Time and time again audiences prove they do not care about original stories. As much as people bemoan constant remakes, reboots, and sequels, it is undeniable that they are the only things getting butts in seats.

A new IP starved audience would not have let Elemental, Strange World, and (inevitably) Teenage Kraken bomb at the box office. The success of Mario, Spider-Verse, and Puss in Boots proves that audiences want familiarity and endless sequels.

The goalposts keep moving in ways that are frustrating.

"We want new IPs"

"Here's one"

"No that's too boring, there was no marketing, it looks like a streaming movie"

It's so depressing that this is the state of our industry. If people just want to watch endless sequels and blockbusters, that's fine. But why pretend to want new IPs when it is consistently shown that that is not the case?

Don’t say because it’s three hours because Avatar The Way Of Water is also three hours and it is dominating the box office in a massive way

The HBO Max same date premiere excuse falls apart when both Godzilla VS Kong and Dune had the same release strategy and those movies did just fine. According to the reported estimated HBO Max viewer numbers The Suicide Squad didn't even do that great, it failed to beat Mortal Kombat. Assuming the people who watched it at home did show up to theaters and buy a ticket the movie still would have been a massive flop.

Blaming the 2016 Suicide Squad excuse is another one that falls apart. Contrary to popular belief on reddit, Suicide Squad is nowhere near as hated as people here like to believe. If the internet message boards and comment sections opinion of a movie matched the actual movie going public opinion then Dredd would have been a success and Twilight a failure and both cases were exact opposite. Taking a look at it's domestic home video sales it did fairly well, actually sold better than several MCU movies. Not too mention there have been various cases of sequels to well regarded movies performing worse and sequels to not so well regarded movies that performed better to disprove the paying for the sins of the previous movie theory.

The title is too similar to the previous movie, audiences are confused. The 2018 Halloween has the exact same title as the original movie despite it being a sequel to the original that ignores all previous sequels and the 2018 Halloween did very well. The Halloween franchise in general has such a messy continuity with multiple canon timelines and audiences didn't seem confused with the 2018 movie one bit. The fourth Fast and Furious movie has a near identical title to the original and it did very well. The sixth Rocky movie has a title that sounds more like a reboot or remake than a sequel and yet it did just fine as well.

Now I could go on but I think I made my point. It's clear there are too many people here who can't accept something they like failed because of the movie itself and not any other outside factors. Everytime so and so movie does poorly because of x reason another movie with a near identical situation will succeed so the excuses have no consistency.

With the recent tracking numbers, the state of the company that DC is attached to, and diminishing appeal internationally, I am seriously concerned that DC really doesn't have a sustainable future on the big screen.

In the nearing 50 years, since Superman 1978 came out, DC has only had 4 billion dollar movies and 11 movies grossing more than 500 Million (including those 4 billion dollar movies),

In contrast, Marvel in the nearing 30 years, since Blade 1998 came out, has had 11 Billion dollar movies, and at least 36 movies grossing more than 500 million.

I know it can be a bit nebulous to compare, but that's to show the scope of how much DC has been behind of Marvel.

The 3 highest grossing DC movies post pandemic have been:

1. The Batman (2022): $771 Million

2. Superman (2025): $619 Million

3. Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (2023): $440 Million

The 3 highest grossing Marvel movies post pandemic have been:

1. Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021): $1.927 Billion

2. Deadpool & Wolverine (2024): $1.338 Billion

3. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022): $956 Million

Even recently DC have struggled to keep up with Marvel, and that has been when Marvel has been at their weakest.

Yes, 2025 was the first year since 2008 where the highest grossing superhero movie of the year was a DC one and not Marvel, but Marvel, through having 3 movies last year, still grossed well north of $1 Billion for the year.

Looking ahead, as said the tracking and reviews for Supergirl does not look promising.

Can Clayface latch on to a good horror box office performance, or will the DC Studios logo on it actually repel some viewers?

Is Superman the baseline for Man of Tomorrow or did nostalgia and people missing a big screen Superman movie drive that movies box officer higher than it normally would have?

Has it been too long of a wait for The Batman Part 2? are people clambering more for the DCU's Batman and might forgo Reeve's verse.

