SUPERMAN: New Report May Clear Up Whether The First DC Studios Movie Turned A Box Office Profit

Much has been said about Superman's budget, and whether the movie was able to turn a profit, despite it being the year's biggest superhero hit. A new breakdown may set the record straight once and for all.

News

By JoshWilding - Oct 08, 2025 12:10 PM EST

Filed Under: Superman

Source: Forbes

Superman's box office run ended after 84 days. However, we got a surprisingly early Digital debut on August 15, barely a month after the Man of Steel had swooped into theaters on July 11.

The first DC Studios movie has since premiered on HBO Max, and recently landed on 4K Ultra HD, Blu-ray, and DVD. Combining $354,184,465 million from the North American box office and $261,100,000 from international ticket sales, Superman's theatrical run ended with a total of $615,784,465. That makes it the highest-grossing superhero movie of 2025, leaving The Fantastic Four: First Steps in second place.

It's previously been reported that Superman had a $225 million production budget, with an additional $125 million spent on marketing. So, was the reboot a hit?

"Given that films generally split their ticket sales 50-50 with theater owners, this means that Superman’s theatrical net equates to nearly $308 million," Forbes explained in a recent financial breakdown. "The amount, of course, does not reflect any residuals that are being paid out or other miscellaneous expenses associated with the film."

"Even going with the $308 million before taking the other expenses into account," the site continued, "Superman’s net falls below the $350 million Warner Bros. spent on the production of the film and marketing."

So, chances are Superman didn't make a profit from theatrical revenue alone. However, when various ancillary sales, merchandise, Digital, and physical media sales are taken into account—not to mention HBO Max subscriptions—Superman has almost certainly made money for Warner Bros. Discovery and DC Studios.

Crucially, the movie was well-received by fans and critics, and has been widely hailed as a much-needed return to form for the DC brand in theaters, following disasters like Black Adam, The Flash, and Joker: Folie à Deux.

Next up for the character is Man of Tomorrow, a Superman sequel which will see the hero team up with Lex Luthor to take on a greater threat believed ot be Brainiac.

When Superman gets drawn into conflicts at home and abroad, his actions are questioned, giving tech billionaire Lex Luthor the opportunity to get the Man of Steel out of the way for good. Will intrepid reporter Lois Lane and Superman's four-legged companion, Krypto, be able to help him before it's too late?

The movie stars David Corenswet in the dual role of Superman/Clark Kent, Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane and Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor.

Also appearing are Edi Gathegi, Anthony Carrigan, Nathan Fillion, Isabela Merced, Skyler Gisondo, Sara Sampaio, María Gabriela de Faría, Wendell Pierce, Alan Tudyk, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Neva Howell, and Milly Alcock.

Superman is now available on HBO Max, Digital, and 4K Ultra HD, Blu-ray, and DVD.

Tom Holland's SPIDER-MAN Meets David Corenswet's SUPERMAN In Awesome Crossover Fan Art

Recommended For You:

BLACK ADAM Star Dwayne Johnson Responds After THE SMASHING MACHINE Debuts To Career-Low $5.9 Million

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, Comic Book Movie is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. Comic Book Movie will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that Comic Book Movie, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?

Want to contribute?

101 Comments

1 2 3

epc1122 - 10/8/2025, 12:15 PM

So pretty much what’s already been said or discussed about. Made money but not necessarily through the box office and enough of a profit to warrant a continuation of the story.

thedrudo - 10/8/2025, 12:17 PM

@epc1122 - Don’t worry, we’ll get a handful of new articles and more online fighting about the box office and DCU’s future.

bobevanz - 10/8/2025, 12:41 PM

I'd argue the article because if you know the production budget and you add the marketing budget times 1.5 (2.5 is if you only know the production budget), the profit area is after 525 million. Also the studio makes closer to 90% for the first two weeks and over time the theater eventually gets to that 55% share. It's amazing how Forbes leaves out that significant part considering the most money is made in the first two weeks. So either way this did make a profit in the theatrical run. Regardless, it's the first time in 17 years DC beat Marvel. That's a big deal lol

spr0cks - 10/8/2025, 12:54 PM

@bobevanz -
Yes, we should go with your "expertise" on how studios and theaters calculate their revenues and splits rather than with the opinion of Forbes (**checks notes**)...."financial magazine",....whose only claim to notoriety is doing financial analysis and calculating finances, wealth and monetary matters affecting companies and individuals.

