Fantasy movies are generally a risky proposition. They’re often expensive to make, and they don’t always deliver at the box office. For every huge hit like “The Lord of the Rings,” there is a flop like “Dolittle.” In that case, though, we’re talking about a movie that was widely disliked by critics and didn’t stand a chance at making back its hefty budget.
In many other cases, however, great fantasy movies have flopped for reasons that had nothing to do with their perceived quality. Indeed, regardless of the genre, there are plenty of box office bombs that are truly worth a watch. Remember, the box office has always been a commercial metric rather than a judgment of quality. Still, Hollywood does tend to follow the money, so it’s always a bummer when a movie flops, seeing as it makes it that much harder for films in the same genre to get made.
Fortunately, there are also plenty of movies that have found success after bombing at the box office. It’s not the be all, end all of a film’s legacy. Still, there are quite a few fantasy movies that met an unfortunate fate when they first hit theaters and most decidedly didn’t deserve to flop, even if some of the ones we’re about to discuss have absolutely enjoyed a second life since then. So, let’s look at five movies from the particular genre that initially, but unduly, flopped upon hitting the big screen.
The Dark Crystal
Jim Henson is a legend. As the creator of “The Muppets,” he remains unmatched when it comes to using puppets for the purposes of entertaining the masses. Even so, 1982’s “The Dark Crystal” is, more than 40 years removed, largely viewed as one of his crowning achievements. It’s one of the best dark fantasy movies ever made, but the world wasn’t quite ready for it upon its initial release. All the same, it’s a treasure that deserved better when it first made its way into the world.
“The Dark Crystal” takes place on another planet in the distant past and follows a Gelfling — an elf-like being — named Jen (Henson) as he embarks on a quest to find the missing shard of a magical crystal and restore order to his home. All the while, an evil race of creatures known as the Skeksis try to stop him and retain their iron grip on their world.
When it came to Henson’s movies, there was a family-friendly expectation placed upon them, in no small thanks to “The Muppets.” So, part of the problem with “The Dark Crystal,” financially speaking, is that it wasn’t as overtly family friendly. Instead, It was basically a fantasy horror movie that was aimed at families yet was too scary for kids. Even so, it’s nothing shy of a masterwork and features some of the best practical puppetry ever put to screen, remarkable set design, and astonishing world-building.
Fortunately, the film eventually got its flowers in the form of a loyal cult fanbase and a big-budget prequel series on Netflix titled “The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance.” Be that is it may, this movie still warranted a bigger audience in its day.
Reign of Fire
Some movies just don’t get a fair shake. Maybe it’s marketing. Maybe it’s competition. Maybe it’s that it was a little ahead of (or behind) its time. In some ways, “Reign of Fire” suffered from all of the above, but for people of a certain age who were part of the DVD generation that discovered this one after it left theaters, it’s become a cult favorite. Indeed, in the eyes of those folks, this film deserved a far better fate at the box office.
Directed by Rob Bowman (“The X-Files”), “Reign of Fire” starts off in London in the early 2000s as a young boy watches an enormous fire-breathing beast emerge from its centuries-long slumber. 20 years later, the world has been decimated by these dragons. Quinn (Christian Bale) is now responsible for keeping his community safe from these beasts as they eke out a meager existence, but everything changes when an American hot shot named Van Zan (Matthew McConaughey) arrives, promising he knows how to kill these winged monsters.
More than 20 years removed, “Reign of Fire” has earned its place as one of the best movies ever made about dragons. The cast, which also includes a relatively young Gerard Butler, is outstanding. It’s not tongue-in-cheek and truly commits to its “dragons at the center of an apocalyptic monster movie” premise. With some genuinely wild set pieces and excellent creature design, it’s true blockbuster goodness.
Sadly, though, the film couldn’t justify its $60 million budget, making just $82 million at the box office. It certainly didn’t help that the movie had to open against the likes of “Men in Black II” and “Halloween: Resurrection” in theaters. But it’s certainly a film that eventually found its audience, if nothing else.
