5 Reasons Why Masters Of The Universe Flopped At The Box Office

The "Masters of the Universe" movie was stuck in development hell for years. Amazon stepped in to save it and, with the help of director Travis Knight ("Bumblebee"), He-Man was revived for modern audiences. The problem? Modern audiences didn't care all that much, as the latest attempt to bring the 1980s franchise to life in live-action is, by blockbuster standards, dead on arrival.

Ahead of its release, it looked like "Masters of the Universe" was going to get buried by " Scary Movie" at the box office. Unfortunately for Amazon and all involved, that's precisely what happened. Knight's "MOTU" adaptation pulled in $29.3 million domestically, which paled in comparison to "Scary Movie" and its $55 million haul. Overseas audiences weren't nearly helpful enough either, as they added $25 million to the pot, giving the movie based on Mattel's toy line a $54.3 million global start.

For any blockbuster movie with franchise ambitions, that's not going to cut it. Netflix spent $30 million on "Masters of the Universe" before axing it, only for Amazon to scoop it up. Not to say that was money well spent, but it sort of looks like Netflix dodged a bullet here. Then again, it would have been a pure streaming play for Netflix, whereas Amazon was hoping for some theatrical success before bringing it to Prime Video. Now? It's back to a streaming play, ultimately.

So, what went wrong here? How did Amazon make such a big swing and miss the mark this badly? We're going to look at the biggest reasons why "Masters of the Universe" flopped at the box office on its opening weekend. Let's get into it.

Summertime slots are very competitive on the calendar every year. It's just the nature of the beast. The problem for "Masters of the Universe" is that competition proved to be far more stiff than Amazon could have ever predicted when it set the movie for an early June release. On paper, it seemed like the right time for a film such as this, going up against a horror parody and on a weekend after which only a sci-fi/horror movie was the big draw.

Problems emerged on multiple fronts. For one, and as discussed, "Scary Movie" had a big enough box office opening to reignite the franchise, with "Scary Movie 7" all but assured at this point. It opened to more than $100 million globally despite lousy reviews and was a juggernaut that nobody really saw coming. Even though these movies could, in theory, coexist, that's not exactly how it panned out.

Beyond that, the sci-fi/horror movie in question is "Backrooms," which ruled the box office during its opening weekend and continued to do big business in its second frame. Directed by the 20-year-old phenom Kane Parsons, it grossed another $26 million in weekend two and has already made well over $200 million worldwide. It's A24's biggest movie ever after just two weekends. This is to say nothing of Curry Barker's "Obsession," which had just a 7% drop this weekend and similarly crossed the $200 million mark globally.

We haven't even mentioned "The Mandalorian and Grogu" yet, which is fading fast by "Star Wars" standards but is still a factor, having taken in another $10 million over the weekend. It was all too much for "MOTU" to overcome.

For something like "Masters of the Universe" to truly work, it requires a certain level of "must-see" buzz. It's a popular franchise, but not one quite as big as "Transformers," for example. To motivate people to get off the couch and head to a theater to see it, word of mouth was going to need to provide that motivation. That's, unfortunately, not how things shook out.

Travis Knight's take on the franchise currently holds a decent 67% critical approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes to go with a solid 88% audience score. It earned a so-so B CinemaScore, which suggests that word of mouth in the weeks to come will be lukewarm. Most people are going to wait to stream this one on Prime Video. On the flip side, Amazon's "Project Hail Mary" dominated the box office earlier this year precisely because it had must-see buzz. "Obsession" is benefiting from that as we speak.

"Masters of the Universe" centers on Prince Adam (Nicholas Galitzine), who heads back to Eternia after years away only to discover that his home has been shattered under the rule of Skeletor (Jared Leto). Adam then joins forces with his close allies Teela (Camila Mendes) and Man-At-Arms (Idris Elba) to save his world.

Writing for /Film, Bill Bria wrote that "endless jokes and riffing" harms "Masters of the Universe" in his review. Indeed, while many critics were surprised by how much they enjoyed the film and its playful tone, others didn't share that opinion. The mixed reception helped to seal its fate.

