The Most Expensive Sci-Fi Flops In History

The world of science fiction cinema has produced some of the most lucrative box office hits in history. Just in the realm of modern box office feats alone, the biggest feature of all time at the worldwide box office is "Avatar" while the largest title in North America is "Star Wars: The Force Awakens." Both features are drastically different in many ways, but they're both projects emanating from science fiction storytelling. At its best, sci-fi storytelling can provide glorious escapism and visually dynamic visions of planets we could only dream of. They can also offer a glimpse into deeply relatable struggles, using heightened storytelling to tap into discernibly authentic situations. Science fiction cinema can be something that shatters box office records, but there are also entries in the genre that have gone in the complete opposite direction financially.

The most expensive science fiction flops in history, recognized by how much money they're estimated to have lost at the worldwide box office, are the antithesis to something like "Avatar," serving as projects that resonated with few and often garnered reviews chastising them as lousy examples of sci-fi storytelling. The box office runs of each of these titles were impacted by unique factors, as no one entity informs all box office duds. However, all these sci-fi titles that lost exorbitant amounts of cash were united in serving as vivid and tragic examples that the science fiction genre is far from bulletproof at the box office.

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 graphics 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 entities like fire or explosions. While all of this was exciting for animation aficionados, a pricey tentpole cannot 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 cost. That budget was part of the problem here, as "The Spirits Within" was too expensive for a non-sequel animated feature. For comparison's sake, "The Spirits Within" cost a little over 50% more than the $90 million budget of "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" from that same summer. Spending this much cash on the project was almost certainly always going to be a mistake. 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.

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. 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. Coming in 50% behind the global haul of the 2005 "Fantastic Four" installment was not what 20th Century Fox had in mind when it greenlit this reboot.

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 director Josh Trank disowning the film just hours before its August 7 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.

Lana and Lilly Wachowski changed science fiction cinema forever with "The Matrix," that rare American blockbuster with intellect to spare that still managed to crush it at the box office. While the two "Matrix" sequels had varying degrees of success at the worldwide box office, the duo struggled to parlay that kind of financial glory into other non-"Matrix" sci-fi blockbusters. Rarely was this struggle more apparent than 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 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. While it at least made more globally than the $93.3 million haul of 2008's Wachowski Sister box office dud "Speed Racer," "Jupiter Ascending" was otherwise a financial disaster. This was exemplified by how 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, unlike some other all-time sci-fi money losers such as "Battleship," "Jupiter Ascending" has developed a cult following, albeit not nearly a big enough following to render the feature profitable.

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," a 2017 installment that saw Optimus Prime going bad and the mythology of King Arthur getting swirled up in all the robot mayhem. These fresh ingredients weren't enough to stave off financial misery for "The Last Knight."

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. An official figure for its losses was never disclosed, but that kind of financial bleeding would've been incomprehensible in the past for a series that seemed to be printing money. However, even the most lucrative sci-fi sagas can end up producing a box office dud for the ages.

"There's a great big beautiful tomorrow," harmonizes the Carousel of Progress at various Disney theme parks. Unfortunately, there was not a great big beautiful box office haul awaiting "Tomorrowland," a 2015 Brad Bird directorial effort that took inspiration from the Disney theme park land of the same name. Costing $190 million, "Tomorrowland" was a big swing from Bird and screenwriter Damon Lindelof to try and launch a largely original tentpole into the summertime marketplace. Plus, it was a big test to see if Bird could deliver a live-action hit separated from the "Mission: Impossible" saga.

Unfortunately for all involved, "Tomorrowland" came up woefully short on all expectations. Grossing just $206 million worldwide, "Tomorrowland" came nowhere close to being profitable. Even worse, it was way below the worldwide box office hauls of other Brad Bird movies. It would be tempting to lay the $120-150 million losses of "Tomorrowland" strictly at the feet of it being an original movie. However, there were deeper problems here informing the feature's financial struggles, including competition from other summer 2015 titles like "Avengers: Age of Ultron" and "Jurassic World." Plus, exempting "Gravity," "Tomorrowland" leading man George Clooney had never appeared in a movie that grossed enough globally to justify a $190 million budget. He was famous for being in mid-budget dramatic hits, not costly blockbusters. This and several other factors collided to cement the dismal box office outcome for "Tomorrowland."

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. While reflecting on the film to The New York Times, director Peter Berg noted that the biggest reason for "Battleship" flopping was that it lacked a movie star to draw in moviegoers. His earlier blockbuster "Hancock" was anchored by box office juggernaut Will Smith, while "Battleship" was relying on the spectacle of intergalactic aquatic warfare to grab people's attention. Betting on that element did not pay off for "Battleship's" financial prospects. Having lost a projected $150 million, "Battleship" sank without a trace at the box office.

It feels almost unfair to once again 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 made "John Carter" more expensive than 2012 sequels like "The Avengers" and "The Dark Knight Rises."

Even if "John Carter" was likely doomed to be unprofitable, it was never expected to perform as badly as it did. Grossing only $282.7 million worldwide, "John Carter" managed to come in behind the global grosses of other notorious box office bombs of the same era like "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" and "Battleship." 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.