As a rapid unrealible experiment I took those:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/all
For the budget and box office value and used every movie with a budget over 60 million.
I used that formula:
If
0.53 * domestic + 0.4 * foreign - budget was above 0
it was a success, failure/underperformer otherwise.
Not using september or october release that could have not finish their box office run I got as a result for the last 10 year's
Year Total In profit
2016 29 16 55%
2015 43 30 70%
2014 39 28 72%
2013 42 27 64%
2012 42 29 69%
2011 44 26 59%
2010 46 23 50%
2009 33 18 55%
2008 35 21 60%
2007 30 17 57%
2006 36 19 53%
Average: 60%
(p.s. that show how much more reliable big budget are too smaller, 70%+of them not flopping the last 2 year's, but 2010 and before didn't need the box office as much and the formula is too harsh on them, but still 2016 is not that special among those)
Not a good year thus far, but 2010 had all those failing under that formula:
Gulliver's TravelsTron: LegacyHow Do You Know?The Nutcracker in 3DUnstoppableLegend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'HooleWall Street 2: Money Never SleepsScott Pilgrim vs. The WorldThe Other GuysCats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty GaloreDinner for SchmucksThe Sorcerer's ApprenticeThe Last AirbenderKnight and DayThe A-TeamKillersPrince of Persia: Sands of TimeAgoraRobin HoodOceansGreen ZoneThe WolfmanThe Book of Eli
With those succeeding:
Little FockersYogi BearThe Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn TreaderThe TouristTangledHarry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part IMegamindDue DateThe ExpendablesSaltInceptionDespicable MeThe Twilight Saga: EclipseGrown UpsToy Story 3Sex and the City 2Shrek Forever AfterIron Man 2Clash of the TitansHow to Train Your DragonAlice in WonderlandShutter IslandPercy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief
A 50-50% success rate.
It is far from reliable, we know the other guy made good money for example, but just to give a rough idea.

I disagree with some in that list
Mag 7 for example, they were expecting Book of Eli as maximum type of business and were seeing it doing better than 2 guns, so a result between the 2 was pretty much the target.
For the Denzel Washington, Liam Neeson version they expected to do around 80 million domestic and they expect Denzel movie to not do more foreign than domestic but less in their model (.83 * domestic I think).
It is already at 81 million domestic like expected and getting to that 60+ million foreign with Japan yet to open. It should end up doing almost exactly what the predictive model they built was saying, Denzel is extremelly safe and predictable, maybe the most predictable in the business.
Tarzan did really well imo, Peregrine's seem ok and Beyong being a flop is a bit harsh (but probably true).

"The Magnificent Seven" isn't a flop. It's just underperforming.
Last Films seen:
Shin Godzilla(2016)- 8/10
The Birth of a Nation(2016)- 6/10

So from your list the lowest budget is 90M if I read it correctly. And Independence Day was the least poorly performing one at 2.35budget.
And no you didn't miss any I think. The Finest Hours bombed badly but had an 80M budget - that's the closest one I could find.
So 2016 have 14 such "flops" already. Other recent years:
8 2015
6 2014
13 2013
11 2012
10 2011
17 2010 (including four that made less than 1budget)
From 1999-2006 there was between 16 and 20 such failures each year (but with that being the peak for dvd sales, it's no surprise that the studios accepted worse perfs from theatrical)
So ye looks like more big-budget underperfs/flops than usual in 2016, but not an extreme outlier.

'Miss Peregrine' has already opened in pretty much all its markets, and it doesn't seem like it will be able to make back its costs or even turn a profit during theatrical at this point.
Almost no movie ever did that in the last 10 year's, even movie like Age of Ultron are probably on the fence to achieve that.

I was just going by what you wrote next to the Ice Age entry.
As for Miss Peregrine, sometimes hits don't even make back all their "costs" on their theatrical runs. However, it is guaranteed to make back its production budget at this point and with a gross of $250 million it would probably be looking at breaking even longterm. If it ends up close to $300 million that would represent a modest success in my book.

I listed Ice Age 5 as an underperformer, not a flop (although it could be viewed as a flop, because it made a shocking 470 million less than its predecessor).
'Miss Peregrine' has already opened in pretty much all its markets, and it doesn't seem like it will be able to make back its costs or even turn a profit during theatrical at this point.
'Pete's Dragon' I ommitted because it wasn't a big budget film ("only" 65 million).
http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html

Ice Age 5 didn't flop, it just underperformed. Also, Miss Peregrine seems to be having a decent run so we'll have to see where that finishes. It should clear 250 and could clear 300 million, the latter being a respectable gross for a $100 million film. The obvious ommission is Pete's Dragon which can't avoid losing money without a strong performance in Japan and exceptionally strong video sales. Bridget Jones has underperformed as well.