Which movie LOST the most money?

[Karellen]

There are countless websites and publications that track which movies grossed the most cash--in fact the industry seems obsessed with it, really--but I can't find any authoritative (or even half-assed) list of which movies were the biggest losers for their respective studios.

I know that "Heaven's Gate" brought down the studio that made it, and that "One From The Heart" destroyed Coppola's film company, but I can't find hard numbers on just what the difference was between production costs and domestic box-office (I realize that many films make up lost ground overseas and on video, but since domestic cume seems to be the standard of the winners, I propose we use it as a standard for the losers too.)

So does anyone know of an updated list, or care to propose one based on known numbers? I know last year's "Titan A.E." bankrupted Fox's animation studios, and that current tanker "Final Fantasy" cost $125 million and is looking like it'll barely bring in $40 million. Also, I heard that Sony's "First Knight" from a few years back and "Cutthroat Island" both lost almost $100 million each.

Is anyone out there a maven of info on this? I would have thought that by now someone would have published a list, since failure always makes good news. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.

[FarmerOak]

From The People's Almanac presents The Book of Lists: The 90's Edition, by David Wallechinsky and Amy Wallace



10 Biggest Money-Losing Films (1980-1991)

TITLE/ year / Estimated Loss(in millions of $)

1. Hudson Hawk (1991) 52.0

2. The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1989) 48.1

3. Ishtar (1987) 47.3

4. Havana (1990) 45.0

5. Inchon (1982) 44.1

6. Billy Bathgate (1991) 43.0

7. Cotton Club (1984) 38.1

8. Santa Claus (1985) 37.0

9. For the Boys (1991) 36.0

10. Heaven's Gate (1981) 34.5


I'd be interested in cites for the examples you provided.

[Karellen]

Thanks for that list. Wish we could find an updated one for 1991-2001.

Working on cites for previous claims now....

[FarmerOak]

Well, we can always pray that Wallechinsky and Wallace come out with another BoL! I love their stuff.

[Cabbage]

This page claims the biggest loser ever was the recent Warren Beatty movie Town & Country:

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/eo/20010604/099169295304.html

According to the IMDb, the movie cost $90 million and grossed only $6.712 million in the US:

http://us.imdb.com/Business?0141907

[MovieMogul]

Adjusting for inflation, Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate gives it a run for its money. According to the IMDB, it cost $44 million and only made $1.5. Adjusting 1980 dollars (using a percentage from Mrshowbiz.com) to current dollars, that's a cost of $65,465,000 with a return of only $2,231,761. This means it only made 3.4% of its money back, while Town and Country made 7.46%. So T&C may have lost more money, but Heaven's Gate's performance was twice as bad.

[Mr. Cynical]

Ooooh, How much money did "It's Pat!" make?

[Sublight]

My 1996 edition of the Guiness Book credits the 1993 film Last Action Hero as the biggest loser, coming up short by about $80 million. Percentagewise, though, it did quite well compared to some of the other films listed so far.

Hecubus, the Internet Movie Database (us.imdb.com) includes box office returns for many movies. According to their figures, It's Pat grossed only $60,822.

Incidentally, I wouldn't count out Final Fantasy just yet. While it may not do so well in the US, it will probably recoup its budget in Japan.

--sublight.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Manservant Hecubus
Ooooh, How much money did "It's Pat!" make?

According to IMDB, It's Pat grossed (in the US) $60,822. That's not a typo.

There was no overseas release because every civilized nation in the world threatened us with nuclear bombardment if we unleashed this stinker on them. :D

Zev Steinhardt

[Fish42]

For absolute numbers, "Cutthroat Island" and "Town and Country" are currently duking it out for the top spot, with losses of approx. $85 million each (exact figures, of course, depend on which estimates of the films' costs you use).

However, if you adjust for inflation, "Cleopatra" from 1962 would edge them out, as its $18 million loss is equivalent to more than $90 million in today's dollars.

