The 2016 “Ghostbusters” reboot cost Sony a reported $70 million, stalling the franchise in the process.
The film brought it $128 million stateside and $100 million more overseas. So why all that red ink? The film cost too much, and the box office receipts couldn’t split the difference.
The 2021 redo, “Ghostbusters: Afterlife,” earned roughly the same domestically yet spawned the upcoming “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.”
Why? The latter film’s budget proved far more economical ($75 million vs. the 2016 film’s $144 million price tag)
You don’t need an abacas to figure out Hollywood’s problem. Spend less on blockbuster films and, chances are, you’ll make a bigger profit. Or lose less of your shirt.
Horror films squared this circle some time ago, and genre films routinely make bank. Even “Lisa Frankenstein,” an early 2024 dud ($9 million), won’t crush its studio thanks to its $13 million budget.
Tell that to the team behind “Superman.”
Director James Gunn’s ambitious Man of Steel reboot will set back the studio a reported $363 million.
The film, starring David Corenswet as the guy from Krypton, hopes to reboot the DCEU after “Black Adam,” “Blue Beetle,” “The Flash” and “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” all under-performed.
No pressure, Mr. Gunn.
Except Gunn’s creative team has made a terrible mistake in starting production with a sky-high budget. Gunn himself quasi-denied it, but the numbers appear legit.
Films featuring the Superman character aren’t guaranteed to earn the kind of money Warner Bros. needs to overcome that gargantuan budget.
The 2016 film “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” earned $867 million globally, but the Chinese box office no longer generates the kind of money that boosts studio coffers. (China added nearly $100 million to that tally)
The 2017 film “Justice League,” an ensemble adventure featuring Superman, earned $661 million in toto.
Can Superman Defeat Sky-High Budgets?
Superhero fatigue is real, and we no longer see the massive box office results for films featuring colorfully clad heroes.
In short, “Superman” is starting at a distinct disadvantage. Couldn’t Warner Bros. remind us a man can fly for a smaller price point?
Recent films like “The Creator” ($80 million) and “Godzilla Minus One” (less than $15 million) proved blockbuster movies don’t have to break the bank to look spectacular.
All of this comes as other high-budgeted films have struggled to make a profit despite extensive franchise ties. Think “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,” “Fast X,” “The Flash” and “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Vol. 1.”
All underwhelmed at the box office, making it hard for their respective studios to see a profit.
The problem is real, and it’s not going away. That’s especially true given the fickle nature of today’s theatrical audience.
Gunn, a shrewd storyteller and industry veteran, should know better than to proceed with such a staggering price tag. Will it take a few more box office fails before industry executives start paring down those super-sized budgets?
If “Superman” falls, it could be the industry’s belated wake-up call.