Not only was the Ashton Kutcher/Katherine Heigl vehicle “Killers” slammed by critics and ignored by audiences, but it was also the death knell for struggling movie studio Lion’s Gate. It’s just one of many Hollywood studios currently struggling, but Lion’s Gate actually issued a statement saying that the movie’s “underperformance” was one of the top reasons they are now operating at a $64 million revenue loss and are fighting off hostile takeover bids. Which begs the question: why is Ashton Kutcher still considered a movie star?
Lionsgate said on Monday that it lost $64.1 million during its fiscal 2011 first quarter, with overall revenue driven down, in part, by a declines in home entertainment revenues — a result of producing fewer theatrical films last year — and higher marketing costs to promote three wide releases.
The studio also attributed the rough quarter to the “underperformance” of “Killers” starring Ashton Kutcher.
Overall revenue was $326.6 million for the quarter, a decline of about 14 percent. Its adjusted net loss was $13.7 million, compared to a $53.4 million profit during the same quarter last year.
Liongate’s $64.1 million net loss was “attributable primarily to an increase of $71.2 million in theatrical marketing costs” for three wide releases — “Killers,” “Kick Ass” and “Tyler Perry’s Why Did I Get Married Too?” — in the quarter, compared to just one wide release (“Crank 2: High Voltage”) last year.
The studio’s motion picture revenue — at $272.7 million — was unchanged, and that included the $71.3 million in theatrical revenues generated at the box office.
Lionsgate’s home entertainment revenue — $117.1 million — slid 22 percent on a smaller 2010 (fiscal) slate.
Revenue from Lionsgate-owned Mandate Pictures fell 75 percent to $13.3 million, and the studio attributed to the timing of its slate compared to last year’s fiscal first quarter, which included “Drag Me to Hell” and “Juno.”
Lionsgate co-chair and CEO Jon Feltheimer singled out “Killers,” but remained optimistic about the upcoming slate.
“Our first quarter was affected by marketing costs for our three wide releases, timing of television deliveries and the underperformance of our theatrical release ‘Killers,’” Feltheimer said in a statement accompanying the release. “With our upcoming theatrical slate, beginning with this Friday’s opening of ‘The Expendables,’ and the continued strength of our television, library and channel businesses, we remain poised to achieve our full year financial targets.”
The earnings release did not address the latest hostile takeover bid by Carl Icahn and his Icahn group. Last week, Lionsgate’s board rejected Icahn’s offer of $6.50 per share.
Icahn has been aggressively trying to wrangle control of the indie studio for months. His latest lob is set to expire on August 25.
It sounds like the studio had a few movies that underperformed, but that “Killers” was the biggest disappointment. I don’t know why that project got the green light in the first place. When was the last time an Ashton Kutcher movie was successful? I can’t even remember. Did anyone actually see that movie? The previews looked horrible. If any of our readers saw it – please weigh in, how bad was it? Anyway, maybe these studios will be a little more selective on which projects get the green light now that they’re in such dire financial straits.
Promotional images courtesy of Collider and Best Week Ever.
it’s awful awful! poor movie’s “mr&mrs smith”!
asston kutcher should not be allowed to make movies. he’s awful, his movies are awful and he peaked in that stupid 70’s show. just go live off demi’s movie and twitter away your time.
Did not see it, but I think that, in general, studio execs–whoever greenlights films–need to be replaced. It seems that so much emphasis is put on WHO is IN the movie, not what the movie is about, and that’s a problem. They spend on stars, where they need to spend on making the movie good.
They also need to stop doing remakes, and reboots. There are so many great books out there, but no good scripts?
This movie went right under my radar. Probably because I have absolutely no interest in seeing either of these two in anything…ever.
When an actor or actress gets so over-exposed that all I can think about when they are on the screen is their “real” self and not the person they are portraying in the film, that’s it for me. These two are both on that list.
The critics were right….It’s pretty much dead in the water as soon as a shirtless Kutcher tries to play suave and utters some terrible French in his first attempt to woo his co-star.
Hopefully he goes away now….
ugh Ashton Kutcher was not well cast in that movie. he was in way believable as a spy or anything manly.
I really liked him in “The Butterfly Effect”. After seeing that I kinda had higher hopes for him as an actor.
@manda
You said it. Hollywood needs to get out of Hollywood and quit assuming people go to movies just to see the A-listers. The stars should really be a secondary consideration to good scripts and film making. These “canned” attempts at film making are little more than cheap money grabs.
