With ‘Supergirl’ Officially Dead on Arrival in Theaters, We Perform an Autopsy to Show What Happened

With the weekend completed, we take a look into theaters, and when cracking open the doors to the screening rooms, the smoke and dust waft out at us. We step inside and behold the crater left behind, as “Supergirl” had the expected disastrous opening weekend. Last week, we covered how it was an impending failure, so just how bad were things?

READ MORE: Hollywood’s Crazy Economics: Impending Crash of ‘Supergirl’ to Affect Dozens of Partnering Companies 

As we covered, projections had been scaled down consistently, from the upper $60 million range, to $50-65 million, and then lower still to a disappointing $40-45 million. As the final weekend results rolled in, it managed to deliver even less. The tally was a woeful $38 million. The only thing left to calculate is just how much money this thing stands to lose for the studio. 

With a beefy budget of at least $175 million, and marketing costs on top of that, factoring in the 50 percent split with theaters means this film had to clear probably $425-450 million to break even. As it looks, reaching a global box office total of $200 million is a hopeful expectation. 

So as the reality of those figures settled on Sunday, the movie’s backers and fans lashed out at those it blamed for this failure. What is provable is that these revisionist attempts falter when looking at the data. So first we’ll compile the claims being made, then look at the metrics that dispel those excuses, showing that what was on display was a dysfunctional product that impressed few people.

Unfair slams from fans and critics were allegedly a cause, citing those who never saw the film criticizing it unfairly. Much of this, of course, stemmed from misogyny, as fanboys were allegedly lashing out at comments made by Milly Alcock about being targeted with sexism for portraying a strong female character. (The movie is called “SuperGIRL”; the gender role was rather evident, so this argument was patently ridiculous.) An additional aspect is that part of the plot involves a villain who collects young women for his planet, so this was supposedly driving away the conservative crowds, feeling this struck too close to Epstein connections.

Okay, let’s tackle that last one to begin. No one is getting squeamish over the pedophile themes displayed on screen, as evidenced by the recent success of the child trafficking film “Sound of Freedom.” Not only was that a monster hit film, but look at who it was opposing that movie with venom — the left-wing press. MAGA was not scared off by this content, in other words.

The claim that this was being savaged by people who have not seen the film also falls apart when looking at the audience data. Cinemascore has people grade movies as they leave theaters, and anything below an “A-” is considered poor for a movie’s prospects. Those leaving “Supergirl gave it a “B-.” Another measure is asking viewers whether they would recommend the movie to others, and barely half (52 percent) said they would.

This unimpressive reaction is reflected in the performance of the film over the weekend. The summer blockbuster films are often front-loaded draws, with Thursday sneak previews and Friday premieres pulling in large audiences. So Saturday returns can generally see a drop in the 12-25 percent range. “Supergirl” saw ticket sales plunge by over 41 percent on Saturday, and then 15 percent from that lowered figure on Sunday. That is a film not only failing to generate word-of-mouth favorability, but also a sign of repelling ticket buyers.

Beyond this, suggesting that American fanboys and critics depressed ticket buying was off base. Just look at the international markets to see that this movie was not playing abroad either. Last week, expectations were that the foreign box office would be around $40 million, but it managed only $30 million. More telling is that in not one single country did “Supergirl” land in the #1 position. This is a sign of an inferior product.

And now, to slay the biggest canard regarding this disaster. Those saying the movie was a failure due to misogyny are unraveled by one stark data point. The gender makeup of the ticket buyers reveals something remarkable. For a film supposedly savaged by petty man-babies because it is a girl-boss film, absorb this reality: The women did not show up. The ratio of men/women who paid to see this film came in at 60/40. Then, when looking at the four quadrants that a studio hopes to lure in — males and females both over and under 25 years of age — this is where the true failure took place.

Ahead of the release, the studio was especially targeting the young female audience through marketing and cross-promotional products. As the other three quads are reliable comic book fare crowds, luring in this sector would lead to an assured hit, flooding theaters. Yet the females under-25 only accounted for 15 percent of ticket buyers. If you had a problem with sexism for your female-power film, even in failure, this percentage should have been significant. Instead, the very crowd you desired decided to stay home.

Peter Safran has made a statement about ‘SUPERGIRL’ underperforming at the box office.

“While ‘Supergirl’ didn’t meet our box office expectations, it’s just one component of a broader, long-term strategy at DC Studios that we remain confident in.”

(Source:… pic.twitter.com/s0kC0yQgRK

— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) June 28, 2026

That is hard data showing you the problem was with the movie, not desperate excuses that culture war elements are to blame. The studio spent at least $175 million on a spin-off character and had the script delivered by a first-time writer who left numerous plot holes. The story is centered on a young woman bar-hopping through the cosmos, and her primary motivation is to save her poisoned dog and to get the antidote from a pedophile villain who is less than a one-note character. Rescuing victims was a secondary concern. There is a teen who was recently orphaned by the villain, but our heroine is constantly forced to help the waif she regards as a bother.

Jason Momoa’s character of Lobo was spot-welded onto this for little reason beyond serving as an entry to getting his own feature. He does not serve the plot, as he simply arrives in scenes but is ancillary to the story. The visuals are perpetually shot in the shadows. It takes nearly an hour to see Supergirl perform any true heroics, and she does not don her suit until the third act. Finding the quality in this feature is the challenge. 

It is more than fair to say “Supergirl” is just an objectively bad offering. Audiences did not arrive, those who saw it were unimpressed, and the muted interest ahead of the release completely dissipated once it hit theaters. It does not take X-ray vision to see through the excuses offered up and realize that DC-Warner delivered a flawed product.

Editor’s Note: The featured image for this article has been updated. We apologize for failing to review the context of the original more closely prior to publication.

Editor’s Note: Hollywood, academia, and liberal elites are out of touch with the average American.

Help us continue to report the truth about what 77 million patriots voted for by joining RedState VIP and using promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.