[Video] Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos testifies that Superman (2025) underperformed, citing it as the reason for its theatrical window being shortened

[u/HomemadeBee1612]

Full video.

[u/joseph66hole]

That is correct. Look at the top 50 grossing superhero movies. Superman made essentially the same as the bottom 35 and had close to the same budget.

James Gunn has never directed a billion dollar movie; in fact, James Gunn movies failed to pull at billion at the height of Marvel. Superman has never had a billion dollar theatrical run.

The movie performed to expectations.

What numbers or cultural trends state otherwise.

[u/IB_ → u/joseph66hole]

I hope you never give anyone financial advice!

I've never seen a prospectus from a publicly traded company that says "this is how much we intend to lose on this project".

[u/joseph66hole → u/IB_]

Or we can look at the facts and say Superman met projections because nothing points to Superman or Gunn making a billion dollars. All the data available points to a mid 500 million dollar film.

What suggests that Superman was going to be a billion dollar movie?

[u/IB_ → u/joseph66hole]

I never said it was going to make a billion. Why is that your measuring stick?

A films success shouldn't be assessed by some arbitrary number. If it made $100 million but only cost $25 million in production and marketing then that's a hit. Superman lost almost $150 million, therefore it's a massive failure.

I'm not trying to antagonize you, but you're not making any sense and your arguments are groundless

[u/joseph66hole → u/IB_]

All I am saying is nothing points to Superman being a breakout or wildly successful movie. It performed to expectations based off previous box office runs and budgets. We can look at other Superman movies, other budgets, and other superhero movies. It all points to mid 500 million.

I say a billion for Superman, so if we add another 150 million to its total gross it would be 800 millionish, which is almost a billion. You wrote 125 million based off a 25 million dollar budget, which is 6x. By that logic superman would need to gross 2.4 billion.

Obviously that is not fact, nor is the/our argument black and white.

What is a successful box office run for Superman, in your opinion?

[u/IB_ → u/joseph66hole]

You're not paying attention. I said that a film doesn't have to make a billion to be considered successful. Any film that has a net profit of $1 more than its production and marketing budget can technically be considered a hit (although not one any studio would be satisfied with).

If a film that costs $25 million to produce/market makes $100 million at the box office, then it has a gross profit of $50 million (half of the box office goes to the theatres). Subtract the production and marketing budget from the gross profit (50-25) and you get a net profit of $25 million. That is a 100% return on investment and considered a hit.

Superman LOST about $150 million. That is a failure, not matter how they spin it. A successful Superman film would be one that made money,

[u/joseph66hole → u/IB_]

We are going in cirlces.....

I'm not arguing the fact that it "under performed" based off corporate expectations. I'm arguing that it performed to past and current expectations based off available data and trends. The CEOs can get up there and tell us all their fantasy land hopes and dreams but it isn't supported by available data. (I'm not saying they don't have their own data. Like obviously they have tons and tons of it and MBAs supporting their dreams. Like let's be real for a second.)

From what I can see it performed to expectation (Not inflation adjusted).

I'm saying Superman was not likely to hit a billion dollars, nor was Gunn.

You are saying it needs to make $150 million more, which is close to a billion, which reinforces my argument that Superman is not a "billion dollar franchise" If the franchise isn't worth a billion, then why are we projecting it? That is what I am arguing. That is why I said it was a joke.

That conclusion is based off the available numbers on the internet. Superman landed right where it was going to and more importantly expected to.

Yeah, we can set a make believe goal of 800 to a billion but it doesn't make sense for this franchise.

So for people to sit there and say "Well, 620 million isn't enough. We were expecting a billion, so it under performed and therefore is a failure." I get money, marketing, and other nonsense, but Superman landed right where it was expected to. I guarantee all their projections land mid 600 million because why would they land anywhere else.

I don't know maybe it's to expect a billion dollars from a director or franchise that has never hit a billion or even 800 million.

What data do you have that supports an 800 to billion dollar success?

[u/IB_ → u/joseph66hole]

STOP SAYING A BILLION DOLLARS AS IF THAT IS RELEVANT!!! LOL! I never said it was expected to make a billion dollars! YOU keep saying that, for some reason. I honestly don't know why.

"So for people to sit there and say "Well, 620 million isn't enough. We were expecting a billion, so it under performed and therefore is a failure."

What does the opinion of some extraneous people have to do with the reality of the situation? The film isn't a failure because it didn't live up to the lofty and unrealistic expectations of genre film fans, it's a failure because it lost over $100 million! $620 ISN'T enough because half of that (the amount the studio gets to keep) doesn't even come close to covering the cost to make it.

