Recent articles
Studio heads have carried the can after a series of flops from some of their biggest talents – with several personnel changes being made higher up in studios like Universal and Disney.
Some of the bigger studio flops include:
'Land of the Lost'
Starring Will Ferrell and Anna Friel, and based on the 70s US TV series, this big budget fantasy caper was a dud with the critics and audiences. Costing an estimated £63.2 million, the film barely took £39 million back.
'Funny People'
Judd Apatow's eagerly awaited follow up to 'Knocked Up' took over £38 million worldwide. An impressive haul for a quirky comedy about mortality. However, the star driven comedy, which features Seth Rogen, Eric Bana and Adam Sandler, cost £47 million to make.
'Imagine That'
When you have a family comedy starring Eddie Murphy and costing over £31.6 million to produce you'd expect it make more than £11 million worldwide right?
'Surrogates'
Disney's sci-fi action thriller starring Bruce Willis and his wig was a costly flop for Disney, taking only £25 million of its £50.6 million cost.
'Year One'
It may have melded an established comic actor (Jack Black) with a rising one (Michael Cera) and was overseen by the hands of veteran funnyman Harold Ramis, but fell short of earning back its £38 million production costs.
Coupled with other films like Jennifer Aniston's 'Love Happens' and John Travolta and Denzel Washington's 'The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3' that made their money back but far less than expected with the talent involved, means that most studios have had a headache inducing summer.
Films a few years back could have a enjoyed a second lease of life through the DVD market, but with sales down nearly 14% this year, with the previous year suffering a nine per cent drop itself, it doesn't look as though the studios will make up the lost revenue any time soon.
The good news comes in the shape of films like 'The Hangover' and 'Zombieland'. Both are chart smashes, yet cost significantly less to make without huge Hollywood names in the cast.
Do you think the summer of big names in blockbusters is truely over? Or do you only watch films with recognisable actors in?
- More on Y! Movies: Horror films 2009 | Top of the UK film charts
Robert Pattinson has become Britain's biggest star of late with 'Twilight' a huge hit, and 'New Moon' set to be even bigger.
Comment on this article
Please sign in to add your comments.
User comments
For me it's about the cost of going to see a film at the cinema. It's far too expensive. Unless you take your own drink and goodies in (not allowed so what do you do? It costs a hell of a lot more than you would pay for the same stuff in a supermarket), you eat and drink nothing once inside. Travelling there too, with the cost of fuel, car parks being poor and yep, cars can even get stolen or damaged whilst you hopefully enjoy the film... What's the point? I used to like going to the cinema, not any more. I never thought I would be like this, maybe I'm just a cynical old git, but aren't they ripping us off?
Posted by: bob1higgins on Tue Oct 13 03:10PM | Report abuseI haven't seen any of the mentioned flops, but I think they looked like terrible movies. It has nothing/very little to do with the big names in them. Zombieland was awesome!
Posted by: david_cull1982 on Tue Oct 13 03:15PM | Report abuseI love going to the cinema.
Posted by: mattrhoades2000 on Tue Oct 13 03:21PM | Report abusewith a lot of big named stars youve seen them so many times, you want to see some new people
Posted by: sistickland on Tue Oct 13 03:21PM | Report abuseIt would never cross my mind to consider who the actors in a film are before (or after) going to see it. Do I think I'll enjoy the story, script or locations or not, have friends enjoyed it, is it based on a book I've liked? These are really the only things I care about before watching, buying or renting a film.
Posted by: sadlergraphics on Tue Oct 13 03:22PM | Report abusePutting big names in a movie does not make a hit movie - there has to be a good story, acting and direction - far too many "blockbuster" movies offer and real appeal - or are remakes - or the same tired themes. Hollywood is not making enough quality movies anymore
Posted by: rcoope.rm on Tue Oct 13 03:27PM | Report abuseI saw Surrogates a couple of weeks ago. I wouldn't say it was a particular bad film, but I would have enjoyed it more if I didn't have to go out of my house to watch it!! The film did not have the look of an actual cinema film, let alone blockbuster. Popcorn was nice though!!
Posted by: d_emmons on Tue Oct 13 03:30PM | Report abuseAbsoultely, The price of going to the cinema is rediculous, a bag of sweets you could buy in a supermarket for £1.50 will cost you £3.00, plus the price of the tickets, drinks etc.. a night at the cinema that used to cost maybe £10/£12 will set you back more or less double! rediculous! I'd rather wait for the DVD, then wait for the price to go down after it's initial 3months chart run, then get it for a fraction of the price!! Ok i forfeit seeing the film on the big screen but i dont pay nearly as much and save myself money!! after all at the moment money is somthing to look after!!
Posted by: simonbowersorpwood on Tue Oct 13 03:31PM | Report abuseIt is a rip off to go to the cinema today. You can get DVD's from £10-15 pounds if you wait a little split the cost with a friend or two and you have already saved money. A cinema ticket costs in excess of £5 per person per movie. If you want to watch a good movie more than once, which you probably will, buying it on DVD will, in the long run, work out to be many times cheaper.
Posted by: thomas_albert_clayson on Tue Oct 13 03:32PM | Report abusesurrogates sucked
Posted by: goddard.jack on Tue Oct 13 03:33PM | Report abuse