Hollywood is a business built on risk, and nothing depletes studio reserves with the potential to fill them back up ten-fold quite like sending stars to the, well, stars. Space films represent the ultimate high-risk, high-reward gamble in movie economics – mind-numbingly expensive to produce, ridiculously difficult to execute, yet capable of supercharging the box office to send executive paydays to new galaxies.

Way back when director Georges Méliès shot a rocket into the face of the moon in 1902’s A Trip to the Moon, space movies didn’t face mountains of scrutiny because very few could fact-check your interpretation of the solar system. And there was no Neil deGrasse Tyson to "well, actually" you on social media.

As one industry veteran puts it, "There was a time when filmmakers could make a pretty effective space movie because there wasn't as high of a bar before we went into space."

Once the Apollo 11 footage was transmitted worldwide, raising the bar for awe and inspiration, audience expectations were forever altered. Through sheer ground-breaking genius, Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey had aimed for this new standard, collaborating closely with renowned science-fiction author Arthur C. Clarke, who co-wrote the screenplay and provided foundational scientific concepts. Kubrick also sought advice from leading scientists, aerospace engineers, and futurists.

But despite its beloved perch in pop culture, the movie was not a huge moneymaker for MGM in 1968, not until later. Studios remained skeptical about cosmic content, even while kids devoured Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon serials. Then, in 1977, Star Wars exploded Hollywood economics.

"Once the summer movie boom started with Jaws and then you add Star Wars, it really ignited the space box office movie race," says Paul Dergarabedian, Senior Media Analyst at Comscore. "It proved that there was astronomical commercial value in space movies."

When Ridley Scott's Alien skulked into theaters in 1979, studio executives realized space settings could support diverse storytelling approaches while still filling seats. Alien also revealed a crucial financial lesson: with its focus on claustrophobic corridors rather than planetary vistas, space horror could potentially cost less than epic space operas. Modern budget-conscious space flicks such as Moon and Europa Report show how story, character, premise and genre can substitute for raw spectacle. 

Apollo 13, a tentpole directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks in 1995, was a major commercial and critical success upon its release. Made with a production budget of approximately $52 million, the film grossed around $355 million worldwide. It was the third-highest-grossing film domestically in 1995 and became one of Universal Pictures’ most successful films of the decade. Critically acclaimed for its historical accuracy, suspenseful storytelling, technical realism, and compelling performances, Apollo 13 garnered widespread praise and earned nine Academy Award nominations.

First Man, a smaller-scale film starring Ryan Gosling as Neil Armstrong in 2018, performed modestly at the box office. The film, directed by Damien Chazelle, had a production budget of approximately $59 million. Globally, it grossed around $105.7 million, with roughly $44.9 million from the domestic market. While the film managed to recoup its production budget, when accounting for marketing and distribution expenses, it wasn’t considered a financial success. However, First Man received critical acclaim for its realistic portrayal of the Apollo 11 mission, cinematography, and performances, notably Gosling’s portrayal of Armstrong. The film won an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects and garnered nominations in technical and artistic categories.

Delivering an authentically believable space film that wows the imagination typically requires enough cash to fund a small NASA mission. Creating cosmic environments, whether through practical effects, elaborate sets, or increasingly sophisticated CGI, usually demands serious financial thrust. The Empire Strikes Back saw its budget balloon from $8 million to $30.5 million in 1980. The Force Awakens is the most expensive film ever made. This level of investment excludes many smaller studios and production companies from even attempting traditional space epics. The path to profitability is simply littered with debris. 

"Your movie, at least on paper to investors and studio partners, has to make financial success. Creating something set in space is never going to be inexpensive, so how do you do that with a mind for profitability," Dergarabedian said. 

Despite Tom Cruise’s star power and the film's impressive visuals and solid reviews, 2013’s Oblivion barely reached $290 million worldwide on a $120 million budget. Throw in what was likely a hefty marketing budget and it’s highly unlikely the studio earned its money back. John Carter, Solo: A Star Wars Story, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets — the list of costly space-set box office misfires from the last 15 years goes on and on. Failing to appeal to global audiences is practically a death sentence in this genre. 

So what separates the financial disasters from the cash cows? Industry veterans point to a constellation of factors.

"To knock it out of the park, you need some star power, an easily digestible and understood premise, great marketing, a budget that delivers the presentation goods, and you need to also open at an opportune time," explains Dergarabedian.

This collective criteria helps explain hits like The Martian ($631 million worldwide), Interstellar ($757 million), and Gravity ($724 million). (All three films notched multiple Oscar nominations, including two Best Picture nods). Each film boasted A-list talent from Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, to Matt Damon, Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway. These names were flanked by high-concept yet accessible premises (man stranded on Mars, save the world, get back to earth), and timeless visuals that were worth the price of admission alone.