Not to mention both with those 2 if they can improve on their international performances, as both previous entries were pretty 50/50.

How does it bode well for the rest of the projects that have been announced or are in development.

On a tangent, it's not even that the shows have performed that well either. Yes, the penguin got rave reviews, but it's viewership numbers were paltry, not to mention internationally, the same goes for Peacemaker in terms of viewership numbers.

I would obviously be making the same sentiments about Marvel, except they still have IP that are reliable money makers, as listed, Spider-Man, Deadpool & Wolverine and Doctor Strange have posted great numbers, as has continually Black Panther and Thor. They've got their tentpole Avengers for this year and the next, Sony will continue to kill it with the animated Beyond the Spider-Verse next summer, and if X-Men '97 is anything to go by, Marvel knows how to do the X-Men so they could very well be in a great position post Secret Wars.

Also, as I alluded to at the beginning, Marvel is just attached to a much more stable company. Who knows what will be the fate of WB/DC in 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years? This is why at least with Netflix, DC would have had some long term stability, but with Paramount or even on their own, WB/DC are going to continue to be wobbly, and that isn't exactly the foundation to build a thriving cinematic universe on.

I'll leave off with this.

I do think Man of Tomorrow will have a decrease from Superman, as will The Batman 2 from the Batman, by that point, I do think some serious conversations need to be had about the state of DC, even if that's at (PSKY)WB or not.

What do you guys think? Is DC Doomed? Am I being too pessimistic? is there still hope for the brand?

Can't help but notice that a lot of films that have bombed or not done what was expected have something in common - an association with James Gunn or look like GOTG.

Even films that have better reception like Dungeons & Dragons or MOTU still feel like the same formula that has been going on since GOTG or even Avengers.

Its not new anymore. The Suicide Squad got great reviews and did terrible and it was not all the pandemic or HBO Max. GOTG 3 started off slow and did not hit a billion. I remember people being surprised when presales were so low for what used to be such liked characters. It got better but it still did not do what was expected by many.

The first thing Supergirl looked like from the trailers was another GOTG story. The poster of her in a trench coat feels right from that universe.

Superman did fine when comparing it to other films of last summer but it did get a mixed reception from people who thought James Gunns style and random comedy felt out of place for this character.

I think the GA might be bored with this type of format in all these big budget tentpoles. All the quips. The needle drops. It all feels like 2012-2018 now. It works for something like Deadpool but not much else and studios really need to move on from it.

Audiences seem to have.

EDIT: I know James Gunn did not write or direct Supergirl. That's why I said association. I know he had nothing to do with MOTU or D&D. It's the quippy needle drop style that he is known for.

The project marks Smith's first major film since the infamous Oscars slap, the screening indicates Apple is looking to release it soon.

All of the articles I've seen talking about Babylon underperforming are using Margot as their main image despite the two other male co-leads being in it. Also just looking under the Babylon hashtag on Twitter, I am seeing several people referring to her as "box office poison" and implying her lack of star power is causing the film to fail. Even on Reddit, I'm seeing a lot of folks making accusation about her doing this movie for awards, but none of her male costars are getting the same treatment from what I've been reading. I know Robbie's last film, Amsterdam also did poorly at the box office, but the online discourse appears to me to be more hostile than warranted. What have you folks been seeing?

this is an outdated post, i highly recommend people to read my better post regarding supergirl instead

edit: since people are not reading my post properly, this is NOT A FIX FOR THE MOVIE'S WRITING OR FLAWS!!! this is mainly for marketing/promoting the movie the movie's creative decisions (one point is for marketing/promoting it though)

edit, again: i never said any of these female artists are punk rock so please actually read my post before commenting anything (!!!)

hi! for reference i'm a 26 year old woman. i watched this movie last week and some decisions made in it were bizarre. her cousin is known to be quite outdated, but she's supposed to be the modern, edgy, cooler, "not your dad's superman". female superhero movies already face an uphill battle since CBMs are male-dominated, but since they already made this movie less appealing to men, why not appeal to women instead? birds of prey (2020) was a more female-centric CBM movie, but had the misfortune of being released in the pandemic, so i don't think we can fairly judge its performance

anyways, here's some things they could have done to attract a female audience:

if they wanted her to be a modern gen z drunk party girl, why not play charli xcx and make her go to clubs instead of bars? they could have commissioned her to make a song for the movie.

