Ten such films exemplify this trend of underperformance despite expectations. These movies, spanning various genres, struggled for various reasons. Some were released at inopportune times, others were eclipsed by competing releases, and some simply didn’t resonate with audiences or had budgets that made profitability a tall order. Whatever the cause, these films did not achieve the box office glory that was anticipated.

In spring 2008, Entertainment Weekly published its predictions for the summer’s top-grossing films, with “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” projected to lead with a $355.7 million domestic box office haul. The anticipation was high, with expectations that the return of the iconic archaeologist would be a major cinematic event, outpacing even “The Dark Knight” by a substantial margin.

Despite these challenges, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” grossed an impressive $700 million worldwide. While this figure is far from a financial failure, the pre-release hype suggested even greater potential, particularly in the North American market. In the end, the film’s legacy is one of high expectations met with respectable, but not groundbreaking, success.

Once the title opened over Memorial Day weekend in 2008, Box Office Mojo labeled its $126.9 million four-day weekend bow “a massive start,” but also noted that the figures “may seem like a bit of a letdown” given that it was expected to shatter all box office records. The problem here was that “Crystal Skull” had its thunder stolen as May 2008’s big success story. “Iron Man” came out of nowhere at the month’s start and ended up narrowly outgrossing “Indiana Jones” domestically. “The Dark Knight,” meanwhile, would dominate the whole summer season.

Nobody involved in financing “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” would consider it a “bomb,” with a $700 million worldwide haul. However, its enormous pre-release hype did suggest it would go even higher financially, especially in North America.

2005’s “King Kong” remake hit theaters alongside expectations as big as the titular ape himself. This was director Peter Jackson’s first movie since “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” had conquered the box office and Oscars two years prior. It also wielded a mammoth $207 million budget, which required an equally robust worldwide box office run. Universal Pictures claimed, before “King Kong’s” debut, that it wanted the title to mimic “The Fellowship of the Ring’s” $75 million five-day bow. Well, that never happened. “King Kong” instead had an underwhelming $66.2 million five-day launch that immediately put Universal and Jackson on the defensive.

Part of the issue was that “King Kong” was not December 2005’s de facto must-see blockbuster, like all three “Lord of the Rings” movies were in their respective December releases. That honor belonged to “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe,” which opened five days before “King Kong” and handily outgrossed it in North America. Audiences feeling like they’d seen this story before, thanks to multiple previous “King Kong” movies, couldn’t have helped either.

“King Kong’s” $556.9 million worldwide haul would’ve normally been a gross worthy of popped champagne bottles. However, both its towering price tag and coming up short compared to the “Lord of the Rings” movies gave “King Kong” a whiff of being a box office disappointment. Ironically, Jackson was overshadowed by the fantasy cinema genre he’d help revitalize for the 21st century.

Decades after its debut, Alan Moore’s seminal “Watchmen” comic finally came to the silver screen in March 2009. Any film adaptation of this legendary piece of literature would’ve carried tremendous box office expectations. However, this title was also director Zack Snyder’s big follow-up after he helmed 2007’s breakout sensation “300.” Not only did “Watchmen” have to live up to the reputation of its source material, but it also had to prove that Snyder could deliver multiple box office hits. Before its release, the hope was that “Watchmen” could score an even bigger debut than “300’s” $70 million bow. After all, this project was drawing from an even more famous graphic novel and involved superheroes (albeit R-rated, grisly iterations of such characters).

In reality, “Watchmen” opened to a fine but not Earth-shattering $55.2 million, a number that came as a disappointment to many. For any other big budget R-rated movie that ran for 163 minutes, that bow would’ve been a triumph. Still, “Watchmen” failing to become “300” 2.0 at the box office proved frustrating. Part of the problem was that “Watchmen” was much darker than Snyder’s last film and lacked the rousing “this is Sparta!” energy that “300” could exude in its marketing. The more convoluted narrative of “Watchmen” also may have alienated general audiences, who might’ve been more puzzled than intrigued by its marketing.

“Watchmen” didn’t do too badly theatrically (though it proved very frontloaded), but it never evaded the shadow of those lofty pre-release box office expectations.

