Obviously one of the major reasons the film flopped (According to film and music historians.) was that it was released in the summer of 1980 the disco sound and craze was in its twilight years. But at the same time the XANADU soundtrack was one of the biggest selling albums of 1980. Any thoughts?
shareYes, but even if it did twice the box office it made in 1980, it still wouldn't have recouped its budget. The critics would have said the same thing about it the previous year. (Not that critics always have an affect on BO--look at Ace Ventura.)
However, I do think that coming on the heels of Grease would have helped it, as well as the reason you stated. (Maybe it could have been the Ace Ventura of its day.)
Although when you think about it, the music itself is not really disco-y, certainly not like the music from Thank God It's Friday or Car Wash--so the disco backlash may not have affected it.
The homophobia that was a part of the anti-disco rally in Chicago in 1979 may have had a trickle effect on all things musical, but that was just one of many factors as to why this wasn't the hit it could've been.
There is a brand new article about "Xanadu" in the new Entertainment Weekly. The article talks about the film and the play, and mentions, though widely called a flop, the movie cost around $12 million to make, and grossed $23 million at the U.S. box office. This maybe far far short of expectations, but not a huge disaster either. Add foreign box office, cable/tv rights, Betamax, VHS, and DVD release sales, and you are looking at a LOT of money this cult classic has pulled in over the years.
shareIt would have done better if it opened in all the theaters that it was supposed to. The film was supposed to open in 700 theaters nationwide but ended up only showing in about 230.
They said in the special featurette on the new Magical Music Edition DVD that if it had opened in all the theaters that it was supposed to that it might have made money.
The featurette was called "Going Back to Xanadu".
I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's...depressing.
1980 was actually a big year for musicals, including "Can't Stop the Music" and "Fame," which got Oscar attention.
The future, Mr. Gittes, the future.
I wouldn't even mention this movie in the same sentence with Grease or fame much less put it in the same league. It flopped because it just wasn't a good movie
shareWell if a previous poster is right, that it cost 12M, and made 23M it didn't flop.
shareYes it did. A movie needs to generate 3 times what it cost to make before it is considered profitable.
sharePossibly. But in real terms a film has to fail to break even to be considered a flop. It is the same with Broadway, if "Springtime For Hitler" had made even $1, then the producers would have not been able to repay the backers.
shareWhat ludicrous BS!
By that standard fewer than 10% of the movies released into US theaters could ever be considered hits.
"What ludicrous BS!..By that standard fewer than 10% of the movies released into US theaters could ever be considered hits."
Not "ludicrous BS" at all. About 10 percent is exactly right. Only one out of every ten movies Hollywood releases is considered a hit. It just amazes me that many people don't realize some of the simple basics of movie economics. Like the fact that the theaters take as much as half the box office. And that these movies cost millions extra to advertise and distribute. Those dollars, along with the production budget, have to be recouped before the movie even begins to make a profit. And a flop at the box office means less money from video and television sales. A lot of well known films don't make a lot of profit, even in the long run.
"A lot of well known films don't make a lot of profit, even in the long run."
Wow, even more ludicrous BS!!!
You must work in studio accounting -- one of the dudes who keeps insisting the first Keaton-Batman movie still has made no net profit even after 20 years.
Nope. Not ludicrous BS at all. Those are the facts. What? You think theaters shown those movies for nothing? Out of the goodness of their heart and gladly send every penny to the studio? And all those prints and shipping for those prints to 3000 or more screens are free to? And all those T.V. commercials, magazine ads, and billboards are also free? Not costings tens of millions of dollars? And there's interest on the debt. Yes, the money is usually borrowed. Where do you think those millions come from? Making, advertising, and distrubing a motion picture is a huge and risky investment that doesn't always pay off. The one out of ten rule is the way it is. Ludicrous? It's called realty. Grow up and deal with it.
share[deleted]
Calling stuff "BS" with nothing to back that up?
Faced with a well put argument that you decide to not actually address?
Resorting to mocking a typo rather than showing an ounce of intelligence, followed by a pathetic "kid" bit of patronising?
CONGRATULATIONS! You have mastered the black belt in internet dickery! Rejoice and crack open a bottle of Champers to share with all the friends you don't have!
Your poor arguments and lack of knowledge regarding cinematic finance deserves to be aired, well done you!
