Supergirl sinks to DC's lowest box office since Catwoman

Supergirl is stalling at the box office, crawling to $108 million worldwide and marking DC’s weakest tentpole showing since Halle Berry’s Catwoman in 2004.

From High Hopes to Hard Numbers

Milly Alcock’s Supergirl arrived in June with a fair bit riding on it. People were actually keen: new universe, fresh face, and if you’d seen Alcock in House of the Dragon, you knew she could do a lot with a cape. The studio probably imagined they were looking at a slam dunk at worst, a decent follow-on at best.

Instead, opening weekend in the States fell short of heroic. We’re talking $37.1 million across America, $62.6 million worldwide—and the reviews were decidedly split, leaning more on the polite end of ‘middling’. As often happens, the film didn’t pick up any decent afterburn, either.

Now it’s official: the box office totals are historically low. Forbes has Supergirl crawling up to $108 million worldwide, adding under a million a day. Here’s the brutal stat—this makes it DC’s weakest tentpole turnout in 22 years, going all the way back to 2004’s infamous Catwoman. And not to rub salt in, but Catwoman’s Rotten Tomatoes score is an 8%. No, that’s not a typo.

Inflation Is Unforgiving

On the raw numbers, Catwoman made less—about $82 million globally. But factor in inflation (which, to be honest, makes everything look worse these days), and Berry’s outing lands at around $149 million in today’s money. Suddenly, Supergirl’s $108 million takes on a whole new shade of bleak. By that metric, this is the weakest DC theatrical release there’s been, period.

Just to drive the point home, here’s how the recent stragglers stack up:

• Blue Beetle: $130 million
• Shazam! Fury of the Gods: $134 million
• Supergirl: $108 million (needs $22 million just to catch up)
• Madame Web: Level with Supergirl, which says it all

So, yes, it beats Catwoman’s unadjusted take. Realistically though, it’s below even the lowest ebb of the DCEU.

Does It Deserve the Flop Talk?

This is where it gets a bit unfair. The numbers look dire, but according to Forbes (and based on the critical chatter), Supergirl isn’t the turkey its receipts suggest. Critics who trashed the film largely singled out studio meddling and questionable structure. Alcock, for her part, drew a lot of praise, even when everything around her was wobbling.

The problem isn’t the lead or even the tone—it’s that Warner Bros. reportedly spent $170 million just to make the film, then threw another $120 million at marketing. That’s a breakeven point floating around $300 million. I don’t know who expected Supergirl—a hero that casual viewers probably just identify as Superman’s ‘cousin’—to pull that number in, especially with this summer’s slate packed to the rafters.

The Cost (and Loss) of Launching a Universe

If you’re wondering how far the knife twists: Milly Alcock, in her film debut, reportedly earned about $400,000, with no profit share. That at least keeps the loss slightly less ruinous than it could have been; analysts peg the shortfall somewhere in the £100-125 million range. But let’s be honest, that isn’t much comfort.

The real headache is what this means for DC going forwards. Superman was supposed to relaunch the whole franchise. Instead, Supergirl’s numbers have landed somewhere off the map, nowhere close to Supes’ $618 million breakthrough.

Looking Down the Road

Now all eyes are on the DCU’s next moves. They’ve got Clayface up next in October—a smaller, R-rated horror project with a budget rumoured to be a modest $40 million. After that, the real test is James Gunn’s own follow-up, Man of Tomorrow, set for 2027, where Alcock’s Kara is already pencilled in for a return. There’s a decade-long plan in the works, and so far, two films down, it can still weather a flop. But two in a row? That’s not a question DC wants to have to answer.