Four years ago this week, James Gunn and Peter Safran were handed one of Hollywood’s most coveted, and impossible, jobs. When they were named co-CEOs of Warner Bros.’ DC Studios label, they received complete oversight of comic book characters like Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman* (more on that later), Green Lantern, the Flash, and countless others. With a seemingly blank canvas to make as many movies and shows as their hearts desired, the implied mandate was clear: get DC Comics out of second place.
The studio’s DC division spent much of the 2010s as a laughingstock while its Marvel competitors seemed to never miss. Despite having a better roster of characters — 20 years ago, mentioning the Guardians of the Galaxy in the same breath as Batman would have been laughable even to the biggest comic book nerd — Warner Bros. couldn’t figure out how to turn its characters into must-see cinema. The incredible cultural moment of the Christopher Nolan Batman movies gave way to one misfire after another: Zack Snyder’s “Man of Steel” gave way to the “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” debacle, Patty Jenkins’ acclaimed “Wonder Woman” movie led to a critically panned sequel, and the studio’s attempt to launch its own “Avengers” with “Justice League” was bad enough to leave fans arguing about different cuts instead of wondering where the story went next.
Related Stories
It was the kind of turnaround project that entitles its leaders to a long runway. After Gunn and Safran accepted the job in late 2022, they began announcing projects in early 2023. Then they had to shoot and edit them, meaning that we didn’t really see the vision take shape until this year. But now we’ve seen Gunn and Safran release three major theatrical films, two live-action shows, and multiple animated ones — more than enough of a sample size to start grading their creative direction. Even if we’re still in Phase One of their long-term plan, the pros and cons of their studio approach are becoming clear.
The Films
Gunn and Safran kicked off their DC tenure with the safest and smartest film they could have possibly made: a “Superman” movie written and directed by Gunn himself. Putting DC’s signature character in the hands of a filmmaker with an unimpeachable ability to deliver smart popcorn fare was a no-brainer. And in many ways, “Superman” delivered.
The film wisely skipped the obligatory origin story that everyone already knows, checking in with the man formerly known as Kal-El after he had already assumed his dual role of Superman and Clark Kent on Earth. Gunn brought his signature blend of heart, humor, and needle drops, delivering an entertaining blockbuster that stood in clear contrast to the excessively dark DC films of the 2010s. This movie was colorful and fun, even in its heaviest moments. Unsurprisingly, it grossed over $600 million worldwide — though it still didn’t tell us much about Gunn’s ability to run a studio. His bona fides as a comic book writer/director were never in doubt, but we still hadn’t seen him supervise other filmmakers.
Those opportunities came in 2026, and the results were more polarizing. The studio’s second film, “Supergirl,” was one of the year’s most public flops. Milly Alcock’s eponymous character appeared briefly in “Superman,” but Craig Gillespie’s film traded its predecessor’s grounded Earth drama for a space western set across a series of “Mad Max”-esque planets. The confusing mythology and grating visual effects felt like a departure, and the film received mixed reviews and only made $100 million worldwide despite costing nearly twice that. Equally concerning were reports about creative clashes between Gunn and Safran and Gillespie, with two competing cuts being screened against each other months before the movie opened.
Then came “Clayface.” James Watkins’ origin story for an obscure Batman villain was branded as a horror movie that just happened to exist within a comic book universe. The gory, goopy story of an actor who sacrifices everything to regain his skin-deep beauty wasn’t for everyone, but it represented a real creative swing. And it was made on a responsible $44 million budget, which removed the pressure to be universally appealing.
It’s easy to see a world where this DC universe thrives with a combination of major tentpoles directed by Gunn (who is already hard at work on a “Superman” follow-up dated for July 2027) and smaller, weirder films based on minor characters. But we still haven’t seen Gunn and Safran oversee a blockbuster that connects with mainstream audiences with another filmmaker in the director’s chair. “Supergirl” may end up being an anomaly, but right now it still represents one-third of their theatrical output. That sadly has to count for something.
Grade: B–
The Shows
Gunn and Safran’s overhaul of DC’s TV output technically began before they took over as CEOs, as “Peacemaker” premiered on HBO Max nine months earlier. Created (and largely directed) by Gunn, the raunchy action comedy saw John Cena reprising his role from Gunn’s “Suicide Squad” movie as an antihero willing to kill as many men, women, and children as he needs to achieve his goal of world peace. Gunn’s sensibilities were still there, but the HBO brand let the show include far more nudity and profanity than you’d ever find in a four-quadrant film. A hit with fans and critics, “Peacemaker” reminded audiences what was possible when you had access to a premium cable brand to complement your theatrical films.
