In April 2015, Hollywood reporter He noted that Warner Bros. was preparing to "flood the market" that summer with nine films designed to fill the gap left by the absence of Christopher Nolan's "Dark Knight" trilogy and Harry Potter films. At the time, Warner's Dan Jelman, chief of home distribution, told "Exit": "It would be a tough thing, but I think it will pay off."

In a way, the SB approach pays off. San Andreas led by Dwayne Nsonson, made with a $ 110 million budget, earned in $ 474 million all over the world. And while "Crazy Max: Hughes Road" does not, too $ 380 million In the $ 150 million budget world, he at least collected critical recognition and remains one of the best Movies in the "Crazy Max" saga. But a big budget project Warner has failed spectacular and on a critical and commercial front.

A story of Peter Pan's origin starring Hugh Jackecman like Blackber Pirate along with Levi Miller, as Peter Pan doesn't sound like a disaster. But it was, and lost Warner Bros..

"Pan" was the story of Peter Pan's origin from OEO Wright, who had previously directed the best Oscar nomination with Motonis, a unique action thriller with Hannah and a solid historical drama that also received nominations for the Academy Academy with Anna With "Anna" with "Anna" with "Anna" with "Anna" Karenana ". As such, there were no indications that his story of Peter Pan's origin would prove to be a great flop as it was in the end, but Pan failed in box office In a spectacular way.

2015 was full of heavy box office strokes, from "Starwells War: Episode VII - The power wakes up", which has done more than $ 2 billion In the world, to "Jurassic World", which does not lag behind $ 1.6 billion. Unfortunately, such a ranked year left little room for Wright's film, which for Warner's Brosner meant to lose a significant portion of the changes.

The studio gave Wright $ 150 million to make his movie, and that's pretty much True What the film did regarding its global box office accounts. This may not look like a disaster, but given the studies they usually get half of the domestic box office and less on some international markets, plus the fact that Perners would spend a significant amount of marketing, it meant the studio lost a lot of money - approximately $ 150. a million according to reports at the time.

What was the problem? Well, aside from 2015 to be so ranked with offers for blockbuster, critics agreed to: "Pan" was just bad.

Originally planned for the June 2015 edition, Pan was trapped in October, allegedly to give him space between the crowded slate. Imagine as a spectacular visual tour de Force, the film was also originally intended for IMAX release, with Warners releasing A Fuck you Staying the VFX team's efforts to make a stunning 3D experience. But when Pan debuted on October 9, 2015, he did so in regular theaters, not on the IMAX screens.

That anticlimactic debut was just the beginning of the problems of OEO Wright and the WB. "Pan" did what Hollywood reporter Called "catastrophic" $ 15.3 million in its open weekend, at the end of the domestic walk at just $ 35 million. According to Trurr, Global spending of Warner's marketing was $ 125 million, which brought a total Pan price to $ 275 million. The global download of the $ 151.5 million film was, then, more than a little disappointing - especially since Warner Bros. also saw it Bomb led by Henry Cavill, led by the "Uncle Man" bomb in the box office Earlier that year.

Of course, critical drinking "Pan" did not help. Reviewers were ruthless in their film estimates, which currently have a low 26% Rotten tomatoes. Critics have taken a particular question with the scope of the work of the CGI film. How Times' Kate Muir wrote: "Excessive use of the effects of CGI in" pan "is exhausting and incomprehensible, even in the crazy logic of a fairy tale." Elsewhere, "Pan" actually had Donald Clark from Irish time longing to rethink "Hook" by Steven Spielberg, a film in which the director himself had no faith even while filming.

Also, "positive" "pan" views can hardly be described as stunning, with Robbie Colin from writing "The Daily Telegraph is 100 years ago". The fact that this review is considered "fresh" by RT curators can tell more about the page itself. However, perhaps the hardest indictment comes from Peter Travers. In his one starvet Rolling stone Review, he described Wright's film as "joyful, unconditionally (...) driving with a theme park of hell". If I were warners, I would put that last part of the posters just to look for some business activities from confused movies.