Of course, its possible that an even older film has a larger inflation-adjusted loss. (What would the losses on, for example, D.W. Griffith's "Intolerance" from 1916 be equal to?)

[SCSimmons]

Originally posted by FarmerOak
From The People's Almanac presents The Book of Lists: The 90's Edition, by David Wallechinsky and Amy Wallace


10 Biggest Money-Losing Films (1980-1991

TITLE/ year / Estimated Loss(in millions of $)

1. Hudson Hawk (1991) 52.0

2. The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1989) 48.1



Waaahhh! Those are two of my favorite movies!!

[casdave]

This reminds me of the quote from the company director of 'Raise The Titanic', Sir Lew Grade,I think, who said of the cost of the film,

"It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic"

[MovieMogul]

Fish42 says: However, if you adjust for inflation, "Cleopatra" from 1962 would edge them out, as its $18 million loss is equivalent to more than $90 million in
today's dollars.
Actually, MrShowBiz has an all-time box-office list (http://mrshowbiz.go.com/movies/boxoffice/adjusted.html) and Cleopatra is listed in 36th place, with a $57,777,778 gross listed. In addition, if you compare the adjusted gross they use, based partially on rereleases ($293,591,731) with the adjusted production cost of $44M (as listed by the IMDB) of 1963 dollars ($253,748,558, calculated here (http://www.cjr.org/resources/inflater.asp)), we find that the film actually is ahead by $40M dollars. Hmmm...

As for Intolerance, I don't believe Variety started tracking box office figures until the late 20s, so this will be much harder to nail down (or even guesstimate).

[Fish42]

Originally posted by ArchiveGuy
Fish42 says: However, if you adjust for inflation, "Cleopatra" from 1962 would edge them out, as its $18 million loss is equivalent to more than $90 million in
today's dollars.
Actually, MrShowBiz has an all-time box-office list (http://mrshowbiz.go.com/movies/boxoffice/adjusted.html) and Cleopatra is listed in 36th place, with a $57,777,778 gross listed. In addition, if you compare the adjusted gross they use, based partially on rereleases ($293,591,731) with the adjusted production cost of $44M (as listed by the IMDB) of 1963 dollars ($253,748,558, calculated here (http://www.cjr.org/resources/inflater.asp)), we find that the film actually is ahead by $40M dollars. Hmmm...



Well, for what it's worth, both the "Book of Lists 3" and the IMDB list "Cleopatra" as having a production cost of $44 million and film rentals of $26 million, for a loss of $18 million. Maybe they're ignoring re-releases. Double Hmmmm...

PS--Thanks for the link to the converter.

[Karellen]

I know I’m late posting these, but…

Here’s a couple of articles about the closing of Fox Animation which indirectly blame its failure on “Titan AE”’s flopping:

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,6694,00.html

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/34668p1.html

This article makes reference to the “biggest flop” controversy, while mentioning “Cutthroat Island,” “Ishtar,” and others. Apparently “Town and Country” is the new contender, as folks have pointed out. Gotta wonder what cost so much in a movie with no special effects or exploding sets?

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,8359,00.html

These reviews of “The Long Kiss Goodnight” and “Cliffhanger” say that “Cutthroat Island” lost more than any other film in 1995.

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/.Archives/1996/October/18/aekiss.asp

http://cinemaniacs.virtualave.net/filmreviews/cliffhan.htm


This round-up of last week’s gross suggests that “Final Fantasy” will lose about $80 million. True, it’ll make up much overseas, but sticking to our standard I’d say that’s a pretty big flop.

[Karellen]

Well, I was wrong about "First Knight" in the OP as well--according to IMDb, it was made for $75M and grossed $37M, over half. In percentage terms Sony had a bigger flop that year with "North," which was made for $40M and pulled in $7M.

[sewalk]

Battlefield Earth looks like it may be one of the all-time stinkers. IMDb shows a budget of $73 million with a gross of less than $22 million, counting the US and UK.