While you and I may love the more esoteric and cerebral space films too, general audiences don’t always share our affinity. A24's Robert Pattinson-led arthouse space journey High Life earned critical praise but negligible ticket sales. Not to pick on Pattinson again, but this year’s Mickey 17 struggled to market its cloning concept and off-kilter tone, which hurt its broad commercial prospects. Ad Astra, starring Brad Pitt, had a production budget estimated between $80 million and $100 million, factoring in reshoots and post-production costs . The film grossed approximately $127 million worldwide, with $50.2 million from the U.S. and Canada. It was considered a box office disappointment.

The economics shift considerably depending on which sub-genre you’re exploring — alien invasion, horror, space opera, sci-fi fantasy, etc. Star Wars captures the financial zeitgeist partly because it appeals to everyone from wide-eyed kids to nostalgic grandparents. Star Wars is one of the few non-space exploration topics written about at Supercluster, its impact still permeating throughout the space industry and popular culture. The Falcon 9 is named after the Millennium Falcon. The CIA used a Star Wars fan site to send coded messages to operatives around the world.

Conversely, R-rated sci-fi horror like Life targets a narrower demographic slice, making cost-benefit analysis much trickier. Films like Passengers, starring Chris Pine and Jennifer Lawrence, were met with critical derision thanks to tone deaf character choices. These underscore the inherent problem with our fascination with space — there simply aren’t enough good stories to tell and the bad ones leave pockmarks on the genre’s commercial viability. Like any fad, oversaturation of sub-par product is a constant concern. 

The Creative Arts Agency (CAA) has yet to build a working space capsule (that we know of) so Hollywood has to piggyback off existing real-life missions if they want to make space movies on-location. That's the likely path for Tom Cruise and director Doug Liman as they attempt a previously reported $200 million project partially filmed on the International Space Station. However, no public update on the project has been given since 2023. We do know that Cruise tried on SpaceX's flight suit.

"For general audiences, I think that could be one helluva of a marketing hook, especially with Tom Cruise," Dergarabedian said. "Top Gun in outer space would be a very expensive endeavor.” For comparison, the cost of Katy Perry's flight aboard Blue Origin's New Shepard to suborbital space is estimated to be around $1.2 -$1.5 million while Cruise's flight to the ISS aboard Dragon could run around $65 million for a 10-day mission, if he flew with broker Axiom.

As Hollywood waits to see whether or not Cruise launches to orbit, Russia has already shot a hit movie aboard the ISS. Russia's The Challenge is the first feature film to send a professional film crew into orbit and stars Russian actress Yulia Peresild and cosmonaut Oleg Novitskiy. Beating tinseltown to the punch raises the question of whether national space programs or private commercial endeavors are currently the best way to reach this new filmmaking tier. The Challenge was a huge hit in Russia.

Though we’re more exploring the financial track record and risk-reward of space films, let's acknowledge the cultural benefits that aren’t reflected on P&L statements or quarterly earnings reports. As one industry insider notes, "These movies historically have sparked an interest in science and math in kids. It's made math cool."

This cultural impact provides an additional ROI that accountants can't easily quantify. Films like Hidden Figures and The Martian — which NASA helped support with resources and expertise — have inspired new generations of scientists and engineers, creating value that extends far beyond opening weekend numbers. NASA even allowed Michael Bay’s campy classic Armageddon to film at real locations such as the Neutral Buoyancy Lab (a pool used to simulate weightlessness), various launch pads, and Edwards Air Force Base. Additionally, they provided spacesuits for use in the film.

Space movies remain a high-wire act of extreme cost and difficulty for Hollywood. Yet when they deliver, they replenish studio coffers and inspire a new generation of creatives and STEM hopefuls.

As we chart a course further into the 21st century, new technologies may bring production (and space travel) costs down to Earth, easing the barrier of entry to big swing blockbuster space films. The rise of international co-productions helps to mitigate risk among many partners and open new doors to multinational cooperation. While we don't cooperate in space, China's large film market is home to big budget sci-fi films, including the space epic The Wandering Earth, the country's sixth highest-grossing movie of all time. Could space cinema open a new platform for space diplomacy?

Amid it all, the audience’s continued fascination with celestial cinema endures and while many lessons were learned from the pantheon of space-themed productions, it is clear that big creative and economic risks can come with big rewards. With a superhero bump, space is likely to dominate the box office again this summer with fresh takes on Superman and Fantastic Four, heavily influenced by the Apollo-era, hitting the silver screen.