That makes sense.

The movie flopped at the theaters just like most of us (with any lick of common sense and not glazing Gunn) said it did and now it's being confirmed by an essentially independant authority on the matter with no ax to grind with either WB or Gunn.

It's made its money back and a tidy profit for WB in streaming and ancillaries, and now you're getting a sequel.
....just like the DCEU after Man of Steel (....which didn't in fact, flop at the box office)..

Take the "W" (if you can call it that) and quit embarrassing yourself like this.

ElJefe - 10/8/2025, 1:52 PM

@spr0cks - The guy writing the article is an entertainment reporter and a movie reviewer, not a financial analyst.

Also, you should read the full article and take more notes, because later on he writes that he has no idea if it’s going to turn a profit overall or not.

But, yeah, I’m calling it a W, my man. I loved the film.

Apophis71 - 10/8/2025, 2:00 PM

@bobevanz - I've never read anyone ever say the studio gets a 90% cut in the first two weeks, it does start out higher but can vary a lot depending on the deal struck by studios from what I have heard said before BUT, and it's a big BUT that still only applies to domestic BO and not international ones.

ALL of that said I've been saying for years now studios will increasingly being looking at BO to cover some of the costs not all these days as there is a far higher profit margin with digital sales and audience trends are increasingly moving towards digital and streaming not BO.

As such I still hold that best rule of thumb is a film does fine is it hits 2.5x or more reported production budget even if good reasons not to trust those numbers. However increasingly it won't be the end of the day if any film fails to hit that IF it is well recieved as increasingly could make more with digital sales/rentals for a studio than ever likely at the BO sadly.

JackDeth - 10/8/2025, 2:14 PM

@bobevanz - How do you account for the massive amount of revenue gained from the synergistic marketing brand deals (Purina, LUCKY, GAP, Fossil, Reebok, Kith, Crocs, FUNKO, Keebler, Chuck E. Cheese, Samsung, etc.), of which this film reportedly had more than any other WB production in the last decade at least. I feel like adding the 'marketing budget' creates for an erroneous number in this case, don't you?

spr0cks - 10/8/2025, 2:37 PM

@ElJefe -
Which part should I read again for more clarity that wasn't already clear from what he wrote.

Based on all we know regarding it's (reported) production cost and (estimated) marketing cost measured against what we know for a fact it made at the box office ($614 Million) - and using the industry standard multipliers and theater/studio splits,...... the movie did in fact,......flop.

i.e....fail to break even.
i.e......fail to make a profit.

AT THE BOX OFFICE.

Whether or not it made money after the fact, after its box office run through ancillaries and streaming/VOD revenues is another question altogether.
He speculates it did.
Fair enough.

Nobody argued the possibility or likelihood that this would happen.
It's just funny that this now has to be held as a footnote to its profitability discussion when the same is not done for the other comicbook movie box office "flops" we had this year.

Good for you that you got your W and your sequel.
But the facts are what they are.

epc1122 - 10/8/2025, 2:45 PM

@thedrudo - pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Same nonsense but different day.

rkshuttleworth - 10/8/2025, 3:21 PM

@epc1122 - lol, not enough to warrant a continuation? Movie theaters aren't the measure anymore

epc1122 - 10/8/2025, 3:42 PM

@rkshuttleworth - don’t mean to come off rude but does this post refer to something i wrote? I don’t think the box office for a big ip like Superman is the only indication for the movie being successful.

ElJefe - 10/8/2025, 3:50 PM

@spr0cks - “based on all we know” is information used to formulate a theory, or at best, an assumption. Not “facts” as you’ve stated. Your “financial magazine” used numbers from other magazines and just came up with the same “probably” assumptions that everyone else did. They site the sources in the article.

