15 great films that failed at the box office

Science has not yet found any pattern between the quality of the film and its success with the audience. When all sorts of rubbish gathers billions of viewers, it can be tolerated, but when a great movie flies past the box office — that's a shame.

Often no one, not even the producers and accountants of the film studio, can accurately determine whether the movie failed or brought some kind of profit, since the movie business is a strange thing and smacks of financial shamanism. For simplicity, it is believed that a movie pays off if it collects two of its prime costs in the world box office. If the film went out of hand badly at the box office, but over the years it has become iconic and iconic, then good money is dripping from video and TV screenings. There have been quite strange cases when no one went to see a picture in the cinema, and after a few months, T-shirts, caps, toys and other souvenirs with characters suddenly begin to sell at a hurricane pace.

Here is a selection of 15 great films that first failed at the box office and were recognized as losers. Many of them at some point found the strength to get out of poverty and become legendary. Some are still waiting for this moment, but it is unlikely to come.

1999. Budget/fees: 63 000 000 $ / 100 853 753 $

In the country of America, journalists and public figures declared a real war on the film, accusing the "Fight Club" of all sins, even in the propaganda of fascism (not a joke). Commoners decided to stay away from such a Hitlerite movie. If it weren't for box office receipts outside the United States, the financial fate of the Fincher film would have turned out quite badly. In any case, the project was written off as unprofitable. It took off only when "Fight Club" was released on DVD.

2015. Budget/fees: 500,000,000 rubles / 70,000,000 rubles.

The film adaptation of Oleg Kuvaev's novel is devastatingly expensive for the Russian budget. "Territory" is a cult book among geologists, which was filmed for the second time in 2015 (the first time was in 1978). The new production is wonderful in every way, and it is very, very difficult to explain why the cinemas were empty. Many simply did not know that such a film was released, and found out about its existence only many months later, flipping through the pages with torrents.

2012. Budget/fees: 50 000 000 $ / 35 626 525 $

The public doesn't really like remakes. If you consider that the first "Dredd" with Sylvester Stallone was an extremely cute, but old-fashioned idiotic film, many did not believe in the power of the remake. And he suddenly turned out to be one of the most powerful and tough fighters of our era. When it came to everyone, it was too late, the fans just had to fill up the studio with requests to shoot a sequel.

1982. Budget/fees: 28 000 000 $ / 32 868 943 $

After Alien, director Ridley Scott had carte blanche for almost anything. He could even shoot porn, probably for any money. But he put all his efforts into an expensive (by the standards of that time) cyberpunk noir based on the novel by Philip K. Dick. His feat was not appreciated by either the audience or critics. The film was not pelted with tomatoes, perhaps. Years later, almost all the detractors admitted they were wrong.

1985. Budget/fees: 15 000 000 $ / 9 929 135 $

The genius of fantasy and surrealism, Terry Guillam, got into a similar story, who shot something like a free fantasy on the theme of the dystopia "1984". The idea was grandiose, the implementation was even more grandiose, but the fees were pumped up. That's putting it mildly. Not even the happy ending forcibly imposed by the producers did not save.

1971. Budget/fees: $3,000,000 / $526,633

It is believed that children's and family cinema is the most reliable investment. First of all, because not single maniacs come to the sessions, but whole families, that's why the fees are many times higher. But a lot of classic children's films were terribly unlucky at first. Witchcraft and the evil eye, probably. Even the canonical "Wizard of Oz" initially brought only losses and fought off only in the re-release after many years. Of the last major childhood failures, we can recall "33 misfortunes" (2004) with Jim Carrey. The first production of the fairy tale about the chocolate factory in 1971 also flew by with a whoosh, but now the inhabitants of bourgeois countries remember it by heart, and the Internet has stolen the film into memes.

2010. Budget/fees: 60 000 000 $ / 46 489 927 $

It was extremely risky to plan such a project at all — a teenage romantic comic comedy for $ 60 million with rock and roll and video games. Thank God, sometimes they give money for such beautiful, but obviously failed adventures.

2007. Budget/fees: 67 000 000 $ / 25 422 088 $

Tarantino 's twin movie house and Rodriguez included the paintings "Planet of Fear" and "Deathproof" (morons-localists called him "Proof of Death") and in general had all the makings to become a hit, but did not. There were many attempts to explain this unexpected failure, analysts generally decided that the film simply did not find the target audience: too funny to scare, and too creepy to make you laugh.

1995. Budget/fees: 175 000 000 $ / 264 218 220 $

The most expensive film of its time brought crushing losses to the creators, and it's better not to remember how it was trampled by critics. Yes, it still looks clumsy today, but we remember it and constantly review it, unlike hundreds of other praised, but completely forgotten films made in 1995.

2006. Budget/fees: 76 000 000 $ / 69 735 136 $

Alfonso Cuaron's very sad fantastic dystopia at the time of its release was not particularly needed by anyone. It took a months-long bombardment of laudatory reviews to make lazy townsfolk stir and begin to join the film on video.

2001. Budget/fees: 6 000 000 $ / 1 270 522 $

Such complex films as Donnie Darko, based on scientific and everyday paradoxes, are produced on the principle of a lottery. Lucky or unlucky — no one even guesses. There was no luck here, the movie collected ridiculous money in the cinema. But now everyone seems to have seen him, and more than once. And paradoxes do not allow us to return to the past and look at the big screen.

2012. Budget/fees: 192,000,000 rubles / 130,000,000 rubles.

The film adaptation of Boris Akunin's book "Spy Novel" met not just indifference, but some kind of desperate resistance from the audience. The few who watched it scolded the movie with the last of their strength for caricature, improbability and almost anti-Soviet. Those who bothered to watch "Spy" with an unclouded gaze saw in it an unusually strong thriller by Russian standards, shot in a warm and juicy, slightly comic entourage.

2009. Budget/fees: 130 000 000 $ / 185 258 983 $

The most ambitious, detailed and ingenious comic book adaptation ever issued by Hollywood. Maybe because it is based on the most ambitious, detailed and ingenious graphic novel of all time. The viewer didn't really understand. And those who understood could not explain to their friends why the "Guardians" should be seen on the big screen.

2005. Budget/fees: 39 000 000 $ / 38 851 952 $

After the space adventure series "Firefly" was suddenly shut down, all hopes remained that the film would not only dot the I's, but also raise enough money for the series to be revived. This did not happen: fans were delighted with the movie, even a lot of new ones were added. But the "Firefly" never took off again.

1998. Budget/fees: 15 000 000 $ / 17 451 873 $

In 1998, the next Cohen brothers film was still oh how difficult it was to sell to the general public. "What Cohens? Fargo... no, I haven't heard!" Then it took several more years for the "Big Lebowski" to hobble to every corner of the planet where there is a video recorder. Now in a decent, intelligent society, for asking "Who is Lebowski?" they can even knock a bottle of vodka on the head.