Support NeoGAF

[Hawk The Slayer]

Better than I expected and liked this a good deal more than Fantastic Four which I saw the day after.

Prefer this Superman more than the Synder One as that one was too serious and is less vibrant compared to this one.

Looking forward to the sequel and the other DCU movies like Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and the eventual Justice League.

 

[VulcanRaven]

I hope so too, but you know what they will do ....

They definitely won't be introducing Batman yet. I don't want BvS situation again.

 

[kunonabi]

They definitely won't be introducing Batman yet. I don't want BvS situation again.

I mean there isn't any need to panic like there was after MoS so yeah I wouldn't expect the Bat Phone to be ringing just yet.

 

[March Climber]

They definitely won't be introducing Batman yet. I don't want BvS situation again.

This is the sad thing, because I know tons of fans expect this. They don't need to make these two fight to give them a good movie together, as their team ups (and banter during those team ups) are always the moments that people reference over the years as their best moments.

\

I just hope that Gunn's team really nails the perfect Batman for David Corenswet's Superman. He can't be too broody and dark, but he also can't be too lighthearted. It has to be just enough of a difference from Clark that he makes sense, not only as Batman, but eventually as Clark's best friend.

It has to be a Batman that's closer in feeling to BTAS, JLU, or DCAMU.

We could even end up with a fun moment like this:

 

[Klosshufvud]

Latest box office predictions pin this at 630-640m WW final number. A far cry from the fanboy expectations before release of numbers near the billion and not even matching 2013 Man of Steel despite a massive inflation occuring between releases. Whatever the reason, people didn't turn out for Superman 2025. Depending on what side of the camp you're on, you'll find different people to blame. I personally think the movie was extremely mediocre and Marvel-like and didn't stand out in a meaningful way. Gunn is not fit for Superman. He can't commit properly.

 

[VulcanRaven]

Latest box office predictions pin this at 630-640m WW final number. A far cry from the fanboy expectations before release of numbers near the billion and not even matching 2013 Man of Steel despite a massive inflation occuring between releases. Whatever the reason, people didn't turn out for Superman 2025. Depending on what side of the camp you're on, you'll find different people to blame. I personally think the movie was extremely mediocre and Marvel-like and didn't stand out in a meaningful way. Gunn is not fit for Superman. He can't commit properly.

I wouldn't consider that a big win for MoS if it gets that close. That also took a lot longer to reach 600M.

 

[Klosshufvud]

I wouldn't consider that a big win for MoS if it gets that close. That also took a lot longer to reach 600M.

I don't consider MoS' BO run noteworthy no. But this is about S2025 and how it stands against a movie a lot of fanboys deemed a failure at the BO. The way Gunn/fanboys bragged so much about being the most watched trailer of all times - only to blame Trump when those views did not convert to ticket sales. There was absolutely a touch of bitterness there.

The double standards of online fandoms make themselves real apparent over time. How one movie was scrutinized for not breaking every record in the book while the other movie is deemed a hit...because the people selling it said so! There was also a narrative spun of it having great legs but that reasoning fell on itself in the past weeks too. And now it seems those fanboys have just settled on the post-covid/superhero fatigue argument but never mind Deadpool's 1.2bn BO last year though.
You may find me somewhat bitter but remember this is an online fandom that would come waving their box office numbers first things first in film discussions. I wasn't particularly impressed by that then and I'm not particularly impressed by the double standards of it now. I am relieved it didn't make billions though because I think this portrayal of Superman is a huge disservice to the character and we don't need more of it. If it did make billions, we all know just exactly who fanboys would throw some nasty shades at in a petty sense of victory.

 

[Madflavor]

Latest box office predictions pin this at 630-640m WW final number. A far cry from the fanboy expectations before release of numbers near the billion and not even matching 2013 Man of Steel despite a massive inflation occuring between releases. Whatever the reason, people didn't turn out for Superman 2025. Depending on what side of the camp you're on, you'll find different people to blame. I personally think the movie was extremely mediocre and Marvel-like and didn't stand out in a meaningful way. Gunn is not fit for Superman. He can't commit properly.

A lot of people turned out for Superman. It's had a 2.8 - 3.0x multiplier which is great for a CBM movie. It means it's legs have been really good due to word of mouth. It's also grossing more than all MCU films this year by a mile. So you saying people didn't turn out for Superman, is just being willfully ignorant at this point, and at odds with reality. I'm pretty sure it's because you want the film to fail and be a flop for whatever reason, I think you've been wearing your heart on your sleeve on that one.

The only discussion actually worth having here, is what is going on with the International Market, because that's what actually effected Superman's box office in a negative way. Overseas are by and large, done with Superheroes. If they weren't, I can guarantee you right now that Superman would have crossed $800m minimum at the BO.

Superman isn't a flop, no matter how badly you want it to be. It's already made back it's budget, and they probably already made back much of their marketing budget due to cross promotion, brand partnerships and merchandise. They'll continue to profit from here, especially once VoD hits. You guys need to give it up at this point.

