15 Biggest Box Office Flops of 2011

[dark_b]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/movie-box-office-biggest-flops-205951#2

''Many Hollywood studios will be all too happy to forget 2011, which witnessed a troubling dip in moviegoing for much of the year at the domestic box office. There were several high-profile flops that lost tens of millions, including "Mars Needs Moms" and "Cowboys & Aliens." Studios split grosses with theater owners, so even if a movie makes as much as its production budget, its still in trouble, not to mention marketing costs. And, after several record-breaking years, the domestic box revenues are running 4 percent behind 2010 levels. Here’s a glance at the movies largely rejected by audiences.''


t:

 

[The Morningstar]

Gotta be Green Lantern.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Man WB really has had a bad year at the BO.
I do hope that Potter and Hangover can make up for the losses of the flops.

 

[Raiden]

Gotta be Green Lantern.

Yeah, it appears that WB has both a really good year (Potter) and a really bad one (GL).

 

[Evil Twin]

Yeah, it appears that WB has both a really good year (Potter) and a really bad one (GL).

Yeah, WB had a real roller coaster of a year. Red Riding Hood, Sucker Punch, Green Lantern, and Happy Feet 2 all were disappointments. GL might be the least disappointing of the bunch and there's enough merchandise, toys, and a cartoon spinoff to lessen the blow.

OTOH, Harry Potter, The Hangover II, and Horrible Bosses make up for a lot.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

Yeah, WB had a real roller coaster of a year. Red Riding Hood, Sucker Punch, Green Lantern, and Happy Feet 2 all were disappointments. GL might be the least disappointing of the bunch and there's enough merchandise, toys, and a cartoon spinoff to lessen the blow.

But only if the merchandise and toys are selling well. Dont forget; it costs them to manufacture those items too. It's not all profit...

 

[Evil Twin]

But only if the merchandise and toys are selling well. Dont forget; it costs them to manufacture those items too. It's not all profit...

Yeah, but I'm sure WB sold the toy rights to a toy company and are getting royalties out of the deal rather than risk that themselves. Besides, since GL seems to be selling DVDs on a comparable level to Thor, the toys are probably moving at a reasonable level too.

Certainly WB is disappointed in how GL turned out and it certainly belongs on the list of box office flops, but compared to Sucker Punch, etc., they at least had some other streams of revenue to fall back on to lessen the blow.

Mars Needs Moms really has to be the biggest bomb of the year.

 

[marvelman2006]

Im still surprised cowboys and aliens didnt do better then it did, it was marketed well, how ford and craig all over the posters along with favreau for directing ironman yet noone went.


- Arthur looked incredibly unfunny and I never had urge to even watch 5 minutes.

- Green lantern made the mistake of not doing much on the lantern planet and spent too much time on earth and making the story not go anywhere.

- Glee 3D bombed because even children knew it was a money grab and the concerts themselves make money so why would someone want to go pay money for a concert they already saw or can just watch the show for free?

- Conan looked like dog snot and the director made some crappy movies so I knew to stay away.

- I wouldnt say tower heist was a bomb, It made a decent amount of money and even showed people eddie murphy can still be funny.

- Happy feet 2 looked like a retread of part 1

 

[Wolfwood]

What makes a movie a flop exactly? I thought it was when it underperformed? But it seems some of these movies made back what they cost.

 

[craigdbfan]

Green Lantern definitely gets the #1 place in my book. Talk about a disappointment.

 

[Project862006]

What makes a movie a flop exactly? I thought it was when it underperformed? But it seems some of these movies made back what they cost.

well generally speaking you need to double your budget to make some sort of profit

 

[kedrell]

What makes a movie a flop exactly? I thought it was when it underperformed? But it seems some of these movies made back what they cost.

Well there's no real solid dictionary definition. I think if the movie underperforms yet still eventually turns a profit(TIH, for example) then it's just a disappointment. A flop or a bomb(which as far as I am concerned are interchangable terms) means that money was lost and they'll never make it up. GL, Speed Racer, Mars Needs Moms all fall in this category.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

What makes a movie a flop exactly? I thought it was when it underperformed? But it seems some of these movies made back what they cost.

A movie has to make back just under twice of what it cost as the theater's take 45% of the profit for showing them.

eg Green Lanter cost $300 Million including marketing and made just over $200 Million, WB expected this to be huge, like at least Iron Man 2 huge

 

[kedrell]

well generally speaking you need to double your budget to make some sort of profit

I think you need to double you budget just to break even.

 

[craigdbfan]

Exactly.

Especially for adaptations in which a lot of people need to be paid off.

 

[cherokeesam]

Gotta be Green Lantern.

Technically, GL made money. Made more than its budget, anyway.

According to the THR article, the biggest genuine flop of the year belongs hands down (and thumbs down) to Mars Needs Moms, which lost $111 million.

 

[craigdbfan]

The budget was a lot higher than what they have written on there. That's just WB trying to save face.

 

[kedrell]

That's why WW figures rather than just domestic are so important. Few big budget films today ever make a profit on domestic alone.

Technically, GL made money. Made more than its budget, anyway.

According to the THR article, the biggest genuine flop of the year belongs hands down (and thumbs down) to Mars Needs Moms, which lost $111 million.

You're right about MnM being the biggest flop of the year(%-wise). It probably lost a whole lot more than just $111M when you factor in marketing costs and subtract the exhibitors cut.