That's a net loss of $51 million and a return of only 30%.

[urban1]

Waterworld HAS to be in here somewhere.

[buddy1]

Can anybody explain why:
(1) in spite of the huge losses of these (mentioned) turkeys, Hwood continues to churn out disasters
(2) how ANY movie can COST $50 million dollars! I mean, they own the sets, the actors, the costume, and yet the costs are so astronomical.
I think Hollywood likes to be creative with their numbers-seems like most other industrys would be out of business, if these (reported ) losses are real!

[mongrel_8]

Originally posted by urban1
Waterworld HAS to be in here somewhere.

I actually read recently that Waterworld just about made all the money back with foreign realease and rentals accounted for.

[Slacker]

Originally posted by buddy1
Can anybody explain why:
(1) in spite of the huge losses of these (mentioned) turkeys, Hwood continues to churn out disasters
(2) how ANY movie can COST $50 million dollars! I mean, they own the sets, the actors, the costume, and yet the costs are so astronomical.


Short answer: salaries.

Longer answer: You can usually tell whether a movie was conceived by a good writer (think Chocolat), a good director (Clerks), or producers (Armageddon). The latter will often believe that if you put enough of the following in a movie, it will be a hit:

- Big stars
- Moving music
- Big ol’ kersplosions
- Car chase scenes

In the case of “Town & Country,” the producers (I assume) went for the first two of the above, with the first one being particularly expensive. I would guess that all the big names in the movie received at least five to ten million dollars for their contribution.

This of course also answers another popular question: Why do talented actors accept roles in really bad movies? Well, would you do it for five million bucks?

[Slacker]

Originally posted by buddy1
Can anybody explain why:
(1) in spite of the huge losses of these (mentioned) turkeys, Hwood continues to churn out disasters
(2) how ANY movie can COST $50 million dollars! I mean, they own the sets, the actors, the costume, and yet the costs are so astronomical.


Short answer: salaries.

Longer answer: You can usually tell whether a movie was conceived by a good writer (think Chocolat), a good director (Clerks), or producers (Armageddon). The latter will often believe that if you put enough of the following in a movie, it will be a hit:

- Big stars
- Moving music
- Big ol’ kersplosions
- Car chase scenes

In the case of “Town & Country,” the producers (I assume) went for the first two of the above, with the first one being particularly expensive. I would guess that all the big names in the movie received at least five to ten million dollars for their contribution.

This of course also answers another popular question: Why do talented actors accept roles in really bad movies? Well, would you do it for five million bucks?

[Bartman]

buddy1

Why in spite of the huge losses of these (mentioned) turkeys, Hwood continues to churn out disasters?

Well apparently it can be very hard to figure out which one is going to be the disaster and which will be the multi-mega-super-hit. Although they say drugs are a major issue in Hwood, and with movies like Ishtar coming out I would be inclined to think they are right :). However Cutthrought Island is also listed here. And while this was certainly not one of the past century's greatest films it wasn't that bad. Certainly compaired to say Independance Day, it had some major names, some good action, nice sets etc. So why was one a major hit and the other a flop? Who knows?


How ANY movie can COST $50 million dollars! I mean, they own the sets, the actors, the costume, and yet the costs are so astronomical.

