I liked James Gunn’s Superman. I think he’s a fantastic filmmaker. I also understand why Skydance decided to have him and Peter Safran step down from running DC Studios.
You can enjoy a movie and still question the business strategy behind the movies that follow it. Somewhere between the fan wars and the corporate statements, that distinction keeps getting lost.
And there is a rather large number hanging over this conversation. According to Skydance’s November 9 shareholder letter, the combined company carried approximately $87 billion in gross debt following its Warner Bros. Discovery acquisition, alongside roughly $10 billion in cash. Management has made paying down debt and achieving at least $6 billion in annual cost savings within three years central priorities. That is the financial backdrop against which DC’s next chapter is being written.
Batman has a utility belt. David Ellison has a balance sheet.
Gunn’s Superman earned approximately $618.7 million worldwide. That is substantial money, and the film gave audiences a David Corenswet Superman worth following. But a successful introduction also creates an expectation. What comes next should expand the audience and strengthen its investment in the larger universe.
Instead, Supergirl finished with approximately $126.5 million worldwide. Variety reports a $170 million production budget, making it a serious financial disappointment. The same report describes Clayface, with approximately $109 million worldwide against a $44 million production budget, as needing downstream revenue to reach break-even.
These are films released under Gunn and Safran’s leadership. They are not all films Gunn directed, and that distinction matters when assessing his filmmaking. Running the studio, however, means answering for the slate.
REELated:
James Gunn’s future plans for the DCU included Batman, Wonder Woman and the JLU
Marvel’s biggest releases illustrate the scale Skydance would like DC to reach. Spider-Man: Brand New Day, a Sony release made with Marvel Studios, has passed $2.5 billion worldwide. Not every superhero movie can reasonably be measured against that kind of exceptional result. But when you own Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, you can understand wanting a larger share of the audience buying those tickets.
Gunn knows what a major Marvel hit looks like. His first Guardians of the Galaxy earned approximately $773 million worldwide, turning an unfamiliar collection of characters into a mainstream attraction. His ability to make audiences care about oddballs is an achievement.
My question is whether that achievement became too influential in his approach to DC.
Gunn has an emotional vocabulary I often enjoy. Outsiders assemble. They fight, insult one another, reveal their wounds, and eventually find a family. There is grotesque humor, unexpected tenderness, and frequently an adorable creature capable of stealing the movie. Don’t forget the pop-music soundtrack.
I see versions of that approach in Guardians, The Suicide Squad, Creature Commandos and even Superman. Rocket and Krypto are very different characters, but both benefit from Gunn’s instinct for giving audiences something lovable amid the chaos.
That is a recognizable filmmaking voice. Across a whole studio, I want more variation.
I want Superman to feel like Superman. I want Batman to inhabit his own psychological territory. I want Wonder Woman to have an identity that makes her arrival feel necessary. A connected universe becomes more interesting when distinct sensibilities collide.
Which brings me to the release order.
I thought Supergirl was okay. I can appreciate the argument for a lower-budget Clayface. But were those the strongest next moves after Superman? Did they give audiences the clearest sense of where DC was going and why they should follow?
Did we need Creature Commandos this early? A Waller series before the core Justice League members had established themselves? I understand Gunn’s affection for DC’s stranger corners. I share some of it. But affection for a character doesn’t automatically make that character the right investment at the right time.
As a Green Lantern fan, I also wanted Lanterns to embrace the cosmic possibilities that make the property extraordinary. Intergalactic law enforcement. Alien civilizations. An entire corps of ring-bearing heroes. Grounding that mythology in a terrestrial mystery can be an interesting creative choice, but to me, it leaves too much of Green Lantern’s biggest selling point off the screen. When you’re trying to build excitement around DC, why make one of its most expansive properties feel smaller?
The enthusiasm of devoted comic readers is valuable. The broader audience still needs a reason to choose each film. Batman provides immediate recognition. Clayface requires a much more specific introduction, especially when Batman himself is occupied elsewhere.
That is where Warner Bros.’ longer history deserves scrutiny.
My affection for these characters has survived some spectacularly uneven filmmaking. I love the first two Christopher Reeve Superman movies. The next two tested that affection. I enjoyed the first three films in the Burton–Schumacher Batman run. Batman & Robin sent the franchise into a deep freeze before Christopher Nolan found another way in.
I loved Man of Steel, but thought Batman v Superman arrived before its central confrontation had earned enough foundation. Wonder Woman worked beautifully for me. Wonder Woman 1984 did not. I still believe Black Adam belonged in a Shazam story, and I thought Sasha Calle deserved another opportunity as Supergirl.
These are my judgments as a viewer. Taken together, they explain why another promise of a grand DC plan does not automatically earn my patience.
Warner Bros. has repeatedly struggled to turn a good individual film into sustained confidence in what follows. Gunn inherited that problem. His slate also had to solve it.
That requires skills beyond directing. Kevin Feige’s importance to Marvel has been his ability to coordinate filmmakers, characters and releases across a larger enterprise. Gunn’s strongest work demonstrates what happens when he gets to make a James Gunn movie. Those are overlapping jobs, but the executive responsibilities are considerable.
Skydance has now chosen Jeremy Latcham, a former Marvel executive involved in building its early cinematic universe, to lead DC. TheWrap reports that insiders expect him to prioritize bringing the Justice League back to theaters at Ellison’s direction.
That ambition deserves scrutiny, too. A rushed team-up could repeat the sequencing problems DC has faced before. Skydance chose its acquisition financing, and its debt does not make every subsequent creative decision wise.
The real losers in all of this are the DC fans who keep showing up, hoping this will finally be the universe that sticks. We’ve wanted what Marvel gave its audience at its best—a vibrant world where each film deepens our attachment to the characters, their relationships grow across stories, and a team-up feels like something we’ve been waiting years to see.
DC has the characters to do it. What fans keep getting is another reason to wonder whether the story they’re investing in will survive the next change in leadership. I understand Skydance’s business decision. But understanding it doesn’t make another interrupted promise any less frustrating. At some point, somebody has to deliver the universe we keep being sold.
The Geek is a working screenwriter, director and screenwriting instructor.
