Are James Gunn's Days "Numbered" As DC Studios Co-CEO? Here's The Latest On Online Rumors

Third! Kinda!

@0bstreperous - Unless Gun has something on whoever buys, he’s 100 percent out. This is a business, one that’s extremely hard to break into. If a new writer made films and TV series this divisive and commercially unsuccessful, they’d be done. How can you lose a company tens of millions, make a divisive Superman film that a few love but most are indifferent to or outright hate, and still get to make more? And where were the script notes from the studio from De Luca? Maybe a “This is our Superman relaunch so don’t do the evil parents, Middle East conflict, and definitely don’t make him a whiny man-child and start the entire film in the second act”.

@0bstreperous - He strayed the DCU in a divisive fashion for the greatest Superhero in the world and, by many accounts, lost tens of millions on that film. I have some problems with the Snyderverse but that was more financially successful and the killed it.

@0bstreperous - Agreed

@McMurdo - Global BO is what matters, and by all accounts, they lost money. Not too long ago, even making a decent profit was often considered a failure by studios if the film didn't meet their target numbers. That's just how the film industry works.

@0bstreperous - He belongs in a wood chipper not on a movie set.

@0bstreperous - he isn't going anywhere snowflake

@bobevanz - you must of found his old Twitter "jokes" funny

@SpiderParker -


RE : >>>"Ask Snyder how that can happen. Or am I to assume you are indeed talking about Snyder here? In any case. GLOBAL BO is not what matters. For the uneducated - Domestic BO gives more Box Office revenue share to the studio, hence why there are reports that while MOS made only 42.7m profit on a 670m Global BO, Superman did a 125m profit on a 615m global BO."

pppsssttt....


The supposed $125M profit that Superman 2025 made was calculated using ancillaries and streaming revenues.

The $42 Million profit that Man of Steel supposedly made (from a report that Deadline did years ago) did not factor those other revenue streams.

Compare Apples-to-Apples or don't compare them at all.

It wouldn't be a fair comparison with those other revenue streams anyway since most of them didn't exist 12 years ago when Man of Steel was released.


A fair comparisonw would be how much each respective film made (as profit) from THEATRICAL - and strictly and only from theatrical runs.

There's no comparison on that score.

Superman 2025 barely broke even.
(....if that.
...and only if you believe that production budget number)

Man of Steel made healthy profit for WB.

@SpiderParker - I’m going by total numbers nincompoop. If the cost of producing and marketing a film is more than your overall profit margin, it’s a loss. Period. The Snyderverse was a bigger financial success. Do I have to paste all the numbers again?

@Bucky74 - Nope, you have to go back to school and learn how to deal with numbers all over again.

"If the cost of producing and marketing a film is more than your overall profit margin, it’s a loss."

First of all, incorrect statement since you mean to say overall revenue not profit margin, which is a percentage by the way that can be negative but makes no sense in the statement, since the total cost is what defines the point where profit is made. But disregarding the error you made, like always.

Shall I apply that to MOS? Reported total cost - $375m. 50% of $670m? $335m. It's a loss.

@SpiderParker - @SpiderParker - "These percentages is how revenue sharing works, genius. How about you do simple google to verify them instead of looking like a fool while refuting them without doing any due diligence?"

And yet, you can't verify how. You have no provable source nor any receipts and instead of backing up your bs, you resort to "muh google". Are you this inept in person? 😀

"Nice of you to bring up psychological projection, now you are at a position where you can finally understand how that applies to you."

You just did it, again. Time for some self-reflection.

"By the way if we go by Forbes' report, which is totally bogus since it didn't take the different week by week and country by country revenue share percentage and instead took a 50% share of the whole BO like a total novice at finance, and apply that same logic on MOS which would make it $335m on a $375m reported total production cost without taking into account of the $58m on participation, then it comes down to a loss of $40m."

How is it bogus? The $42 million figure represents the net loss after subtracting all revenues and if you want to include the Ohio Tax Report, it looks even worse. Are your estimates considering not just box office revenue but also costs like marketing, distribution, production, and perhaps ongoing expenses related to licensing, rights, and franchise management, etc? The theatrical loss is actually much bigger than what they reported. They spent at least $100M more gross than they're claiming with their P&M here. Marketing alone was lowballed at $200M by the trades, with even the top shills reported that marketing was north of $250M, with $150M being the bog standard spend by a studio on a big summer release. The movie obviously flopped, as anyone with a sane, rational, functioning brain could tell, even 2 weeks in.

