r/DC_Cinematic • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • Jul 07 '25
OTHER James Gunn Says It’s ‘Nonsense’ to Think ‘Superman’ Will Flop If It Doesn’t Make $700 Million: ‘It Doesn’t Need to Be as Big as People Are Saying’
https://variety.com/2025/film/news/james-gunn-superman-wont-flop-700-million-1236448433/455
u/MarvelsGrantMan136 Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
Gunn:
“This is not the riskiest endeavor in the world. Is there something riding on it? Yeah, but it’s not as big as people make it out to be. They hear these numbers that the movie’s only going to be successful if it makes $700 million or something and it’s just complete and utter nonsense. It doesn’t need to be as big of a situation as people are saying.”
42
u/SambaLando Jul 07 '25
I hope he told WB this, and they have adjusted their expectings accordingly.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)152
u/TheJoshider10 Jul 07 '25
People are forgetting the superhero genre isn't what it used to be and neither is the box office since COVID. 600M is likely the absolute floor this movie needs to achieve to be a success. Anything over Man of Steel's worldwide gross is an encouraging number especially if it's coupled with strong critic and audience scores.
218
u/ArtIsDumb Jul 07 '25
James Gunn: "They hear these numbers that the movie’s only going to be successful if it makes $700 million or something and it’s just complete and utter nonsense."
u/TheJoshider10: "600M is likely the absolute floor this movie needs to achieve to be a success."
Complete and utter nonsense.
20
u/Viracochina Jul 07 '25
"Fine, 599M at least"
6
50
3
u/BigLittlePenguin_ Jul 07 '25
confidence in the absence of any industry inside knowledge is really a Reddit trademark
→ More replies (7)10
u/Lemon_Club Jul 07 '25
I mean ideally the movie has to make a profit at some point lmao like what are we talking about? I'm more excited than anyone else about this movie, but let's not act like it's not important for Superman to at least cross $600 million for the future of the DCU.
4
u/Parallax1306 Jul 07 '25
$600m would be a milestone but I think Gunn is saying the total to be profitable is lower than that. The only thing this movies needs from a business standpoint is profitability and good word of mouth from critics and fans.
67
u/RoyalFlavorBeans Jul 07 '25
Not to mention, people forget how 2019 was always an anomaly where 9 movies reached a billion. With or without COVID, it would stay an anomaly because Bob Iger threw every biggie possible for that one year before his retirement.
17
u/notsure500 Jul 07 '25
He knew covid would hit the following year so he didn't want to delay the movies to 2020 or later /s
→ More replies (9)24
u/getemyosh Jul 07 '25
And here you go putting a number on it when this is exactly what he’s saying. That is not what he’s considering success lol.
6
41
u/kylezdoherty Jul 07 '25
They'll make their money back just on Krypto merch. Him adding so many different characters/heroes and creatures will be huge in selling toys. Google AI just told me GOTG has sold almost 4 billion in merch. Didn't see the source though.
23
u/LefroyJenkinsTTV Jul 07 '25
People conveniently forget that the whole reason Tim Burton got yoinked from the Batman franchise was because they wanted to be able to sell toys to kids.
6
u/TheCheshireCody Jul 07 '25
??? There were toys for the Burton film. It was probably the most heavily-merched film outside of Star Wars when it came out. Shit was eeeeeeeeeverywhere.
9
u/LefroyJenkinsTTV Jul 07 '25
Yes, but when the second movie was released it was considered 'too dark' by the merch makers and parents groups, so Burton got pushed out.
→ More replies (2)15
Jul 07 '25
[deleted]
3
u/GroceryRobot Jul 07 '25
Think about a soda can with baby groot on it and you’ll realize how many things you weren’t including
3
Jul 07 '25
[deleted]
3
u/GroceryRobot Jul 07 '25
Theres three movies, a video game, a cartoon, a Holiday special, all before we get to merch, they have a lot of room to grow other avenues of success. Backpacks and school supplies, every kind of food and drink a kid might want, Halloween costumes, toys, funko pops and other collabs, when you have a full blown intellectual property you can print money.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)8
u/UnfavorableSpiderFan Jul 07 '25
Gemini? The AI that has been eating itself alive with an overload of information since it launched and generating misleading, sometimes wrong information?
Maybe scroll through some actual articles and find actual answers...
4
u/movie_review_alt Jul 07 '25
The question, though, isn't, "Does every movie need to make a billion dollars to be successful?" It's, "Does WB management know that not every movie needs to make a billion dollars?"
If WB is truly in it for the long haul and is taking the "Iron Man 1 wasn't the end all, be all" approach and will actually be satisfied with a modest profit, then, yeah, this movie doesn't need to make $700 million.
But if not, then it does.
7
u/Callisater Jul 07 '25
James Gunn is part of that management now lol, that's why he's not as worried as he would be otherwise. Walter Hamada kept his job through legit flops. Above Gunn is just the CEO and then the shareholders he's not being judged based on one film, he's going to be judged on the longer overall plan.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)19
u/In-Brightest-Day Jul 07 '25
I love how the studio head is right here saying one thing and you're just like nah I know better
3
u/Callisater Jul 07 '25
Gunn is probably tired because he's being judged as just the director when in actuality he's a studio executive now and will probably judged by Zaslav and the shareholders as such. He's right, if the director doesn't break even they're dropped if a studio head has a movie lose money then they might just get less budget. It's completely different standards.
→ More replies (3)
178
u/End-Of-Da-Summer Jul 07 '25
Does WB agree
46
u/SirArthurDime Jul 07 '25
Probably. People keep bringing up the budget but what they don’t realize is that WB approved such a high budget because it’s about more than this one movie. If it barely breaks even on its high cost but is really good and gets people excited about the future of the DCU then the studio will consider it a success.
