web
counter
 

The 20 Biggest Financial Failures of All Time (and Their Directors' Post-Failure Careers)

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Seriously Random Lists | Comments (48)



041122_alexander_politics_vmed2p.widec.jpg

I made another visit to The Numbers website today, and I’ve come back with another interesting list, this time of the biggest financial failures of all time, in terms of absolute money lost.

I should also preface the list with some additional information. The Numbers website based their figures on the fact that the studio only received 50 percent of the box office revenue, which is probably a fairly close estimation. In reality, studios do spend a lot of money on marketing, which is not reflected in the production budget. Moreover, studios do not receive 100 percent of the the box office revenue. It is my recollection that studios generally receive around 80 percent of the revenue for the first week or two, and the percentage decreases the longer a movie stays in the theater. This is why budget theaters exist: They can charge much less for ticket prices because they only have to return 20 or 30 percent of the receipts back to the studio because the film is in its 7th or 8th week of the run (or in some cases, much later). Of course, while budget theaters get 70 or 80 percent of the ticket sales, the prices are only $1 to $5, so in the case of both first-run and budget theaters, the large majority of the revenue comes from concessions, which is why you pay $6 for a bag of popcorn.

With that in mind, here are the 20 biggest financial failures of all time, in terms of studio loss. And there are some whoppers, especially number one, which is surprising not in the dismal box-office receipts, but that it cost $100 million to make a fairly generic comedy without any huge star power, as neither Warren Beatty nor Diane Keaton were exactly huge draws in 2001.

(Note, also, that worldwide box office grosses are used, and not simply domestic):


1. Town & Country (Budget: $105,000,000; Box Office: $10,364,769) Loss: - $99,817,616

2. Stealth (Budget: $138,000,000; Box Office: $76,416,746) Loss: -$99,791,627

3. The Adventures of Pluto Nash (Budget: $100,000,000; Box Office: $7,094,995) Loss: -$96,452,503

4. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within(Budget: $137,000,000; Box Office: $85,131,830) Loss: -$94,434,085

5. The 13th Warrior (Budget: $125,000,000; Box Office: $61,698,899) Loss: $94,150,551

6. Evan Almighty (Budget: $175,000,000 ; Box Office: $173,219,280) Loss: -$88,390,360

7. Sahara (Budget: $145,000,000; Box Office: $121,671,925) Loss: -$84,164,038

8. The Alamo (Budget: $92,000,000; Box Office: $23,911,362) Loss: - $80,044,319

9. The Wolf Man (Budget: $150,000,000; Box Office: $142,354,624) Loss: - $78,822,688

10. A Sound of Thunder (Budget: $80,000,000; Box Office: $6,300,451) Loss: - $76,849,775

11. Windtalkers (Budget: $115,000,000; Box Office: $77,628,265) Loss: -$76,185,868

12. Around the World in 80 Days (Budget: $110,000,000; Box Office: 72,004,159) Loss: -$73,997,921

13. Speed Racer (Budget: $120,000,000; Box Office $93,394,462) Loss: -$73,302,769

14. Home on the Range (Budget: $110,000,000; Box Office: $76,482,461) Loss: -$71,758,770

15. Alexander (Budget: $155,000,000; Box Office: $167,297,191) Loss:-$71,351,405

16. Son of the Mask (Budget: 100,000,000; Box Office: $59,918,422) - $70,040,789

17. Poseidon (Budget: $160,000,000; Box Office: $181,674,817) Loss -$69,162,592

18. Father’s Day (Budget: $85,000,000; Box Office: $35,681,080) Loss: -$67,159,460

19. Daddy Day Camp (Budget: $76,000,000; Box Office: $18,197,398) Loss: -$66,901,301

20. Ali (Budget: $109,000,000; Box Office: $84,383,966) Loss: - $66,808,017


Again, I’d like to look at the directors responsible for the above films and ask the question: How did a director responsible for one of the 20 biggest financial failures of all time do after the release of the failed movie? Did they redeem themselves, and did the studio entrust the director with that much money again?

1. Town & Country: While Town & Country essentially ended the career of Warren Beatty (he hasn’t made a movie since), director Peter Chelsom hasn’t faded into obscurity. He’s since made Serendipity, Shall We Dance, and Hannah Montana: The Movie, the first two of which made in the $50 million range, and the latter which scored $80 million. Of course, retroactively, you have to wonder how the director of Hannah Montana: The Movie was once given $100 million to make a movie.

