Skip to content 
“Clayface,” a body horror film based on a little-known comic book, opened to $24 million, a modest gross for DC Studios, which is in year two of its mixed-bag theatrical revival.
On the one hand, the tide is not bad because the title character is a special player and the gory genre is not associated with the spandex set. On the other hand, it’s slightly below projections, which expected “Clayface” to open between $25 million and $30 million. It was enough to hold off the second weekend of “You Can See Everything” on the A24, which earned $19.5 million. It also helps that “Clayface” is cheaper than most comic book movies, with a $44 million price tag. It may not be a profit machine, but it won’t lose money either.
That was not the case with “Supergirl”, the last film in the universe that James Gunn and Peter Safran have been building since they took the reins at DC. “Supergirl” was a disaster, losing an estimated $80 million to $120 million. He also received an emergency drubbing. “Clayface” got better in that regard as well. It stands at 75% “fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes compared to “Supergirl’s” 52% “rotten” rating. To date, last summer’s “Superman,” which Gunn wrote and directed, is the most successful example of their quick, poppy approach. It grossed $618.7 million worldwide and was widely accepted by critics. The company’s streaming shows, which include “Lanterns” and “Peacemaker,” are better received.
But nothing DC has done under Gunn and Safran has come close to the box office heights enjoyed by Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” trilogy, the first “Aquaman,” or “Wonder Woman.” Two of Nolan’s “Dark Knight” movies reached $1 billion, as did “Aquaman,” and “Wonder Woman” earned $823.9 million. When Gunn and Safran were enlisted to revive DC, the brand was struggling with consistency, with movies like “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” and “The Flash” falling flat in spectacular fashion – little seen and little loved. The pair’s output has improved on that low bar, even as DC’s recent efforts have yet to deliver the same glorious joys of Gunn’s “Guardians of the Galaxy” films. Safran, a veteran producer whose credits include “The Conjuring” franchise, is seen as the business brains of the operation, while Gunn speaks comic book and is tasked with documenting the creative vision.
Looking ahead, DC will bring back some of the headlines. “The Batman: Part II” will open in theaters in 2028, and Gunn will return to the world of Superman with “Man of Tomorrow” next summer. Both the films seem poised to connect with audiences.
Ultimately, Gunn and Safran may have the misfortune of leading a comic book empire at a time when audiences are getting much pickier about their costumed heroes. “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” is the most profitable movie of the year, having earned $2.5 billion, but that movie features one of the most iconic comic book characters in history. Likewise, “Avengers: Doomsday” is expected to be big when it opens in December, but it boasts Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans returning to the MCU. Outside of these Tiffany brands, even Marvel, which DC is so clear about reporting, has struggled. The company’s attempts to create a new group of Avengers, such as “Thunderbolts,” “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” “The Eternals,” and “The Marvels,” have been box office disappointments, if not outright bombs. If the king of comic books is struggling, it might be wrong to hope for more from Gunn and Safran. In that kind of atmosphere, “Clayface” might count as a win, modest though it may be.
