A real shame -- a very funny film. Just watching it again right now. Chase, Short and Martin pretty much at the height of their powers. If anyone's interested, it was a big hit in Australia... as was Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, another b.o. flop.
shareWell, a film can be a hit in one country and bomb in another. Maybe the fact that it came out at Christmastime hurt it. Scoundrels I think did better here.
share[deleted]
No, they flopped very badly, particularly 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels' which I suspect had a significantly higher budget than 'Three Amigos'.
When one takes into account the P&A (prints and advertising costs), which are enormous on major releases, not to mention first dollar % cuts to the stars/directors (all considered hot properties at the time), plus the split to exhibitors (and others), the money returned to the studio/producers from gross are significantly reduced -- often less than 50% will go back.
Video rentals mean nothing; that money stays within the retail sector. Video sales on the other hand mean a lot, but the success of the initial video release is directly connected to the success of the theatrical release -- the price point of the video is much less for a flop. In simple terms, think of the theatrical release as an advertisement for the video release and, ergo, a flop film means less sales for less dollars to stores and the general public.
Personally, I loved both movies from day one. Over time, they have built up a loyal following. They have certainly picked up additional coin over the years due to audience discovery via video and other ancillary markets (e.g. cable, network showings). 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels' also found an afterlife as a Broadway show. But the fact remains, they flopped at the time of initial release and quite probably the films have never broken even.
Untrue. Amigos was not technically a box-office flop, as the box office return gross was in excess of 39 million against a 25 million budget, which is roughly a 180% return
shareYes true for all the reasons provided. Back in those days, a major release like that required about 3-4 times budget in gross just to break even. It flopped.
share...required about 3-4 times budget in gross just to break even. It flopped.
"Modest success" is a polite way of framing a flop. And, yes, it had to make an awful lot of money to break even. Don't forget, not every buck goes back... only about half, sometimes less. Feel free to do some research on how money is made or not in the business.
shareThe Three Amigos! grossing $39M in 1986, x2 for inflation so the gross in today dollars would be $80M. was considered a box office disappointment with a budget of $25M. A flop would have grossed $4.6M like Bill Cosby in Leonard Part 6 in 1987. (Howard The Duck has more of a flop with similar returns as it had a bigger budget than the Three Amigos.)
High level the movie lost money (Probably ~$3-5M) and the studio did not want a sequel.
[deleted]
If anyone's interested, it was a big hit in Australia...
I didn't realise that.
I live in Australia and this was one of my all time fave movies when growing up.
I knew alot of people who also liked it.
Didn't realise this movie was considered a flop or that it was a particular hit in Aust.
I always thought it was just a good movie and everyone else (ie people from other countries) felt the same.
[deleted]
Not making a huge profit and a flop are different things. Neither film was a flop. They both out preformed there budgets and if you add VHS/DVD sales and TV rights both probably made a good amount of money for the studio.
share[deleted]