Their first official project after taking the reins was also a TV show. The animated “Creature Commandos” debuted on HBO Max in December 2024 with an inoffensive six-episode Season 1 that showcased Gunn’s favorite themes about weirdos who assemble their own found families. The business stakes were low — fairly or not, the average consumer isn’t watching animated superhero shows, and the diehard fans who do tune in are unlikely to ever stop supporting DC’s other projects. But the series has one notable wrinkle: Gunn cast its voice actors with the intention of reprising their roles in live-action projects, a tactic he says he plans to use on all future animated projects.
“Peacemaker” also concluded with a well-received Season 2, but the real test of the DC Universe’s TV output came this fall with “Lanterns.” Chris Mundy, Damon Lindelof, and Tom King’s series about DC’s intergalactic police force more than delivered on its promise to be “True Detective” with Green Lanterns. The film uses classic police procedural tropes — the show centers on an older, set-in-his-ways Green Lantern who reluctantly partners with a talented young partner he won’t give the time of day to — in a dark, season-long murder saga set in middle America. The show itself received rave reviews, but its actual contents matter less than what it represents: a unique, auteur-driven project that fits into Gunn and Safran’s storyline while allowing other filmmakers to showcase their own voices. So far, it’s the ultimate example of what the CEOs have always said they wanted their DC Studios to do.
Grade: A-
The Batman Problem
Perhaps the biggest variable facing Gunn and Safran’s DC Studios is largely outside their control. Matt Reeves’ “The Batman” had already opened in theaters a few months before they took over, and Warner Bros. announced that the Robert Pattinson-led series would continue separately from the new DC Universe. A second film is in production, with Steven Soderbergh helping to complete principal photography, and HBO shows like “The Penguin” and the recently announced “Poison Ivy” continue to expand the mythology.
Gunn and Safran have some involvement in these “Batman” projects and publicly support them, but the films and shows exist outside the overarching storyline they’re trying to build. And while it’s not an insurmountable problem — multiple artists working with the same characters in different timelines has been a trademark of comic books from the very beginning — it’s also not ideal to have one of your franchise’s two biggest characters tied up outside your purview.
Nothing’s stopping Gunn and Safran from bringing in their own Batman, and it seems inevitable that it will happen soon. “Clayface” takes place in Gotham City, and once you start introducing Batman villains, you need to give audiences something to fight them. Gunn and Safran previously tapped Andy Muschietti to direct a Batman movie called “The Brave and the Bold,” which was still in development as of 2025, but no cast or release date has been announced.
Many fans and Warner Bros. shareholders believe this DC Universe won’t reach its full potential until it introduces its own Batman. The kind of major team-up movies with billion-dollar box office potential, like a new “Justice League” or a “World’s Finest” team-up between Batman and Superman, all feature the Dark Knight. And assuming their Batman isn’t Robert Pattinson, they’ll inevitably be faced with audiences who wonder why or see theirs as a second-tier product.
It’s not fair to grade Gunn and Safran on this problem, since they didn’t create it, but they still have to navigate it. Again, it’s not insurmountable, but Kevin Feige never had to deal with this at Marvel.
Grade: N/A
The Process
Gunn and Safran’s overarching DC story is still in its infancy, but their development process has become clear. And it’s arguably their best asset. In many ways, their DC Studios can be described as the anti-MCU. Whereas their competitor (and Gunn’s former employer) became famous for seeing everything as part of a larger puzzle, DC Studios seems much more focused on treating each film as a standalone project. Films are greenlit based on the quality of their individual scripts, not the Easter eggs that connect them. Nobody would ever tell you that a brand-new DC cinematic universe should release “Clayface” as one of its first films, but Gunn has openly said Mike Flanagan’s script stood out among the many other projects they were developing. The script was ready; therefore, they made the movie.
Prioritizing scripts over corporate synergy should be music to the ears of cinephiles burned out on Marvel’s assembly-line approach to storytelling. That means continuity will never be as tight as what you find in the MCU, and plenty of projects will be announced without ever coming to fruition. (We’re still upset about James Mangold’s “Swamp Thing” and Luca Guadagnino’s “Sgt. Rock” falling through the cracks, but it’s better than rushing out movies that aren’t ready.) Comic book fans used to following these companies like sports teams might need to adjust their expectations, but movie lovers who care less about those details should get richer viewing experiences. It’s also better for the creatives who get a chance to pitch their own original ideas and put their own stamp on beloved characters.
The only thing holding this back from an “A” grade is the fact that ideals that sound good on paper still have to be executed. I deeply admire Gunn for publicly declaring that no DC Studios movie will receive a release date until everyone is happy with the script. But I also saw “Supergirl” and wondered what this mysterious great script could have possibly looked like, and why it apparently didn’t make it into the finished movie.