Okay, okay, it's a slideshow; I'll do it this time so you don't all yell at me.

1) Avatar (jackpot)
2) Titanic (jackpot)
3) Waterworld (bust)
4) Brokeback Mountain (jackpot)
5) Lord of the Rings trilogy (jackpot)
6) Ishtar (bust)
7) The Matrix (jackpot)
8) Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (jackpot)
9) Schindler's List (jackpot)
10) Star Wars (jackpot)
11) Wall-E (jackpot)
12) Heaven's Gate (bust)
13) Cleopatra (bust)
14) Watchmen (let it ride)
15) Where the Wild Things are (let it ride)

(Please note that "Jackpot," "bust," and "let it ride" are EW's terms)

IrateShadow: Brokeback Mountain was a gamble? How much could it possibly have cost?

Supposedly, the gamble was how "Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal put their careers on the line to play lovers in the first mainstream movie to focus on a gay romance."

The English Major: Supposedly, the gamble was how "Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal put their careers on the line to play lovers in the first mainstream movie to focus on a gay romance."

What about Top Gun?

IrateShadow: The English Major: Supposedly, the gamble was how "Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal put their careers on the line to play lovers in the first mainstream movie to focus on a gay romance."

Did anyone ever actually try to argue that? I remember everyone talking about it as an oscar contender weeks before anyone had even seen it.

If I remember right, it was billed as a gay romance; hell, the whole "I wish I could quit you" was in the promos.

JerseyTim: The English Major: Supposedly, the gamble was how "Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal put their careers on the line to play lovers in the first mainstream movie to focus on a gay romance."

What about Top Gun?

You're right.

Cleopatra (bust, but oh what a bust!)

- Elizabeth Taylor fan club.

I thought that Waterworld broke even in the end, taking into account the good reception in the international market.

IrateShadow: Brokeback Mountain was a gamble? How much could it possibly have cost?

I think it was a gamble for the actors re: reputation.

SchlingFocker: I thought that Waterworld broke even in the end, taking into account the good reception in the international market.

kevinatilusa: They call Waterworld a bust because the $175 million movie made $88 million domestically. The more than $175 million brought in outside the United States suggests it wasn't much of a bust after all.

I quoted both of you since I'm basically replying to both.

The goal, in film-making for profit, isn't just to make money. It's to make money proportional to your risk and scope. So, if you make a $5 million comedy, getting $6-7 million back is pretty reasonable since you didn't risk much. If you make a $175 million movie, you expect a profit of corresponding size, i.e. tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

The world-wide return from the site linked shows Waterworld at $264,218,220, which means the profit was about $265m-$175m, i.e. $90m. That's a profit less than 50%.

By contrast, Avatar has a worldwide gross of $760,003,825, and has been estimated to cost between $200-400m. If we take the high end of that, $400m, you're still talking about the film profiting at at least the same ratio as Waterworld did in the end, and that's after only a short time of release. Give it a few more years, and Avatar might break a billion dollars once you add in video and whatnot. If the actual cost is closer to $200, it gets even more absurdly high.

The Hangover made $277m with a budget of $35m. If Waterworld cost five times the price of The Hangover, but barely even compares with The Hangover's profits, I'd say that makes Waterworld a bust. Plus, that doesn't even factor in the production time, the impact on actors' careers, etc.

I'm kinda amazed they didn't put in "Hudson Hawk"

FWIW, I love the movie, but it cost a lot and was a flop at the BO

mattharvest: I'd say that makes Waterworld a bust.

So, it's all in your opinion.

Thanks!

baka-san: I'm kinda amazed they didn't put in "Hudson Hawk"

FWIW, I love the movie, but it cost a lot and was a flop at the BO

Unlike Waterworld, Hudson Hawk was a fantastic movie.

SchlingFocker: FWIW, I love the movie, but it cost a lot and was a flop at the BO

Unlike Waterworld, Hudson Hawk was a fantastic movie.

Yeah, it is, but a commercial flop.

baka-san: Yeah, it is, but a commercial flop.

Absolutely.

baka-san: SchlingFocker: FWIW, I love the movie, but it cost a lot and was a flop at the BO

Unlike Waterworld, Hudson Hawk was a fantastic movie.

Yeah, it is, but a commercial flop.

What about Dick Tracy? Didn't that flop too? I remember all the hype surrounding it, but it never really went anywhere, except to video.

The English Major: Yeah, it is, but a commercial flop.

What about Dick Tracy? Didn't that flop too? I remember all the hype surrounding it, but it never really went anywhere, except to video.

I think it made back most of it's money. Another one I happen to like. Beautiful movie.

mattharvest: The goal, in film-making for profit, isn't just to make money. It's to make money proportional to your risk and scope. So, if you make a $5 million comedy, getting $6-7 million back is pretty reasonable since you didn't risk much. If you make a $175 million movie, you expect a profit of corresponding size, i.e. tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

I think this is the wrong attitude. What you say is true in the large-scale. The reasons studios spend a ton of money is to make a ton of money. Therefore, they would hope that their average film makes a 100% profit. That would be awesome for them. But that's an average. It means some films will make a 300% profit. It also means some films will eat it and lose money. To call something a "bust" because it comes in at below average expectations isn't fair, IMO. Anything which comes in between "break even" and "expected" should basically be considered 'fine'. Not awesome, not terrible. It's fine. Something which loses money is a bust. Something which makes more than you expected is a hit.

Yeahhhhh...$642 million revenue on a budget of $500 million is about 28.4% gross. By comparison, Iron Man grossed $582 million on a budget of $140 million, which is about 315% gross. True, it's too soon to compare box offices, but that's my point. IT'S TOO DAMN SOON! Jesus Christ, EW.

SnakeMan: Yeahhhhh...$642 million revenue on a budget of $500 million is about 28.4% gross. By comparison, Iron Man grossed $582 million on a budget of $140 million, which is about 315% gross. True, it's too soon to compare box offices, but that's my point. IT'S TOO DAMN SOON! Jesus Christ, EW.

Why does the margin matter? Would you rather make 100% on a 10 dollar investment or 10% on a 100 million dollar investment?

Spaztictacular: The film made its red-line budget back nearly 30-fold in the domestic market alone.

Pre multiplex.

Spaztictacular: Or www.boxofficemojo.com for that matter...

10) Star Wars (jackpot)

I love Waterworld. EW can kiss my ass.

The English Major: 7) The Matrix (jackpot)

I assume they just mean the first film because when I first heard that the two sequels were going to be made simultaneously (and Matrix fanboyism was at its peak), I knew the sequels would suck.

garvin32: Control_this: If Waterworld had caused Costner to stop making movies, it would have been a huge success.

I have to disagree since I loved Open Range. Of course, Robert Duvall is excellent.

That and For Love Of The Game.

CowboyNinjaD: But by most accounts, except for the most rabid fanboys or people who just don't like action movies, it's a great movie. More importantly, it's a great comic book adaptation, which hopefully serves as a model for what other directors can do with comic books in the future.

I agree with both. Loved the comic, loved the move(the fact that I was in afterglow didn't hurt~_^), thought it was well done.

"Incidentally, this record is available in the foyer. Some of us got to live too, you know. Who do you think pays for all this rubbish? Never gonna make their money back. I told them. 'Bernie,' I said, 'They'll never make their money back.'..."