A far cry from the fanboy expectations before release of numbers near the billion

I am relieved it didn't make billions though because I think this portrayal of Superman is a huge disservice to the character and we don't need more of it. If it did make billions, we all know just exactly who fanboys would throw some nasty shades at in a petty sense of victory.

You're getting more of it. It never needed $1 billion to make that happen. It's happening.

 

[Klosshufvud]

A lot of people turned out for Superman. It's had a 2.8 - 3.0x multiplier which is great for a CBM movie. It means it's legs have been really good due to word of mouth. It's also grossing more than all MCU films this year by a mile. So you saying people didn't turn out for Superman, is just being willfully ignorant at this point, and at odds with reality. I'm pretty sure it's because you want the film to fail and be a flop for whatever reason, I think you've been wearing your heart on your sleeve on that one.

The only discussion actually worth having here, is what is going on with the International Market, because that's what actually effected Superman's box office in a negative way. Overseas are by and large, done with Superheroes. If they weren't, I can guarantee you right now that Superman would have crossed $800m minimum at the BO.

Superman isn't a flop, no matter how badly you want it to be. It's already made back it's budget, and they probably already made back much of their marketing budget due to cross promotion, brand partnerships and merchandise. They'll continue to profit from here, especially once VoD hits. You guys need to give it up at this point.





You're getting more of it. It never needed $1 billion to make that happen. It's happening.

Why do you assume overseas are done with superheroes? Deadpool did great overseas. It might be true that overseas are getting tired of the formulaic superhero movies with the same Marvel flavor repeated ad nauseaum though. I can definitely see that happening. You can only recycle the same movie for so long until audiences catch on and realize they're being duped.
I was indifferent to the film's box office performance and I generally dislike valuing movies based on their financial success. My favorite movies of all times have never been that particularly great at the box office. Ok there's Gone with the Wind (it holds up so well today, you'd be surprised) but other than that, the noteworthy films that have made an impact on cinema have never been top earners at the BO. But yes it's true that after I saw the movie, I would prefer if DC didn't venture down this path of Marvel-like slap stick movies. I preferred having DC as the more grounded but simultaneously more mythical alternative to Marvel. Now they're pretty much the same. Much because of the outcries of an online fandom too hung up on comic book movies being like their childhood morning cartoons.

Hollywood in general needs to take a hard look at why audiences aren't showing up, and stop blaming it on external factors such as post-covid world or smartphones. If movies were good, people would watch. Standards have dropped and it's no surprise that the blockbusters of today pale in comparison to those made decades back. Superman may not be a flop in the literal sense but fanboys will have to definitely be a bit more humble from now on when engaging in their fanboy wars of dishing out numbers against numbers.

 

[VulcanRaven]

Spoilery set photo:

Spoiler

 

[jason10mm]

Spoilery set photo:

Spoiler

He's really happy to see her

And she gives GREAT handjobs!

Wow, this photo just keeps on giving

 

[VulcanRaven]

 

[Fake]

'The movie doesn't needs to make $650M to break even.'

 

[jason10mm]

Presumably Gunn is getting some back-end profits so he does know the "true" costs and revenue, but when Hollywood accountants get going, NOTHING makes any money

 

[calico]

If a $650m break-even requirement for Superman would be idiotic (even after MoS did much better than that adjusted), what would a non-idiotic one be? $400m? $500m?

If a non-idiotic break-even for Superman is (let's say) $500m, what does a non-idiotic break-even look like for Supergirl? $200m max?

 

[VulcanRaven]

If a $650m break-even requirement for Superman would be idiotic (even after MoS did much better than that adjusted), what would a non-idiotic one be? $400m? $500m?

If a non-idiotic break-even for Superman is (let's say) $500m, what does a non-idiotic break-even look like for Supergirl? $200m max?

The budget of MoS was like 517m if you adjust it to inflation.

 

[Madflavor]

Why do you assume overseas are done with superheroes? Deadpool did great overseas.

Because most Superhero films have been trending downward overall in International markets for a few years now. Pre-Covid the International Market was huge for superhero films, China being the biggest one. Man of Steel grossed nearly $65m in China alone, and then Aquaman did $300m over there. But China doesn't give af about CBMs these days, and the rest of the world is following suite.

You've brought up Deadpool and Wolverine twice now. That movie was an event level film. Hugh Jackman's Wolverine is quite famous, and people turned up to see those two characters in a film together. Same reason people turned up to see Tobey, Andrew and Tom interact in Spiderman NWH. Event films have a much bigger hook to them than a solo film. But this year we had three CBMs that got great reviews and great wom, and overseas didn't show up like they used to. There's no assumptions being made here, it's just pure data. Overseas have lost interest. They don't care whether or not a movie is good. Look at the Jurassic World movies. Terrible films, but people want to see CGI Dinos, so they do great. Then look at recent CBMs. Even the ones that got good reviews and word of mouth, people aren't showing up like they used to. Pretty obvious what's happening here.

People need to realign their expectatoins with Superhero Films. This isn't the Marvel Phase 3 Era anymore, where any superhero film can breeze past $800m easily, and even hit $1b. The Superhero craze of 2008 - 2019 is over. The average CBM is making $400 - $650m these days. We're back to pre-Iron Man market with these movies now. Video Game films are looking like they will be the next big thing.