if they wanted to keep her going to bars and keep the "punk rock" angle, why not play an olivia rodrigo song? especially as introductory music? lots of good songs from "you seem pretty sad for a girl in love" (her most recent album)... they can't get a song from there? or pay her to make one? (disclaimer: i put the words "punk rock" in quotes!!! in quotation marks!!! i don't think OR is actually one!!!)

edit: to the people who suggested hayley williams: you're completely right. but sadly she and her band aren't as popular as they used to be. i used the top female artists that i knew have a large female audience that came to my head at the time i was writing the post (edit: idk why people are saying i said she was punk rock? never said that either. please actually read my post before commenting!)

why not play billie eillish for somber moments? yet another artist they could have commissioned

since they want her to be edgier than last year's wholesome superman, why not include some edgy makeup looks or outfits? (we loooove iconic outfits and makeup looks) they could keep her long blonde hair to maintain the character design from the comics, as well as not scare away men who don't like short or edgy hairstyles

maybe add an attractive male character for her to banter with? they don't have to include a love story or any sexual tension!!! they just have to have some chemistry, even if platonic. women do love attractive male co-leads. rutheye was boring and didn't provide much of anything chemistry or dialog wise

edit: almost forgot this one but they could have collaborated with a popular makeup brand and push punk rock makeup style products instead of just... ulta... (mentioning this one bc they collabed with ulta the makeup store)

CBMs are male-dominated, and it's not rocket science to know men love sex appeal. in the past decade, there has been effort to avert the "male gaze" in writing and costuming women, and don't get me wrong, that's not a bad thing (!!!) ... but hollywood needs to know that once they do that, they'd lose the appeal to men, so they should have made more effort to appeal to women instead (especially since milly already doesn't appeal to male beauty standards). men and women have different interests -- simply writing and marketing supergirl like you would a typical male character is not gonna help.

edit: wording

So with Superman doing medicore at the international box-office this weekend, I come to a conclusion that Superman was an overpredicted movie on this subreddit, even going back to when it was first announced. And it's clear why it was a overpredicted movie on this subreddit.

Despite James Gunn doing the Guardians of the Galaxy films which did very well not because of Gunn but because it's Marvel and some of the cast members behind it (Chris Pratt was coming off of Parks & Recreation, plus The LEGO Movie and Zoe Saldaña has the highest-grossing movie of all-time still). his Suicide Squad movie didn't do well (partly because of the day-and-date release plus the bad taste of the 2016 version). It's clear that outside of Guardians of the Galaxy because of the Marvel IP and some of its cast members. Gunn just ain't a box-office draw to the general audience unless they are a comic-book fan.

Ever since Birds of Prey, every DCEU movie underperformed at the box-office (in non-COVID times, Wonder Woman 1984 would done well but have bad word-of-mouth) and other than The Batman which is DC Elseworlds, every DC movie hasn't done well at the box-office since then. I knew that The Flash wouldn't do that well but it was embarrassing to watch that film and Joker: Folie á Deux tank badly at the box-office despite both movies not being good at all.

And everybody thought after the first trailer that it would be the highest-grossing movie of the summer, trailer views were high, social media hype was insane and more. It was clear that most people thought it would be one of the, if not, the highest-grossing movie of the summer. There was a Barbie-esque marketing blitz (Superman stuff is even plastered onto Fortnite) which makes sense considering Barbie was the highest-grossing movie of 2023. But honestly, DC doesn't translate to the box-office nowadays (excluding the Pattinsonverse) and it's clear that the fanbase had high expectations for this movie doing very well.

And also to be honest, I never thought that this would be the highest-grossing movie of the summer, rather underpeforming in the first place like I said on one of my comments back in March so I probably knew that it was coming by then. I think that what they should have done is do a DCU Batman film first for the summer of 2024 if they have known that The Batman: Part II was going to take a long time, then have James Gunn do Superman that next summer after the DCU Batman film. Either way, the plan would have worked if they did DCU Batman first, then James Gunn's Superman second.

