Shocking how many box office flops he had in the prime of his career - Bruce Willis Discussion

[–] redban (6781) 5 years ago

I disagree. Outside of the Die Hard films, he also had these movies, which drew big money. He had a strong run in the 1990s.

The Last Boy Scout
Pulp Fiction
Twelve Monkeys
The Fifth Element
The Jackal
Armageddon (huge numbers)
The Siege
Sixth Sense (huge numbers)
The Whole Nine Yards
Disney’s The Kid
Unbreakable (huge numbers)

Probably after Unbreakable, he started pulling a lot of box office bombs, minus Sin City and Die Hard. By this point though, he was already a legend.

Bandits
Hart’s War (bomb, but won some critical praise)
Tears of the Sun
Whole Ten Yards
Etc etc

reply

[–] LiquidOcelot (2452) 5 years ago

Let's analyse the movies you listed and then i'll list his flops.

The Last Boy Scout
Twelve Monkeys
The Fifth Element
The Jackal
Armageddon (huge numbers)
The Siege
Sixth Sense (huge numbers)
The Whole Nine Yards
Disney’s The Kid
Unbreakable (huge numbers)

The Siege and Disney's The Kid both failed to double the budget at the box office which is the bare minimum for break even, so they don't count as hits. Now for his flops -

In Country - made $3m on an $18m budget. Massive flop.
The Bonfire of the Vanities - $15m on a $47m budget. Flop.
Hudson Hawk - failed to double budget at the BO. Flop.
Billy Bathgate - supporting role but still another flop.
Striking Distance - not sure what the budget was on this, but only $24m at the BO. Almost definitely a flop.
Color of Night - made $19.7m on a $40m budget. Massive flop.
Nobody's Fool - supporting role but again, failed to recoup budget at the BO.
Last Man Standing - made $47m on a $67m budget. Box office bomb.
Mercury Rising - failed to double budget at the BO. Flop.
The Story of Us - made $58m on a $50m budget, not even close to recouping its budget. Flop.
Breakfast of Champions - made $178k (yes you read that right) on a $12m budget. Epic box office bomb.
The Siege - failed to recoup its budget.
Disney's The Kid - as mentioned above, failed to recoup its budget.

And so on and so forth. And this is without going into the 2000's! This is in his supposed prime from 1988 to 2000. Like I said, shocking considering his reputation.

reply

[–] redban (6781) 5 years ago

Some of those movies, like Breakfast for Champions and In Country, had limited theatrical releases. As you yourself acknowledge, Willis wasn’t the star in some of those films (Billy Bathgate, Nobody’s Fool)

It’s a little simplistic to say “double the budget or flop.” Not all movies needed to double its budget, especially films in the older days. Disney’s The Kid was not a box-office flop just because it didn’t draw that extra $10 million to double it’s budget.

reply

[–] LiquidOcelot (2452) 5 years ago

It’s a little simplistic to say “double the budget or flop.”

Most of those movies don't come even close to doubling the budget, and many times not even matching the budget. There's some pretty huge flops in that list. And yes, doubling the budget is a pretty standard method of determining whether a movie was a hit. Theaters take roughly half the gross and you also need to take into account marketing costs.

As you yourself acknowledge, Willis wasn’t the star in some of those films (Billy Bathgate, Nobody’s Fool)

Ok you can discount those, but it's still quite a string of flops.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 5 years ago

ooh , he played Paul Kersey in a Death Wish remake? imma gonna watch that. It'll be like the original but without the bad acting and cartoon bad guys. :)

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 5 years ago

I too disagree , theres plenty of big films on the wiki page you posted.
You could probably look through any actors list and find a few "flops" or lesser known , low budget offerings

"Majority of his movies failed to make twice the budget."
you went through and checked? which ones?

reply

[–] LiquidOcelot (2452) 5 years ago

See below -

In Country - made $3m on an $18m budget. Massive flop.
The Bonfire of the Vanities - $15m on a $47m budget. Flop.
Hudson Hawk - failed to double budget at the BO. Flop.
Billy Bathgate - supporting role but still another flop.
Striking Distance - not sure what the budget was on this, but only $24m at the BO. Almost definitely a flop.
Color of Night - made $19.7m on a $40m budget. Massive flop.
Nobody's Fool - supporting role but again, failed to recoup budget at the BO.
Last Man Standing - made $47m on a $67m budget. Box office bomb.
Mercury Rising - failed to double budget at the BO. Flop.
The Story of Us - made $58m on a $50m budget, not even close to recouping its budget. Flop.
Breakfast of Champions - made $178k (yes you read that right) on a $12m budget. Epic box office bomb.
The Siege - failed to recoup its budget.
Disney's The Kid - as mentioned above, failed to recoup its budget.

And so on and so forth. And this is without going into the 2000's! This is in his supposed prime from 1988 to 2000. Like I said, shocking considering his reputation.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 5 years ago

Point taken! :)

Although i'm really glad they made Hudson Hawk , i love that film !

reply

[–] LiquidOcelot (2452) 5 years ago

Yeah, I actually like a lot of those movies in his flop list, i'm a fan of 90's Bruce Willis, great charisma. But the numbers don't lie. Maybe they done well on video.

reply

[–] GordonGartrelle (1268) 5 years ago

Yes, me too.