Where the Wild Things Are
Spike Jonze is many things. For some people, he’s the director behind “Being John Malkovich” and the Oscar-winning “Her.” For others, he’s one of the guys who helped make “Jackass” happen. And for others still, he’s the filmmaker who brought Maurice Sendak’s beloved children’s book “Where the Wild Things Are” to life in 2009. Taking the original short story and expanding it into a sweeping, stunning fantasy flick, Jonze’s film is a remarkable accomplishment on many levels, particularly from a visual and emotional perspective. It was also too expensive for its own good, sad to say.
The movie centers on Max (Max Records), a mischievous yet misunderstood boy who flees to the land of the Wild Things, which is filled with majestic and sometimes fierce creatures. They allow Max to become their King, and he promises to make a kingdom where everyone will be happy. However, he quickly comes to realize that’s easier said than done.
This movie had a long, complicated road to release. At one point, a video clip even leaked online to much concern, forcing Jonze to clarify that it was merely test footage for his “Where the Wild Things Are” adaptation. On top of that, the movie’s budget gradually ballooned to $100 million in the wake of some creative clashes behind the scenes. So, although the film made $100 million at the box office, it didn’t come close to justifying its blockbuster price tag.
It’s a shame, too, because, in retrospect, this is precisely the sort of bold, visionary filmmaking people claim they want, especially when it comes to adapting pre-existing material. Thankfully, time has been very kind to this movie’s deeply emotional, grandly epic, and daring look at adolescence, and its practical creature effects alone remain a cinematic marvel.
Pete’s Dragon
David Lowery is a true visionary director, having made celebrated, distinct movies such as “The Green Knight” and “The Old Man & the Gun.” As such, he’s not exactly the kind of guy who one would picture being tapped to direct a live-action Disney remake. But that’s precisely what he did in 2016 when he helmed “Pete’s Dragon,” which remains one of the very best live-action remakes the Mouse House has ever produced. Yet, while so many other live-action Disney re-imaginings have done boffo box office business over the years, this one didn’t bring in the hundreds of millions of dollars it deserved.
The movie centers on Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver who tells local children tales of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the nearby woods. His daughter, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard), believes they’re just tall tales until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the forest with a giant, friendly dragon.
Disney made more than $7 billion at the box office from remakes between 2010 and 2019. Admittedly, calling “Pete’s Dragon” a flop is a slight stretch, as it grossed $143 million in theaters against a $65 million budget. Still, it was a disappointment, especially since this movie is leagues above many of those other remakes, which often have a hard time justifying their existence creatively.
On the flip side, what Lowrey did with “Pete’s Dragon” is nothing shy of thrilling. It’s hugely emotional, looks fantastic, and has a real heart. Moreover, there’s an honesty to it and a real sense of adventure. It doesn’t just feel like storytelling driven by commerce. There’s a real, worthwhile, whimsical plot in here, and it deserved to make “Jungle Book” money, not “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” money.
Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves
To put it bluntly, the original 2000 live-action “Dungeons & Dragons” movie is garbage despite being based on the long treasure game. Yet, when filmmakers Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, of “Game Night” fame, got their hands on the material, they truly made the most of it. Armed with a whopping $150 million budget from Paramount Pictures, they turned 2023’s “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” into a hilarious, sweeping adventure, offering absolutely everything one could want from a fantasy blockbuster motion picture.
“Honor Among Thieves” centers on a charming thief named Ed (Chris Pine) and a band of unlikely adventurers as they undertake an epic heist to retrieve a lost relic. Of course, things go dangerously awry along the way when they run afoul of the wrong people.
Part of the problem is that the movie’s $150 million budget meant it needed to appeal to everyone. Hence, $205 million worldwide didn’t come close to cutting it. It had to make Marvel movie money. So, although it topped the box office in its debut against very good reviews, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” arrived and smashed the record for a video game movie the following weekend, leaving “Honor Among Thieves” in the dust. It remains a tragedy years later.
Again, if Hollywood is going to insist on turning every popular IP into a major motion picture, movies like this are truly a best case scenario. The film’s cast is diverse and wonderful, its visual effects are fantastic, it’s equal parts funny and spectacular, and it’s even inviting to viewers who aren’t familiar with the source material. Ultimately, it walks a very fine line and does so precisely. In a better world, we’d have at least one sequel to this movie already.
Leave a Reply