'The Wolverine', 'Waterworld', And Other Flops That Weren't
Comment Now
Follow Comments
Hugh Jackman in 'The Wolverine' (Click for more photos)
Did you hear the news? ApparentlyThe Wolverine, which opened with $53 million last weekend, is a flop! Oh, don’t take my word on it, check out these various pundits which call it a “disappointment“, “underwhelming“, “disappointing“, and “the latest blockbuster to flop“. Nevermind that the film had the eighth-biggest opening of the summer and that, at a cost of just $120 million, has already made its production budget back and then some ($140 million) worldwide in three days. No, the tracking swore it would do $65-$70 million and the fact that it did “only” $53 million means that it’s a stinker that offers more evidence that audiences are sick… SICK of blockbusters. Sadly, such an accusation can be nay-impossible to wash off. Even if the film eventually does $350-$400 million worldwide and ends up profitable (quite likely with Fox’s overseas muscle), the initial accusations of failure will likely stick forever. But The Wolverine is not the only film to suffer this sad and unfair box office diagnosis. A look back…
Waterworld - Even 18 years after its release on the very same weekend asWolverine, Waterworld is still held up as the king of the bombs, which wasn’t true then nor is it true now. At a then-record cost of $175 million, the Kevin Reynolds-directed and Kevin Costner-starring ‘Mad Max on water’ adventure picture was tagged as a flop before it even opened. Dubbed ‘Keven’s Gate’ and ‘Fishtar’, the film battled rounds and rounds of bad press concerning cost overruns due to the difficulties of filming on water, as well as the behind the scenes squabbling between Reynolds and Costner. The film debuted to mixed reviews and a good-but-not great $22 million opening.
While the film suffered from bleh word of mouth (it was basically a character-driven sci-fi downer with two massive bookend action scenes) and eventually cashed out at $88 million in the US, overseas grosses saved the day. Amassing $175 million in international dollars, the picture limped out of the red with a respectable $266 million in global box office. It was no mega smash, but the film eventually broke even thanks to home video and cable sales. It’s no masterpiece, but it’s no mega-flop either. It’s a generally satisfying action film that made its money back the hard way. You want to knock an overbudget Kevin Costner epic? Pick on The Postman, but leave Waterworld alone.
The Matrix sequels - The first Matrix sequel was expected to dominate summer 2003 and once again set the bar for action spectacle. And, it kinda-sorta did. The initial reviews were overwhelmingly positive, but audiences quickly revolted. But while fans loved the philosophical ramblings of the first picture, they turned on the sequel’s sometimes confusing theological moralizing. While they loved the Hong Kong and anime-influenced action set-pieces in the first picture, they screamed ‘too much CGI’ and ignored some of the most impressive practical-action scenes (the tea-house fight, the freeway chase) of the past decade. Still, the hype was enough and the film opened to a massive $91 million Fri-Sun take (still the largest R-rated opening of all-time) and a $134m Thurs-Sun opening weekend.
In Pictures: The Most Powerful Actors of 2013
By the time the nerds stopped complaining about the very things they came to see in a Matrix sequel, the film had amassed $281m in the US (the second-largest R-rated domestic gross ever) and $742m worldwide (the largest R-rated international gross ever). As for The Matrix Reloaded, it indeed disappointed in the states, opening with $83m from Wednesday to Sunday but collapsing for a $138 million domestic gross. But the film still made $427m worldwide. Disappointing? Maybe, but the sequels were famously shot at the same time, and even if treated as a standalone entry, $427m for a $150m threequel isn’t exactly a tank. You may hate the films (I’ll hopefully find time to tell you why you’re somewhat wrong in November), but they both made Warner Bros. quite a bit of money.
King Kong - Peter Jackson’s follow-up to the Oscar-winning Lord of the Rings trilogy was a classic example of falling victim to unrealistic expectations. While the film was already a target due to the alleged hubris of spending $207 million on a three-hour remake of a 1933 monster movie, the troubles really began when the film started screening. The problem was that the movie was good… really good. The initial reviews caused pundits everywhere to make completely absurd comparisons to another three-hour, period-set, doomed romance released over the same weekend (the weekend before Christmas) back in 1997.
