This is where the mentality of fan boy rhetoric can also be discredited. Let's look at the X-Men. Recently, fanboys everywhere screamed in delight when it was announced that the abomination(?) that was "The Last Stand" (a film I quite enjoy as I point out in a previous article you can read by clicking
here) was going to be rectified with a "reboot" (through time travel), featuring our favorite band of misfit mutants. It started with The Wolverine, which upon release seemed to receive a much more positive response by the comic book aficionados in contrast to its much hated predecessor, X-Men Origins: Wolverine. And it was deemed that the production company was on the right path to rectifying the mistakes made with these much maligned entries in the franchise, both of which have been relegated as "flops" in the eyes of fans everywhere. To the sales figures we go.
X-Men: The Last Stand Domestic Box Office: $234,362,462 (not counting Domestic DVD Sales of $103,839,324)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine Domestic Box Office: $179,883,157 (not counting Domestic DVD Sales: $77,026,208)
The Wolverine: Domestic Box Office: $131,907,696 So, according to the Hollywood mentality previously established, out of these three films, it is The Wolverine which is the flop. While you are at it, let's compare The Last Stand to the beloved X-2.
X2: Domestic Box Office: $214,949,694
The Last Stand: Domestic Box Office: $234,362,462 So tell me fanboys, which is the biggest flop? For according to Hollywood standards of success, it is the much maligned The Last Stand which wins out in this scenario. "Why is any of this relevant?" I hear you all asking, then. Because I feel that the term "flop" has seriously been misconstrued by both the movie going public and the production companies. I mean, how can a film that made $300 million at the box office be deemed a flop, and yet something like Magic Mike can be classed as a monumental success when it made only $166 million, production costs aside? It might be a financial flop for the studio, but as I said - and will re-iterate time and time again - if you are willing to invest $300 million on a single film, you honestly can't expect that much of a return. Even if you made a billion dollars according to estimates on how much they lost in the long run ($500 million all up apparently), that is still only like getting double your money back. And by Hollywood standards, that also could be considered a failure. Think about it: if John Carter made a billion dollars, it might still technically be classed as a flop. I think this is a mentality that seriously needs to be rectified. Regardless of how much The Shawshank Redemption made at the box office, you can't tell me it has not been a success. And what about the aforementioned The Wizard of Oz? Anyone wanna class that as a flop? My God, we all grew up on it- as will our children and their children's children, too (well, hopefully). In conclusion, then, it is time for Hollywood to be a little bit more transparent when it comes to the finances of a production. No matter how good I personally felt John Carter and The Lone Ranger were, it does not change the simple fact that I can't see where that $300 million went. Are you telling me that an entire movie created out of CGI can cost $300 million? Considering the crappy state of effects lately (fake fire for starters), I honestly can't see what the money contributes to, and just proves that long gestating rumour that Hollywood is the biggest money laundering industry in the world. Because there can be no other explanation. I mean, if it costs more to CGI fire onto someone other than having a trusted stuntman set themselves on fire and therefore look far more realistic, I can't see that as being good business strategy. And are you also telling me that even though you have your own print and distribution departments that it still takes $50 million to promote a film (especially in the internet age)? I know from personal experiences that if you buy from bulk from such places that you can literally pay cents, not dollars for quality work. And distribution does not break the bank, either. Hollywood, it is time to fess up and come clean: either nut up or shut up. It is also time for you, the cinema going public, to stop listening to critics who obviously have an agenda nowadays (Newscorp anyone? They are never going to promote a rival company's film with an unbiased opinion) to make sure certain films "flop" regardless of how good the finished product is. Don't just follow like mindless sheep on the way to the abattoir and jump on the hate bandwagon because the powers that be tell you to. Make up your own mind and if you do enjoy a film: shout it from the rooftops. Don't let misguided and biased media sway you from your opinion. I thought John Carter and The Lone Ranger were both fabulous movies that a lot of families missed out on purely because of the negative rhetoric. Movies like this have been few and far between as of late and it is a shame that this type of filmmaking venture might cease to exist because of such "failures." Who knows, though - they may eventually become classics in their own right, like films such as The Blues Brothers or Fight Club. Which I will watch over Grown Ups 2 any day of my life. Just sayin'.
Like this article? Agree or disagree? Let us know in the comments section below.