What boxoffice runs are unbelievable in retrospect?

[filmlover]

Oh man, 2003 was an unbelievable year for unbelievable bombs. I remembered that Gigli and From Justin to Kelly were both that summer, but I had forgotten that The Real Cancun was also that year. And Grind. And Marci X.

Useless trivia: At the time, Gigli, The Real Cancun, Grind and From Justin to Kelly posted four of the five biggest third-week theater losses of all time (with Cancun taking the record from Pluto Nash, then Gigli taking the record from Cancun).

God I wish they still made massive bombs that were subject to relentless jeering like Gigli, From Justin to Kelly, Pluto Nash, etc. Now we just get random crap like Mortdecai, which no one will remember a year from now.

[TServo2049]

Yeah, the early 2000s attendance boom was the final heyday of those legendary bombs. Battlefield Earth, Freddy Got Fingered, Glitter, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, The Country Bears, Death to Smoochy, and so on. You're right, there haven't really been LEGENDARY ones. Nobody thinks about Paranoia or Machete Kills or Winter's Tale or Sin City 2. Nobody will remember Mortdecai or Strange Magic a year from now, as you said.

Sure, there have been big-budget studio turkeys like John Carter, Battleship, The Lone Ranger, etc., but the last "legendary", endlessly ridiculed megabomb I can think of was Mars Needs Moms, almost four years ago.

Edited January 28, 2015 by TServo2049

[BadAtGender]

Oh, we're always going to remember Legends of Oz. It's a pretty legendary bomb.

[Wrath]

Oh, we're always going to remember Legends of Oz. It's a pretty legendary bomb.

 

Probably not.  Its made $18M WW off a $70M budget, so it was bad but not studio-breaking bad and wasn't fronted by anyone considered a major bankable star.  It'll be gone from mind shortly and really isn't any worse than Blackhat or innumerable other minor-league disasters.

 

Pluto Nash's failure starts with its $7m WW take, continues with its $100M budget (bulked up by 13 years of inflation adjustment) and is crowned by being led by Eddie Murphy at the height of his box-office power.  It *opened* in 10th place, sandwiched between The Master of Disguise (in its 3rd week) and Stuart Little 2 (in its 5th week).  

 

Truly, Pluto Nash stands as the dark prince of colossal failure.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Wrath

[TServo2049]

I'd already forgotten about Legends of Oz...

Edited January 28, 2015 by TServo2049

[Wrath]

I'd already forgotten about Legends of Oz...

 

Me too, honestly.  At first, I was like "Wait, the one with James Franco?  Wasn't that the prior year?" and it was a minute or two before I remembered there was another one in 2014 as well.

[Melvin Frohike]

Aladdin is another one which had a fantastic run, outgrossing Home Alone 2 which was expected to be the holiday hit that year. It did 10 times its OW.

Also, The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast grossed less, but still had impressively leggy runs with 14X and 15X OW multipliers, respectively.

 

Have there been any other instances besides New Moon/Blind Side of two films opening wide on the same weekend, and the lower opener being so leggy/the higher opener so frontloaded that the gap between the two closed considerably by the end of their runs? (And I mean big hit films.)

No such perfectly-aligned comparisons immediately spring to mind, but a pretty close one would be The Hunger Games: Catching Fire versus Frozen, the former opening the previous weekend with $158.1M and the latter opening with $67.4M for Friday-Sunday (it opened on Wednesday); additionally, the former on its second weekend actually out-grossed the latter on its OW with $74.2M. By the ends of their runs, the gap had closed considerably, with THG:CF grossing $424.7M and Frozen grossing $400.7M (even with its late legs taken out by a premature video release); their OW multipliers were 2.69 and 5.95, respectively, obviously indicating quite different types of box office runs.

[TServo2049]

Actually, I mentioned some earlier. The biggest ones (adjusting for inflation) were The Santa Clause opening to a little more than half as much as Interview with the Vampire and eventually pulling considerably ahead of it, and My Best Friend's Wedding doing the same thing against Batman & Robin.

Batman & Robin understandably underperformed due to the bad WOM, but Vampire was a hit, and a big opening for the time. It just turned out to also be an unexpectedly frontloaded run for the time; in 1994, it was the worst legs ever off of a blockbuster #1 opening - basically the Twilight of its day.