 

[calico]

The budget of MoS was like 517m if you adjust it to inflation.

Which if so makes the adjusted break-even for MoS higher (likely much higher) than the $650m box office figure being floated here. The point being this rather undermines his "Anyone saying that doesn't have an understanding of the film business - and we would be idiots to make a first-in-a-franchise film that would need to make that much to be profitable" comment. Can't really be playing that card when they literally already did exactly that with MoS.

 

[calico]

Terrible films, but people want to see CGI Dinos, so they do great.

They benefit from not being so oversaturated (one JW every ~3 years vs. 3-5 per year for superhero movies) and from being comparatively woke-free. Even spaced out like this they're still trending down significantly with each release however.

The seemingly endless lower tier superhero slop is not only unprofitable in its own right nowadays, but the sheer volume of it is probably only harming the potential of the big hitters.

 

[VulcanRaven]

Which if so makes the adjusted break-even for MoS higher (likely much higher) than the $650m box office figure being floated here. The point being this rather undermines his "Anyone saying that doesn't have an understanding of the film business - and we would be idiots to make a first-in-a-franchise film that would need to make that much to be profitable" comment. Can't really be playing that card when they literally already did exactly that with MoS.

Maybe they learned their lesson now and somehow kept the budget lower than what people think. I hope so at least.

Edit: I have seen people saying that MoS had good product placement deals. I'm sure they had something similar now.

 

[Klosshufvud]

Because most Superhero films have been trending downward overall in International markets for a few years now. Pre-Covid the International Market was huge for superhero films, China being the biggest one. Man of Steel grossed nearly $65m in China alone, and then Aquaman did $300m over there. But China doesn't give af about CBMs these days, and the rest of the world is following suite.

You've brought up Deadpool and Wolverine twice now. That movie was an event level film. Hugh Jackman's Wolverine is quite famous, and people turned up to see those two characters in a film together. Same reason people turned up to see Tobey, Andrew and Tom interact in Spiderman NWH. Event films have a much bigger hook to them than a solo film. But this year we had three CBMs that got great reviews and great wom, and overseas didn't show up like they used to. There's no assumptions being made here, it's just pure data. Overseas have lost interest. They don't care whether or not a movie is good. Look at the Jurassic World movies. Terrible films, but people want to see CGI Dinos, so they do great. Then look at recent CBMs. Even the ones that got good reviews and word of mouth, people aren't showing up like they used to. Pretty obvious what's happening here.

People need to realign their expectatoins with Superhero Films. This isn't the Marvel Phase 3 Era anymore, where any superhero film can breeze past $800m easily, and even hit $1b. The Superhero craze of 2008 - 2019 is over. The average CBM is making $400 - $650m these days. We're back to pre-Iron Man market with these movies now. Video Game films are looking like they will be the next big thing.

China doesn't give a fuck about CBM these days, yet you omitted the movies that did great in China, such as Deadpool. It's absolutely not a written rule that CBM movies are inherently destined for failure in China nowadays. Event movies or not, movies like Deadpool, Dr Strange 2, Spider-Man show that the genre itself isn't inherently disliked internationally. How do you measure great word of mouth? When audiences are shrunk and the only ones watching are the hardcore fans, of course "word of mouth" will be good as the audience is condensed to its devoted core. Besides, people don't care about reviews or "word of mouth" (such as RT/IMDB user scores) unless they also find the film itself interesting. The same way arthouse doesn't appeal to masses despite great reviews and WOM. Overseas absolutely care if a movie is good or not, it's just that they have a different definition of what's good than you do. Rotten Tomatoes is not the objective truth to mass audiences. You keep making this mistake of assuming that online scores is somehow an objective metric of quality and/or audience appeal.

Even in the "golden age" of superhero movies, it was never guaranteed that movies hit 800m-1bn. During the height of Avengers craze we had movies like Green Lantern that flopped and X-Men First Class that didn't exactly shatter records. Again you're making these sweeping generalizations and conclusions where several examples keep contradicting you, both then and now. It's very naive to assume that WB will pump a movie with a total budget of near 400-500m (according to Hollywood Reporter) without having some internal expectations of profitable yields. The question you should ask yourself is why Superman wasn't considered an event movie for audiences. After all, it's a fresh reboot for the DC universe with the central character of the universe as main character. Could it be that audiences caught on in trailers that the movie wasn't deviating enough from the same superhero formula to bother with? It's a very safe film in the sense that it hardly contradicts the MCU, which is the franchise facing fading popularity, not the whole genre itself.

 

[Madflavor]

China doesn't give a fuck about CBM these days, yet you omitted the movies that did great in China, such as Deadpool. It's absolutely not a written rule that CBM movies are inherently destined for failure in China nowadays. Event movies or not, movies like Deadpool, Dr Strange 2, Spider-Man show that the genre itself isn't inherently disliked internationally. How do you measure great word of mouth? When audiences are shrunk and the only ones watching are the hardcore fans, of course "word of mouth" will be good as the audience is condensed to its devoted core. Besides, people don't care about reviews or "word of mouth" (such as RT/IMDB user scores) unless they also find the film itself interesting. The same way arthouse doesn't appeal to masses despite great reviews and WOM. Overseas absolutely care if a movie is good or not, it's just that they have a different definition of what's good than you do. Rotten Tomatoes is not the objective truth to mass audiences. You keep making this mistake of assuming that online scores is somehow an objective metric of quality and/or audience appeal.

