Why Martin Scorsese's Hugo will flop

Watched this last night and agree with everything Ben says below. It's actually a pretty good film once you get past the horrendously boring first 30 minutes but what on earth were the financiers thinking pouring this much money into it? It's a full-on tribute to a pioneer of early cinema, is that a big market?

Somehow it's managed to pull back $115million, an impressive feat considering the subject, but that's still a $55million loss.

Wikipedia says it's made $15million profit. Well... ok then.

Edited at 23:47 on 23/07/12

I went to see this last night - and really enjoyed it. But this isn't about the quality of the movie. Having seen it I can see why it was so hard to market. It's not really a family adventure at all. There's a bit of a mystery about getting the automaton working, but that happens relatively early. What it really is, is the love-letter to Méliès you mention - only it's not thinly-veiled, it's a full-on no holds barred love letter.

The thing is, I couldn't see it at any of the three closest cinemas to me. Cineworld and Vue stopped showing it in Cambridge and Huntingdon a couple of weeks back. Luckily it was still showing at the peterborough showcase.

Looking at Box Office Mojo (and I don't know how reliable that is) it's made $52 million so far (domestically). That's behind Happy feet 2 at $61 million and The Muppets at $85 million.

Having seen it I'n not sure what else they could have done? They could have really pushed it harder and mis-sold it as a spectacular adventure, but the audience would have felt largely robbed, even if what they got was a thoroughly enjoyable piece of cinema...

Edited at 11:16 on 09/01/12

One thing I didn't really factor in is that this is essentially a 'holiday season' movie and opens in more cinemas throughout the rest of the year. Opened pretty small in the US on just over 1000 cinemas I think, but will expand gradually.

So yeah, more proof I don't really know what I'm talking about. Budget estimated to be around $150m now.

Still...

You absolutely nailed it. Visually looks great but it just got hammered at the box office. Unless they sell a lot of DVDs they are going to lose a pretty penny

Ironically, the day I published this, a screening was announced and lots of critics published their extremely favourable reviews. Every tube stop I've been in since has the poster up. I guess some films have longer lead times than others.

Still doesn't change the fact it's going to get cornholed by Kermit and co.

It's going to get an absolute kicking at the box office. I was vaguely interested in it until I saw the trailer, which left me wondering what the fuck it was about. Seems to me like the studio have already given up on it and are just going to bury it now instead.

Could be a nice movie, but financially doomed to fail.
And as Ali already mentioned, that's pretty sad...

Edited at 11:02 on 23/11/11

Touché Mr Gray, touché indeed.

Yes, but poor box-office performance of a film like this has an effect on films that are green-lit in its wake. You think if Scorsese has another pet project family friendly film after this he wants to make, anyone will let him make it if Hugo loses $100m?

I think this article is pretty god-damn brilliant. There's no way in hell Hugo will double $170 million or even break that figure at all.

BUT, in the end, if Scorsese will survive it and the film's still what many are calling a "masterpiece", does it matter if it makes enough money?

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World made next to nothing, and it's a fantastic film, with Edgar Wright going on to even bigger and more awesome things; surely someone as legendary as Scorsese will just shrug it off and run back to being epic?