The Flash is a certified flop. It appears Ezra Miller, starring as DC comics Scarlet Speedster Barry Allen on his own, can't use his speed force to bring in the needed audience. But it's getting worse. Much, much worse. The DCEU superhero film, also starring Michael Keaton as Tim Burton's Batman, is on track to be the biggest loser for Warner Brothers Studio of all time. This depressing figure is not counting only superhero movies in comparison, but all of WB’s film catalog. Yes, the Flash is speeding along to be the biggest flop of all time for Warner Brothers.
Click On Our YouTube Channel For More:
Sci-Fi Guy is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Thanks!
Aug 27, 2023·edited Aug 27, 2023Liked by Will Stape
So I was doing a 'drive-by Sci-fi Guy' to read something I missed in my inbox, and I suddenly remembered 2000's Warner Bros. flop, Battlefield Earth. Here are the numbers:
- Battlefield Earth, Budget: $73 million, Box office: $29.7 million = ROI 0.41
- The Flash, Budget: $220 million, Box office: $268.5 million = ROI 1.22
So my flop-rensic analysis suggests that on return on investment, Battlefield Earth is far and away the greater stinker (although all marketing costs may not have been disclosed).
Yeah, various articles have it as the biggest flop in WB HISTORY or biggest flop for a COMIC BOOK MOVIE - it's prob a bit of both, though Blue Beetle did really badly, though at a much lower budget.
Headline writers must always use the most garish paint available, right? 😁 As for Blue Beetle - it still surprises me that this film would get made, although I have found some fans from the 80s era of the comic. Only out a few weeks, so too soon to draw a final conclusion, but:
In this case, the movie is actually running at a loss currently, which can't be said of The Flash, at least not without knowing the marketing budgets (which are essentially never disclosed as far as I can tell).
Isn't it surreal that we can talk about a movie made on excess of a hundred million dollars as 'a much lower budget'...? Wrath of Khan cost $12 million. 😎
Yes, it is truly weird when you recall Paramount brought in Harve Bennett as a sharp, budget conscious TV writer/producer to keep costs of newly minted feature film Trek franchise running economically. PP needs a new Harve - in creativity AND budget stretching!
Agreed on Blue Beetle, it strikes me as a straight-to-streaming piece. Guess WB wanted a last blast of old DCEU before Aquaman 2. Though James Gunn now says BB (character anyway) is part of his new DCU - who knows - LOL. DC film universe has been so unbearably confusing. 🤨
Not just the film universe, I think - DC comic universe has hardly been smooth sailing. There is apparently some concept of continuity at work, but it seems flexible about how it operates. 😂 To be fair, it cannot be easy to keep any narrative universe that old running smoothly.
Yeah, Gunn is talented and hopefully has a real cohesive vision, that Snyder lacked or simply wasn't as good about realizing it. Though politics probably got in the way of that too.
So I was doing a 'drive-by Sci-fi Guy' to read something I missed in my inbox, and I suddenly remembered 2000's Warner Bros. flop, Battlefield Earth. Here are the numbers:
- Battlefield Earth, Budget: $73 million, Box office: $29.7 million = ROI 0.41
- The Flash, Budget: $220 million, Box office: $268.5 million = ROI 1.22
So my flop-rensic analysis suggests that on return on investment, Battlefield Earth is far and away the greater stinker (although all marketing costs may not have been disclosed).
Yeah, various articles have it as the biggest flop in WB HISTORY or biggest flop for a COMIC BOOK MOVIE - it's prob a bit of both, though Blue Beetle did really badly, though at a much lower budget.
Headline writers must always use the most garish paint available, right? 😁 As for Blue Beetle - it still surprises me that this film would get made, although I have found some fans from the 80s era of the comic. Only out a few weeks, so too soon to draw a final conclusion, but:
- Blue Beetle: Budget: $104 million, Box office: $81.8 million, ROI: 0.77
In this case, the movie is actually running at a loss currently, which can't be said of The Flash, at least not without knowing the marketing budgets (which are essentially never disclosed as far as I can tell).
Isn't it surreal that we can talk about a movie made on excess of a hundred million dollars as 'a much lower budget'...? Wrath of Khan cost $12 million. 😎
Yes, it is truly weird when you recall Paramount brought in Harve Bennett as a sharp, budget conscious TV writer/producer to keep costs of newly minted feature film Trek franchise running economically. PP needs a new Harve - in creativity AND budget stretching!
Agreed on Blue Beetle, it strikes me as a straight-to-streaming piece. Guess WB wanted a last blast of old DCEU before Aquaman 2. Though James Gunn now says BB (character anyway) is part of his new DCU - who knows - LOL. DC film universe has been so unbearably confusing. 🤨
Not just the film universe, I think - DC comic universe has hardly been smooth sailing. There is apparently some concept of continuity at work, but it seems flexible about how it operates. 😂 To be fair, it cannot be easy to keep any narrative universe that old running smoothly.
Yeah, Gunn is talented and hopefully has a real cohesive vision, that Snyder lacked or simply wasn't as good about realizing it. Though politics probably got in the way of that too.