Dr. Strange 2 and Spiderman NWH both came out 3-4 years ago, and the market has been shifting since then. You don't need 10, 20, 30 years for a market to start changing. Spiderman ranks on the Mt Rushmore of most popular superheroes, and NWH was a huge film since it brought back the previous Spiderman actors and villains. Then Deadpool and Wolverine I already explained.

The question you should ask yourself is why Superman wasn't considered an event movie for audiences. After all, it's a fresh reboot for the DC universe with the central character of the universe as main character. Could it be that audiences caught on in trailers that the movie wasn't deviating enough from the same superhero formula to bother with? It's a very safe film in the sense that it hardly contradicts the MCU, which is the franchise facing fading popularity, not the whole genre itself.

The answers are pretty obvious. Superman is not that popular outside of the US save for a few countries like Brazil. He's not even close to the likes of Iron Man or Spiderman. And nobody cares that it's a DC reboot. DC's reputation was in the toilet, and that was reflected off the box office for their last 10 films with the exception of The Batman. Superman was never going to be an event film on the level of something like Spiderman NWH or D&W. Not to mention he's played by a relatively unknown actor.

 

[calico]

Spiderman ranks on the Mt Rushmore of most popular superheroes

With Batman and Superman, traditionally. They are proven over decades and multiple actors.

It remains to be seen whether the likes of Iron Man and Wolverine maintain mainstream cultural relevance beyond their current actors.

 

[Madflavor]

With Batman and Superman, traditionally. They are proven over decades and multiple actors.

It remains to be seen whether the likes of Iron Man and Wolverine maintain mainstream cultural relevance beyond their current actors.

Oh no lol. Superman is not on Batman and Spiderman's level internationally. Supes does really strong in the US and some other countries like Brazil, but not like Spiderman, Batman or Iron Man.

I will say Superman is on the Mt Rushmore of iconic and recognizable Superheroes for sure, but that doesn't translated to popularity.

 

[Klosshufvud]

Dr. Strange 2 and Spiderman NWH both came out 3-4 years ago, and the market has been shifting since then. You don't need 10, 20, 30 years for a market to start changing. Spiderman ranks on the Mt Rushmore of most popular superheroes, and NWH was a huge film since it brought back the previous Spiderman actors and villains. Then Deadpool and Wolverine I already explained.



The answers are pretty obvious. Superman is not that popular outside of the US save for a few countries like Brazil. He's not even close to the likes of Iron Man or Spiderman. And nobody cares that it's a DC reboot. DC's reputation was in the toilet, and that was reflected off the box office for their last 10 films with the exception of The Batman. Superman was never going to be an event film on the level of something like Spiderman NWH or D&W. Not to mention he's played by a relatively unknown actor.

I still don't see much to your point besides MCU which was a box office anomaly back then and no longer is. DC's latest movies underperformed because they were either a, bad or b, undermined by Gunn's DCU or c, combination of both.

If nobody cares that it's a DC reboot, what was the point of rebooting it? With how much WB was bragging about breaking all trailer records, they were absolutely expecting this as an event movie. It goes back to that Variety article earlier where WB execs say this is their storming Normandy moment with a huge marketing campaign to follow it. You keep pointing to every factor you can find but the movie itself. You refuse to admit that the trailers sold this as a Marvel-like movie, a brand that is also under decline. Thus WB committed the grievous error again of mimicking another film universe with a fast fading appeal. WB has done to now finally fast track Batman 2 for development atleast. That one should stir more interest.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

eventprepostrebooteventcovidoverseaszeitgeisteventpopularwomthatmeanswordofmoutheventzendaya

 

[Madflavor]

I still don't see much to your point besides MCU which was a box office anomaly back then and no longer is. DC's latest movies underperformed because they were either a, bad or b, undermined by Gunn's DCU or c, combination of both.

Poor films, bad reputation, Post Covid theater attendance, there's a few reasons.

If nobody cares that it's a DC reboot, what was the point of rebooting it?

The DCEU wasn't working, Gunn pitched his vision to WB, they went with it.

With how much WB was bragging about breaking all trailer records, they were absolutely expecting this as an event movie. It goes back to that Variety article earlier where WB execs say this is their storming Normandy moment with a huge marketing campaign to follow it.

And? What about that says that Warner Bros were expecting numbers that would rival films like The Avengers, Spiderman: NWH, Deadpool and Wolverine? Warner Bros never said they expected a billion dollar movie. The officially said they'd be happy with $500m. Take that however you want.

You keep pointing to every factor you can find but the movie itself. You refuse to admit that the trailers sold this as a Marvel-like movie, a brand that is also under decline. Thus WB committed the grievous error again of mimicking another film universe with a fast fading appeal. WB has done to now finally fast track Batman 2 for development atleast. That one should stir more interest.

