The Real Reason These 2000s Disney Movies Flopped

The mid-2000s were a strange time for the Disney company. The Michael Eisner era was coming to a close, while relationships with key creatives like the artists at Pixar Animation Studios had never been more frayed. Once 2006 rolled around, Bob Iger was firmly planted as the new CEO of Disney, though even his tenure had initial growing pains. During this decade, the company also produced a massive amount of movies through its various film divisions, like Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, and Hollywood Pictures. The 2000s were no less peculiar for Disney at the box office than anything else about the company in this era. Hits like the first three "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies, "Signs," and "Finding Nemo" were around, but there were also lots of costly flops.

The biggest live-action Disney movie duds at the box office in the 2000s reflect many things, including which genres audiences weren't interested in at this point and what actors weren't major draws for moviegoers. In hindsight, many of these titles, particularly the lower-budget horror fare and R-rated action-comedies, reflect the kind of titles Disney would no longer release once the 2010s rolled around. The box office reliability of Marvel Studios and "Star Wars" movies removed any need for the likes of "Bad Company" and "Reign of Fire." These are just a few of the many takeaways from examining box office non-starters from one of Disney's most tumultuous decades — here are the company's biggest flops from the 2000s.

In 1990, with the horror-comedy "Arachnophobia," Hollywood Pictures launched as a new subdivision of Disney dedicated to producing adult-skewing fare (via Los Angeles Times). Over the years, Hollywood Pictures released several hits, including "The Sixth Sense," and built up positive long-term relationships with major figures like Jerry Bruckheimer. However, the studio also had its low points, like the 2001 comedy "Just Visiting." This wacky time-travel adventure concerned two French men (Jean Reno as Thibault and Christian Clavier as Andre) from the medieval era who wind up in then-modern day Chicago. Lots of comical misunderstandings ensue, as you might expect.

The high-concept zaniness of "Just Visiting" wasn't enough to make people turn out in droves to see this feature. "Just Visiting" only grossed $16.1 million worldwide, including a disastrous $4.7 million domestically. Part of the problem was the film's cast, which didn't feature any of the sorts of A-listers that anchor the biggest comedies. Christina Applegate, for instance, was a prominent fixture on promotional materials for "Just Visiting," but up to this point, she'd never appeared in a movie that cleared $40 million domestically. 

It didn't help that "Just Visiting's" time travel premise felt out of step with what audiences wanted out of comedies in 2001. That year's biggest comedies were "American Pie 2," "Legally Blonde," and "Rush Hour 2," all of which were grounded in reality. All of these problems ensured that one of the last Hollywood Pictures releases was a total box office dud.

In the modern world, a sizeable blockbuster starring Christian Bale and Matthew McConaughey would likely be a way bigger deal and possibly even be the must-see star-studded tentpole of a summer moviegoing season. However, things were quite different in 2002 when this pair of actors teamed up for "Reign of Fire," a movie about humans fighting back against dragons in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. 

In 2002, Bale had yet to be cast as Batman and the only live-action movie he appeared in that had cleared $50 million was "Shaft." McConaughey at least had hits like "A Time to Kill" and "Contact" under his belt, but this was still before "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" would solidify him as a surefire leading man. In other words, they were a far cry from the versions of Bale and McConaughey we know today.

At this juncture of their careers, neither Bale nor McConaughey's presence was enough to get people to come out in droves to "Reign of Fire," despite the film promising to deliver a shot of McConaughey lunging at a dragon while clutching a spear. In its worldwide run, "Reign of Fire" made only $82.1 million, the majority of which came from a lackluster $43 million haul in North America. On a $60 million budget, "Reign of Fire" failed to make a profit and ended up being a far cry from the kind of hits its leading men would anchor in the years to come.

Remember the Alamo? If you were a prospective moviegoer in April 2004, Walt Disney Pictures certainly hoped you did. The studio had a lot of money on the line for its Touchstone Pictures epic "The Alamo," which retold the famous Texas historical event with actors like Billy Bob Thornton and Dennis Quaid. Opting for such a straightforward PG-13 retelling of the battle of the Alamo was already a bad enough idea to jeopardize the box office prospects of "The Alamo." People were already familiar with this event and would need more than just a traditional retelling of it to get them into a movie theater.