2. Stealth. Director Rob Cohen is doing just fine, unfortunately. He has since made The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, which grossed over $400 million worldwide, and he’s in the process of making a xXx sequel.

3. The Adventures of Pluto Nash: This failure was on Eddie Murphy, but all the same, director Ron Underwood has been relegated to television directing work since the failure of Nash and his obscure, unseen follow-up, Stealing Sinatra, with David Arquette and William H. Macy.

4. The Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within: Since the failure of The Final Fantasy, Hironobu Sakaguchi has gone back from where he came: directing video games. He’s not directed a feature since.

5. The 13th Warrior: Thanks likely to the fact that his The Thomas Crown Affair affair came out the same year, Die Hard director John McTiernan was allowed a couple more stabs at the apple after The 13th Warrior, failing on both counts with Rollerball (another financial disaster) which lost about $55 million and Basic, which didn’t do much better. He’s currently working on a movie called The Camel Wars, but he wasn’t allowed near the Die Hard franchise again.

6. Evan Almighty: Director Tom Shadyac was once something of the It guy for comedies (Ace Ventura, Liar Liar, Patch Adams), but he hasn’t made anything in the three years since Evan and last I heard, I believe he was working on an HBO movie about Sam Kinison with Dan Fogler attached.

7. Sahara: Director Breck Eisner is the son of Michael Eisner, so you knew he’d get another chance after the massive failure of Sahara. He made this year’s Crazies, which did all right for itself ($40 million box office on a $16 million budget), and he’s currently working on that remake of John Carpenter’s Escape From New York.

8. The Alamo: Director John Lee Hancock had the balls to make an action movie where everyone dies in the end, and five years later, he finally got to work again. He directed last year’s The Blind Side, which made $307 million worldwide, though I wouldn’t given the director too much credit for that success.

9. The Wolf Man: The Wolf Man lost $80 million, so how do you punish the director of that movie, Joe Johnston? You give him the reins to Captain America: The First Avenger, of course. This despite the fact that the movie he made before The Wolf Man, Hidalgo, lost his studio about $45 million. Fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice. Give him a Marvel franchise.

10. A Sound of Thunder. Director Peter Hyams followed up his 2005 failure with last year’s Michael Douglas film, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Yeah. I don’t remember it, either. It made $32,000 on a $25 million budget. Yikes. Percentage-wise, I believe that’s an even bigger failure than A Sound of Thunder.

11. Windtalkers: Director John Woo got another crack at the box-office after Windtalkers, with Ben Affleck’s Paycheck, which managed to barely break even once worldwide grosses were accounted for. Woo has since returned to his home country to direct great films like Red Cliff. which had a record-breaking opening weekend in Asia.

12. Around the World in 80 Days: Director Frank Coraci is doing all right. He made 2006’s Click and is working on Kevin James’ follow-up to Paul Blart, The Zookeeper. He’ll make money, but it doesn’t make him a good director.

13. Speed Racer: The Wachowskis haven’t released a film in the two years since Speed Racer’s financial failure. As I recall, they’re currently working on a moderate to low budget film mostly in secret.

14. Home on the Range: Directors Will Finn and John Sanford have made a few direct to video cartoons since the failure of Home on the Range.

15. Alexander: The failure of Alexander didn’t slow down director Oliver Stone. He made W., World Trade Center, and Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps is due out later this year.

16. Son of the Mask: And that was the end of Lawrence Guterman’s career as a director.

17. Poseidon: Director Wolfgang Peterson hasn’t made anything since the 2006 film, but he’s got a few movies early in development, including a movie based on Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em, as we reported last week.

18. Father’s Day: Unfortunately, Ivan Reitman continues to make movies, including Six Days Seven Nights and My Super Ex-Girlfriend. Worse still, he will likely direct Ghostbusters 3 if anyone ever decides to force production forward on it (I think the studio is trying to hold out until Reitman dies).

19. Daddy Day Camp: Ouch. I’d completely forgotten that Fred Savage directed this (Yes: that Fred Savage). He hasn’t made any movies since; however, he has become one of the best television directors around, directing episodes of “Party Down” and “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.” Keep away from the family stuff, Savage.