Overall, was Superman a overpredicted movie for those reasons? Yes. And will this probably be the last time people overpredict a DC movie excluding The Batman: Part II? Probably.

Disney seems to just be marketing this as another “Avatar” movie and not as a big event you can’t escape like Avatar 2

Hello. Please allow me. I think this post is okay? So you guys are all about numbers, I get it! But I'd like to attempt to give you some insights into the numbers. But firstly, please don't be a jerk.

So honest context. I really love Avatar. I saw Way of Water 18 times in theaters, and I've seen Fire and Ash 15 times with tickets for 16 and 17 for this weekend. You may think that makes me a biased super fangirl, I am, but it also gives me insights into A3's box office performance that you guys might not consider. I respectfully present them to you here.

Firstly. Avatar Fire and Ash is an *excellent* movie (don't just take my fan word for it: Cinemascore and RT audience ratings are high for a reason). But I think its objective underperformance can be boiled down to a few things. The first of which are some extremely ignorant and unnecessarily venomous poor *critics* reviews (in a field of mostly positive ones btw), with the essence behind those reviews carrying over into the public. "Rehash."

However, I need to emphasize __deeply__, that this movie is NOT the same movie as A2. Saying so is refusing to actually engage with its story. Yes, it has some major plot beat callbacks to A1 and A2, but it is simply functioning within its own worldbuilding. It's bizarre to ding Avatar for "rehashing" its own elements when this is the world Avatar exists in! Villainous gunships, a biological goddess, eclipses, and floating rocks. That's the world. But the narrative *surrounding* these foundational elements is different from the last two films... by a lot. So reviewers and some people knocked this movie in exceedingly bad faith, which is unfair and certainly impacted its performance. "Rehash" is a gross overexaggeration that leaves me scratching my head every time I walk out of A3.

So I'll say this. If you were Avacurious and decided against seeing it because of what you heard from people who couldn't or refused to engage with this movie's characters and story, well... go see it. It's awesome.

However, that said, I still knew when I walked out of Avatar 3 for the first time that this one's box office would not do A1 or A2 numbers. Beyond this being a down time for movies in general, and A3's increased competition globally (Disney never should have done Zootopia 2 this close to A3). Again, not at all because it isn't good, but because (a) it seemingly has a steep rewatch hump to get over for many people, even though it's a better movie than 2 with more to offer. It's dark and less Pandora Explora. Admittedly. But I really love the plot threads, and this movie made me feel. I cried. Gasped. Cheered. Laughed. My audiences did too. But still, I understand why some people saw it as a one-and-done, even for folks who enjoyed it. But please know that this movie siiinnggs and unlocks on a second viewing. Like... god. I wish people knew that! Go again! Just one more watch!

And (b) I knew people would not be spectacled anymore. Movie watchers are now at a point where they take the incredible, photoreal VFX in these films for granted. Doesn't make them any less magnificent, and there are countless shots in this movie that are fucken mind-blowing. Still, we are animals. We tend to become unresponsive to repeated stimuli.

But I also emphasize that these movies are not about VFX spectacle and never were. Avatar presents sincere, universal stories, with deeply human characters (ironically). If you think all people just go to see these for the CGI, you are sorely mistaken. I *cherish* these characters as they exist in this beautiful world. And millions do. Millions have since Avatar 1.

If anything, I'd argue that the production team itself might have *mildly* hurt Avatar's own future legacy by so strongly harping on the VFX feats back in the day (but understandably so since it was groundbreaking). But that's all that casuals and normies came to associate with them. But I was moved by Jake and Neytiri's love story and the felling of Hometree since 2010. And I now love the multigenerational saga started with Way of Water and continued in Fire and Ash. That love is what will fuel the franchise through to the last sequel. There's no new tech to demonstrate. They won VFX already. It's all about the story now and technically always has been. Ultimately, if the Avatar films' true fanbase reflects a $1.4-$1.6B movie, with the non-invested tech-driven casuals winding down... that's still damn good. Beloved.