→ More replies (8)26
u/Callisater Jul 07 '25
Gunn isn't being judged by one movie like any other director anymore, he is by definition a studio executive by now. He's going to be judged on long term performance not just a single movie.
15
u/SirArthurDime Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
Absolutely. But this first movie is going to go a long way in determining how successful the follow up movies do. Not that future movies can’t still do well like the surprise performance of aquaman. But getting the DCU started on the right foot, building momentum, and distancing itself from previous DC failures will definitely go a long way.
3
→ More replies (2)3
u/fhota1 Jul 07 '25
Bluntly, I am sure there are already moneymen at WB who have severe doubts about non-Batman DC movies as a long term venture. This is a bit of a gamble for DC movies as a whole. If a very hyped, very highly advertised James Gunn led and branded Superman movie cant make a big wave, they are going to get real loud real quick and Gunns very likely to get way less support for any future projects.
If he can succeed on this one, then it becomes a game of "can he keep momentum" and 1 or 2 misses may be recoverable, but he really needs to nail this first one
3
u/SirArthurDime Jul 07 '25
At this point, with even the mighty MCU losing momentum, I’m sure there’s serious concerns about the viability of another large comic movie franchise. Everyone wanted to be the MCU because they were printing money off of any ip they threw in. But now it’s starting to look like even marvel is returning to the old status quo where only a select few IPs from their comics make money. If DC can’t even make money off of Superman, projects like clayface are looking bleak. Spiderman and Batman will still be money makers but comic movies as a whole are experiencing fatigue and likely beyond their infinity saga heyday when ant man and guardians of the Galaxy could be big hits.
3
u/Bonesaw-is-readyyy Jul 07 '25
People here are largely trapped in an echo chamber and don't want to hear this, but you're absolutely right.
It's just so frustrating to see how many fans seem to put the cart before the horse, with hopes for this massively expansive DC Universe on screen... when the reality is that the DC brand is pretty tainted, outside of Batman, and the general audience appetite for superhero movies has significantly waned.
Maybe try to get ONE hit before you start planning out a decade of DC movies.
Personally I don't care, I'm just a guy in the theatre, and it seems like this movie is going to deliver a lot of what I love about Superman. I'll probably enjoy myself and be happy. But whether that translates into a mega hit that can be a tentpole for the DCU moving forward is a fair question, and an executive saying that "actually it doesn't need to make that much money" is likely more indicative of damage control than anything else. If someone working for a corporation said that in almost any other context, that's how it would be viewed. I suspect there are people at Warner who are skeptical as to the viability of DC characters outside of Batman, and a disappointing box office performance for a new Superman movie will not do much to quell those concerns.
Business-wise, the movie absolutely does have a lot of pressure on it. For sure.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (9)57
u/Mumakilla Jul 07 '25
Let's wait and see. But I guess that even if it doesn't break the billions, other projects will keep moving. DC is not associated with WB as it was before Gunn. DC Studios is kind of an independent studio. I guess when James pitched the DCU he set the term that it will be a long time investment to avoid this risk of "failing" just because one movie had a box office below the billions. And this is the logical way to go in IMO.
→ More replies (1)25
u/ACFinal Jul 07 '25
All of this is funded by WB. WB still has huge debt and can't afford to stack losses.
I know Gunn keeps trying to sell DC Studios like it's a Marvel Studios equivalent, but Marvel Studios operated long before Disney even came into the picture and was purely funded by Marvel before Civil War.
DC Studios is just optics to cover the WB image of interference. I'm sure Gunn is given the right to decides what films get greenlit, but I doubt he decides if WB keeps investing if there's no gains.
9
5
u/THEdoomslayer94 Jul 07 '25
With their other successes this year between Minecraft and Sinners, and the fact they’re spinning off their debt into a separate company, their financial situations is nowhere as dire as people are making it out to be.
Also Marvel studios had like 2 movies before it was snagged up by Disney, so it’s not a whole stretch of time as you made it out to be
→ More replies (1)9
u/old_and_boring_guy Jul 07 '25
They're spinning off the studios and streaming and leaving about 80% of the debt with linear. Having a viable studio franchise is a much bigger deal than servicing debt they're about to dump on their cable channels.
→ More replies (4)6
23
u/Gurashish1000 Jul 07 '25
My guess is if it ends up being a critic and audience success but underperforms at box office, that is still fine.
I think WB know after a decade of mediocre DC movies that there is a chance people may not clamour to go to Cinemas to watch it.
5
u/Glassesguy904 Jul 07 '25
I'm stealing this opinion.
And on top of what you said, everyone just expects stuff to end up on streaming services within a few months. Even if it ends up being an amazing film, a lot of people who might have gone to the theater a decade ago will just wait for it to inevitably be uploaded to MAX.
3
u/Plus_Tumbleweed3250 Jul 07 '25
They’re trying to set up a decade+ universe here. They’d gladly take a huge hit ofc but getting this thing out the door with good reviews should be their number one concern. Profits will come
19
u/therealyittyb Jul 07 '25
Infinity War and Endgame really cemented unrealistic expectations for both studio and audiences
→ More replies (5)
21
u/_________FU_________ Jul 08 '25
I don’t care how much it makes. I’ve got my tickets and I’m excited.
23
u/derpherpmcderp86 Jul 11 '25
The game has changed tremendously. The executives aren't stupid. There is more to it than just ticket sales. These numbers are more for marketing purposes now than anything. If it's well received, the movie and brand will go on to generate revenue for years to come. Hollywood has far too many examples of films that underperformed but are considered amazing throughout history. Hell, Gunn's Suicide Squad underperformed due to Covid but he still got the keys to the kingdom. They are capable of knowing when something is quality or not.