20. Ali: I had no idea Ali lost that much money. Anyway, though he fucked up Miami Vice, director Michael Mann is doing just fine, having also directed Collateral and Public Enemies.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



TiMER Review | Phillip K. Dick Meets A Romantic Comedy (With a Dash of Whedon) | The Little Pink Pill | Pajiba Dirty Talk









Comments

Evan Almighty cost $175 million?????? Someone got FIIIIRRRRRED!!!!

Posted by: Kballs at June 29, 2010 3:08 PM

Who the fuck would give someone $100,000,000 to make a movie that stars Jaimie Kennedy? That just vexes the ever loving shit out of me.

Posted by: admin at June 29, 2010 3:10 PM

I'm confused by the use of the header pic, other than it was a Peterson film, but it's not mentioned in the article, so...?

Oops. I got my shitty Roman epics confused. Apologies. -- DR

Posted by: Rykker at June 29, 2010 3:13 PM

I still can't figure out why Speed Racer failed. How did people hate that movie? It's so much fun. One of the more fun movies in the past few years and it gets regular play on my br player.

Posted by: Zerath at June 29, 2010 3:14 PM

I can't believe "A Sound of Thunder" cost $80 million. The CGI in that, looked it like was a bad SyFy channel movie (and those can get pretty bad). Horrible acting, horrible plot. Just a horrible movie all around.

Posted by: MTGColorPie at June 29, 2010 3:18 PM

6. Evan Almighty (Budget: $175,000,000 ; Box Office: $173,219,280) Loss: -$88,390,360

9. The Wolf Man (Budget: $150,000,000; Box Office: $142,354,624) Loss: - $78,822,688

15. Alexander (Budget: $155,000,000; Box Office: $167,297,191) Loss:-$71,351,405

I'm not understanding the math here. That Evan Almighty one would suggest they only lost around $2 million.

As well that one for Alexander suggests that it made a profit...albeit a small one.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at June 29, 2010 3:20 PM

13th Warrior lost that much?!? A fairly intelligent epic with some great, creepy action sequences (and it looks great) should have been a license for making money.

Posted by: Joseph Finn at June 29, 2010 3:25 PM

DeistBrawler,

Dustin stated up top that he estimates that "the studio only received 50 percent of the box office revenue," so cut the Box Office number in half and subtract if from the listed budget, and you get estimated loss.

Admittedly, he could have made that clearer.

Posted by: KM at June 29, 2010 3:40 PM

My first question is where does the money go on these films? I mean the budget of Evan Almighty was $175 MILLION?!

Daddy Day Camp cost $76 Mil to make? You gotta be kidding me!

Is the money being used as toilet paper and fuel?

Posted by: John W at June 29, 2010 3:43 PM

How much money has Eddie Murphy lost making movies after the last successful Beverly Hills Cop movie?

Posted by: John W at June 29, 2010 3:46 PM

Zerath I think the problem there was that most people either didn't get what they were trying with Speed Racer, or were unable to embrace it once they got it. I still think it's a very flawed movie (instead of Japanese-cute they got American-stupid at times), but I got where they were going, and it was a valiant effort.

-Frob

Posted by: frobme at June 29, 2010 4:12 PM

last year’s Michael Douglas film, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Huh? Don't remember that at all, probably because the star and the awful title make it sound both bloodless and humorless.

Posted by: sansho1 at June 29, 2010 4:13 PM

I try not to freak out about Joe Johnston directing Captain America by remembering he directed two childhood favorites of mine: Jumanji and the Pagemaster. Of course, since I haven't seen either of those since I was, well, at the age where those kind of movies would be my favorites, I should probably still be worrying. But he also directed October sky, which I think did pretty well, right? Right!?

Posted by: Zinka at June 29, 2010 4:19 PM

Which of these films will get bumped off the list by The Last Airbender? I think it's going to have a lot of traction.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at June 29, 2010 4:23 PM

A few years ago I stumbled upon the budget breakdown for "Signs", arguably the last film from M. Night that made boffo box office. Boffo as in..."Shit, that's a lot of money". While I had always heard about the BIG paychecks collected by 'stars', the reality of that didn't hit me until I saw it spelled out on this budget.

