In the film world, people seem to believe they know what makes a flop or a success in terms of budget versus box office. It is time to clear up why these conversations are almost always wrong, especially in a post-COVID world.
Movies are not quite what they used to be. This is not a comment on any drop in quality; there are plenty of great films still being made. The stark difference comes in the theater experience.
With the rise in streaming services and effects still being felt from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is hard to imagine the way we approach movies ever being the same. Before the lockdown, Netflix was already a powerhouse in entertainment. They had been pumping out original content since 2012 and closer to 2020 began trying their hand at high-budget action blockbusters.
Netflix and other streaming services alike surged in use during the lockdown. Since people could not go to the movie theater, studios were losing money like never before. This is when companies, most notably Disney, started releasing their theatrical films on streaming. Even after the lockdown, there have been films released in theaters alongside the option to purchase it on streaming.
The film industry never fully recovered either. People are still going to the movies, but the yearly box office has never quite reached pre-pandemic numbers. This does not mean the film industry is dying — just that it is in a different landscape. Movies are still making money despite this lower number.
Many online discussions do not seem to comprehend this, however. They still see the success of a film through a lens of pre-pandemic profit and misinformation. This misinformation is in the form of reporting on a film’s budget. The essential thing to understand is that film production costs are rarely, if at all, public record.
Trying to determine accurately what a film’s budget is requires one of two things. One, acquiring numbers directly from studios or tax reports (such as this one from the California Film Commission). Two, doing a lot of hypothetical information aided by past film budgets.
This second method is obviously flawed. It is also most often used for newer films who might not have had their budgets disclosed yet. Most commonly, people will do this and run with it as if it is fact.
Two of the most common sources that people use for reporting on this are entertainment news publications Deadline and Variety. However, these publications claim to have insiders that leak this information, but this is a very tenuous declaration. The kicker is that Variety will not even list a source at all sometimes.
All of this to say: oftentimes, no one really knows for sure what a film’s budget is. Yet, still, online discussions will feature people determining what films have flopped or succeeded based on false information.
Even if some of the reports are accurate, there is another problem in this discourse. A popular idea amongst box office talk is that a film needs to make 2.5 times its reported budget to be profitable. This metric is used to account for both the production of the film and marketing. While this may be true for certain movies, it is not the rule of thumb for every single one.
This idea also forgets to factor in money made from streaming and merchandise. Disney is notorious for its media franchises making a good chunk of their money after the film’s theatrical runs.
A recent example with supporting evidence from an industry veteran is with the reporting on James Gunn’s “Superman.” The pressure surrounding this movie to be successful was suffocating from fans and haters alike. DC superhero films had a bad track record for most of the last decade, and this was the big reset event.
Superman has never been much of a box office draw like his dark knight counterpart. No solo film of his has ever crossed the threshold of $700 million, even pre-pandemic. This is still a lot of money for a movie to make, but considering how popular he is and compared to the “Batman” or “Spider-Man” franchises, it is not that much.
Combine that with the post-pandemic world, and this film was always destined to make less than people wanted it to. An idea started floating around internet spaces that this movie had to make upwards of $650 million to turn a profit. It did not end up making this, capping out its theatrical run at $616.7 million worldwide.
Many detractors deemed this performance a flop, despite making back twice its supposed budget. Gunn helped to clear up how wrong this claim was with a post on Threads back in August of 2025. A fan asked Gunn if it was true that the film had to gross the aforementioned $650 million, and he declared this absolutely false.
“Anyone saying that doesn’t have an understanding of the film business, and we would be idiots to make a first-in-a-franchise film that would need to make that much to be profitable,” posted Gunn.
It bears reminding that ultimately, talk of a film’s box office is a futile effort. Whether the audience thinks it made money or not does not matter as long as the Hollywood higher ups are happy. The money the film made has no impact on whether it was good or not. If this were true applied to other aspects of life, McDonald’s would be considered fine dining.
To quote director Zack Snyder when talking to The Hollywood Reporter, “The truth is? It doesn’t matter. The movie got made.”
Paul Tibbets is a 23-year-old broadcast journalism major from Bossier City, La.
