Like any other decade, the2010scontained both smash-hit films and total bombs. That said, it’s probably the standout decade for box office bombs. From notoriousTransformersrip-offs to utterly hollow but fully star-studded rom-coms, there were quite a few films that studios had a lot of faith in…and that faith decidedly did not pan out or pay off.
Quite a few of the following films were fourth quarter, holiday movie season releases, which almost begs the question of whether December is as much a dumping ground as the notorious January. That month, of course, is when studios shove either mid-budgeted movies with a chance of success or high-budgeted movies with zero chance of success into theaters.
Well, also the previous year’s Oscar bait limited releases that then expanded (American Sniperdefinitively altered the perspective on January’s box office potential). But, suffice it to say, whether they were released in January, April, July, or October, the following films were nowhere near as profitable asAmerican Sniper.
20How Do You Know (2010)
How Do You Know
Estimated Loss of $104 Million
There were so many different potential ways Jack Nicholson could have ended his storied, legendary cinematic career. But, like Gene Hackman withWelcome to Mooseport, the final entry in his filmography is nothing short of forgettable at best…and dysfunctional at worst. If there’s a bland, almost outright unlikable rom-com from the 2010s, it’sHow Do You Know.
Did It Work at All?
It’s odd, because director James L. Brooks is legitimately phenomenal at crafting character-focused pieces.Terms of Endearment,Broadcast News,As Good as It Gets, these are all Brooks' works. And, suffice it to say, the yuppie-focused nonsense that isHow Do You Knowdoesn’t hold a candle to those films' effectiveness.
Even considering the inclusion of Nicholson, Owen Wilson, Reese Witherspoon, and Paul Rudd, the film’s price tag of $120 million was absolutely preposterous. It never stood a chance. But, even if it was just $20 million,How Do You Knowwould not have been considered a successful film.Rent on AppleTV.
19Mars Needs Moms (2011)
Mars Needs Moms
Estimated Loss of $100 to $144 Million
Mars Needs Momshad a budget of $150 million, so it essentially was hinging on the impressiveness of its special effects more than it was the incisive relatability of its narrative. As a movie, it’s fine, but in the end, it’s hard to figure why Disney felt this script warranted $150 million. And, for that matter, it’s hard to figure why its visual effects aren’tactuallyas impressive as the filmmakers clearly think they are.
Just How Poorly Did It Do?
The marketing team had an uphill battle and, when all was said and done,Mars Needs Momshad garnered a paltry $21.4 million from domestic screens and an even worse $18.4 million from overseas markets. It’s known as one of cinema history’s biggest bombs. And, by this point in time, it’s hard to find it on Blu-ray anywhere outside Amazon, soeventual profitability is a laughable prospect.Stream on Disney+.
18John Carter (2012)
John Carter
Estimated Loss of $112 to $200 Million
While the heartfeltJohn Carteris one of the more underappreciated films on this list, it’s not without its flaws. Andrew Stanton’s film is an adaptation of the classic works by Edgar Rice Burroughs, where a Civil War veteran is transported in the blink of an eye to Mars. Or, as its residents label it, Barsoom. And, like Earth, Barsoom is consumed by combat.
What Factors Led to Its Failure?
John Cartercame equipped with a gargantuan $250 million budget. That’s a figure reserved for an IP’s third installment, after actor contract renegotiations and increased expenditure on effects are taken into account. And, more troubling,most people hadn’t heard of John Carter(who was popular in the 1910s and ’20s) in 2012. It just looked like aStar Warsclone, one without any (at the time) widely-recognizable stars (save for the voice of Willem Dafoe).Stream on Disney+.
RELATED:Why John Carter is the Unluckiest IP in Entertainment History
17Battleship (2012)
Battleship
Estimated Loss of $150 Million
2012 was not kind to the likable and talented Taylor Kitsch. In a single year, he headlined two of cinema history’s biggest bombs. But, while there were some critics who saw the merit toJohn Carter,Battleshipwas just a flat-out punchline. And, considering it’s an alien invasion movie adaptation of a board game that contained zero aliens, that’s quite fair.
Was It Summer 2012’s Biggest Bomb?
The fairly blatant attempt to replicateTransformerssuccess was absolutely the biggest financial failure of the Summer 2012 movie season. Even without the toxic word-of-mouth that followed the release of both the trailer and the film itself, it would have had a mighty hard time going toe-to-toe withThe Avengers.Stream on FuboTV.
