Right off the bat, let's just get this out of the way. We have nothing against any of the films in this list. Especially Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. But it's going to have to throw one heck of a Hail Mary pass to break even at the box office. Movies have always been big business. Budgets have continued to increase since Thomas Edison's Black Maria started churning out films in the late 1800s. As anybody in the industry will tell you, this is generally a business where you have to spend money to make money. And bobs are inevitable.
And that axiom has never been more prescient than it is in today's film world. Movies routinely cost upwards of $100 million dollars. The budgets have been so out of control that in order to reign in costs, very rich actors have lowered their fees only to make more money on the profit end of the films they are in. Heck, it even reached a point where Steven Spielberg himself heard "no" for awhile.
It used to be that big name actors and actresses could guarantee money at the box office. This is no longer the case. So, with that in mind, studios have gone back to relying on spectacle to bring in viewers. This is great when it works, but when it doesn't, people lose their jobs and balance sheets bleed red.
So why are we at MovieWeb giving you a snooze worthy, stock market look at motion pictures? Because as distinguished as 2016 is, there are some movies that could be this years Heaven's Gate. We know that there is always a chance that a film might tank, but it seems like the deck is significantly weighted to have potentially the most bombs since World War II.
Don't get us wrong, we want the films on our "11 Biggest Potential Bombs of 2016" to succeed. We are not really judging the artistic nature of the films in this expose. What we are doing is taking a hard look at the economics of the movie business, and wondering just how the heck the numbers can add up.
With a budget of $250 million ($400 million after all promotional costs are factored in) it seems that this movie has to make upwards of $1 billion not to be a bomb. Can this new tale in Zack Snyder's Superman oeuvre make that kinda book? Sure, it can. 'Will it?' Is another question. In this new installment, mankind faces a new threat as Batman (Ben Affleck) embarks on a personal vendetta against Superman (Henry Cavill). With a run time of 151 minutes, the thought is that maybe this film will be more cerebral than CGI. This is good for the fans, but maybe not so good for Warner Bros.
Alright, with a price tag of $154 million, this movie needs to be something of a boffo hit. Sure, the original film made the bean counters happy, but something tells us those same counters weren't as jovial when Ghostbusters 2 came along. Anybody reading this article knows what Ghostbusters is and if you don't, they are keeping the plot so under wraps, by the time you figured it out, you'd probably be better off going to see the movie. Basically, in the original film, three men (Bill Murray, Harold Ramis and Dan Akroyd) start a company that looks into paranormal occurrences. In this reboot, the men are now women (headlined by Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy), and they do the exact same thing only the effects (which weren't bad in the 1980s) are leaps and bounds better than before. Still, with print and advertising factored in, this movie's total cost is probably something like $300 million, add to this all the expectations that go along with redoing a "sacred cow" (a 1980s sacred cow at that) and that potentially makes this film's chances at the box office ghostly indeed!