"So what are you saying again? MOS is as much of a loss as Superman? And that makes you happy? Or should we talk about how you disregarded the Snyder failed again and again and damaged the IP and you still defend it while disregarding the back-end revenue sharing deal worth $58m and higher production cost of additional $33m than the reported $225. For MOS, even by Forbes' way of doing things, wouldn't just put it at $40m since the revenue sharing actually puts the loss at $98m, which would still be incorrect since the additional production cost puts it at $131m."

You know exactly what I'm saying and it's not that when you consider the MATH:

Man of Steel Budget and Revenue:

Production Budget:

Approximately $225 million
Worldwide Gross Revenue: Over $668 million

Revenue Breakdown:

Domestic (U.S.) Gross: Around $291 million
International Gross: Around $377 million

Marketing and Distribution Costs:

Marketing Expenses: Estimated at around 50-100% of the production budget, so roughly $100–$150 million. Major blockbusters often have high marketing costs to promote global releases.

Distribution Fees: Again, theaters typically take about 50% of box office revenue, meaning the studio's net from box office sales is approximately 50%.

Estimating Box Office Profit:

Gross Revenue: $668 million
Studio's Share (approx. 50%): ~$334 million

Approximate Profit Calculation:

Gross Revenue (net of theater cuts): ~$334 million
Minus Production Budget: $225 million
Minus Marketing Costs: ~$125 million (average estimate)

Estimated Profit:

Net Profit: ~$334 million - $225 million - $125 million = roughly breakeven or small profit
So, if you truly want to compare the two, only one is in the negative.



Plus, additional Revenue Streams:

Home video sales, TV rights, merchandise, and licensing can significantly add to total revenue, often recouping and surpassing box office profits. Superman might make up a bit here but still not enough to put it over the line.

Snyder's movies are flawed and I'm no champion of them but given the crap Gunn flung at us we didn't realize how good we had it, warts and all. It was also WB's fault, not Snyder's His JLA cut did well and would have done exceptionally better at the box office had the studio or Hamada not interfered.

"So, you wanna take Forbes's word about how Superman was a loss by $40m? How does that help your case again? There is no universe where you can manipulate the stats into proving MOS did better than Superman."

It makes the point, Gomer... You don't need to manipulate the stats. The math checks out. Inflation and globally and other revenue factors prove that MOS did better. It had more ticket sales, etc. It never landed in the negative. To suggest Superman's James Gunn didn't is dishonest.

"So, how about you apply the term you brought up and recognize how you are do it? Your poor excuse for a movie fell short over a decade ago and even the inflation over a hundred years won't change that. Take the L and stop complaining. Some of the most ignorant people speak occasional wise words when speaking to others but it only applies to themselves. Think hard how projection actually works."

It still did better globally, with and without inflation, though. You're doing that ranting, projecting thing, again, when your excuses backfire on you. You really need therapy.

"My suggestion to you: don't pick a fight you can't ever win."

Your suggestion is that of a coward running away when he says it. I've schooled you easily, just like before. This is just another example of your incompetence and dishonesty. You make it too easy for everyone, puberty boy.

My suggestion? Try harder. Be better

@LiquidSwords - Unless it’s really Gunn’s wife. She wants to keep those lead roles coming, lol

@Bucky74 - Buddy, you lack the ability to understand financial data. Your argument is that a higher gross means higher profit. You can't even understand how its impossible for a movie with lower revenue share with higher gross yet higher cost to out-profit a movie with higher revenue share with almost the same gross, albeit slightly less, offset by lower cost.

I don't speak toddler. I am willing to refer you to a good financial professor who can help you understand in a language you are more comfortable in.

@SpiderParker - "First of all, using assumption for budgets to prove a point, what a waste. It's been widely reported that MOS marketing budget was $150m while Superman's was $125m, even Forbes' article specifically states $125m to state a loss of $42m, are you seriously out of your mind or you have no other tricks than manipulating statistics?"

Going by the estimates isn't exactly an assumption, dingus. However, your hypocrisy is noted as estimates suggest that it was likely ranging between $100 million and $150 million.

Superman's James Gunn, however:



Uh-oh! Why do you always blame everyone else for what you do? It's weird.