What grievous error?

Birds of Prey - $205m
WW84 - $169m
The Suicide Squad - $168m
Black Adam - $393m
Shazam Fury of the Gods - $134m
The Flash - $271m
Blue Beetle - $130m
Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom - $434m
Joker: Folie a Deux - $206m

Superman - $578m looking to finish around $620-630m.

It's an error that their latest film breezed past the box office of their previous 9 films, save for Batman? What reality are you living in? For the first time since The Dark Knight back in 2008, DC finally beat their direct competition who put out three films this year. I can assure you they're happy with these results.

 

[calico]

It is pretty much a given that Superman outperforms all of the shit on that list. If it had not, we would be talking about a disaster rather than merely lacklustre and limping to break-even.

The problem for them remains, how do they avoid their next list of movies which aren't Batman or Superman looking just like that list? I see nothing in this Superman result which would give me confidence that the lower tier characters are now viable again.

If they are truly happy with this result in the context of launching a new connected universe, I think they are likely to soon be unhappy if they proceed on that basis. I think they can be happy that the result suggests that Superman at least is a robust enough to only have returned to the status quo ante, rather than having been permanently damaged by how bad everything else has been.

As for beating the three Marvel movies, if I'm DC I'd have mixed feelings about that given the context that they are all lower tier than Superman and given they all flopped. This is not a great sign for a DC preparing to release similar lower tier comic book movies.

 

[Alcibiades]

Both Superman and the three Marvel movies underperformed. Superman, as the most well-known superhero outside of Batman and Spiderman, should have done better. It was well-received enough to have an OK box office, but just a few years ago Aquaman 2 (last film of a dead franchise) and Black Adam (D-list superhero no one's ever heard of) did in the $400 million range. Reception to both of those movies wasn't very good. Superman should have easily doubled and been in the $800 million range, around where The Batman ended up.

Fantastic Four was a decent movie and did OK box office compared to Captain America and Thunderbolts* but it also should have done a lot better. Even though the Fantastic Four brand isn't as popular as Superman, MCU has always been about elevating second and third tier properties. MCU and comic book movie fatigue is real. Even geek audiences aren't jumping at the chance to see 3 MCU + 1 DC movie in a span of a few months, not to mention all the other offerings out there.

Gunn and Feige will paint a positive light, and things could have been worse, but I think both know it's an uphill climb to capture that magic again. Would a quality Aquaman movie do 1 billion again? Could a good Shazam! movie hit $350 million worldwide again? And what about stuff like Ant-Man (part 2 did $600 million) and Captain Marvel ($1 billion)?

I'm not sure that magic's ever coming back, but you never know. Joker was an unexpected phenomenon so one-off hits like that I believe are still possible, but that was an exception that isn't easily replicated. The best thing they got going is that it's going to be a long while before the next major comic book movie. DC going the once-a-year thing is perfect, and hopefully Marvel moves in that direction.

It's not just the quality-over-quantity thing. You know how eating a couple of delicious cookies is great but eating 20 delicious cookies in too short a time isn't a good idea and may make you hate cookies. That's what happened with comic movies. Even if the movies are good (Thunderbolts*, Superman, and Fantastic Four are all good according to Rotten Tomatoes), you need to give audiences time to build up anticipation. I think its going to help Star Wars that there hasn't been a movie in a while.

 

[Klosshufvud]

What grievous error?

Birds of Prey - $205m
WW84 - $169m
The Suicide Squad - $168m
Black Adam - $393m
Shazam Fury of the Gods - $134m
The Flash - $271m
Blue Beetle - $130m
Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom - $434m
Joker: Folie a Deux - $206m

Superman - $578m looking to finish around $620-630m.

It's an error that their latest film breezed past the box office of their previous 9 films, save for Batman? What reality are you living in? For the first time since The Dark Knight back in 2008, DC finally beat their direct competition who put out three films this year. I can assure you they're happy with these results.

A lot of those movies ended up in the shadow of DCU being announced and/or just being extremely bad movies. I don't see how any of those prove my point wrong. It must be very frustrating for Reeves to write a Batman 2 knowing there's this guy who's dying to make Batman part of his universe instead. It's pretty easy to spin and twist BO the way you want it to fit whatever narrative. I can just as well say that WW1, Suicide Squad and Aquaman did well because they were more closely linked to the story in the Snyderverse and felt it more rewarding seeing those movies. Or you could argue it was "just the times" and every superhero movie easily made big profits back then (demonstrably false by the way, superhero movies back then flopped too on the regular).

Regardless, none of those movies acted as a basis of a completely new film universe in which multiple pseudo-sequels are already being filmed. None of them were described by WB execs as their Normandy Moment with an obscenely high marketing sum. It's not a flop in the way that the project itself will lose WB a lot of money. But as a fresh reboot for a film universe with so much riding on it being accepted by the big masses - I would say it's hard not to see it as underwhelming. There was this narrative at release of the movie having exceptional legs but that's no longer the case either.

