Why did Starship Troopers flop?

All I know is I love that movie.

Now its hard to imagine any studio greenlighting a 105 million dollar R rated sci film with no stars at all. Heck even the Matrix had a budget of 63 million in 1999. ST cost twice as much as the average film of 97.

It was mostly the same talent behind the camera as Robocop, with a film that, on the face of it, emulated Aliens, and wouldn't have been too far removed from the sort of air-punching, alien invasion flash of Independence Day. Considering that R rated action wasn't quite on the ropes at that stage (Die Hard 3 had been the highest grosser of 1995, with a similar budget, whilst 1997 also had Air Force One, Face/Off and Con Air all doing well), it wouldn't have seemed like such a bad bet, and the film did open fairly well, although not spectacularly.

The main thing that did the film in was that it was sold as a straight sci-fi action film, as opposed to the campy, on the nose satire it is, making a lot of audiences, who liked taking Independence Day (and, by extenstion, Verhoeven's earlier films like Robocop & Total Recall) at face value, feel cheated out of what they were promised. Hence why the film sank like a rock. (On a personal note, I actually found the film a disappointment on the basis that it felt like a weak retread of Robocop's black humour. There's certainly an interesting level of rage and hatred in the film, to be expected from a man who grew up in the shadow of the Third Reich, and I do broadly agree with the point he's trying to make - but the execution is quite dull.)

Regarding a remake... I wouldn't see the sense, as an artistic endeavour, nor as a commercial prospect. A straight-faced remake would likely alienate people who actually liked Verhoeven's film, not to mention that sort of film has now been done to death, and tastes have rather changed, as the Independence Day sequel shows.



Shut it, Love Actually! Do you want me to hole punch your face?

one of my all time favorites

Excellent point. Quite a lesson in the mood of the times. It'd be akin to say a 200 million dollar film today starring no A-listers. But I doubt such a film would be rated R today even in the likelihood of perhaps overseas sales helping a film break even.

It'd be akin to say a 200 million dollar film today starring no A-listers.

You mean like John Carter, Titanic, any Spider-Man movie, The Hobbit, Avatar, Man of Steel, X-Men, Oz the Great and Powerful, 2012... These days huge budget films regularly avoiding hiring A-listers because their salaries and percentages would hit their bottom line so badly. Looking at the year's top ten domestic grossers, only three star genuine A-listers. The top 50 is even worse, with only six films headed by real A-listers. More often it's familiar stars who tend not to perform well at the box-office outside of franchise films.



"Security - release the badgers."

Looking at the year's top ten domestic grossers, only three star genuine A-listers.

Are you not considering voice work ?

If so the top 10 live action is with arguably A-lister 8 out of 10 time:

Civil War (RDJ)
Deadpool
BvS (affleck)
Suicide Squad (Smith)
Bourne (Damon)
Star trek Beyond
X-Men (Lawrence)
Ghostbuster (Melissa McCarthy)
Central Intelligence (Kevin Hart)
Tarzan (Sam Jackson ?)
------
Sully (Hanks)

If we count animation and voice work actor (not sure how legit it is), it is at 5-6/10

Dory (Ellen DeGeneres as Dory?)
Civil war (RDJ)
Life of pets (Kevin Hart)
Jungle Book (Johansson ?)
Deadpool
Zootopia
BvS (Affleck)
Suicide Squad (Smith)
Bourne (Damon)
Star trek Beyond

I don't think you can really call Sam Jackson or Affleck A listers, and McCarthy and Hart's appeal is pretty much US-centric, though not having seen Apocalypse I forgot Lawrence was in it (didn't she give interviews saying she'd left the franchise?).


"Security - release the badgers."