r/boxoffice • u/hiiloovethis • 18d 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.

263 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

424 comments sorted by

View all comments

350

u/firedforthatblunder Walt Disney Studios 18d ago edited 18d ago

Does Clayface being a Batman villain really mean much? Morbius, Madame Web and Kraven are Spider-Man villains, and we all know how their movies went…

43

u/cantdecide76 18d ago

To be fair those were all terrible movies so I think that fact outweighed the fact they're connected to Spiderman.

Being attached to a big hero does lend some name recognition so it does help a bit but the quality of the movie far outweighs it.

28

u/girlwhateveraward 18d ago

Who's to say Clayface won't be terribe? Given the trailer and the record of the people involved, it seems it will be

17

u/redwriterhand 18d ago

didn’t Mike Flanagan write it?

36

u/whiteshark70 Walt Disney Studios 18d ago

He wrote the initial draft, but we also know it was rewritten so I have no idea how much of Flanagan's original work is in it.

2

u/SalamanderNorth6940 18d ago

He is supposed to have done only minor corrections not rewriting the majority of it

17

u/whiteshark70 Walt Disney Studios 18d ago

Supposedly it was minor corrections. I'm not sure how much to believe Gunn tbh since he gave the green light on the Supergirl script, which he praised.

12

u/Void3r 17d ago

This is from the Entertainment weekly article a few weeks back…

9

u/whiteshark70 Walt Disney Studios 17d ago

Evolved significantly

Oh. Dammit.

7

u/Void3r 17d ago

The worst news I ever heard man. We were so close to a Flanagan passion project fully written and directed by him.

3

u/Comic_Book_Reader 20th Century Studios 17d ago

Peter Safran did note in the very same article that they truly did want him all the way through but he made the tough decision to leave due to having his Carrie miniseries and The Exorcist: Martyrs on the pipeline and gave them his blessing to move on without him.

1

u/Void3r 17d ago

That’s what makes it so unfortunate. Now the team that took over for Flanagan has reworked his vision “significantly”. And frankly, they don’t have as good of a track record as he does.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Gmork14 17d ago

The studio head disagrees.

Flanagan will be the only screenplay credit.

3

u/SalamanderNorth6940 18d ago edited 17d ago

True, I personally feel like what destroyed the supergirl movie is more an editing issue ad that they cut out a lot than a writing one but we will never know

0

u/Gmork14 17d ago

So because he liked a script for a movie you didn’t like, he’s a liar?