On paper, “Tower Heist” must have seemed like such a great idea.

Producers most likely assumed that Eddie Murphy would generate just as much screen chemistry with Ben Stiller as he did with Dudley Moore in “Best Defense” if not more chemistry, as long as the screenwriter remembered to put the two actors in some of the same scenes.

The plot, about a bunch of blue-collar blokes who seek revenge on a deceitful Wall Street billionaire by stealing his solid-gold car, was certain to appeal to working-class moviegoers at a time of economic anxiety.

It’s not as if Murphy and Stiller hadn’t already endeared themselves to the common man when they donated their own solid-gold cars to charity so they could make room in their garages for their solid-platinum ones.

Finally, there was the hire of director Brett Ratner, a director as generous as he is talented.

On press junkets, Ratner never seems to have any qualms about revealing his deepest filmmaking secrets, not to mention the names of all the starlets he has slept with since his last movie.

“What could go wrong?” Universal executives doubtless asked one another, and possibly said aloud while sitting on the floor of their turquoise malachite bathtubs under the spray of their Lacava square showerheads after having their first good cry of the day.

Well, “Tower Heist” was resoundingly bested at the box office by “Puss in Boots,” a movie in its second week of release.

Most moviegoers apparently preferred to hear Antonio Banderas do his impersonation of an anthropomorphic Spanish cat touting chivalry.

For all anybody knows, they may have also preferred to hear Banderas do his impersonation of an anthropomorphic Spanish bee touting Nasonex, but that possibility was not explored.

Studios always have a lot riding on these sorts of releases, but Universal almost had more than usual riding on “Tower Heist.”

There was a plan afoot to make the film available as a pay-per-view event on cable and satellite systems a mere three weeks after its release to theaters. Cost per household: $59.99.

Theater owners, exhibitors and distributors balked at the scheme and Universal backed down.

Studios are on the lookout for new and more lucrative ways to sell their movies and theater owners, exhibitors and distributors are always reacting to the things that studios do in a way that screams “frenemy!”

Theater owners, exhibitors and distributors may have taken the wrong tack with “Tower Heist.”

I think they should have let nature (such as it is defined here) take its course.

At $59.99, “Tower Heist” was priced about $10 higher than even the most illustrious live sporting events. And yet (to some borrow boxing terminology) is “Tower Heist” really a main event? Or is it more of an undercard? Is it really a heavyweight? Or is it more of a junior middleweight? It is a brawler? Or is it a palooka?

In all honesty, “Tower Heist” did OK at the box office, but I am not sure how many people will even remember the film in two weeks, let alone remember that they once had the chance to spend $60 on it.

When an American citizen decides not to see a new American film in its first three weeks of release, his plan for seeing it is as follows: No plan at all.

His plan involves assuming that someday he will accidentally see it.

I think that if the theaters owners and analogous professionals had said nothing about Universal’s cable cash-grab plan, they probably would have watched as “Tower Heist’s” foundering at the box office turned into a capsizing on pay-per-view.

Studio enthusiasm may then have been dampened toward premium pay-per-view, if only temporarily.

Now, the first test of premium pay-per-view may go to “Men in Black III” or “The Dark Knight Rises,” movies that stand a good chance of passing the $60 test.

I am not sure I have strong feelings either way about premium pay-per-view, but I don’t trust studio assurances that the practice will have no effect on theater profits.

I admit that I am one of those fossils who still prefer to see movies in a theater, but the rumors that I still prefer to watch “The Honeymooners” on a Philco have been greatly exaggerated.