Predicting The Biggest Box Office Bombs Of 2024

What's harder than making a movie? Making a movie guaranteed to make money. Take the wild summer of 2023 for example. Despite starring Tom Cruise (whose "Top Gun: Maverick" jetted away with $1.4 billion worldwide in 2022), "Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 1" was outgrossed by a social satire about a plastic doll and a three-hour biopic about the eccentric builder of the atomic bomb. Meanwhile, the long-awaited returns of Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones and Michael Keaton as Batman straight up bombed. Who could have predicted this? Nobody — and that's the point. 

There are no sure things in Hollywood and in an age of seven-second attention spans, predicting audience tastes a year from now is a real mission impossible. Would-be bombs can become blockbusters, while surefire smashes can turn into turkeys. If we had a cinematic crystal ball we'd be billionaires. Still, there are some upcoming movies that seem destined for disaster. We're not rooting for their demise ... but we are betting on it. Sure, some of these movies may thrive on streamers, but when it comes to the silver screen, we believe they are sure to be the biggest box office bombs of 2024.

Some of the greatest comedies ever were either horror-adjacent ("Ghostbusters" and "Beetlejuice") or spooky spoofs ("Young Frankenstein" and "Scary Movie"). Still, it's a tough genre to crack — do you embrace the dark side and scare off comedy fans, or do you lean into the laughs and lose the edge that a great horror comedy needs? It's a sub-genre that has left a pile of cinematic corpses in its wake. For example, see 2022's "Renfield." Not many of you did, as the vampire comedy sucked up an anemic $26 million worldwide on an $86 million budget. Turns out "Nicolas Cage as Count Dracula" wasn't an exciting enough premise to get people out of their coffins, er, off their couches.

In 2024, we'll be getting another "classic horror character, but with comedy" in "Lisa Frankenstein." Described as a "coming of RAGE love story" (okay, that's clever) about a girl who develops a relationship with a reanimated corpse, the film was written by Oscar winner Diablo Cody, who won gold for "Juno." But more relevant here is that she penned "Jennifer's Body." While "Jennifer's Body" is a cult classic now, it underwhelmed with $31 million in 2009. Without Megan Fox at the height of her star power in the lead, we predict that "Lisa Frankenstein" may raise the dead, but it won't raise revenues.

Following decades of sequels, prequels, reboots, and remakes, we're always interested in an original premise. But there is one big challenge with original premises — the audience has to know what's going on. Blame our TikTok-addled brains, but it's critical that the marketing makes sense for a movie to make money. Frankly, the upcoming "Argylle" has us scratching our heads. At first glance, it's similar to "Romancing The Stone" or "The Lost City," with a shy, mousy spy novelist, Elly Conway (Bryce Dallas Howard), getting tossed into a real-world tale of espionage. Okay, we're there so far. 

Concurrently, the movie also follows the titular Argylle (Henry Cavill with a Bart Simpson haircut), Conway's superstar sleuth, who — so far as we can tell — is real in his story, but still a fictional character in Conway's story. Or maybe not? This is the kind of premise that depends on a star cast to sell it and admittedly this one is packed. That said, Cavill's last name-above-the-title spy movie, 2014's "The Man From U.N.C.L.E.," was so sneaky that it came and went with only $105 million worldwide on a $75 million budget. Like "Red Notice" or "Extraction," we think "Argylle" has a license to kill on a streamer, but as a movie that people leave home and pay money to see? There's no disguising it: "Argylle" is a turkey.

Why will "Kraven The Hunter" bomb? One word: "Morbius." The Spider-Man spin-off launched with a dismal $39 million opening, and only mustered a wimpy $162 million worldwide on a $75 million budget. It may have made a little money, but not enough to justify its existence and certainly not enough to justify "Kraven The Hunter." 

"Kraven" stars Aaron-Taylor Johnson as Russian big game hunter Sergei Kravanoff, who is left for dead by his father (Russell Crowe) after being mauled by a lion "because he's weak like his mother." Okay, boomer. After some comic book science where Kravanoff's blood mixes with the lion's (maybe it was a radioactive lion?), plus some "insert magic here," he is transformed into basically Aquaman, but with terrestrial animals. (LandMan? AniMan?)

