5 Sci-Fi Movies That Flopped Despite Having A-List Hollywood Stars

Science fiction movies can be amazing when done right. However, sometimes even the greatest production budget or finest Hollywood A-listers aren't enough to save a project. There are numerous examples of genre films that have simply failed to cut the mustard, despite having a cast for the ages and plenty of money to have fun with. 

Today, we'll take a look at five science fiction movies that really should have done better, based on their cast alone. As it stands, though, no amount of Hollywood superstars could save these films from box office disappointment. Some of the movies here are genuinely good, but simply failed to attract an audience. Others are frankly so atrocious that it's not hard to understand why they didn't become massive cash magnets. However, there's one thing in common for all the movies on this list: they all are science fiction flops that feature A-list movie stars.

One note before we begin: As Looper's sister site /Film has noted in its handy guide on box office hits and box office flops, a movie's production budget combined with marketing and other costs means that it breaks even at roughly twice the cost of the stated budget. As such, while some films on this list did make more money than their budget, they still didn't make nearly enough to turn in a profit. 

Kevin Costner's "Waterworld" could have been a contender. No — actually, it could have been a winner. Costner was on a massive roll when he started making the sci-fi movie. The water-based, postapocalyptic "Mad Max" concept seemed close enough to the Western antics of "Dances with Wolves" that had truly put him on the map. So why wouldn't this be another winner?

The production budget was definitely a factor, for one. Before being dethroned by "Titanic," "Waterworld" held the record of being the most expensive movie ever made. Combined with the fact that the 1995 movie simply wasn't all that great and opened to middling reviews, this meant that the writing was on the wall. At the end of the day, "Waterworld" made $264.2 million at the worldwide box office against a $175 million production budget.

Fortunately, Costner was able to bounce back eventually, and his exemplary feats in projects like Taylor Sheridan neo-Western show "Yellowstone" re-established his legacy. And then, he went all in with "Horizon: An American Saga," which became an infamous Western movie flop with its very first chapter. Hey, at least the man isn't afraid to take risks.

"Blade Runner 2049" had a lot going for it. Harrison Ford returned, and the film had a great lead in Ryan Gosling, one of Hollywood's hottest stars. Denis Villeneuve, who has since proved with the "Dune" movies that he's one of the best when it comes to big-budget science fiction flicks, helmed the project. On the other hand, the 2017 film was an incredibly late follow-up to the original 1982 "Blade Runner" — which might be one of the most iconic science fiction movies in history, but also a solid entry on Looper's list of box office flops that changed everything.

At the end of the day, the equation didn't work in the sequel film's favor. "Blade Runner 2049" was well-received by the critics, but it nevertheless failed to set the box office on fire. With a production budget of $185 million and a global box office haul of $259.7 million, the film sits firmly in the flop category.

In hindsight, it's not hard to see why 2004's "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" was no hit; it was simply a box office bomb too ambitious for its own good. The film's CGI-heavy retrofuturistic look is unique, and the whole project is the brainchild of Kerry Conran, a first-time film director.

However, there were always people who did believe in the project, as shown by the amount of A-list talent playing key roles. The titular Sky Captain is played by Jude Law, with Gwyneth Paltrow playing plucky journalist Polly Perkins. Angelina Jolie also appears in a supporting role, playing an eyepatch-wearing commander of a flying carrier not unlike the helicarriers that S.H.I.E.L.D. would later use in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. You can also spot the likes of Giovanni Ribisi and Michael Gambon in supporting roles.

Unfortunately, despite its highly impressive visuals and decent reviews, the audiences didn't find "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" enticing. With a production budget of $70 million and a worldwide box office haul of just $49.7 million, the movie bombed pretty badly — and despite his impressive vision, Conran hasn't been able to make a feature-length film since.

2015's "Tomorrowland" is proof that not every Disney theme park attraction is worthy of a big-budget movie. While the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films — which were originally based on the ride of the same name — have enjoyed plenty of success, "Tomorrowland" just didn't resonate with the audience. This is despite the fact that the movie stars none other than George Clooney, with Hugh Laurie providing fire support as the villainous David Nix. It's also directed by Brad Bird with a story developed by Bird, Jeff Jensen, and Damon Lindelof, so there's plenty of talent involved.

Then again, the elevator pitch concept of "Tomorrowland" is a bit longer than "fun pirates fighting undead pirates," thanks to its copious inventions, extradimensional futuristic cities, secret science societies, and world-ending plans. The globe-trotting adventure also failed to get too much love from the critics, and at the end of the day, it only made $206.6 million against a budget of $170 million.

"Battlefield Earth" has been called many things, such as the sci-fi flop that ruined John Travolta's acting career and one of the worst science fiction movies ever made. 2000's "Battlefield Earth" is an adaptation of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard's 1982 book of the same name and something of a passion project for Travolta — a Scientologist himself, and the star of the movie as its alien villain, Terl. 

Travolta had grand plans for the film (and an intended sequel) in the wake of his post-"Pulp Fiction" career revival, but the unfortunate fact that "Battlefield Earth" is a very bad movie didn't give much chance for those plans to become reality. Critics deemed the film unappealing and awful, and audiences responded in kind. The ultimate destiny of "Battlefield Earth" was to bring in just $29.7 million at the worldwide box office. With a production budget of $80 million, it goes without saying that a sequel to the much-maligned movie hasn't been on the cards.