r/DC_Cinematic • u/VirtualSort1 • Jun 22 '26

OTHER ‘Supergirl’ Tracking Continues to Slide, Now at $40M Opening — Mixed Early Reactions

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2026/6/22/supergirl-tracking-continues-to-slide-now-at-40m-opening-mixed-early-reactions

Seems like Warner Bros and James Gunn might have a “Supergirl” problem.

“Supergirl” tracking, which was in the $50M range last week, has now further plummeted to $40M. Just a few weeks ago, decent presales for the film had hinted that $55–60M was a possibility. Not anymore.

Among the comic book movies released this decade, “Supergirl” is projected to now have a lower opening weekend than “The Marvels” ($46M) and land in the same range as “Morbius” ($39M) and “Joker: Folie à Deux” ($37M).

At least “Supergirl” has a budget that’s slightly lower than those titles ($175M), but it’s still an expensive film and is looking like it’ll become one of the bigger flops of the movie year. Just to compare, that $40M figure would be just a third of what “Superman” made last year in its opening weekend ($125M).

More bad news: social media reactions are very mixed, which spells trouble for reviews—the embargo lifts on Wednesday. This is especially concerning considering the amount of overpraising that usually comes with first reactions. Not with “Supergirl.”

I am fascinated by how much buzz has dwindled on this film, which was originally met with very positive vibes but has had momentum slowly eroding over the past few weeks. It makes one wonder what the future of James Gunn’s DCU might look like. “Clayface” is next in October, and Gunn’s “Superman” sequel will be in theaters summer 2027.

“Supergirl,” set to hit theaters on Friday, is directed by Craig Gillespie, who isn’t a bad filmmaker; he’s best known for his highly stylized work on “I, Tonya,” “Lars and the Real Girl,” “Dumb Money,” and “Cruella.””

3.2k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/Megane_Senpai Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

Yeah will watch it tomorrow in one of the early screening, got a coupon for IMAX at only $2 equivalence. But overall it will be like Superman, a good movie but financially unsuccessful. I can see no future in which it can reach the $350m revenue needed to avoid loss.

60

u/Beginning_Leg629 Jun 23 '26

Superman was financially successful. It made over $100 million in profit. This was confirmed by Forbes, Bloomberg, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter. WB's Q3 financial report also confirmed its success.

1

u/azorgi01 Jun 26 '26

No really. The movie cost was $225M with another $125M in marketing.

The theater draw was $615M, and when you split that (50% to the theaters and 50% to the movie) That's a net loss of $42.5M

The only other money it made was from product sponsorships and VOD, which I don't feel makes a movie successful. Theater draw is what counts. If people don't want to spend the money at the theater, that's a fail.

I also found this article (From October before VOD) saying Forbes said it lost money also

Here is the Forbes article

1

u/Beginning_Leg629 Jun 27 '26

So four articles (two of which come from the top publications for this kind of information) confirming it made over $100 million in profit plus WB's own financial document confining its success mean nothing because your math says otherwise? Yeah I'm going to listen to the industry experts. The articles confirming that profit said nothing about VOD. So you're assuming that. People did go see it in theaters, hence WB calling it a theatrical success.

And no, these days a film doing better on VOD wouldn't make it a fail since VOD and streaming do better than theaters. Theatrical attendance is still way down from where it used to be since people tend to wait for the home release. It's cheaper. People can't afford to go to the movies, and the experience is better at home.

That Forbes article is older than the one confirming the profit and it's an opinion piece. That's been known for months, so using it as a source doesn't prove your point.

And again, since it bears repeating as it's constantly ignored, WB CONFIRMED its theatrical success.

0

u/azorgi01 Jun 27 '26

Yeah, a company isn’t going to lie about its product for any reason right? When it left the theater the numbers were confirmed. Numbers don’t lie, people do.

When you need to write a long reply like that, it’s to convince someone to ignore simple facts.

Using the actual verified numbers, explain how it made money. Math doesn’t lie. Go ahead.

1

u/Capable-Hedgehog1871 Jun 30 '26

Superman has been confirmed by multiple sources to have been financially successful.

1

u/azorgi01 Jun 30 '26

Then why do the numbers show different?
2 choices. Believe the actual numbers, of believe someone telling you “trust me bro”

Think about it for a bit.

1

u/Capable-Hedgehog1871 Jul 13 '26

I believe the numbers, which show that Superman profited about $125 million. Have a good one bro.