Well let's talk about some movies I have followed through the production stages, The Lord of the Rings. Now the producers have done everything they could to do this on the cheap, as it were. They found a site which had all the enviroments they needed, such as greeen downslands, thick forests, swamps, deserts, high mountains, open plains, and volcanic wastelands. This compares favorably to say Lucas who has a tendancy to fly the whole crew to Tunisia for one scene and California for another. Next for LotR they also picked a site which had a very favorable exchange rate which was willing to provide the movie with lots of freebies, New Zealand. Next they avoided the top tier of actors who command the mega-bucks. They did dip deeply into the scond tier however so they could get quality actors such as Ian McKellen. Next they filmed all three movies at once so that they could use the same sets rather than rebuilding them.
However even with all these money saving ideas the production costs will be about $180 million. In the end actors get payed very well. For several scenes LotR will have several thousand people on screen. Even using digital manipulation to multiply the number of people you actually film, even if they work for free, you have to provide facilities, emergency services etc. Lunch for 2000+ people is not cheap. Do that a few times and you are talking about some real money. :) In addition the number of people working on a film is shockingly large. Even the credits do not demonstrate this as it generally does not include contractors. Sets themselves can be very expensive. For tv this is not so much of a problem. They can reuse the same living room for the same show for years. In addition some sets are used for multiple shows. Movies almost always use unique sets. When Paramount started filming the Next Gen Star Trek movies they had to redo all the sets. Because of the higher resolution of the big screen the sets had to be much more finished and polished. On tv the phasers are made of painted wood with plastic pieces added. I have a fried who owns a phaser that was used as a prop on tv, and it looks like crap. For the movies they had to machine manufacture high quality looking props so their phasers didn't look like painted pieces of wood. These sets and props are not cheap either. Think how much a house costs. Sets are generally in the same range or higher for the same square footage. Even if you 'shoot on location' and use existing buildings etc. rental of a large portion of a resort so you can film your latest James Bond flick can eat up money at a fantastic rate. Last but not least effects are still very expensive and are now almost universal. Even simple romances can include dozens to hundreds of effects which can cost millions. Action, adventure and Sci-Fi push this up very quickly.


I think Hollywood likes to be creative with their numbers-seems like most other industrys would be out of business, if these (reported ) losses are real!

As mentioned by other posters, several of these movies did bankrupt otherwise successful companies. In addition a single Titanic can support a lot of less successful movies. Generally a studio will have maybe 1 or 2 major hits a year, a couple of real bombs and the rest which generally make a small profit. These middle tier movies are where the studios generally make their money. Which is why so many movies are average quality, with predictable plots, etc. A movie like She's All That won't win awards or make a blockbuster profit. It will however make a tidy profit. It only cost $10 million and it grossed over $60 million. And even if it bombs you are only out a few million. Making a big production makes the movie a big risk. For every Dances With Wolves you end up with a couple of Waterworlds or Postmans. Studios are also always on the lookout for ultra cheap potential hits. Movies like the Blair Witch Project only cost a studio a million or two and can make them a few hundred million. In all a large studio like all large companies can have a bad year or two without too much trouble. No studio worth its salt can't absorb a $100 million loss here or there. Any large company can do that. It is only when you become like say Lucent and post a $9 billion quarterly loss. If a studio did that they would have to lay off 20,000 employees just like Lucent did.

[Cervaise]

I think Hollywood likes to be creative with their numbersThis is certainly true.

One of the most commonly heard truisms in Hollywood is, "There is no net." In other words, no net profit, i.e. revenue left over after all costs/expenses/etc. have been accounted for. Big stars get their "points" (a percentage of the box office) based on gross numbers, not net. If you get a Hollywood contract that says you get a piece of the net, and you don't have the clout to negotiate that into gross, you might as well write off ever seeing any of it.

One of the thousand-and-one ways Hollywood hides money is by dividing the corporation into various subgroups. One group owns the soundstages and/or camera equipment, while another group is, on paper anyway, responsible for the movie itself. The first group "charges" the second group for the use of the stages, even though, at a high level, it's all the same company. If your contract is with one of the small subgroups, these charges can add up fast until the movie in question, on paper at least, never shows a profit. Global blockbusters like Men in Black are still recorded in certain books as being in the red.

For more information, see the book Fatal Subtraction (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0787104949/qid=996103611/sr=1-1/ref=sc_b_1/102-2017399-3510520), which is ostensibly about Art Buchwald's lawsuit against Paramount Pictures for their theft of his treatment for Coming to America but also includes a wealth of information about Hollywood's financial manipulations.