Edited January 28, 2015 by TServo2049

[FrozenUnicorn]

Frozen. I don't think ANYONE expected its box office run to be that big.

Titanic and Avatar too. Well, Avatar had IMAX and breathtaking visuals, and Titanic, what can I say, I think EVERYONE cries at that, so its $2 billion mark isn't surprising.

But Frozen wasn't live-action, sci-fi, romance-focused, based on a true story, or a James Cameron film.

[lilmac]

There isn't a 4. That is Mummy 3.

 

Mummy - $155.4m

Mummy Returns - $202m

Scorpion King - $91m

Mummy: Tomb of something something - $102.5m

[lilmac]

Frozen. I don't think ANYONE expected its box office run to be that big.

Titanic and Avatar too. Well, Avatar had IMAX and breathtaking visuals, and Titanic, what can I say, I think EVERYONE cries at that, so its $2 billion mark isn't surprising.

But Frozen wasn't live-action, sci-fi, romance-focused, based on a true story, or a James Cameron film.

 

 

many of the messages here are great. i love it. in creating this thread i was more talking about movies which looking back you wonder why it made so much.

 

in retrospect you get why Frozen did so well. It's a fairy tale Disney film using a time tested formula.  however, looking back, can anyone explain to me how National Treasure 2 made $220m?? how meet the fockers made $260m? how paul blart adjusts to $160m?

Edited January 28, 2015 by lilmac

[a2k]

Bruce Almighty was very impressive -

Had a 67.9/85.7m ow. It's 242.8m total adjusts to 334.2m

 

Was also very impressed by Polar Express's legs. After a 23.3m ow(30.6m 5-day) I did not expect it to reach 162.7m.

[a2k]

Wild Hogs - 39.6m ow, 168.2 finish. That's a better multiplier than Grown Ups which itself had surprisingly long legs (40m, 162m)

Adjusts to 203m.

[a2k]

Don't know if it's already mentioned but The Sixth Sense had an unbelievable run.

293.5m after a 26.6m ow. Adjusts to 477.9m!

 

[filmlover]

Actually, I mentioned some earlier. The biggest ones (adjusting for inflation) were The Santa Clause opening to a little more than half as much as Interview with the Vampire and eventually pulling considerably ahead of it, and My Best Friend's Wedding doing the same thing against Batman & Robin.

Batman & Robin understandably underperformed due to the bad WOM, but Vampire was a hit, and a big opening for the time. It just turned out to also be an unexpectedly frontloaded run for the time; in 1994, it was the worst legs ever off of a blockbuster #1 opening - basically the Twilight of its day.

Yeah, Interview with a Vampire had an enormous opening because it was much more than a typical vampire movie (especially with all the things- Cruise, a then-on-the-rise Pitt, the very popular source material, director Neil Jordan's follow-up to The Crying Game- it had going for it) back in 1994, but behaved like a typical horror movie by collapsing after opening weekend.

Edited January 28, 2015 by filmlover

[lilmac]

Wild Hogs - 39.6m ow, 168.2 finish. That's a better multiplier than Grown Ups which itself had surprisingly long legs (40m, 162m)

Adjusts to 203m.

 

Wow! You're right. I remember being surprised at the time at its legs. It stayed in theaters awhile.

[John Marston]

Yeah, Interview with a Vampire had an enormous opening because it was much more than a typical vampire movie (especially with all the things- Cruise, a then-on-the-rise Pitt, the very popular source material, director Neil Jordan's follow-up to The Crying Game- it had going for it) back in 1994, but behaved like a typical horror movie by collapsing after opening weekend.

 

 

compared to Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula though its legs were all right

[Jonwo]

Looking outside of domestic box office, Intouchables peformances in France, Germany and Italy was impressive.

[filmlover]

compared to Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula though its legs were all right

Keanu's performance sent everyone running in fear from that one.

[TServo2049]

Right, Bram Stoker's Dracula had worse legs. But it was only the #4 opening of 1992, Interview was the #2 of 1994.

Dracula's drop-off was akin to that of Star Trek V three years earlier, except Dracula opened much bigger (adjusted too).

(Though I did not realize that at the time it opened, Dracula was the 5th biggest OW of all time. Interview with the Vampire was #5 when it opened too. Vampire movies have a history of frontloading...)

Edited January 29, 2015 by TServo2049