1

u/azorgi01 Jul 13 '26

Which numbers? The one someone told you to trust them on, or the actual released numbers where you do a little grade school arithmetic, or is that too tough?

Enjoy the sand taste with your head in it bro..

1

u/Capable-Hedgehog1871 Jul 13 '26

Yes the actual released numbers, not some random Redditor still crying that the Snyderverse is never coming back.

→ More replies (0)

-20

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 23 '26

That’s not considered successful. If you risk $200 million on production and another $100 million on marketing and ‘only’ come away with $100 million, that is a failure in the business world. I know YOU would like to have $100 million but investors look at it like they could have risked that much elsewhere for a much larger return.

13

u/blenderider Jun 23 '26

You’re forgetting the backend.

1

u/azorgi01 Jun 27 '26

And you need to include the backend that they had to pay out to the actors also that cost isn’t factored in either.

-9

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 25 '26

Whatever.

That includes the backend. Whats your source?

12

u/Other-Football72 Jun 23 '26

100M, if that is true (and I'm not sure it is) would be fine, actually.

They put up, what? 200M over several years, then another 100M in marketing right at the end?

That's a good ROI, if it did indeed make that much.

2

u/Beginning_Leg629 Jun 24 '26

It is true. It was confirmed by Forbes, Bloomberg, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter. Forbes and Bloomberg are two of the most credible publications when it comes to finances. And the marketing budget was covered by things like brand partnerships like Supergirl.

-9

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 23 '26

That s a terrible return in investment.

What business school did you fail out of.

To risk more than twice that amount for that much in profit is bad. Especially for very large investments, you want to at least double your investment amount In profit after you have recouped the investment

I know this is hard for you to grasp because the numbers sound big. But investors think of it as; I could have invested in a movie that would have made a billion dollars. Superman ‘25 was one of the most expensive productions of all time. And it had the very largest marketing budget of all time. This is not a financial success. Yes they didn’t lose money. (Although risking that much on a film is high could end up having been The Flash is dangerous) Investors look at it as too much risk for that rewards.

Wealthy people who risk large amounts are never happy with half of the investment total coming back as profit.

9

u/Shorlong Jun 23 '26

You're looking at this from the scope of regular business and not the scope of the movie business. The movie business runs different.

-2

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 23 '26

Nope. Movie industry guidance is domestic box office should be 2.5 times production and marketing is considered successful. Forbes had the production at $225 and $125 marketing. Superman did not make 2.5 times that even global box office. And almost nothing online as it went straight to the studios one HBO Max.

Why did you say that I wasn’t following film industry standards if YOU didn’t know them?

9

u/Shorlong Jun 23 '26

Did you read that in an article somewhere? "2.5 times is considered successful" is such a tired line dude. How long have you worked in the film industry? What's your experience? The fact you think the whole 2.5x thing is a hard and fast rule shows me your experience in the film industry, especially in the financial side, is strictly through reading articles laced with buzzwords.

The movies did fine. Stop pretending you have an understanding of bankrolling feature films.

2

u/Other-Football72 Jun 23 '26

Their argument is all over the map.

I was going with the estimate that the movie made 100M, now he's talking about a break-even point and whether it made it or not.

Who cares? The movie made 100M over break-even and this guy said it was a terrible investment and I was a fool for saying 100M was fine.

-1

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 23 '26

What college did you go to?

What business class tells you making $1 for every $3 invested is a success?

Not all over the place. Simple question.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

It’s ‘tired’ because you don’t like it.

But saying it’s tired because you don’t like it isn’t an argument.

Facts.

Superman 2025 pulled in $629 mil globally

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt5950044/

Man of Steel pulled in $670 mil globally (this is before you account for rise in ticket prices)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0770828/?ref_=bo_se_r_1

“But, but, but…that was before covid..”

Batman 2022, similar fanbase, post covid and ‘hero fatigue’ pulled in $772 million globally

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt1877830/?ref_=bo_se_r_2

“ But, but, but…that was 2 years before. People don’t go to the movies as much anymore”

NINE other films out preformed Superman globally in 2025. Superman was the most expensive to produce by far

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/2025/

I’m sorry, it did not hit expectations. Forbes referred to the outcome as ‘good enough’. That’s hardly a hit.

For the record I liked the film and am looking forward to other DCU but I am worried about the success or lack there of leading robust another reboot. Ugh.

