Clayface Pre-Sales Point to an Opening Below 20 Million. Does It Matter for DC?

Clayface is tracking well behind expectations, with ticket pre-sales suggesting the DC horror movie could debut below 20 million dollars. That isn't what anybody wants to hear, whether you're one of the people making decisions over at DC Studios or a fan excited for Clayface. I'm one of those fans. Roxy, Mike Kalinowski and I talked it over.

Clayface is reportedly 80% behind Supergirl in pre-sales

The report I read on the show frames it bluntly: is DC Studios' next movie already in trouble? Tickets recently went on sale, and according to Box Office Theory, the R-rated horror movie is currently 80% behind Supergirl at the same point ahead of its release. The report calls this significantly different, considering Supergirl cost something like 170 million dollars. Supergirl opened with 38 million in North America during its first weekend this past June.

The same report argues there's a big difference between a PG-13 Superman follow-up and a body horror movie, making Resident Evil, directed by Zach Cregger, a better comparison. Clayface is reportedly 66% behind that movie in pre-sales, meaning it's currently on course to debut with less than 20 million. With a reported 40 million dollar production budget and an estimated 30 million marketing spend, the piece says Clayface will have to earn roughly 100 million to break even, which it says doesn't look likely as of now.

The report also points out that Supergirl lost a significant amount, and that there have been conflicting reports about whether Superman's budget spiraled to the tune of 300 million. It suggests that if Clayface exceeds expectations and Man of Tomorrow is a hit, the DCU will almost certainly continue as planned. If not, new Warner Bros. Discovery owners Paramount may decide to take the franchise back to the drawing board.

Roxy thinks Clayface will perform if it's good

Roxy called the tracking a bummer. She describes herself as a big DC fan ("Some might say shill"), says DC is the thing she's been most consistently into for the last 10 years, and says horror is what she's gotten most invested in over the last two. So Clayface is right up her alley. Still, she doesn't think the tracking will have much to do with how this particular movie does. In her words, "if this movie is awesome, I think it's going to perform."

She says she knows one person who has seen it, and that person said it was amazing. Her real point was about awareness. If you weren't in this space or a big comic book reader, and even if you'd seen all the Batman movies and Batman: The Animated Series, would you know Clayface was a DC property? Just hearing about Clayface coming out on Halloween, she argues, you don't really think that. So if it's good, she thinks word of mouth will carry it.

Mike Kalinowski says a 20 million opening isn't a disaster on a 40 million budget

Mike pushed back on the whole underperforming Supergirl conversation. Clayface reportedly cost 40 million, so if it makes 20 million, that's half its production budget back in the first weekend. His comparison: if a movie cost 400 million to make and opened to 200 million, nobody would be upset. He also noted Clayface isn't tied to Superman the way Supergirl's marketing is. If you don't know the character, you don't know it's DC, and he said that could be a bad thing or a good thing.

He's also seen people argue that Mike Flanagan being no longer attached cost the movie a name that would have drawn people in. His answer was that he didn't know who Zach Cregger was before Barbarian, and look at him now. If the movie's good, that's what brings people in. I agreed it definitely has to be a good movie. Mike didn't think it means anything that Clayface is only at a seventh of Supergirl's pre-sale tickets.

I agree you can't compare it to Supergirl at 170 or 180 million. But I still look at 20 million and pause. Mike's not wrong that if it sustains and has a good second week, it could probably get to the 80 to 100 million it's going to need to break even. That's the problem: sustainability, and whether it can hold up against the competition coming out in October and November.

Mike and I disagreed about Resident Evil as a word of mouth example

Mike pointed to Resident Evil as a movie that didn't open well but, he thinks, was pushed by word of mouth to almost 300 million. I didn't think that was right. From what I recall, Resident Evil was tracking at something like 50 million for its opening and wound up making 60 million, on a budget of 75 million. For its budget, that's a big number for an opening, which is why I didn't think it was a good example of a movie being rescued.

Mike argued it went on to make six times its opening weekend. I agree word of mouth definitely helped it, and that it being good is part of it. But the other part is that Resident Evil is an existing IP that's known and popular in the gaming world. When Mike asked whether all the other Resident Evil movies performed, I said no, but I think this was one of the highest performing ones. I do think there's some merit to Mike's point that if Clayface turns out to be great, that changes things.

Clayface is directed by James Watkins, who made Speak No Evil and The Woman in Black.

I think it's Chicken Little stuff to say a Clayface flop dooms the DCU

Here's another major difference between Supergirl and Clayface. When Supergirl failed at the box office, it failed both financially and with critics and audiences, who just didn't like it. That's another reason it was a major loss for DC. If people love Clayface and it still doesn't perform, then maybe it just wasn't marketed right. People didn't know who was in it, didn't understand what Clayface was, and it could catch traction on digital. That's all possible.

What I think is Chicken Little stuff, the sky is falling, is saying the DCU would be in major trouble. Man of Tomorrow is another conversation. Social Reckoning barely made 5 million dollars. If Clayface makes 4 or 5 million, then you can start to ask whether people just don't care about the brand. But if it opens to 20 million, winds up at 50 or 60, and is still a loss, that's not great for the company, but it's not a sign that DC is done.

Roxy believes October gives Clayface a real shot

Roxy ran through the October releases. Verity did well. Digger did not and has already been pulled from theaters. Other Mommy is getting shredded, but it did well in theaters, and Roxy thinks that bodes well for Clayface because it's October and people want to see horror. Social Reckoning bombed. Whalefall has a screening tonight, and she's heard decent things. Street Fighter is coming up, and I'm seeing it tomorrow. There's also Clara and the Sun with Jenna Ortega and Amy Adams.