“Shrek 2,” buoyed by the great reputation of its predecessor, radically outpaced the original “Shrek” and became a box office phenomenon in 2004. 1999’s “Toy Story 2” similarly left its predecessor in the dust financially and became a massive hit. Animated family movie sequels are often a license to print money that takes a familiar brand name to new heights of success. DreamWorks Animation was hoping “Kung Fu Panda 2” could continue this trend with aplomb, especially given how “Kung Fu Panda” had kicked and punched its way into so many people’s hearts.

Expected to be one of summer 2011’s most lucrative movies, “Kung Fu Panda 2” surprised many box office analysts by opening noticeably lower than its predecessor. Its domestic total also ended up being roughly $50 million less than the initial “Kung Fu Panda,” though it still made a killing in overseas markets. Any hopes that “Kung Fu Panda 2” would be the second coming of “Shrek 2” never came to fruition. Perhaps people just thought of Po and pals as fun one-and-done characters, rather than individuals that audiences wanted to see endlessly. This installment’s darker tone also may have deterred some moviegoers from giving the project a shot.

“Kung Fu Panda 2” clearly made some coin, given that it spawned two further sequels. However, those dreams of it becoming the next animated family movie sequel to break out financially never came true.

The “Paranormal Activity” franchise’s entire timeline includes an initial trio of movies that put this horror brand in extremely profitable territory. After the first “Paranormal Activity” exploded in popularity in 2009, Paramount Pictures began releasing annual “Activity” sequels the same way Lionsgate unleashed annual “Saw” movies from 2004 to 2010. With two of these first three outings cracking over $100 million domestically on such tiny budgets, Paramount had found a license to print money. However, while it took “Saw” six installments before the franchise delivered a dud, the good times at the box office for “Paranormal Activity” would come to an abrupt end with its fourth entry in October 2012.

“Paranormal Activity 4” was expected to debut very close to “Paranormal Activity 3’s” opening weekend. Initial hopes of this title making over $40 million on opening weekend quickly vanished, as this outing instead bowed to $29 million. In its incredibly frontloaded North American run, “Paranormal Activity 4” only grossed $53 million, or roughly the same as the first three days of “Paranormal Activity 3’s” domestic business. Thanks to 2012 delivering so many other found-footage movies like “The Devil Inside,” “Chernobyl Diaries,” and “Chronicle,” audiences had grown weary of this type of film.

Meanwhile, the predictable things that happen in every “Paranormal Activity” movie meant moviegoers were equally tired of this saga’s familiar scares. Costing only $5 million to make, “Paranormal Activity 4” was still super profitable. However, it came up short compared to its pre-release expectations.

Long before comic book movie adaptations dominated every sphere of pop culture, it was incredibly notable that Warren Beatty was putting every ounce of his creative energy into directing and starring in “Dick Tracy,” a 1990 tentpole based on the vintage comics character of the same name. The project was preceded by a gargantuan marketing campaign that intended to sell the picture as the year’s big must-see spectacle. Disney was going all in on this production in the hopes that combining Beatty with a famous character like Dick Tracy could result in a new long-term franchise for the studio.

“Dick Tracy” did get off to a rollicking start in June 1990, with Disney’s biggest live-action opening weekend ever. However, its lifetime box office haul, though mighty on its own terms, wasn’t enough to justify a sequel nor live up to other then-recent blockbusters like “Batman.” Part of the issue was “Total Recall” taking off as June 1990’s big blockbuster movie rather than “Dick Tracy.” The other problem, though, was that the Dick Tracy character just wasn’t as universally beloved or well-known as Superman or Batman.

There would’ve always been a ceiling for how big this property could go. “Dick Tracy” scrounged up a respectable box office sum, but problems inherent in its source material kept it from matching Disney’s grandest box office ambitions.

2014’s John Green book adaptation “The Fault in Our Stars” was so much bigger at the box office than anyone could’ve imagined. Now considered among the best romantic movies of all time, “Stars” solidified that Green’s works could translate to the silver screen with immensely lucrative results. Just like how the original “Harry Potter” adventures inspired a slew of fantasy novel movie adaptations, “Stars” taking off ensured Hollywood was looking for other teen romantic dramas to bring to movie theaters. If they were also from John Green, all the better. This is where “Paper Towns” came into the picture.

“The Fault in Our Stars” distributor 20th Century Fox launched “Paper Towns” in late July 2015, hoping to make the summertime counterprogramming magic of “Stars” hit twice. Costing just $12 million to make, “Paper Towns” grossed $85.45 million worldwide, a sum that should’ve qualified it as an unquestionable hit. However, it fell way short of pre-release box office expectations. Its lifetime domestic total didn’t even come close to matching what “Fault in Our Stars” made in its first weekend. Something had gone haywire here.

