To quote a popular Panic! At The Disco song, Universal Pictures once had “high, high hopes” for “47 Ronin.” After all, the studio handed the project a massive $170 million budget and made sure “The Matrix” and “Speed” star Keanu Reeves headlined the picture. Eventually, all that potential was consumed by a deluge of chaos. By the time extensive and costly reshoots were conducted for the project, it was clear that “47 Ronin” was a uniquely troubled affair. Its struggles extended to finding it a proper release date, with the movie eventually securing a Christmas 2013 launchpad after jumping in and out of various spots on the 2012 and 2013 calendars. 

The hope was that the yuletide season could bolster the box office prospects for “47 Ronin” and help this excessively expensive feature turn a profit. But such salvation never came: Domestically, “47 Ronin” only grossed a dreary $38.36 million. Audiences seeking out fantasy cinema over 2013’s holiday season opted for “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” and “Frozen” instead of this samurai epic. A worldwide haul of only $151.7 million made it clear that international audiences were no more interested in the film than North American moviegoers.

With allegations that “47 Ronin” lost as much as $175 million for Universal, this once much-hyped, would-be tentpole became an overpriced embarrassment for all involved. At least Reeves would soon get a major career comeback when a little movie called “John Wick” hit theaters 10 months after “47 Ronin” flopped.

For three out of four Decembers from 2006 to 2009, 20th Century Fox ruled the box office with family movie hits like “Night at the Museum” and the first two “Alvin and the Chipmunk” adventures. The studio was clearly hoping that it could keep the financial hot streak going in December 2010, not only with “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader,” but especially the Jack Black comedy “Gulliver’s Travels.” Having Ben Stiller interact with CG museum exhibits in “Night at the Museum” turned into a license to print money, so surely Black yukking it up with an island full of tiny people could be similarly lucrative.

“Night at the Museum,” though, played on universal curiosity about what happens in museums when you’re not looking, while “Chipmunks” had nostalgia to lean on. “Gulliver’s Travels” was way more inexplicable, even compared to other kids’ movies of the era. Why did an adaptation of a 1726 novel involve a CG robot or iPhone and Kiss references? Combine all that with intense competition in late 2010, from “Tangled” and “Yogi Bear,” and it’s no wonder “Gulliver’s Travels” flopped. Grossing only $42.77 million domestically, it didn’t come close to matching the box office hauls of “Museum” or the first two “Chipmunk” films, even with digital 3D ticket prices. 

Grossing only $232 million worldwide, “Gulliver’s Travels” brought an end to 20th Century Fox’s Christmastime box office hot streak. Maybe crooning “Lava Chicken” a few times could have saved it?

Christian Bale is a wildly acclaimed actor whose penchant for dramatic physical transformations in his performances and embracing a wide array of genres — from “Newsies” to “Thor: Love and Thunder” and everything in between — has garnered him a massive fanbase. As a box office draw, though, Bale’s got a mixed track record when he’s not playing Batman. He’s only appeared in three live-action, non-superhero movies that have grossed $100+ million domestically, and one of those was a “Terminator” sequel. Several of his adult dramas, like “The Fighter” and “The Big Short,” did do great business nonetheless, but he also didn’t stop titles like “The Promise” or “Vice” from becoming flops.

An unfortunately vivid reminder of Bale’s limited pull as a standalone box office draw came when he played Moses for director Ridley Scott in 2014’s “Exodus: Gods and Kings.” Though released close to Christmastime and given a massive marketing campaign, this Biblical drama only grossed $65 million domestically and $268.3 million worldwide on a lofty $140 million budget. Bale couldn’t lift this movie out of the financial gutter, but he certainly wasn’t the reason it flopped. The big issue was simply that the tale of Moses had already been done so many times on the big screen before.

A grim, big-budget rendition of the saga didn’t hold much innate interest for audiences, thus “Exodus: Gods and Kings” went down as a mighty flop and another weird underperformer in Bale’s career.

The biggest movie remake box office bombs ever are a stark reminder to Hollywood that a familiar brand name does not a smash hit make. People will show up for some big screen nostalgia when animated ’90s Disney movies are turned into live-action properties, but otherwise, remakes are often ignored by the general populace. Case in point: 2015’s “Point Break” redo, which was especially befuddling as far as remakes go. The original “Point Break” is a classic and one of director Kathryn Bigelow’s high points as an artist. Was anyone clamoring for a revisit? It especially seemed doubtful that anyone wanted a rehash drained of color and executed with such a pervasively grim tone.