Wildwood, the animated Laika movie, is getting great feedback, as is Sense and Sensibility, but Roxy doesn't see either pulling from Clayface. Wicker is a comedy, drama, and fantasy with Alexander Skarsgard. As she sees it, nothing competes with Clayface the week of release or the following week. She thinks it has a really good shot of performing well if it's even decent, because it isn't only for DC fans and they put it at a really good time in the slate.

Her hope is that it could perform like an A24 or Neon horror movie, an indie horror film that's DC adjacent without people thinking of it that way. As discussed on the show, even a poorly received movie can succeed: Other Mommy got a D plus CinemaScore, called the worst in five or six years, and it's still doing big business.

Roxy says James Gunn will have to reassess if Clayface flops

Roxy disagrees with me. After some back and forth over whether bomb or flop was the right word (to me, a bomb is a major loss like Social Reckoning, Digger, or Supergirl, so I suggested flop), she defined it as losing money. If Clayface loses money, she thinks they'll have to look at their slate and really think about what they're doing. James Gunn chose Superman, chose Supergirl, and has chosen everything on the slate so far, and in her view they haven't had a massive success yet.

She thinks he's done a good job of throwing spaghetti at the wall. Superman was something very basic that should be a big performer but was just decent for them. Supergirl was a test of a female-led comic book character, the second biggest one. Clayface is a less expensive indie horror. Then you look at which performed best and why. Of course, she said, he's going to have to reassess.

I pushed back. What I really admired about Clayface is that they're doing a lower budget, different genre type of thing. If it doesn't work, that strategy could be looked at and examined, but especially if the movie is really good, I don't necessarily think they'd have to change their overall strategy.

I don't think the tracking is far off, and I'm not sure the interest is there

Tracking is sometimes off, but most of the time it's close, and I think it's close here. I don't think we're going to get the 40 million opening they'd hope for. Roxy pointed out it will be one of the only horror movies in theaters for the last couple weeks of October. But you have to have interest, and it doesn't seem like there's a lot of interest in this one. I'm interested in it, Roxy is, and Mike is. I'm going to ask my daughter, who keeps track of upcoming horror movies, whether she knows anything about Clayface.

For the record, the trailer from two weeks ago had 15 million views, and the one from two months ago had 21 million.

I'd use the Henry Cavill strategy and put Batman in a postcredit scene

If they're able to do it, I'd do the Henry Cavill strategy here: put Batman in a postcredit scene. I said this a while back. If they announce their Batman themselves, without it leaking to the press, and he shows up in that last scene, that would draw people. I always use Black Adam as the example. It made its production budget back, but I think it wound up losing anywhere between 10 and 15 million. If you can boost ticket sales, shoot a scene quickly, cast your Batman and put him in there.

Mike asks why audiences care about box office, and I think we should

Mike asked what any of it matters. The Shawshank Redemption bombed, making under 30 million, and nobody calls it a bad movie. He also mentioned reading that Masters of the Universe went ten weeks at number one on Amazon, which counts toward building interest. He thinks audiences have lost sight of why we care what a movie makes. Studios have to care, but he questioned why audiences should.

I think we should, because when studios overspend on the properties you want to see, it affects what gets made. Apparently Bezos loves Masters of the Universe, so they're making a second one, and he can afford to lose money. But say people were excited for a Supergirl sequel. They're not going to see it now because it lost so much money for what it cost. As a fan, you should be asking why they spent 170 million instead of 80 million.

Tighter budgets mean not overspending on CGI and being pressed to get creative, using practical effects or an up and coming actor instead of a bigger name. We aren't seeing any profit or loss ourselves, but we are seeing whether things get made and whether the quality goes up or dips.

What happens if Clayface bombs and Man of Tomorrow only breaks even

One hypothetical raised on the show: Clayface makes 20 million total, Man of Tomorrow only makes its budget back, and Gunn is fired. One answer was that you'd get Batman and Superman forever, no Wonder Woman, and female-led superheroes would go away. The person giving that answer said they're a Batman guy, so they'd be happy.

My take is that if Man of Tomorrow barely breaks even, Ellison sits down with them and says, here's your new slate, deliver it and keep your jobs, or we'll run it. The rumors are that Ellison likes the 10-year plan, but I think he likes it now because there's still an opportunity to make money. If I were buying this property, I'd say, Clayface could be great, but let's stop making Clayfaces and Supergirls first. Make Batman, Wonder Woman, and Superman first, be successful with the ones that work, then bring in something like the Guardians of the Galaxy approach later.

Some people argued they'd keep reining budgets in. The response on the show was that Clayface did that, and here it is at 20 million, so could you make a Batman movie for 40 million? It was suggested that with the right director you could, perhaps with a Year One story. For reference, Matt Reeves' The Batman cost roughly 185 to 200 million and made 772 million, so it made a profit.

A 40 million budget with a non-movie star is tough, so I hope it's awesome

As discussed on the show, a movie like Obsession cost 1 million because it's two people talking in a diner, while Clayface has a guy's face melting. I think 40 million is a decent budget for a studio comic book horror movie. It might be a problem, it might not. I like that the lead looks great in it, but nobody knows who he is, and 40 million with a non-movie star is tough to do.

I just hope the movie is awesome. The reason The Shawshank Redemption carried on is because it was a great movie, and that's what Clayface needs to be too.

Do you think word of mouth can carry Clayface past its tracking?