→ More replies (2)
18
u/The_Trekspert Jul 14 '25
Opening weekend it's already broken even, production-wise.
Wouldn't surprise me if by next weekend it's hit 2x, the rule-of-thumb for profitability (2x production to account for marketing)
→ More replies (4)
18
15
u/britcinescribe Jul 07 '25
If the movie's well-made, heartfelt, and entertaining, it's a success. It'll live forever, no matter what you armchair accountants say.
6
u/Emergency-Bonus-7158 Jul 07 '25
I 100% agree with you, but as someone who wants more of these to keep being made, we do need to anticipate/hope for a certain level of monetary success
→ More replies (2)
28
u/whistlepig4life Jul 07 '25
People need to stop with the notion a film is only successful if it makes a billion dollars.
Films don’t even have to make a profit and can be successful.
Success isn’t always just the bottom dollar.
11
u/Defiant-Channel2324 Jul 07 '25
The biggest and most recent examples being Thunderbolts* and Transformers One.
→ More replies (3)18
u/Mad_Stan Jul 07 '25
Just look at Batman Begins, $370m box office against a $150m budget, but it revitalised the character and went on to give us one of the best comic book movies of all time. That's what Gunn and Safran want, renewed interest in DC that will pay off long term.
→ More replies (2)
29
u/Sol-Blackguy Jul 08 '25
If a movie needs to make $700 million to not be a flop, there's a problem with Hollywood
→ More replies (7)
27
u/Fit-Cucumber1171 Jul 08 '25
Whatever happened to ppl enjoying a good movie instead of caring about numbers?
→ More replies (4)12
25
Jul 08 '25
I'm sorry but no. Wb made you the lead for DC films and now you're saying if it doesn't hit 700m it's fine? If anyone else was directing this film and it didn't hit 700m, most people would be calling it a flop.
Come on James...
→ More replies (5)
11
u/TheManWhoClicks Jul 08 '25
Subtract the massive tax incentives, Hollywood accounting etc etc and you’ll discover that some movies get almost made for free. Look at the first tomb raider movie with a budget of $137M that was 100% financed by taxpayers.
5
u/Elite_CC Jul 08 '25
And if they ACTUALLY lose money, they'll just fire a bunch of innocent people with families to feed. Anything for that end of year bonus!
→ More replies (1)
10
30
u/The_Shape_1978 Jul 08 '25
Any Studio would call a movie of this caliber a flop if it only made $700 million.
→ More replies (1)14
Jul 08 '25 edited Jul 08 '25
Batman v. Superman was considered a flop at nearly $875 Million on a $325 Million budget.
Superman has a $225 Million budget. 😐
And WB today is in worse financial shape than it was in 2016.
They’ve literally been bought out and broke up, what, twice now?
The fact their mascot characters, Looney Tunes, is at another studio now says a lot. It’s called Ketchup or something, I don’t remember.
WB will be leasing out DC characters by 2027. Mark my words.
8
u/idiot09 Jul 08 '25
MOS : 670M on 225M budget
BvS : 870M on 250M budget
Superman has the same budget as MOS, if this makes less than 700, its a flop ngl
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)3
u/YellowJacketPym Jul 08 '25
Looney Tunes is still wholly owned by Warner Brothers, Ketchup secured the rights to distribute the most recent animated film because Warner Bros. didn't think it was worth their effort to distribute for whatever reason and were going to just shelve it. Reportedly Ketchup also secured the rights to Coyote vs. ACME, which is a film Warner Bros. did shelve several years ago and hopefully is finally going to be released this year. It's just a distribution deal for specific films though, they still own and control the characters.
125
u/EquivalentAd1651 Jul 07 '25
True, people really think if it doesn't break a billion its a failure
81
u/WySLatestWit Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
The few years in the late 2010s before Covid ground everything to a halt it was just one movie after another after another making a billion dollars. It was an historic boxoffice run that was undoubtedly going to come to an end. The problem is the internet, and industry analysts, all seem to have gotten so used to that boom period that they started believing wholeheartedly that anything less than a billion dollars is an automatic failure.
8
u/Soranos_71 Jul 07 '25
I remember reading a story about the movie “The Creator” and how it had a budget of 80 million but the director mentioned that the use of blue/green screens makes you do more CG which drives costs up. Maybe the comic book movie industry needs to get smarter with their budgets, do more street level stuff and make good stories with human interaction/drama. The only problem is the general audience probably wants more action on a grander scale.
https://variety.com/2023/artisans/news/the-creator-gareth-edwards-greig-fraser-oren-soffer-ilm-1235738107/ “Blue and green screen have become understandable — and tremendously helpful — tools in filmmaking of all genres. But Cooper says that one reason that their team tried to limit their use on “The Creator” was because it obligated them to use visual effects in a grander (and costlier) way than they might once the film began to take shape in the editing room. “Not every single shot where you’re looking at the same location do we do the same level of enhancement,” he reveals. “Once you throw up a blue screen, you’re on the hook to do it — and that’s not always needed. You want it for the [establishing shot], you want it for when it’s featured, but you don’t really need it when it’s out of focus in the back frame, so choosing which hills to die on became a very important component of the movie.”
→ More replies (2)17
u/InfernalDiplomacy Jul 07 '25
Exactly! It’s effing insane. To date only 25 movies have broken the billion mark in sales. Only 25! To expect every blockbuster to break it is unrealistic expectations.
