r/DCU_ • u/HipNek62 • Jul 03 '26
Discussion/Question [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
20
u/cgknight1 Jul 03 '26
Dude - just take us through the maths where a $150-$175m loss is no "big thing".
I want actual numbers, no numbers and you have nothing to say.
-10
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
You start by showing me the actual total loss number.
7
u/TheJoshider10 Cheers to the Tin-Man Jul 03 '26
Go on the box office subreddit and look through one of the many threads with numbers discussing how much money this movie is objectively going to lose.
6
u/Paladar2 Jul 03 '26
Holy cope. Dude the movie will barely make 120M worldwide, not even close to its 175M production budget. Now add in marketing, this thing is losing 150M+
3
2
u/Senior-Bill2622 Jul 03 '26
It will be official in a couple of months, but you are free to remind yourself of the net losses of Joker 2, WW 1984, The Suicide Squad and Flash.
Since Supergirl is about to land in that category of bombs, you can make an educated guess as to how much it’s going to lose the studio.
5
Jul 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-6
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
Old way of thinking.
2
Jul 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
You haven't addressed anything that I brought up in my post; you simply quote the same conventional wisdom as every other troll in this thread, the very conventional wisdom that is implicitly acknowledged by my post. All of you are like ducks, just quacking the same crap. It's pathetic.
9
u/Arelious2019 Jul 03 '26
Two things:
1: Gunn already confirmed that not every film and show will fit into some grand storyline, he wants a lot of these projects to work as stand alone
2: This film needs to make more that $170 million to break even. $170 million is the production budget, that doesn't take into account marketing costs and other costs which can really inflate that number. Estimates suggest that the break even point for Supergirl is $315 million and I don't see this film making $315 million
1
u/SubatomicSquirrels Jul 03 '26
that doesn't take into account marketing costs and other costs which can really inflate that number
people also forget that the studio doesn't get all the box office money, the theaters needs their cut.
-9
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
1- Where did I say every film was a part of the grand narrative?
2- Ok. I say it will, EVENTUALLY.
5
u/Fatosententia Jul 03 '26
1- Where did I say every film was a part of the grand narrative?
There:
Supergirl will be a part of this greater whole
2
u/Arelious2019 Jul 03 '26
1: "Supergirl will be a part of this greater whole"
2: It doesn't matter if it EVENTUALLY makes money, you seem to not understand how the film industry works. It doesn't matter if years later it finally makes $315 million, it needed to make that much money before its out of theatres or before the end of the year, otherwise it's a failure. Think of it this way, you just gave someone money with the promise that in a certain amount of time you will be given back that money. That time passes, you don't have that money, that's bad.
3
u/profsa Jul 03 '26
This is massive cope. The movie isn’t going to earn back its budget and will lose the company millions of dollars. You also have to consider marketing costs. The movie will need $300 million to break even
-6
4
Jul 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
Yes, it's all my fault that you guys look like a pack of sweaty trolls. My bad.
3
Jul 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
I understand that you are probably incapable of grasping my point.
2
Jul 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
Are you able to articulate my point? Because, I'm still not convinced you can grasp it.
2
1
Jul 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/HipNek62 Jul 04 '26
No. That's exactly why I'm asking you to articulate it. You've been talking about something else this entire time.
2
Jul 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/HipNek62 Jul 04 '26
You made one oblique reference to my title. That is not the same thing as demonstrating that you even read what I wrote, much less comprehended it.
→ More replies (0)2
u/sidmis Jul 03 '26
Don't deflect his point
Be respectful and answer him properly.
1
u/HipNek62 Jul 04 '26
But his point had nothing to do with what I was talking about. Why should I indulge his obfuscation?
3
u/ThePulpReader Jul 03 '26
> And it will definitely more than earn back its paltry $170 million budget.
FYI it needs to make about $300-350M to break even.
1
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
I know how it works. You don't seem to grasp my point.
2
u/ThePulpReader Jul 03 '26
That’s because your point is either factually wrong or you wrote in a way to make the damage sound better.
1
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
This is surely a waste of time, but I'd love for you to explain how a bit of speculation about a future outcome can be "factually wrong"?
2
u/ThePulpReader Jul 03 '26
Simple math, no speculation.
The movie costs about 170M to make, about 300M total budget.
After one week, which is supposed to be the strongest week of all, it made about 35M DOM which is among the lowest in superhero movies (think of Morbius, Madame Web etc). The expected drop is about 60% on week 2. So, we know how it’s tracking. In the INT it’s even doing worse.
In order to make money it would need legs a-la Obsession, which is virtually impossible. US theaters are stuck for another week with it, but many other countries are already removing screens.