My friend’s told me they loved it last night-they were also drunk of their asses when they saw it-so who knows.
i like Heigel, she can hold a movie-but NO one can with Kutcher. At least Sean William Scott realized his brand of “funny” wasn’t working anymore and lays low.
Ashton is a sitcom actor not a movie star. Big Difference.
Would rather watch him than her!
@notprfect, ITA. When I saw the movie, all I could think of was that I couldn’t look at the movie and not get past the fact that I was watching Kutcher and Heigl. That’s going to happen again if I ever (NEVER) end up seeing her butcher Stephanie Plum.
I see Kick Ass is coming out on DVD any day now. That one I plan on getting.
Let’s not let Dame Heigl off the hook for this piece of crap. Her public persona makes me want to ignore just about everything she’s in. She’s at least as much of a turn off as Ashton.
The trailer made me lose my will to live in two minutes, so I can’t imagine what 90 plus would do.
I watched this film to brace myself for Heigl’s portrayal of Stephanie Plum. She is no Angelina Jolie. I really cannot understand why Heigl keeps getting lead roles, it drives me insane.
When was that dumbass Kelso ever a movie star? However, a movie based on the “70’s Show” just might make money.
I liked it. Sorry to those of you who didn’t. It was different and Ashton & Frowny Face were pretty funny.
I saw it (my husband downloaded it from the internet), so I did not pay to see it, and it was watchable but had nothing special or memorable about it. Heigl and Kutcher were mismatched and unbelievable as a couple, and I don’t really mind either of them. He was not believable as a spy either.
I agree with the above comments that a good movie has nothing to do with the A listers attached. Slum Dog Millionaire is a great example.
Didn’t see this one–but I did like Ashton in Valentine’s Day. Not a cinematic masterpiece, but it was entertaining.
I have been known to quote from “Dude, Where’s My Car?” though. 😀
Didn’t see the movie, but both of them are pretty annoying. Vulture had an article that stated Heigl is one of five actresses who can get a movie greenlit just by signing on I doubt that will hold after this nightmare. As for Kutcher he is lucky to have made the transition from sitcom to producing to movies but he is talentless he should just stick to Twitter.
My husband and I saw it, and we both liked it a lot. It was a great date movie. I don’t see what the big deal is; it wasn’t meant to be critically acclaimed – just a light, summer movie. I agree with some of the above comments. I don’t think the blame should fall on Kutcher. If anything, there was no chemistry between he and Heigl. I think it could be that people no longer enjoy her public persona. And he also looked hot in the movie; I didn’t believe them as a couple, either. But the storyline was fun and entertaining to me.
All of the movies that are being made now a days are all the same and their are very few good actors/actresses that can carry a movie. In old Hollywood their were lots of great actors/actresses and better scripts for them to chose from and the studios didn’t seem to pump out movies like they do now a days. It was quality vs quantity now its the other way around. Maybe the studios need to stop with the remakes, chose the next project more carefully, hire some good script writers pay the actors/actresses less unless they are sure that person or people can carry a movie and be more selective about what they put out.
Then maybe they wouldn’t find themselves in the situation that they are in.
Didn’t see it because it hasn’t arrived to the Argentinian Theatres yet, was thinking ’bout going with some friends just to laugh at how bad it is… but it’s absolutely pointless paying for it, right? actually, all the comments above were the ones that convinced me. So yea, i’m going to see it just because i’m curious but there’s no way im going to pay for it.
And i totally agree with all of you saying that a good movie has little to do with the A-listers on it.
Anyway, I’ll let you know what I think after I see it.
I wonder what inspired any studio to back these two actors? Sure, Ashton is pretty but he can’t act and Katherine has nothing going for her. Personally, when I don’t like the actors I won’t pay to see the movie. Also, Katherine is under the impression that blonde hair makes her sexy, it doesn’t. Auburn hair is far more flattering on her. She still can’t act though.
to bnice…
“and THEN?…”
“No ‘and then’!”
that movie is underrated, IMO.
Totally agree with Daphne as far as my assessment of the movie.
I had no plans to see it, for many of the reasons others list here, chief among them being that it sounded like a re-do of “Mr. & Mrs. Smith,” (which I found abysmally lame) and secondly, after “Knocked Up” I vowed to never again see anything with Katherine Heigl in it, even if Seth Rogen was in it. However, a friend of mine with a good bootleg connection somehow ended up with it and against my better judgment (and since it was free) I watched it. And I actually liked it. It was light, frothy silliness, and no, the stars really didn’t have much chemistry, but it was entertaining. Would I recommend it? Eh. It doesn’t suck.
