Budget: 100 million dollars
Studio losses: 96 million dollars
Once Eddie Murphy was synonymous with success: In the 80s, he gave us a "policeman from Beverly Hills" and "swapped in places", in the 90s - Comedy "Crane Professor" and "Dr. Dulittl", in zero - "Shrek " And then something went wrong, and Murphy's career rapidly flew to Sunzap. The first "ringing" became the "Adventures of Pluto Nash" in 2002.
It is simply a terrible movie. Cinema, which with a stretch can be called a science fiction comedy, did not like critics nor the audience (what is the rating of 5% on the Rotten Tomatoes). Critics were separated in the fluff and dust all: script, humor, acting and special effects.
All this causes only one question: what the creators of the "Adventures of Pluto Nash" spent the above hundred million mentioned above?
9. "Stealth"
Budget: 135 million dollars
Studio losses: 96 million
Nothing terrible if you are now wondering: "What kind of movie is this?"
This, dear readers, a science fiction fairy tale A la "best shooter", but 2005, stuffed by ascending stars of zero like Jessica Beel, Josh Lucas and Jamie Fox, and taxed all this producer "Furçazha" and "Three Iksa" Rob Cohen . It sounds like an average, but quite a profit action (in the end, not one of the "floors" to earn hundreds of millions in the box office, right?). The creators did not take into account only one thing: competition in the hire. As a result, Stels was bent the "uninvited guests" and the "highest pilot" and the first week of rolled in the first week.
As "Fast and Furious", only on airplanes:
8. "47 Ronins"
Budget: 175 million dollars
Studio losses: 98 million dollars
Giving such a giant amount of money to the director, who is first taken for the full way, is a very, very risky undertaking. But it was exactly what happened when Universal allocated a multimillion budget Karl Rinsh.
The movie Rinsh worked on creating advertising and, as his site says, with modern interactive technologies. They say that the project has been taken from him at the stage of installation, and commences the scenes with the film of the film Kianu Rivz "Rulley" already completely different people. However, these rearrangements at the last moment "Roninam", unfortunately, did not help - what could be an excellent samurai-adventure fantasy, became one of the most impressive cash regulations of recent years.
Duplicate trailer:
7. "Lone Ranger"
Budget: 225 million dollars
Studio losses: 98 million dollars
In 2013, this Western from Disney again united the Golden Trio - Mount Verbinski, Jerry Brookhaymer and Johnny Depp - after working on the extensive and oh-about-very profitable line of the Pirates of the Caribbean Sea. Disney money, Johnny Depp, masters of large-budget box office franchises at the helm - It would seem that it could go wrong?
And "not so" a lot went. Let's start with the fact that already at the stage of production due to a variety of problems, the film's budget constantly grow, and as a result, Disney almost refused "Lonely Ranger" at the stage of filming. And when the film still got to large screens, it was wrapped with critics and Svistan spectators.
Duplicate trailer:
With all this, in the bow, there was a modest spoon of honey: "Lone Ranger" received nominations for Oscar in the categories "The best visual effects" and "best maker".
6. "Titan: after the death of the Earth"
Budget: 90 million dollars
Studio losses: 100 million
This cartoon is a legend of how the animation division of the Fox studio tried to compete with the Animation Giants of A la Pixar and DreamWorks, and eventually collapsed 10 days after the release of "Titans: after the death of the Earth" in 2000.
In the process of creating a cartoon, many talented people were involved: the director Don Blut and Gary Goldman (which, besides a heap of other cartoons, created an "Anastasia"), Scriptures Joss Oyon (yes, the one that "Buffy" and "Avengers") And John Ogast, and voiced the characters Matt Damon, Bill Pullman and Drew Barrymore. But they were not enough to save the cartoon - the audience turned out to be, by and large, to do not care, the number of sessions against the background of the absence of visual interest was quickly cut down, and the chances of "Titan" earn at least anything left.
Fragment of a cartoon in Russian voice acting:
5. "Mystery of the Red Planet"
Budget: 150 million dollars
Studio losses: 100 million dollars
Disney should have thought better before returning to Mars and computer animation, but what came out, it came out. A year before the failed "John Carter" (about him a little later) disney allocated the material for the cartoon money for the adaptation of the book Berkeley's book. Let the reviews from the cartoon were not too bad (in comparison, for example, with not so long with the film "), the animation tape was interested in the viewers - the results of the first week of showing in the US" Mystery of the Red Planet "were not just bad, but record worst .
Duplicate trailer:
4. "Monster Tracks"
Budget: 125 million dollars
Studio losses: 115 million dollars
Children - the audience for the kineles is very profitable (after all, they drag into the cinema mom, dad, grandmother, grandfather and older brother - count how many of the tickets sold!), But at the same time very complicated. That is why most of our list of failures are films calculated on the children's and family audience. Another example is "Monster Tracks" with Lucas Tille.
Monster Tracks had to launch a new franchise from Paramount, but after the release, the film was hardly barely scored $ 10 million, and the studio had to abandon the dream from the next profitable franchise. Lucas Till also knitted with blockbusters after that and went on a small screen - to be filmed in a much more interesting TV series "McGaiver 2016".
Duplicate trailer:
3. "John Carter"
Budget: $ 263 million
Studio losses: 122 million dollars
Only 4 films are superior to this Disney science science fiction in the size of the stated budget: two parts of the Pirates of the Caribbean Sea, "Avengers: Era Altron" and the recent "league of justice".
John Carter seemed to have everything to succeed: a talented caste headed by Taylor Kitchech, Oscarone Andrew Stanton (Vall-I, "in search of Nemo") as the main producer and excellent starting material from Edgar Berrowza . But even a combination of all these factors could not save the film from the defeat criticism and the lack of the interest of the audience.
When Disney did not work out with Mars and "John Carter," they began to look for other options for Niva scientific and not very fiction - and by the end of that year bought the rights to the "Star Wars". In general, it would be better "John Carter" did not fail.
2. "Sinbad: Legend 7 Seas"
Cartoon "Sinbad: Legend 7 Seas" became very bright, albeit not in a positive sense, page in the history of animation. First, the cartoon showed that the names of even such "titans" as Brad Pitt and Michel Pfaiffer, do not guarantee cash charges on the movie factory (logical - after all, children, the main audience, the name of Brad Pitt is unlikely to say something). Secondly, having lost in the box office, "Sinbad: Legend of the 7 Seas" almost buried the animation studio DreamWorks Animation.
At the same time, the cartoon was quite high-quality and even gathered good critics reviews, but the audience was not interested in old-fashioned hand-drawn cartoons after the hype around "in search of a Nemo" from Pixar (he came out a month before Sinbad). As a result, DreamWorks Animation was in such a crisis that he completely changed the direction, refused the old methods and found his refuge in computer animation. The following cartoons of DreamWorks became "Shrek 2" and Franchise "Madagascar".
Fragment of a cartoon in Russian voice acting:
1. "King Arthur" sword "
Budget: 175 million dollars
Studio losses: 150 million dollars
Many spectators-fans Guy Richie believe that the "sword of King Arthur" failure did not deserve - yes, it could not boast of any original film, but was no worse than many other action films, which is called "at once". The problem of the "sword of King Arthur", unlike the films "at once," was in the inflated budget.
Studio Warner Bros. I allocated money without thinking - they had to make the creation of not just another "passing" blockbuster, but a film that would put the beginning of a whole franchise based on the legend of King Arthur. Unfortunately, to pull out this sword from the stone it was not forces.