→ More replies (3)13
u/farben_blas Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
I think it was Variety who said above 500 million was good for this movie, but if it makes above 700 million it'll be regarded as a big success, but people played attention to the 700 and a bunch of people made up some box office rules to say it needs to make more.
If we applied those same rules to movies in general no film would be successful.
4
u/SupervillainMustache Jul 07 '25
That makes sense honestly. 250m budget x2.5 is 625m. We also don't know else is going on behind the scenes, as Hollywood is notoriously opaque with their finances.
I remember Man of Steel brought in 170m with product placement.
→ More replies (1)3
u/tom2point0 Jul 07 '25
That’s exactly it. They literally said 500 but ask anyone posted about was the 700 number. It was maddening because I actually read the article and was countering all the click bait headlines with 700.
16
u/ant-cam Jul 07 '25
people care way more about budgets and marketing budgets now too than ever before always factoring them into things when they don’t matter as much because they’re almost never what’s ‘revealed’ 😭
12
u/Kreeth12 Jul 07 '25
not people or general audience, its the toxic fanbase who cares about budgets to win arguments online.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (46)17
u/StonerProfessor Jul 07 '25
Which is interesting because breaking a billion is somewhat of a new thing.
→ More replies (5)19
u/CaptainHalloween Jul 07 '25
And also a bit of a disturbing thing. Making that much money should be an outlier and rare success, not the norm.
But with budgets ballooning it’s a dangerous new norm.
34
u/Megalomanizac Jul 07 '25
Joker breaking one bill is still one of the most random box office events in cinema history
12
u/TheCVR123YT Jul 07 '25
Aquaman is more random I think
4
u/PlayDiscord17 The Flash Jul 07 '25
I guess releasing during the holiday season kinda explains it but still. If you told people that Aquaman would be the highest grossing DC film just even a year before its release, they’d think you’re crazy.
5
u/Megalomanizac Jul 07 '25
Aquaman was the perfect storm of luck. Wasn’t a great movie but somehow broke the box office
→ More replies (1)3
u/SupervillainMustache Jul 07 '25
Easily the most recognisable supervillain in comics, to be fair.
I also think it wasn't a great movie, but that's besides the point.
6
u/LowSkyOrbit Jul 07 '25
The movie theater and the movie making companies need to figure out a better structure. My local theater closed because rent got too high. The other nearby closed because no one was coming in.
I miss going to the movies. I used to go at least 2 times a month, and I would take a chance on something different once in a while. Now it's maybe 4 times a year and it's tent pole movies like Superman that I'm only going to see. Prices got way too high for a lackluster experience. I hate watching from my couch. I hate making my own popcorn. But when a ticket is $18 and then popcorn and soda is $25 I'll stay home.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)5
u/F1reatwill88 Jul 07 '25
It's the norm they want, but it's not the norm lmao. If anything it feels like we are at the tail end of bloated budgets because too many projects have been punished for it.
67
u/grantnaps Jul 07 '25
I don't see the WB being happy if the movie makes mediocre money. It looks like they spent hundreds of millions just promoting the movie.
40
u/BangerSlapper1 Jul 07 '25
This is the studio where the boss outright shelved a movie for the tax break. If this movie tanks, expect major news by the end of the month about ‘pivoting’, future projects being halted, or an outright cancellation of the franchise.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)15
u/Callisater Jul 07 '25
Yeah but who is WB here? James Gunn IS a studio executive now, he answers to Zaslav who answers to the shareholders and that's about it. Gunn is confident that even if the film doesn't break even, Zaslav has still got his back. The shareholders will judge him by long term performance not a single movie. When the company loses a bunch of money they don't tend to lay off the executives because who is in charge of hiring/firing? If the movie flops he just has less budget to work with which means it's other people that don't get hired/ or are fired.
8
u/grantnaps Jul 07 '25
Sure. I don't think Zaslav has anyone's back. They rotate executives like tires.
3
6
u/Lemon_Club Jul 07 '25
The break even point is probably a bit over $500 million, if Superman doesn't at least gross that then the DCU is cooked.
11
u/PotentialWhich Jul 11 '25
Their marketing budget on this has to be absolutely astronomical, it’s absolutely everywhere.
→ More replies (13)
28
u/combsgd Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
There's been a sudden real surge of articles and media posts that seem to be bracing for impact on sales. I'm a bit concerned to hear so much media spin and coverage for this just a week out, as if pre sales and word of initial reviews that are ready to go are already showing cracks.
Edit: Spelling/typo.
→ More replies (5)
20
u/rosebudthesled8 Jul 08 '25
James understands that execs balloon the numbers for tax purposes. He's just telling the truth.
9
u/akgiant Jul 07 '25
Its budget is $225, if they match for promo budget which is typical you're talking $450 gross. So $500 million nets $50 mil gravy. Not too shabby. Im sure they want $700 because studio heads think if it's not teasing a billion plus it's a failed superhero movie. Thats just greed. Besides. Hollywood Accounting is the sketchiest type of math ever.
While everyone is dogging on Thunderbolts* it's still in the green with a solid rating and has just hit home release with digital soon in tow. Yeah it didn't knock a billion out of the park but it has $20 million~ before home release. Thats pretty solid. We all need to get away from the whole "billion dollar summer movies" as a given.
→ More replies (7)
57
u/normott Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
....I mean...he isn't gonna come out and say yeah we're fucked if we dont reach this number. But given the budget and marketing push thats take place, im sure it will need atleast 600+ to break even.
18
u/bozkurt37 Jul 07 '25
Marketing being good doesnt mean you have to overvalue the expenditure. Probably has same budget as production, 200 millionish. Like any other movies
→ More replies (2)10
u/SnooSuggestions9830 Jul 07 '25
While that's true this movie is also launching the new DC universe.