 

[VulcanRaven]

I'm suprised that this beat Batman v Superman at domestic box office. Of course a solo Superman movie was never going beat that kind of movie internationally but its interesting that it happened in the US.

 

[Metallix87]

I'm suprised that this beat Batman v Superman at domestic box office. Of course a solo Superman movie was never going beat that kind of movie internationally but its interesting that it happened in the US.

Superman's domestic run has been very impressive, especially in an age of very quick turnover for digital release. Gunn and the rest of the DC Studios higher ups need to figure out what went "wrong" internationally with the film.

 

[Madflavor]

A lot of those movies ended up in the shadow of DCU being announced and/or just being extremely bad movies. I don't see how any of those prove my point wrong. It must be very frustrating for Reeves to write a Batman 2 knowing there's this guy who's dying to make Batman part of his universe instead. It's pretty easy to spin and twist BO the way you want it to fit whatever narrative. I can just as well say that WW1, Suicide Squad and Aquaman did well because they were more closely linked to the story in the Snyderverse and felt it more rewarding seeing those movies. Or you could argue it was "just the times" and every superhero movie easily made big profits back then (demonstrably false by the way, superhero movies back then flopped too on the regular).

Regardless, none of those movies acted as a basis of a completely new film universe in which multiple pseudo-sequels are already being filmed. None of them were described by WB execs as their Normandy Moment with an obscenely high marketing sum. It's not a flop in the way that the project itself will lose WB a lot of money. But as a fresh reboot for a film universe with so much riding on it being accepted by the big masses - I would say it's hard not to see it as underwhelming. There was this narrative at release of the movie having exceptional legs but that's no longer the case either.

You just solved it bro. You should drive over to the Warner Bros lot, tell them what you think they did wrong, and they'll hand you a big sack of money. Go be a millionare, you got it all figured out.

 

[Klosshufvud]

You just solved it bro. You should drive over to the Warner Bros lot, tell them what you think they did wrong, and they'll hand you a big sack of money. Go be a millionare, you got it all figured out.

Well for starters how about not abruptly cancelling a highly profitable film franchise simply because it offended some unemployed Internet fanboys and executives who demanded an unrealistic amount of profits?

DC would have been spared a consecutive 10-film-streak of flops and the DC brand would be considered more trustworthy when audiences feel confident that they finish their stories. Now it's a mess of unfinished stories and cliffhangers that went nowhere. Audiences can't possibly keep up with all these reboots and fifteenth-tries. WB got too greedy too fast. DC became a victim of it. Instead of settling for reliable, consistent profits, WB wanted to get really rich really fast. And they butchered so many stories-in-telling while trying and failing to get there.

I know your question was sarcastic but this has been my opinion for almost a decade now and one that keeps proving itself more right with time.

 

[calico]

It didn't beat Batman vs Superman domestic, the $ is just worth a lot less. It is ahead of Superman Returns domestic though and could overtake it worldwide.

 

[VulcanRaven]

It didn't beat Batman vs Superman domestic, the $ is just worth a lot less. It is ahead of Superman Returns domestic though and could overtake it worldwide.

I don't think studios see it that way. People seem to be very selective when taking inflation to account. I don't see many claiming that Avatar isn't the highest grossing movie of all time.

 

[Metallix87]

Well for starters how about not abruptly cancelling a highly profitable film franchise simply because it offended some unemployed Internet fanboys and executives who demanded an unrealistic amount of profits?

DC would have been spared a consecutive 10-film-streak of flops and the DC brand would be considered more trustworthy when audiences feel confident that they finish their stories. Now it's a mess of unfinished stories and cliffhangers that went nowhere. Audiences can't possibly keep up with all these reboots and fifteenth-tries. WB got too greedy too fast. DC became a victim of it. Instead of settling for reliable, consistent profits, WB wanted to get really rich really fast. And they butchered so many stories-in-telling while trying and failing to get there.

I know your question was sarcastic but this has been my opinion for almost a decade now and one that keeps proving itself more right with time.

So, I think this is lacking some perspective: They tried several times to course-correct throughout the life of the DCEU, but the ship was sinking fairly early on. Even relatively well-received entries, such as Shazam! and even Birds of Prey, were just losing steam relative to the overall comic book film industry. Something had to change. I think there was a lot of potential in the DCEU, but I think the foundation wasn't "steady", so-to-speak, because the theatrical cut of Batman v Superman wasn't ideal, Suicide Squad was a mess in the edit, and Joss Whedon chopped Justice League to bits and released an overall lifeless film. It's hard to come back from that. And mind you, there was some inertia for some of the characters. People were big fans of Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Harley Quinn, but their momentum couldn't carry on to other characters. Black Adam was largely a final salvo to save the franchise, and it was just a lackluster film that further muddied the waters on what's going on in that universe.

