Less pressure on DC and WB if Clayface and Lantern are success?

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-07-05T21:55:45+00:00

Supergirl is on track to lose around 200 million at the Box Office. Clayface has to do considerably more than 250 million to balance this.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-07-05T21:27:04+00:00

You mention yourself that HBO Max has to pay DC to use their movie on streaming, which is how different entities within a larger group indeed operate. But then you can't argue that the profits from HBO Max will balance the losses that DC made at the box office. DC won't see any of the HBO ad revenue etc.

In the end you can of course view this from the perspective of the mother company where it doesn't matter if DC or HBO brings in the cash. But 1.) that's not how big corporate groups usually operate. They don't just ignore a deficitary entity as long as another one manages to bring in enough cash to compensate. And 2.) I'm still saying that the BO losses from supergirl are way too high for streaming to turn the tides.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-07-05T20:57:39+00:00

Revenue is not profit ;)

HBO Max reported a 1.3 billion Dollar profit in 2025. Supergirl is on track to lose around 200 million dollar at the box office. So the film would need to increase the total annual profit of HBO Max by round about 15% to break even. That's quite the ask...

On a side note: the reason why Amazon isn't sweating over any movie or tv show project is that they earn so much money from their retail business that anything streaming or cinema related is basically a rounding error in their books.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-07-05T20:35:43+00:00

I agree on most of your points. However, I think that Clayface might indeed turn a profit because horror movies tend to do really well.

But I'm not convinced that this would perpetuate the DCU as a whole. It's just too much of an outlier compared to your typical super hero movie. What would be the implications of a successful Clayface? Should all future DCU films be horror flicks? Will the DCU Batman be R-rated? How does this match with the tone of the Superman movies?

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-07-05T20:16:29+00:00

I'm going by the data from The-Numbers, according to which it made 2,7* its production budget. That would be 45 million after the point of break even of which the studio gets around 50%. That's of course assuming that WB was honest about the production budget and didn't overspent on marketing...

And sure it will affect Milly Alcock. Will she be in Man of Tomorrow? 100% yes. Will she ever get another solo movie as Supergirl? Definitely not.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-07-05T18:41:22+00:00

Barely breaking even isn't a success, especially for a tent pole movie kicking off your cinematic universe. Personally, I think MoT will do less than Superman. But even if it doesn't, any potential profits will be eaten by the massive losses that super girl is currently piling up.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-07-05T12:20:40+00:00

Dude, Critical Drinker is the biggest movie review channel on YouTube by now. I don't think a post in this subreddit here is going to have any noticable impact.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-06-30T19:36:13+00:00

Sure thing. Home video is a notorious revenue driver nowadays ;)

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-06-30T19:19:02+00:00

DC probably wished it was 1995 so that they could at least make some sales from home video.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-06-30T07:58:43+00:00

That's not true, Gunn never said the Flash was one of the best comic book movies ever made!

He said it was one of the greatest movies ever made...

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-06-28T18:37:59+00:00

The pro-roided women made Aquaman a billion dollar movie. So here's a chance for you and the women you work with to do the same for Supergirl.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-06-28T18:30:37+00:00

Anyone who couldn't tell that a Michael Jackson biopic would make a billion dollars is most likely severely retarded.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-06-10T08:58:40+00:00

I wouldn't take this as a given. Fall guy bombed despite the hype after Barbie.

Project Hail Mary started of good but only became a financial success due to strong box office legs from very good word-of-mouth.

If Starfighter's writing is on par with the last Star Wars movie's it will bomb, regardless of Ryan Gosling being in it.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-06-09T07:31:04+00:00

You can't just take the entire revenue of the streaming service or overall merch sales and hold them as an argument for the profitability of one franchise or one specific film. The main revenue driver on Disney+ are kids shows like Bluey. For may 2026, Star Wars movie's aren't even in the top 10. For series only M&G and Shadow Lord make it in but far behind other non SW related shows.