I didn’t see the movie because it looked pretty lame but I do like Katherine Heigl. Her movies usually perform really well so I think it was the presence of Ashton that turned the movie into a bomb. It ended up making $79M on a budget of $75M so, the studio is right, it was the promotion budget that put them overboard. I don’t think the other two movies mentioned caused the problem because Tyler Perry’s movies don’t need much promotion. He has a built-in audience who will see his movies no matter what.
@mygossip . . . Lionsgate is talking about the past quarter, not anything previous to this. They are expecting to earn money by the time the year is up but they lost money on this particular movie, which has set them back and made them vulnerable to a takeover. Now, if the “Expendables” bomb, they might be in BIG trouble!!
I would’ve been more interested in seeing it if it hadn’t had Dame Heigl in it too. I like Ashton Kutcher okay, I think he’s silly. But her? Ugh, just looking at her face makes me irritated. Why did they think she could help carry this film? Totally miscast.
“The butterfly effect” was really good, I also loved “Just married” with Brittany Murphy. And seriously, there are parts in “Dude, where’s my car” that are hysterical 😀
That’s about it. 😀
I decided to give this movie the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say I never got to the end of the movie because it was honestly bad. I tried.
@manda: True, and well said.
People aren’t going to go see a movie with their favorite star(s) in it, if the movie looks like boring, insipid, unoriginal crap. Who wants to throw 10 bucks away on a crappy movie?
It was a shitty movie, BUT it wasn’t really either Asston or Heigl’s fault. The writer/director/producer of this mess should be shot at dawn. Along with whoever did the same with The Bounty Hunters.
I agree. People aren’t anxious see a film just b/c of an actor. Heigl did well w/romantic-comedies like The Ugly Truth and 27 Dresses, but this movie didn’t sell to that crowd. Kutcher has never been a big draw in my mind? He seems ok in ensembles, or dumb comedies. But as a lead? Nope.
Overall, the movie just looked bad. It had cliche written all over it. Maybe, w/the success of Inception, Hollywood will produce more interesting work rather than recycling the same lame cliches? One can only hope.
The movies that really did well this year were Toy Story3, Alice in Wonderland, Iron Man, Twilight, etc. It goes to show that audiences will pay for special effects, cartoon movies, or their favorite franchise, but wait for everything else on DVD. Maybe, actors aren’t as important anymore? Most of them are overpaid and over-rated anyways, so that’s fine by me.
I find both “stars” very annoying, and the plot did, as others have said, look like a Mr & Mrs Smith rip off. I didn’t like that movie all that much, so I wasn’t exactly clamoring to see a budget version.
Totally agree that more focus needs to be on the quality, not the star power. There are VERY few actors who alone can make me want to see a film. Heigl and Ashton aren’t even close.
Actors and musicians need to start getting big time pay cuts. They’re not generating the profits they used to thanks to new technology, and they were overpaid considering that they have jobs babies and small children can do. Can a baby be an electrical engineer? No, but they CAN star in a movie.
More money to good writing, talented directors and great actors can keep their high salaries, but pay cuts for these no-talent celebs who are basically just famous. Kutcher and Heigl are not worth big bucks for anything. Crisis solved.
I’m not sure why all of the blame is on Ashton. Katherine is the one who had a string of hit movies. The studio thought it was going to be huge because of her and apparrently went overboard with promotion.
Hmm.. Am I the only one who like this pairing LOL I think th writing is not so good.. But heigl and kutcher got some chemistry.. And I like to watch them in a romcom like this (even if lion’s gate advertise this movie as action movie..) Just need a good writer..
Hello, THANK YOU OC Lady. Inception should show Hollywood that if you are original you can make bank. They had one well known actor in the movie…. Leo. The rest are critically acclaimed/ talented and good looking actors. That movie pulled every demographic. Young people with Ellen Page and JGL. Action in the movie, a love story in the movie, special matrix like effects, and a solid intricate plot.
Problem is they want things easy and want to play it safe. The audiences are saying no. The popular movies are one’s with an already earned audience like twilight. Kids movies sale. They are trying to do the cutesy movie crap. Rom-coms and that audience is dying out. Those women are going to see Dicaprio movies. Women support men in movies and men support men in movies. So women need to be more dimensional then the characters they have them play in rom-coms, because people don’t care to see those kind of movies anymore. Action Horror Thriller Sci-Fi Kids movies, and movies based off popular books. Rom-coms with ditzy chicks is out.