While watching Crowe cash a check for chewing scenery like a lioness munching a gazelle may be worth a matinee ticket price, "Kraven" won't be mounting many trophies on its wall. For starters, there's Johnson, who has experience playing superheroes (Kick-Ass, Quicksilver), but is not exactly a superstar. Meanwhile, superhero fatigue is hitting harder than your mid-thirties, as both popular characters ("The Flash") and movie stars (Dwayne Johnson in "Black Adam") aren't immune. This has already been delayed by almost a year — can we go for two?

Jason Statham used to be a sure box office bet in the action genre, but now his movies need a giant prehistoric shark and the People's Republic of China to make money. Heck, the genre itself isn't what it used to be, as moviegoers are more interested in seeing Taylor Swift shake it off in concert films than Statham shootin' stuff up in action movies. Statham's most recent movie — not co-starring a megalodon or Vin Diesel driving muscle cars and brooding about "family" — was "Expendables 4," which bombed with a $50 million haul on a $100 million budget. Now he's following it up with "The Beekeeper." 

Before you get too excited, no, Statham will not be fighting a plague of mutant bees while spouting one-liners like "Feel my sting!" If that were the case, this movie wouldn't be on our list. Instead, Statham plays a retired government operative seeking vengeance against his former secret outfit known as ... you guessed it ... The Beekeepers. Groan. With a silly name, a tired premise, and Statham phoning it in by blowing stuff up, we predict the box office grosses for "The Beekeeper" will be anything but honey.

With $8.9 billion in the bank worldwide across 10 films (averaging $814 million), Spider-Man is about as close to a sure thing as you're going to get at the box office. But his Amazing Friends? Not so much. Sure, there's Venom, whose two movies have made $1.3 billion worldwide, averaging $678 million, on bargain budgets of less than $120 million apiece. But that's Venom, one of the most popular super villains ever. Seriously, you couldn't go to the mall in the '90s without seeing someone in a Venom shirt from Hot Topic. 

As far as non-Venom villains of the world's favorite wallcrawler, there's "Morbius," which earned less worldwide ($162 million) than either Venom movie did domestically. We predict "Kraven The Hunter" will follow that trend, and "Madame Web" will fare no better. Dakota Johnson stars as Cassandra Webb (of course that's her name), the titular Madame Web, whose psychic powers give her the ability to see within the "spider world." That must make EDM concerts pretty wild. Sydney Sweeney co-stars as Spider-Woman, presumably joining Madame Web in spinning webs and smashing the patriarchy. We're not sure who the audience for this movie is, but we're predicting it'll be small, as all these unnecessary Spidey spin-offs have us pining for the once-rumored Aunt May movie.

Saying that the MCU is DOA is the new hot thing online. But whispers in the recesses of Reddit have made their way to the cover of Variety. Wondering if Marvel has lost its mojo has gone mainstream, so predicting that "Thunderbolts" will bomb may not seem like a hot take with a Human Torch level of scorch, but remember, this is Marvel. The franchise with $29 billion in worldwide box office revenues. The franchise that doubled the take of its closest competition, "Star Wars." The franchise that made a billion-dollar trilogy starring a talking raccoon. And yet the sheen has fallen off the shield. 

Blame it on too much content, or declining quality, or alienating fans and eliminating their favorites. Or simply comic book fatigue. Everybody's got an opinion, but based on the current trajectory, we predict 2024's "Thunderbolts" may be their first gigantic bomb. 

Sure, they've had underperformers and even money losers ("The Incredible Hulk," "Eternals," "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania"), but "Thunderbolts" could be the biggest bomb of all. Like, a bomb on the level of "The Flash." A "call Robert Downey Jr." or "we need to reboot this franchise"-sized dud. Its story, about a supervillain team that works for the government, sounds like a tired retread of DC's "The Suicide Squad" — hardly a good comparison, as that flick flat-out failed to match its budget. We may be wrong, but after "Thunderbolts," don't be surprised if Iron Man flies in to save the day.

Thanks to "Yellowstone," Kevin Costner went from being one of the biggest movie stars of the 1990s to one of the biggest TV stars right now. You'd think he'd want to keep riding that gravy train, but the lure of the silver screen is too much. In 2024, Costner will return to the director's chair for the first time in 21 years, acting in and directing the two-part epic "Horizon: An American Saga." So we predict he won't have just one bomb, but two.

