Posted on 07/06/2026 6:29:56 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
James Gunn was supposed to revamp and revitalize DC Studios at Warner Bros. The director of "Guardians of the Galaxy" would, in theory, bring the type of overarching creative vision that Kevin Feige had so successfully demonstrated at Marvel Studios.
Two movies into Gunn's vision of DC Studios, it's safe to say that this reboot has been an unmitigated failure.
The 2025 edition of "Superman" was, at best, a moderate success. While hardly the type of franchise-changing success the studio and Gunn hoped for, box office results and reviews were acceptable, if not a bit underwhelming. Thanks in some part to Gunn's bewildering decision to tell audiences that the film was about politics, calling the Superman character an "immigrant."
But the real test for Gunn's reboot and the power of the DC Studios brand was the follow-up film, "Supergirl," starring Milly Alcock. And boy has it failed the test.
Alcock spent most of the press campaign making herself as unlikeable as possible, insulting potential moviegoers, bizarrely claiming that audiences felt "ownership" of her body, then doubling down after the inevitable backlash. The trailers looked awful, with a predictably sloppy anti-hero feel, atrocious visual effects, and an uninteresting plot and villain.
Still, as recently as May, hopes were that "Supergirl" could make as much as $65 million in its opening weekend. In actuality? It made just over $37 million.
With a production budget of $175 million, and a massive marketing campaign that likely cost Warner Bros. at least $100 million, the film needed to reach at least $450-500 million globally to break even. That opening weekend, and an anemic international debut, meant it was tracking towards a significant loss. The only hope? That positive word of mouth would overcome the apathy towards the film's plot and the off-putting remarks from Alcock.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The “actress” looks like a 12 y/o boy - not a wise casting decision...unless it was on purpose for the marxist cultural war.
Supposedly much of the extra expense is "marketing costs". Though why it should cost that much money to bring a superhero blockbuster some "marketing" is beyond my understanding.
What the hell does "marketing" mean anyway?
I've made films before. Much smaller in scale and reach than any comic book movie, obviously. And a few months ago I published a book. I wish all of those had a bigger audience. Maybe that's where "marketing" comes into play? If so, I've no idea how to use it to my advantage.
But a superhero movie should sell itself, it seems. Especially a major comic book company's franchise. With little or even no "marketing".
Sure, it’s a failure, but the days when any superhero movie would have anything to say to the country are long in the past.
When you buy a Pepsi at 7-11 for $2, does Pepsi get the whole $2?
Same with Movies, roughly half the ticket sales goes to the theater. So yeah, the movie studio has to double what the movie cost just to break even.
Also, marketing which can cost almost as much as the movie itself is not factored in, so in reality a movie has to make 3x what it they say it cost just to break even.
I think each of us wanted to see Young Washington more though.
As an aside, I think that Angel Studios missed a golden opportunity for merchandising. They should have offered a Young Washington popcorn bucket. It could have been a sturdy plastic tri-cornered hat. Good for holding your popcorn during the movie and makes a fine wearable fashion statement afterward! :-P
She’d do.
And then there are the award shows. Hollywood (and Disney) hates traditional America and anyone who is politically right.
They should have listened to this man:
Ricky Gervais - Golden Globes 2020.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJOb9xHggS4
Interesting, they were off by slightly more than 50% of their expectation $$ for opening weekend, too.
The theaters get half of the receipts of their audiences.
Repeatedly? ;-)
Could it be the actor(ess) already got paid in full. What they say now can be woke to no end, they have their $$$
Theaters generally aren’t run by socialists. They’re run by people that have overhead to cover like rent, electricity, and employee pay. Add that to the production cost and marketing for the higher number.
Super Crap produced from Hellywood.
The WHOLE POINT of the version of 'Superman' that Gunn did was to deconstruct Superman into being the son of evil 'Master Race' types who is horrified to discover his 'real' heritage as a Kryptonian.I sat there in the theater looking at the screen [yes, I saw this at the movies] going "What the actual f**k?"
Paging Lisbeth Salander.....Blomkvist dug up another scandal.
Weird.
Can’t wait to see the same result for “The Odyssey” when it’s released next week. So far...
“The latest trailer for director Christopher Nolan’s summer blockbuster, The Odyssey, is being heavily downvoted on YouTube in the wake of Nolan’s controversial decisions to race-swap Greek characters”
— Breitbart
I still plan on seeing the movie anyway. I was VERY disappointed with James Gunn’s Superman movie. As a kid in the 60s, I remember the superheroes very differently. Plus I thought they were miscast. Not happy with it at all.
He tells me its a great job opportunity....
65 million to 6 million is not “getting obliterated”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.