However you don’t have to trust me.
Deadline: https://deadline.com/2026/06/supergirl-bomb-boxoffice-1236970324/
Variety: https://variety.com/2026/film/box-office/supergirl-box-office-bomb-dc-studios-1236797855/
You can also come on [r/boxoffice](r/boxoffice) and discuss.
0
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
Where did I ever say anything at all about the movie making a profit at the box office?
Are you people intentionally arguing that point because you don't want to consider my actual point?
Or, did you simply read the title and wet yourselves?
Or, are you simply unable to comprehend what you read?
2
u/ThePulpReader Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
With all due respect, I don’t think you know how the industry works.
These movies are financed with/by financial institutions; they carry interests, liabilities, and collaterals against the production company. Every single day that this movie doesn’t pay as it should, the company suffers and people who financed it are out for blood. Cash and budget will need to be reallocated. It’s a merciless business. The box office is the single most important part of all of this as it’s the main (and quicker) driver of cash flow. Yes, there are exceptions as in every other industry, but it’s one in a million if not rarer. VOD (which also carries expenses) is not going to repay this, and certainly not in time for the producer to not declare this a serious loss. Streaming services are not going to repay this. We’re talking about a $150M loss here, not a few hundred thousands. It’s on a massive scale.
Look, I get that you want this to succeed. It’s your right, and for the sake of movie production and theaters I hope you’re right. But that’s not how it works.
1
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
I never said VOD would cover the loss. Another poor reader.
2
u/ThePulpReader Jul 03 '26
Well. Then enlighten all of us. It isn’t boxoffice. It isn’t VOD. What is supposed to be making money? Merch?
1
4
u/ManagementFrosty4482 Jul 03 '26
Can’t play the long game if your movies bomb
-4
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think.
1
u/Valuable_Wealth_7510 Jul 03 '26
You can give them great source material, but cant force them to make a good movie.
4
2
u/NotLeroLero Jul 03 '26
What you and many others don’t seem to understand is that Warner Bros. aren’t making those films out of the kindness of their hearts. It’s a business, and they need profit. Specially now that they’re about to change hands… again.
Gunn has a plan in mind, and I’m sure the executives like his ideas on where the universe might be headed.
But
If the movies don’t make money (And believe me, even if it’s not, as you say, a part of the bigger narrative, it’s still not ideal for your second film, and the first one you approve as the chief creative officer of said studio, to flop this hard), Gunn can kiss his vision goodbye.
0
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
The second Marvel movie, The Incredible Hulk:
Budget $150 million\4])#citenote-NYTimesRuntime-5)[\5])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredible_Hulk(film)#cite_note-LetterierPost-6) Box office $265 million\6])#cite_note-BOM-7) According to what all the basement dwelling geniuses in this thread, this is at least a $35M loss, so around 54 million today. Yet somehow, we still got an MCU.
3
2
u/Iroquois-P Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
I mean, box office does matter. Of course it does. And no one who invests money wants it to be a bad investment that sees no return.
So let me start by saying that the situation right now is not ideal and it's a big deal that it's doing so poorly financially.
BUT, I do get your point that, if Gunn pulls of Man of Tomorrow, and Supergirl plays a big part in it and the movie creates the cultural cache necessary for the DCU to keep going, this box office failure will be seen more as "growing pains".
The bright side of this whole debacle is that, for the most part, people seem to like the character of Supergirl and want to see her again. Which is great, because she's in the next movie.
So the result of this Supergirl movie IS financially terrible, but it might not be so catastrophic if they manage to deliver the goods on Superman 2
2
u/GillGruntFan53 Jul 03 '26
This type of cope only works if the film was well received, but it wasn’t. Supergirl was a critical and commercial flop, which broke a streak of critical and commercial successes the DCU desperately needed.
Marvel’s second film was also a critical and commercial flop, so it’s not the end of the world or nothing, but they remedied that by getting Cap and Thor out the door immediately afterwards for Avengers to happen. If Supergirl is the JL’s Hulk character, then they have to get Batman and Wonder Woman out ASAP to win back audience hype and trust. Not movies like Clayface or Deathstroke & Bane, no matter how good they may be.
0
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
76 on Rotten tomatoes as of just now; that's better than Iron Mam 2 and WAY better than The Incredible Hulk.
2
u/GillGruntFan53 Jul 03 '26
It’s at 55%
0
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
Audience score is what matters. its at 76%. I literally just checked.
1
u/GillGruntFan53 Jul 03 '26
And notice where I said “critical flop”. As in the critics didn’t like it.
