Every year Hollywood churned out big films one after another. But they also have one or two films each year that they hope it will either rake in a lot of money, earn tons of Oscar nominations or both. Through the years, studios would invest in certain talents and throw quite a bit of money on the project, but for whatever the reasons, they ended up NOT properly marketing the film.

Below are list of films that studio executives had high hopes for, but most of them turned out to be huge disappointments:

1. The Alamo (2004)

After he won the Oscar for directing A Beautiful Mind, Ron Howard was going to make this film and Russell Crowe agreed to be his leading man. The film was supposed to open on December of 2003 and Disney was hoping that not only it will make a lot of cash, but also getting tons of Oscar nominations. Before the cameras started rolling, Howard demanded a budget of $200 mil and he wanted to make a hard R-rated war film, similar to Saving Private Ryan. Upon hearing this, Disney executives weren’t too thrilled about making a bloody R-rated war film that’s supposed to open around Christmas time. So they countered the offer, they told Howard he could have a budget of $100 mil and the film must be PG-13. Of course Howard said no and decided not to direct the film; he stayed on only as a producer. Not only did Disney lost Howard, Crowe also walked away from the project since he only wanted to work with Howard.

So now that both Howard and Crowe left the project, Disney was in a hurry to find another director and leading man for the film. They settled on an up-and-coming director John Lee Hancock, whose first film The Rookie performed quite well for Disney at the box office. Hancock promised he could make the film for less than $100mil and it will be PG-13. He also brought his leading man from The Rookie, Dennis Quaid, to star in this film. The final budget for the film was around $95mil and Disney still set the film to open on December of 2003. But just a few months before its release date, Disney announced that the film won’t open ’til April of 2004. They said they needed to give Hancock more time on the film but I think the real reason was that they didn’t like the movie at all and didn’t want to spend money promoting it. Well when the film finally opened in the spring of 2004, Disney hardly promoted it and of course it tanked at the box office.

I was very excited to see this film when it was first announced, but after learning about the behind the scenes drama, I knew the film was going to be a letdown and I was right. The film had no focus and I couldn’t figure out which character was supposed to be the lead. Also, the battle sequences were pretty lame, in my opinion war films shouldn’t be PG-13. If you’re serious about telling a real war story, it should be as intense as in real life. This film had great potential to be great but because the greedy studio executives, it turned out to be a mediocre product.

2. Red Planet

This was one of the two films about the planet Mars that came out in 2000, the other one was Mission to Mars. Warner Bros. scheduled the film to open in the busy Summer month of June that year. With a healthy budget of $70 mil and a still well-known Val Kilmer as the leading man, they probably thought it could earn some good numbers at the box office. Unfortunately things didn’t turn out as they’d hoped. Mission to Mars which opened a couple of months ahead of it, ended up tanking at the box office and most critics hated it.

So now they realized that the public wouldn’t be interested in seeing another film about Mars in such a short time span, they decided to move release date to November. It’s not a bad month to release a film, but after poor test screenings and last minute edits to obtain a PG-13 rating, Warner Bros. didn’t even bother to promote the film. I think they put out some TV spots here and there but nothing significant. Poor Val Kilmer, he was on pretty much every TV late night talk shows trying to promote the film himself since he got no support from the studio. I remember seeing him host Saturday Night Live a couple of weeks after the film came out and still trying to plug the movie. It was quite sad to have seen that, I actually felt bad for the guy.

Of the two Mars films, I actually liked Red Planet better, I thought Mission to Mars was dreadful. I thought the concept of Red Planet was very intriguing but the execution was poorly done.

3. The Invasion

Director Oliver Hirschbiegel from Germany got the attention of Hollywood executives with his film Downfall. Producer Joel Silver, who was responsible for the Die Hard, Matrix and Lethal Weapon films, convinced Hirschbiegel to come over to the States and make a film here. Warner Bros. actually held a huge press conference when they announced this film, hoping that it would be a huge summer tent pole for them. This was the third re-imagining of the original 1956 film. So with an $80 mil budget, they started to shoot the film in the Fall of 2005 and it was supposed to open on June of 2006. A few months later, Hirschbiegel showed his first cut of the film to Warner executives and they were not happy with it. They were expecting a sci-fi action thriller but what they got was a psychological thriller with little to no action at all. So they decided to bring in The Wachowskis to rewrite the film and assist the additional shooting of the film. Of course by this time the film couldn’t make its June of 2006 release date, it’s now been scheduled to open in the summer of 2007.