The more esoteric plot of the “Paper Towns” novel, not to mention its focus on a male protagonist (these titles work better centering the POV of their target demographic), just didn’t make it a must-see romantic drama. It still turned a profit, but 20th Century Fox was hoping for greater business from a movie hoping to be “Fault in Our Stars” 2.0.

Over 10 years, the original eight “Harry Potter” movies were all grand successes, with the lowest-grossing entry in the saga (“Prisoner of Azkaban”) still making $784.23 million globally. All these moneymakers inspired Warner Bros. to pursue a spin-off franchise, “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.” The 2016 kick-off entry for this saga did great business worldwide, with an $816.03 million haul that signaled the Wizarding World could live beyond The Boy Who Lived. Ambitions to turn Newt Scamander and pals into the stars of a five-part saga were officially a-go, with the next step in the series being “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.”

The moment this project started its domestic run, something was askew at the box office. Scoring the first opening weekend below $65 million in this franchise’s history, “Grindelwald” clearly didn’t connect with audiences. Its eventual $655.75 million worldwide haul (and just $159.55 million domestically) didn’t look bad as standalone figures. However, its North American box office was so far beneath the other “Harry Potter” installments – not to mention the first “Fantastic Beasts” — that it was clear the bloom was off the Wizarding World rose.

With this underwhelming box office run, the “Fantastic Beasts” franchise would eventually wrap up early with 2022’s “Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore,” an outing that gave longtime fans tonal whiplash. “The Crimes of Grindelwald” came up short at the box office and, in the process, doomed a once unstoppable film saga.

Nicole LaPorte’s 2011 book “The Men Who Would Be King: An Almost Epic Tale of Moguls, Movies, and a Company Called DreamWorks” alleges that DreamWorks SKG brass were deeply encouraged by an early screening of Steven Spielberg’s “The Terminal.” One of these leadership figures, Walter Parkes, even allegedly said, “well, our [box office] cold streak is over” upon seeing the film. He and other DreamWorks leaders were just that confident this newest Spielberg-Hanks collaboration would be box office dynamite that got DreamWorks SKG out of its slump.

In execution, though, “The Terminal” came up short at the box office, especially in North America. It only grossed $77.07 million domestically. Excluding 1997’s “Amistad,” this made “The Terminal” the lowest-grossing Spielberg movie domestically since 1990’s “Always.” This was despite not only the major talent assembled for the project, but also its prime mid-June 2004 release date and mainstream-friendly story. Something about “The Terminal” just struck audiences as difficult to engage with. Spielberg’s name as a filmmaker in 2004 also may not have had as much pull with audiences as it did 20 years earlier. Hanks was also having a rough time that year, having also recently headlined the 2004 dud “The Ladykillers.”

Though it didn’t crash and burn financially, “The Terminal” never soared like it was supposed to at the box office. It certainly didn’t live up to the grandest hopes of those DreamWorks SKG executives who were so enamored with the title.

Things adults only notice in “The Princess And The Frog” range greatly from subtle nods to Disney’s past to more risqué gags hiding in the film’s margins. However, one detail grown-up viewers will appreciate about “Princess and the Frog” compared to younger audiences is the significant place this film held in the history of Walt Disney Animation Studios. Released in 2009, “Frog” was the first hand-drawn animated feature from the studio in nearly six years, and a massive test to see how 2D animation could work in the modern cinematic landscape. The likes of “Home on the Range” had seemingly put the nail in the coffin of this medium in America. Could a new fairy tale musical rescue it?

The hope was that “Princess and the Frog” would launch to over $30 million above its domestic wide release bow on December 11, 2009. If it did well, vintage Disney storytelling was back on the menu for the Mouse House. Though it got to $104.4 million domestically (a much higher haul than most other 2000s 2D animated Disney fare), “Princess and the Frog” wasn’t anywhere near as big as a typical Pixar or DreamWorks Animation hit. The chief culprit for that outcome was heavy competition. Opening just a week or two before “Avatar” and an “Alvin and the Chipmunks” sequel, “Frog” was overwhelmed by more contemporary options for family audiences. The significance of hand-drawn Disney storytelling wasn’t enough to fuel it to its highest box office potential.