Lets be honest... They knew this movie was going to "fail" because all these original Sci-Fi properties fail. But the definition for failure is bullshit. If you don't triple your budget on the opening weekend, then you're classified as a failure.

But that doesn't mean they won't make money off it. There's still plenty of tail-end money to be made. So they release the film with the expectation that it'll flop, but it still makes a profit.

For example, the new Ghostbusters was a massive failure. It lost $70 million and was championed by MRAs as the failure that it deserved to be and whatnot. But it still made $35 million in DVD/blu-ray#tab=video-sales), and an additional $100m internationally. So it did turn a profit after all.

The way that people define success in film is wonky, imo. Sure, Avatar obviously made a lot more considering their figures on tail-end stuff is much higher... but that doesn't mean that every movie sets out to become Avatar