.

Don't listen to that fool, either.

Transcendence made it to $20m!!!!

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/cha ... ations.htm

See entry #26.

BOM also has Hotel Transylvania as a "vampire" film.

Yes, it is a full-fledged sci-fi novel and film that happens to feature a YA as the lead character.

The book is easily on my lifetime top ten sci-fi novels list and I daresay it would be near the top of most sci-fi fans lists - - it is a brilliant novel.

As to Harry Potter, I do lump them in with YA, though I'm hardly an expert - - I didn't read any of the novels and gave up on the film series after the third one.




I can't say I'm surprised that Algren and Brandon Gray both think that Ender's Game is a novel "aimed at 10-17 year-olds".

Harry Potter surely started as kids books but the final three (or four) books are clearly aimed at teens.