Goffe Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 (edited) I was wondering today- what's the biggest gamble a studio ever took? In terms how much they spent and how little it is affected by blockbuster conventions. What's the least humorous, least action-packed, daringly plotted film that cost shit-ton of money? AI and Benjamin Button comes to mind, but I can't really think of anything else. Edited September 22, 2016 by Goffe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasmmi Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Maybe not now, but at the time, Lord of the Rings was probably a really risky thing to do considering Fantasy was not exactly a big thing. Of outside the box films... not sure 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannastop Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 22 minutes ago, chasmmi said: Maybe not now, but at the time, Lord of the Rings was probably a really risky thing to do considering Fantasy was not exactly a big thing. Of outside the box films... not sure Peter Jackson wasn't exactly a household name, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannastop Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Titanic was pretty damn risky, too. For all they knew, it was Waterworld all over again, except with a bigger budget this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Cleopatra made nearly $600 million adjusted and was still considered a flop 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Old Tele Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 3 hours ago, tribefan695 said: Cleopatra made nearly $600 million adjusted and was still considered a flop Biblical epics were relatively popular at the time, though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannastop Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 12 minutes ago, Nutella of Arabia said: Biblical epics were relatively popular at the time, though. Cleopatra wasn't in the Bible. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Old Tele Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Fine, fine, historical epics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolioD1 Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Gittes Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Heaven's Gate? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadAtGender Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 Which movies effectively killed their studios when they failed? Or, if we're looking at risky successes, which could have seriously harmed the studio? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalo Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 (edited) Cleopatra almost bankrupted Fox, it's budget was insanely big, it was the highest grossing film of the year it came out and it still lost the studio tons of money. it was originally intended to be two films as well, but they decided it would be to expensive to release two, so they had to trim down a 4 1/2 hour movie into 3 1/2 was is still insanely long. Star Wars was actaully a risky project, I doubt it would have bankrupted the studio if it failed, but we probably wouldn't have seen space operas and sci-fi surge like they did afterwards. everyone thought George was crazy and that it was going to be a massive bomb and it ended up being the highest grossing film ever at the time. Edited September 24, 2016 by Kalo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Gittes Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 5 hours ago, DamienRoc said: Which movies effectively killed their studios when they failed? Heaven's Gate! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted September 24, 2016 Author Share Posted September 24, 2016 (edited) like tele said, historical epics were highly popular back then. would it be that risky to produce a 500m Avengers film in today's landscape? Edited September 24, 2016 by Goffe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordmandeep Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 It depends making Iron Man 1 with an idea of an entire Universe based of someone like RDJ was a huge gamble. Especially when the film was made in a very casual way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel M Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 Titanic and Lord of the Rings are probably the two biggest "giant risks that turned into giant hits" fairytales of modern hollywood. Titanic even with all the effects and disaster spectacle it was really a 3hour+ romantic drama with a 200m pricetag (back when those kind of money were unthinkable even for the safest of bets). It had like a year and a half of bad press about Cameron going crazy over-budget, FOX needing another studio to share the financial burden, pushed out of a summer slot and industry insiders predicting doom and gloom for it. Lotr was fantasy back when fantasy movies were fewer and less succesful than Westerns. It was also based on a property that everyone kept saying it was unfilmable and they basically spent 300m on trilogy before a single ticket was bought. Now that the movies from proven brands and the OS expansion have made big budget investments much safer I wonder what the today equivalent to a Titanic or lotr level risk would be. Passengers with a 300m+ budget? A Dark Tower trilogy shot all together with a 400m budget? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arlborn Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 On 24/09/2016 at 11:45 AM, Lordmandeep said: It depends making Iron Man 1 with an idea of an entire Universe based of someone like RDJ was a huge gamble. Especially when the film was made in a very casual way. Yeah, that one was a huge gamble by Marvel, wasn't it? Didn't they pretty much invest everything they had in it? I'm sure I read about that before. I'll look it up later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Avatar was a huge gamble, Fox didn't believe in it, hated the blue people, dumped Cameron during production and the cost was probably north of 350m ... In hindsight, it s easy to delcare this wasn't very risky because Cameron because 3d yaddi, yada, but trust me, up until the rlease, Fox executives were sweating like hell ... 2001 also was a huge deal back in the day for Warner, movie was very expensive and the sutdio started to make money with the film only when the DVD was released. Heaven s Gate was done at United Artist, no executive from one of the big studios would have sanctionned that script, none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Matrix was greenlit at Warner but nobody understood the script or what the movie was about, it took Joel Silver's persuation to convince them that two brothers that only did a small indie lesbo thriller could handle a hugely ambitious sci-fi film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandias Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 On September 22, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Goffe said: I was wondering today- what's the biggest gamble a studio ever took? In terms how much they spent and how little it is affected by blockbuster conventions. Probably Lord of the Rings. Yes, the books were really well known, but it still could've very easily been a monumental disaster given the size and scope of the story with so many characters. And all 3 films were shot at the same time which was unheard of back then. Plus, the fantasy genre was practically dead. I'm sure Peter Jackson wasn't expecting $3 billion WW and 31 Oscar nominations with 17 wins when he was pre-production. On September 22, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Goffe said: What's the least humorous, least action-packed, daringly plotted film that cost shit-ton of money? Definitely 2001: A Space Odyssey Heres a funny "modern" trailer of it if it were released today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
