Top 20 Biggest Box Office Fails of the Century (So Far)

Did anyone see “Town & Country” back in 2001? Well, yeah, actually, to the tune of about ten million dollars. But when you take into account that this romantic comedy cost a ridiculous ninety million to make… well, the mind simply boggles. Sure, “Town & Country” features a stacked cast (with equally stacked asking prices), including Charlton Heston, Warren Beatty, and Diane Keaton, but this didn’t stop the film from becoming one of this century’s earliest blockbuster bombs. Heck, Beatty didn’t even make another movie after “Town & Country” until 2016’s “Rules Don’t Apply.” It was that bad, people.

It seemed like such easy money: hire the Wachowskis to helm a big-budget sci-fi action epic and watch that green paper fly. It wasn’t quite like that for 2015’s “Jupiter Ascending,” however, despite the siblings’ former success with the “Matrix” franchise. Critics pointed to the film’s confusing script as part of the reason for “Jupiter Ascending’s” failure, while financially the film only made back $183 million against a budget that was in excess of $200 million. Today, “Jupiter Ascending” is something of a cult film, but make no mistake. At the time, this was a complete fail.

The era of large-scale Biblical epics had come and gone by the time 2016 rolled around, and the idea of once again remaking “Ben-Hur” came to fruition. Remakes can always be a dicey proposition at the box office, but this “Ben-Hur '' failed in SPECTACULAR fashion, from critical lambasting to complete audience disinterest. The advance promotion and advertising for this film were predictably heavy, focusing on this version of “Ben-Hur” bringing a “reimagined” story for fans. It turns out that sometimes, tradition means something, however, and this idea was soundly rejected to the tune of an over $100 million loss.

The “Terminator” franchise, at this point, feels totally lost, and will probably never get back on track. There are just too many bad movies. 2019’s “Terminator: Dark Fate” didn’t offer any hope to this situation, either, despite bringing back Linda Hamilton and being a direct sequel to “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.” This “re-quel” required over $400 million in box office revenue in order to recoup its nearly $200 million price tag and $100 million promotional budget. “Dark Fate” hit a mark far below that number, turning in about $260 million worldwide. Hasta La Vista, maybe forever.

ImageMovers Digital only produced two motion-capture feature films during its existence, and we’ll be discussing both of them in this video. The first, “A Christmas Carol,” was yet another adaptation of the classic holiday tale, this time with Jim Carrey in the lead role. It was the budget that ultimately did in this film at the end of the day, with a lot of money being pumped into the admittedly impressive effects, the salary of actors Carrey and Gary Oldman, and the advertising costs prior to release. “A Christmas Carol” frankly needed to win big in order to recoup its costs, but unfortunately this didn’t happen. The film lost around a hundred million dollars for Disney, and even cost some executives their jobs.

It was supposed to be a revolution in filmmaking, and the long-awaited big-screen debut for the “Final Fantasy” franchise. It was anything but, unfortunately, and “Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within,” went on to become one of the century’s earliest, definitive bombs. A lot of the errors here lie within the film’s execution, and its failure to present the franchise’s atmosphere and lore to new audiences. Instead, “Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within” hangs its creative hat on visual effects that, although remarkable for the time, are dated today, and can’t hang with the lack of a compelling story. Audiences largely agreed, and this “Final Fantasy” lost nearly a hundred million dollars at the box office.

“The Adventures of Pluto Nash” is one of those films that always comes up in this conversation, that of the most notorious movie bombs of all time. The bloom had largely fallen off the rose for Eddie Murphy as a box office draw in 2002. No longer was his star considered “too big to fail.” The word “big” also accurately describes the budget for “Pluto Nash,” which exceeded an astonishing $120 million, including marketing and advertising. What’s worse is that the film only brought in a little over $7 million worldwide, making this one of Hollywood’s darkest and most embarrassing black eyes.

The market for kids' movies and those aimed at young adults is large, and as a result can be a financially lucrative sandbox for the average, savvy filmmaker. That said, 2016’s “Monster Trucks” spun its wheels at the box office, and wasn’t quite able to get out of said sandbox. How badly did this otherwise innocuous film perform? Well, “Monster Trucks” could barely get out of its own way, struggling to make back even half of its $125 million price tag. Not even the casting of teen fave Lucas Till, or supporting work from Rob Lowe and Danny Glover, could save this Nickelodeon-produced film from being a failure.

Let’s be real: the disaster movie genre is known for going ALL IN with big, boisterous effects and the casting of recognized marquee names for its cast. As a result, it’s not unheard of for such films to cost a lot, yet also make a lot when they hit theaters. Not so with 2022’s “Moonfall,” despite the… best (?) efforts of disaster movie king Roland Emmerich to the contrary. Emmerich footed the bill for “Moonfall,” to the tune of over $140 million, yet the end receipts could barely muster half of that amount. Time will tell as to whether or not Emmerich can regain his status as a “different” sort of disaster man.

The 2020 Covid-19 pandemic changed the way we all lived and worked, but it also affected how we consumed our media. With movie theaters shut down or limited, already-completed movies scrambled to recoup their costs without the benefit of theater receipts. Streaming and VOD seemed like the only viable options, with some films being offered to audiences behind a paywall, while others could be viewed as part of a subscription service. The live-action adaptation of Disney’s “Mulan” was shown in some theaters, as well as part of the Disney+ Premier Access package, but the end results theatrically were only $70 million against a 200-plus million dollar budget.

