The Geek is starting to wonder if James Gunn and Peter Safran’s DC plan is really built for the fans, or for the kind of comic book deep cuts that excite executives, filmmakers, and hardcore continuity junkies more than general audiences.
After Supergirl opened well below expectations, that question is no longer theoretical.
The film was supposed to be the second major theatrical step in the new DCU after Superman, a chance to prove that Gunn and Safran could expand beyond the Man of Steel and turn a less familiar character into an event.
Instead, it has become the first major warning sign of the rebooted universe. The movie reportedly opened to $37.1 million domestically and $62.2 million worldwide, a weak start for a film said to have a production budget of around $170 million and a marketing spend of nearly $120 million.
That puts Supergirl in a dangerous financial position. Depending on which estimates you believe, the film may need somewhere between $300 million and $375 million worldwide to break even. Current projections have it finishing far below that, with some reports suggesting it could lose between $80 million and $120 million.
That is not just a bad weekend. That is a message.
The lesson may be uncomfortable for DC Studios, but it is not complicated. Audiences are no longer showing up simply because a movie has a superhero logo. The casual crowd needs the film to feel like an event. It needs a character they care about, a reason to leave the house, and a sense that the movie matters beyond franchise homework.
Supergirl apparently did not have that. Milly Alcock may be a strong actor, and the character has decades of comic book history behind her, but she is not Superman, Batman or Wonder Woman. She is not even The Flash, Green Arrow or Green Lantern. For many moviegoers, she is still a B-list superhero being asked to carry an A-list budget.
That is where Gunn’s larger strategy starts to look risky.
DC Studios has spent a lot of time talking about rebuilding trust. Peter Safran recently said he wants to rebuild the audience’s trust in DC after years of inconsistency. That is a fair goal. The problem is that trust is not rebuilt by asking casual viewers to immediately buy into every corner of the universe. Trust is rebuilt by giving them undeniable movies centered on characters they already want to see.
Instead, the DCU’s early slate has leaned heavily into lesser-known or offbeat characters. Creature Commandos. Peacemaker. Supergirl. Clayface. And now there are reports that a Bane/Deathstroke movie is a major priority.
That is where The Geek starts to get nervous.
After Supergirl struggled, focusing on yet another Batman villain instead of the Dark Knight himself could be a massive mistake. Yes, Bane and Deathstroke have fan bases. Yes, a lower-budget villain movie could work if it has the right tone, director, and hook. And yes, Clayface could benefit from horror’s current box office strength if the film really is as terrifying as insiders claim.
But this is still DC. Batman is the crown jewel. If the goal is to rebuild audience trust, putting Batman on the back burner while pushing villain spinoffs and secondary characters feels backward.
Fans do not want to hear that the universe will eventually come. They want the universe to feel alive now. They want Superman. They want Batman. They want Wonder Woman. They want the Trinity restored in a way that feels exciting, confident, and coherent. Once that foundation is solid, then you can ask audiences to follow Clayface, Bane, Deathstroke or any number of stranger choices into theaters.
The danger for Gunn is that his personal taste may not fully line up with the larger audience’s patience.
That does not mean the DCU is doomed. Superman gave the new universe a decent start. Man of Tomorrow could be huge if it delivers. And a $40 million Clayface is a much smarter risk than a $290 million Supergirl. Smaller, genre-driven movies can absolutely work if they are budgeted correctly and marketed as unique theatrical experiences.
But Supergirl proves DC cannot spend as if every character were Batman.
The old superhero math no longer works. A studio cannot take a lesser-known hero, attach a massive budget, assume fandom will show up, and expect the brand to do the rest. The market has changed. The audience has changed. Even Marvel is learning that recognizable names and shared universe connections are no longer automatic guarantees.
One industry insider reportedly described DC Studios as feeling less like a brand and more like “a Gunn and Safran production deal.” That may sound harsh, but it points to a real concern. A cinematic universe cannot be built only on the preferences of its architects. It has to feel like it is serving the fans, the characters and the audience’s appetite.
Right now, DC’s choices feel a little too inside baseball.
The Geek is not saying Gunn should be fired. That would be premature. One underperforming movie should not derail an entire studio’s plan, especially after years of DC instability. But Gunn and Safran should absolutely be nervous. Not because Supergirl failed on its own, but because it may reveal a larger disconnect between what DC Studios wants to build and what audiences are willing to support.
The next move matters.
If Man of Tomorrow lands, Gunn gets breathing room. If Clayface hits as a modestly budgeted horror-adjacent surprise, the strategy suddenly looks smarter. But if DC keeps leading with B-list characters, Batman villains without Batman, and niche concepts before the core heroes are fully restored, the studio risks repeating the same mistake that has haunted DC for years: trying to build a universe before earning one.
The fans are not asking for everything at once.
They are asking for DC to get the basics right.
And after Supergirl, that may need to start with remembering who the A-list heroes actually are.
The Geek is a working screenwriter, director and screenwriting instructor.
REELated:
“Why is he in his underwear?” First clip from Supergirl