16Jack the Giant Slayer (2013)
Jack the Giant Slayer
Estimated Loss of $103 Million
There is crowd-pleasing and there’s playing it safe.Jack the Giant Slayeris one of the ultimate examples of a movie playing it safe. And, with that said, it is beyond a doubt the ultimate example of a movie playing it safe and paying a heavy price for that. Essentially, the narrative of Bryan Singer’s film follows Nicholas Hoult’s title character as he ascends the bean stalk with some soldiers and a greedy king to rescue the woman he loves (who the king does not, but intends to marry anyway).
Jack the Giant Flop
Not one line in this film’s script is free of cliché. There’s nothing here audiences haven’t seen done better elsewhere. This includes the giants, which the movie clearly thinks are impressive but don’t look as good as anything found in the first fewPirates of the Caribbeanmovies. The fact that it took $195 million to bring them to life is truly shocking. The fact that it only pulled in about $198 million worldwide? Not so much.Rent on ApplyTV.
15The Lone Ranger (2013)
The Lone Ranger
Estimated Loss of $160 to $190 Million
The Lone Rangerfollows the title character and his quasi-pal, Tonto, as they seek to break apart the plans of a local railway tycoon. There was a major difference in Johnny Depp’s star power when the initialthreePirates of the Caribbeanfilms were released and whenThe Lone Rangerwas. He’d yet to hit the mire of controversy and a very public court case, but his star was still dimming.
The Lone Installment
And, considering Armie Hammer was not quite yet an A-lister (and now never will be), a lot was hinging on audiences' love for the IP. But it’sThe LoneRangerwhich, likeJohn Carter, is not a widely embraced franchise by this point in time. With a budget of $215 million,Rangercould only shoot up to $260 million worldwide. No sequel for this tag team.Rent on AppleTV.
1447 Ronin (2013)
Estimated Loss of $95.8 Million
47 Ronin, a modern adaptation of the classic Japanese story, features Keanu Reeves as Kai, a loner who is nonetheless adopted by a different culture. Specifically, by the Oishi samurai. And, even if the man who adopted him wasn’t Kai’s real father, he’s as anxious as his fellow (but more official) samurai to exact vengeance on the sorceress who killed him.
How Short Did It Fall?
With a production budget of at least $175 million (potentially as high as $225 million),47 Ronin’s road to profitability was as great a journey as the one faced by Keanu Reeves' Kai. And, while the film is actually gorgeous and a good bit of fun, its $152 million worldwide tally was not sufficient.Rent on Apple TV.
13Jupiter Ascending (2015)
Jupiter Ascending
Estimated Loss of $95 to $120 Million
The Wachowskis’Jupiter Ascendingis an intergalactic tale of noble titles, cat ears, and horrid dialogue. Toss in a fully unmodulated performance from Eddie Redmayne, and it’s a film that alienates far more than it embraces general audiences. This even if Channing Tatum is wearing the cat ears andMila Kunis is playingthe unappreciated member of a royal family.
Definitely NotThe Matrix
With its $175 million budget, outlandish but pretty imagery, and a bizarre February release date (not the time to put out a high-budget film, not at all),Jupiter Ascendingnever had much of a chance. But, for it to do even worse thanCloud Atlas? That’s impressive, just not in a good way.Rent on Apple TV.
12The Promise (2016)
The Promise
Estimated Loss of $92 to $102.1 Million
The Promiseis a love triangle that takes place during the tail end of the Ottoman Empire. Oscar Isaac portrays an Armenian medical student, Christian Bale portrays an American journalist, and Charlotte Le Bon stars as the film’s true soul: An Armenian-born dance instructor raised in a different country (France) who still has never forgotten her heritage.
An Immediately-Forgotten Promise
Even with Isaac and Bale on the poster,The Promisecame and went with nary a word said of it. With a preposterous $90 million budget (given how much potential fiscal appeal it had) and a limited marketing campaign,The Promisebarely got any play. And, given the subject matter, it was never going to get back $90 million from streaming agreements.Stream on Max.
11Monster Trucks (2016)
Monster Trucks
Estimated Loss of $108 to $123.1 Million
January is notoriously the dumping ground for projects that major studios have spent major money on, yet do not have major confidence in.Monster Trucksis a great example of that, and an even better example of how movies like that don’t necessarily need to be lackluster. Because, as it stands, this lighthearted story of a car-loving teen whose truck is powered by an alien squid is fairly solid Sunday afternoon diversionary fare.
Too Outlandish?
Yes,Monster Truckswas too outlandish. No matter how macro-scale accessible a film’s tone is, if the plot doesn’t appeal widely, ticket sales are going to be disappointing. And, considering the studio put $125 million intoMonster Trucksas if it was an established property likeTransformers(orG.I Joefor that matter, evenBattleship), the chance for success was really slim.Stream on Paramount+.