I’m not arguing the numbers, just your argument that you are factually correct and that Forbes has proven those facts.

But I get that it’s fun for some of you to compare the new Supes with MoS, but don’t expect to spam the site without somebody calling you on your nonsense once in awhile.

Will44482 - 10/8/2025, 12:18 PM

They wouldn’t have greenlit a sequel if the movie was the huge failure Snyder cultists pretend it is

spr0cks - 10/8/2025, 12:56 PM

@Will44482 -
Man of Steel got a sequel too.

It just happens that it wasn't called Man of Steel 2..........just like Superman 2025's sequel.

But unlike Superman 2025, it didn't need to wait until streaming release and ancilliary sales to make a profit for WB.

It did that shit at the theaters while it was still playing.

Will44482 - 10/8/2025, 1:06 PM

@spr0cks - it didn’t claim Man of Steel didn’t get a sequel but it released during the height of superhero movies any superhero movie that was somewhat decent was making money. if Superman had been released then it would have made more than Man of Steel did.

spr0cks - 10/8/2025, 1:15 PM

@Will44482 -

RE : >>>" it didn’t claim Man of Steel didn’t get a sequel but it released during the height of superhero movies any superhero movie that was somewhat decent was making money. "

Deadpool and Wolverine was released LAST YEAR and made over $1.3 Billion at the Box office.

And 'The Batman' was released DURING COVID.....and when the second biggest movie market in the world in China was totally locked down...
.....and it still managed to make over $160 Million more than Superman 2025.

Sooo.......

rkshuttleworth - 10/8/2025, 3:24 PM

@Will44482 - all Snyder cultists? What about Marvel tribalism or people who just want to justify DC hate in general?

MuadDib - 10/8/2025, 12:20 PM

As long as it was successful enough that they can continue work on the greater DCU and eventually push out a DCU Batman which is all I care about. Reeves and Pattinsons Batman just isn’t my cup of tea. Looking forward to a more fantastical Batman, preferably in a grey and blue suit or black and grey.

LenSpiderman - 10/8/2025, 1:02 PM

@MuadDib - as long as he’s not anything like Afleck’s Batman in the Flash movie. Double woof. But there are so many Batman vibes that haven’t been explored. It’s like the movies go dark and gritty or campy and corny. The animated series did a good job of making the entire bat universe feel cohesive from cat burglars and mobsters to mud monsters and giant bat creatures to ventriloquist themed killers.

MuadDib - 10/8/2025, 3:21 PM

@LenSpiderman - 100% agree, BTAS is the definitive take, and the closer a live action version can get to that the better. Big shoes to fill, but as they say, always shoot for the moon.

Malatrova15 - 10/8/2025, 12:24 PM

Oh yes that movie where a winged evil woman kills a chief of state for no reason other than defend His country AND the leads to a HBO series of orgies AND name falling portraying a good América as nazi

foreverintheway - 10/8/2025, 12:48 PM

@Malatrova15 - well at least it's consistent since current (bad) America is also nazi now.

Malatrova15 - 10/8/2025, 1:12 PM

@foreverintheway - how daré you call América that..this country fought to Smash the nazis, ITS non sense to call América nazi when we stand for what Is rigth ..for people like you that...that person killed that young ukranian refugee. Lets stop división now

lazlodaytona - 10/8/2025, 3:26 PM

@Malatrova15 - I'm pretty sure G.I. Robot did that.

MaxPaint - 10/8/2025, 3:31 PM

@Malatrova15 - Sounds like Jimmy Gunn written cluster[frick] alright.

McMurdo - 10/8/2025, 12:27 PM

it's getting a sequel so.

spr0cks - 10/8/2025, 12:57 PM

@McMurdo -

Like Man of Steel did.

(which actually made a profit in theaters and didn't need to rely on toys and action figure sales.)

