Director James Gunn Denies Reports That 'Superman' Will Lose Money At Box Office

There's no question that the box office for the 2025 DC Studios reboot of "Superman" has been disappointing. 

For a major studio blockbuster, released at the height of the summer movie-going season, with a big-name director, James Gunn, behind it and one of the most popular comic book superheroes at the forefront, expectations were high. Many believed "Superman" would charge towards $700 million+ in total box office, with The Times specifically pointing to $700 million needed as the number to, in its words, "save Hollywood" and recoup the $225 production budget, before marketing costs.

In a previous interview, Gunn bizarrely chose to introduce politics into his film's promotional process. In a time period where the Trump administration has cracked down on illegal immigration, and European countries face political upheaval thanks to unrestrained illegal migration, Gunn said that Superman, an alien from a different planet, is actually a story about an immigrant and that the film was "political."

It mostly wasn't, making his comments even more inexplicable. And with estimates, and reports, suggesting that the film needed to make $700 million to break even, its $581 million gross as its theatrical run peters out is likely to come up well short. 

RELATED: 'Superman' Box Office Fizzles Out, Securing Yet Another Hollywood Superhero Flop

Gunn though, has taken to social media to angrily deny that the film is set to lose money.

LONDON - James Gunn attends the "Superman" Fan Event in London's Leicester Square on July 2, 2025. (Photo by Jeff Spicer/Getty Images for Warner Bros)

James Gunn Says They'd Have To Be ‘Idiots’ To Lose Money

On X, Gunn responded to a fan's question about even a $650 million break-even point by saying that it wasn't true.

"Anyone saying that doesn't have an understanding of the film business," he said. "And we would be idiots to make a first-in-a-franchise film that would need to make that much to be profitable."

Well, guess they're idiots then.

Gunn's misdirection that this is a "first in a franchise" film is just that, a misdirection. Superman is one of the most popular characters in American history, it's hardly some unknown, upstart that needs to be introduced to a broader audience. Not to mention that there have been any number of "first in the franchise" films to be massive box office success stories.

Here's just a few examples: 

• Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) — $773.35M.
• Deadpool (2016) — $782.84M.
• Doctor Strange (2016) — $677.72M.
• Wonder Woman (2017) — $823.97M.
• Black Panther (2018) — $1.35B.
• Aquaman (2018) — $1.152B.
• Venom (2018) — $856.09M.

Those films are all going to outgross "Superman," before adjusting for inflation. After adjusting for inflation, the differences are even more dramatic. 

• Guardians of the Galaxy (2014): $773.35M → $1,055.31M
• Deadpool (2016): $782.84M → $1,053.70M
• Doctor Strange (2016): $677.72M → $912.21M
• Wonder Woman (2017): $823.97M → $1,085.92M
• Black Panther (2018): $1.350B → $1.737B
• Aquaman (2018): $1.152B → $1.482B
• Venom (2018): $856.09M → $1,101.36M

Gunn's almost certainly referring to ancillary marketing deals and streaming service revenue helping "Superman" to break even without reaching $650-700 million. But that doesn't change the fact that it's been a box office disappointment. 

How much money did his unnecessary political comments cost the film? We'll never know, and obviously it would have been much of an issue domestically, where the film has done better than at the international box office. But any loss of revenue is needless and a self-inflicted wound. That's exactly what Gunn did.