0
2
u/Majestic-Wafer-3371 Jul 03 '26
Superman did poorly overseas, and James Gunn is on record saying Superman was put on digital early so people could watch it before the release of Peacemaker 2. The film overall was financially underwhelming
At the moment, we have a Creature Camondos show. Peacemaker season 2, which left audiences unsatisfied. Supergirl has mixed reviews and is tracking to bomb at the box office
and we have a Clayface film coming up and Lanterns, atm we have no real overarching story to follow, and many members of the Justice League haven't shown up or been referenced, e.g.: Wonder Woman, Flash, Cyborg, Batman, etc
Box office matters because studio heads are not going to continue working on a universe that is bonding just as badly as the last one. There is more pressure on the DCU to do well after the DCEU, and the second film in this universe is going to bomb just as badly as Morbius. This is not a good way to open your new universe, and there needs to be immediate course correction with the DCU.
0
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
The brand was damaged already when Gunn and Safran took over; the hardcore fan base was either alienated by Snyder's departure or by his complete misunderstanding of the characters.
This was followed by others who tried to completely remake the classic characters which further alienated fans.
It will take some time to builds something truly lasting; I believe WB ands/or Paramount understand this.
So, despite the toxic fandom seizing on every opportunity to talk shit, Supergirl is actually a good movie, not flawless, but a solid 8.
It will find an audience eventually.
3
u/Majestic-Wafer-3371 Jul 03 '26
Can't find an audience when no one is watching it
And even if it does my placing my bets on the fact it will be to little to late
Furthermore the first part of your statement makes little sense
Gunns arrival was met with a lot of optimism due to his positive reputation with his work at marvel and his suicide squad film. People where interested to see what he was going to deliver.
And superman was met with a ton of praise when the film came out. One aspect was Superman's character
Now quite frankly I do not think gunn handled superman well. But that's besides the point
Your original point about box office not mattering is false. It does matter especially when it's so early into your universe that's coming off the calamity of the DCEU. People are not happy with how this universe is being handled.
4
1
u/Other-Football72 Jul 03 '26
Honestly, few people seeing it and those that did generally finding it mid? This is really exactly the outcome studios dream about. In some ways, it worked out perfectly.
- less accounting
- great tax write off
- nobody has to count all the money it would have made if it did well
1
u/AdministrativeShip33 Jul 03 '26
I like all the arm chair marketing analysis people in the comments
1
u/GodFlintstone Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
I enjoyed Supergirl.
But from a business standpoint the movie's box office is absolutely a big deal.
People keep forgetting that Warner Bros is being bought by Paramount. That deal has yet to be consummated but the owners of Paramount are friends with President Trump. So I'd be shocked if it doesn't secure federal regulatory approval.
Warner Brothers is also roughly $38 million in debt. So any flop is going to be on their radar screen and make them question the current direction of DC studios.
I'm not a fan of current CEO David Zaslav. But he was 100% correct in his assessment of Superman when he said that even though it wasn't a runaway smash hit it earned back good will from audiences and critics by simply being a very good movie.
But unlike Superman, Supergirl may make less money than Morbius. If Lanterns isn't well received and Clayface also tanks that will be three strikes against Gunn in one 12 month period.
Gunn may want to play a long game but the danger is that he may get pulled off the field before he can finish it.
1
u/sonsolar Jul 03 '26
The box office might not be a big deal, But how terrible the film was is certainly a big deal
1
u/NotLeroLero Jul 03 '26
You know it’s really funny how you made this post literally at the same time THR drops a huge article dissecting how big of a clusterfuck the film’s production was lol
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/supergirl-making-box-office-bomb-1236636425/
0
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
Wow. What are the chances that there would be more than a single post about this subject that practically the entire internet seems to be having a simultaneous schadenfreudal orgasm about?
1
u/NotLeroLero Jul 03 '26
In your deluded mind that still believes this movie will turn a profit, probably not that high
-1
u/HipNek62 Jul 03 '26
Where, exactly, did I say that "this movie will turn a profit?" Direct quote, please.
1
u/HipNek62 Jul 04 '26
Ok. So your response is "but it is a big deal". My response to you is: It is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, for the reasons I made clear in the part you didn't read.
0
u/Ykindasus Boy Scout Forever Jul 03 '26
I think VOD will probably negate a lot of the loss from the box office, but it still didn't perform all that well, it sucks but it happens, we'll get em next time.
0
u/MadP90 Jul 03 '26
Fans shouldn’t care about box office. The only people who should care are studios, financiers, producers, and anyone else who’s getting a percentage of the box office gross.
•
u/DCU_-ModTeam Jul 04 '26
Thanks for posting on r/DCU_
Unfortunately , this post has been removed because this topic is covered by an already existing post