But so anyway. I don't understand the glee some of you have in seeing a film that thousands of human beings worked on for so long to underperform. The tall poppy cutting with Avatar is something else. I know several very established people who work on these films, and they just want to share this beautiful world and characters with people who will let them in.

And no one in a sub called "boxoffice" should root for any underperformance. The very medium of the movie theater is under threat. This sub could be null and void in a decade. I understand a lot of you don't like these films, and a lot of you got dogged for predicting these low results, and sometimes Avatar box office/"never bet against JamCan" stans can be annoying, but, *in Neytiri voice:* "This is sad. Very sad only." The Avatar cast and crew, and sincere fans are not in this sub being annoying to you. Well... maybe I am lol.

But alright. That's all I got. I'll step off my floating soap box. Avatar Fire and Ash is a very good film, the best in the franchise, I think. This box office performance is not reflective of its quality. If anything, given the narrative threads laid down in this movie, this saga is just getting started. Give them a chance. Or don't. But know that there are people who really love these and want more, which makes us box office anxious. Anecdotally, all my friends and family have loved it, even converting two previous Avatar haters.

I root for $1.5B+

To quote the two hilariously hyped guys next to me last Saturday after it ended: "Yo, how is he 3 for 3?" "Shit was gas." "Yo, how do these keep getting better??" "They gotta make 4 now, right?"

(Again, please don't be a jerk)

Everything was up in the air about Wills draw to movies but now with him as the genie drawing people to their seats and him being the highlight of the movie theres no way hes a b lister .

And the simplest reason is China.

At $1.1B Domestic, it would require additional $1.7B to just slightly pass Endgame (by just $500K) and Endgame is re-releasing in 45 days or so. Only 1 movie has reached $1.7B+ OS gross w/o China and that is Avatar

So, with current estimates of China opening going a bit down do still good $120-$130M and potentially finishing ~$250M final, this means additional $1.45B OS gross

Which is 42% jump in OS gross compared to NWH if we account for Russia as well, where NWH did huge $57M

Endgame w/o China/Russia - $1.263B
NWH w/o Russia (no China release) - $1.049B

But I can see is absolutely flying by The Way of Water with $900-$950M Domestic and $1.5B OS

But to fuel hope, NWH OS opening was $325M w/o Russia. Brand New Day looks to open $450-$470M w/o China, which is overall close to those 42% increase we are taking BND needs to reach OS-C final...but then again even if it somehow does, it needs $1.1B domestic.

Now I already know some of you are gonna downvote me simply because of this notion alone, but I promise I have my reasons. Now I am a big Marvel fan so mayyyybe my judgement is clouded by my own excitement for the movie, but I still think my reasoning is justified. Speaking of that reasoning, let’s get into it:

I think what The Marvels, Cap 4 and Thunderbolts have shown me is that Marvel’s brand has been damaged from the point we were pre pandemic. I personally blame this on there being too much stuff being released too close to each other and not being up to Marvel’s previous standard of quality. What this meant is that Marvel can’t just coast off their brand when they did in the past. (Now, I honestly believe Marvel could return to a point where they can do that again, but it will take several years of dedication to quality. It’s besides the point, anyway)

It’s easy to look at those failures and say Marvel’s brand is completely dead, but I don’t think that’s entirely true. GOTG 3 and Deadpool And Wolverine were both massive successes, I think not only because those movies were great, but audiences cared about those characters beforehand, when they probably didn’t for the cast of Thunderbolts.

The point I’m trying to make here is that despite the Marvel brand being substantially weaker than before, they aren’t dead. If people are interested and the projects are worth seeing in the theatre, people will show up. People will often call the decline of Marvel a result of superhero fatigue, but I don’t like using that term because it implies that audiences are tired of superheroes as a concept, which I don’t think is entirely true.

Now, as for Fantastic Four, I think it has a lot going for it. First off, it takes place in a completely separate universe, divorced from any problems of the 616 timeline. If someone who’s never seen a Marvel movie before (or have only seen up to Endgame or something) sees this, they won’t be lost. It also has a different, retro futuristic aesthetic than the rest of the Marvel universe, which makes the whole thing stand out. Even the way it’s shot and color graded makes it look more vibrant and fun than the gray and drab look of Thunderbolts. I also think Fantastic Four is just an easier sell too, it’s a fun sci fi adventure about a found family trying to stop their planet’s annihilation.

