Interpretation and haul are two separate aspects though in particular instances a movie’s power and accomplishment transcends to increased and sustained attendance at the box office.
The phenomenon of Titanic (1997) wasn’t advertising completely or early industry buzz (which actually veered negative) but a byproduct of folks returning again and again owing to a personal reaction and wanting to share it with others. Titanic stayed #1 in North America 15 straight weeks which still remains a record to this day.
One could pin this to LeoMania or a population of young girls seeing it 12 times each but these are symptoms of those moved by the film and a reflection of the picture finding an audience, holding them there, and reaching maximum saturation culturaly which with indifference or not seeing what all the fuss was about creates an impression not altogether different than Ishtar’s (1987) or Waterworld’s (1995).
Often the circumstances we first encounter a work effect how we receive it. Good, Bad, or Ugly. This goes for success as much as it does failure.
John Carter wasn’t awful and it’s a good fit for this discussion, but it is fairly bland and forgettable. I think the main reason it gets brought up so much is because it was such a huge financial loss due to the high cost. Basically the same reason Waterworld gets talked about. Waterworld isn’t an unbearable watch, it’s just… bland.
I’m going to throw the whole Fast and Furious franchise in here. And not because of my Jason Statham crush.
Yes, it’s dumb and incoherent and unrealistic. I don’t care. It’s FUN. And everyone is obviously having a ball doing it, so I’m more than happy to roll with it and not overthink it. (And don’t lowball the emotional bits. They nail a surprising amount of them!)
Auteurism at its finest. Exceptionally deliberate and intimate. So much so it couldn’t reach enough cheeks in the seats to offset its cost. Again the drama behind the scenes identical to Ishtar (1987), Waterwold (1995), and Titanic (1997) set the stage to resistance except Cameron managed to invert it to an overload of a different form.
In its scope and demands on the viewer, Heaven’s Gate (1980) proved too stiff a fancy to most ticket buyers then saddled by the public relations nightmare it combatted. Heaven was Once Upon A Time In The West (1968) revisited long before a crowd existed for that kind of fare. A There Will Be Blood (2008) of an earlier period imbued by picturesque grace.
I haven’t seen two of the three movies you’ve mentioned here, but I have seen Waterworld and I liked it. I’ve always liked Kevin Costner and I enjoyed the ideas in this movie.
Is this the place to state that I enjoyed Krull?
Oh, and here’s a genuine bomb that I actually enjoyed (mostly because I really like Matthew Modine): Cutthroat Island.
To be fair, it was already sinking. While Cutthroat Island was the final blow, they’d made a number of missteps that put them on the brink of bankruptcy.
I was being fair. Carolco overspent and extended themselves very quickly in the early 90s and even including the successes of Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) and Basic Instinct (1992) the debts were rising and the choice fell to a Paul Verhoeven/Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle or Cutthroat Island (1995) as their next project since they hadn’t the funds for both. They choose a Renny Harlin/Geena Davis/Matthew Modine picture over a proven combo in Paul and Arnold. Numerous missteps predated Cutthroat but betting the farm on the Island proved to be the last.
I’m with @herrprofessordoktor and @JakeGittes about The Postman. I never understood the hate it received, I thought it was compelling and watchable.
I submit two others: Bicentennial Man and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. I caught Bicentennial on late night cable years ago and thought it was terrific. Long and slow, yes, but that was by design. Robin Williams was outstanding.
I’ve never played any Final Fastasy games and I know nothing of the lore or canon, but I saw Spirits Within back in 2001 and thought it was just fine. The CG is primitive by today’s standards, but for the time it was pretty cutting-edge, and the story was engaging and exciting.
I always felt that the biggest reason for John Carter’s failure was how poorly it was advertised… like had they advertised as the century old work of Science Fiction upon which much of the later genre would be based, it would have probably done better, because otherwise it looks like it’s derivative instead of the other way around.
A casualty of the group think then Greengreatlabcoat? Watching Warner Brothers navigate Dune (2021) today likewise Blade Runner 2049 (2017) a few years ago, the maturity of selling science fiction to older audiences is established. John Carter (2012) stumbled into the fantasy mold of a younger demographic and Marvel’s The Avengers (2012) was right over the next hill. Confusion and a bonafide blockbuster in the wings dampened curiosity and stifled traction to a movie who couldn’t find or hold the masses. Disney’s approach is why.
Waterwold (1995) isn’t as polarizing as it once was. In the last 20 years, younger eyes embraced it unaware of the split and divide it met when released. Millennial friends of mine talk of it fondly and grew up with it oblivious it is the butt of jokes for those a little older. Those 40 and above remember the firing squad. Anyone younger is prone to seeing it absent the stigma and actually liking it. Production value, the stars, and the practical effects are much of it. Kevin Costner and the nostalgia he brings converted fans blind to the mushroom cloud it came in on.
Mystery Men doesn’t even need defending, that movie is great. It achieves exactly what it set out to do. It’s clever but also slapstick stupid and fun. Tons of great performances and hilarious dialogue. Also Tom Waits!
Plus the bad guy’s name is Casanova Frankenstein. Come on man, anyone who doesn’t think that’s funny is dead inside.