Despite these looming questions, Alcon Entertainment and Warner Bros. gave the world a “Point Break” remake on December 25, 2025. It proceeded to gross only $28.78 million in North America, a dreadful performance for a major wide release opening on one of the biggest holidays of the year. Another $105 million overseas brought it to just $133.78 million worldwide, an abysmal haul for this $105 million-budgeted film. Even beyond pointlessly retreading the “Point Break” brand name, this redo also lacked any super famous actors (instead leaning on folks like Luke Bracey) that could have made the film work as a standalone action vehicle. 

Throw in disastrous reviews, and it’s no wonder 2015’s “Point Break” flopped despite its high-profile release date. Its failure exemplifies the perils of pursuing remakes simply for monetary reasons.

In December 2017, a year before its eventual release, a teaser trailer was released for the Peter Jackson-produced and co-written fantasy epic “Mortal Engines.” With the teaser running in front of behemoths like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” kicking off the “Mortal Engines” promotional campaign so far in advance was a sign that Universal had supreme confidence in the movie. “Engines” was even going out in the same Christmastime release date slot that Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings,” “Hobbit,” and “King Kong” movies had excelled in. But neither that track record nor such a lengthy marketing push could help “Mortal Engines” avoid an embarrassing box office fate once it landed into theaters on December 14, 2018.

After opening to only $7.55 million domestically and then tumbling 77% in its second weekend of release, “Mortal Engines” was already forgotten by most moviegoers once December 25th rolled around. There were so many other actual blockbusters opening over Christmas 2018 (including “Aquaman,” “Bumblebee,” and “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse”) that this oddball fantasy never stood a chance.  Ironically, Jackson’s World War I documentary “They Shall Not Grow Old,” released around the same time as “Mortal Engines,” did noticeably better in North America.

Then again, it wasn’t like “Engines” left a tremendously high bar to clear with its $15.95 million domestic total and $85.48 million worldwide gross. Any hopes for this starting a franchise immediately went out the window, and that year-long marketing campaign ended up being for nought.

Michael Fassbender’s best movies encapsulate how much range and prowess he has as a performer. However, no matter how much Hollywood tried in the 2010s, Fassbender — despite his conventionally attractive looks and gravitas — could never become a lucrative leading man. Titles like “The Snowman” and “The Counselor,” which leaned heavily on his face being on the poster, were tremendous flops. 2020s entries like “Black Bag” and “Next Goal Wins” haven’t fared much better financially either. But one of his most notable box office misfires was something significantly more mainstream, “Assassin’s Creed.” Hitting theaters just four days before Christmas 2016, “Creed” was intended to turn its video game source material into a theatrical phenomenon.

That never happened. Costing $125 million to make, “Creed” never emerged from the shadow of “Rogue One,” which opened in theaters five days earlier. Audiences were more enamored with Jyn Erso or the first “Moana” than seeing whether “Assassin’s Creed” worked as a live-action adventure, and the film cratered at the box office with only $54.64 million domestically and $240.75 million worldwide. Fassbender’s lack of star power didn’t help, but the biggest problem plaguing “Creed” was that its dreary marketing and reviews didn’t make the film appeal to the general public.

Rather than a long-awaited must-see adaptation of a beloved game, “Assassin’s Creed” just looked like another generic action movie. It’s doubtful any movie star, let alone Michael Fassbender, could have saved this feature from its financial tailspin.

There’s always room for darker movies in the Christmastime cinema landscape. However, it has to be the right kind of dark, adult-oriented entertainment. Typically, the best yuletide counterprogramming is either fun or enjoyably anarchic R-rated mayhem. Take the legendary teaser trailer for “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” announcing itself as “the feel-bad movie of Christmas” alongside a rocking Led Zeppelin cover. “The Wolf of Wall Street,” meanwhile, emphasized outsized debauchery in its promotional materials, while “Uncut Gems” promised relentless and darkly comedic anxiety in its trailers. 

Ron Howard’s “In the Heart of the Sea,” meanwhile, looked more dreary than anything else with its story of sailors getting capsized by a whale (in a saga that inspired Herman Melville’s “Moby-Dick”). That didn’t seem as entertaining or fun as watching Jordan Belfort squirm to his car high on quaaludes or Howard Ratner promising mobsters he’s “never resurfaced anything,” let alone his swimming pool. Plus, both the PG-13 rating and Ron Howard being in the director’s chair ensured that “In the Heart of the Sea” wouldn’t deliver truly gnarly shock value (like the kind in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) for folks seeking something different over the holidays.

