Hollywood's Biggest Turkeys Of 2015: The Films That Flopped

Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
65,652
Reputation
28,537
Daps
391,682
Reppin
Ft. Stewart, Ga
at this point, is there an actor who opens movies anymore? Without the story being a brand name, so don't say RDJ or something. If there was just a regular drama starring ___________, could it make $100 million?

I would have said Bradley Cooper after American Sniper, but as we've seen from his next few movies, that was sold on concept and subject matter.

When was the last time you thought "I'm gonna go see that __________ movie?" Will Smith's Concussion will probably flop and I don't think Focus broke the bank.

Dicaprio?

Focus made $158 million against $50 million so it made money, Smith is still a bankable star because he's a draw overseas. Both Focus and After Earth made money from mostly the foreign box office


Tom Cruise is still a draw with the right movies. MI5 made certified bank.

Di'Caprio can still open a movie big. We'll see how The Revanent does..

Scarlett Johansen's Lucy movie made $400 million worldwide WITHOUT being based on any existing property, so I'd say we could throw her in..

Denzel's last four movies grossed over 100 Million each against fairly "minor" budgets (the biggest was Safe House which was budgeted at $85 Million and grossed $200 Million) so he hasn't suffered a fall off
 

Poetical Poltergeist

Precise and cold hearted
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
37,511
Reputation
5,687
Daps
122,009
Reppin
Mile in the Sky
What has Del Toro done lately besides Pacific Rim, which wasn't nearly as cool as I thought it'd be. The dude talks about doing more amazing projects than any director... then does Crimson Peak.

He attaches himself to awesome shyt, then when you hear him speak all he talks about is Pacific Rim 2 and Hellboy 3... we don't need these movies, and i like the Hellboy series a lot. Then he inevitably drops out of the cool project and does this... now he won't make a movie for 3 years watch. Why can he write Justice League Dark but not direct it?
He was supposed to make at the mountains of madness before pacific rim. The ship got scrapped and he's been mediocre since.
 

FlyRy

Superstar
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
30,773
Reputation
3,155
Daps
62,320
:russ:


You were spot on. Only thing I can think of is that Del Toro has been on a semi-hot streak recently and he's the type of director that good reviews and word of mouth can typically push a film..


And honestly the Wachowski's are the DEFINITION of :flabbynsick:. Unless the word "Matrix" is a part of their next film they shouldn't be allowed to go anywhere NEAR a film budget

According to who breh?

Mama
Pacific rim
Crimson peak


I kinda liked crimson peak even though it was flawed it was so beautiful to look at and the music was dope :manny:
 

Conz

Superstar
Joined
May 12, 2012
Messages
8,715
Reputation
704
Daps
18,665
He was supposed to make at the mountains of madness before pacific rim. The ship got scrapped and he's been mediocre since.
which sounded like an amazing movie. he was supposed to direct the Hobbit trilogy (or at least one of them) too.
 

TheGodling

Los Ingobernables de Sala de Cine
Joined
May 21, 2013
Messages
20,078
Reputation
5,624
Daps
70,597
Reppin
Rotterdam
I think the movie star still exists, but it always kills me when people want to include that 'not based on a popular property/brand name' asterisk. Wild Wild West and Men In Black both are based on a pre-existing property, should those be excluded when talking about Smith's stardom? (well, Wild Wild West would be excluded for other reasons but you get my point) If The Hunger Games doesn't count for Jennifer Lawrence, then shouldn't I Am Legend not count for Smith either? or I, Robot? If Suicide Squad becomes a hit we can't credit that one to Smith either I guess since it's based on a DC comic book. That whole argument creates such a murky line that it doesn't make sense to me.