HashTagSwagg - 10/8/2025, 1:00 PM

@McMurdo -

DarthMauve - 10/8/2025, 1:20 PM

@spr0cks - Maybe you aren't aware Man of Steel garnered $170 million in product placement and branding deals before a single ticket was sold. So it kind of did.

spr0cks - 10/8/2025, 1:23 PM

@DarthMauve -
None of that factors into the profit it made at the box office thanks to what it made at the box office compared to what it cost to produce it.

It was all bonus on top of it.

And yes, I was aware that Man of Steel was profitable for WB both at the box office and also outside it.

DarthMauve - 10/8/2025, 1:33 PM

@spr0cks - Of course it affects the profit made at the box office, when you start $170 million up on a $225 million budget movie, it bumps up the profit margin massively.

spr0cks - 10/8/2025, 2:00 PM

@DarthMauve -
It didn't start at $170 Million.
It started at the box office at ZERO just like any other movie.

The profit I talk about when I say it made a profit at the box office is what you get what you take what it made (STRICTLY) AT THE BOX OFFICE ($670 Million) and subtract the production and marketing costs ($225 Million + (Est.) $150 Million) per the industry standard multipliers and splits.

Why are you James Gunn fanboys so spectacularly bad at math and all this?
It's beyond laughable at this point, and just plain disturbing.

Are you allowed to operate complicated machinery without supervision?

DarthMauve - 10/8/2025, 2:04 PM

@spr0cks - http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/superman-is-already-a-170m-brand-superhero-as-man-of-steel-tops-the-product-placement-charts-8651215.html

It had already banked $170 million beofre it sold a single ticket.

Whoo says I'm a James Gunn fanboy? The actual [frick] are you talking about?

Why so rude, [foo foo]?

spr0cks - 10/8/2025, 2:45 PM

@DarthMauve -
Again,...

I don't care what it made before it sold a single ticket.
I'm talking about whether it was profitable based strictly and EXCLUSIVELY on what it made at the box office measured against its production budget.

i.e. the standard way or measuring a movie's profitability at the box office.

It did.

Saying "it started at $170 Million" based on what it made before a single ticket was sold seems to be simply a way of trying to discount what it did after it opened at the box office and ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether it was profitable at the box office or not.

Why did you even bother bringing it up?

And you know the reason why typically those kinds of pre-release revenue streams and money-earned don't usually come into the discussion of profitability?
Because for mot studios those kinds of deals and the revenue they bring for the studios are what are used to pay off the marketing and advertising budget which is counted as a loss for the studio and allows them to figure out what they themselves will pay out of pocket to cover any extra marketing cost versus using it to pad the profitability tab of the movie (overall profitability).
In most cases its a wash and in this case it wouldn't surprise me if WB spent that entire $170 Million that it "banked" to pay off the marketing budget and then pocketed the straight profit it made at the box office for book-keeping.

This is why I said you Gunn fanboys never seem to know what you're talking about.

In your case you didn't even seem to know why you brought up that $170 Million figure or what its significance was.

DarthMauve - 10/8/2025, 3:07 PM

@spr0cks - Abosulute bullshit, you can waffle and word salad all you like, but knocking $170 million off your $225 + marketing budget, pre ticket sales, is going to improve your profit margin.

Are you mentally deficient? or as I'm beginning to suspect, a Snyder Cultist who denies reality like a flat earther or a young earth creationist.

Also, go [frick] yourself with your baseless labelling of me without us ever discussing my thoughts on James Gunn.

Toxic lttle slow boy, do better.

spr0cks - 10/8/2025, 3:52 PM

@DarthMauve -

Hey, DUMMY!
I'm going to type this slowly, because it's clear I'm dealing with a MORON here.

Man of Steel Production budget :- $225 Million

Expected Break even point for profitability AT THE BOX OFFICE based on above :- 2.5 X $225M = $560 Million.
The 2.5x Multiplier takes into account things like Studio/Theater splits.

Man of Steel Total Box Office Gross at the end of its run :- $670 Million.

Which means (now pay attention to this part),......

Man of Steel made a profit.... AT THE BOX OFFICE....... of :- $670 Million - $560 Million = $110 Million.

