Accommodation Abudhabi introduces
If there's one thing that modern Hollywood specializes in, it's unforced errors.
There are dozens of examples of major studio properties that had what appeared to be an easy path to profitability. "The Marvels" was the continuation of the all-powerful Marvel Cinematic Universe, a follow-up to a wildly successful franchise. New release "The Mandalorian and Grogu" was part of the expanded Star Wars universe. The most recent "Superman" from James Gunn was a reboot of one of the most popular comic book characters in history, with creative talent behind it that had already delivered mega-hits like "The Guardians of the Galaxy."
Instead, those movies were financial disappointments, to one degree or another. All thanks to predictable mistakes from the entertainment industry. "The Marvels" came after Marvel Studios shot its brand in the foot by focusing too much on unpopular characters to check desired boxes. It flopped, dramatically. "The Mandalorian and Grogu" is set to lose Disney around $100 million because they degraded the Star Wars brand so successfully over the years. "Snow White" was another monumental flop after actress Rachel Zegler spent the entire press campaign undermining it. "Superman," while hardly a flop, disappointed at the box office after Gunn made bizarre comments about the film's supposed political message. Even though the film had no specific political focus.
STAR WARS FRANCHISE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE AS 'THE MANDALORIAN AND GROGU' DISAPPOINTS IN OPENING BOX OFFICE
But apparently bizarre comments and financial failures are what the James Gunn era at DC Studios is all about. Because the latest pre-release tracking data on this weekend's "Supergirl" release has gone from disastrously bad to monumental failure. And the film's star, Milly Alcock, is sure to shoulder some of the blame.
Alcock, as a reminder, implied in a March interview that she'd been receiving criticism for being a woman starring as a...female superhero. Which makes little sense.
"It definitely made me aware that simply existing as a woman in that space is something that people comment on," she told Vanity Fair. "We have become very comfortable having this weird ownership of women's bodies. I can't really stop them. I can only be myself."
When reaction to those remarks was generally negative, Alcock got defensive and doubled down.
"I didn't even say 'men' - I said 'people!'" she said in a profile for Variety. "And they got so angry. I was like, 'You're proving my point. You're proving my point!'"
Apparently unaware that those remarks then proved she had, in fact, been referring to unknown male fans who supposedly criticized her for playing "Supergirl." But that wasn't the only odd statement she made during that portion of the press tour.
Alcock said much of the criticism came from those who said they were a "dad" or "Christian." Which apparently disqualifies them from having an opinion about a movie or casting decision. Or means that any comments are supposedly hypocritical.
"And it's from a lot of people whose profiles have no photo, who are burner accounts," Alcock said. "Or someone's name and then 'Dad of four, Christian,' which is hilarious to me."
As if that wasn't enough, just a few days ago, Alcock addressed the sexuality of the "Supergirl" character in a response to a question from Queerly Radio. When the host asked whether that was something Alcock had "explored" her character's supposed "queerness" in preparing for the role, she answered, "It wasn't, but in honor of 'Pride month,' as I'm getting all these questions...I don't know. I think that what makes this film beautiful is that it's not centered around a man, it's not centered around love at all. I don't really know. I don't know. I don't know. She probably goes both ways."
It's like watching the "Snow White" debacle unfold again, years later.
Relatedly, as the film's release on June 26 rapidly approaches, there's new box office tracking data out. In May, Box Office Theory estimates said that "Supergirl" could reach as high as $65 million in its opening weekend. Even that would have been a disappointment, given the film's estimated $250 million cost between production and marketing. With the 50/50 revenue breakdown between studios and movie theaters, a $250 million movie generally needs to reach $500 million globally to break even. And in fact, original marketing estimates may have been low, considering a new report says the film received a $100 million "promo partner" campaign, the largest ever for DC.
As a point of comparison, "Superman" opened to $125 million domestically and topped out at $618 million worldwide. Half that first weekend gross would make it nearly impossible to reach $500 million, and even $400 million would be unlikely, at best.
Well, things have only gotten worse since. Much, much worse.
In their latest update, Box Office Theory has now put the range of weekend grosses for "Supergirl" at between $39-51 million. That's a decrease of $8-14 million from the previous estimates. And it spells disaster for Hollywood and DC Studios.
ZERO BS. JUST DAKICH. TAKE THE DON'T @ ME PODCAST ON THE ROAD. DOWNLOAD NOW!
Taking the midway point of those numbers, an opening weekend of $45 million would be a monumental failure. Big-budget films typically bring in around 40-45% of their total gross in the first weekend. Particularly in the busy summer season where high-profile releases hit theaters each week. That implies a total domestic gross in the $100-108 million range. Even if it doubles that total in international markets, a $300 million total would mean around $200 million in losses for Warner Bros. and DC Studios.
"Supergirl" was likely never going to be a huge hit for DC. It's a character with little general fan interest, and Gunn failed to build buzz and momentum for his new version of an "expanded universe" in the DC Studios world with "Superman."
But they could have maximized fan interest and their return on investment with better story ideas, marketing and public relations. The film's trailer looked unoriginal and uninteresting. Alcock has little-to-no name recognition, and instead of building up a positive profile of herself and the movie, has come across as unlikable and divisive in the press tour.
This isn't rocket science. Don't alienate potential customers by unnecessarily making them the enemy. Don't make yourself the center of the story, when it should be the movie and its qualities. That can't guarantee financial success, but it won't hurt box office either. Instead, Alcock has done the opposite. She's made everything about her, her views and ideology. That's her choice, but she's then going to shoulder some of the blame when it fails. And boy oh boy, does this movie look like it's going to fail.