I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and matey, that's the very least you deserve.
(Sorry for having to edit this, but I posted a typo and thought I'd save your mother the torment of cleaning the sticky results that such things obviously bring about in your Spider-Man underpants)
Why are the right wing always so angry? And why do I find their foolish hatred so very, very funny?
...and by that I mean reading tea leaves is *beep*
I voted for Nader in the last 3 elections, dork.
Does my Comment History read like it came from a Right-Weiner?
I addressed his argument in previous posts and demonstrated he has the accounting acumen of an Arthur Andersen intern -- trained to hide profits from the IRS and losses from the SEC.
1. Why would I waste any of my time reading your comment history? I don't have a computer in my bedroom, so there's little point in doing things that would put me to sleep.
2. Why do I care who you voted for? And why do I care if you're right wing? I already think you're a dick, politics needn't come in to it.
Why are the right wing always so angry? And why do I find their foolish hatred so very, very funny?
Don't you read your own tag line?
shareI know what my sig is, certainly. Doesn't mean that it applies to you. Or are you actually that self centered that you think all things on the internet are there for you and you alone?
It's a simple quote, doesn't mean it has to apply to everyone I post about.
Why are the right wing always so angry? And why do I find their foolish hatred so very, very funny?
They show movies for $5 soda and $6 popcorn...that's where the money is.
shareActually, they're not far off.
The film studio only gets back half of the revenue in ticket sales from a film (the other half goes to the theater owners and to pay shipping companies for the actual process of distributing the film).
In addition, in the cases of films that are not produced by a company that is also a film distribution house - for example, Lucasfilm films released by Fox - the studio (Lucasfilm) must pay the distributor (Fox) a percentage of the gross as a distribution fee (often about 10%). The amount of money the studio gets back from a film release decreases further when speaking of international exhibitions overseas.
Therefore, the studio would only get about 40% of the revenue to apply towards the cost to generate net profits. "Xanadu" was produced and released by Universal, so it didn't have to pay out a distribution fee. However, keep in mind that any figure quoted as a _production_ budget leaves out the costs of prints & advertising, which often costs as much as the production budget. So, three times the production budget isn't far off.
It flopped because it didn't appeal to the masses, or didn't have the gloss and polish that typically does appeal to the masses.
That doesn't mean it's not a good movie, interesting movie, or any other form of movie.
It DOES feel like a "made for TV movie" at times, but the plot is FAR more intriguing than "Grease". Some 50s shlock about two teens getting it on is nowhere near as good as taking elements from Greek mythology and making them experience the wonderfulness of life.
"Xanadu" is a FAR better movie, in terms of plot and concepts.
I disagree. This was the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. It flopped because it's a god awful movie
sharePersonally, I think the movie could be remade today, in 2010 if only for nostolgia purposes.
It would have to have a cracker-jack cast and use the original music with modern day performers.
I think Queen Latifiah would take Olivia's role.
No sense in remaking a an expensive flop which had a plot that only worked in its original time setting.
shareI don't consider XANADU as a disco movie. The music does not have the 1970's disco sound, which in my opinion is a kind of thing one hears for example in Donna Summers "Bad Girls", all hits of The Chic and Sister Sledge and on Saturday Night Fever -soundtrack. Mainly heavy bass and strings.
The music of Xanadu is, in my opinion, New Wave'ish dance rock or straight pop.
Also the fashion sense is very early 1980's "New Romantic" as I recall. If you see the All Around The World -number, couple of dancers have a pink and red hair and the Cop dancer's androgynous look could be from Adam Ant -music video. Also Olivia Newton-John's leg warmers precede the Flashdance and Footloose look.
So as I see it, the death of disco did not contribute to the financial failure of Xanadu.
No, don't think so. And now, it's SO dated...
shareThis lump of crap would have flopped no matter when it opened.
shareIt just wasn't that good of a film. If I had to speculate this was probably a test market film to see if Olivia Newton John could draw audiences without a leading man, and also to see whether the musical was really dead in the American audience's mind.
That's why it has such a cheap feel to it. But, the film has a kind of inexpensive charm to it, so it gained a cult following of sorts.
If the film had been released around the time of Star Wars, maybe a year before or the year after, it would have had a higher audience draw on opening weekend, but it wouldn't have lasted any longer than it did in 1980.