I mean, I've been saying Chris Pratt is the next big movie star, and people chose to disagree with me because his biggest hits are Guardians Of The Galaxy, a Marvel Studios movie, and Jurassic World, a Jurassic Park movie, completely ignoring that both those movies performed way above expectations. Hell, Guardians Of The Galaxy is the highest grossing MCU movie after the Avengers movies and Iron Man 3 for crying out loud! Guardians Of The Galaxy, a comic that was cult status and lucky to sell 30,000 copies each month. Sure, both movies made bank, but to do so much better beyond expectations is something that can be attributed to the (rising) popularity of its star. Same goes for Lawrence. One look at the Divergent series, or The Maze Runner, or whichever other YA sci-fi book series that came out after the Twilight hype, and one could argue The Hunger Games' numbers can't be attributed to the popularity of the book alone. Which is where Lawrence comes into play whose presence lifted the property beyond the brand awareness and made it a hit series.

Movie stars still exist, ya'll just gotta stop moving the goal posts for this new flock.
 

TKOK

Superstar
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
8,894
Reputation
800
Daps
25,661
Reppin
Sactown
Denzel's last four movies grossed over 100 Million each against fairly "minor" budgets (the biggest was Safe House which was budgeted at $85 Million and grossed $200 Million) so he hasn't suffered a fall off
I pretty much wanted to see The Equalizer only to see Denzel kick some ass.
 
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
65,652
Reputation
28,537
Daps
391,682
Reppin
Ft. Stewart, Ga
I think the movie star still exists, but it always kills me when people want to include that 'not based on a popular property/brand name' asterisk. Wild Wild West and Men In Black both are based on a pre-existing property, should those be excluded when talking about Smith's stardom? (well, Wild Wild West would be excluded for other reasons but you get my point) If The Hunger Games doesn't count for Jennifer Lawrence, then shouldn't I Am Legend not count for Smith either? or I, Robot? If Suicide Squad becomes a hit we can't credit that one to Smith either I guess since it's based on a DC comic book. That whole argument creates such a murky line that it doesn't make sense to me.

I mean, I've been saying Chris Pratt is the next big movie star, and people chose to disagree with me because his biggest hits are Guardians Of The Galaxy, a Marvel Studios movie, and Jurassic World, a Jurassic Park movie, completely ignoring that both those movies performed way above expectations. Hell, Guardians Of The Galaxy is the highest grossing MCU movie after the Avengers movies and Iron Man 3 for crying out loud! Guardians Of The Galaxy, a comic that was cult status and lucky to sell 30,000 copies each month. Sure, both movies made bank, but to do so much better beyond expectations is something that can be attributed to the (rising) popularity of its star. Same goes for Lawrence. One look at the Divergent series, or The Maze Runner, or whichever other YA sci-fi book series that came out after the Twilight hype, and one could argue The Hunger Games' numbers can't be attributed to the popularity of the book alone. Which is where Lawrence comes into play whose presence lifted the property beyond the brand awareness and made it a hit series.

Movie stars still exist, ya'll just gotta stop moving the goal posts for this new flock.



While I understand what your saying I think there is a clear and distinct line between a Star being the main draw of the movie and the property ITSELF being the star...

For instance. Men In Black and I Am Legend's success is attributed to Will Smith because all of the marketing behind the films were based heavily on Will Smith, his persona, they were event movies BECAUSE of his involvement.

Now on the flip side Suicide Squad is an ensemble film based upon and featuring heavily in the DCU. It's an event film because it ties into, and continues the larger arch of Man Of Steel and Batman Vs Superman. The marketing of the film will be more based on these factors and not so much on it being a "Will Smith Vehicle".

