Forbes Claims James Gunn’s Superman Lost Money in Theatrical Run — Report Alleges DCU Premiere $42 Million Short of Profitability

by

Following months of guessing about how well James Gunn’s *Superman* movie would perform financially, a new report from *Forbes* reveals it didn’t earn back its production costs while in theaters.

Although writer Tim Lammers doesn’t call it a failure, his calculations show that the movie *Superman* didn’t make a profit in cinemas. Warner Bros. is now hoping to make up the difference through digital sales and streaming views.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

As reported by *Forbes*, *Superman* finished its theatrical run in the United States on October 2, 2025, after playing in cinemas for 84 days. The movie grossed $354.2 million in the U.S. and $261.1 million internationally, bringing its total worldwide earnings to $615.8 million.

Sounds impressive — until you factor in the costs.

According to Forbes, the movie cost $225 million to produce and another $125 million to market globally—numbers originally reported by Variety. This brings Warner Bros.’ initial total investment to around $350 million, not including additional costs like profit sharing, interest, or general studio expenses.

According to Lammers, movie studios usually share box office earnings equally with theaters. So, from Superman’s worldwide earnings of $615.8 million, Warner Bros. would have kept around $308 million.

This leaves a $42 million gap in funding compared to the total costs, and that doesn’t even account for any remaining payments or unexpected expenses.

As many expected, Forbes has reported that the movie *Superman* didn’t perform well financially in theaters.

But What About Tax Credits?

While *Superman* cost $225 million to make, that number doesn’t reflect the total expense. Big movies often receive tax breaks, which lower the final cost. Warner Bros., for example, filmed much of *Superman* in Cleveland, Ohio, and Toronto, Canada – both areas that offer substantial financial incentives for filmmakers.

Ohio provides tax credits worth up to 30% of qualifying production costs, and Ontario offers an additional incentive of 20–25%. While not all production expenses are covered, experts believe these incentives together reduced the overall budget by roughly 10–15%.

So, after all the tax breaks and rebates, the movie’s actual production cost came down to around $190–200 million, which is a nice saving, but honestly, it wasn’t enough to really make a difference. When you add in the $125 million Warner Bros. spent on marketing it worldwide – as Variety reported – the whole thing still cost them about $320–325 million, give or take. It’s a huge amount, even with the savings!

Okay, so even with conservative estimates, Forbes figures show the studio made around $308 million from ticket sales for the movie. Honestly, that still means *Superman* didn’t quite break even in theaters – it was probably $10 to $20 million short, and that’s *before* you factor in things like profit sharing or any interest payments. It’s a bit disappointing, to be honest.

In other words, even after tax breaks, Superman remained in the red from its theatrical run.

A Polite Disclaimer, But the Damage Is Done

In a recent Forbes report, Jeff Lammers points out that even with $308 million in revenue, *Superman* didn’t earn enough to cover its $350 million production and marketing costs.

However, Warner Bros. points out that even if *Superman* isn’t a box office success, the movie could still be profitable. They’ll earn money from sources like rentals, streaming, and other digital platforms.

It’s true that studios often earn back money through things like DVD sales, on-demand rentals, and licensing deals after a movie leaves theaters. However, if a big-budget film meant to start a whole new series of movies *needs* those sales just to cover its costs, it’s a clear indication that it didn’t do well in theaters.

Today’s Hollywood relies heavily on money earned in theaters. Box office success isn’t just a bonus – it’s what makes other revenue streams, like streaming and DVD sales, worthwhile. If a big-budget movie doesn’t perform well in cinemas, it creates a negative impression that other income sources can’t easily fix.

Contradicting Variety’s “Profit” Claim

The Forbes analysis is particularly noteworthy because it sharply disagrees with Variety’s previous report about how well the movie made money.

I was reading an article in *Variety* last month, and they were really highlighting Warner Bros.’ recent success at the box office. They said that the new *Superman* movie had actually made around $125 million in profit, which is incredible! What’s even more surprising is that it’s supposedly *more* profitable than Zack Snyder’s *Man of Steel*, even though *Man of Steel* earned more money in total. It’s a bit confusing, but a win is a win, right?

This story appeared frequently in entertainment news and we even mentioned it ourselves in past articles.

However, new calculations from *Forbes* tell a different story. If Superman earned around $308 million for theaters after their share, and the studio invested $350 million in making and promoting the film, then *Variety’s* predicted profit was about $165 million too high.

That’s not a rounding error — that’s a total reversal.

It’s puzzling how *Variety*’s predictions were so inaccurate. It’s possible their sources at Warner Bros. didn’t have the full picture, or that the first reports were based more on hopeful expectations than on the final, actual numbers.

A Rough Start for Gunn’s DC Universe

Everyone expected this movie to mark the start of a fresh direction for DC films, being the first project from the new leadership of James Gunn and Peter Safran. However, it’s become clear that the film isn’t performing as hoped, delivering a disappointing financial result.

Although publications like *Forbes* and *Variety* avoid calling it a failure directly, the numbers show *Superman* lost money in theaters. Warner Bros. is still planning future DCU projects like *Supergirl*, but the financial results prove this reboot didn’t launch as successfully as fans had hoped.

The way the DC Universe is starting makes you wonder how much longer Warner Bros. can keep supporting James Gunn’s plans before shareholders ask for a change in direction.

Read More

2025-10-09 00:58