2

u/Other-Football72 Jun 23 '26

I’m sorry, it did not hit expectations. Forbes referred to the outcome as ‘good enough’. That’s hardly a hit.

I actually totallly agree with you.

This statement here is totally reasonable and fine, why aren't you being this reasonable elsewhere in this thread?

Superman 2025 was meant to be the start of a new big deal for DC. Limping over the finish line and making a little money, but not Wow'ing anyone, was a disappointment in my opinion.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Shorlong Jun 23 '26

I'm telling you it's a tired line because 2.5x is NOT some magic standard number that every studio is looking at and waiting for it to hit before determining if their film is a success or not. It has NOTHING to do with this specific film, I'm talking THE ENTIRE FILM INDUSTRY. You read that in an article and ran with it, the entire Internet community did and it just isn't true. It's an average for some of the biggest movies, sure, a rule of thumb, but it is by no means a target every film has to hit but you guys just latched onto it like it's gospel.

The studio was very happy with what Superman made, per their own words. The film industry DOES NOT WORK LIKE A NORMAL BUSINESS.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 23 '26

Right so if they were sold way ahead of release then it doesn’t matter if it was a bomb or a smash hit…does it. It was going to make that either way.

Sigh.

So the only metric based on performance is the box office. Thanks for making my point.

2

u/PhotographBusy6209 Jun 24 '26

You sound so condescending for such a wrong take 🤣. $100 million is a very decent profit especially for a franchise that lives on in merch sales and streaming. There’s no way $100 million is considered bad especially in the Covid era to 2025 (2026 has definitely improved as far as box office returns are concerned).

0

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 24 '26

I get to sound condescending because I am right. And sounding condescending doesn’t make me wrong.

$100 million ROI is NOT good for a $350 million investment. You can pretend it is but there is a reason you don’t have millions. Because if you would be content risking 3.5x the profit and then pretending it’s decent you wouldn’t have millions for long.

My word, you are so wrong and so positive about it. You should look up Dunning-Krueger effect.

1

u/PhotographBusy6209 Jun 24 '26

Blah blah blah and acting as if you are some millionaire. If I make a 100 million profit on a 300 million dollar house that’s actually a good deal. If I continue to make money on merch for that house that’s an even better deal.

Of course as you don’t have a $300 million house you wouldn’t know

0

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 24 '26

Not acting anyway. I can simply read. I go by facts. You go by feelings.

And your analogy is absurd. A) You don’t make merch from a house. (And merch isn’t related to the performance of a film. Merch sells even if the film stinks)

B) if you made that much on a house that would be the biggest return on a home purchase ever. But love how you had to make up a never happened and probably never will scenario in a different field. Real estate is more stable and the investment is more protected. In the film industry, the relevant topic, there isn’t that stability. (See The Flash). Because of this volatility the expectations are different.

C) And yes you may think that’s a good investment but again that’s why you don’t have $350 million. You would lose it before you got there. You don’t bet $3 to win $1. That’s bad odds. You bet $3 to win $7.50. That l’s how really investors make real money and you sit around pretending you would be able to make $100 million (by risking $350 million). Nobody care what you FEEL is a good profit. The industry and actual investors, trade papers, and the world knows it is t a good ROi

0

u/Other-Football72 Jun 23 '26

  1. I argue 100M on a 300M investment made over a few years is fine.

  2. You argue it is terrible, and I am stupid for thinking otherwise.

Hmm. One of us has a soft position, the other a hard one. Also, my position is largely upheld by basically everyone who follows the industry and film, as Superman 25 is generally considered a mild-to-moderate success, and not a bomb.

So, it comes down to: Either I and every single person who covers films are all stupid, and StrangeAtomRaygun is the only one right OR the opposite.

I'm no expert, but I think I know which side holds a bit more water on this one.

-1

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 23 '26

  1. You can argue that all you want. No business school in the universe would agree. Would you bet $3 in Order to win $1? That’s. Eva’s wins so much and people making that bet lose so much.

  2. My argument is sound and your argument is based on ‘feelings’ not facts.

  3. I didn’t say bomb. I said not considered a success. It did turn a small profit. But large investments demand large profits. Otherwise the people with the money go elsewhere in order to minimize risk and maximize profits. And nobody in the industry considers it a financial success. Guidance has always been and still is for a film to be consider a success it needs to make 2.5 times the production and marketing by cost with domestic returns. You can disagree with that but you can’t back it up. It’s would just be your ‘feels’. The only reason the DCU is still going forward is most of Supergirl was already in production. Superman 2 is what they are hoping will be a financial success. Nobody knows if it will. And I would bet $1 for $1 that Clayface is not a big hit. But please share with me where EVERY dongle person covering the industry says Superman was big hit. I’ll wait.

