30 Years Ago, One Of The Greatest Movies Ever Bombed At The Box Office

(Welcome to Tales from the Box Office, our column that examines box office miracles, disasters, and everything in between, as well as what we can learn from them.)

"I never liked the title of my own story, and don't to this day." Those are the words of prolific author Stephen King writing in the 2009 book "Stephen King Goes to the Movies." The movie and story in question is the 1994 classic "The Shawshank Redemption." King was attempting to explain why the film — which is now considered by many to be one of the greatest movies ever made — was a box office bomb in its day.

While it may be hard to believe, director Frank Darabont's stirring, emotional prison drama was indeed a huge disappointment upon its initial release. For those who weren't regular ticket buyers at the time of this movie's original theatrical run, that must seem unfathomable. The film remains on top of IMDB's top 250 to this day, above stone-cold classics such as "The Godfather," "Schindler's List," "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," and Christopher Nolan's $1 billion comic book epic "The Dark Knight." To say that "Shawshank" is a beloved movie would be a dramatic understatement. So, how did it go from flop to timeless classic?

In this week's Tales from the Box Office, we're looking back at "The Shawshank Redemption" in honor of its 30th anniversary. We'll go over how the film came to be, why King didn't think it was going to get made, the doubts the cast had about the project, what happened when it hit theaters, what happened in the years after its initial release, and what lessons we can learn about it all these years later. Let's dig into it, shall we?

Frank Darabont — who has since become a huge name in Hollywood directing movies like "The Mist" (another King adaptation), as well as being a driving force behind AMC's "The Walking Dead" franchise — was a largely unknown quantity before this film came around. Darabont first adapted another King story, "The Woman in the Room," into a short film in 1984. The filmmaker then approached King several years later, wanting to adapt his novella "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption." The author agreed based on the strength of the "Woman in the Room" short, and granted Darabont the rights for $5,000.

King still had his doubts about the potential of his story cinematically, believing it was "too textured and novelistic" to translate to the big screen. Nonetheless, Darabont turned the novella into a screenplay — one that eventually got the attention of Castle Rock Entertainment. The studio's co-founder Rob Reiner, who had directed King adaptations such as "Stand by Me" and "Misery," was originally interested in directing the film himself. Darabont was offered more money to step aside as the director, but in the end his creative instincts won out. As he explained in a 2014 interview with the Wall Street Journal:

"It was never an option. Most of it boils down to, 'Why are we here?' That was a passion I was very determined to pursue and not just sell to the highest bidder."

So, Darabont gambled on himself and Reiner stepped aside. The story of the film — which is largely faithful to the source material with some notable differences — centers on Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins), a man who is sentenced to two consecutive life sentences in prison for the murders of his wife and her lover in 1947. He is ordered to serve his sentence in a particularly tough prison in Maine, Shawshank State Prison. Andy happens to be innocent, but that doesn't matter. Adjusting to his life in prison, Andy forms an unlikely friendship with Red (Morgan Freeman), a man who knows how to get things. Together, they experience the brutality of prison life across two decades.

Darabont was afforded a $25 million budget to bring his vision for "The Shawshank Redemption" to life. This was a healthy budget for such a project at the time, particularly for an untested director. Top of the list was getting the cast together, with Tim Robbins, coming off of "The Player" and "Bob Roberts," landing the role of Andy. Cast opposite him as Red was Morgan Freeman, who had been a central part of the Best Picture winner "Driving Miss Daisy" several years earlier. Freeman's casting was key, as his voiceover work is part of what makes the film as we know it sing. It's also significant given that Red wasn't a Black man in the novella.

"I read the first page and Red was this Irishman. So I closed the book. I never read another line. I was like, 'I can't play an Irishman!'" Morgan said in a 2019 interview, expressing his initial doubts about taking on the role in "Shawshank." But the actor had a simple solution to the issue as he saw it on the page: "I didn't play an Irishman." It's an example of taking something from the page to the screen where it might not have been 100% faithful to the source material, but it was 100% the right choice to make. The movie does still include the novella's explanation for the nickname when Red says it as a joke.

The rest of the ensemble was filled out with sturdy character actors such as Bob Gunton ("Patriot Games") as Warden Norton, William Sadler ("Die Hard 2") as Haywood, Clancy Brown ("Highlander") as Captain Hadley, and James Whitmore ("Give 'em Hell, Harry!") as Brooks. It was a truly stellar collection of performers that brought a certain humanity to this adaptation of King's work. While King was largely known for being a master of horror, this was more of a drama, which instantly made it a unique prospect from a marketing standpoint, aside from the title not being an immediate selling point.

Another big character that needed to be cast, so to speak, was the prison itself. Ultimately, Darabont landed on the Ohio State Reformatory after months of scouting:

"When we were scouting prisons to use, we were down to really two choices. I kind of knew in my heart of hearts that the Ohio State Reformatory was going to wind up being the one — I just really had a feeling about that — but, for due diligence, we decided to also go down to Nashville because there was a big prison there as well and we wanted to check out. And, as an aside, some years later I wound up using the Nashville facility for all the exteriors in 'The Green Mile.'"

