Underrated Sci-Fi Movies That Flopped At The Box Office

As the creator behind blockbusters such as the Terminator franchise, Titanic, and Avatar, James Cameron knows how to make a hit. But even the most successful filmography has at least one flop. For Cameron, it’s the 1989 underwater thriller The Abyss. It follows a research team sent to rescue the crew of a sunken nuclear submarine in the deepest part of the ocean. As they struggle to maintain their sanity in the claustrophobic environment, a mysterious series of events outside their submarine hints at an extraterrestrial presence lurking in the deep.  

With its perilous diving sequences, leaking submarines, and aquatic aliens, the movie scratched Cameron’s underwater itch and required significant technological innovation to meet his demand for realism. But it was, by all accounts, a hellish film to shoot. The cast, led by Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio were forced to spend much of the production in a seven-million-gallon tank of water. Ed Harris nearly drowned, and both he and Mastrantonio avoid talking about the film to this day. The fraught production ran woefully behind schedule and the budget ballooned from $33 million to $43 million. Despite the groundbreaking special effects and breathtaking underwater sequences, it flopped at the box office, garnering a scant $54 million domestically. Critics marveled at the technical achievements but condemned it as an “overwrought” and “spectacularly silly” film with an absurd ending. It also suffered from timing. Two other underwater monster movies, Leviathan and DeepStar Six, opened to disastrous critical and box office reception earlier that year, souring audiences to another take on the genre. The Abyss remains one of Cameron’s lesser-known works even though the underwater cinematography is still a revelation 30 years later. The performances also stand out, with Harris’s and Mastrantonio’s portrayal of a volatile marriage just as suspenseful and affecting as the perilous drama spiraling around them. 

In the late ‘90s, a neo-noir sci-fi film was released that featured humanoid aliens dressed in black, grungy city streets, and an everyday protagonist who discovers that reality may not be what it seems. No, it isn’t The Matrix, but Dark City bears such a close resemblance to the Wachowskis’ groundbreaking film that it’s no wonder only one of them is remembered today. Dark City was released a year before The Matrix (which even used some of its sets) but failed to strike the same chord with audiences. As a result, Alex Proyas’s film continues to live in relative obscurity.

Set in an unspecified time, Dark City follows John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) who wakes up in an unfamiliar hotel bathroom with no memory and a dead woman in the bedroom. He begins to question the nature of reality when he is pursued by tall, shadowy strangers who appear to be controlling the world around them without anyone but Murdoch noticing. When the film was released, critics immediately pointed out the strong parallels to other films. Dark City is a roll call of classic cinema, with shades of everything from 1927’s Metropolis, to the manga series Akira, to Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner. This proved to be incriminating for some reviewers, but famed critic Roger Ebert considered it “a triumph” and would later include it in his list of “Great Movies.” Poor test screenings led the studio to remove scenes and add an infamous voiceover in the opening seconds that spoiled the plot. Proyas has said that the film “fell through the cracks” when the studio struggled to market it. With a budget of $27 million, it made only $5 million opening weekend.

Christopher Nolan has cited Dark City as an influence for Inception, but the film remains underappreciated. While many reviewers scorned its overt parallels to classic films, the sheer volume of its references creates a distinct style that is entirely its own. This style also serves a narrative purpose that is revealed in the final act, demonstrating how production design can serve plot to dazzling effect. Beyond its visual inventiveness, however, the film’s themes of reality, memory, and the essence of the human soul still resonate decades later.

When Event Horizon was released in 1997, it was slammed by critics. One reviewer hated it so much that he compared the experience of watching it to putting a bucket over your head and banging it with a wrench for 100 minutes. Considering the film is only 96 minutes long, that is harsh condemnation indeed. Set in the year 2047, the story follows a rescue crew sent to investigate the mysterious reappearance of a spaceship called Event Horizon that disappeared into a black hole seven years earlier. When they reach the ship, it appears to be empty. As they explore its gothic depths, however, they realize they are not alone. 

The film was plagued with setbacks from the start of production. When James Cameron’s Titanic was delayed, Paramount gave director Paul WS Anderson a generous $60 million and creative freedom to get the film out as quickly as possible. His decision to make a sci-fi flick that resembled The Shining more than 2001: A Space Odyssey did not go over well with test audiences, who were so disturbed by the first cut of the film that Anderson had to remove a significant number of scenes. The resulting edit fell flat with audiences and critics, who voiced confusion over the genre-bending sci-fi/horror plot and the derivative storyline (it drew heavily on films such as 1972’s Solaris). Event Horizon would gross only $26 million at the box office, a crushing failure for Paramount. 

In the 15 years since its release, however, Event Horizon has gained new life. With its stunning set design modeled on Notre Dame Cathedral and committed performances from the likes of Laurence Fishburne and Sam Neill, it is now recognized as an innovative contribution to the genre. Even its tonal inconsistency is lauded, with the abrupt third act switch from cerebral sci-fi thriller to all-out gore-fest remaining one of the most disturbing and visceral representations of hell depicted on-screen.

