What movie had the most disappointing box office run of 2010?
on Monday, January 17, 2011
Last week, we pondered the films that did well at the 2010 box office. This week, let's focus on the other end of the spectrum—the films that disappointed.
There was no shortage of financial (or critical) disasters last year. Loads of movies with absurdly high budgets failed to bring audiences into the theaters. Some movies—like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World ($32M), Jonah Hex ($10M), and TRON: Legacy ($156M, which could be perceived as a hit...)—relied too much on geek culture and online buzz. Others—like Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief ($88M), Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time ($90M), and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader ($99M)—offended audiences by proving to be poor adaptations of their source material and having waaaaaaaaaaay too long of titles. And then some films—like Green Zone ($35M), Robin Hood ($105M), The Last Airbender ($131M), How Do You Know ($29M), and The Wolfman ($62M)—just didn't click with audiences and failed to earn back their massive budgets.
But now the question goes to you: What movie do you think had the most disappointing box office run of 2010? Vote in the poll below, and then sound off in the comments!
There was no shortage of financial (or critical) disasters last year. Loads of movies with absurdly high budgets failed to bring audiences into the theaters. Some movies—like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World ($32M), Jonah Hex ($10M), and TRON: Legacy ($156M, which could be perceived as a hit...)—relied too much on geek culture and online buzz. Others—like Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief ($88M), Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time ($90M), and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader ($99M)—offended audiences by proving to be poor adaptations of their source material and having waaaaaaaaaaay too long of titles. And then some films—like Green Zone ($35M), Robin Hood ($105M), The Last Airbender ($131M), How Do You Know ($29M), and The Wolfman ($62M)—just didn't click with audiences and failed to earn back their massive budgets.
But now the question goes to you: What movie do you think had the most disappointing box office run of 2010? Vote in the poll below, and then sound off in the comments!





5 comments:
I went with Scott Pilgrim if only because it's actually a really great movie that just didn't catch on. It's more disappointing to see a great movie like that fail than to see something like Johna Hex. Having said that, other than Faster and The Green Zone I went see all of these.
I wasn't surprised that Scott Pilgrim didn't succeed—it was way too geeky and visually out there for most audiences. Plus (and don't hate me for saying this), it didn't really have any emotional resonance that would make people recommend it for anything other than its style.
I think Green Zone or The Wolfman are on the bottom for me. WAY too high of budgets. They lost a lot for Universal.
Faster - whats that? Green Zone - whats that? How do you know? three worst movie titles this year, too.
Scott Pilgrim for the same reason Jordan Stacey stated.
It was my number 2 film of 2010 below Black swan and above The Social Network and it deserved more.
And I'd also like include write in candidate Tangled. Way too high of a budget.
shrek was pretty disappointing to me considering the previous entries.
Post a Comment