There is something wrong with Superman.
As the release date for the Man of Steel's latest cinematic adventure — James Gunn's Superman — approaches, I keep thinking about the Last Son of Krypton. Being a lifelong fan of the character, that isn't rare for me, but, an interesting fact keeps finding its way into my thoughts: Despite his cultural status, Clark Kent has rarely been a box office draw. It's strange to ponder, isn't it? One of the biggest... nay, the quintessential superhero, has usually struggled to gather enough audience interest to carry his multitple live-action entries into the realm of profitability.
His financial struggles are only part of the problem, however. An underlying issue has subtly plagued the hero throughout his storied Hollywood career; an issue that surfaced not long after his 1978 film delivered on the promise to make us believe a man could fly: His image. As strange as it may sound, public perception of Kal-El as a cultural icon contributes to his financial struggles. But first, just how successful (or not) has Superman been over the years?
Box Office Decline
Below are the box office numbers of every Superman and Superman-related film released to date, with the exception of the 1940s serials starring Kirk Alyn and the George Reeves-starring Superman and the Mole-Men (Note: The following figures are taken from Box Office Mojo):
- Superman: The Movie (1978): $300,478,449 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $1,478,404,663.30
- Superman II (1981): $216,385,706 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $763,646,342.75
- Superman III (1983): $80,250,623 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $258,473,881.58
- Supergirl (1984)*: $14,296,438 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $44,140,768.32
- Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987): $30,281,020 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $85,510,561.72
- Superman Returns (2006): $391,081,192 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $622,306,006.88
- Man of Steel (2013): $670,145,518 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $922,828,382.26
- Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016): $874,362,803 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $1,168,679,310.97
- Justice League (2017): $661,326,987 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $865,496,046.00
*Supergirl's gross is domestic, as there are no international numbers I could find for the film.
Now, here's a list of grosses for blockbusters released around the same year (or in some cases, the same year) as the aforementioned Superman films starting from Superman III — which marked the start of the decline in the hero's earnings — onward (Note: Figures are taken from Box Office Mojo):
- Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984): $333,107, 271 - Adjusted for Inflation: $1,028,480,721.85
- Back to the Future (1985): $385,053,307 - Adjusted for Inflation: $1,147,984,903.52
- Batman (1989): $411,569,241 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $1,064,752,860.21
- Spider-Man 2 (2004): $784,543,400 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $1,332,332,451.05
- Fantastic Four (2005): $333,535,934 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $547,857,961.84
- Batman Begins (2005): $375,406,308 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $616,633,213.39
- X-Men: The Last Stand (2006): $460,435,291 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $732,665,372.90
- Iron Man 3 (2013): $1,214,811,252 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $1,672,863,985.99
- Thor: The Dark World (2013): $644,783,140 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $887,902,949.46
- Captain America: Civil War (2016): $1,155,046,416 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $1,543,842,950.50
- Thor: Ragnarok (2017): $855,301,806 - Adjusted for Inflation: Approximately $1,119,356,000.55
The Numbers
As seen in the comparison, the Man of Steel has had significant monetary ups and downs since 1978. Superman: The Movie started out strong. Impressively strong, in fact. Superman II did quite well, too, but the dropoff between it and its predecessor was considerable. Then, the franchise experienced a big decline between movies II and III — a loss in public interest that was made more evident by the box office hauls of Supergirl and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.
The franchise experienced somewhat of a resurgence in 2006 with Superman Returns. It was not a significant one, though, as its earnings were surpassed by Spider-Man 2, released just two years prior, and by another superhero film released in its same year: 2006's X-Men: The Last Stand. Instead, Superman Returns performed similarly to 2005's Fantastic Four and Batman Begins, which were considered moderate successes at the time, evidencing once again audiences being more interested in other properties over Superman.
In more modern times, Man of Steel performed quite well in comparison to its predecessors, bringing in significantly more than Superman Returns. However, its success paled in comparison to another superhero project released that same 2013, Iron Man 3, and shockingly, had nearly the same gross as Thor: The Dark World, which remains one of the lowest-rated MCU films to date.
Then, came Batman v Superman. There was considerable excitement around the film, but upon its release, it failed to reach the $1 billion mark (a milestone that was considered a given at the time, due to the project's monumental nature), and was ultimately surpassed by Marvel Studios' superhero showdown, Captain America: Civil War. This is important to note because Superman's second DCEU entry co-starred Batman, one of the most profitable characters in the DC roster. Yet, neither his presence, nor the promise of a crossover decades in the making were enough to make the film a hit in the scale of Steve Rogers' third standalone outing.
Then came 2017's Justice League. A massive crossover for DC uniting some of its most popular heroes, the movie was poorly received and ended up flopping, earning less than Thor: Ragnarok, which was released that same 2017.
What Does This Mean For Superman?
On paper, Superman has all the right ingredients to be an infallible financial draw. He has been around for the better part of a century, he's one of the most beloved superheroes in the comic book industry, and to top it off, his symbol is widely recognized by comic book fans and non-superhero readers alike. However, the Man of Tomorrow does not carry the star power that attributes like those would, on almost any other character, guarantee.
The "why" behind that isn't a mystery, though. Arguably, the fact that there's such high public awareness of the character is, ironically enough, the root of his enduring image problem.
