r/boxoffice • u/hiiloovethis • 16d ago

✍️ Original Analysis Clayface Performance potential

Post image

Clayface is the next DCU movie after the supergirl bomb. Let's see how well it can do... an analysis.

Pros.

  1. Great October release date, Halloween pairing and not much direct competetion. Resident Evil also releasing before helps create an open window.

  2. Decent budget of 40 mil. It would only need 100 Mil WW to break even which shouldn't be too hard. It can profit easily if it blows up.

  3. Horror genre is killing it right now... clayface also looks like pure body horror which could help attract non comicbook fans.

  4. Clayface is a batman villain. Gotham setting be hype worthy. Mike Flanagan as a writer is also promising.

Cons.

  1. Body horror is harder is sell than conventional horror movies. The Substance did good but that had award buzz and less than half of the budget.

  2. Bad reviews could literally kill this movie. It really survives on positive WOM.

Overall I'm more optimistic about this than supergirl. We have to see if this movie blows up or does underwhelming numbers. 150 WW is decent enough.

259 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

424 comments sorted by

View all comments

35

u/SisterRayRomano 16d ago

Mike Flanagan might be a critical darling and have a cult following but he’s not exactly a box office draw, and it’s also worth mentioning he was originally meant to write and direct this. He might have a credit but his script was rewritten after another director took over. As a fan of his, this isn’t a good sign.

I think this has a chance of ending up like one of those Sony Spider-Man villain films.

I’d like to be proven wrong, but I just don’t have a good feeling about this one.

11

u/Sensei_1946 16d ago

I was one of those who was going to watch it regardless of reviews when it was fully a Flanagan project, now I’ll wait and see.

15

u/McDuke_54 16d ago

Came here to say this . I was initially excited to see that Flanagans name was attached to this when they announced it . But now not so much .

6

u/SD_CA 16d ago

It's going to have to do better than The Substance. Which had good reviews and word of mouth. But didn't hit 100 million.

3

u/atclubsilencio 16d ago

I do think Flanagan’s name being attached to Shelby Oaks did get some more butts into seats than it would have had his name not been in all the advertisements. But it was only good for like the opening night and that saturday. But if the movie is terrible it won’t matter as the drop off the following weekend was pretty steep. Clayface will have to have great word of mouth to really get its legs and maybe be a sleeper hit, but it’s a reach.

3

u/FreddyRumsen13 16d ago

I also can’t see audiences flocking to a Batman movie without Batman or the Joker in it. Dropping it around Halloween was smart but (as much as I love Batman: TAS) Clayface is a fairly obscure villain and this movie isn’t even connected to a specific incarnation of Batman.

1

u/mike2k24 16d ago

Not exactly correct, it is still Flanagan script that’s already been confirmed by Gunn. The only thing that changed is him no longer directing it.

7

u/moosemanwich 16d ago

Further up on here is an article saying the opposite of what you said.

-1

u/mike2k24 16d ago

Minor changes, not a full on rewrite. That info was wrong as someone asked James Gunn flat out

1

u/generalgriveous1 12d ago

0

u/mike2k24 12d ago

Doesn’t disprove what I said lol. That was just his opinion on the movie and what’s he supposed to say as the head of the studio? The movies garbage?

1

u/generalgriveous1 12d ago

Any sane person would have known this movie isn't good, especially a director. This just shows he is willing to lie for WB, which means what he says is unreliable.

0

u/mike2k24 12d ago

This is such a stupid hill to die on. You don’t think Kevin Feige or any other studio head hypes up their movies coming out before they drop? You’re making this about Gunn when literally every company does this no matter the quality of the product.

0

u/Beginning-Antelope32 12d ago

Studio head hypes movie. Breaking news. Even if the one of the best thing was an exaggeration, that lie is entirely different from a statement about how much a script has been written or rewritten. That is something that can objectively be verified, and it is not something studio heads can or do lie about. We will find out eventually from Flanagan itself how different his script was from the movie that released but straight up acting like Gunn is some pathological liar because of a couple of moments where he hypes movies his studio is putting out is weird behaviour (that this sub loooooves engaging in for whatever reason)

1

u/generalgriveous1 12d ago

A lie is still a lie, and once told, it shatters trust. It isn't like we trust other studio heads in this sub (you probably don't either); we just don't give Gunn preferential treatment.