Captain America: Brave New World didn't make its money back. Thunderbolts didn't either. Joker 2 lost Warner Bros $144 million. Kraven cost Sony another $71 million. Superman was supposed to clear $700 million worldwide to be called a hit. It finished at $619 million.
So for their next DC movie, Warner Bros spent $40 million. That movie is Clayface. James Gunn dropped the trailer yesterday. It opens October 23. Same studio as Superman, same shared movie universe, same decade, about one-sixth the budget.
Superman cost $225 million to make and another $125 million to market. It took in $619 million worldwide. After theaters took their cut, Warner Bros walked away with roughly $125 million in profit. A 35% return on a $350 million bet, on the best-performing superhero movie of the year. Marvel used to clear over a billion dollars on films that cost less than Superman did.
Clayface cost $40 million. It's a horror movie about a struggling actor whose face gets cut up in a knife attack. He tries an experimental treatment to fix it. His whole body starts turning into clay. Two-month shoot in England. Halloween release. Built like a Blumhouse movie.
Which matters because Blumhouse has been running the most profitable studio in Hollywood for over a decade. Last year's Speak No Evil cost $15 million and made $43 million. Get Out cost $4.5 million and made $255 million. The original Paranormal Activity cost $15,000 (not a typo) and made $194 million. Across around 200 films, Blumhouse has grossed over $5.7 billion.
James Gunn and Peter Safran are running DC on a 10-year plan. Two $225 million superhero films a year would bleed them dry. Two $40 million horror films that each clear $100 million is actually a business.
The Clayface poster shows half a face dripping into clay. The budget behind it tells the bigger story: the kind of movie that ruled the 2010s can barely cover its own bills now, and a Batman villain horror flick made on Blumhouse money might out-earn the next $225 million superhero movie.
Idk why but a man specifically handling the rent/ mortgage is v important to me. I can chip in every other bill or we can split those 80 (me)/20
But it’s important that he handles that rent for there to be any respect/ submission
I not aware of any naked underage images generated by Grok. Literally zero.
Obviously, Grok does not spontaneously generate images, it does so only according to user requests.
When asked to generate images, it will refuse to produce anything illegal, as the operating principle for Grok is to obey the laws of any given country or state.
There may be times when adversarial hacking of Grok prompts does something unexpected. If that happens, we fix the bug immediately.
So what if Grok can put people in bikinis?
So can photoshop? So can millions of apps already?
This isn’t a new problem, it’s a new tool.
If a user does it someone unconsentually, the user should be punished, not the platform.
I’ve never bought into the idea of “saving” for someone’s birthday or celebration
If I don’t have money that day, I won’t gift you anything,regardless of who it is.