Forming Towards a League

We are currently at an interesting place with the DC UniverseThe successor to WB's failed cinematic universe, the DCEU. Headed by James Gunn and Peter Safran, this new DC Universe carries over some continuity from the former film and TV series while crafting a new, rebooted universe for the future.. Depending on how you look at it, we are (up to) five years into James Gunn’s version of a DC Cinematic Universe. We have to put that with some caveats because Gunn was brought in while the DCU was still, technically, the DC Extended UniverseStarted as DC Comics' answer to the MCU, the early films in the franchise stumbled out of the gates, often mired in grim-dark storytelling and the rushed need to get this franchise started. Eventually, though, the films began to even out, becoming better as they went along. Still, this franchise has a long way to go before it's true completion for Marvel's universe., and there were still a number of projects that DC was releasing in theaters that were meant to help wind down the old universe even while Gunn was playing with his action figures over in a new one.

Still, at this point we have a much clearer view of how Gunn is building his DCU and it lets us actually do an interesting comparison. The Marvel Cinematic UniverseWhen it first began in 2008 with a little film called Iron Man no one suspected the empire that would follow. Superhero movies in the past, especially those not featuring either Batman or Superman, were usually terrible. And yet, Iron Man would lead to a long series of successful films, launching the most successful cinema brand in history: the Marvel Cinematic Universe. went from Iron Man to The Avengers in about four-ish years (May 2008 to May 2012). If we start with Gunn’s first DC film, The Suicide Squad, we are actually five years into his span, with one more announced project coming out next year, Man of Tomorrow. And while the comparison isn’t perfect, since right now the DCU is building to a Superman-themed crossover (that is likely going to feature a bunch of other superheroes, like John Stewart Green LanternMade up of aliens from sectors scross space, the Green Lantern Corp. defends the universe against threats with the power of the Green Light of Willpower. and maybe, just maybe, Wonder WomanLong considered the third pillar of the DC Comics "Trinity", Wonder Woman was one of the first female superheroes ever created. Running for as long as Batman or Superman (and without breaks despite a comic downturn in the 60s that killed superhero comics for about a decade), Wondie has the honor to be one of the longest serving, and most prolific, superheroes ever.) and not a true, final team up film (like an expected Justice LeagueThe premiere team at DC Comics, their version of the Avengers (which actually came before the Avengers and, really, has existed in some fomr since the early 1940s), the Justice League is the team-up to end all team-ups, featuring some of the most popular, and longest running, characters in all of comics history (and also Booster Gold). movie at some point) we can still look at how things are going, how the universe is progressing, and if the DCU is doing well or actually struggling.

And let’s get some points out of the way now: the comparison is not apples-to-apples, as I’ve tried to emphasize. Marvel wasn’t saddled with a previous, cinematic universe that had to contend with when they started the MCU. They didn’t have nine years of movies that loosely tied into what they were doing that they then had to delete (even if fans wanted to see versions of 2000’s X-MenLaunched in 1963 and written by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, the X-Men featured heroes distinctly different from those featured in the pages of DC Comics. Mutants who didn't ask for their powers (and very often didn't want them), these heroes, who constantly fought against humans who didn't want "muties" around, served as metaphors for oppression and racism. Their powerful stories would form this group into one of the most recognizable superhero teams in comics (and a successful series of movies as well). and 2002’s SpidermanSure, DC Comics has Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman, but among the most popular superheroes stands a guy from Marvel Comics, a younger hero dressed in red and blue who shoots webs and sticks to walls. Introduced in the 1960s, Spider-Man has been a constant presence in comics and more, featured in movies regularly since his big screen debut in 2002. in the main MCU… which eventually did happen). They also didn’t have a market that was actively hostile to big budget blockbuster films in general, and superheroes in particular, all because Marvel themselves eventually fouled the waters (although DC didn’t help that either with their terrible DCEU films). But regardless, let’s see what we can figure out:

Starting things off, Marvel had Iron Man, a gamble of a film that Marvel wasn’t even certain could launch a cinematic universe. He was considered a sub-B-List hero at the time, low-level enough in the hierarchy of Marvel that movie studios didn’t want to buy him (or many other sub-B-List heroes) when given the chance. No one knew who the hero was, but somehow Marvel spun gold with Iron Man, making $585.5 Mil against a $150 Mil budget. That’s a nice return for any film, especially the first from a new studio (if we consider Marvel Studios new).

By contrast, the DCU’s first film, as per the commonly accepted version of DCU continuity at this point, was The Suicide Squad, which was not a success. Released at the tail end of the COVID years (August 2021), the film only made $168.7 Mil against a budget of $185 Mil. But there were caveats to that number, starting with the fact that due to COVID the film was released day-and-date in theaters and on streaming. Audience numbers for theaters were also low at that time, with people wary of going back into crowded theaters (even with safety policies in place). And that doesn’t take into account the damage that DC had done to their brand, with audiences not certain if this film was a direct sequel to Suicide Squad (which was a success at the time but quickly became a punching bag by audiences), and if the film even mattered.

The Suicide Squad was not a success, but it’s streaming numbers were apparently good enough to greenlight a spin-off, Peacemaker. Taking the antihero from the film and spinning him out into his own adventure (with his own team), Peacemaker became an instant success for HBO MaxThe oldest and longer-running cable subscription service, HBO provides entertainment in the force of licensed movies along with a huge slate of original programming, giving it the luster of the premiere cable service. Now known primarily for its streaming service, HBO Max (formerly Max, HBO Max, HBO Go, HBO Now, et al). (or Max, or whatever it was called at the time), and the WB higherups were pleased. This stands in direct contrast to where Marvel was with their own second work for their franchise: The Incredible Hulk, a film that massively flopped in theaters (a budget of $150 and only $265 Mil in returns) in part because audiences weren’t sure if it was a sequel to Hulk, or even if they should care. The MCU was still a nascent thing at the time.

