Superman (2025) Box Office Thread

[OrbOfConfusion]

I’ll just throw it out there too that a domestic-heavy split is PREFERRED by the studios over an international-heavy one. That means the movie made more money for them overall because they get a much bigger percentage of the revenue from the domestic box office than they do the overseas one. Obviously it would have been nice if it did as well internationally as it did here, but if it has to do substantially better in one market over the other, we got the good version of that split as far as WB and sequel prospects are concerned.

Movies can thrive just fine only being successful domestically. Domestic can carry them if made by a domestic studio, as the majority of their revenue will always come from that market. The only way international totals could carry them is if they make SO much overseas that they are at least tripling their domestic take (like later Transformers and Pirates installments have done). That’s why the trades largely focus their box office reporting on the domestic market the most, as it’s the one that matters most to the major studios, plain and simple.

Also entirely likely because Superman's international grosses were so low- similar with Fantastic Four- that their only choice was to pivot to something more positive. Not to mention that if domestic mattered most to studios, they wouldn't try so hard to pander to appease international markets, like when Disney cuts a scene out of Star Wars with two women kissing, or when WB itself cut suggestive dialogue from Fantastic Beasts alluding to a relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald. Only a few seconds that don't make or break the movie, sure, but I'd argue studios still equally care about both domestic and international markets.

Heck, if Superman was actually performing better overseas, or at least as well as it did domestically, would we even be having this discussion?

 

[donuts]

There's also a certain tendency to create drama where it's not needed.

 

[flickchick85]

Also entirely likely because Superman's international grosses were so low- similar with Fantastic Four- that their only choice was to pivot to something more positive. Not to mention that if domestic mattered most to studios, they wouldn't try so hard to pander to appease international markets, like when Disney cuts a scene out of Star Wars with two women kissing, or when WB itself cut suggestive dialogue from Fantastic Beasts alluding to a relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald. Only a few seconds that don't make or break the movie, sure, but I'd argue studios still equally care about both domestic and international markets.

Heck, if Superman was actually performing better overseas, or at least as well as it did domestically, would we even be having this discussion?

You misunderstand- I wasn’t referring to the trades’ reporting on THIS movie specifically, but on movies in general. It’s always been more domestic-focused, and that’s why. The only reason the studios pander to international markets in recent times is because the Chinese box office in particular was exploding over a decade ago, and that’s the only way to get to that magical “billion” for most movies, as that’s a near impossible number to hit on domestic alone. However, that market has largely cooled on American movies for now, so I think we’ll be seeing fewer billion dollar grossers in general for the foreseeable future. But make no mistake, the domestic number will always matter most to domestic studios. That’s never changing, as they will always get a much bigger piece of that pie.

 

[donuts]

Also, why are we repeating ourselves?

It's not gonna make the box office performance worse (or better).

It is what it is.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Also, why are we repeating ourselves?

It's not gonna make the box office performance worse (or better).

It is what it is.

Because it's interesting! I don't think anyone in this thread is panicking or being a hater. Superman's performance is just of particular interest because its a relaunch of a character who has struggled for a long time, its interesting to try and figure out what it says about DC on film's future, the state of the genre at the box office, why it didn't do so hot overseas, etc.

 

[donuts]

Because it's interesting! I don't think anyone in this thread is panicking or being a hater. Superman's performance is just of particular interest because its a relaunch of a character who has struggled for a long time, its interesting to try and figure out what it says about DC on film's future, the state of the genre at the box office, why it didn't do so hot overseas, etc.

Sure, but context and nuance should be part of the matter. Both of which seem to be lacking a lot of the times.

I don't think it says much about the future of the DCU, but rather about how Superman had some extra weight and doubts to carry coming off the DCEU.

 

[FrankenCastle]

Why is it baffling? Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 was the long awaited third chapter of a beloved trilogy.

Also not a good comparison because GOTG was one of the classic MCU series still standing. People already knew and ****ing loved those characters, of course they were going to come back for the finale. People still turn out to Marvel properties they already recognize. It's not as if GOTG3 starred post-Endgame randos no one cared about.

I didn't say it was bad. GOTG is by far my favorite MCU project on film and deserves every bit of success it can get. I just can't get over the fact that it grossed more than both Superman and Batman; it's hard to imagine that such iconic figures of not just superhero media, but the entirety of fiction itself, got outgrossed by "C-listers". MCU or not MCU.

 

[donuts]

I didn't say it was bad. GOTG is by far my favorite MCU project on film and deserves every bit of success it can get. I just can't get over the fact that it grossed more than both Superman and Batman; it's hard to imagine that such iconic figures of not just superhero media, but the entirety of fiction itself, got outgrossed by "C-listers". MCU or not MCU.

Why? That does not matter in the real world. Movies are movies. And they function under different "laws" than someone's chart of who's an A vs C , D , E or Z lister.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Yeah at this point I would say that GOTG are A-list characters. They didn’t start out that way but at this point they are so a GOTG sequel making a billion shouldn’t surprise anyone. Superman, in the meantime, couldn’t crack a billion with Batman or the Justice League as co-leads in a film because of what the DCEU ( and Superman Returnzzzzzzzz) did to him so it may take some time before a Superman movie hits that kind of money. However, I think this “Super Family” movie could hit a billion, depending on a few things…

1. Superman’s popularity continues: We’re already there after the reception to this film and they can build on that with some cool Superman cameos in stuff like Supergirl and maybe other projects. I’m iffy about him appearing in this season of Peacemaker since Superman is a very family friendly film so him showing up on a show with very adult themes like Peacemaker might make some people angry.