It didn't help that while Thornton and Quaid had anchored critically acclaimed movies in the past, they weren't massive forces at the box office in 2004. With no huge names in its cast or an especially unique hook to lean its marketing on, nobody expected "The Alamo" to be huge. Still, few could've imagined just how bad it would wipe out at the box office. Moviegoers thoroughly rejected this $92 million budgeted title, as evidenced by its dismal $23.9 million worldwide gross. A sizeable money-loser, "The Alamo" just didn't stir up much interest from moviegoers despite being based on one of the most recognizable American historical events out there.

No matter what Hollywood does, North American audiences just do not seem to care about King Arthur or any associated Arthurian legends. Whether it's a family-friendly musical like "Quest for Camelot" or a big-budget blockbuster like "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword," the world of King Arthur is just not something that brings in big box office. The year 2004 saw an especially good example of this phenomenon with the aptly titled "King Arthur." Starring Clive Owen, Mads Mikkelsen, and Keira Knightley, director Antoine Fuqua wanted to have "King Arthur" retell the classic Arthurian legends with a dash of grimy realism.

Going this route didn't do anything to break up the box office curse that's plagued so many King Arthur adaptations. While not an absolute disaster, the feature still made only $203 million worldwide on a $90 million budget, including an abysmal $51.8 million domestically. The film's box office run, especially in North America, was impacted adversely by opening just one week after box office juggernaut "Spider-Man 2" and a week before "I, Robot." The odds were already stacked against "King Arthur," but opening it in between Spidey and Will Smith sealed its doom. Clive Owen having minimal experience headlining big box office hits up to that point didn't help matters. 

King Arthur movies don't have a good modern box office track record, but that was just the tip of the iceberg of the problems "King Arthur" faced at the box office in its 2004 theatrical release.

Rarely do studios get to go out on their terms. The financial losses that can sink a movie studio are often so sudden and unexpected that nobody can predict what will end up being the final feature released by one of these outfits. Could anyone have imagined that the saga of the legendary United Artists would conclude with "Heaven's Gate" or that "Semi-Pro" would be the last independent New Line Cinema release? Similarly, who could've predicted that "The Invisible" would conclude the nearly 20-year run of the Disney movie division Hollywood Pictures? This final feature concerned a high school student (Justin Chatwin) who wakes up one day to find that he's turned invisible. The story then follows him uncovering the disturbing secrets behind his condition.

Directed by David S. Goyer, "The Invisible" grossed just $23.5 million worldwide, the vast majority of that coming from its $20.5 million domestic run. While there are several reasons "The Invisible" was ignored by general moviegoers, it was especially hurt by opening so close to fellow April 2007 new release "Disturbia." That box office hit was the go-to thriller for teen audiences that month, "The Invisible" had no chance of competing. With this last film, Hollywood Pictures went out with a box office whimper.

In another era, perhaps "Confessions of a Shopaholic" would have hit a bullseye in appealing to the interests of general moviegoers. This adaptation of the book series "Shopaholic" by Sophie Kinsella, the film follows Becky Bloomwood (Isla Fisher), who serves as the film's titular shopaholic. Her life seems to be turning around once she takes off as an advice columnist, but her compulsive shopping habits seem poised to ruin everything. It's not a terrible premise for a cutesy romantic comedy, particularly since it snagged Isla Fisher and Hugh Dancy in the lead roles. Unfortunately, "Shopaholic" came out in February 2009, less than a year after The Great Recession officially began.

General moviegoers were now scrimping by, counting pennies, and more aware than ever of the value of a dollar. In early 2009, hits like "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" or "Taken" took off while focusing on underdog working-class protagonists. In the same period, though, "Confessions of a Shopaholic" struggled to attract moviegoers with a lead character who could afford enough lavish items to be a "shopaholic." The film also had trouble getting the attention of romantic-comedy moviegoers away from the sleeper hit "He's Just Not That Into You." With $108 million worldwide, including a meager $44.2 million North American sum, "Confessions of a Shopaholic" suffered greatly, in so many different ways, by being the wrong movie at the wrong time.