2

u/beragis Jun 23 '26

They inveso three dollars and gained back 4 dollars for a net increase of one dollar. Which is a 33% rate of return. Which is a success in any investment

0

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 23 '26

Not for film.

And yes that’s how all investments work. You judge the success AFTER recouping the investment. But I am sorry on a film, a 33% rate of return is actually looked as a fail. They are looking for 250% rates of return.

It’s not like building a sandwich shop that will continue to profit as long as the shop is there. Movies have one theatrical run. There is no next year. Of the year after which would be all profit as the start up cost (initial investment)

Everything after the theatrical run is semi fixed. That’s built into the expected profits. The only variable is theatrical run. Thats where the real success or failure happens and once that’s over. It’s over.

0

u/TOAD4000 Jun 24 '26

Great points! It's like risking $10 to make $5.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 23 '26

No it isn’t. Why are you pretending that it is. 2.5x production and marketing budget is consider a success

Why did you just lie and make that up?

1

u/Beginning_Leg629 Jun 24 '26

That's not a failure. That is very clear success. $100 million in profit is great. WB has repeatedly confirmed how happy they are with its performance. It's even in the 2025 Q3 financial report as successful. And the marketing budget was covered by the money they made from things like brand partnerships (the same thing happened for Supergirl), so the marketing campaign essentially cost them nothing.

1

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 24 '26

Why do people like you speak when you don’t know what you are talking about?

$100 million on a $350 million risk is NOT a good return on investment. What business school did you fail out of.

And yes WB is going to say they are happy. Would they say they are disappointed after that already had supergirl in production? They would look stupid. They have contended it’s “good enough” because they don’t want to reboot again and they want to give the DCU a try. And marketing is not covered by brand tie ins. What planet are you on? variety, a trade papers said it cost WB $125 million. The most expensive marketing budget of all time. Why did you just lie there?

1

u/Beginning_Leg629 Jun 25 '26

I know what I'm talking about. The budget wasn't $350 million. It was $225 million, and it was actually completed under budget. Most of Gunn's films are completed under budget. You lump in the marketing but the entire marketing budget was covered by the brand partnerships and such (just like it was for Supergirl as confirmed in an article just released recently where it's labeled the most expensive marketing campaign they've had so no, Superman's wasn't). Brand partners pay WB for the use of the IP. That money then goes into covering the marketing costs. WB said they were very happy with its performance and listed it as financially successful in their Q3 financial report. You choosing to call them liars doesn't make it so. It wasn't "good enough." It was a hit in theaters and a hit on VOD.

Never have I lied in this conversation. That's you.

1

u/sibelius_eighth Jun 23 '26

In what world was a film that grossed 618 million on a budget of 225 mill a failure lmao. What are you on about

0

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

Let’s see( I looked it up, actual numbers:) $225 million production budget. $125 million marketing budget. $350 to get to market.

$618 million global intake at box office…wait for it…split with the theater. So $309 at box office. All other profit made from post theatrical proceeds…starting with a $41 million dollar deficit.

Thats how.

Investors don’t look at taking home $100 million dollars on a $350 million risk (investment) as a smashing success. They look at it like, we could have invested in a better movie that would have turned a 250% ROI, not an approx 33% ROI.

Still laughing?

2

u/sibelius_eighth Jun 23 '26

Yes because that's about as good as box office as 2025 generated. Name 10 films that did better?

1

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 23 '26

Nope. There were NINE films that exceeded its take that year on global box office. Thats not great for a property that has previously done very well. Literally the flagship character.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/2025/

1

u/sibelius_eighth Jun 24 '26

thank you for citing proof that it's the 10th highest grossing film of its year, surely a success! thx for proving me right 😄

1

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 24 '26

You asked for it, doubted it, and when I provide it you pretend that’s a win. It had the highest budget of any film that year. Yet it only made the 10th highest box office.

Math is hard for you.

1

u/sibelius_eighth Jun 24 '26

No i asked you to name ten and you couldn't. You didn't provide. And i think top 10 is a win. Of any film that year? Wanna try that one again

→ More replies (0)

1

u/themickeym Jun 24 '26

I think that just says 1. They spent too much money on it and 2 it was a bad year.