Notice I'm not including the marketing budget (reported to be between $120-150 Million. We'll take the higher $150 Million figure).
Why?
Because in this case WB used that $170 Million pre-release ancillary revenue, toy sales, merchandising tie-ins revenue stream to pay off the marketing budget as is the industry standard - especially when the two are tied together (i.e. you signed marketing deals with companies who then do product placement in your movie for "free" or for a lower cost. In the case of Man of Steel we had companies like iHop, Audi, etc that had very visible product placement in the movie which means they contributed to that $170 Million), which means it had no impact on the box office performance.

Otherwise it (the marketing budget) counts as a loss, or you include it with your production budget as noted above and calculate your profit that way using a 2.25x multiplier.
Different studios do it differently (depending on whether you have the kind of deals I pointed out above or not.), but the rule of thumb is if a studio is reporting pre-release revenue, then that money is almost certainly being used to pay off the marketing and advertising budget and DOES NOT FACTOR INTO THE PROFIT CALCULATION, you stupid dillweed.

Did they make that $170 Million AT the box office? (not "before". Pay attention to the preposition in use here)

No?

Then it doesn't factor into the BOX OFFICE profitability.

Do you want me to use a picture book to help you understand all this?
Maybe one with pop-up pictures.

Calling it a word-salad because you lack the cerebral horsepower to understand many words or to add numbers together is not a "Me" problem.

It's a "You" problem.

Ask a kid nearby to explain it to you if you're still struggling.

DarthMauve - 10/8/2025, 4:06 PM

@spr0cks - Son, you are so transparent. If you are going to have an honest discussion regarding Man of Steel and it's Budget vs Profitablity and not factor in the (record breaking) $170 million in product placement prior to ticket-sales is very telling to your bias and clear agenda.

The very fact you are trying SO HARD to make this money magically disappear in your strawmanning, gishgallop of a post and not factor it into the figures demonstrates your dishonesty.

Seriously. Go back to Reddit, we don't need you here.

DarthMauve - 10/8/2025, 4:10 PM

@spr0cks - The bullet points from an article at the time discussing the matter.

* Producers recouped three-quarters cost of film through brand partnerships alone
* Largest number of product placements ever used for a film
* Brands include Chrysler, Nokia, Warby Parker glasses and Walmart
* Almost 100 branded products appear in the film.

But it had nothing to do with the the profits. History would seem to prove you wrong.

ClungeOfSteel - 10/8/2025, 12:29 PM

Sure this MIGHT be true if you use simple maths, but when you factor in things such as denial, shilling, goalposts moving, RT scores, fanboy tears, Gunn's ability to greenlight a sequel and the overall desire for the trades to shit on what came before...then this is a gazillion dollar success

#inGunnWeTrust

Forthas - 10/8/2025, 12:35 PM

I think it lost more than that, but at least they are starting to end what has to be the most blatant - and as a result - most embarrassing example of out-of-control shilling I have ever seen for a film. Man of Steel beat this film in

Adjusted domestic box office
Adjusted foreign box office
Adjusted worldwide box office
Unadjusted foreign box office
Unadjusted worldwide box office
Ticket sales
...and soon will beat it in the overall box office ranking for its respective year

YET...the spin doctors tried to make it seem as though it was more successful than MOS based on the Unadjusted Domestic box office.

I hope this experience will demonstrate that all the fake marketing and spin in the world will ultimately give way to truth!

1 2 3

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

SUPERMAN: New Report May Clear Up Whether The First DC Studios Movie Turned A Box Office Profit

Much has been said about Superman's budget, and whether the movie was able to turn a profit, despite it being the year's biggest superhero hit. A new breakdown may set the record straight once and for all.

Tom Holland's SPIDER-MAN Meets David Corenswet's SUPERMAN In Awesome Crossover Fan Art

BLACK ADAM Star Dwayne Johnson Responds After THE SMASHING MACHINE Debuts To Career-Low $5.9 Million

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, Comic Book Movie is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.