The biggest box office booms and busts since 1982

[Street Knowledge]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-biggest-box-office-booms-and-busts-since-1982-2015-2

"Booms" are films that made the most money from ticket sales* after the cost of the production budget is subtracted. These are all films that you most likely went to see in the theaters at least once, if you were old enough.

Randy Olson



Interestingly, most of the films in this list are from the 1980s and 1990s. It seems that even though film production companies are spending more on producing bigger films, their investments aren’t being matched by moviegoers at the theater. In fact, the only film from the past decade to make the top 25 is "The Hunger Games," which (unsurprisingly) has had a sequel every year since it was released.

Of course, the downside of looking at "the booms" by looking at net profit is that it favors the big-budget films with a massive marketing budget. What about the successful underdog films that were made in someone’s bedroom with a low-grade camera? To find the underdog success stories, I calculated the profit ratio (net profit / budget) and ranked the films again.

 

[Street Knowledge]

Randy Olson



"Paranormal Activity" is by far the biggest underdog success story, having been shot on a $15,000 budget with a home video camera in a single house. "The Blair Witch Project" — shot in a very similar manner to "Paranormal Activity" — unsurprisingly shows up in 3rd place. "Tarnation" holds the record of the highest-profit film that was produced with less than $250. Incredibly, E.T. still shows up in the top 25 on this list despite its $10.5 million budget. Talk about a box office success!

The busts
“Busts” are films that had millions of dollars poured into them to hire high-profile actors, shoot stunning scenery, and produce the best CGI the film industry has to offer, but no one showed up in the theaters. You probably heard about these movies when they came out, then quickly forgot about them a few days later.

Randy Olson



Given the growing production budgets of modern films, it’s no surprise that films from the past decade dominate this list. The biggest surprise in my mind is "Waterworld," which suffered from an extremely bloated budget. Thankfully, "Waterworld" did much better in the international theaters and eventually broke even, but it’s unlikely we’ll see another "Waterworld" anytime soon.

 

[Street Knowledge]

As with "the booms," focusing only on net losses limits the busts list to films with gargantuan production budgets that didn’t live up to the producers’ expectations. But what about the films that failed so spectacularly in the box office that they probably marked the end of the producers’ career? To find the spectacular failures, I computed the loss ratio (net losses / budget) and ranked the films again.

Randy Olson



Don’t be surprised if you’ve never heard of most of these films: They’re on this list for a reason. "Zyzzyx Road" — with a $1.3M budget — holds a special place on this list because of its incredibly large loss ratio and it only brought in $30 in box office ticket sales. This spectacular failure was engineered by the producer, however, because he wanted to focus on international distribution of the film.

Folks who consider "The Boondock Saints" a cult classic may be shocked to see it show up on this list. "The Boondock Saints" was terribly received when it was first released in 2000, and only later turned a profit when it developed a cult following long after its failure in the box office. That just goes to show that even though box office performance is typically used to gauge a film’s success, the box office isn’t the be-all and end-all of film fame.

* When computing film profits, I summed all of the domestic ticket sales then, following the standard rule of thumb, divided the profits by half to account for movie theaters keeping a share of the ticket sales, taxes, etc.

 

[Khalil's_Black_Excellence]

So wait, all the bajillions of dollars that 'The Avengers' made and it's not on either of those boom lists?!

 

[StraxStrax]

No hate OP but you do know this is meaningless since it only counts US gross?

 

[Ed MOTHEREFFING G]

got damn at Superman Returns....i swear i'm the only one that EVEN KIND OF liked that movie.

 

[23Barrettcity]

got damn at Superman Returns....i swear i'm the only one that EVEN KIND OF liked that movie.

I liked most of it just not homoerotic lex with another land scheme and stalker supes , having a son supes abandoning earth for 5 years and ugly Lois . Brandon routh killed it and the special effects at the time were awesome but like Andrew Garfield he gets tainted by a weak movie . I love the lifting a continent shyt was awesome

 

[Ill Lou Malnati]

How can a movie only bring in $30?

 

[Ill Lou Malnati]

got damn at Superman Returns....i swear i'm the only one that EVEN KIND OF liked that movie.

Routh and Spacey were great casting... the rest was

 

[thenatural]

$1.3M budget and it only brought in $30?!!! Wow, that producer better be in witness protection.

 

[Khalil's_Black_Excellence]

No hate OP but you do know this is meaningless since it only counts US gross?

Ahhh...must be why there's nearly no comic book movies on there. I'm like...didn't the Avengers make the most money of all times?!

 

[HookersandIceCream]

Steven Spielberg

 

[Ed MOTHEREFFING G]

Routh and Spacey were great casting... the rest was

well i'm a huge luthor fan so that was heavily weighted to me

 

[Ill Lou Malnati]

well i'm a huge luthor fan so that was heavily weighted to me

Couldn't fukk with the "five years later" pseudo-sequel premise and Superman losing his powers AGAIN. Needed a complete reboot.

 

[Poetical Poltergeist]

Superman Returns was terrible.