MovieChat Forums > The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002) Discussion > One of the biggest flops ever, never wou...

One of the biggest flops ever, never would have known...

posted 20 years ago by IURomanza
49 replies | jump to latest

Biggest Money Losers, Based on Absolute Loss on Worldwide Gross

Release Date - Movie Distributor - Budget - Worldwide Gross - Loss
(TOP 5)
1 4/27/2001 - Town & Country - New Line - $105,000,000 - $6,712,451 -$101,643,775

2 7/11/2001 - Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within - Sony - $137,000,000 - $74,400,000 - $99,800,000

3 8/16/2002 - Adventures of Pluto Nash, The - Warner Bros. - $100,000,000 - $4,411,102 - $97,794,449

4 8/27/1999 - 13th Warrior, The - Buena Vista - $125,000,000 - $59,800,000 - $95,100,000

5 12/22/1995 - Cutthroat Island - MGM/UA - $92,000,000 - $9,910,021 - $87,044,990

[–] swordoftheshogun 20 years ago

I hate how people put Final Fantasy in with the biggest money losers.

Yes it lost money, tons of it. BUT it still made more than any of those others and was well recieved on dvd sales (2-Disc special edition anyone?). Not to mention the multiple marketing schemes they had with fast food restaurants, toys, books and clothing. While Square pictures did close down, it's safe to say that Squaresoft didn't lose their shirt on it. (Then again they did merge a few years later...)

Anyone know the EXACT figure FF Spirits has totalled? I'm willing to be bet it's still a loss, but in the figure of 10-15 million. The DVD sales went quite well and there's another edition out there for those who didn't get the 2-Disc edition.

Don't forget older movies with the cost of inflation. There's ishtar, and the there was one movie that basically sunk a studio...anyone know what it was? It was so bad it proclaimed the age when directors could just make their own movies and are now forced to do what they are told?

[–] jmagnolia_ 19 years ago

I seem to recall "The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen" being the record holder for at least a decade - anyone know what that lost?

[–] shangrilab 19 years ago

Don't throw a childish hissy fit because a lame CGI cartoon you liked bombed worldwide. It stank. It bombed. It doesn't matter that there were bigger bombs - your beloved toon flopped miserably, accept it and learn to live with it.

[–] ilnoin 19 years ago

Who the *beep* are you?

[–] Sputnik_ 18 years ago

It doesn't matter who he is, he's right.

==========
Cold. Cold and Dark. It goes on Forever.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dollardreamer1 18 years ago

"It actually didn't lose all that much from what I read. By inflation the biggest money loser of all time is CLeopatra. Noting has come close. It would have cost $300-$400 million in todays money and only made about $25-$30 Million. (THese are estimates taken from a book)."

Actually no Cleopatra in today's money cost $327,441,890 and made $429,974,200
domestically itself. So no it didn't lose a lot of money because back then studios owned majority of theaters, hence their take from the total gross would have been higher than what it is today.

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mookieperez 20 years ago

how did you calculate this???????
105,000,000-6,712,451=98,287,549 not 101,643,775
137,000,000-74,400,000=62,600,000 not 99,800,000
anyways, just letting you know.

[–] zeroic 20 years ago

Yes, the movie can not be good if it doesn't make profit.
Ofcourse if this movie was made with a $1,000,000 budget, it would rock!

You are so sick if the only reason you call things flops or bad, is by looking at how much profit they made! But I guess as an European communist, I wouldn't ever understand this oh-so-great philosophy.. :P

[–] christian123 20 years ago

final fantasy overseas numbers were high so put that with the dvd sales and rentals plus it us run and u get a loss of about 5mil

[–] robert_bond75 20 years ago

What on earth are you talking about? Just because a movie doesn't make a profit it doesn't mean it's a bad film. A total failure can be just as good or even better than a massive hit.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FCA1975 20 years ago

Yep, even with that absolutely gorgeous Rosario Dawson this movie could not be saved. Maybe she should have showed more skin, eh? lol I personally enjoyed some scnese but would only see it on HBO, not rent it.

That Numbers list is something else. Warner Brothers completely dominate that list!!

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Diplodocus55 19 years ago

bregade--

by definition, the term "flop" means a movie that has lost a lot of $$$, not necessarily a bad movie.

[–] Z3R0-CooL 20 years ago

the biggest flop in percentage on money spent/earned is D-Tox..

Budget
$55,000,000

Gross
$79,161 (USA)

[–] Vigilant_One 20 years ago

Man, D-tox sucks and i'm really suprise it made only 79k of money. Wow!

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tigerwlf 20 years ago

actually I think the all time biggest loser would be leonard part 6.
I don't know if anyone remembers it was so bad, that Bill Cosby tried to stop
its release by buying the rights to it. He failed at stopping its release.
But you know its bad when the star says hey hold up, can I buy that and stick
it in a deep dark hole somewhere.

I'll have to say Leonard Part 6 is the biggest flop.

don't know money terms, but hell who needs to

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CornellFrosh 19 years ago

It's silly to look at profit-loss ratios, as studios that realize they have a bomb on their hands will simply not waste the money trying to promote them. So, technically, if one were to use this metric, the biggest losers are films that were completely finished but never released at all, languishing on the shelves waiting for a distributor to bite. The more meaningful metric, it would seem, is the difference, not the ratio, between capital investment and loss (or profit), as that is the calculation studios must guess at when determining how much publicity to put behind a movie.

[–] pram_d 10 years ago

a movie cant be that good if it doesnt make alot of profit, thats *beep*

[–] turbo445 20 years ago

Leonard 6 was a terrible movie too, but it didnt cost that much to make. The movie that closed a studio down, because it was so expensive to make and lost so much money, is Michael Cimino's "Heaven's Gate". The studio it closed was Zoetrope. But more to the point, do you realize Pluto Nash is a remake (almost scene for scene) of "Moon Zero Two" a movie so bad they made an MST3K episode out of it?

[–] acid2 20 years ago

The studio it closed was United Artists, not Zeotrope.

[–] writteninink 19 years ago

Leonard Part 6 was a bad movie, but what do you expect after Leonard Parts 1-5... they were all rubbish too.

Oh so smart or oh so pleasant... it's your choice. Thanks Harvey!

[–] shadowofthunderclap 19 years ago

I can't believe there are people out there who liked Final Fantasy. I think it richly deserved to flop the way it did. If that movie had been a hit, it would have been bad for the movie business, same with The Real Cancun. Two crappy trends averted because those movies flopped.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thegladiator2550 19 years ago

it didn't close UA, they lost a whole lotta money(somewhere near $40 million), but they rebounded with For Your Eyes only

Buy the book
http://www.lulu.com/content/128593

[–] kentatm 19 years ago

hmm, I actually liked #'s 3-5 on the flop list........

[–] moemcb 19 years ago

dawn of the dead costed less then 25 milion and it was great - napolean dynamite costed 600k and it was great this proves $ does not= a good movie.