GL needed $400M WW just to break even(if that $200M price tag can be believed, as craigdbfan just pointed out). So percentage-wise MnM is the biggest but I'd not be suprised if GL beat it in over-all dollars lost.

 

[marvelman2006]

I want to see how much green lantern actually cost with a collective of:

Marketing
Production
Produce toys
Produce video games
Clothes



thank go back to those same categories and tally how much was pulled in. Also who knows if they make enough back on digital download, bluray/dvd. I always thought a movie bombed if take pluto nahs for example:

Production Budget: $100 million

= Worldwide: $7,103,973
= Worldwide: $7,103,973
Worldwide gross: $7,103,973


I dont consider a movie a flop if it makes back its production budget or close to it, not every movie can numbers like say michael bays transformers or the pirates movies.

= Worldwide: $7,103,973

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

- Conan looked like dog snot and the director made some crappy movies so I knew to stay away.

'dog snot', how on Earth did you sneeze that one out marvelman? you're quite the poet, trying to impress a Lassie? haha
But, aye, Conan was a pretty terrible movie, I watched it for the second time last night, some of it is actually pretty good, the first 40mins or so are decent and enjoyable, but after that it takes a severe nosedive, it does not have much of a story to be getting on with, and was a rush job, so what you get is not very spectacular, for the second half of the film it becomes stock S&S crap, which is very embaressing to watch at times.

What happened was that when they thought Brett Ratner was gonna sign on the line, they rushed into making the sets, and getting a script finished, but then he didn't, and they had to rush in a new director into a half assed production.
It is a real shame, because a new Conan franchise would have been a great addition to the S&S genre.

even before you get to the script problems, I don't think the 90mil budget was well spent at all, why bother paying for big-ish names like Stephen Lang, Rose McGowan, Ron Pearlman, Rachel Nicols and have Morgan Freeman doing the narrator's voice? They made zero impact in terms of bringing people into the theatre, but would have cost a lot of money to sign up.
Better off to sign up talented unknowns, like they did with the title character, and keep the budget down as much as possible.
It is a niche character, and they were treating him as if he was a semi-famous Dc or Marvel character, except without the big studio budget or ad revenue to publicise the flick, like WB, Fox, Sony and Marvel would have.
The GA don't know who Conan is, if anything, they think he is Arnold. In the real world, that is not a very famous movie anyway. Ask someone in the street to name 10 Arnie films, and i bet most wouldn't name Conan(despite it being one of his best).

 

[marvelman2006]

'dog snot', how on Earth did you sneeze that one out marvelman? you're quite the poet, trying to impress a Lassie? haha
But, aye, Conan was a pretty terrible movie, I watched it for the second time last night, some of it is actually pretty good, the first 40mins or so are decent and enjoyable, but after that it takes a severe nosedive, it does not have much of a story to be getting on with, and was a rush job, so what you get is not very spectacular, for the second half of the film it becomes stock S&S crap, which is very embaressing to watch at times.

What happened was that they rushed into making the sets, and getting a script finished, when they thought Brett Ratner was gonna sign on the line, but then he didn't and they had to rush in a new director into a half assed production.
It is a real shame, because a new Conan franchise would have been a great addition to the S&S genre.

even before you get to the script problems, I don't think the 90mil budget was well spent at all, why bother paying for big-ish names like Stephen Lang, Rose McGowan, Ron Pearlman, Rachel Nicols and have Morgan Freeman doing the narrator's voice? They made zero impact in terms of bringing people into the theatre, but would have cost a lot of money to sign up.
Better off to sign up talented unknowns, like they did with the title character, and keep the budget down as much as possible.
It is a niche character, and they were treating him as if he was a semi-famous Dc or Marvel character, except without the big studio budget or ad revenue to publicise the flick, like WB, Fox, Sony and Marvel would have.
The GA don't know who Conan is, if anything, they think he is Arnold. In the real world, that is not a very famous movie anyway. Ask someone in the street to name 10 Arnie films, and i bet most wouldn't name Conan(despite it being one of his best).

lol its been a long day at work mate.

alot of times I truly believe these studios just have no concept of money and rush crap just to get out and see if a half assed movie will be a hit.
No offense to any conan fans in here but like you said it isnt really a big well known character, heck you can go on youtube and watch funny videos making fun of arnolds take. I think too if done right it could have been something special but even early screenshots I could tell it was just lifeless. I feel like ron perlman will do anything for a sandwich these days...........

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

alot of times I truly believe these studios just have no concept of money and rush crap just to get out and see if a half assed movie will be a hit.
No offense to any conan fans in here but like you said it isnt really a big well known character, heck you can go on youtube and watch funny videos making fun of arnolds take. I think too if done right it could have been something special but even early screenshots I could tell it was just lifeless. I feel like ron perlman will do anything for a sandwich these days...........

I never even bothered watching the first Scorpion king, the mummy movies were bad enough, they are all as crap as each other in their own ways I bet, none billed above the other in my book.
who knows what the general public will think though eh? haha
maybe the Rock will become a master scientist and cure all ills on Earth, he will get a wee bump in the popularity polls that day I guess, haha.
I don't know what the so-called 'second' guy will have to offer at all in that department, haha.

 

[Figs]

I won't lie, I'm glad Glee did terrible.

 

[flickchick85]

I won't lie, I'm glad Glee did terrible.

Me too, and I watch the show.

 

[Figs]

Me too, and I watch the show.

Hahaha! Why are you happy that it didn't do well then?