Allotted budget for the entire cast: $27 million

Mel Gibson: $20 million (with a daily per diem amount of $1000)

Rest of the cast, split up: $7 million

I still struggle to wrap my brain around those numbers. There's also the report that Mel Gibson requested a private jet at his disposal to go home on weekends (God only knows how much that cost...rental, pilots, gas, etc.) With those types of ego's in mind, it's no wonder 'Town and Country' and 'Pluto Nash' (and others) failed as miserably as they did.

Posted by: Barnes78 at June 29, 2010 4:42 PM

Windtalkers was John Woo? That must be why I watched it in the first place.

Hated it. Looked like they filmed it in someone's backyard, and the acting was terrible.

Posted by: Riles at June 29, 2010 4:49 PM

Pluto Nash was directed by RON Underwood.

Posted by: TylerDFC at June 29, 2010 5:21 PM

Give me One Million dollars and I will make a better movie than Daddy Day Camp. Heck, I could probably get Cuba Gooding Jr too.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at June 29, 2010 5:41 PM

Which of these films will get bumped off the list by The Last Airbender?

Interesting. I'm not gunning for it to fail or anything...it just really didn't look worthwhile.

Posted by: Jay at June 29, 2010 5:47 PM

The lessons to be gleamed from this:

1. NO comedy should ever cost $100 million. NONE. EVER.

2. Eddie Murphy should not be the main star of your comedy anymore.

Posted by: Fredo at June 29, 2010 5:52 PM

Another thing that I'm curious about is who approved these budgets?

Who approved giving $76 million to make a movie starring Cuba Gooding Jr? When he is the only recognizable name in the entire cast. And most of the cast is made up of children! (I originally thought it was Daddy Day Care which has a more recognizable cast). Does an Academy Award carry that much weight in Hollywood?

Posted by: John W at June 29, 2010 6:01 PM

According to wikipedia the budget for the original The Mask starring Jim Carrey was $18 million. Amazing.

The budget for Daddy Day Care which has an all star cast compared to the sequel, including Eddie Murphy and Anjelica Huston, was $60 million.

Posted by: John W at June 29, 2010 6:10 PM

I'm a little more interested in the percentage of gross to cost, as in the previous "best" list.

I see that 3 of these films grossed less than 10% of their cost. To me those are the real flops.

Posted by: Pat C at June 29, 2010 6:29 PM

Oh, here we go with that argument again. Speed Racer failed because people didn't "get" it. *rolls eyes* Yeah, as always, it has nothing to do with the film in question just simply being shit...you have to turn it into some sort of elitist BS. "Oh, Ang Lee's boring-as-a-dog's-ass Hulk movie failed because people didn't understand it." "Ridley Scott's Hannibal wasn't appreciated, because it was misunderstood." (I'm not making either one of these up...I actually heard people say these things). Give me a small break...they're garbage. Period. That's why no one liked them, you holier-than-thou Douchetard. Move on.

Posted by: Case at June 29, 2010 6:47 PM

There was some sort of suit about Sahara and details of the production costs were revealed under subpoena and reprinted in the LA Times. Just to give you an idea how screwed up Hollywood is Matthew McCohawhat's hairdresser was paid more than his stuntman. To read the full article from the LA Times years back will cost coin but it's almost worth it just to turbocharge your Hollyweird hate.


Posted by: OscarTamerz at June 29, 2010 7:28 PM

A couple of thoughts: author states that these total earnings do include foreign distribution, but not home rental/dvd sales, which can dramatically improve the outlook of a film's total take. Not sure how any of these did on DVD, but I wonder if a few squeaked by.

Eddie Murphy should be forced, physically, if need be, to refrain from making any family friendly films unless he's only doing voice work (and then it may be iffy). Let him go back to edgy comedies like Bowfinger and dramas like Dream Girls. Stop putting him in fat suits for Crissakes.

Alexander is my barometer for how bad shit can get. I am offended by almost nothing, but that movie's very existence offends me. I hate it more than Ebert hated North. It's worse than herpes. Stone owes this world an apology for shitting all over us with that cinematic diarrhea. Even Rosario Dawson's nudity can't make it watchable. Awful.

On the other hand, I liked 13th Warrior, so I guess there's no accounting for taste, eh?

Posted by: lennychuck at June 29, 2010 7:37 PM

Another thing on Sahara: weren't they found to be making illegal payments to warlords and tribal leaders in order to film on their African locations?

What's the tax form for bribery?