Sure, the promotion will highlight the fact Costner directed 1990's "Dances With Wolves," while neglecting to mention that 2003's "Open Range" did so-so with $68 million, while 1997's "The Postman" collapsed with $20.8 million. Couple that with "Waterworld" drowning in 1996, and you can see why Costner's big-screen career never recovered. Will he leverage his role as the patriarch of TV's Dutton clan into a cinematic comeback? Doubtful.

While we don't know the exact budget, we do know Costner ponied up $20 million of his own money to help fund his dream project, which he's wanted to do since 1988. So "Horizon" is probably (too) expensive and/or he's having trouble finding financiers. Plus, with Costner's well-publicized split from "Yellowstone," why would "Yellowstone" fans support his vanity project, when he won't support their favorite show? 

"The Bricklayer" is scheduled for a day-and-date release, meaning it will likely be released in theaters and via streaming VOD at the same time. This is clearly not a movie that's looking to break records in theaters, or even make back its budget. So at least they're keeping the expectations in check. 

Based on the novel of the same name by former FBI agent Paul Lindsay (pen name Noah Boyd), "The Bricklayer" stars Aaron Eckhart as a rebellious former FBI operative who comes out of retirement to stop some bad guys. We dig Eckhart, but we might be the only ones, as his box office is pretty weak when you take out "The Dark Knight" and the "__ Has Fallen" franchise. Meanwhile, "The Bricklayer" is directed by Renny Harlin, who had a moment as an A-list action director in the early 1990s ("Die Hard 2" and "Cliffhanger") before "Cutthroat Island" sank like a stone. Given its lack of box office bona fides, we expect "The Bricklayer" to lay an egg.

There's an old saying that you should never talk about religion or politics in polite conversation. But that old saying never mentioned making a satire about them. Then again, that may be because it's just understood that religion and comedy don't really mix ... at least not if you want your movie to make money. Writer-director Jeymes Samuel will test that hypothesis with the upcoming "The Book of Clarence." 

LaKeith Stanfield stars as the titular Clarence, a down-on-his-luck dude under Roman rule in 1st century Jerusalem. Following the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, Clarence decides to go into the blasphemy business for his own selfish benefit, preaching platitudes and staging miracles straight out of a televangelist Sunday special. 

There aren't many comps, but 1999's "Dogma" springs to mind, whose worldwide take of $43 million on a $10 million budget won converts, but didn't exactly overflow the collection plate. And that was with the support of Kevin Smith stans, plus the post-"Good Will Hunting" angelic glow of Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. While "The Book of Clarence" may become a classic comedy condemning celebrity culture straight out of the "Monty Python's Life of Brian" playbook, we don't expect the film to earn earthly rewards.

While "Mickey 17" sounds like the latest film in a Mickey Mouse franchise we didn't know existed, it's actually an original sci-fi feature — and those have a mixed box office record at best. "Mickey 17" is the first film from Korean director Bong Joon-ho following his Oscar-winning "Parasite" and a return to his sci-fi roots. In the film, Robert Pattinson plays an expendable explorer who is sent to colonize the ice planet of Nifheim. Luckily for him (we guess?), whenever he's killed, a new version of himself is regenerated. So it's basically Bong Joon-ho's own "Snowpiercer" crossed with "Edge of Tomorrow." 

We're excited for anything Bong Joon-ho does, and this does sound interesting, but remember that "Snowpiercer" only made $4 million domestically (it was saved overseas) in 2013. For a more recent comparison, there's 2023's "The Creator," whose $98 million worldwide won't make anywhere near a profit on even its super-tight $80 million budget. Original, high-concept sci-fi is a tough play, with basically "Avatar" and Christopher Nolan movies making all the money. Given that sci-fi is usually about predicting the future, we're predicting "Mickey 17" will fail to impress at the box office.

Death, taxes, and sequels to old action movies are the three things you can always count on. Normally, we'd be okay with the last one, but even we're left wondering — do we really need another "Alien" movie? At least "Alien: Romulus" is an original — well, as original as the ninth film in a franchise can be. "Alien: Romulus" is said to be a standalone film unconnected to the previous entries (minus the presence of xenomorphs, we assume), based on an original pitch by director Fede Álvarez. Álvarez directed 2013's "Evil Dead," which was better than it had any right to be, and shows he has horror bona fides. 