Yes, the word was out that Peter Jackson’s epic adventure about a quasi-romance between Naomi Watts and a giant ape was indeed a threat to Titanic‘s reign as box office and Oscar champion. When the film opened to “just” $66 million over five days, including a $50 million Fri-Sun take, backlash set in and everybody was at a loss why a three-hour period-piece remake about a giant ape didn’t open to record numbers. The press immediately branded the picture an outright flop. But the acclaimed and then reviled King Kong ended its theatrical run with $218 million in the states and $550 million worldwide.
Superman Returns - The situation with Superman Returns is a complicated one, where eventual audience displeasure and fan disapproval negated initially positive reviews and solid box office. I’m no fan of Bryan Singer’s super-stalker drama, but the initial wave of reviews for the visually dynamic and openly soulful tone poem were initially quite good. It opened with a $83 million Wed-Sun opening, larger than Batman Begins ($72m). And the film proved about as leggy as Batman Begins, slowly crossing the $200 million mark domestically (compared to Batman Begins‘s $206 million) and ending up with $395 million worldwide. That’s a higher worldwide take than Batman Begins ($374m), Star Trek ($385m), and Captain America($368m). But it’s considered to be a bomb.
First of all, audiences didn’t like the film, which often creates a misconception that it was a box office failure (just as box office success often retroactively makes a bad film into a “good” one). Second, there was an expectation thatSuperman Returns would play as a de-facto sequel to Batman Begins and build on that film’s popularity, ignoring the fact that audiences generally prefer Batman to Superman and the $150 million-costing Batman Beginswould have been a flop at an official budget of $270 million. Yes, finally, the film had an official budget of $270 million, one of the most expensive on record. But at least $70 million of that was related to the prior decade’s many failed attempts to revive Superman. So Singer’s Superman film was unfairly saddled with the cost of the other aborted Superman projects, leaving it with an official budget much too large to ever justify its likely box office take.
Comment Now
Follow Comments
Hugh Jackman in 'The Wolverine' (Click for more photos)
Did you hear the news? ApparentlyThe Wolverine, which opened with $53 million last weekend, is a flop! Oh, don’t take my word on it, check out these various pundits which call it a “disappointment“, “underwhelming“, “disappointing“, and “the latest blockbuster to flop“. Nevermind that the film had the eighth-biggest opening of the summer and that, at a cost of just $120 million, has already made its production budget back and then some ($140 million) worldwide in three days. No, the tracking swore it would do $65-$70 million and the fact that it did “only” $53 million means that it’s a stinker that offers more evidence that audiences are sick… SICK of blockbusters. Sadly, such an accusation can be nay-impossible to wash off. Even if the film eventually does $350-$400 million worldwide and ends up profitable (quite likely with Fox’s overseas muscle), the initial accusations of failure will likely stick forever. But The Wolverine is not the only film to suffer this sad and unfair box office diagnosis. A look back…
Waterworld - Even 18 years after its release on the very same weekend asWolverine, Waterworld is still held up as the king of the bombs, which wasn’t true then nor is it true now. At a then-record cost of $175 million, the Kevin Reynolds-directed and Kevin Costner-starring ‘Mad Max on water’ adventure picture was tagged as a flop before it even opened. Dubbed ‘Keven’s Gate’ and ‘Fishtar’, the film battled rounds and rounds of bad press concerning cost overruns due to the difficulties of filming on water, as well as the behind the scenes squabbling between Reynolds and Costner. The film debuted to mixed reviews and a good-but-not great $22 million opening.
While the film suffered from bleh word of mouth (it was basically a character-driven sci-fi downer with two massive bookend action scenes) and eventually cashed out at $88 million in the US, overseas grosses saved the day. Amassing $175 million in international dollars, the picture limped out of the red with a respectable $266 million in global box office. It was no mega smash, but the film eventually broke even thanks to home video and cable sales. It’s no masterpiece, but it’s no mega-flop either. It’s a generally satisfying action film that made its money back the hard way. You want to knock an overbudget Kevin Costner epic? Pick on The Postman, but leave Waterworld alone.