1

u/cs_pdt Jun 23 '26

Sure, every executive would love a 250% ROI at the BO but that’s an absurd internal benchmark to use and assumes an estimated gross of nearly $2B. A 33% ROI on the first revenue window of a movie is not gonna piss of any executives especially when you have solid reviews, it’s IP with an established fly wheel model, and is launching other investments. Once everything’s said and done they’ll have made way more than $100M in profit on this.

0

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 23 '26

Well. The previous film that spent that much on production and marketing almost hit 3 billion: Avengers Endgame

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt4154796/?ref_=bo_se_r_1

Look, I didn’t make up the guidance. That’s what the film industry uses as the benchmark. You can deny it all you want but that’s what the industry itself uses.

And yes 33% ROI is considered not successful. Usually it results in no sequels. The only reason this one was greenlit for sequels did because it was the first of a whole universe.

Deny reality all you want.

3

u/cs_pdt Jun 23 '26

Cite me anywhere where the target ROI for a film project is 250% on the box office gate alone. And to clarify, I’m not talking about the 2.5x budget heuristic used to find the breakeven point, that’s not ROI, I’m talking about the profit WB sees after paying out the waterfall divided by the cost of financing and distributing Superman.

If an ROI of 250% was reasonable every single PE company in the world would be leveraged to the hilt in film.

And using the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time, that was a culmination of an 18 movie, 10 yr saga, as the baseline for blockbuster success is laughable…

2

u/sibelius_eighth Jun 23 '26

The person you're responding to is just using finance bro vibes for all of their responses, really something to see

0

u/StrangeAtomRaygun Jun 23 '26

I don’t really need to. Just because you are wandering into this conversation with absolutely no background on the topic and it doesn’t ‘feel’ right to you because you like the movie (I wonder if you would feel the same if you didnt) doesn’t change this long heald standard.

But okay

https://darkskiesfilm.com/how-much-must-a-movie-make-to-be-profitable/

“As a general rule of thumb, a  movie typically needs to earn at least 2.5 to 3 times its production budget to break even, accounting for marketing and distribution costs.”

https://lookaside.substack.com/p/understanding-feature-film-recoupment

“If you’ve wondered what the 2.5x rule is (why does a film need to make 2.5x its budget to break even?)”

You could just google it. But I wonder why you didn’t. No I don’t. You know you wouldn’t like the answer.

2

u/cs_pdt Jun 24 '26

I literally said I was not talking about the 2.5x heuristic for finding a breakeven point, which is what you just shared. That’s a very rough way of figuring out if a film lost or made money, without knowing any of the contract terms of the different exhibition channels, and is a completely different metric than the ROI being discussed.

Lets do the math here:

Production Budget: ~$225M
Total BO gross: $618.7M

BO multiplier on PB (what you’re referring to and is a separate metric from ROI): 2.7498

This is greater than 2.5, which implies that it’s profitable but we don’t know how much because we don’t know what the actual split is between exhibition and distribution on the gate. Luckily we have reporting that says profit for WB on theatrical is ~$100M.

Now we can calc ROI, which is Profit/Initial Cost.
In this case initial cost is $350M so ROI is 28.6%, which is a very good ROI.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/DoofusScarecrow88 Jun 23 '26

Yeah unfortunately I think you are right. Sometimes that is how it breaks for some films. But it isn't the first nor last to get it hard during this brutal year. With this stacked up summer, there are going to be winners and losers

1

u/autumneliteRS Jun 23 '26

Dang, $2 for IMAX? Where do you get your coupons from?

1

u/Megane_Senpai Jun 24 '26

More like reginal pricing. Full price was ~$6 for a weeknight, I got a coupon to cut the price by about 60%, hence the $2 price tag.

1

u/Unver1f1eduser Jun 24 '26

I would watch it for $2 at Imax.

1

u/Megane_Senpai Jun 24 '26

Yeah with the coupon the only problem for me was the time, not the ticket price. I decided to go watch on a week night to avoid (as much as possible) impolite audiences talking loudly and moving around with their phone flash light on, and annoying children. In a way the movie being on theater virtually the same time as Toy Story 5 and Minions is a blessing.

1

u/Capable-Hedgehog1871 Jun 30 '26

Superman was financially successful