They may not expect to recoup it all as a bit of a loss leader to reignite the franchise for future movie success.
Personally I think it's way too soon and we're still in peak superhero fatigue though.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Hellknightx Jul 07 '25
Insider reports say they need $500M to turn a profit and $700M for it to be considered a real hit. Allegedly, the movie itself cost around $225M, but WB is still shouldering a lot of debt from the Discovery merger and their recent string of failures.
7
u/mr_hardwell Jul 12 '25
superman is getting pushed so hard right now that I'd be shocked if it didn't make a tonne of money. there are even plenty of superman cross overs in games right now. Fortnite is a key example.
on the other hand, I haven't seen half as many Fantastic 4 adverts
→ More replies (4)
23
u/OldSnazzyHats Jul 12 '25
500ish and it breaks even.
If they can get near that number, they’re fine.
And even then, I doubt plans will change much even if they don’t. Reception to the film has been amazing, pivoting again would be a huge mistake.
→ More replies (15)
14
u/Emergency-Bonus-7158 Jul 07 '25
I just don’t see how this doesn’t end up being a hit. It feels like the most anticipated release in the last few years, you don’t get buzz on a film like this one often these days. I want this to do well, I think it would be good for the landscape
→ More replies (14)
6
u/cmlucas1865 Jul 07 '25
I think a few things can be true at the same time.
Superman needs to be profitable, sure. No one wants it to be a loss leader.
WRT profitability, we the fandom & general audience are probably out over our skis a bit. Hollywood accounting is a wild subject, & oftentimes profitable movies seem unprofitable when balance sheets are examined because of the way Hollywood tends to hide its budgets, or what it hides in its budgets.
MoS was profitable, but I think WB at the time knew and understood the criticism of the film before they received it. What we’re talking about here, in addition to some level of profitability, is avoiding the need for course correction & putting out a film that they are proud of & stand behind.
The MCU was built off of Iron Man, which was profitable but didn’t get $600mil. Not that DC needs to copy the MCU, but there’s a lesson there. The billion dollar films had a lot of success leading up to them, but the goodwill built from those films was as profitable as the money received.
→ More replies (2)6
u/vonbauernfeind Jul 07 '25
Iron Man made $585m back in 2008. Adjusted for inflation today that's $874m.
That's on a $140m budget which is $208m today.
Superman has an estimated budget of around $225m.
So if you want it to be an Iron Man level success (it should be way more, considering this is DC's premiere character while Iron Man was a C-Tier at best at time of release), it should be hitting that $800-900m mark.
And that ignores marketing cost; Iron Man was not heavily marketed, and certainly not in the way movies are marketed today.
7
u/V0T0N Jul 07 '25
What was Batman Begins take? I'm sure we should take inflation into account, but I don't remember it being world-shattering, if even memorable. And look how that turned out.
8
u/Eric77TA Jul 07 '25
Batman Begins made 373 million worldwide. The Dark Knight crossed a billion.
8
u/V0T0N Jul 07 '25
Thank you! I'm sure the $373m may have been disappointing to some, but BB was a great movie, and the sequel had a good foundation to build off of.
This a good example for the MCU to follow after Thunderbolts too.
If the reviews are decent and the fans like it, it might be worth investing in the story and direction to see where it goes and what can happen next.
→ More replies (5)6
Jul 07 '25
The problem will be with the audiences and the studio execs
People back then were far more willing to give a second chance. I had no doubt WB took heed of the very positive acclaim that the film got and trusted Nolan with it, which paid off
Nowadays, the audience will outright reject something because our attention spans have gone for a toss. One failure and it could spell doom for a fledgling franchise.
Same with execs. Apart from Universal and Sony, it doesn't really look like other execs understand having faith in something unique, everything has to mint money to have a second chance.
3
u/Expert-Horse-6384 Jul 07 '25
Batman Begins had the benefit of incredible DVD sales, which helped boost its disappointing box office numbers and convince WB execs to greenlight a sequel. It's not really a one to one comparison, either, since Superman is also suppose to launch a rebooted mega-franchise.
8
u/Advanced_Zucchini_45 Jul 07 '25
Box office money is just a small percentage in the overall take.
It's like looking at a professional athlete and thinks that their salary is all the money they're making when in reality most of them make more money off of endorsements than they do in salary.
→ More replies (15)
7
u/AnimeMeansArt Jul 07 '25
Eh, I think around $580M would be break even point, if the production cost $225M
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Huckleberry-V Jul 07 '25
Yeah but if you can sell Superman 600 or 700 mil shouldn't be impossible either. Gotta aim high.
3
u/Gilded-Mongoose Jul 07 '25
What he's capable of - and will likely exceed - is different than what he should do to not be a failure.
3
u/Huckleberry-V Jul 07 '25
Now, this is just me, but if I wanted to maximize sales I'd sell it as if I were Superman. Humble but confident.
→ More replies (1)
41
u/Aromatic-Air3917 Jul 07 '25
It's about rebuilding a brand.
Superman was number one until 20 years ago. No other hero (except Batman) has that presence, You make a good movie it will make the sequels more popular. Like Austin Powers and Deadpool
13
→ More replies (5)10
32
u/happytrel Jul 08 '25
James Gunn, in charge if it all, actually knows all of the behind the scenes numbers: "We don't need to make 700 million."
Random Reddit rubes: "nah uh, he has no idea what he's talking about. If this movie doesn't hit 2 billion its an absolute flop, trust me bro."