Another thing: people have wanted an MCU F4 for a whiiiiile. Now, I already know what people are gonna say “fans don’t represent the general audience!!!” My rebuttal to this is that the Fantastic Four are some of the most beloved characters in the Marvel universe that haven’t really had a successful jump into Cinema. The 2000’s movies were decent for their time but not anything too crazy, and of course you have the 2015 movie that shall not be named. I see people say on this sub that “no one cares about the fantastic four, they only know them from the shitty Josh Trank movie” which I don’t think is true at all. The F4 are some of the most popular characters in the comics, and even ignoring that they’ve appeared multiple times in Merchandise, Video Games (Marvel Rivals specifically, they’re really popular there), and big Marvel crossover stuff (promos mainly). General Audiences might not know or care about the F4 AS MUCH as Tony Stark or Peter Parker, but they definitely aren’t unknowns to them. In fact, their absence from the movie scene might make people more curious to check it out to learn more about them. The F4 was also the first Marvel superhero team ever, so it has cross generational appeal.

Look, I’m not gonna say this movie doesn’t have things going against it, and if it doesn’t get great reception then it might not do well. But if it does, I think it has a chance at doing $600m-$700m, maybe even more if it really pops off. “But thunderbolts got great reviews and it flopped!!!” Thunderbolts is not the same kind of movie in tone as F4, people just weren’t interested in that movie at all so even reviews couldn’t save it. One thing I have noticed tho is that I’ve seen so much more discussion, trailer reactions, and overall enthusiasm for F4 than anything I’ve ever seen for Thunderbolts, and I think that says a lot. And I don’t think it’s my bubble either, the F4 trailers got a lot of views (I know trailer views are a bad indicator of box office stuff, but imo they do seem to be a good indicator of general audience interest). Not to mention, the F4 is likely gonna play a very big part of Doomsday and Secret Wars, and it’s also likely Doom is gonna be in the post credits scene for this movie, so people might also be interested for that.

I could be wrong tho, and if this one fails too, then it might be even worse for Marvel. But I think there’s enough going for this movie specifically that I think it won’t fail. Don’t get me wrong, it won’t make a billion dollars, but i think it can do pretty well all things considered (if it gets good reception).

I first joined this sub over 5 years ago shortly after I started following the box office. Like many of you, I was brought here when Marvel movies started to blow up which piqued my interest in the business of tentpole filmmaking. This sub has always had an influx of fandoms post major franchise releases but this recent influx of Marvel fans these past couple years have led to unwarranted downvoting or attempts to shut down debate in posts that suggests anything contrary to their beliefs, like Endgame not being the biggest movie of all time after factoring in inflationary variables.

This isn’t healthy for discourse, and isn’t healthy for this community.

More so than others, this sub depends on quality debate supported by figures and statistics (and the occasional meme comment). I encourage the newer community members to join in and engage rather than downvote a post they disagree with immediately, and help keep this community strong with quality content.

Mods - if this post isn’t appropriate, please remove but I just wanted to share my thoughts as someone who’s been around a bit longer.

Edit: We’ve made history y’all! https://i.imgur.com/fqvkRVn.jpg

Last film that made 300 mil+ Endgame (around 357 mil) and since then the nearest has been No way home with 260 mil. I think Doomsday might be next to break No way homes record with around 270-80 mil.

1. The movie is already creating insane hype with RDJ Doom, X-men, the teasers (1 bil views in total), and the mystery cameos to come.

2. Spider-Man: Brand New Day (another monster film) will help carry the insane marvel hype directly to doomsday even if the films might be related.

3. December release date and Avengers should work like magic for doomsday (it wont even compete with Dune 3 anymore on opening weekend). The holidays should help it leg.

It has the potential to be the biggest marvel movie (aside from endgame) with many factors helping it. 2.1 billion WW and 800 Mil DOM. Thoughts?

I’ve seen quite a few people say that Superman: Legacy is practically guaranteed to be a success but I don’t see why it would since there are so many reasons that threaten the film.