Posted by: Fredo at June 29, 2010 7:45 PM

Speed Racer failed because people didn't "get" it

No, it was because people don't like fun.

Posted by: Jay at June 29, 2010 9:04 PM

Flop or no flop, I'll watch Speed Racer over and over again (just cut out his annoying little brother and it's a much more enjoyable film).

And had Alexander been released as the director's cut (or the final cut, or whatever that last edition released was), it may have done much better - if people can sit still for nearly 4 hours. I loved that last version of Alexander because it was cut together correctly, and not nearly as haphazard as the original.

Posted by: B-Unit at June 29, 2010 9:42 PM

That's a good list of craposity. It (almost) restores my faith in humanity, and I will stop stabbing myself with a fork for now.

Posted by: Uriah Creep at June 29, 2010 10:04 PM

Your name's 'URIAH'. Wanna be my new Sunday School teacher?? I've been searching for one. This is exciting! When you find such a rarely used Old Testament name, you KNOW you're dealing with someone educated in the Word. Rock on...

Posted by: Barnes78 at June 29, 2010 10:22 PM

Flop or no flop, I'll watch Speed Racer over and over again (just cut out his annoying little brother and it's a much more enjoyable film).

That could be said for the show as well. Seriously, Speed Racer was probably the best (in both tone and look) adaptation of a cartoon in a while.

Hironobu Sakaguchi has gone back from where he came: directing video games. He’s not directed a feature since.

God, did Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within break my heart. Not the actual movie, just the failure of it. I just wanted it to succeed so badly. If they had waited a few more years, the loss wouldn't have been so big.

But thanks to that, there is no real chance for another original Final Fantasy theatrical release.

Fuck, that shit was sad.

Posted by: Vermillion at June 29, 2010 11:16 PM

Also:

1) John Woo should never leave China. STAY THE FUCK THERE, JOHN. WE WILL TELL THE GOVERNMENT ON YOU.

2) Fred Savage should never direct anything below a PG-13. And that should be a hard PG-13, like one "fuck" or a titty short an R rating.

Posted by: Vermillion at June 29, 2010 11:23 PM

I'm not a final fantasy nerd/player, but I really don't get the hate lobbed at it, I enjoyed it, and thought the animation was beautiful.

Posted by: e at June 29, 2010 11:46 PM

I love these types of lists.

Posted by: EricD at June 30, 2010 12:02 AM

Your name's 'URIAH'. Wanna be my new Sunday School teacher?? I've been searching for one. This is exciting!

Slow your roll there, Barnes.
Check the surname before you're completely blinded by your religiosity.

Posted by: Mulder at June 30, 2010 1:44 AM

I just started watching A Sound of Thunder in parts on Youtube.

It is...a...mazing!

I didn't know $80,000,000 could buy you that big a piece 'o shit!

Posted by: D-Day at June 30, 2010 2:19 AM

Poseidon (Budget: $160,000,000; Box Office: $181,674,817) Loss -$69,162,592

Okay, so this means that the movie made $21.6 million smackers OVER what it's budget was and still lost $69 million?

What, were they accepting wampum from participating theatres? Did 90% of all viewers go to a budget theater so the studio only made $0.13 cents per ticket?

Did they get the money, look at it, and decide "we've just gotta get in between Father's Day and Son of the Mask!"? Johnson, here's another check from Big Budget Flashy Movie Theater, sent in and worth mmmmmillions! Run the numbers. DO THE DILIGENCE! Then take the check, marinate it overnight, broil on high for 30 minutes, serve with potatoes and garnish to a crocodile, and then tie the scaly bastard to a weather balloon and push it off towards South America! Hahaha, no one will find it! WE'RE COMING FOR YOU WINDTALKERS!!!

Posted by: D-Day at June 30, 2010 2:47 AM

The Wolf Man lost $80 million, so how do you punish the director of that movie, Joe Johnston? You give him the reins to Captain America: The First Avenger, of course.

Because The Wolf Man was a perfectly decent movie that just didn't do so well at the box office. So was Hidalgo, come to think. There's a reason some directors get given another chance: the studios know when a movie bombs because it's a piece of shit, as opposed to when it bombs because they gambled huge on a property becoming their Big Summer Picture and they rolled snake eyes. Otherwise Johnston wouldn't have had a career post-Rocketeer (which, if you went into inflation-consistent dollars, probably would have made this list, it bombed so hard - but damn, what a great movie).