Despite costing $100 million to make, 2015’s “In the Heart of the Sea” only grossed $94.32 million worldwide, just $25 million of which came from North America. One of many Chris Hemsworth movies that bombed at the box office, “In the Heart of the Sea” exemplified how not to do darker Christmastime fare.

On paper, a legacy sequel like “The Matrix Resurrections” should have been another hit in the mold of “Creed” and “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.” After all, “The Matrix” remains massively popular, while Keanu Reeves had been on a financial hot streak just before “Resurrections” thanks to the “John Wick” movies. Unfortunately, this costly dud, which opened just three days before Christmas 2021, was a tremendous flop in its theatrical run. Nobody could have imagined that a “Matrix” legacy sequel would only make $40.46 million domestically, a fraction of what its predecessors made. And with only $119.7 million overseas, “Resurrections” could only amass $160.16 million worldwide. 

Back in 2003, the first “Matrix” sequel, “The Matrix Reloaded,” was a tremendous hit. However, six months later, “The Matrix Revolutions” made noticeably less than either “Reloaded” or the original “Matrix.” Even back then, the bloom was a bit off the rose in terms of how much pull “Matrix” sequels had at the box office. Waiting 18 years to follow up on this franchise only reinforced that truth. “The Matrix Resurrections” also had to contend with other problems, like a simultaneous launch on HBO Max and especially “Spider-Man: No Way Home” debuting five days before its premiere.

Audiences opted for Spidey when it came to a Christmas 2021 blockbuster mining early 2000s nostalgia. Costing $190 million to make, “The Matrix Resurrections,” despite its audacious creative instincts and prime holiday season release, was a gargantuan box office misfire.

There wasn’t a universe where “Kraven the Hunter” would be successful. Even after “Venom” became a box office sensation because of both that film’s campier elements and the alien symbiote’s long-standing massive fanbase, there was just no possible way in which a solo film focusing on this particular Spider-Man villain was going to be lucrative. That was especially true given that “Kraven the Hunter” followed up other derided Sony/Marvel bombs like “Morbius” and “Madame Web,” not to mention that “Kraven” succumbed to any number of tedious flaws plaguing so many other comics-based origin stories. 

Still, Sony/Columbia Pictures, after shuffling the film around many different release slots in 2023 and 2024, eventually announced that this project would debut on December 13, 2024. That would normally be a confident move, suggesting that “Kraven” could break out as a holiday season action film. However, not even the cushiest December date could save this comic book movie. “Kraven the Hunter” bombed spectacularly at the box office, with a worldwide gross of only $62 million, only $25 million of which was pried from North American audiences. Costing noticeably more to make than either “Madame Web” or “Morbius,” “Kraven” eventually secured a domestic finish shockingly similar to the North American haul of 2020’s “The New Mutants.” 

Surprising nobody, audiences weren’t interested in a solo Kraven the Hunter movie, especially one where he didn’t dress like himself until the final scene or failed to fight Spider-Man. No matter its release date, “Kraven the Hunter” was doomed to become a tremendous flop.

Thanks to those initial “Harry Potter” and “The Lord of the Rings” installments, the early 2000s were a boon period for fantasy movies. Hollywood scrambled to get more movies made in this genre ASAP to try and get even a fraction of the box office glory of those franchises. However, as the likes of “Eragon” and 2004’s “King Arthur” can attest, it took more than swords or dragons to instantly secure box office numbers on par with “The Fellowship of the Ring.” Another of these early 2000s fantasy movies to miss the mark in its theatrical run was a 2003 take on “Peter Pan” that featured Jason Isaacs as Captain Hook.

Released on Christmas Day 2003, this $100 million-budgeted adaptation only grossed $48.4 million domestically and $95.25 million worldwide. Part of the issue was that it got overshadowed as the must-see holiday season 2003 family movie by the less expensive comedy, “Cheaper by the Dozen.” It didn’t help that “The Return of the King” was also playing at the same time and dominating the fantasy cinema conversation. The other problem is that modern “Peter Pan” film adaptations have a clear ceiling for how high they can go at the box office. 

If Steven Spielberg’s star-studded “Hook” could only reach $119.65 million in 1991, this particular “Peter Pan” incarnation was always going to struggle. “Peter Pan” exemplified how the towering “Harry Potter” and “Lord of the Rings” wave didn’t lift all fantasy movie ships at the box office.