There's also a current lawsuit pending against "producer" (I use the term loosely) Elie Samaha that accuses him of padding budgets, inflating them to add a few dollars to his own pocket. See this article in Premiere magazine (http://www.premiere.com/Premiere/Features/501/samaha1.html) for details.

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
According to IMDB, It's Pat grossed (in the US) $60,822. That's not a typo.

:eek: That is absolutely incredible. I mean...I thought you could film someone taking a dump and get more than that much in ticket sales...wow. You learn a lot of things on the SDMB.

[FarmerOak]

Originally posted by Anthracite
Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
According to IMDB, It's Pat grossed (in the US) $60,822. That's not a typo.

:eek: That is absolutely incredible. I mean...I thought you could film someone taking a dump and get more than that much in ticket sales...wow. You learn a lot of things on the SDMB.

Um... you can shoot such a movie, and make more money, but those kinds of movies are generally not shown in theatres. You gotta order 'em. On videotape. From special suppliers.

Anyway, that's what I heard. And no, I cannot provide a cite.

[Cervaise]

I dunno, FarmerOak, Freddy Got Fingered was playing at my local multiplex... ;) (http://moviegeek.homestead.com/files/freddygotfingered.htm)

[Enderw24]

Originally posted by Bartman
Studios are also always on the lookout for ultra cheap potential hits. Movies like the Blair Witch Project only cost a studio a million or two and can make them a few hundred million.

Actually, the movie only had a budget of $35,000. Whether that includes advertising, I don't know, but it should make BW %wise the most profitable movie ever.

Some of the movies on this list I honestly don't understand. I'm proud to admit I LIKED Last Action Hero. I seriously don't see what was wrong with it. I liked Titan A.E. Not with the same ferocity as LAH. It had flaws in its direction and overall flow, I believe, but some of the computer generations were amazing and they tried to get parts of the science of spaceflight/null gravity right.
Hudson Hawk I didn't particularly enjoy, but it wasn't bad, and I know several people who absolutely love it.

Oh and Santa Claus? How cool and campy was that movie? C'mon. Admit it. You liked it.

[Karellen]

Actually, "Blair Witch" cost $1 million, in the terms that we're using--that is, the cost to the entity that then made the profits. The boys at Haxan made the film for $35,000, but then sold it to Artisan for $1 mil, which means Artisan had a "production cost" of $1 mil, which they then turned into $140 million domestically. The film's creators got their payout and not a dime more. Of course, their ability to negotiate future deals was greatly helped...

So "Blair Witch" turned a 140x profit. Is that a record? I've heard that "Halloween" holds the record for percentage return. Anyone got a cite on that?

[Karellen]

Okay, as always IMDb has it.

"Halloween" was made for $325,000, and pulled in $47 million, for a percentage return of....

...147.61 times, compared to 140 for "Blair Witch." The winner by a nose.

[Sublight]

How about "El Mariachi" (the one that Desperado, with Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek, was the sequel to)? It was made for only about $7,000 and grossed $2.4 million, for a 350x return.

-sublight.

[buddy1]

I remember a few years back, Mike Wallace interviewed the two con men who ran the late (lamented) studio of Golan-Globus. One of the partners (I believe it was Globus) told Wallace that it WAS IMPOSSIBLE to lose money on the pictures that they made. Given that most of GOLAN-GLOBUS's stuff was low rent trash, I can believe this-but i do remember that these two churned out "B" grade movies by the dozen, and generally made a lot of money doing so. When you see that even the bombs make grosses of 10-25 $million in THE FIRST WEEK OF RELEASE, I find it hard to belive that Hollywood actually loses money.Even if the movie is a real stinker, you can still seel the trash in the third world, and seel it to the TV networks.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
According to IMDB, It's Pat grossed (in the US) $60,822. That's not a typo.

Yeah, but it only cost about five hundred bucks to make.