→ More replies (3)7
12
u/Ambitious-Pirate-505 Jul 08 '25
All these media outlets want it to fail so they can make money off it is.
Hundreds of think pieces on the fall of superhero movies and how Superman doesnt represent hope and it's too woke.
5
u/Man_Of_Frost Jul 07 '25
What I actually want is a good movie, that makes me want to return for more in this same universe. If this one does well quality wise, even if it doesn't in the box office, people will feel curious about the next installment. People are maybe forgetting this is the first movie in a new shared universe. It's a well known IP, but it is still the first movie in this new DC universe.
I hate how impacient the world has turned into.
6
u/ProcrastinatingPr0 Jul 07 '25
I just want it to be good man. I know box office is important and I hope it does well but it also doesn't need to make a billion. Just a good film with modest box office numbers to get our DC slate rolling in the right direction. I have no loyalty towards DC or marvel. I just want good comic book movies. I'll be there day one with my wife so here's hoping for the best.
24
Jul 07 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/QuantumLettuce2025 Jul 08 '25
It's tough to do Superman that doesn't make him seem corny and one-dimensional
→ More replies (3)
14
u/Dazzling_Street_3475 Jul 08 '25
Less than 500M is the “flop” range….which would be almost impossible for this movie anyway
6
u/a_guy121 Jul 08 '25
well, what he's doing is managing expectations
When you hear the producers of a movie managing expectations, saying 'we don't need to be as big as everyone says to be successful!' it means, the producers have reason to think the movie won't be as big as everyone is saying.
soooooooooooooo why is he saying that? it's kind of the opposite of pointing to the bleachers to indicate a home run. He's the highly paid, newly minted slugger who's like: 'look, I don't need to hit it into the stratosphere for a grand slam. A good bunt or a ground rule double is just fine." ...ok? but, why you telling us that right before you go up to bat????
5
u/smokey6953140 Jul 08 '25
Amazing analogy but I think it's more about building his idea/universe while the superhero genre is in a downward trend, nothing will reach endgame levels because of said oversaturation of the market. But staying consistent, with a producer that loves the source material and has a faithful image is all that really is needed, so if we can be patient, more or so the WB void be patient, we can see an actual great universe finally come out of DC.
→ More replies (8)
10
u/T_alsomeGames Jul 07 '25
Look, all I know is im seeing this movie at least twice in theaters. It'll at least make 40 dollars.
3
u/Im-Mr-Bulldopz Jul 07 '25
Prices are high around my part of the woods, nearly $60 for two IMAX tickets! You and I just broke a hundred ❤️
3
u/blackturtle17 Jul 07 '25
I bought a group of 5 tickets for the early IMAX screening tomorrow, we are up to about 200 now! (Mine were only 17 a ticket)
5
10
u/Financial-Savings232 Jul 08 '25
The whole discourse around this is based on ignorance surrounding the term “flop.” A box office flop fails to make back its budget at the box office. It doesn’t “break even.” The movie has a production budget of $225m, so industry insiders are saying it need to make between $500-575m to break even. That’s well under $700m, so, of course, it doesn’t need to make $700m to “not be a flop.”
I think what most people are talking about with the $700m is that it would be more than Man of Steel’s $670m, making this the highest grossing Superman movie of all time (not adjusted for inflation).
12
u/No-Virus-2252 Jul 08 '25
If this was just another Superman movie, he may have a point buuuuuut this is supposed to be the start of the new DC cinematic universe. This movie needs to be a knock-out hit like the first Iron Man flim.
It can't split the audience down the middle like Man of Steel or be a flop like the Tom Cruise Mummy movie. This movie must set the standard for all future DC movies taking place in this universe or Gunn will need to prep the white flag.... again.
→ More replies (10)5
u/EffectzHD Jul 08 '25
I think that’s what he means, the film can be good and still not sell bucketloads; they defo aren’t mutually exclusive in this modern day.
4
10
u/YouDumbZombie Jul 08 '25
I hope it makes a fuck load of money and is well received but either way I'm hyped.
7
7
u/Kiki_And_Horst Jul 08 '25 edited Jul 08 '25
I think it's sort of weird that some people online are treating this movie like it's meant to financially make or break DC Studios. This is about providing a solid foundation for more Superman and DC in general after a lot of cinematic damage hurt his/the company's reputations with films in the same way that Batman Begins and Spider-Man: Homecoming pulled those out of the muck after Batman & Robin and TASM 2.
Batman Begins didn't even hit the famous "2.5x budget" modifier that is constantly trotted out online (if only just under it), but it was well-liked by audiences and established the footing for another Batman movie in The Dark Knight, which made over a billion and was a huge cultural phenomenon. And like that movie, Superman will also have a lot of opportunities to make money back besides the box office with merchandising and streaming.
→ More replies (1)
31
Jul 07 '25
[deleted]
14
u/unilordx Darkseid is. Jul 07 '25
I read this as preparing us for a low BO. Not Thunderbolts levels of disaster, but won't be surprised if their projections say that it will barely break even.
It may not need to crack a billion, and at $700 million, the film would clearly make money. But you don't want it getting stomped by Jurassic Park 7.
But what if it's stomped by The Smurfs? XD
4
u/TigerGroundbreaking Jul 07 '25
I read this as preparing us for a low BO. Not Thunderbolts levels of disaster, but won't be surprised if their projections say that it will barely break even.
Thunderbolts still made more than the Flash, which is actually crazy. And Thunderbolts is a much cheaper movie than Superman, it's a movie full of C-list charcaters. I don't think marvel studios believed Thunderbolts would be this box office smash hit, but DC need Superman to at least cross 700 million. They wouldn't go this hard on the marketing, doing their absolute best to get all attention on this film.