Posted by: mightygodking at June 30, 2010 4:00 AM

"20. Ali: I had no idea Ali lost that much money.

Ali (Budget: $109,000,000; Box Office: $84,383,966) Loss: - $66,808,01"

It didn't, you just really suck at math. What kind of string theory did you use to basically get 109 - 84 = 66? Maybe you should get a job cooking the books for Sahara II: Our Intern Blows at Arithmetic.

Posted by: KathleenTurnerOverdrive at June 30, 2010 4:48 AM

Barnes78

I came back to this thread for no particular reason, read your comment, and damn near choked. For a second there, I felt like I'd commited a mortal sin or something by deceiving you, but I know from reading your past comments that you are a player (your exchange with Pookie was a highlight), so I think you were funnin'.

Indeed, as suggested by mulder above, my screen name has nothing to do with the Old Testament and more with a misspent period of my life. I'd been lurking around Pajiba for a while and one day decided to post a comment ("talk to the cool kids", as they say.) At that very moment, I was listening to a song by Uriah Heep called "Easy Living" which I've loved since it came out in 1972 during my fun but misdirected college days (yeah, I'm aging myself), so I changed their name in a Pajiba-approved manner and, voila. Worse yet, the band based the name not on the bible, but on the Charles Dickens book "David Copperfield". I don't know why I'm writing all this crap, but there you go. Mind you, I was an altar boy about a billion years ago.

Posted by: Uriah Creep at June 30, 2010 5:18 AM

It didn't, you just really suck at math. What kind of string theory did you use to basically get 109 - 84 = 66?

It's because the 109 is only the production budget. There's an unreported figure in there which is the marketing budget.

Posted by: mightygodking at June 30, 2010 10:51 AM

These are true B.O. stinkers, but a production assistant friend of mine told me about 10 years ago, that 90% of movies make money (for the producers, heheheh), the question is how long it takes before they are profitable. Note that the Production budget is separate from the marketing budget which in some cases (e.g. Kevin Smith Movies) can come close to the production budget.

This is why we have the crap Hollywood is producing today, of which merchandising/tie-ins are a huge business. Would you believe that Twilight merchandise made the studio just as much as the movie?

The true production budget can also "hide" recyclables, as in recycled sounds, score, sets, costumes, etc...

A few of the films on the list are not truly poorly made films, but suffered from poor marketing, indicating that the studio head (who may NOT have commissioned the production, as studio heads change like underwear), had no confidence in the film in order to get it right.
Poorly marketted IMHO: Speed Racer, Stealth, and Final Fantasy, Ali.

Some of these had excellent concepts, but my dog could've written a better screenplay, Evan NOT SO Almighty (the fun of the first movie was his GOD powers!), Sahara, Son of the Mask, The Wolf Man.

Lastly, I think the "riders" that some stars have are disgusting. Just imagine that you can go into your workplace and they feed you 5 star catered cuisine (sometimes to order for the A-listers), and if you have to work late you have your own luxury trailer to sleep in. Also, the production may pay for your own private masseuse, driver, bartender, pot dealer, etc...whether or not you use them that day. There is NO way that Son of the Mask, Sound of Thunder and Sahara should have cost that much.

Posted by: BobaFett at July 1, 2010 1:39 AM

Dude I guess there is a calculation error in Ali, you have said that Ali was budgeted at $109,000,000.... and that It grossed $84,383,966.... and that there was a loss of $66,808,017.

The loss amount is incorrect (if you are sure about the Budget and box office revenue)it should have been $24,616,034....

Hope you will rectify it... and thanks for the post.

Posted by: Sam Jobs at July 3, 2010 9:44 AM

Jesus Christ, we went over this earlier.

The studio gets about half the gross. SO cut the gross in half, subtract that from the budget, and that's the net loss.

Posted by: Kobie at July 4, 2010 8:58 PM

Subtract the budget from that figure, rather.

Posted by: Kobie at July 4, 2010 8:59 PM

Not sure how you missed Pluto Nash.

Budget: $100,000,000
Gross: $4,411,102
Loss: $95,588,898

Posted by: Richard at November 6, 2010 1:15 AM

Sorry, you did have Pluto Nash. My browser's page search failed me. As did my skimming.

Posted by: Richard at November 6, 2010 1:18 AM