Shazam! Fury of the Gods, the newest addition to the DC Extended Universe, opened to a disappointing $11.7 million on Friday, with a projected debut of solely $30 million for the weekend. The first Shazam! film, launched in 2019, opened with $53.5 million, making the sequel’s underwhelming debut much more disappointing.

The movie is additionally not doing effectively with critics, with a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 54% and a B+ CinemaScore, in contrast to 90% and an A for the first film. One of the causes for the movie’s struggles might be the pandemic, which has made it difficult for households, a key viewers demographic for the first film, to go to the theaters.

Despite Shazam’s setbacks, Scream VI and Creed III are doing effectively at the field workplace. The movie is the twelfth installment in the DC Extended Universe, and the first to be launched since James Gunn and Peter Safran had been introduced in to run DC Studios and engineer a whole overhaul.

The future of the DC characters and actors launched earlier than Gunn and Safran’s takeover is unsure, with Henry C avill

, who performed Superman, not returning.

Shazam! sequel has so much of star energy

Despite this uncertainty, the film boasts a powerful solid, together with Helen Mirren, Lucy Liu, and Rachel Zegler as the Daughters of Atlas, a trio of historic goddesses who’ve come to Earth to reclaim the magical powers that the wizard Shazam (Djimon Hounsou) took from them. Of course, it is up to Billy Batson, aka Shazam (Asher Angel/Zachary Levi), and his prolonged household/fellow superheroes to save the day.

At Tuesday’s Hollywood premiere, Levi addressed his future with the franchise, stating, “I’m very proud of this film. … I hope it isn’t my final.”

Directed by David F. Sandberg from a script by Henry Gayden and Chris Morgan, Shazam! Fury of the Gods might have stumbled out of the gate, nevertheless it nonetheless has loads of time to make up for misplaced floor. After all, as Levi himself stated, “It’s not about the opening weekend; it is about the life of the film.”

. .