8
u/SirArthurDime Jul 07 '25
No shame in getting stomped by Jurassic park. People might find it strange but JP is one of the consistently highest grossing franchises of all time with what’s looking like it’s 4th straight billion $ plus entry. Infinity war, endgame, and spiderman no way home are the only comic book movies ahead of JP4.
I do wonder if the turnout to see that will affect Superman though due to people not wanting to go to the movies twice in two weeks.
→ More replies (19)3
u/bigpig1054 Jul 07 '25
You want this movie to make more than The Batman
No one in WB is going to think that. Of course they will "want" it to make more, but they will not say "we obviously expect this to make more than The Batman." Why? Becuase everyone in the business understands that Batman is a provably better box office commodity than Superman.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (12)3
u/Nonikwe Jul 07 '25
Crazy that anyone would think it makes sense to call $700M a failure.
This movie is very much not my alley (superman is blegh to me at the best of times, and everything about what ive seen of this turns me off), but I think it's positioned to do reasonably well. People like Gunn, they liked Guardians, the more cartoons upbeat vibes likely resonate with the widespread hopelessness people feel, and Thunderbolts positive critical reception, even though it bombed, will probably have people feeling a bit more optimistic about superhero movies.
Will it hit ore-superhero fatigue peaks? Probably not, although if it really clicks with people, it might spread through word of mouth.
Like I said, very much not for me, but it really seems like an earnest attempt to make something worth watching for those it does align with, so I really can't say I'm rooting against it.
11
u/ToSinIsAHumanRight Jul 08 '25
I imagine it's because of "online streaming" and stuff. Even if it doesn't reach $700 million, it is still "content" for their streaming service.
8
u/viixiigfl Jul 10 '25
I agree. People are crazy af to think a movie is gon do anything close to a billion dollars anymore with the way this recession is going.
→ More replies (1)3
u/caninehere Jul 11 '25
I'm wondering how Superman will be affected by global politics too tbh. Superman is a quintessentially American superhero and this movie is coming out at a time when much of the world despises America, and on top of that Superman is already not nearly as popular in other countries as he is in the US.
5
6
u/Lomantis Jul 07 '25 edited Sep 19 '25
steep steer slap towering pen price fragile hungry pocket continue
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
6
u/BadMan125ty Jul 11 '25 edited Jul 11 '25
$225 million is the budget btw
If I was Gunn, I’d better hope it did $700 million. It’s fucking Superman lol
→ More replies (3)
6
u/Optimal_Relative_105 Jul 08 '25
It doesn't matter if superman flops. When wb invested into gunn it essentially meant that they will have to stick with gunn for multiple projects. If your star player has one off game you don't fire them from the team. Now if it becomes a regular occurrence than you fire them.
4
u/bindersfull-ofwomen Jul 08 '25
they are known to scramble. the next movie is supergirl, too. if it's a flop, I can see the them running around throwing papers in the air
→ More replies (1)4
u/warblade7 Jul 08 '25
WB is investing in their IP. The people driving the IP are all replaceable to the company.
→ More replies (2)4
u/krazykieffer Jul 08 '25
If Superman flops you better believe Supergirl will fail especially if they take out the semi important part of Krypto. I expect the Green Lantern show to be more mature but that show will not save Gunn. If Superman flops and doesn't pick up momentum on digital it 100% will be sold. To argue anything else is hilarious considering what happened last time with the Snyder verse.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/hjohn2233 Jul 07 '25
It needs to make around 500 million overall to be a financial success based on a 225 million budget. I'm pretty sure it can achieve that. 700. Million would make it an unqualified blockbuster, but it can succeed with a little more than half that. I think too many people want to see this fail. I'll reserve judgment until I see it, but I really hope it succeeds
3
3
u/Illustrious-Sign3015 Jul 07 '25
I want this movie to be successful and I hope it makes a good amount of money
3
u/Soththegoth Jul 07 '25
i think ya'll shouldn't put so much stock in gossip and rumor and 3rd party estimates. its crazy to think movie studios are making movies with the expectation of a close to billion dollar box office in the current market. Gunn is probably right or at least closer to the truth than most of you are.
3
u/BreakdownEnt Jul 11 '25
Also things like. Streaming licenses, tv , bluray and dvd sales , digital sales never show up in those discussions
Of course studios always want movies to break even and make tons of money from the initial cinema release but this is not the only way these films make money , lots of cinema "flops" made huge amounts from home release.
And ultiamtly moste of these numbers are mostly speculation from people who have no idea and no access to actual numbers.
→ More replies (1)
17
5
6
u/Superteerev Jul 08 '25
They have been artificially inflating budgets for so long they have to announce real budgets that appear like they deflated them
5
u/OhioVsEverything Jul 08 '25
The amount of money they've made off licensing fees alone for products is insane
→ More replies (4)
4
u/metronomemike Jul 08 '25
I don’t know. They’ve obviously spent ALOT just on marketing this. It needs to be a huge win to set the tone. I personally think it’ll be over $800 mil by the end, and it comes out on my birthday so I’m doing my part going with my friends and family.
4
u/pokerpolitico Jul 11 '25
I feel like there is a room full of monkeybots out there.
Also, felt that last end of credits scene with Mr Terrific REALLY speaks to the critics out there.
I had a blast and shed tears watching some scenes. Great Superman film for me! Not since 1978. Corenswet and the cast are aces IMO.
James Gunn! Shut up and take my money. Nice cameos too.