Even with The Wachowskis’ help, Warner Bros. still wasn’t satisfied with the film, so in January of 2007 they brought in Australian film director James McTeigue (V for Vendetta) to shoot additional scenes, which include more action and a twist ending. Finally the film was scheduled to come out in August of 2007. But by this time, Warner Bros. executives have dismissed the film and didn’t even bother to market it. Well of course the film tanked at the box office and Hirschbiegel’s career in Hollywood never took off.

I saw the film and it has potentials but you can tell there were a lot of cooks in the kitchen trying to fix it. I would love to see Hirschbiegel’s original cut someday, maybe it’s better than the final version.

4. 1492 Conquest of Paradise

With a string of box office failures throughout the 80s, Ridley Scott had a mini comeback in 1991 with Thelma & Louise. So after that film’s success, Paramount Pictures offered him a chance to direct this big-budgeted adaptation of Christopher Columbus’ story. He told the studio he’ll do it with one condition, he wanted to cast Gerard Depardieu as Columbus and they said yes. The film had a budget of $40 mil; this was back in the early 90s, so that was quite big. The film was scheduled to come out in the holiday season of 1992, which became the year of Christopher Columbus films.

Warner Bros. released their version called Christopher Columbus: The Discovery earlier that year. Even though Warner’s version of Columbus tanked at the box office, Paramount still believed that Scott’s version would be a hit and earn many Oscar nominations. Well, a couple of months before the film’s release date, they had a test-screening and it didn’t go well at all. Also, some critics who have seen the early screening trashed the film, so Paramount decided to move up the release date to early October instead of the busy November or December. Not only did they change the release date, they also didn’t even bother to push the film at all. It was one of the biggest flops of 1992 and it got zero Oscar nominations. Scott’s career took a hit too; he didn’t have another hit until 2000 when he made Gladiator.

I saw this film a couple of years after it came out, even though it was a huge flop, no one really paid attention to it. I think everyone in Hollywood was more interested in talking about Alien 3’s failure that year. (To read more about the behind the scenes of Alien 3, go here.) Anyhoo, I thought 1492 has some great ideas but somehow Scott wasn’t able to execute them, the film looked great and the soundtrack was wonderful. I wonder if there’s another cut of the film that studio refuse to show it publicly. Ridley Scott just refuses to talk about this film, I could be wrong but maybe he’s ashamed of it?

5. King Arthur

When Disney announced this re-telling of King Arthur, they had high hopes for it. Originally Michael Bay was going to direct it but he left because he couldn’t get the budget he wanted. With Jerry Bruckheimer producing and director Antoine Fuqua, who’s still basking in the success of Training Day, they believe the film will be a huge success. The film was supposed to be a more realistic take on the King Arthur legend, they even hired screenwriter David Franzoni (Gladiator) to write the script.

The film was scheduled to come in the Fall/holiday season of 2004 but Disney realized they didn’t have a big action picture for that summer, so they decided to move up the release date to July. Along with a new release date, Disney executives also wanted the film to be tone down to get a PG-13 rating instead of the intended R rated they first agreed upon. Of course Fuqua was not happy with the new demands from his bosses; he already shot several scenes with the intentions that the film’s going to be R rated. Not only does he have to finish the film earlier than he thought, he also has to edit the film down to get a PG-13 rating. Both Bruckheimer and Fuqua were trying to convince Disney execs to release the film as R-rated but to no avail, they can’t fight the big boys at the top of the studio.

They did test screenings a few months before the film’s release date and it didn’t go too well at all. Disney now realized they have a stinker in their hands, so they decided to not push the film as hard as their previous summer flicks. Of course when it finally opens in theater, the film failed miserably and sort of ruined Fuqua’s career; he hasn’t done any big-budgeted film since.

Disney actually released the director’s cut of the film on DVD that contained more graphic violence in the battle scenes. I never saw the PG-13 version, just the director’s cut and I thought it was okay. The main problem was that the story just wasn’t that interesting and the cinematography was just awful, seriously the film just looks ugly. Maybe it was Fuqua’s intention to film it like that but for a $90 mil movie, I want to see some cool visuals. The only good thing was that Clive Owen was perfectly cast as Arthur; wish they gave him a better the screenplay though.

---

Well have you seen any of the films above? If so, how do you feel about them? I think all of them could’ve been great films but because studio interference and bad screenplay, they all failed.

(Sources: imdb.com, Entertainment Weekly and Cinescape magazine)