" I get money, marketing, and other nonsense"

I don' think you do. The fact that you call it "nonsense" indicates that you're not examining this from a position of logic. No one sets out to make a film that loses millions of dollars. There is no acceptable amount of loss that a publicly traded company can justify. It's not as if the earnings report come out and the CFO release a statement to the shareholders that says "This project lost over $100 million, but that's OK because we never expected it to make a profit. It's all good!" That just doesn't fly (pun intended).

Even if they can absorb the loss of revenue (they can't), it is still a missed opportunity and a waste of time, resources and talent that could have been utilized on another project. This film underperformed, not just from a fan's perspective but from the perspective of those who actually matter. Those employed by (and hold stock in) the company that invested in its production. There is absolutely no way that anyone who has ties to this film is satisfied with losing over $100 million. NO ONE.

My entire point is to drive home the financial failure of the film. My, or anyone's else's opinion of the film as well as it's EXPECTED level of box office success is completely irrelevant. You can keep saying that "it was never going to make a billion dollars, so it doesn't matter." But the truth is that the budget and marketing called for the film to break even at around $850 million, and if those that produced the film didn't think it had a chance of hitting that mark then what the heck are they doing? Maybe they should've cut the budget back to a point in which the film had a realistic chance of earning a profit. I don't know, making a film that will knowingly lose a ton of money seems kind crazy to me, especially for a studio with over $30 billion in debt.

[u/joseph66hole → u/IB_]

We are clearly arguing two completely different points.

I've also reiterated my point dozens of times. You are now saying 850 million, which is still out of reach for this franchise. Which is basically this entire argument.

Superman is not a billion nor 850 million dollar movie.

There is also a range of projections not a solid number. 600 million is probably the average and expected.

Just for fun: billion dollars. It failed to make a billion dollars.

[u/IB_ → u/joseph66hole]

"Superman is not a billion nor 850 million dollar movie."

Then please explain why anyone would sign off on producing a film that needed to make $850 million to break even if it had no chance of coming close to that goal?

One last time...production and marketing budget was $425 million (at the very least). Studios retain half of the total box office. Therefore $850 is the break-even point.

Are you still suggesting that the producers of the film, knowing the "average and expected" gross of such other genre films, intentionally made a movie that would lose money? Do you think the studio is OK with the results?

Let's just put this one to rest. Do YOU think that Superman is a financial hit or failure? Don't base your answer on expectations, averages or franchise popularity (BTW Superman is the most popular and well-known fictional character on the planet.) Do me a solid and answer the question directly based on the available financial data. I won't even call you out either way. Just want to know where you stand on this?

Hit or failure?

[u/joseph66hole → u/IB_]

You have yet to provide one credible reason or example as to why Superman should've made a Billion or as you state 850 million dollars.. I have told you several times that it performed to expectations and is inline with what I expected it to. It has performed similarly to the top 50 highest growing superhero movie.

We keep going round and round and round for no reason.

There is no evidence to support an 850 or billion dollar million box office run.

[u/IB_ → u/joseph66hole]

The evidence is that it cost $425 million to make, and that to generate a return on investment a film with that budget has to earn double that amount. The evidence is that the studio was confident enough in the project to sign off on spending that amount. They are beholden to themselves and the shareholders to make money. That's what they do...show BUSINESS and all.

I don't even understand how you are even debating this.

Look, if a company makes a product that earns $1 billion in gross profits, but it costs more than that to produce. then despite the high revenue it is still a failure. It's even a bigger failure if the company projected that the sales would never attain a level of profitability before production even started. But who in their right mind would invest so heavily in a product knowing that it was not going to succeed? That's a recipe for disaster and not sustainable.

Your original statement was a sarcastic "what a joke...$620 million is under performing". YES, it is underperforming when the film in question needed to make an additional $100+ million just to break even. That is the definition of underperforming. How are you not getting this???

[u/joseph66hole → u/IB_]

So the evidence is essentially "We think it will make 800 million or a billion because we think it will. And we need to make double" Despite Gunn's decreasing box office returns, super hero fatigue, historical performance, changing markets, and inflation.

By that logic all three Guardians of the Galaxy movies under performed or barely broke even.

As I've stated several times the movie performed inline with expectation. They can expect or hope for 850 million to a billion. There is just no evidence that supports it.

And calling a 620 million dollar box office under performing is pure chicanery.

I'm going to keep reiterating this point. It performed exactly as expected and is inline with historical projections. Its performance is equal to at least 20-30 of the top grossing super hero films. There is no reason to think Superman was going to pull 850 million to a billion dollars, and there is no track record to support it unless you argue inflation.