The word "flop" can mean a number of things in the movie industry, for a failure can of course be critical, commercial, or in the worst cases, both. Commentators love to discuss movies that have flopped, though it's worth distinguishing between movies that simply underwhelmed at the box office (and possibly with critics) and movies that were flat-out, horrendous train-wrecks.
These 13 films all have one common fibre: they are presumed by most audiences to be colossal, money-losing flops, when in reality, that just isn't the case, even if a profit of $50 million might ultimately seem like chump change to some studio executives.
Did these films all underwhelm compared to expectations? Absolutely, but they're far away from failures such as John Carter (which cost over $350 million to produce and market, and only made $284 million at the box office), or even worse, movies like Mars Needs Moms, Pluto Nash, and *shudders* Cats.
So while these movies were not great successes, factoring in home video sales and TV syndication as well, they were not the massive flops many love to joke about, or simply presumed them to be due to the poor critical reception and lack of a sequel. Feel free to argue amongst yourselves, though...