2. Supergirl is hit: I think it will do really well if it’s good because the source material is great and so is the cast. Her appearance in Superman was met with a positive reception overall, so that bodes well too. The movie has stiff competition but it can still do really well. I don’t think the budget is insane so that will help.

3. Blockbuster villain/character announcements. Big name actors for the sequel would be cool but more importantly, we need some characters that people have been dying to see for years, in particular, the villain. Come on, ya’ll know who I’m talking about here. Brainiac casting announcement on day one!

 

[donuts]

"Super Family" doesn't need to hit a billion either.

Cracking $700M or $800M would be a great step up.

 

[Deck Rickard]

"Super Family" doesn't need to hit a billion either.

Cracking $700M or $800M would be a great step up.

True. I think it could though. If it showcases Superman in way that 2025 did and Supergirl (as a movie and as a character is also a hit with audiences) and the next movie has new elements people really want to see, I think the lowest it comes in is $800M.

 

[-Arya-]

All I want is for Superman to be as consistently good and reliable as Batman is. Considering how horribly the character’s reputation had declined the last decade, the fact this is a real possibility is remarkable.

 

[STARMAN]

Superman loses 518 theaters. It will be at 1,824 for Labor Day weekend. WB has The Conjuring coming next week. Superman will cross 350 million domestic and then crawl along as the BO run winds up.

 

[Mysteryman]

Superman loses 518 theaters. It will be at 1,824 for Labor Day weekend. WB has The Conjuring coming next week. Superman will cross 350 million domestic and then crawl along as the BO run winds up.

Not too long ago, I got into an argument with people on, Facebook who INSISTED that, Superman would be totally GONE by Labor Day. Vanished from the face of the Earth. Glad that they were ,WRONG!

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Superman, the godfather of the superhero genre since the 40s doing less than 3 Guardians of the Galaxy movies, an unknown group of ragtags 10 years ago, both by the same director, no less. I know the landscape has changed, the weight of the MCU, all that, but it still looks insane to me. There's no way Zaslav, Safran, and even Gunn are not disappointed, at least a little bit.

It's really not so much about the landscape as it is about the crossovers and the meta narrative. Phase 1-3 got people hyped because there was an interconnected story, and GotG played into that perfectly by continuing the Thanos plot thread that was left open by Avengers 1, and laying a lot of extremely important groundwork for the Infinity Stones narrative, plus everyone knew the Guardians would cross over with the Avengers in Infintity War, so we were pre-emptively hyped about the idea of these extremely disparate teams interacting.

The DCU hasn't had a chance to do any of that yet, it's still at the Iron Man 1 stage (and go look at the box office of Iron Man 1). Now, if the DCU can't make bank with a Justice League movie, and if they can't maintain hype with a compelling meta narrative after that, then it'll be time to worry.

 

[donuts]

It's really not so much about the landscape as it is about the crossovers and the meta narrative. Phase 1-3 got people hyped because there was an interconnected story, and GotG played into that perfectly by continuing the Thanos plot thread that was left open by Avengers 1, and laying a lot of extremely important groundwork for the Infinity Stones narrative, plus everyone knew the Guardians would cross over with the Avengers in Infintity War, so we were pre-emptively hyped about the idea of these extremely disparate teams interacting.

The DCU hasn't had a chance to do any of that yet, it's still at the Iron Man 1 stage (and go look at the box office of Iron Man 1). Now, if the DCU can't make bank with a Justice League movie, and if they can't maintain hype with a compelling meta narrative after that, then it'll be time to worry.

I just loved the GOTG trailer and found that it looked fresh and original, and something that I hadn't seen in comic book adaptations yet. Pretty sure a lot of people thought the same. Of course there were also the MCU die hards and followers who watched it for the overarching story.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Yeah I feel like the first Guardians was lightning in a bottle. Great script, awesome soundtrack, unique tone, Chris Pratt was still likable lol, and Marvel as a brand was hitting its stride so people were more than willing to take a chance on characters they had never heard of before. But I really like the whole trilogy. Like, the second film is the weakest but I still LOVE that movie and that one has my favorite soundtrack of the three. It’s just great superhero (or really, more space opera) filmmaking.

 

[FrankenCastle]

Yeah I feel like the first Guardians was lightning in a bottle. Great script, awesome soundtrack, unique tone, Chris Pratt was still likable lol, and Marvel as a brand was hitting its stride so people were more than willing to take a chance on characters they had never heard of before. But I really like the whole trilogy. Like, the second film is the weakest but I still LOVE that movie and that one has my favorite soundtrack of the three. It’s just great superhero (or really, more space opera) filmmaking.

The second is my favorite MCU film, period. I still like Chris Pratt, he sure starred in a bunch of stinkers these past years - Tomorrow War, Electric State, Jurassic World sequels - but I really freaking loved him in The Terminal List, I always knew he had some gravitas in him, and I'm sure he can pull off a pretty cool Batman. I also liked his voice work on Mario, Lego, and Garfield.

 

[blueharvest]

 

[donuts]

Yeah I feel like the first Guardians was lightning in a bottle. Great script, awesome soundtrack, unique tone, Chris Pratt was still likable lol, and Marvel as a brand was hitting its stride so people were more than willing to take a chance on characters they had never heard of before. But I really like the whole trilogy. Like, the second film is the weakest but I still LOVE that movie and that one has my favorite soundtrack of the three. It’s just great superhero (or really, more space opera) filmmaking.

IMO , yes, the first one was lightning in a bottle... And then both sequels managed to increasingly outdo the first one. Terrific trilogy.