Forbes46%

‘Supergirl’ Is The Worst-Earning DC Movie Since 2004’s ‘Catwoman’ 51%

By Paul Tassi0%

7/11/2026, 6:28:51 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 43.6% saturation with 289 hits. Analysis detected 1,611 faulty-reasoning hits from 663 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.7% and a BS Rank of 51% (10,779 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.80% of the article peer group.

‘Supergirl’ Is The Worst-Earning DC Movie Since 2004’s ‘Catwoman’ 
Forbes contributors publish independent expert analyses and insights. 
News and opinion about video games, television, movies and the internet. 
Jul 11, 2026, 08:40am EDT 
This voice experience is generated by AI. 
Learn more . 
This weekend we are seeing how live-action Moana fares against Evil Dead Burn, but two weeks ago, we were parsing the box office of Supergirl . 
It’s well-known that the movie underperformed, but as time has gone on, it is now making less than a million a day, and the final tally approaches. 
And right now, Supergirl is the worst-earning DC movie in 22 years since the infamous Halle Berry-starring Catwoman of 2004, widely regarded as one of the worst superhero movies ever made (an 8% Rotten Tomatoes score). 
As it stands, Supergirl has made $108 million globally. 
It would need another $22 million to crawl up to even the terrible DCEU releases of the past few years, which is a stretch given its current trajectory. 
These numbers are stunning . 
Here’s a list of the DC films at the bottom of the list: 
The Flash (2023) - $271 million 
Green Lantern (2011) - $219 million 
Birds of Prey (2020) - $205 million 
Watchmen (2009) - $185 million 
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) - $169 million 
The Suicide Squad (James Gunn) (2021) - $168 million 
Shazam! 
Fury of the Gods (2023) - $134 million 
Blue Beetle (2023) - $130 million 
Supergirl (2026) - $108 million 
Catwoman (2004) - $82 million 
BARCELONA, SPAIN: US actress Halle Berry presents, 30 July 2004, in Barcelona's hotel her film 'Catwoman' directed by French Jean-Christophe 'Pitof' Comar, a film which mixes the special effects of 'Spiderman' and the history of Dr. 
Jeckyll and Mr. 
Hyde, and which will open in Spain 06 August. 
AFP PHOTO/LLUIS GENE. 
(Photo credit should read LLUIS GENE/AFP via Getty Images) 
AFP via Getty Images 
But even Catwoman , out all the way back in 2004, adjusted for inflation, that would be a $149 million total, thereabouts. 
After that, we’re barely even getting into movies that count, like Superman III ’s $80.2 million, but that’s not inflation-adjusted either from 1983. 2010’s Jonah Hex movie made $10.9 million. 
Shaq’s Steel made $1.8 million. 
If we are going to the Marvel side, Supergirl is more on par with the likes of Madame Web, which made $100 million for Sony. 
Even Morbius made $163 million. 
The worst-earning MCU movie ever, its biggest bomb, The Marvels, made $206 million. 
The context here is even more important, however, Supergirl is not just one of the worst-earning superhero movies ever made; it’s doing so as the second step in the brand-new DCU, just trying to find its footing after Superman . 
That movie should have served as a decent lead-in, even introducing Kara at the end, but this is miles away from that film's $618 million. 
Does Supergirl deserve it? 
Is it really that bad? 
I’d certainly argue it isn’t. 
These figures we’re talking about are down near the bottom of the top 100 list of all Marvel and DC movies ever made, and there are dozens that are absolutely worse than Supergirl . 
But it’s a sign of the times that certain superheroes trying to break out in the present-day market are having a very, very tough time. 
That’s especially true on the DC side, as you can see that most of those terribly-earning DC films were right as the DCEU was expiring. 
Now, the DCU is heading to the pure horror film Clayface , and James Gunn’s Superman sequel, Man of Tomorrow , next year. 
It can’t go this badly, right? 
If anything else does, that’s big, big problems for this burgeoning universe. 
Follow me on Twitter , YouTube , and Instagram . 
Pick up my sci-fi novels the Herokiller series and The Earthborn Trilogy . 
Editorial Standards Reprints & Permissions 
LOADING VIDEO PLAYER... 
FORBES’ FEATURED Video 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.6%Paul Tassi: 5.1%Forbes: 3.1%Confirmation Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 3.1%Forbes: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Paul Tassi: 5.1%Forbes: 3.0%Availability Heuristic16.6%This article: 3.8%Paul Tassi: 0.9%Forbes: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.8%This article: 3.8%Paul Tassi: 0.9%Forbes: 0.7%Hindsight Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Paul Tassi: 6.9%Forbes: 5.8%Framing Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.9%Paul Tassi: 0.5%Forbes: 3.9%Optimism Bias0.9%This article: 10.9%Paul Tassi: 5.6%Forbes: 1.3%Pessimism Bias10.9%This article: 33.6%Paul Tassi: 23.8%Forbes: 5.4%Negativity Bias33.6%This article: 6.0%Paul Tassi: 1.7%Forbes: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Paul Tassi: 1.4%Forbes: 3.2%Halo Effect5.4%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.8%Paul Tassi: 2.0%Forbes: 1.6%Recency Bias7.8%This article: 1.4%Paul Tassi: 0.3%Forbes: 0.3%Primacy Effect1.4%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.2%Paul Tassi: 2.0%Forbes: 4.6%Appeal to Authority1.2%This article: 0.8%Paul Tassi: 0.2%Forbes: 1.6%False Dilemma0.8%This article: 1.8%Paul Tassi: 1.8%Forbes: 0.5%Slippery Slope1.8%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.5%Paul Tassi: 8.4%Forbes: 5.7%Hasty Generalization17.5%This article: 4.7%Paul Tassi: 1.2%Forbes: 0.1%Red Herring4.7%This article: 1.4%Paul Tassi: 2.7%Forbes: 0.7%Bandwagon1.4%This article: 8.1%Paul Tassi: 2.9%Forbes: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion8.1%This article: 10.7%Paul Tassi: 2.7%Forbes: 1.0%Begging the Question10.7%This article: 11.3%Paul Tassi: 3.8%Forbes: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 25.3%Paul Tassi: 6.3%Forbes: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)25.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.8%Paul Tassi: 1.7%Forbes: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection6.8%This article: 43.6%Paul Tassi: 14.0%Forbes: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice43.6%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 2.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Tassi: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Paul Tassi: 3.3%Forbes: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.4%

663 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers2.7%attributed speech645writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageForbes contributors • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAFP PHOTO/LLUIS GENE. • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageGetty Images • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageForbes • 3 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Forbes contributors

100%flagged-word coverage
8 attributed words44% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-44.8 ptsWriter: 44.8%Forbes contributors: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Forbes contributors: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Forbes contributors: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.