Original image

The Quick 10: 10 of the Biggest Movie Failures Ever

Original image

Giving a movie a blockbuster-sized budget doesn't always guarantee a blockbuster at the box office. Here are a few big-budget flops that left theatergoers cold.

1. Town and Country. You would think with amazing stars like Warren Beatty, Diane Keaton and Goldie Hawn, this movie could do no wrong. Well, it did. It lost something to the tune of $100 million. Diane Keaton came out of it OK though - she went on to star in Something's Gotta Give less than three years later, which was a huge success.
2. Stealth. Famously known as the mess that Jamie Foxx starred in after his Oscar-winning performance in Ray, Stealth lost more than $60 million.
3. The Adventures of Pluto Nash. You surely remember this Eddie Murphy bomb, and no doubt Warner Brothers does too, because it had a $120 million budget and only made $7 million. I'm guessing we won't be seeing The Further Adventures of Pluto Nash anytime soon…

4. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Compared to some of these, a loss of $50 million doesn't seem that bad, but it was bad enough to cause the demise of Square Pictures, the studio that animated it.

5. The 13th Warrior. Even the charming Antonio Banderas couldn't save this one - it lost nearly $100 million and was declared a terrible movie to boot. Roger Ebert noted the expensive set pieces and said perhaps more time should have been dedicating to telling a story that "might make us care."

6. Cutthroat Island. The Guinness Book of World Records listed this Geena Davis flick as the #1 box office bomb of all time, and indeed, it bankrupted Carolco Pictures when it lost roughly $100 million ($147 million according to some inflation figures).
7. Sahara. Although this movie opened at #1 at the box office, it cost so much to make it couldn't possibly perform at the levels it needed to in order to make it worth it. The price tag? $241 million. The gross? $119 million.
8. The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Being a Disney purist and not being much of a Nicolas Cage fan, I was against this one from the second I heard about it. And I guess I wasn't the only one, because it lost $83 million.

9. The Alamo. We're talking the 2004 version, not the 1960 John Wayne movie. This one, starring Billy Bob Thornton and Dennis Quaid, cost $145 mil to make and made just 25 of that million back.

10. The Postman. When a movie costs $80 million to make (not even including marketing efforts), it's pretty sad when it only returns $18 million. It was critically panned as well - Siskel referred to the Costner vehicle as Dances with Myself.

These are just a few of the biggest bombs in Hollywood - I bet you can think of a few more. What big-budget movies do you think were terrible?

Original image
iStock // Ekaterina Minaeva
Man Buys Two Metric Tons of LEGO Bricks; Sorts Them Via Machine Learning
May 21, 2017
Original image
iStock // Ekaterina Minaeva

Jacques Mattheij made a small, but awesome, mistake. He went on eBay one evening and bid on a bunch of bulk LEGO brick auctions, then went to sleep. Upon waking, he discovered that he was the high bidder on many, and was now the proud owner of two tons of LEGO bricks. (This is about 4400 pounds.) He wrote, "[L]esson 1: if you win almost all bids you are bidding too high."

Mattheij had noticed that bulk, unsorted bricks sell for something like €10/kilogram, whereas sets are roughly €40/kg and rare parts go for up to €100/kg. Much of the value of the bricks is in their sorting. If he could reduce the entropy of these bins of unsorted bricks, he could make a tidy profit. While many people do this work by hand, the problem is enormous—just the kind of challenge for a computer. Mattheij writes:

There are 38000+ shapes and there are 100+ possible shades of color (you can roughly tell how old someone is by asking them what lego colors they remember from their youth).

In the following months, Mattheij built a proof-of-concept sorting system using, of course, LEGO. He broke the problem down into a series of sub-problems (including "feeding LEGO reliably from a hopper is surprisingly hard," one of those facts of nature that will stymie even the best system design). After tinkering with the prototype at length, he expanded the system to a surprisingly complex system of conveyer belts (powered by a home treadmill), various pieces of cabinetry, and "copious quantities of crazy glue."

Here's a video showing the current system running at low speed:

The key part of the system was running the bricks past a camera paired with a computer running a neural net-based image classifier. That allows the computer (when sufficiently trained on brick images) to recognize bricks and thus categorize them by color, shape, or other parameters. Remember that as bricks pass by, they can be in any orientation, can be dirty, can even be stuck to other pieces. So having a flexible software system is key to recognizing—in a fraction of a second—what a given brick is, in order to sort it out. When a match is found, a jet of compressed air pops the piece off the conveyer belt and into a waiting bin.

After much experimentation, Mattheij rewrote the software (several times in fact) to accomplish a variety of basic tasks. At its core, the system takes images from a webcam and feeds them to a neural network to do the classification. Of course, the neural net needs to be "trained" by showing it lots of images, and telling it what those images represent. Mattheij's breakthrough was allowing the machine to effectively train itself, with guidance: Running pieces through allows the system to take its own photos, make a guess, and build on that guess. As long as Mattheij corrects the incorrect guesses, he ends up with a decent (and self-reinforcing) corpus of training data. As the machine continues running, it can rack up more training, allowing it to recognize a broad variety of pieces on the fly.

Here's another video, focusing on how the pieces move on conveyer belts (running at slow speed so puny humans can follow). You can also see the air jets in action:

In an email interview, Mattheij told Mental Floss that the system currently sorts LEGO bricks into more than 50 categories. It can also be run in a color-sorting mode to bin the parts across 12 color groups. (Thus at present you'd likely do a two-pass sort on the bricks: once for shape, then a separate pass for color.) He continues to refine the system, with a focus on making its recognition abilities faster. At some point down the line, he plans to make the software portion open source. You're on your own as far as building conveyer belts, bins, and so forth.

Check out Mattheij's writeup in two parts for more information. It starts with an overview of the story, followed up with a deep dive on the software. He's also tweeting about the project (among other things). And if you look around a bit, you'll find bulk LEGO brick auctions online—it's definitely a thing!

Original image
Nick Briggs/Comic Relief
What Happened to Jamie and Aurelia From Love Actually?
May 26, 2017
Original image
Nick Briggs/Comic Relief

Fans of the romantic-comedy Love Actually recently got a bonus reunion in the form of Red Nose Day Actually, a short charity special that gave audiences a peek at where their favorite characters ended up almost 15 years later.

One of the most improbable pairings from the original film was between Jamie (Colin Firth) and Aurelia (Lúcia Moniz), who fell in love despite almost no shared vocabulary. Jamie is English, and Aurelia is Portuguese, and they know just enough of each other’s native tongues for Jamie to propose and Aurelia to accept.

A decade and a half on, they have both improved their knowledge of each other’s languages—if not perfectly, in Jamie’s case. But apparently, their love is much stronger than his grasp on Portuguese grammar, because they’ve got three bilingual kids and another on the way. (And still enjoy having important romantic moments in the car.)

In 2015, Love Actually script editor Emma Freud revealed via Twitter what happened between Karen and Harry (Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman, who passed away last year). Most of the other couples get happy endings in the short—even if Hugh Grant's character hasn't gotten any better at dancing.

[h/t TV Guide]