Few flops have the distinction of bringing down an entire studio. Titan A.E. is one of them. Fox’s animation division had been up and running for six years by the time the apocalyptic sci-fi space drama was released, but had only produced one other film, Anastasia, in 1997. Titan A.E. was intended to finally position the studio as a worthy opponent of Disney. Instead, it brought Fox Animation Studios to an abrupt end. 

Set in the year 3028, the film begins with Earth getting blown into oblivion by an alien race called the Drej. Cale Tucker, one of the few surviving humans, bands together with a rag-tag crew of space creatures to find the Titan, a spaceship created by his late father which is the last hope for humanity’s survival. With a reported budget of $100 million and a box office return of $36 million, Titan A.E. was a bomb that imploded Fox Animation. The directors of the film, Don Bluth and Gary Goldman, have yet to make another Hollywood movie. 

Even Titan A.E.’s defenders concede that it is not a perfect film, but its colossal failure was not due entirely to the plot holes and overt parallels to Star Wars. One of the main issues was its target audience. While Anastasia had been aimed squarely at the Disney crowd, complete with an intrepid princess and musical interludes, Titan A.E. is dark, dystopian, and downright nihilistic. Voiced by Matt Damon, Cale is a jaded teen with daddy issues who repeatedly resists the call to action even with humanity is on the brink of extinction. It is not a kid’s movie, but the teens it was aimed at weren’t rushing to see an animated movie when they were accustomed to getting their space fix from live action. But its combination of CGI and 2D animation was enough to gain effusive praise from critic Roger Ebert, and the movie’s commitment to angst and unsanitized violence makes it stand out among other animated features of the era. Today, Titan A.E. has a passionate following.

Few movies have a reputation as humiliating as John Carter. Intended to herald the beginning of a new Hollywood franchise, it instead became a cautionary tale that reshaped the movie business. Based on the Edgar Rice Burroughs series John Carter of Mars, the film centers on a Civil War veteran who is transported to the red planet, called “Barsoom'' by its inhabitants.With hit-making Pixar director Andrew Stanton at the helm, a fantastical world of frightening and adorable creatures, and a hero as charismatic as Burrrough’s more famous creation, Tarzan, John Carter was expected to win big for Disney. In total, they sank about $350 million into the project, a price tag so high that experts projected the film would have to make a staggering $600 million just to break even. It failed by a long shot, resulting in a $200 million writedown for Disney. Less than a year later, the studio acquired Lucasfilm, which together with Marvel has allowed Disney to stick to profit-making certainties.

John Carter may be remembered as the floppiest flop of them all, but it was not as poorly received as its infamy suggests. Critics praised its unique world-building and impressive visual effects. One critic even argued that the controversial budget was justified, writing that “for once, the money is truly in service of wonder.” Ironically, the influence of the source material may have contributed to John Carter’s lukewarm reception. Both George Lucas and James Cameron have cited Burroughs’s stories as inspiration for Star Wars and Avatar, respectively. By the time John Carter finally made it to the big screen, everything that made it so innovative had already been done.

There was a period starting in the late '80s when Disney could do no wrong. From The Little Mermaid to The Lion King to Beauty and the Beast, the era became known as the Disney Renaissance because almost every animated film the studio released was showered with box office receipts and critical acclaim. One of the few exceptions was 2002’s Treasure Planet, a flop that signaled the end of Disney’s illustrious era.

Based on Robert Louis Stevenson’s 1883 novel Treasure Island, the movie follows wayward teen Jim Hawkins (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), whose desire for adventure is finally realized when he receives a map to the mythical Treasure Planet. The quest takes him on a journey through space alongside a group of friends including a feline ship captain (Emma Thompson), the ship’s cook (Brian Murray), and a canine astronomer (David Hyde Pierce). Accustomed to a string of Disney classics, critics were warm but not effusive, noting that it was a mediocre version of a tired formula. Pixar had already demonstrated the potential of 3D animation in Toy Story and Monsters, Inc., making the familiar 2D Disney style (Treasure Planet combined both 2D and 3D animation) look old-fashioned. The film also coincided with the release of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, trouncing Disney’s hope of having a decent opening weekend. Costing $140 million, it only made $109 million worldwide. 

The mixture of classic 2D animation and CGI may have looked outdated to audiences in 2002, but 20 years later, the inventiveness of Treasure Planet is apparent. Turning a classic 19th century seafaring novel into a space traveling sci-fi adventure was daring, but the filmmakers succeeded by adopting the “70/30 rule,” basing 70 percent of the design on the 1800s and 30 percent on a sci-fi future. This creates a unique alternate universe of space surfboards, steampunk cyborgs, and ships sailing through a rainbow-colored ocean of stars. These qualities, alongside the distinctly early aughts soundtrack, makes Treasure Island a forgotten time capsule and a timeless classic all in one.