So for this comparison we have one success each (although in different orders) and one (relative) failure each. In both cases the failed films are still considered “in continuity”, at least to a certain extent, but many of the characters, and especially many of the actors, have not made major returns since their respective failed movies. You could argue that these failures didn’t damage the brands, but the respective studios decided, “we can learn a bit from this and recalibrate for the future.”

Recalibration looked different for each studio, though. After The Incredible Hulk we received one sequel, Iron Man 2 ($629.3 Mil against a $170 Mil budget) and two more “setup” films, Thor ($449.3 Mil against a $150 Mil budget) and Captain America: The First Avenger ($370.6 Mil against a budget as high as $216.7 Mil). Arguably one of those was a true, solid success (Iron Man 2), even if it was reviled by critics. The other two were moderate successes (although for the Cap film, the highest number given for its budget would be considered a flop) that audiences were lukewarm towards.

By comparison, the DCU had a bit of a gap between the first season of Peacemaker and the next official project for Gunn’s universe. This is because in the interim the DCEU still had a lot of flops and bombs to discharge: Black Adam, Shazam!: Fury of the Gods, The Flash, Blue Beetle, and Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom, with only the last one even squeaking by to make a profit of any form ($440.18 Mil against a budget of $215 Mil, so even then its profitability is questionable). This is the era where audiences barely paid attention to DC at all because they already knew that the universe was getting rebooted and none of these films would really matter.

And they didn’t since the next official project, Creature Commandos, ignored just about everything that came before, outside of The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker. This was an animated, ultra-violent show about fantasy monsters fighting in a “Taskforce X” style team under the control of Amanda Waller. It very much sat in the same vein as The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker, and it made clear what direction Gunn was going with his universe. It was also a critical success, and did very solid streaming numbers.

After that we got the first film that could be considered an unqualified success on all fronts, Superman ($618.7 Mil Box Office against a $225 Mil budget). Many would honestly consider this the true start of the DCU, at least for most audiences, even with all the other works that were (officially and semi-officially) included in the universe. It was a film that got audiences interested in SupermanThe first big superhero from DC Comics, Superman has survived any number of pretenders to the throne, besting not only other comic titans but even Wolrd War II to remain one of only three comics to continue publishing since the 1940s. again (after Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Justice League turned them very much against him), and it showed a bright future for the DCU going forward, one that didn’t have to always be dark and ultra-violent (although those works were doing well, too).

Then there were three works released just this year. The first would be DC’s first unqualified failure in this new era, Supergirl. To be clear, I am a defender of the film since I don’t think it was nearly as bad as many people online said. But it wasn’t perfect, and it could have been better, so I understand why it failed to light the Box Office on fire ($126 Mil returns against a $186 Mil budget). Audiences want more from their superhero films right now, and they expect to get something fantastic for their money (and not B-level “superhero slop”), and Supergirl didn’t deliver. It was imperfect and uneven and really needed more time in the hopper before release.

Lanterns was next, and it certainly righted the ship. Inspired by the likes of True Detective, the series provided a grounded take on the Green Lantern mythos, downplaying many of the expected elements like costumes, superpowers, and aliens. Instead it mostly focused on the dynamic between the two lead characters, Hal Jordan and John Stewart, as they solved a mystery. Considering its boffo audience numbers as it aired, and the generally favorable critical response, it’s no surprise that John Stewart is showing up in the Superman sequel.

Finally, there’s Clayface, which is still in theaters and looks to be another success for DC. It’s a hard-R rated body horror film focusing on a Batman villain, Clayface, and giving him a proper origin story. It was a real big swing for DC, not just because it’s R-rated, or because it was horror (although yes, both of those things are factors), but also because superhero origin stories have not done very well in recent years (blame Sony and their glut of films like Morbius, Madame Web, and Kraven the Hunter). As of writing this, the film has made $87 Mil, which isn’t a huge number but considering its budget is between $30 and $44 Mil, it doesn’t need to make a lot to be a big success. DC seemingly gambled well on their little experiment.

So all told, DC is probably in a place similar to where Marvel was heading into The Avengers. If we consider Man of Tomorrow to be a crossover to cap a certain era of storytelling (which, honestly, it probably isn’t, but for the sake of this thought exercise let’s go with it), DCU has about as many successes under the belt as Marvel did back at the start of the MCU, and they have generally strong momentum heading into their big event film. Not everything DC has made has been a success, but most have, but then not everything Marvel made was a success either. The momentum is what matters, and right now it feels like momentum is on the side for DC.

Will Man of Tomorrow be a massive, Avengers-level success? That’s hard to say. But it's also hard to know if WB (Skydance, or whatever they are at that point) even cares about that just yet. Long term they want their own huge cinematic universe to rival Marvel, but they also seem more than willing to do things differently, to court a wider audience, and to try experiments just to see what works. They likely don’t expect Man of Tomorrow to break a Billion dollars at the Box Office (although they wouldn’t complain if it did, of course) so long as the momentum continues to build and audiences continue to have a favorable view of DC. Everything is working in the studio’s favor, just like it did back when Marvel was getting going, and as far as it goes for the early stages of a cinematic universe, that’s really what matters. Time will tell, but my gut says right now things are on the upswing for DC.