Mothers taken to mars, a terminator trying to keep his franchise alive, and a magic sci-fi
board game — Can you guess which big sci-fi blockbusters lost the most money?
All that and more ahead!
You wouldn't normally associate comedies with massive budgets, but titles like "Evan Almighty"
— which reportedly cost $250 million to make in 2007 — show that entries in this
genre can rack up budgets comparable to your average Marvel movie.
"The Adventures of Pluto Nash," a 2002 sci-fi comedy starring Eddie Murphy, wasn't quite
that costly, but it still had a sizable $100 million budget.
Up to this point in his career, Murphy hadn't appeared in a live-action movie that exceeded
$317 million worldwide.
That meant "Pluto Nash" needed to be an abnormally lucrative star vehicle to justify that enormous
budget.
Unfortunately, "Pluto Nash" came nowhere close to being profitable.
Instead, it was a legendary box office flop that grossed only $7 million worldwide, including
a paltry $4.4 million in North America.
CBS News would later report that this title lost a gigantic $92.9 million.
The dismal reviews for "Pluto Nash" seemed to justify that nonexistent conviction in
its box office prospects.
Still, even the most pessimistic individuals could've never imagined that "Pluto Nash"
would rack up box office losses largely unheard of for a comedy.
High expectations were riding on the computer-animated sci-fi action film "Final Fantasy: The Spirits
Within."
Specifically, the feature was seen as a potentially groundbreaking title for the domain of ultra-realistic
computer-generated visuals in cinematic narratives.
In an article from Animation World Network, VFX supervisor Remo Balcells provided detailed
explanations for the various technological revolutions that the production provided.
This included the way the film's animators rendered visuals for things like fire or explosions.
While all of this was exciting for animation aficionados, a pricey tentpole can’t become
a box office hit by VFX breakthroughs alone.
The eventual box office haul of "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" would reflect this brutally.
In its worldwide box office run, "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" grossed just $85.1 million,
a disastrous sum given its $137 million cost.
That budget was part of the problem here, as "The Spirits Within" was too expensive
for a non-sequel animated feature.
However, the financial woes of "The Spirits Within" were even worse than anyone could've
anticipated since it lost $94 million.
Needless to say, "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within” did not meet those lofty pre-release
expectations.
"What're we going to do now?"
“Nothing."
"Stealth" was inarguably the biggest killer jet movie of the summer of 2005.
It also was one of Jamie Foxx's first movies after winning an Oscar for the feature "Ray."
However, "Stealth" ended up cratering at the box office and even became one of the biggest
box office duds of that year.
Grossing just $76.4 million globally on a $138 million budget, "Stealth" was a catastrophe
at the box office.
The promise of a jet gaining sentience and going on a rampage just wasn't something people
were lining up to see.
Part of the problem with "Stealth" was its massive budget.
That $138 million price tag meant this film had to perform abnormally high for a blockbuster
not based on any pre-existing source material to be profitable.
It also didn't help that, while Foxx was an Oscar winner, the other two leads of the film,
Jessica Biel and Josh Lucas, didn’t have extensive experience anchoring big blockbusters.
It’s no wonder the film ended up losing a whopping $96 million for Sony/Columbia pictures.
The 2015 "Fantastic Four" movie was supposed to relaunch this franchise in style.
This was to be a grim and gritty take on the famous Marvel superhero team that could eventually
spawn sequels, crossovers, and whatever else 20th Century Fox could imagine.
That all changed once the box office results for this feature came in.
The abysmal $167.8 million worldwide gross of this "Fantastic Four" was a cold splash
of water in the face of all those expectations that this title could spawn a long-term franchise.
While it’s a terrible sum under any circumstances, this was an especially bad gross when compared
to the worldwide totals of the preceding two "Fantastic Four" movies.
The 2015 “Fantastic Four'' came in 50% behind the global haul of the 2005 "Fantastic Four"
installment.
It wasn’t what 20th Century Fox had in mind when it greenlit this reboot.
To be frank, a lot was going on to make audiences wary of shelling out cash for this version
of the Fantastic Four.
But, what really sank this one was when director Josh Trank disowned the film just hours before
its August 7th release.
It was a rare event that grabbed headlines and immediately gave the film a toxic reputation.
Estimated to have lost somewhere between $80 and $100 million for 20th Century Fox, the
ambitions of this "Fantastic Four" film becoming a pop culture phenomenon were quickly snuffed
out.
"It's clobberin' time!"
After "The Matrix" films, the duo Lana and Lilly Wachowski struggled to parlay their
previous financial glory into other non-"Matrix" sci-fi blockbusters.
However, this struggle was more obvious than ever on their 2015 feature "Jupiter Ascending,"
which had a reported production budget of $179 million.
The sizable budget was needed to cover the expansive scope of this title as well as secure
major talent in the lead roles like Mila Kunis and Channing Tatum.
Unfortunately, spending all that dough didn’t really end up attracting scores of moviegoers.
Grossing just $181.9 million worldwide, including a dismal $47.4 million in North America, "Jupiter
Ascending" came in way behind expectations.
It eventually lost $95.7 million, a sharp contrast to the days of the Wachowski Sisters
printing money with their original "Matrix" films.
The only comfort for this directorial duo here is that the film has developed a cult
following, albeit not nearly a big enough following to render the feature profitable.
"Up is hard.
Down is easy."
"Thank you.
Wow."