Columbia Pictures distributed "The Shawshank Redemption" and opted for a pre-awards season September release. Things looked good as reviews were largely positive for Darabont's feature directorial debut. The problem? Several other adult-friendly hits were swallowing up the lion's share of the attention which, in addition to the other complicating factors, essentially provided the film with a commercial death sentence.

"The Shawshank Redemption" opened in limited release on just 33 screens on the weekend of September 23, 1994. It debuted to a respectable $727,327, making for a per-screen average just north of $22,000. In many cases, that would be a great way to build buzz. Unfortunately, the eventual Best Picture winner "Forrest Gump" was in the middle of its hugely impressive box office run, with the recently released "Quiz Show" also in the mix. Things didn't get any easier the following weekend when "The River Wild" topped the charts, while Tim Burton's "Ed Wood" also arrived in limited release.

When "Shawshank" went wide in mid-October playing on nearly 1,000 screens, it earned $2.4 million. It managed to stay in the $2 million range for several weekends, but against that $25 million budget, with a healthy marketing spend, and with a lot of competition drawing the attention of would-be ticket buyers, it was a huge commercial disappointment. The film finished its initial run with just over $18 million domestically. Granted, this was at a time when it was easier to recoup money after a theatrical release (more on that in a moment), but it was still far from what anyone involved had hoped for.

Things started to change when "Shawshank" was nominated for seven Oscars that year, including Best Picture. Freeman was also nominated for Best Actor, while Darabont was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay. The legendary Roger Deakons was also nominated for Best Cinematography. Deakins wouldn't actually win an Oscar until "Blade Runner 2049" earned him a sorely deserved trophy in 2018. But that is neither here nor there.

What's important is that the Oscar buzz got the film on a lot of people's radar. The film was wisely put back into theaters in early 1995 to capitalize, which it did, pulling in another $10 million. All told, "Shawshank" finished its initial theatrical run with $28.3 million domestically. It still wasn't enough to change the film's fortunes, but it was the beginning of the tide turning.

One of the key benefits of the movie business in the '90s and early 2000s as opposed to now is that death at the box office didn't mean eternal death for a film. Case in point: Warner Bros. had the home video distribution rights to "The Shawshank Redemption" and saw an opportunity to make a big VHS push, given the positive reception to the film. WB shipped 320,000 VHS copies, per Variety, which was a very high number of units for a box office disappointment. The gamble paid off though, as "Shawshank" became the most-rented video of 1995. And that was just the beginning.

The movie later became a mainstay of cable television, which opened it up to an even wider audience. Every time it played on cable, that was more money in the studio's pocket. Over time, not only has "The Shawshank Redemption" recouped its initial investment, but it has become a steady money-maker for WB, which owns the rights outright.

"It's an incredible moneymaking asset that continues to resonate with viewers," said Jeff Baker, the former executive vice president and general manager of Warner Bros. Home Entertainment theatrical catalog, in that Wall Street Journal piece. "Shawshank" is one of the best performers in the studio's library, in no small part thanks to strong DVD/Blu-ray sales, not to mention streaming. While other studios keep movies and TV shows for their own streamers, libraries continue to fetch licensing fees year in, year out.

"I suspect my daughter, years from now, will still be getting checks," Gunton said in that Wall Street Journal piece, punctuating just how profitable the movie has become. It's not just a win for the studio; actors like Gunton and filmmakers like Darabont get their residuals as well.

So, why the turnaround? What can we glean from the delayed success of "The Shawshank Redemption" three decades removed? Tim Robbins, for one, has a theory about the enduring power of the film. In his mind, it's all about the central, platonic male relationship between Andy and Red.

"There are very, very few films that are about the relationship, the friendship between two men that doesn't involve car chases or being charming with the ladies and those kinds of buddy movies. This one is about a true, deep friendship that lasts. And part of me thinks that people want or need that kind of story to be told."

Indeed, movies of this sort are relatively few and far between in Hollywood. There's certainly got to be a lesson in there somewhere. Beyond that, the real shame of it is that the business as it currently exists is unlikely to let a movie like this slip through the cracks. "I am absolutely certain that I could not make that movie today," Darabont said reflecting on "Shawshank" in a 2019 interview:

"I can't even begin to imagine the studio meddling that would have happened with a movie like 'Shawshank,' if not for Castle Rock. Castle Rock was — it was the magic kingdom. They were an extraordinary place founded by a filmmaker who understood the creative autonomy that a filmmaker needs to do their best work."

Movies are always risky. One of the best ways to mitigate that risk is making a quality product. If "The Shawshank Redemption" had been some watered down version of what Darabont had in mind, there's virtually no chance it would have enjoyed the long life that it has. That's the key. Sure, a movie might flop now and again — that's just the nature of the business. But a good movie that flops might just catch on over time. A middling or bad movie? Good luck finding an audience for that in the neverending sea of content that is the streaming era.