MovieChat Forums > Small Soldiers (1998) Discussion > Why It Flopped

Why It Flopped

posted 12 years ago by NeonManiac0
29 replies | jump to latest

Why do you think this movie didn't do that well at the box office back in July of 1998 when it was released? I turned 11 shortly before the release and remember in the months leading up to the release it was a very hyped and promoted film, with the trailers and toy commercials constantly showing on the airwaves along with making-of specials, and I remember the Commando action figures for months were almost impossible to find. Yet when the movie finally saw it's release on July 10th it seemingly was DOA at the box office and quickly faded into obscurity, despite the promotions and it's A-list cast. It made only $54 million, which isn't very good considering it's sizable $40 million budget (still a fairly large budget even by today's standards).

I remember the Summer of 1998 was very competitive, besides this movie there was also Godzilla, Armageddon, Saving Private Ryan, Lethal Weapon 4, Mulan, etc. so perhaps it inevitably got lost in the shuffle and a lot of potential moviegoers simply overlooked it. It also could be the backlash for the violence and slightly dark tone, which could've put off a lot of parents who heard the reviews and decided not to take their kids to it, and it also came out during the wave of school shootings back in the late 90s, so perhaps a film featuring young kids in peril hit too close to home to real events at the time for some audiences. Do you think these along with other things were a factor in it not doing well at the box office during it's Summer 1998 run?

[–] PenguinTom 12 years ago

This is an interesting question, one relevant to all cult classics: If the film has such a devoted following now, why did it struggle upon initial release?

The problem is usually a misguided marketing campaign, and "Small Soldiers" was probably no exception. The theatrical trailers emphasized the action sequences but neglected to suggest the film was intended for a family audience. Watch the following trailer and you'll see what I mean:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_I5MGF8FvU

There's really nothing there to suggest the film is for kids. The trailer is replete with footage of the soldiers wielding knives and causing explosions. It looks more like a knock-off of "Child's Play" than a family-friendly film. On a separate note, the Gorgonites aren't even featured.

The television spots weren't all that much better. Although they did include a number of kid-friendly one-liners, they failed to convey that the film was made for a family audience. DreamWorks also made a mistake in failing to screen the film for the MPAA until a few weeks before the film's release: In the interim, many parents likely struggled to discern if the film was intended for children or for teens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBQae7FLgYE

DreamWorks finally learned from its mistakes when the film was released on VHS. Check out the following trailer for the home video release and you'll see that the studio understood how to appeal to the family demographic while capturing the essence of the movie's action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Y2xqxYuog

Perhaps the film would have fared better today, when parents appear somewhat more permissive and children are not as sensitive as they used to be. Alas, the film remains something of an underground piece, and it is unlikely to resurface as a major hit.

http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/dackrouleau

[–] NeonManiac0 12 years ago

You bring up some good points there. It's also possible the trailers at the time alienated some potential moviegoers. The movie looked too dark for family audiences but at the same time too kiddy for the teenage/adult demographics, and the result was a film that didn't win over many at the time with the advertising.

[–] ConsumeConformSubmitObey 12 years ago

Most of society got no love for Joe Dante.

[–] NeonManiac0 12 years ago

He's still a director who doesn't get enough recognition for sure.

[–] Shiny-NZ 12 years ago

I've only just rediscovered this gem recently - having loved it as a kid. I think it's incredibly sad that this film (and the director) didn't find the audience it deserved. It's one of those wonderful 'childrens' films that doesn't talk down to kids.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tnsprin-2 11 years ago

Flopped? Well it may not have been as big a hit as hoped but it was a box office success. And the toy companies may or may not made a profit but had to pay those licensing fees.

[–] NeonManiac0 11 years ago

Maybe a flop is being a bit blunt but making back $54 million total when the budget was $40 million (probably not including advertising and merchandising costs) isn't too good.

[–] harmisjack 11 years ago

Well despite the fact that the movie wasn't as big of a hit like the studio had hoped for, it was a commercial box office success. The 54 million as you mentioned is what it made alone in the US, but worldwide, it grossed 71 million. It almost made half it's budget back, but I do agree had the film been released at a different, the box office performance might have been better.

Don't you know history repeats itself? Hmm Sid?- Scream 2

[–] NeonManiac0 11 years ago

I didn't know it made back that much more worldwide (I was going by what Wikipedia listed). Still, one would expect a far bigger gross than $71 million. Perhaps a later July/early August date would've been better for it.

[–] RichN36 11 years ago

To tell the truth I missed this completely when it first came out at the theaters. Not at all sure why. Watched it the first time today while flipping through the dial. What an odd film. I think it flopped if it can be called that due to the following it has. It could of been to violent for the time, I almost turned it off because the harm to the kids when I stopped to watch what it was. But after giving it a few Minutes I was caught up in the action. But I would most likely blame the violence to Kids which never goes over well in films.

There is more Gravy about you then the Grave. Scrooge.

[–] NeonManiac0 11 years ago

There's more violent PG-rated films than this. Just look at the original three Star Wars movies, the first two Indiana Jones films and some others like Home Alone and the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. All PG and all with more harsh violence than this.

[–] Harvestmoonman13 10 years ago

Yeah but all those films don't have toys stabbing and hurting children. There's a reason why games like even grand theft auto don't have kids in them. I loved the movie but I definitely think it isn't exactly a kids movie.

[–] NeonManiac0 10 years ago

It's a kids film albeit one with a serious edge to it.

[–] harmisjack 10 years ago

So I just looked at the total numbers, and other sources say it made a little over 82 Million World-Wide. Now that I think all the necessary information regarding the box office performance has been found, I don't think this was a flop. It certainly underperformed though. Plus the rental sales in the USA generated a little over 23 million.

Don't you know history repeats itself? Hmm Sid?- Scream 2

[–] NeonManiac0 10 years ago

It was able to recover it's budget but still wasn't a big success, which is a shame. This movie definitely deserved to be a big hit and spawn an ongoing series. I could've seen this having a sequel or two, an animated series, a series of comics and novels, etc. Definitely a disappointment it underperformed :(

I guess it was just lost in the shuffle back when it was released, I remember the Summer of 1998 well. VERY competitive Summer for movies with Armageddon, Lethal Weapon 4 and Mulan among others. But as I said before, it's also possible perhaps the theme of children/teens in danger hit too close to home for some with it also coming out during the late 90s when it seemed there was a new school shooting almost weekly. The publicity perhaps alienated some as well; it looked too kiddy for adult/teen audiences but also looked too intense for children.