Watching a cheap imitation of an old movie is out. Jamie Lee Curtis and Arnold Gov of Cali did this movie already in the 90’s.
Heigl thinks people think her complaining about working long hrs has to do with folks wanting to hear how perfect her life is instead of her complaining. No it’s people have jobs they don’t want make alot less and don’t get awarded for it either. I think her mouth brought it down. Kutcher is just overexposed twitter/facebook, dude take some acting classes.
The butterfly effect was good and I liked the movie he did with Britney Murphy. He just fell off…. aged out and shouldve done more independent movies to get some clout
Comedy needs real stein
at least give kuchner the credit to fool someone at lions gate
he was obviously going to draw crowds to the theaters !!
from the names of the lasts lion gates productions maybe they really deserve to disappear…
they just needed an extra help…good job kushner!
Praise St. Angie…
“Dude! What’s mine say?”
😀
Aw, poor Lion’s Gate! Well I know that I have quite a pile of good horror dvds from them, but apparently I can’t keep them in business all on my lonesome. I’ll make a point to see The Expendables, which does look fun.
What on earth posessed LG to produce this (obvious)piece of crap?
It was a good entertaining “first-date movie”.. I went to see it in theaters and liked it very much..
Rob Redstone
TheRobRedstoneShow. com
I COMPLETELY agree…I don’t know why Ashton Kutcher is still getting work.
Isn’t this the movie that Ashton Kutcher refused to go out and promote?
All the while as annoying as Heigl is consistently, at least she got out there and did all the PR’ing.
The problem with Ashton Kutcher… he seems to think he is a established movie star. When he has not been in one huge money maker as the lead.
And he seems to have only gotten extremely self entitled over the years.
How in the world does Demi put up with him.
Any studio that thought a Kutcher/Heigl vehicle would make money deserves to be taken over. If they think the Expendables will bail them out it won’t, I’ve heard it’s a real stinker.
Maybe Mr Icahn will have better judgement.
I say to all shareholders SELL while the offer is $6.50, after the release of the Expendables it’ll be $2.50
This looked like an obvious bomb based on just the previews. I haven’t been to the movies in ages. I think the last time was to see It’s Complicated. (And I got the tickets for free). Hollywood ain’t making much worth shelling out the big bucks for.
As a horror fan, I can tell you that Lionsgate is the “House that Saw built.” At the time, Lionsgate was known for picking up and releasing indie films and Saw exploded. However, audience love has gradually and pretty dramatically decreased since part 4. Saw 3D is supposed to be the last in the series and feature the return of a major character, so it may help them recoup some losses….
Katherine Heigl SUCKS, Ashton Kutcher SUCKS, and the movie SUCKED.
demi should lock ashton in a cage and treat him as her sex toy whenever needed.
atleast that’ll prevent him from making dreadful movies 😀
I agree with Manda, they need to start worrying about who is in the movie more than what it is actually about. Plus, why do the execs thing he’s bankable? He’s not. He says idiotic things and has nothing better to do with his time than sit on Twitter and tell people about his stupid life (although I’m one to talk since I’m on her posting about this crap). Anyway, I’ve never liked Katherine and think she has a high opinion of herself for no reason.
That movie starred two unlikable twits. Neither one of them could carry a movie alone because they are so irritating, but putting both of them together in the same movie sounded the death knell for it before filming even started.
I like the movie – it was true as one of the commnent above, it was light and watchable movie, nothing special and not that bad.. I like Ashton – he is hot.
kutcher is soooo annoying, lol
he think he is like some “real” actor but sorry to say ashton, you’re not.
is he just a terrible actor. OMG!
seriously, if he was getting it with demi moore, he would not be on the a list right now.
cant stand him, and yeah he was kinda hot when he was younger and he has a nice body in the preview, but that yeah its not enough for me to pay 18 bucks to go and see the shirtless bit lol
I saw it.. It wasn’t terrible but heigl and kutcher were supposed to be a couple and i just kept thinking hes way way too hot for her this would never happen in reality that kinda spoils a movie.. when u dnt get lost in it.
Drag Me To Hell was AWESOME- Raimi made that shit walk and talk, yo. Lohman was so hardcore in that… oh mah gawd. Cootchie and that other girl, though…. pass.