That's also why I wouldn't give Chris Pratt sole credit for Guardians, even though it's based on an obscure comic it's STILL largely tied into the MCU, which has become a juggernaut. I give Chris more credit for helping to revamp The Jurassic Park franchise, his next couple of films that aren't tied to JP and Guardians will tell us how much actual box office power he has
 

Conz

Superstar
Joined
May 12, 2012
Messages
8,715
Reputation
704
Daps
18,665
Have you met one person who knew of or read the Men in Black comic in 199whatever? Or knew of the Wild Wild West show from 30 years earlier? Will Smith was a bonafide movie star then. I could have been Katniss and the Hunger Games movies would have made billions. it was the most popular "young adult" book in the world
 

FlyRy

Superstar
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
30,773
Reputation
3,155
Daps
62,320
I think the movie star still exists, but it always kills me when people want to include that 'not based on a popular property/brand name' asterisk. Wild Wild West and Men In Black both are based on a pre-existing property, should those be excluded when talking about Smith's stardom? (well, Wild Wild West would be excluded for other reasons but you get my point) If The Hunger Games doesn't count for Jennifer Lawrence, then shouldn't I Am Legend not count for Smith either? or I, Robot? If Suicide Squad becomes a hit we can't credit that one to Smith either I guess since it's based on a DC comic book. That whole argument creates such a murky line that it doesn't make sense to me.

I mean, I've been saying Chris Pratt is the next big movie star, and people chose to disagree with me because his biggest hits are Guardians Of The Galaxy, a Marvel Studios movie, and Jurassic World, a Jurassic Park movie, completely ignoring that both those movies performed way above expectations. Hell, Guardians Of The Galaxy is the highest grossing MCU movie after the Avengers movies and Iron Man 3 for crying out loud! Guardians Of The Galaxy, a comic that was cult status and lucky to sell 30,000 copies each month. Sure, both movies made bank, but to do so much better beyond expectations is something that can be attributed to the (rising) popularity of its star. Same goes for Lawrence. One look at the Divergent series, or The Maze Runner, or whichever other YA sci-fi book series that came out after the Twilight hype, and one could argue The Hunger Games' numbers can't be attributed to the popularity of the book alone. Which is where Lawrence comes into play whose presence lifted the property beyond the brand awareness and made it a hit series.

Movie stars still exist, ya'll just gotta stop moving the goal posts for this new flock.
Breh I've owned MIB on vhs, dvd and bluray and this is news to me.
 

TheGodling

Los Ingobernables de Sala de Cine
Joined
May 21, 2013
Messages
20,078
Reputation
5,624
Daps
70,597
Reppin
Rotterdam
Have you met one person who knew of or read the Men in Black comic in 199whatever? Or knew of the Wild Wild West show from 30 years earlier? Will Smith was a bonafide movie star then. I could have been Katniss and the Hunger Games movies would have made billions. it was the most popular "young adult" book in the world

How many people do you think read Guardians Of The Galaxy? Let me spoil that for you, the comic book run that the movie was built on sold 30,000 copies a month at best. It isn't about how many people know that shyt, it's about the semantics. Guardians Of The Galaxy sold like 30,000 copies a month at best during the comic book run that was the basis for the movie, yet people want to act (no offense @Ziggiy) like being tied to the MCU explains how it could outgross even Thor 2 and The Winter Soldier.

Which reminds me how people like to downplay Pratt's popularity coming off Parks & Recreation (a mere tv-show) when Will Smith himself came up on the strength of his popularity in a tv-show. Sure, sure, supporting man vs leading man but it's about semantics. Nowadays everything gets over-analyzed to shyt because of the internet and podcasts and things are more widely discussed and my point is that if you want to, you can go back and do the exact same shyt to tons of movie stars. Pretty much every famous Bogart movie was based on a novel, should we downplay his star status because of that, because those movies were gonna draw anyway because of the built-in audience of those noir novels? This type of thinking is completely asinine.

Breh I've owned MIB on vhs, dvd and bluray and this is news to me.

Don't blame me for your glaring ignorance. :troll:

But seriously, like I said above, I'm merely debating semantics because people overanalyze the shyt out of these present day stars to the point of nitpicking. That's why I hate it when people say Pratt ain't a star because of some bullshyt technicalities when I had all the evidence before me sitting a movie theater watching the Jurassic World trailer come by and people, especially kids, going :gladbron: over "Star Lord" being in it. Sometimes it is just that simple.
 
Top