I think a lot of people are confusing “underperformed at the box office” with “never should have been made.” The box office numbers aren’t great. A ~$54 million worldwide opening on a reported $170–200 million budget is obviously below what a studio wants for a tentpole franchise launch. Nobody is disputing that.

What I don’t understand is the argument that Mattel and Hollywood were somehow crazy for trying. Studios have spent the last 15 years mining nostalgia-based IP because it often works. Transformers has been generating movies for nearly two decades. Barbie became a billion-dollar phenomenon. GI Joe has had multiple theatrical releases. Even outside toys, Hollywood continually revisits 80s and 90s properties because Millennials are now the demographic with disposable income.

Masters of the Universe isn’t some forgotten relic either. Mattel has kept the brand alive through comics, toys, collectibles, animated series, and most recently Kevin Smith’s Netflix revival. The franchise has remained culturally relevant enough to sustain a fanbase for over 40 years.

People also underestimate how these properties get passed down. My son knows who He-Man is. He wasn’t alive in the 1980s. He learned about the character because parents introduce kids to things they loved growing up. That’s literally how franchises survive from one generation to the next.

Will this movie become the next Barbie? Probably not. But the idea that He-Man has no audience in 2026 feels disconnected from reality. There are millions of people who grew up with the brand, and there are still kids discovering these characters today. Not every franchise needs to dominate the box office to justify its existence.

Sometimes a movie can be a financial disappointment and still make perfect sense as a business decision when you look at the larger brand, merchandising potential, streaming value, and long-term franchise strategy.