Superman's popularity stems from the fact that he's a cultural icon, not necessarily because he's a character who's endeared himself to audiences on the scale that heroes like Batman, Iron Man or Captain America have. Yes, your average viewer is likely aware of who he is, but their knowledge of him doesn't usually extend beyond Clark Kent being bespectacled and having a habit of ripping his shirt open when trouble comes his way.
In short, people know Superman as a concept, not as a character. His cultural status is similar to Jesus on the Cross. If you showed that image to any person on the street, they would most likely be able to tell you who it is on that Cross. Yet, not everyone will be Catholic or Christian, and will therefore not be necessarily invested in the meaning or mythology behind the symbol, regardless of how recognizable it is.
And, although Clark Kent has a significant number of fans who are passionate about him and excited about his cinematic adventures, that number hasn't been large enough to turn him into a safe financial bet.
Regrettably (though somewhat understandably), Superman movies have so far been developed around the idea that everyone already knows Superman, and thus, they rarely step outside the concept of Kal-El being a flawless messiah. He is firm, perfect, godly, better than everyone. He doesn't have quirks, he is just Superman, watching over the world, striking the Jesus pose every once in a while to remind us of his divine status.
You can see this clearly in the marketing for nearly every modern Superman film, with almost every teaser or trailer treating the movie (be it Superman Returns, Man of Steel, Batman v Superman or, most recently, Superman) as an unmissable event of epic proportions. The big screen return of a king, if you will. Yet, upon their release, for the most part, audiences have not shown up to validate the grandiose nature of the films' marketing campaigns.
Superman is known, but he isn't beloved by general moviegoers, who are ultimately the ones that have made superheroes such a profitable endeavor for studios. Now, does this mean Superman is forever doomed to be in the halls of Hollywood financial failures, destined to remain dormant for years at a time after every box office disappointment? Luckily, no.
A New "In"
We've seen a man in a costume fly and punch way above his weight class quite literally dozens of times by now. That's no longer enough to successfully market a Superman movie. Historically, Warner Bros. hasn't successfully sold modern Superman films as, "This is a fun experience because the premise is interesting, the characters are engaging, and the effects are eye-catching." Instead, the market tends to boil down to, "Well, it's Superman. You know who he is. You should see it because it's Superman on the poster."
Keep in mind, that is not incompetence. Tremendous effort goes behind nearly every marketing campaign for major motion pictures. Movies are not easy to sell; they require intelligent people in tune with what audiences might be interested to see. Furthermore, marketing Superman the way he's been marketed so far is an understandable approach, given how immensely popular he was in his heyday.
That, paired with the hero's widely recognized iconography, makes it understandable to expect such popularity to have carried over through the decades. So, no, it's not incompetence; it's just comfort in the familiarity of past financial victories. To fix the monetary hurdles the Man of Steel has faced so far, Warner Bros. simply needs a new "in" into Superman.
Yes, the guy's strong and morally incorruptible, we know that. Now, what else can you entice people with to make a big-screen story centered around him worth spending the money that a theater experience demands? Let's look at Marvel Studios for an example. (I know, I know, a Marvel comparison in a DC article, how original. But stick with me). Marvel made characters nobody really cared about into household names because it gave them quirks and hooks that audiences could latch onto, regardless of their comic book knowledge.
Captain America was a shy young man just wanting to do good long before he got superpowers. Iron Man was, for lack of a better word, a jerk, before he changed his ways and bettered himself. Spider-Man is just a shy kid trying to find his place in a world he perceives himself to be an outsider to, despite fitting right in with the best of the best; the list goes on.
The First Avenger, Iron Man and Spider-Man: Homecoming weren't expecting viewers to connect to their protagonists right away because of their superhero monikers and the costumes they wore. Instead, they delivered characters that were on our level. They could have been our friends, our neighbors, or even better, us.
Superman needs an approach akin to that. In an age where superhero spectacle has become so ingrained in popular culture, it's not enough to expect Kal-El's godly powers to be the draw. To make the Man of Steel financially viable, it's imperative for him to be taken down the plinth created by his previous cultural status and instead be made to feel like a character you not only want to watch on screen, but also shake hands with, hang out with (a sentiment James Gunn has also shared).
The Man of Tomorrow isn't a mannequin, always striking the same pose, too artifical for people to connect with. He's funny, he's dependable, honest; he has flaws, but ultimately strives to do the right thing. Amplifying those aspects and pairing them with a story that provides a hook for audiences beyond "Superman flies around and stops Lex Luthor" could allow Clark Kent to regain the standing he once held in entertainment.
Will James Gunn's Superman be able to achieve that? Hopefully. The promotional campaign initially fell into the trap of primarily marketing the film on the concept of Superman, but that doesn't mean the movie will have the same fate as its predecessors. Luckily, the film's full trailer showed more of Clark Kent/Superman as a person, rather than an icon (the, "Hey, buddy, eyes up here" line was a nice touch, for example), which, considering the points made above, could signal this project being a more successful outing for its title character.
Perhaps the latest chapter in the DCU will be able to reintroduce Superman in a way that makes people want to follow his stories for a long time. Perhaps that will make him the financial draw he once was, allowing us to believe a man can take to the skies once again, regardless of how long he struggled to make his way back there. As a longtime fan of the Man of Steel, I hope that happens, because he truly deserves it. And at the end of the day, hope is what Superman is all about, isn't it?
Superman flies into theaters on July 11, 2025.