Prism

Well, this is going to make some James Gunn fans VERY uncomfortable. The Hollywood Reporter has published a detailed breakdown of Gunn and Peter Safran's removal from DC Studios, and it confirms something I've been arguing for a while. SUPERMAN (2025), despite being profitable, apparently DID NOT meet Skydance's financial expectations. Remember that reported $100 million profit everyone kept throwing around as proof the DCU was doing great? Well, according to THR, David Ellison's team wasn't particularly impressed. The movie earned $618 million worldwide, less than MAN OF STEEL did back in 2013, and reportedly failed to deliver the financial return or pop culture impact Skydance expected. And then you have SUPERGIRL, which was an outright disaster, followed by CLAYFACE, which THR describes as a modest success. So we're three movies into the DCU, and the new owners apparently aren't happy with the results. What's particularly interesting is that Ted Sarandos raised a similar concern during his Senate testimony back in February. He pointed to SUPERMAN's shortened theatrical window while discussing how underperforming movies often move to digital earlier. People pushed back HARD on that interpretation at the time, but this new reporting certainly makes his comments worth revisiting. And here's what's funny. This is essentially the same criticism MAN OF STEEL and BATMAN V SUPERMAN faced years ago. They made money, but didn't meet the expectations Warner Bros. had for them. Now we're hearing something remarkably similar about Gunn's SUPERMAN. I enjoyed SUPERMAN, but I've never believed that profitability alone proved the DCU was succeeding. Now Gunn and Safran are out, Skydance is bringing in new leadership, and the entire direction of the franchise is once again up in the air. DC is in a much more complicated position than some fans have been willing to acknowledge.