The One Lesson James Gunn's DC Universe Can Learn From Sony's Spider-Man Movies

Comic book movies are facing an interesting moment. Before the pandemic hit in 2020, nothing seemed to guarantee a box office hit more than putting a Marvel logo in front of a movie. Even DC had $1 billion hits with "Aqauaman" and "Joker" in and amongst the chaos of trying to figure out the DC Extended Universe. Sony Pictures also found a potential goldmine within the larger "Spider-Man" franchise with the release of 2018's "Venom." That movie made a shocking $856 million worldwide and paved the way for further spin-offs centered on Spidey side characters. The whole experiment was kind of a disaster, but among the rubble of that disaster is a potential lesson for those in charge of the future of superhero cinema.

James Gunn is now the co-head of DC Studios alongside producer Peter Safran. Gunn is best known as the director of Marvel's "Guardians of the Galaxy" trilogy, as well as 2021's "The Suicide Squad." Next year, they are launching a full-on DC Universe reboot with "Superman," which Gunn directed himself. That's truly just the tip of the iceberg though, as the duo, along with Warner Bros., have announced a full slate of movies and TV shows that they hope can make DC attractive to audiences for years to come.

An issue that has been cropping up in recent years, particularly in the realm of franchise filmmaking, is massive, inflated budgets that require massive returns at the box office to make a given film a success. $200 million used to be a rare budget level reserved for only the biggest of the big films in Hollywood. Now? It's almost become the default number for a superhero film or any other comparably big franchise blockbuster. That's a problem, and it's one that DC can't afford to take on at this moment in time.

On the flipside, while much can be said about Sony's "Spider-Man" spin-off films in recent years (most of it bad), it is one of the only studios bucking the big-budget trend. The recently released "Venom: The Last Dance" was the most expensive, non-"Spider-Man" movie produced by the studio, coming in at $120 million. Everything else? Even cheaper than that. DC Studios would do well to try and emulate such practices with some of its slate upcoming projects.

Critically speaking, it would be difficult to say that Sony's movies like "Morbius" and "Madame Web" have been home runs, and that's being kind. Even the "Venom" films have suffered critically, though general audiences seem to like them. Creatively speaking, the general consensus is that these "Spider-Man" spin-offs leave an awful lot to be desired. The box office returns have reflected that. But perhaps Gunn can succeed where Sony's "Spider-Man" spinoffs haven't by being both frugal and creative with DC Comics properties.

"Morbius" made just $167 million worldwide. It was a disaster, but one that only cost $75 million to produce. This year's "Madame Web" was an even bigger critical and commercial misfire, pulling in just $100 million globally. Yet, Sony once again demonstrated restraint and kept the film to an $80 million budget. The results were bad enough to essentially kill any plans in this current "Spider-Man" spin-off universe. Be that as it may, over time, the "Spider-Man" spinoff may actually get out of the red, thanks in no small part to finding a second life on streaming. At the very least, the losses won't be as outrageous as they have been on other recent superhero flops such as "The Marvels" and DC's "The Flash," just to cite a couple of high-profile examples.

When it works, the rewards can be great. "Venom" was a surprise hit when it made $856 million in 2018. Because the film cost less than $120 million to make, Sony's profits were quite healthy. Granted, a lot of that had to do with the ridiculous ticket sales in China, which is something Hollywood can no longer depend on. Even without that, the film would have been a hit. To that end, "Venom: The Last Dance" recently disappointed in its box office debut, but it will still likely turn a small profit because it wasn't outlandishly expensive, relatively speaking.

The point is that while certain comic book films are going to be at the high-end of expensive (an "Avengers" movie costs what it costs, to some degree), Sony has demonstrated that not everything has to be that expensive. These movies didn't fail because they needed more spectacle or looked cheap. They failed because they were largely considered bad. That's something that Gunn can address by bringing his well-demonstrated levels of creativity to the new DCU. If he can marry that with fiscal responsibility, it could give the enterprise a chance to catch on over time, rather than need to hit it out of the park right from the jump.

Frankly, Gunn, Safran, and WB need all of the help they can get. No DC movie released since 2020 has cleared $400 million worldwide. The majority of the films have flopped. Even Gunn's "The Suicide Squad" failed to catch on, though that had an awful lot to do with the pandemic. Still, that movie's $185 million budget loomed awfully large after it made just $168 million at the box office, compared to David Ayer's 2016 "Sucide Squad," which made $747 million worldwide. The point is, superhero movies are no longer automatic hits, and that's something that needs to be taken into account going forward.

There is certainly a financial reality to making a big comic book movie. "Superman" is going to be difficult to make for less than $150 million, if not more, particularly since Gunn is setting up a lot of what's to come in the new DCU with this film. But the Man of Steel is also a marquee character in the hands of a trusted filmmaker. On the other hand, we have films like "Swamp Thing" and "The Authority" on the DC Studios slate. Do those make sense at $200 million? Not at all. Even at $150 million, they're exceedingly risky. It's not an apples to apples situation, but if Sony can make a "Venom" movie for scarcely more than $100 million, can't James Mangold make a "Swamp Thing" movie for around that same price?

Assuming they could pull that off, it would insulate Warner Bros. and DC from doom. At a budget of that size, "Swamp Thing" could become a hit by grossing $300-$350 million worldwide. The first "Shazam!" was made for around $100 million and became a hit with $363 million worldwide. Yes, 2023's "Shazam! Fury of the Gods" was a massive bomb for DC, but that's another issue entirely. In other words, a lower budget also lowered the bar for success and allowed that first movie to thrive. DC could use more of that and less of the $200 million blockbuster that needs to make at least $500 million globally to even be considered a modest success.

Case in point, this year's "Joker: Folie a Deux" is expected to lose as much as $200 million in its theatrical run in no small part because of its $200 million budget, which doesn't account for marketing costs. Yet, its predecessor cost around $60 million and became one of the most profitable comic book movies ever. With the uncertain state of superhero cinema being what it is, DC and WB can't afford to take on additional risk with this new era. Mitigating that risk will be essential.

One of the best ways to help make a comic book movie into a hit is by making a good movie. Sony didn't make good movies with these "Spider-Man" spin-offs, but even at their worst, they weren't financial trainwrecks because they were budgeted wisely. Even in failure, the studio was able to weather the storm. Say what you will about Sony's handling of its Marvel properties, but it budgeted these clown shows responsibly. There's a lesson in there for DC, and frankly, for Hollywood at large.

"Superman" hits theaters on July 11, 2025.