![how much did each of the mummy movies make how much did each of the mummy movies make](https://www.cheatsheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/the-mummy-returns-dwayne-johnson.jpg)
![how much did each of the mummy movies make how much did each of the mummy movies make](https://img-s3.onedio.com/id-58271603845b0c062a0d9358/rev-0/w-500/h-680/s-7ebaab3218acb2749f352f643a5378554718015c.jpg)
Conversely, Mad Max: Fury Road made $376m (without China) on a similar budget and was considered a hit.
![how much did each of the mummy movies make how much did each of the mummy movies make](https://basementrejects.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/mummy-2017-sofia-boutella-london-attack-review.jpg)
#HOW MUCH DID EACH OF THE MUMMY MOVIES MAKE MOVIE#
Terminator Genisys made $440m worldwide (the first movie to top $400m global without topping $100m domestic) in 2015 and effectively killed the franchise. Warcraft made $433m worldwide last summer, but it’s still a wash. Sure, most films aren’t going to flirt with $1 billion+ worldwide, but the $585 million that Iron Man made in 2008 wasn’t good enough for Man of Steel ($668m) in 2013. But, as I discussed last year when Batman v Superman came out, the bar for franchise-friendly success has shot upward at least since The Avengers back in 2012. Yes, overseas expansion, domestic inflation and 3D bumps play a role in that as well. Second of all, The Mummy isn’t quite a hit despite making more worldwide (not accounting for inflation and 3D bumps) than Batman Begins ($374 million in 2005), Superman Returns ($391m in 2006), Star Trek ($385m in 2009), Tron: Legacy ($400m in 2010) Captain America ($371m in 2011), and Snow White and the Huntsman ($396m in 2012). With the caveat that A) no one sets out to make a bad movie and B) the quality of a finished film is rarely preordained, if there is a real box office incentive to make movies that audiences and critics actually like, that’s a good thing. The good news is that, if Hollywood continues to double-down on this whole expanded universe thing (I again argue that audiences don’t care), then there will be greater incentive to make sure that the movies are “good” as opposed to merely containing elements that would theoretically incur global box office glory. But if it breaks out over Valentine’s Day weekend in 2019 and justifies itself, it will be despite The Mummy, not because of it. Now, it is entirely possible that a halfway decent The Bride of Frankenstein, which will star Javier Bardem and (allegedly) someone along the lines of Angelina Jolie in the title role, will be a hit in-and-of-itself. Because The Mummy wasn’t very good (and I’m the guy who defends Oblivion), moviegoers are not necessarily chomping at the bit for Bill Condon’s The Bride of Frankenstein or whatever follows that one in the so-called Dark Universe. It has to inspire interest in already pre-planned (if not pre-dated) sequels and/or spin-offs. It’s no longer enough for a film of this nature to make money or be even enough to be perceived as profitable. The relative failure of the picture is indicative of the new normal for franchises and cinematic universes. No, it’s not a King Arthur: Legend of the Sword catastrophe, but it’s not a bright-and-shining triumph either. When you add in marketing costs and other related expenses, the overall picture gets a little bleaker.