I love Color of Night.
You just have to accept the film for what it for what it is.

And Yes. 90's Bruce Willis was handsome and fun and I miss that.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

I think Bruce Willis is the only reason a lot of those films made anything at the box office; without him they could have cut the box office take by half at least.

The failure of these other films I think was more on the poor marketing than on Willis's star power. A lot of them I never even heard about until they started showing up on TV. I think that was the biggest reason these movies failed. And that is on the studio's decisions not on Willis.

Willis was a star and the studios knew this; that is why he kept getting roles despite him being part of a good number of movies that flopped.

You can say they flopped in spite of him and not because of him.

reply

[–] LiquidOcelot (2452) 5 years ago

You have to admit though, that is a lot of flops for an actor of his star power. You won't see the same with the likes of Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson in their filmography. I think he made some bad movie choices from a commercial standpoint.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

That is true; some stars are so 'big' that they never seem to be in a flop. That could be a result of better management by agents (they don't let Mel or Tom take bad parts or be in movies that will be poorly marketed).

I am trying to think of some other big stars that have been in a good number of nasty flops (despite their star power and successful hits). I can't think of many like others that have this up and down success rate.

Will Smith has been pretty up and down.
John Travolta
Nicolas Cage? but he is kind of off the walls so not a great example

here is a website that shows 8 actors that have seen pretty bad flop streaks:

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a824048/a-list-actors-who-got-caught-in-a-long-streak-of-flops/

reply

[–] exithereplease (3553) 5 years ago

He made balding men across the world feel good again. check: icon!

So there's that :)

And most of the his films in the 90's (and I guess the 80's) were made in an era before overseas markets (CHINA) became the holy grail of box office receipts.

So when your seeing 20, 30 or 40 million dollar grosses on Wiki...it's mediocre stuff, but it's also stable.

And there's always the + of headlining a franchise film series, right?

Score a couple of flops, then make a sequel. Hope for the best.

If it doesn't work out, go back to the franchise and rinse and repeat.

Also be good on talk shows.

All the above is rinse and repeat.

reply

[–] LiquidOcelot (2452) 5 years ago

See response above. He had an unusual run of box office bombs for an actor of his stature.

reply

[–] exithereplease (3553) 5 years ago

It's called "Die Hard". Then a string of flops. Shave your head. Score a 100 million dollar film. Make Letterman laugh. Get on magazines (shave head thing).

Rinse and repeat.

...

Score a string of flops, then along comes a hit every 3 or 4 films: "Pulp Fiction", "The Sixth Sense" in the 90's/ "Sin City", "Red" in the 2000's.

In between on a lull point: "Die Hard".

And before you know it 15 years has passed!

Be good on talk shows...

Rinse and repeat.

You know, I reread your post and I zeroed in on his very worst film quoted on wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney%27s_The_Kid

The film was released in the United States by Walt Disney Pictures on July 7, 2000, and received mixed reviews from critics. The film was a financial success, grossing $110 million.

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 5 years ago

Is that the standard, to double the investment?

Sounds silly.

reply

[–] LiquidOcelot (2452) 5 years ago

To break even for the studio, yes.

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 5 years ago

Interesting. Never heard of that before.

Thanks.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

I don't think all films have to double the budget to break even for the studio's; I think that depends on how much money went into marketing.

A film with a budget of say 50 Million that spends 10 million additional on marketing but makes 70 Million made the studio 10 Million dollars. For big budget blockbusters like Star WArs films; the marketing is almost as much as the production budget which means the film has to make double the production budget at the box office to even see any kind of profit.

You have to remember (depending on the country) theaters get between 40% to 60% of the ticket sale; which means the studios only see a return of (on average) half of the box office.

So if you are like Rise of Skywalker and have a 300 million dollar budget and invest almost 200 million (estimate) in marketing and the Box office was 1.074 Billion take that 1.074 and multiple by average 50% of the ticket sale the studio only saw about 500 million dollar return on a near 500 million dollar investment. Rise of Skywalker barely broke even for disney.

reply

[–] LiquidOcelot (2452) 5 years ago

Yeah true about marketing costs. I didn't include that to avoid any counter-argument that i'm speculating the marketing costs. Double the budget at the box office would be a bare minimum to ensure profitability.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Yup; people forget often that marketing is NOT included in the production budget. The TV Ad, placements, articles, internet ads; etc The studio pays additional for those. Usually it is not very high; I think most 'regular' movies invest an additional 25% or so in marketing; but for those really big blockbusters (Star WArs, Jurassic World, etc) the marketing campaign is extensive and expensive. I don't even have TV at all and I still saw dozens of commercials, trailers, and ads for The Rise of Skywalker. That type of marketing costed hundreds of millions.

Also with big studios like Lucasfilm people also forget the cost of running it (corporate services, payroll, taxes, etc) is also NOT included in the production budget.

reply