If they are well done they can.  E.T. had a kid as central character and did amazing.  Sixth Sense had a kid in a dramatic role (he won awards I think) and it made a ton of money.  Harry Potter started with kids and did big business (was based on iconic books).  I do agree kids offer a challenge in many films.

In regards to "Pan" to me it is simply that certain stories have been told and didn't feel like this added anything worth while to it.  In 2003 we had a live action Peter Pan and it did okay, but most folks forgot about it quickly. Disney's animated Pan is the iconic version and Spielberg's Hook did some very different ideas with the story.  Beyond that I don't think anyone wanted this and from what I've heard it is not a good film.

Hollywood often has these Monday morning conversations after bombs happen.  Guardians of the Galaxy last year had many people before saying "unknown heroes, including a tree and talking raccoon? People won't go for this!"  Then it was a huge success because it was a fun, well made film.

THIS. That's the catch. The script has to hit the mark that makes it work. Retelling a story over and over. Already damns the film. Amazing Spider-Man fills in both of these issues, as an example.

ET came out along time ago. Harry Potter is based on a hugely popular book series. Movies with kids usually bomb and there's a reason why there's not many of them. The recent bombs were After Earth, The Last Airbender and Ender's Game.

As for GotG, it was never going to bomb. It's an MCU movie.

Since Pan is mostly for kids they should have released it during the summer when the target audience actually has a lot of free time to go to the movies. It probably still would have bombed but not as hard.

Don't blame Hugh for this