Massive Flop
I really liked this film,I was surprised to read that it lost $34.5 million. wtf happened there??
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Man on the Moon (1999) Discussion > Massive Flop
According to wikipedia the film cost 52 million to make. They only got about 47.5 million back in gross revenue. It's a flop for sure, but not a massive flop. Jonah Hex, which debuted a few months ago, would have killed for a moderate flop like this one.
Regardless it was a critical success, Entertainment Weekly named it the best of the year and it earned Jim Carrey a much deserved Golden Globe award. It's not rare for critically acclaimed films to not do extremely well at the box office.
To mainstream America, it was a downer film about a has-been who sabotaged his lucrative career by pulling bizarre stunts that didn't come off like stunts- just sad graspings of a has-been trying to cling lamely onto fame.
By the mainstream's perceptions, it would be like making a bio flick of Paris Hilton or Lindsey Lohan 15 years from now.
I'm holding everyone to a higher standard- a standard much higher than my own
gabby is a good name for you. You're gabbing about baloney.
Thank goodness you're the only one who has to take your opinions seriously. Gee, are they ever going to do a film about you? LOL, LMAO!!!!!
It was an excellent film, critically acclaimed, wonderfully acted, and I don't believe the institutions that count, asked for your opinion.
Kaufman did not appeal to everyone, not even to me at times, but comedians are not supposed to appeal to everyone all the time. If they do, then their act is being targeted to the lowest common denominator...a death knell for any comedian.
He may have shot and missed at times, but I'd rather watch that, than some jerk comedian relying on curse words to replace intelligent comedy. It's the difference between watching some comedians at the Annual Correspondents Dinner in D.C. Colbert pushed the envelope and was hilarious. Rich Little did your basic standard fare from the 1960s, and I heard nothing but boredom and groans, and a few sympathy laughs from the audience. My bet is that you roared at that Rich Little performance.
[deleted]
So, when you don't agree with someone who is simply explaining *why* the film was a flop without injecting her opinion, you attack them personally? Bad form.
She did an excellent job of explaining exactly why the idiot mainstream does not enjoy eccentrics. Or those with any real talent. And yet you take offense at that. Tells many of us that you may just be part of that idiot mainstream, perhaps? Is that why you were so offended?
It's long been tradition that the 'mainstream' has never enjoyed anything original, artistic or gutsy. It's much more safe to 'go with the majority' and jump on the bandwagon on accepted public opinion. As a native Angelino whose family was involved in television & movies, I have never been a member of the teeming masses who go along with the majority when it comes to art, fashion, music, or entertainment. So, yes, this movie was considered a major flop. But in being classified as a flop by the mainstream, it becomes an 'indie' or 'cult' favourite by default. Look at Rocky Horror and other cult classics, which were widely panned during their original commercial releases. I personally did not care for Andy's 'humour.' Most of the time, it was practical jokes which were funny only to him & one or two pals of his. Also, it was sometimes just painful to watch, like someone slowing dying of hunger or thirst in front of a crowd. But some enjoyed him. I seem to remember that when this movie came out, it was absolutely PLASTERED all over the airwaves when it came to promotions, especially that stupid R.E.M. song. It was NOT lost in the shuffle of those other (mostly) horrible films that came out that year. Also, it has done very well in rental dollars since it was released on video, DVD & digitally.
Let's try not to attack people who are simply trying to answer other people's questions, Califor123. It's extremely childish and unnecessary. Attacking someone personally simply because they don't happen to share your opinion is just bad form.
^*^ PDB ^*^
That about sums it up. One review said essentially, its still painful to sit through a movie about what Kaufman did, but it would have been excruciating to have to sit through a lot of what this *beep* did in real life, like the college gig.
shareit would have been excruciating to have to sit through the college gig ?
what was that ??
To mainstream America, it was a downer film about a has-been who sabotaged his lucrative career by pulling bizarre stunts that didn't come off like stunts- just sad graspings of a has-been trying to cling lamely onto fame.
By the mainstream's perceptions, it would be like making a bio flick of Paris Hilton or Lindsey Lohan 15 years from now.
That may have been a factor, but it likely would have been a rather small one. It was actually a number of factors. Mostly it was due to incorrect timing of the release and mundane advertising.
I remember exactly when this came out. I also remember when I first saw a commercial for it. I would have actually gone to see Man on the Moon if it wasn't for all the other movies that were being released at that time.
Man on the Moon was in theaters with a flood of well-advertised, interesting, and good movies. For example, here are some other movies that were either in theaters at the time or were about to be released in theaters which were competing for your movie dollar:
Fight Club
The Insider
Dogma
Sleepy Hollow
Pokémon: The First Movie
The World is Not Enough
End of Days
Flawless
Toy Story 2
The Cider House Rules
Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo
The Green Mile
Bicentennial Man
Stuart Little
Any Given Sunday
Galaxy Quest
Magnolia
The Talented Mr. Ripley
Fantasia 2000
The Hurricane
^ That's some good competition for your movie dollar. With so many choices, it's no wonder people went to see other movies. What's more, a lot of these had better advertising than Man on the Moon; so they naturally took interest away from this film. If it had been released at a different time, it likely would have fared much better. share
[deleted]
No, according to wikipedia it cost $82 million to make.
it lost $34.5 million. Jonah Hex lost $37 million.
I assumed for all these years that it was a big hit, so i was surprised to read it on a "box office bombs" list. It wasn't in good company, not many critically acclaimed films on that list. It's up there with Battlefield Earth and Catwoman.
Man On The Moon really stands out on list like this,
check it out..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biggest_box_office_bombs.
Hmm.. That's interesting. According to that page it cost 82 million, but if you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Moon_(film) It says it only cost 52 million. However you should note that wikipedia is not always a reliable source. Most of the time they require a source from another site to verify information posted. In this case neither page had a source cited.
http://www.filmsite.org/greatestflops11.html
This site pretty much backs you up. Apparently it was a pretty big flop. That's too bad. Sorry for not getting my facts straight earlier.
no worries.. nice link!
Thinking about it, some films become very popular long after their cinema release, I remember Frank Darabont talking about how disappointing the ticket sales were for The Shawshank Redemption and saying "thank god for video and DVD" I wonder what the DVD sales for Man On The Moon are like..
[deleted]
I doubt Andy would have minded that.
shareShawshank Redemption, currently ranked #1 on IMDB and highly acclaimed by all critics, wasn't a huge box office success either. Plenty of great movies don't make money. Man on the Moon is probably still in my top 10 to this day (as well as Shawshank)
Proud member of AA
I think with this film they were more into critical acclaim, awards rather than box office numbers.
Its that man again!!
well,most any time Jim Carrey is on Jay Leno he brags about how much money he makes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxGbU7uQ16A&feature=related @2:50 is an example.... and more at @6:15
It's an absolute shame this movie was a flop. It's so incredibly well done, Carrey's performance is amazing, and even Courtney Love is good. One of the best films I've ever seen.
I was shocked to learn it flopped as well because I seem to remember the movie getting a fair amount of hype, mostly due to praise for Jim Carrey's performance as Andy Kaufman
and when I went to see it in theaters I seem to remember a fair amount of people being there (of course this was a long time ago)
come visit my review blog!
http://griffsrandomreviews.wordpress.com/
BORN, this movie was NOT a 'massive' flop. Istar; now there's a massive flop. Cost 51 million, got 14 million back.
shareKaufman wore out his welcome long before he died so it's not surprising that it didn't stir a lot of interest. If it weren't for Jim Carey, I would have had no interest in it at all.
share