‘Clayface’ Tops the Box Office with $24 Million. What Does It Signal About DC Studios Latest Reboot?

“Clayface,” a body-horror film based on a little-known comic book, opened to $24 million, a middling result for DC Studios, which is in year two of its mixed-bag theatrical revival. On the one hand, the gross isn’t bad considering that the title character is a niche player and the gory genre isn’t associated with the spandex set. On the other, it’s slightly below projections, which predicted that “Clayface” would open to between $25 million to $30 million. It was enough to hold off the second weekend of A24’s “You Can See Everything,” which earned $19.5 million. It also helps that “Clayface” is cheaper than most comic book movies, carrying a price tag of $44 million. It may not be a profit-generating machine, but it won’t lose money either. That wasn’t the case with “Supergirl,” the previous 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. It also received a critical drubbing. “Clayface” fared better in that respect too. It stands at 75% “fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes compared to “Supergirl’s” 52% “rotten” rating. So far, last summer’s “Superman,” which Gunn wrote and directed, is the most successful example of their quippy, poppy approach. It earned $618.7 million globally and was widely embraced by critics. The company’s streaming shows, which include “Lanterns” and “Peacemaker,” have been better received. But nothing DC has produced 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 topped $1 billion, as did “Aquaman,” while “Wonder Woman” earned $823.9 million. When Gunn and Safran were enlisted to revitalize DC, the brand was struggling with consistency, with films like “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” and “The Flash” collapsing in spectacular fashion — they were little seen and little enjoyed. The product the pair has produced has improved on that low bar, even as DC’s more recent efforts have yet to deliver the same gloriously demented pleasures 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 charting the creative vision. Looking ahead, DC will bring back some of its headliners. “The Batman: Part II” will open in theaters in 2028, while Gunn will return to the world of Superman with next summer’s “Man of Tomorrow.” Both films seem poised to connect with audiences. Ultimately, Gunn and Safran may just have the misfortune of leading a comic book empire at a time when audiences are getting much more selective about their costumed heroes. “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” is the highest-grossing film of the year, having earned $2.5 billion, but that features one of the most iconic comic book characters in history. Likewise, “Avengers: Doomsday” is expected to be a blockbuster when it opens in December, but it boasts Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans returning to the MCU. Outside of those Tiffany brands, even Marvel, which DC so clearly wants to emulate, has struggled. The company’s attempts to build up 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 book universes is struggling, maybe it’s wrong to hope for more from Gunn and Safran. In that kind of atmosphere, “Clayface” may count as a win, modest though its victory may be.