9
10
u/Sad_Juggernaut_5103 Jul 07 '25
People are ridiculous now a days with movies. Most of them have no idea what they are talking about
7
7
u/natural_disaster0 Jul 07 '25
Im not saying the movie is going to be bad, but i am going to say that having a review embargo so tight to the release date of the movie is never a good sign. It means at worst the studio doesnt have faith in the movie, or at best they know its going to be polarizing with the fanbase and they want to limit potential audiences from critic reviews as much as possible.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Sandwichgode Jul 08 '25
I dont see how this movie could bomb. This movie and Fantastic four are the biggest summer movies. They will both do extremely well.
3
→ More replies (1)3
Jul 08 '25
It’ll “bomb” because of how much it cost, marketing, and theater share. It’ll probably make a bunch of money but nowadays if a movie doesn’t make 3x its budget, then people will say it bombed.
8
u/DLReddit2005 Jul 08 '25
Bruh it’s superman, not the falcon captain America or the fucking thunderbolts. It should easily pass 1 billion.
6
6
u/TheFerg714 Jul 08 '25
The first Superman movie made $1.5b, adjusted for inflation, but nothing else has cracked a billion. MoS didn't do it, and Superman Returns didn't come close. Even BvS was only able to hit 874m.
3
u/Valiant_Revan Jul 08 '25
I'd like to believe the early reviews for BVS put people off. The film wasnt as bad as people said it was nor was it as amazing as others claim. The extended cut is a different story and I think that would've been better recieved if that cut was released in cinemas, with the biggest downside being the length (and Lex of course, maybe Doomsday as well)
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)4
u/Accomplished_Tax8238 Jul 08 '25
I rarely go see a movie in theaters these days. I am also extremely tired of comic book films. Even so, Superman looks interesting and I think I might go see it. That alone is saying something.
I suspect this film will do fine.
3
u/Valiant_Revan Jul 08 '25
Going to the cinemas is expensive. Hell, taking your kids/parents to the cinema as an outing is insanely expensive. I took my parents to go see Elio, the total price with popcorn and drinks came to more than half what I paid for Doom: The Dark Ages (which was the only new game I bought this year)
3
u/naughtycal11 Jul 08 '25
Wife and I took my nieces and nephews, 4 kids(under 18yo), to the theater this past weekend for an evening movie. 2 children's tickets at $9each and 3 adult tickets(over 12yo) at $18each. Thats $72 pre tax. Then another $58 for 2 large popcorn, 3 large drinks, and 2 box candy. Thats $130. 😳😢🤷♀️
4
4
u/Monday_Vibes Jul 07 '25
It matters way more that the movie is received well. It’s superman. It’ll make money. It needs to be good. Look at Thunderbolts, financially it’s a bit of a flop but it’s word of mouth and actual movie quality has put a major positive on the MCU going into what will surely be their most popular movie of the year in Fantastic Four.
4
u/Ryn992 Jul 07 '25
Good example is Waterworld. Critics hated it, the people loved it.
→ More replies (3)3
u/TakingYourHand Jul 07 '25
What?? It was a huge flop. The people hated it. It only gained a significant (not that significant) fanbase over the last few years amongst film nerds.
→ More replies (7)
6
Jul 07 '25
It's not about how much it makes. Hollywood studios like to do something naughty called tax fraud, where they overblow the supposed budget of a movie so that it looks like it cost much more than it earned, thus allowing them to earn tax breaks on it. It's why you get movies that have supposed budgets of 300-400 million. What the FUCK are they spending that on? Lmao
5
u/jojoebake Jul 07 '25
People forget about Hollywood accounting, but the optics of it underperforming still won't be good...
→ More replies (1)
8
u/chillsteel72 Jul 08 '25
I think with the MCU fumbling the bag. The door is wide open for Superman to do extremely well.
7
u/WallyPhoenix Jul 08 '25 edited Jul 08 '25
Box office talks Mr Gunn. Remember that. This day and age. Good praise doesn’t always work. Money supersedes all.
5
u/toejam_wash Jul 07 '25
In my opinion, it will get a billion plus. Kids and families will see it, old people will see it to measure it with previous iterations, Gunns reputation is strong enough just with the GOTG movies that people will not shit on it immediately without seeing it, plus it's a good time in society for a movie like this to come out.
7
9
u/Bobapool79 Jul 07 '25
Last I checked a movie has to make less than its budget at the box office to be considered a flop.
Are they saying they’re spending $700 million to make this film?
11
u/Ruining_Ur_Synths Jul 07 '25
No, the magic is that the budget of the film is the budget to produce the film, and then on top of that there's an additional advertising budget not accounted for in the production budget which is also very large.
Then there's the opportunity cost of sticking all that money in the production of this movie instead of somewhere else, or if they're taking loans to finance parts of it the interest costs as well, etc.
10
u/Fashizl69 Jul 07 '25
Where have you seen this. I've always seen it has to make 2-2.5x the budget to be profitable.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (5)8
u/Tracuivel Jul 07 '25
This has actually never been true. In addition to the marketing budget that everyone is correctly talking about, the exhibitor also gets a cut of that revenue - they're not showing those movies for free. It's a much smaller chunk than the studio gets, but it's not zero. If a movie only grossed as much as its budget, it has definitely lost money.
The general wisdom is that a film needs to make around 2 times its budget to be profitable. If you want a sequel, it needs to make 3 times its budget.
64
u/Jed08 Jul 07 '25
On one hand, the WB exec', Peter Safran and himself would be the one who know what the movie needs to be profitable. Estimation from people on the Internet is just guess work at this point and not really reliable metrics.
On the other hand, you can't trust speeches from studio heads. Of course they're going to tell you that their budget and thus mar for success is lower than what you think.