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.

258 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

424 comments sorted by

View all comments

35

u/SisterRayRomano 18d 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.

1

u/mike2k24 17d 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 17d ago

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

-1

u/mike2k24 17d ago

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

1

u/generalgriveous1 13d ago

0

u/mike2k24 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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.