Hollywood has had a budget problem in need of a reckoning for years. It's nothing new. One would be hard-pressed to be able to make a live-action "Masters of the Universe" movie with all of the spectacle fans expect for less than Travis Knight and Amazon ended up making it for. All the same, the film's reported $170 million-plus budget made it a doomed enterprise in 2026. Maybe in the pre-pandemic days this would have made more sense. Now? It was too heavy for the modern marketplace to carry.

Based on the opening weekend, it's probably going to finish somewhere in the neighborhood of "IF" ($33 million domestic opening/$190 million worldwide) and "The Fall Guy" ($28 million domestic opening/$181 million worldwide). Recall that "The Fall Guy" led the worst summer kick-off in decades. It's not great company to be in, commercially speaking. Mind you, that $170 million figure doesn't even account for marketing expenses, which are steep for a movie of this size that is trying to capture audiences around the world. Amazon is going to have to hope that VOD and streaming can make up the difference.

Speaking of differences, Amazon makes billions and billions of dollars. Much like Apple, it doesn't play by the same rules as most Hollywood studios and doesn't need its movies to profit purely from their theatrical runs. Still, it absolutely had something better in mind when it picked up this project after Netflix let it go. 

Nobody in this business spends that kind of money for these results. No two ways about it. 

The Jared Leto of it all cannot be ignored when we talk about "Masters of the Universe," or any other movie he's involved in from here until the end of time. He's an Oscar-winner, yes, but he's also a highly controversial figure. Beyond that, "Tron: Ares" proved that Leto is box office poison, going down as one of 2025's biggest flops. Even attempting to set aside anything else, there's zero evidence that Leto brings any financial benefit to any project he's involved with.

Leto's absence from the "Masters of the Universe" marketing raised questions. Casting Leto as Skeletor may have come with some buyer's remorse on Amazon and/or Travis Knight's part. If they were going to bother to cast him and pay him millions of dollars, it would make sense to have him promote the movie to his many followers. Instead, Leto didn't really participate in the press tour, nor did he really talk about the film on social media.

Leto was also accused by multiple women of impropriety in an Air Mail article published in June 2025. This isn't even the first time the actor has been at the center of such accusations. One look at social media will tell you that this has absolutely caught up to Leto. He poisons the well.

At this point in time, it makes less than zero sense to have Leto in your movie. He hasn't been associated with an out-and-out hit in a decade, dating back to "Suicide Squad," and he brings more headaches with him. Did he hurt "MOTU" to the point that it wouldn't have flopped with a different actor as Skeletor? Of course not, but he sure as hell didn't help.

More than anything else, "Masters of the Universe" simply feels like a movie that is about six or seven years too late. The 2010s at the box office were pretty much defined by movies like this, with the Marvel Cinematic Universe and '80s favorites ruling the charts. This would have been right at home in 2018 or 2019. Audience tastes are changing, though, and they have largely moved on from this sort of thing, in most cases.

"Transformers" was a multi-billion-dollar juggernaut from 2007 to 2017, but even that ran out of gas at a certain point. "Bumblebee," also directed by Travis Knight, made $468 million, itself by far the lowest grossing live-action entry in the franchise up to then (with "Rise of the Beasts" becoming the new lowest-grossing "Transformers" movie in 2023). "Transformers One" also struggled mightily.

The post-pandemic landscape is littered with disappointments that would have seemingly worked in the 2010s: "Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves," "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga," an increasing number of superhero movies of all sorts. Hollywood has, unfortunately, been a little too entrenched in what once worked and too slow to adjust to what is working now. This is just the latest example.

When I spoke to the next generation of cinephiles, it was clear Hollywood needs a wake up call. Gen Z and Gen Alpha don't care about these '80s franchises. That's not to say they can't care about them, but it's not of automatic interest. The millennials who do care have aged up to the point that they're more content to stay home. One way to look at it? This was the right movie at the wrong time.

"Masters of the Universe" is currently in theaters.