Creatively, the "Alien" franchise has been hit or miss since the one-two punch of Ridley Scott's "Alien" in 1979 and James Cameron's "Aliens" in 1986. Its creative mediocrity has hit the series where it hurts, the box office, with "Alien: Covenant" making 41% less than "Prometheus" ($238 million versus $402 million). While the film was originally destined for Hulu, a la the "Predator" prequel "Prey," 20th Century Studios switched gears and is giving it a theatrical release. We're not saying that releasing "Alien: Romulus" in theaters is a bad idea, as it's a way to build credibility for streaming and make some extra cash. But based on the series' downward slide, we just don't see "Alien: Romulus" getting anywhere near the franchise's '70s and '80s heydays.

"Mad Max: Fury Road" is rightly considered one of the greatest action movies, well, ever. It's rare that an action movie gets nominated for Academy Awards, let alone 10 — including Best Picture — but "Mad Max: Fury Road" was a rare movie. Still, it's worth remembering that the 2015 film only earned $369 million worldwide on a $150 million budget — not exactly "The Avengers." Plus it was a sequel to a cult franchise. An Indiana Jones movie this was not (and given the lukewarm performance of "Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny," not even that means much anymore). 

Now, nearly a decade later, we'll be treated to a "Mad Max: Fury Road" prequel ... but without Mad Max. Instead, "Furiosa" will be about the bald-headed, one-armed, take-no-prisoners baddie played by Charlize Theron ... only without Charlize Theron. Anya Taylor-Joy will take the reins of Imperator Furiosa, with Chris Hemsworth playing the "before he was famous" warlord, Immortan Joe. 

With series creator and OG Aussie auteur George Miller behind the camera, we fully expect "Furiosa" to melt our faces off. But we're talking about the movie's box office, not its quality. We just don't think there's a blockbuster-sized audience for a nine-years-later prequel about a supporting character without the original actor in the role, especially when the franchise was never that big to begin with. Sure, we'll be there on opening night, but we may be one of the only ones.

The only thing more destructive than a tornado is the "memberberries" that have ravaged summer movie season with the sweet nectar of nostalgia. In fact, the last decade that didn't rely exclusively on "Here's more of that thing you liked!" was probably the '90s. Don't get us wrong: The '90s had a ton of sequels, but there was still room for originals. So, naturally, Hollywood's making a sequel to a '90s movie. Enter "Twisters," which will come out nearly 30 years after "Twister." Hey, Hollywood, tell us you're running out of ideas without saying you're running out of ideas. 

Yes, "Twister" earned an exceptional $495 million worldwide on an $88 million budget ... but that was in 1996, literally four Presidents ago. While many "legacy sequels" have made money — and some have even been good — we're betting "Twisters" will be more "Independence Day: Resurgence" and less "Top Gun: Maverick." For starters, there are no original stars (RIP Bill Paxton and Philip Seymour Hoffman) to effectively ground the movie in nostalgia. There's also zero reason for "Twisters" to exist besides "make money," which is the problem. 

Gen X and Millennial "Twister" lovers see this for the shameless, soulless cash grab it is, while Gen Zers have no connection to this would-be franchise in the first place. Ironically, the studio would have been better off skipping a sequel and just making an original "weather run amok" movie ... but keep the flying cows.

Is "The Lord of The Rings" a popular media franchise — or is it Peter Jackson's trilogy that is popular? Guess we'll find out next year when Warner Brothers releases "The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim." The trend lines don't look good. Amazon invested more than half a billion dollars in "The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power," making it the most expensive TV series ever — and a massive flop, with only 37% of viewers bothering to finish it. "The Rings of Power" was unaffiliated with Jackson's trilogy, and seemingly with Tolkien's books, as lifelong fans cast it into the fire after the showrunners went Sauron on the source material and created a generic fantasy series. Who knew ticking off Tolkien fans was a bad call? 

