Some people, surprisingly, live in small towns, with only one theatre. Sometimes, there will only be something like two movie options at any one time. So if you want something to do, if you want to go out and see a movie, you take what you can get.
Another thing that happens, in a large city with a high number of theatres, which I’ve seen happen countless times is, people go to see one movie, and when the movie is sold out, or they’ve arrived late, they’ll pay to see just any old movie instead, and that movie might be quality or it might be utter garbage. Some people, hard to imagine, are just not particular about how they spend their time or money.
Also, Hollywood really banks on the under-24 crowd, more than ever before. So remakes can just go on forever, and will sell to the people who didn’t even know there was a version that existed beforehand.
And don’t forget DVD rentals, and cable movie channels, where there’s always a return on the investment, to some degree.
Does onyone else think that this movie would be infinitely improved by Steve Martin and Kevin Kline trading roles? I could see at least the potential of Kline pulling off the character.
Apparently, the movie that lost the most money in the U.S. was Cutthroat Island, costing somewhere around 90-100 million to make and taking in a grand total of $10 million.
As for The Pink Panther, the audience for remakes always seems to be a generation which wasn’t born when the original was made. Our local theater chain has a before-film message that ties in with The Pink Panther featuring Inspector Clouseau as an annoying theater patron. It’s kind of juvenile, but the young kids in the theater always laugh out loud. I think it’s gonna be a hit with the younguns.
With my luck it will be the inflight movie the next time I travel. Last time I was on a plane we got (can’t / don’t want to remember the title) the sequel to “The Whole 9 Yards”… even though I was bored out of my skull, I didn’t make my way more than 10 minutes through that “film”.
I agree wholeheartedly. It might not necessarily have been cutting edge satire, but I thought it was a remarkable return to form for both Steve Martin and Eddie Murphy who’ve both made an ungodly amount of crap over the past decade.
> Apparently, the movie that lost the most money in the U.S. was Cutthroat
> Island, costing somewhere around 90-100 million to make and taking in a grand
> total of $10 million.
It’s only the #6 money-loser based on amount of money lost. Based on return of investment, it doesn’t even come close to being one of the top money-losers. Incidentally, not all the movies on those lists are that terrible. A few are even fairly good.
Suggestion: take her to see the Steve Martin version; then spend the next week showing her the Sellers movies (all readily available, IIRC).
BTW, if they were bound and determined to do a Clouseau remake, they could have done far worse than Steve Martin, IMHO. I’ll probably see it, but it’ll definitely be a DVD rent (and judging from the advance buzz, that should be somewhere around the third week in February ).
mobo85, your claim that Cutthroat Island is the biggest money loser of all time isn’t true even according to the article you cite. The article says that The Adventures of Pluto Nash lost more money than Cutthroat Island. Furthermore, the article lists Heaven’s Gate as being number 5 on its list of money losers. Heaven’s Gate only lost $40 million, which is no longer anywhere close to being the largest amount lost. The article doesn’t mention what criteria it uses to determine the largest money loser. It’s possible that the article was claiming that, if you only use U.S. gross and if you adjust for inflation, the biggest money losers are the ones on its list. There are many ways to determine the biggest money losers, and it’s probably not worthwhile to argue which is the most useful method.
).