"Meanwhile, out of the $63m, the studio share was only 25%, making it $16m not $31.5m so how about you subtract $15m from the revenue of $334m, be legit and call it $319m, and MOS had $25m higher cost on marketing effectively making the loss at $56m. If you lack the power to make judgement, that's on you. If you have to manipulate reality to fit your narrative, that's on your fragile ego."

And more projection word salad. We already know Superman's James Gunn has a higher marketing cost which added even more to the overall revenue, surpassing Man of Steel's total budget. Where are you coming up with a $56 million loss? I seriously can't tell if you're on too many drugs or not enough.



"Playing dirty won't help you in the least. You took you own suggestion and tried real hard, where did that get you? You failed once again. All that text of manipulated data and still can't manage to make it positive? By your own accounts with illegitimate data, you basically stated MOS made a loss of $16m. Don't pick a fight you can't win, kiddo. You can try hard all you want, it will get you no where."



lol You struggle to convince even yourself that you're on the right side of things. Where is an example of "manipulated data" or "illegitimate data" other than from yourself? Where is the $16 million loss? It had a gain of 10-20 million theatrically. Not even the reports agree with your constant insanity.

I'll always be here to put you under my shoe, puberty boy. If you're going to lie, you better expect to be called out on it. Just be thankful it's not in person. 😀

@LiquidSwords - If we are talking overall profit Man of Steel also did monster sales in Blu-Rays. Go look at top selling Blu-Rays for 2013. Plus it has ad sales since it seemingly is on TNT every weekend that Star Wars is not. Superman has done nice with streaming however, Man Of Steel has a 5 year head start and a global pandemic.

@SpiderParker - Wipe your mouth, you’ve got a little Gunn on there. Higher production and marketing costs and lower gross means lower intake and a net loss. Maybe you should learn to speak adult first

@McMurdo - I don’t know, it seems like they’re too far in to back off and this is like what they did with Suicide Squad, trying to get it right with the second one and hoping it does better. Ultimately, we won’t know until it comes out but if WB sells who k owe what will happen

@LiquidSwords - "Net Profit: ~$334 million - $225 million - $125 million = roughly breakeven or small profit "

Do you know the answer to that? Let me walk you through it.

$334m - $(225+125)m = $334m - $350m = -$16m

Those are your data yet you ignored the loss of $16m and tried to pass it off as "breakeven or small profit". Try going back to grade school and learning basic math. Who is getting called out for lying here?

You purposefully ballooned up the marketing budget of Superman that's been widely reported to be $125m.

"Superman had a production budget of $225 million plus a worldwide marketing budget of $125 million, Variety reported after the film was released in theaters in July." - https://www.forbes.com/sites/timlammers/2025/10/06/james-gunns-superman-ends-its-theatrical-run-how-much-did-it-make/

"The film cost $225 million and another $125 million to market globally" - https://variety.com/2025/film/news/superman-success-budget-cast-salaries-1236462393/

Now lets see about Man of Steel, shall we?
It's production budget is reported to be $258m but I took it as the widely reported $225m to be generous to you while its marketing budget is $150m by most verifiable sources that are not Reddit, Facebook or AI (specially AI as it tends to confuse reports for Superman and Man of Steel and takes Reddit and Facebook posts as basis). But your whole argument is based on hearsay so who can blame you for not having anything credible.

"Our experts peg the budget at $258 million, and add another $58 million in participations"
- https://deadline.com/2014/03/iron-man-3-gravity-man-of-steel-profit-most-profitable-movies-2013-701662/

"Of course, the franchise reboot had an estimated $225 million production budget, plus another $150 million for marketing and distribution" - https://www.cbr.com/real-world-costs-of-man-of-steel-battle-and-other-super-tidbits/

"Warners and Legendary need “Man of Steel” to overperform internationally, with its $225 million production budget and estimated $150 million worldwide marketing spend." - https://variety.com/2013/film/box-office/box-office-man-of-steel-could-soar-past-100-million-1200496619/

And once again, you have been proven to be a liar, ignorant, a manipulator, and simply incapable of doing basic math. I'm sure you are gonna try hard to refute this but don't give me AI answers if you don't have credible sources to back it up. Better yet, learn to accept defeat. You are not gonna win this one. The best you will get is this: I will ignore the bark. So, why don't you save yourself some effort and time, given that you already lost?