"The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim" probably won't make the same mistake, but fairly or not, the damage has already been done. "Rohirrim" is semi-connected to the original trilogy, with Philippa Boyens consulting and Miranda Otto returning as Eowyn's voice. However, "Rohirrim" will be an anime, which sounds cool, but will almost certainly lead to general audience confusion. Frankly, there's also the "is this really necessary?" factor. "Rohirrim" takes place two centuries before Jackson's movies, and is about the founding of the iconic fortress, Helm's Deep, from "The Two Towers." Sounds like a premise better served for streaming, as we're predicting Mount Doom for this prequel.

After four decades, numerous Academy Awards, and several masterpieces, the Coen Brothers are seeing other people. Must make Thanksgiving awkward. Older brother Joel went in a completely unexpected direction with 2021's tragically underseen "The Tragedy of Macbeth." Now, baby brother Ethan is directing "Drive-Away Dolls," a screwball comedy thriller that seems right at home alongside the Coen's oeuvre. However, the "Is it a drama? Is it a comedy? Yes!" sub-genre may make a compelling movie, but it's not a very enticing selling proposition. 

Sure, we adore all-time greats like "Raising Arizona," "Fargo," and "The Big Lebowski," but none of them set the box office on fire. Meanwhile, more recent pics like "Burn After Reading" and "Hail, Caesar!", as well as Coen comps like "Suburbicon" and "Downsizing," straight up bombed. And those movies had stars! "Drive-Away Dolls" doesn't, at least not in leading roles. The film follows Margaret Qualley as a free-spirited ne'er-do-well and Geraldine Viswanathan as her mousy friend, as they go on a raucous road trip that's broken up by a group of bungling bad guys. So yeah, sounds straight out of the Coen Brothers' playbook (minus one brother), and should be good. But when it comes to actually making money, it seems likely that "Drive-Away Dolls" will crash and burn.

"John Wick" is the rare series that's actually made more money with each sequel. In fact, the $432 million box office haul of the fourth film made in 2023 is almost five times the $87 million that the original made in 2012. That kind of growth is almost unheard of in modern Hollywood and pretty much demands a sequel, as it should. Frankly, we have zero issues with Lionsgate making "John Wick: Chapter Whatever" follow-ups until Keanu Reeves registers for Social Security. But that's the rub: Keanu Reeves is only one man. So, realizing this conundrum, Lionsgate is attempting to create a John Wick cinematic universe ... but without John Wick. 

First, there was the three-part limited prequel series, "The Continental: From the World of John Wick" on Peacock. Next, there's the spin-off "Ballerina," set between "John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum" and "John Wick: Chapter 4," which twists into theaters in 2024. Call us crazy, but it's not the JWU (John Wick Universe) that moviegoers love — it's Keanu Reeves that people can't seem to get enough of. When you remove the star from the franchise, you get the Vin Diesel-less "XXX: State of the Union" and the Matt Damon-less "The Bourne Legacy." If you need a reminder, sequels without original cast members don't tend to do well. We're sure Ana de Armas will be en pointe as the titular, pistol-pirouetting "Ballerina," we just don't think the movie will make money. Hopefully, the studio has Keanu Reeves on speed dial.

"Mean Girls" may be more popular now than it was in 2004. Now that "Mean Girls" has almost hit the big 2-0, the OG has reached "I'm a cool mom" status, as you can't log onto social media on October 3rd without being hit with a million memes. So, while we're usually skeptical about decades-later legacy sequels, we 100% think that a "Mean Girls" follow-up ("Mean Women?" "Mean Moms?") would be so fetch. Bring back Lindsay Lohan, Rachel McAdams, Amanda Seyfried, and crew, release the movie on Thursday, October 3, 2024, and make all the money (you're welcome, Hollywood). But that's not what's happening. No, instead they're making a remake. Sort of. 

"Mean Girls" (2024) is a musical based on the Broadway show, "Mean Girls: The Musical," but is misleadingly not being marketed as a musical. Why? Probably because many contemporary musicals are buried six feet under in the cinematic cemetery. But tricking your audience is never a smart play, as moviegoers are eventually going to figure out it's a musical, right? So, the studio is asking fans who love the original to watch a remake that's essentially unchanged plot-wise, only this time with music (which the studio is trying to hide) and without most of the cast they love. Yeah, nothing about this makes sense. We think "Mean Girls" will be more cringe than Amy Poehler playing a pink, Juicy sweatpants-wearing Mrs. George.