Make no mistake: Don Bluth has created some of the best animated content of all time, from “The Secret of NIMH” to “All Dogs Go to Heaven.” “Titan A.E.,” however, largely isn’t seen quite in the same light. This is due to the fact that this more action-packed animated feature struggled financially at the box office, earning just $36 million against a budget that was over twice that amount. The film does have some fans, with audience approval ratings at sites like Rotten Tomatoes being generally split. The failure of “Titan A.E.” also hurt Bluth’s career as a director, since, at the time of this writing, the man hasn’t directed another feature film.

Can Charlie Hunnam carry a movie franchise? Not if we’re talking about “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.” This origin story for the mythological king lost a ton of money back in 2017 and was yet another critical black eye for director Guy Ritchie. Believe it or not, Warner Bros. actually had a six-film series planned out for The Once and Future King, but a ballooning budget of $175 million, and a worldwide take of only $150 million effectively put the kibosh on those plans. Time will tell as to whether or not the Arthurian Legends will receive another crack at the big screen, but one thing’s for sure: it won’t star Hunnam as Arthur.

People love Disney, right? People also love visiting Tomorrowland at the conglomerate’s theme parks. But will they go see the “Tomorrowland” movie? Unfortunately, not this one. The 2015 feature from Pixar’s Brad Bird underperformed in a big way, although it did receive some critical praise, and feedback from fans. Still, “Tomorrowland” cost Disney nearly three hundred million dollars to produce, and barely brought back half of that, when things were all said and done. Although “Tomorrowland” continues to trickle down some revenue from streaming and home video, this was still a pretty big failure for Disney.

We mentioned the other film by ImageMovers Digital earlier in our list, and now it’s time to cover the one that broke the camel’s back. “Mars Needs Moms” was the second and last strike for the company, a resounding failure for ImageMovers’ motion-capture business, having been rejected by both audiences and critics. The technology behind “Mars Needs Moms” wasn’t cheap, either, costing over $150 million. The final tally after all was said and done? Forty. Just about $40 million. Ah well, ImageMovers, it was nice while it lasted, right?

Do you ever wonder why some movies seem to ALWAYS air on television? Sure, in the past it was more due to a lack of available content for audiences, but in today’s saturated market, why do films like “Battleship” always seem to be on cable? Well, perhaps it’s an attempt to recoup some costs because this “Battleship” was sunk and stunk at the box office. Sure, the idea of developing a film around a board game seems ridiculous, because it is, but bless the producers of “Battleship” for giving it the old college try. And the film did earn $303 million against a production budget of $209 million, but when factoring in marketing and promotion, “Battleship” ultimately lost Universal approximately $150 million.

The character of Peter Pan is great. The Disney animated feature is great. Heck, “Hook” is great, too. Peter Pan clearly has some legs when it comes to the silver screen, but the 2015 prequel feature from Warner Bros. nearly cut those legs off at the knees, like good ol’ James T. The ideas behind the film aren’t terrible, and some of the performances are memorable (sometimes for the wrong reasons), but audiences didn’t respond to what “Pan” was putting down. The film could barely crack $128 million against a production budget that was in excess of $150 million, making this another WB failure.

Compared to our just-discussed Peter Pan, the Sinbad character is perhaps more from a specific time and place, one whose visibility within the cultural zeitgeist has seemingly diminished over time. This, of course, doesn’t mean that the cinematic heritage of Sinbad the Sailor isn’t valid, but it makes it hard for newer properties, such as 2003’s “Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas,” to find an audience. Production company DreamWorks even stopped utilizing feature-length, traditional animation after the film’s failure, as “Sinbad” ended up costing them over a $125 million.

There will likely be a moment in our collective lifetimes where The Great Steampunk Movie™ will be made, and life will be good. “Mortal Engines”… wasn’t that movie, at least not where the box office is concerned. The film’s ambition was clearly there on the screen, and in the budget, costing over a hundred-and-fifty million dollars for Universal Pictures. Not even the co-production and name recognition of Peter Jackson seemed to help “Mortal Engines” from being able to get out of its own way. Meanwhile, audiences just didn’t show up to check out the film, as it only earned a little over $80 million.

It seems as if the once-popular Lone Ranger character might never again have a chance to regain his place in the cultural spotlight. Disney’s big-budget 2013 shot at reviving the franchise wasn’t the first time The Lone Ranger had bombed at the box office. Some may remember “The Legend of the Lone Ranger” from 1981 as yet another cinematic disaster, but hopes were high that 2013 was going to be different. It… wasn’t, with “The Lone Ranger’s” budget, including marketing, running up a tab of $375 million. It also missed its target “break even” number of $650 million, worldwide, to break even. The grand total box office? $260 million.

There’s no denying that Edgar Rice Burroughs’ John Carter of Mars is a fascinating character, and probably could carry a movie franchise, in the right hands. Unfortunately, these hands were NOT Disney hands, as evidenced by the colossal failure of “John Carter” in 2012. Extra production and marketing costs resulted in the budget of this sci-fi fail ballooning to over $550 million, meaning that “John Carter” needed a worldwide gross of 600-million-plus to make a profit. The film’s release was respectable at 300 million, but this was just too wide a production gap to cross. Planned sequels were scrapped, and “John Carter” became the stuff of major movie studio infamy.