I say all of this as an overall fan of both the DCEU and also now Gunn's DCU. I have a lot of love for these characters. And I want them to succeed. Having said that, I think Gunn's approach is a logical one: Start fresh, but have an already lived-in universe so you don't feel like you have to retread ground that was already covered within the last decade or so. It also gives you the opportunity to jump to new stories that just weren't possible before. A base-level example is Robin. We're almost assuredly going to be seeing live-action renditions of Dick Grayson, Damian Wayne, and maybe even Jason Todd and Tim Drake within the next five years or so. That's really cool, and offers a lot of room for exploring new sides of characters and dynamics we haven't seen tackled in a long time. And again, so far, what we're seeing is mostly positive: The new universe is scoring higher with reviewers, and at least domestically, is seeing success. Something needs to be fixed when it comes to the international box office, obviously, but that's something that can be and likely will be discussed in countless meetings leading up to the releases of Supergirl, Lanterns, and Clayface next year.

 

[Uhtred]

Is it a woke movie?

 

[DeafTourette]

Is it a woke movie?

No

 

[jason10mm]

It's hard to say if the DCU should have doubled down with Snyders very edgelord vision or not. I personally like a lighter DC, maybe with the exception of Batman. The characters are mythic level deities and very archtypic, they don't translate to the "Everyman" feel the MCU was able to do, certainly not with beings like Superman, Aquaman, Shazam, and the Flash. Maybe had they focused more on Blue Beetle, and early Green Lantern maybe. I dunno, just Man of Steel set the power bar so high, there was no coming down from that.

 

[calico]

I don't think studios see it that way.

Internally they will absolutely see it that way, because they have to operate their business in the real world. Externally will probably depend on whichever narrative they are trying to push at the time.

If they wish to push the idea that a new movie is more successful than it really is by comparing it to the box office of older movies, then it makes sense to ignore inflation, because doing so is a massive advantage for the new movie.

 

[Metallix87]

Internally they will absolutely see it that way, because they have to operate their business in the real world. Externally will probably depend on whichever narrative they are trying to push at the time.

If they wish to push the idea that a new movie is more successful than it really is by comparing it to the box office of older movies, then it makes sense to ignore inflation, because doing so is a massive advantage for the new movie.

I think it's always interesting that detractors seem to push inflation as such a key issue, while ignoring or disregarding the changing nature of the media landscape. Streaming wasn't as big a decade ago, and the turnover times before films got to home media were significantly longer. In modernity, a film gets a month or less in theaters, and then the streaming date is announced and it's like two weeks away. Audiences know this. Disney Plus, HBO Max, Paramount Plus... these streaming services are directly impacting the box office results of films. Whatever your feelings are on streaming services, and mine are mostly negative, it's inarguable that they're a core component in the diminishing box office power of films in 2025.

 

[calico]

I think it's always interesting that detractors seem to push inflation as such a key issue, while ignoring or disregarding the changing nature of the media landscape. Streaming wasn't as big a decade ago, and the turnover times before films got to home media were significantly longer. In modernity, a film gets a month or less in theaters, and then the streaming date is announced and it's like two weeks away. Audiences know this. Disney Plus, HBO Max, Paramount Plus... these streaming services are directly impacting the box office results of films. Whatever your feelings are on streaming services, and mine are mostly negative, it's inarguable that they're a core component in the diminishing box office power of films in 2025.

It's not really a matter of ignoring it. The point you are raising might speak to why a movie has performed the way that it has at the box office, but it does not alter the reality of how it has performed at the box office.

Treating $300m today as equal to $300m a decade ago is to just ignore that the $ sign in each of those has a wildly different value. It would be like saying I beat Usain Bolt's 100m world record if we ignore that the seconds on my stopwatch are twice as long as regular seconds.

I would absolutely agree that the average superhero movie releasing today is entering a tougher marketplace than it would have ~10 years ago, so far as box office is concerned, for multiple reasons. That's for them to take into account when they are deciding to make these movies / launch a new connected universe of superhero movies into that market. Maybe they think that 'toughness' is just a temporary blip and that it will soon pass, but I think that would be optimistic. I think for the time being we have returned to pre-MCU era where the A listers are still viable, but the lower tier (and especially having many lower tier movies per year, endless connected tv shows) is not, unless they figure out how to get budgets down so low that they can succeed with only the hardcore audience.

 

[VulcanRaven]

New behind the scenes documentary:

 

[Metallix87]

It's not really a matter of ignoring it. The point you are raising might speak to why a movie has performed the way that it has at the box office, but it does not alter the reality of how it has performed at the box office.

Treating $300m today as equal to $300m a decade ago is to just ignore that the $ sign in each of those has a wildly different value. It would be like saying I beat Usain Bolt's 100m world record if we ignore that the seconds on my stopwatch are twice as long as regular seconds.

I would absolutely agree that the average superhero movie releasing today is entering a tougher marketplace than it would have ~10 years ago, so far as box office is concerned, for multiple reasons. That's for them to take into account when they are deciding to make these movies / launch a new connected universe of superhero movies into that market. Maybe they think that 'toughness' is just a temporary blip and that it will soon pass, but I think that would be optimistic. I think for the time being we have returned to pre-MCU era where the A listers are still viable, but the lower tier (and especially having many lower tier movies per year, endless connected tv shows) is not, unless they figure out how to get budgets down so low that they can succeed with only the hardcore audience.