The Matrix sequels - The first Matrix sequel was expected to dominate summer 2003 and once again set the bar for action spectacle. And, it kinda-sorta did. The initial reviews were overwhelmingly positive, but audiences quickly revolted. But while fans loved the philosophical ramblings of the first picture, they turned on the sequel’s sometimes confusing theological moralizing. While they loved the Hong Kong and anime-influenced action set-pieces in the first picture, they screamed ‘too much CGI’ and ignored some of the most impressive practical-action scenes (the tea-house fight, the freeway chase) of the past decade. Still, the hype was enough and the film opened to a massive $91 million Fri-Sun take (still the largest R-rated opening of all-time) and a $134m Thurs-Sun opening weekend.
In Pictures: The Most Powerful Actors of 2013
By the time the nerds stopped complaining about the very things they came to see in a Matrix sequel, the film had amassed $281m in the US (the second-largest R-rated domestic gross ever) and $742m worldwide (the largest R-rated international gross ever). As for The Matrix Reloaded, it indeed disappointed in the states, opening with $83m from Wednesday to Sunday but collapsing for a $138 million domestic gross. But the film still made $427m worldwide. Disappointing? Maybe, but the sequels were famously shot at the same time, and even if treated as a standalone entry, $427m for a $150m threequel isn’t exactly a tank. You may hate the films (I’ll hopefully find time to tell you why you’re somewhat wrong in November), but they both made Warner Bros. quite a bit of money.
King Kong - Peter Jackson’s follow-up to the Oscar-winning Lord of the Rings trilogy was a classic example of falling victim to unrealistic expectations. While the film was already a target due to the alleged hubris of spending $207 million on a three-hour remake of a 1933 monster movie, the troubles really began when the film started screening. The problem was that the movie was good… really good. The initial reviews caused pundits everywhere to make completely absurd comparisons to another three-hour, period-set, doomed romance released over the same weekend (the weekend before Christmas) back in 1997.
Yes, the word was out that Peter Jackson’s epic adventure about a quasi-romance between Naomi Watts and a giant ape was indeed a threat to Titanic‘s reign as box office and Oscar champion. When the film opened to “just” $66 million over five days, including a $50 million Fri-Sun take, backlash set in and everybody was at a loss why a three-hour period-piece remake about a giant ape didn’t open to record numbers. The press immediately branded the picture an outright flop. But the acclaimed and then reviled King Kong ended its theatrical run with $218 million in the states and $550 million worldwide.
Superman Returns - The situation with Superman Returns is a complicated one, where eventual audience displeasure and fan disapproval negated initially positive reviews and solid box office. I’m no fan of Bryan Singer’s super-stalker drama, but the initial wave of reviews for the visually dynamic and openly soulful tone poem were initially quite good. It opened with a $83 million Wed-Sun opening, larger than Batman Begins ($72m). And the film proved about as leggy as Batman Begins, slowly crossing the $200 million mark domestically (compared to Batman Begins‘s $206 million) and ending up with $395 million worldwide. That’s a higher worldwide take than Batman Begins ($374m), Star Trek ($385m), and Captain America($368m). But it’s considered to be a bomb.
First of all, audiences didn’t like the film, which often creates a misconception that it was a box office failure (just as box office success often retroactively makes a bad film into a “good” one). Second, there was an expectation thatSuperman Returns would play as a de-facto sequel to Batman Begins and build on that film’s popularity, ignoring the fact that audiences generally prefer Batman to Superman and the $150 million-costing Batman Beginswould have been a flop at an official budget of $270 million. Yes, finally, the film had an official budget of $270 million, one of the most expensive on record. But at least $70 million of that was related to the prior decade’s many failed attempts to revive Superman. So Singer’s Superman film was unfairly saddled with the cost of the other aborted Superman projects, leaving it with an official budget much too large to ever justify its likely box office take.
.....made 7.1 mill worldwide on a 100 mill budget 