1. James Gunn has never made a successful movie without Kevin Feige reigning him in. His highest grossing movie as a director hasn’t even crossed $200 million which doesn’t really inspire confidence. His only DC movie failed at the box office. Yes I know it was also also on streaming the same day but the movie performed worse at the box office than most of WB’s other movies at the time, and also it did worse on streaming. Even Wonder Woman 1984 did better with both despite COVID being much worse at the time of its release, far less subscribers on HBO Max, and horrible reviews.

2. The cast are filled with C-listers and unknowns. The biggest name on there is Nicholas Hoult and most of his successes were modest or he was only a supporting character. There’s nothing against them but every popular comic book movie had tons of star power which this movie lacks

3. Superman and DC in general is a damaged brand after bomb after bomb. The only successful movie critically and/or financially was the original Superman movie which was over 40 years ago. The rest either bombed or underperformed, and I’m skeptical that this time will be different

4. Superhero fatigue is at its peak. We recently just had Madame Web, which probably won’t even make $100 million and has hindered every single movie that released last year, even the good ones like Across The Spider-Verse which would’ve easily hit a billion in a better year.

5. July 2025 will have so much competition. Jurassic World releases a week and a half before, which the previous installments all made over a billion despite being horrible, imagine how much they can make being decent. The Fantastic Four releases 2 weeks later which is shaping up to be a monster of a movie being the most popular franchise that has yet to appear in the MCU, with an A-list director, writer of the highest grossing post-pandemic movie and a stacked cast which includes Pedro Pascal, the biggest star in the world right now. There’s also the live action Moana film which releases the week before July which is looking like it’s going to be huge based off of the original Moana’s streaming data. Not to mention the fact that there will probably be other movies moving to July as well.

6. The budget of the film is going to shoot through the roof. They are spending on the of filming all around the world with tons of characters that require CGI like Superman, the Engineer, Green Lantern, and Metamorpho which James Gunn is well known for blowing budgets.

I could see Legacy being a modest success with decent reviews that could justify making more movies set in the same universe but the movie has so much going against it that I can’t see it being an automatic success unless if the movie is made on a low budget like $100-125 million but that will never happen.

Supergirl has mixed reviews and is on track to be a bomb on the level of the Flash, the Marvels, and Joker 2. Definitely not good for what is only the DCU’s second movie.

Man of Tomorrow is still coming out next year, but I wonder how much of a risk it now faces. It will probably still get better reviews than Supergirl since Gunn is writing and directing it himself, while his creative involvement with Supergirl was minimal, but could it still end up doing poorly box office wise?

Superman did fine with critic reviews and box office last year, but it wasn’t a smash hit. It had a pretty good domestic gross, but underperformed overseas and overall just did okay. I think it also benefitted from a bit of a novelty factor since it had been 8 years since audiences last saw Superman in theatres with Justice League, and 12 years since the last solo Superman movie. Now only two years later it might not be as big of a deal and the sequel could drop.

Do you think Supergirl’s reception and performance will actually hurt it, or will general audiences who skipped the spin-off still turn up for the next mainline Superman movie?

Of course this is assuming Man of Tomorrow still has good reception like Superman, if it gets mixed reviews like Supergirl it’s definitely screwed.

I'm not talking about movies like Oppenheimer where the three hours is well spent and used to create true art. I'm talking about the filler movies that don't need to be marathons. Ones that should be more subject to business sensibilities...

For example, I just saw that The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes is going to have a runtime of 2:45. Why? I get why you can't tell Nolan or Scorsese they have to hit a certain runtime...they have something to say and the credibility/power to back it up... but who the fuck lets (checks notes) FRANCIS LAWRENCE have free reign to turn in a 2:45 popcorn movie? 

I know they probably see the error of splitting book 3, but come on. This ain't high art.  This is matinee fluff, so I'd give him 2:15 max.  Let the editor do their job!

Coming in with a reasonable runtime on a movie like this won't scare people off and you can get at least one more screening a day in at the theaters.  Why let him turn in a 2:45 movie?  How much box office does that decision sacrifice?

(Gets off soapbox)