Report: ‘Superman’ Box Office Isn’t the Success Warner Bros. Claimed

Superman, starring David Corenswet, Rachel Brosnahan and Nicholas Hoult, has ended its domestic theatrical run after playing on the big screen for 84 days.

via: World of Reel

Warner Bros has been patting itself on the back, quietly boasting to the trades about “$125M in profits” for “Superman.” However, Forbes is now reporting that the truth is a lot murkier than the studio’s intel would have you believe.

“Superman” recently closed its domestic theatrical run with a worldwide gross of “$615M.” Impressive at first glance, sure—but the numbers only tell half the story. This wasn’t a cheap blockbuster. If we are to believe Warner, the film reportedly cost “$225M,” with another “$125M” poured into global marketing.

Forbes estimates that, with the typical 50/50 split in ticket receipts between theaters and studios, “Superman” was just shy of the break-even point. They additionally emphasize that miscellaneous expenses that invariably come with a tentpole release were not even counted in their calculations.

That said, ancillary revenue streams—VOD, streaming, merchandising, and whatever else they can tack on—are likely to tip the scales into the black, eventually. What matters, though, is that this wasn’t the huge success the film press purported it to be.

Warner Bros can claim “$125M in profit” with a straight face, and the trades can report about this being a win for Warner Bros, but the reality is far more complicated. As always, the studio’s definition of “profit” might be more aspirational than actual.

The fact remains that, yes, “Superman” made a lot of money, but the superhero genre isn’t the muckraker it used to be, and this wasn’t the stalwart launch to James Gunn’s DCU many claimed it was.

It’s quite amazing how much “narrative engineering” was built into this one by Warner Bros and Gunn. At some point, the trades were more realistic in their reporting—with most implying that the break-even point was anywhere between “$650-$700M.” Of course, Gunn vehemently dismissed reports claiming the film needed “$650M” to break even as “absolutely false,” adding that only “idiots” would greenlight a first-in-franchise film requiring that kind of return. This seemed to be a very sensitive topic for the filmmaker, as it was not the first time he had strongly denied a trade’s break-even figure for his film, which Warner Bros consistently, and bewilderingly, maintained was “$500M.”

Prior to its release, Variety called it Warner Bros.’ “best shot” at a billion-dollar hit, and fans across social media were speculating wildly about its potential billion-dollar haul. Yet, just weeks before the premiere, it became clear that the film wouldn’t reach those heights, and the narrative changed.