DC Studios’ Latest Reboot: James Gunn and Peter Safran’s Exit Is About Cost-Cutting, Not Just Creative Issues

When they were hired to run DC Studios, James Gunn and Peter Safran were tasked with turning the struggling comic book company into a true rival to Marvel. Four years later, the two have been handed their walking papers before they were able to accomplish their task. Skydance, which recently bought Warner Bros. Discovery and with it the rights to heroes like Superman, Batman, and the other DC staples that Gunn and Safran were trying to reinvigorate, opted to go in another, cheaper direction. They brought in Jeremy Latcham, a low-profile executive who, like Gunn, had spent years working for Marvel, to oversee DC’s latest reboot. There have been mutterings that the change was because of the commercial performance of DC’s films, and the track record has been a mixed bag. “Superman” did what it needed to do, earning $618.7 million worldwide on a $225 million budget, but it wasn’t a blockbuster on the level of Christopher Nolan’s “Dark Knight” films or “Aquaman.” But “Supergirl” was an unmitigated disaster, earning $126.5 million against a $170 million budget, resulting in losses of roughly $100 million. And “Clayface,” a body horror film produced for $44 million, has been a modest success, earning approximately $110 million. So no, Gunn and Safran had yet to produce a “Guardians of the Galaxy”-style smash that taps the zeitgeist. Though, to be fair, Marvel hasn’t made as many of those lately either. Tastes have changed, and comic book movies, at least ones not starring Spider-Man, aren’t as popular as they once were. But look closer, and Gunn and Safran’s ouster is about something more than their films’ commercial performances. It’s about cost-cutting too, something that Skydance, with its $80 billion in net debt, needs to start chipping away at if it’s going to realize the $6 billion in savings it’s promised to find. The duo’s deal, which was set to expire in 2027, was unusually generous. Safran not only got paid to run the comic book label, he was also allowed to run The Safran Company, the wildly successful production company behind “The Conjuring” franchise (former Netflix film chief Dan Lin, in contrast, divested from his company Rideback when he went over to the streamer). Then there was Gunn, who commanded fees for producing films like “Supergirl” and “Clayface,” as well as fees for those DC films that he wrote and directed, such as “Superman” and “Man of Tomorrow.” Gunn’s total haul for a DC film could be as high as $10 million for all his various duties, according to insiders. When Warner Bros. Discovery chief David Zaslav offered the pair such a sweet deal, comic book movies looked more durable and he needed to make a splash after DC produced flops like “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” and “The Flash.” To sweeten the offer, Zaslav also allowed Gunn and Safran to be relatively autonomous, reporting directly to him, whereas Skydance wanted the DC leadership to be under Skydance Motion Picture Group chiefs Dana Goldberg and Josh Greenstein. ‘Digger’©Warner Bros/Courtesy Everett Collection Skydance has also been stunned by the financial picture of Warner Bros.’ film unit since taking over. The studio has suffered a devastating wave of flops this year, losing hundreds of millions on a slate that included bombs such as “Digger,” “The Bride!,” and last weekend’s “The Cat in the Hat.” One insider put the estimated losses at nearing $1 billion. Of course, most of those films were greenlit under Michael De Luca and Pam Abdy, who were let go as soon as David Ellison got the keys to the Warner lot, and have nothing to do with Gunn or Safran. But it does put pressure on Skydance to turn things around and improve the film division’s margins, fast. On an earnings call this week, Ellison acknowledged the film division faces “headwinds” and “has underperformed this year.” He went on to pledge to “apply the same playbook we did at Paramount: greenlighting more selectively.” Safran remains widely respected on the lot for his stewardship of DC, and is praised for trying to keep budgets in line and for cleaning up the company’s byzantine production practices so that its films, shows, and comic books had a unifying creative voice. Gunn, though a gifted filmmaker, had a harder time adjusting to life in the c-suite, something he admitted to this week in a lengthy post on X. “What only the closest people to me have known over the past four years is my time at DC Studios has been trying, to say the least,” Gunn wrote. “I dislike the at-times corporate nature of the job (thanks to Peter for taking the brunt of that). I’m always a very hard worker, but as a filmmaker I would at least get to take short breaks to unwind, and I’ve stolen even that time from both myself and my loved ones over the past four years.” He closed by saying that he was excited to return to working purely as a creator. Gunn’s habit of engaging with fans directly on social media raised eyebrows at Warner Bros. and, later, at Skydance. But it cut both ways, with Gunn often using his vast following to promote upcoming projects and to engage more directly with fans in a way that inspired loyalty. Insiders also credit Safran and Gunn with not only reinvigorating Superman on screen, but also backing critically acclaimed shows such as “Lanterns” and “Peacemaker.” And the pair handled a delicate situation with the production of “The Batman: Part II,” which was delayed because of personal issues involving its writer and director Matt Reeves, a situation that ultimately required Steven Soderbergh to step in to finish the sequel under Reeves’ guidance. It is expected to wrap production in the next few weeks. Insiders also note that Gunn and Safran didn’t have a chance to fully realize their vision of making superhero films featuring a wider variety of characters across a greater diversity of genres made for a broader range of budgets. Gunn was already plotting his next move even as he edited “Man of Tomorrow,” which features a team-up of Lex Luthor and Superman. He had outlined a third “Superman” film and was working on a “Justice League” and a “Batman” film, either one of which was expected to be his next project. In Hollywood, however, timing is everything. And Gunn and Safran had the misfortune of trying to build their own MCU just as comic book movies were declining in popularity. Will Latcham have more success? He’s widely liked and boasts ties to the Christian community that could broaden DC’s core audience. But he also doesn’t come with the kind of pedigree and profile that Gunn did. As for DC’s fans, they are bracing for yet another reboot having seen the comic book brand they love go through three different regimes over the last decade. Will Latcham provide the kind of consistency the company so desperately needs, or will he be just the latest in a long line of executives asked to pull off a miracle without being granted much of a runway?