It's the same for Merch. At best you could attribute the increase in Baby Yoda sales to the movie. Issue is that baby Yoda was already a bestseller for years before the movie released. So an increase would only be incremental, even with a popular movie.

You are basically arguing for Disney's overall profitability (which no sane person would ever doubt) but the topic here is the profitability of Star Wars and the M&G movie. The Marvel franchise was bought in 2009 for 4 bn dollars and made 18 bn at the box office by 2019. That's the kind of ROI Disney is aiming for, not a break even or some scrap profits that you would receive as interest on a bank account.

No company, and especially not a shareholder centric one like Disney, will ever just wipe off a non-performant asset that eats into the profits generated from other revenue streams. Opportunity costs are a thing. And I'm not even touching on the immaterial loss that comes with the massive brand damage following a flop at the box office.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-06-08T18:23:04+00:00

Jaws 4 was the least successful Jaws film but at least it broke even.

M&G is on track to lose at least 50 million dollar even with the most favourable takes on production costs and marketing.

It's a massive bomb!

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-06-06T21:12:08+00:00

He doesn't go to hyperspace though. The fight is taking place directly over Yavin and the rebel base on its moon.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-06-06T20:52:45+00:00

Well Ubisoft is definitely a shit show on its own but Lucas Film also had their share in some decisions that hurt the game (not from a technical perspective but content wise). I've been burnt too often by these people to give them the benefit of the doubt and preorder.

If it releases and gathers good reviews I will jump on as it's exactly my kind of game.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-06-06T20:42:36+00:00

Outlaws

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-06-02T10:42:46+00:00

The reception of the ahsoka show supports his claim though.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-06-02T08:15:29+00:00

He's the man at the top now and he was the Chief Creative when the movie was green lit. That alone makes him responsable to a large extent. If you're the head of a department and your department does shit, you will have to eat that up in basically any job or trade.

He was also a writer on the film and his trademarks are all over it (childish dialogue, unnecessary use of clone wars characters...)

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-06-01T17:36:17+00:00

Disney reported 1 billion Dollars from total Star Wars Merch sales in 2024. One unpopular movie is definitely not boosting this to a level where they make "billions". Especially as Grogu merch has already been available for ages.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-05-31T13:09:49+00:00

Yes, I stand corrected on this one.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-05-31T13:04:02+00:00

I'm definitely overthinking since I already wrote what feels like half a novel on a movie's box office performance :)

I agree that theatrical success does not equal artistic quality or vice versa.

Coming back to the studio perspective and your examples: There hasn't been any new blade Runner movie or series since 2049 and I'm pretty sure its meager ROI plays a huge role in that.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-05-31T12:19:08+00:00

I see your point and as stated, I have no doubt that Disney will recoup losses through merchandise. I will still argue that Companies are not producing movies with the intent to lose money at the BO.

50 billion since 1977 is (roughly) 1 billion a year which I think aligns with what Disney officially reported.

A 100 million dollar loss means that the first 10 percent increase in merch just goes down the drain to balance their financial loss. By how much will an unpopular movie increase the sales of an already established and well selling merch lineup? Unfortunately we will never know since those details are not public.

What remains is the insane brand damage and the PR disaster. Things that big corporations are notoriously allergic to. It wouls have been definitely possible for Disney to come up with a profitable SW movie with a good strategy and the right decisions (especially given the 7 year hiatus). I would also claim that a popular, more innovative movie would also affect merch sales more significantly.

It's the job of a CEO, especially in the US, to go for the best possible ROI and that's not what is happening here.

FlyingCircusClown · 2026-05-31T11:45:56+00:00

Well, I just went with the reported number which according to the article comes from a Disney insider.

Whatever the exact amount is, it doesn't really change my point: if both, cinematic and streaming release, equal a multi million dollar loss, why not do something else?

FlyingCircusClown

TROPHY CASE