20th Century Fox's attempt to launch an animation studio in response to the wild success of
"The Lion King" and other 1990s titles ended in a spectacular disaster with "Titan A.E."
It was only the second project to emerge from Fox Animation Studios.
"Titan A.E."
was a massive sci-fi adventure film full of explosions, aliens, and, you guessed it, spaceships.
Costing a pricey $75 million to make, the pressure was on the movie to make enough money
to ensure that Fox Animation Studios could keep on trucking.
Unfortunately, "Titan A.E."
only made $36.7 million at the worldwide box office, which included a meager $22.7 million
in North America.
Within mere days of the "Titan A.E.”
opening, Fox Animation Studios was shut down.
In total, it was so much of a flop that it cost Fox $100 million.
For years, the "Transformers" movies were financially bulletproof.
The live-action stories of robots that fight each other and turn into vehicles were reliable
generators of massive box office hauls.
As late as "Transformers: Age of Extinction" in 2014, the series could still exceed $1
billion and top all other titles at that year's worldwide box office.
Unfortunately, the good financial luck for this saga came to a close with "Transformers:
The Last Knight."
The 2017 installment saw Optimus Prime going bad and the mythology of King Arthur getting
swirled up in all the robot mayhem, and these fresh ingredients just weren't enough to stave
off financial misery for the franchise.
While many movies would be pleased as punch with a $602.8 million worldwide gross, "The
Last Knight" made less than all prior "Transformers" movies.
This occurred even as the movie cost anywhere from $217 to $260 million to produce, a noticeable
increase from the budgets of earlier "Transformers" entries.
With such a gargantuan budget, it would've taken far more than just $602.8 million globally
to make this one profitable.
Per the head of CBSViacom, the “Last Knight" ended up losing an excess of $100+ million
for Paramount Pictures.
Over the years, many movies with Mars in the title or in their plot haven’t fared so
well at the box office.
This obviously isn't a concrete rule given that movies like “The Martian” and the
original "Total Recall" were major hits.
However, the constant financial troubles that have plagued Mars-centric films certainly
haven’t done any favors to the reception of such titles.
The tremendous box office failure of "Mars Needs Moms" did nothing to dissuade any potential
jitters over the financial viability of movies set on Mars.
Released in March 2011, "Mars Needs Moms" debuted in a month that's often been kind
to animated family fare.
"Mars Needs Moms" was a significant exception to this trend, grossing just $39.5 million
globally.
That was actually a disastrous sum considering its $150 million budget.
Competition from other animated family movies, such as "Rango” or fellow Disney title "Gnomeo
and Juliet," helped keep audiences away from "Mars Needs Moms."
The divisive nature of the film's motion-capture animation technique also didn’t do it any
favors.
Seems like there was a lot more going on with this movie that made it lose around $100 million
than just it being set on Mars.
The hope with "Terminator: Dark Fate" was to finally get the "Terminator" series back
on track.
The franchise had been dragged down by a trio of sequels that never quite resonated with
the public or broke through as much as they could have financially.
"Dark Fate" attempted to give die-hard fans exactly what they wanted, with James Cameron
back for the first time since "T2: Judgment Day," this time as a producer.
Linda Hamilton also reprised her role as Sarah Conner.
This was starkly different from the last three "Terminator" movies that solely focused on
familiar characters like John Connor.
This bold attempt to revive the "Terminator" brand was even reflected in its massive $185
million budget.
Unfortunately, all efforts didn't lure in moviegoers to the box office.
”Dark Fate" ended up making only $250.3 million worldwide, the vast majority of which
came from its international run.
"My past has caught up with me."
After so many underwhelming "Terminator" movies, not even the return of Cameron and Hamilton
could get moviegoers back on board with this series.
The result of all this was not only the lowest global haul for a "Terminator" sequel but
also a massive $122.6 million loss.
With that, this franchise was officially terminated.
In "Battleship," human beings managed to defeat the odds and stave off an alien invasion of
the planet Earth.
It's a classic underdog story, the kind that has defined so many beloved hit blockbusters.
In real life, though, there was no happy ending in store for the box office run of "Battleship."
This film adaptation of the beloved board game was a massive flop at the worldwide box
office, grossing just over $313.4 million globally, including just $65.2 million from
North America.
That was a less than ideal haul for a summer blockbuster under any circumstance, but it
was especially disappointing considering that "Battleship" cost a hefty $220 million to
make.
The underwhelming aspects of "Battleship's" box office failings were endless, as were
the reasons it came up short financially.
Having lost a projected $150 million, "Battleship" sank without a trace at the box office.
It feels almost unfair to belabor the financial shortcomings of "John Carter."
The titular lead of this Andrew Stanton blockbuster was once synonymous with some of the most
popular sci-fi novels on the planet.
Now, thanks to this 2012 film's dismal box office run, "John Carter" is largely associated
with one of the costliest misfires in the history of Hollywood.
It's hard to imagine an outcome where "John Carter" managed to become profitable, though,
given its enormous $263.7 million budget.
That was a price tag that actually made "John Carter" more expensive than 2012 films like
"The Avengers" and "The Dark Knight Rises."
"I'll explain later."
Even if "John Carter" was likely doomed to be unprofitable, it was never expected to
perform as badly as it did.
The sheer magnitude of "John Carter's" box office shortcomings was made clear shortly
into its theatrical run once The Los Angeles Times reported the film would lose Disney
$200 million.
That was the kind of enormous loss that would stand out in all genres of cinema, let alone
just among sci-fi films.