You're missing my point. I'm saying that if you're looking to factor in inflation, you also have to factor in both the changing landscape of cinema releases and also what impact a string of subpar superhero releases has had. At the end of the day, the people at DC Studios know whether or not this film is considered a success, and everyone outside of there is just basically throwing darts at a wall trying to get close to the real truth. What's hard to deny is that, at least with regards to critic reaction and audience reaction, Gunn seems to have hit a home run. The biggest issue, as I mentioned earlier, is trying to sort out why the foreign box office results are what they are. But again, all that being said, we just don't know for sure how much money this movie made for the studio.

 

[calico]

You're missing my point.

No I specifically addressed your point, both in terms of why it is irrelevant to determining whether film x beat film y at the box office, and largely agreed that the point you raise may form part of the explanation for why that performance is what it is.

I'm saying that if you're looking to factor in inflation, you also have to factor in both the changing landscape of cinema releases and also what impact a string of subpar superhero releases has had.

I understood what you were saying and it was/is incorrect. If you want to know whether film x beat film y at the box office you have to consider whether the value of your unit of measurement ($) has changed in the interim (and from a decade ago it has, a lot). You would only have to factor in what you are talking about to (possibly) explain the result, not to arrive at it.

What's hard to deny is that, at least with regards to critic reaction and audience reaction, Gunn seems to have hit a home run. The biggest issue, as I mentioned earlier, is trying to sort out why the foreign box office results are what they are.

The biggest issue will be that if the best a Superman movie that's a 'home run' with critics and audiences can do currently is ~break even, how well does that bode for the rest of it (excluding Batman)? If the quality of this movie is so high that it cannot be quality that is holding it back, then it suggests that the factors which are holding it back are largely beyond their control, but that does not mean they can proceed as though they don't exist.

 

[Metallix87]

The biggest issue will be that if the best a Superman movie that's a 'home run' with critics and audiences can do currently is ~break even, how well does that bode for the rest of it (excluding Batman)? If the quality of this movie is so high that it cannot be quality that is holding it back, then it suggests that the factors which are holding it back are largely beyond their control, but that does not mean they can proceed as though they don't exist.

This is still all nebulous territory. Gunn has already dismissed the suggestion that the film is barely breaking even. We don't actually know how much profit this film has made, as I said before. You're still approaching it from a narrative that has been shot down outright.

We also just don't know what impact the positive reception this film received will have moving forward. Also, again, we don't know how they'll try to rectify the issues at the foreign box office. So I'm just really unsure what you're trying to say? They should be panicking? That's just nonsensical, especially given the domestic performance. And we know the studio is overall happy with the performance because Gunn is moving forward with a sequel.

 

[Klosshufvud]

This is still all nebulous territory. Gunn has already dismissed the suggestion that the film is barely breaking even. We don't actually know how much profit this film has made, as I said before. You're still approaching it from a narrative that has been shot down outright.

We also just don't know what impact the positive reception this film received will have moving forward. Also, again, we don't know how they'll try to rectify the issues at the foreign box office. So I'm just really unsure what you're trying to say? They should be panicking? That's just nonsensical, especially given the domestic performance. And we know the studio is overall happy with the performance because Gunn is moving forward with a sequel.

Gunn is the same guy that also said there would be no reshoots, until they were. Same guy that said Affleck is interesting in directing a DCU movie, until Affleck moments later shut that down. Same guy that said the Ohio budget report is fake, only for Hollywood Reporter to confirm its validity. Same guy that said September is the earliest date for a digital release, until it no longer was.

He will say whatever to save face. You can either choose to think for yourself or rely on the words of a man with huge incentives to paint the movie as big a success as humanly possible.

Also the whole narrative that "critics and audiences loved it!" is borderline shill territory. Critics have loved a million movies that bombed at the BO. There has been a million movies with high audience scores that resulted in fuck all. For instance ZSJL has an IMDB score of 7,9 compared to S2025's 7,5. Yet I don't recall anyone saying that Gunn's universe should be canned in favor of Snyder's because the former struck higher at the online polls. These metrics are all very convenient points to cling to but are ultimately meaningless in the context of how viable a movie is to a larger audience. It goes without saying that Internet scores are hugely skewed by hardcore fans who don't represent a majority opinion.

 

[ADiTAR]

I think the biggest question for blockbuster films today is how to reduce the budget. It seems with CGI and AI it can be reduced.

 

[jason10mm]

I think the biggest question for blockbuster films today is how to reduce the budget. It seems with CGI and AI it can be reduced.

No, CGI is just making it worse. There are no actual constraints with CGI, just the quality of the result, so directors leave in these ridiculously elaborate and overly expensive shots that can either be made to look really bad by cg, or really good, long after the film photography has been done. And what they film is all but unusable WITHOUT cg because its all green screen ping pong ball stuff, no there are no brakes on the budget during principle photography to say "hey, we really can't afford an extensive, almost all special effect, prision scene that could be done in an old jail cell for 10% of the cost".

Budgets these days are ASTRONOMICAL compared to what they were just a few decades earlier and cg is the culprit.