Guys, I'm freaking out. My first exam is this week, and I'm going to fail. All those hours of Facebooking, YouTubing and stress−cooking have finally come back to haunt me. I am overloaded and underprepared for my assignments!
As I fret over my imminent academic apocalypse, I take comfort in thinking of all the flops that litter Hollywood's catalogue. So humor me as I explore some of these commercial and critical catastrophes.
First are the cinematic equivalent of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac — the films that seem too big to fail. In spite of massive marketing campaigns and stellar casts, these films ended up bombing at the box−office. Their failure can be the result of many different things, but most often, they're just really bad movies. Such was the case with "The Green Lantern" (2011). The future for "Lantern" was bright, and it marked a huge opportunity for DC Comics to break up Marvel's vice−like grip on the comic−book adaptation market.
The marketing for the film began with a very public casting process that ended with A−lister Ryan Reynolds being chosen. The production budget alone exceeded $200 million, and that's not including the millions spent on marketing. Fanboy attention was at an all−time high when the epic trailer hit the Internet. Collaborations with Six Flags and 7−Eleven materialized, but not even neon green slushies and breakneck roller coasters could save "Lantern" from the onslaught of dreadful reviews that snuffed out any financial opportunities for the would−betent−pole. "Lantern" underperformed during its opening weekend, ending with a dim $116 million. For a film that was supposed to light up the summer and solidify DC's presence in Hollywood, "Lantern" was a flat−out failure. Marvel, meanwhile, ruled the summer with crowd pleasers like "Thor" (2011) and "Captain America" (2011).
Luckily for Reynolds, the failure of "Lantern" didn't kill his career. However, it's not unusual for a flop to damage an actor's opportunities. If an Oscar nomination opens doors, then a flop slams them shut.
Obviously, certain actors in certain circumstances can survive a failure. Think of Johnny Depp. "The Tourist" (2010) underperformed, but he still qualifies as an A−lister. Having said that, "The Tourist" was an opportunity for Depp to prove himself as a financially viable actor outside the action/fantasy genre. Sure, he did decently in "Finding Neverland" (2004), but "The Rum Diary" (2011) proves that unless Depp is paired with Tim Burton or coated in eyeliner, he isn't worth much.
The same goes for actors who botched their forays into other genres. Think of Adam Sandler. Had "Spanglish" (2004) turned a profit, we wouldn't have been forced to endure "Grown Ups" (2010) or "Jack and Jill" (2011). Taylor Lautner tried to legitimize his career with "Abduction" (2011), but that failure sealed his post−"Twilight" fate. Best−case scenario, he might make an abdominal exercise video with fellow has−been Mike "The Situation."
Despite the past 500 words, I'm actually an optimistic guy. That's why I'd like to end on a positive note. Back in 1995, one ambitious director sought out to make a romantic period piece. The budget ballooned to over $200 million, the most of any movie up to that point. The movie fell behind schedule, missing its lucrative summer release. The studio then forced the director to forgo his salary and was ready to fire members of its staff. In effect, the movie became the butt of virtually every joke in Tinseltown. Then something incredible happened. Audiences loved it, watching so many times that it became the highest grossing movie of all−time until 2009. It even won the Academy Award for Best Director and Picture. That movie — in case you were wondering — was "Titanic" (1996).
So while the next 10 days are going to suck, there's light at the end of the tunnel. Having said that, I'm not going to win any Oscars for my econometrics research paper. Sorry, Mom and Dad.
--
Chris Poldoian is a senior majoring in Spanish and economics. He can be reached at Christopher.Poldoian@tufts.edu.
