r/boxoffice • u/The-Ruler-of-Attilan • 5h ago
✍️ Original Analysis Is James Gunn's DCU really financially viable without the child audience?
James Gunn seems completely indifferent—if not outright determined—to ignore younger generations.
First of all (and this dates back to the Great Depression), superheroes were born as a response to hard times, created to sell heroic, inspiring figures to children. Later, they were "tamed" by the censorship of the 1950's Comics Code Authority; however, frustrated by these creative restrictions, authors began tackling increasingly profound and complex themes—such as the war on drugs, civil rights, and the rise of feminism. Eventually, that self-regulatory organization lost recognition and was discarded by an industry and an audience that had gradually become more tolerant.
All of this added new layers of maturity and seriousness to the characters and their stories. Figures like the Ghost Rider, the Punisher, and Wolverine began crossing ethical and moral lines, fueling a growing trend of anti-heroes. At DC, the distinction was not quite so blurred. Unlike the Avengers, the JLA did not count controversial characters or those with murky pasts among its ranks. Even Batman lost a Robin who had developed a twisted mindset (and it was a reader vote that decided to write him out of the story). Unlike later incarnations such as Christian Bale’s, the Batman of that era would never have chosen 'not to save' a villain, knowing full well that it was not his place to appoint himself judge, jury, and executioner (those were among the lessons of the Knightfall saga).
Over time, stories from both DC and Marvel became increasingly extreme—to the point where, on more than one occasion, the characters seemed to be acting out of character. Hence the interest in creating lines like MAX, where the Punisher could unleash stories aimed squarely at adults. Nevertheless, the main faces of their brands still managed to convey the sense that these characters stood for good values, in comics, animation and live-action alike. They remained characters that children could appreciate and enjoy; indeed, much of the success of the MCU and other versions of Marvel characters stems from their massive popularity among young audiences; it is no coincidence that so many current Spider-Man fans have loved him/them since early childhood.
All this leads me to ask: Is what Gunn is doing with DC actually an improvement, or is it even remotely justified? Since arriving at Warner, the guy has made or greenlit two R-rated movies (The Suicide Squad, Clayface) and three R-rated series (Creature Commandos, Peacemaker, Lanterns). Only Superman and Supergirl stand as "family-friendly" products, yet even they feature situations that are highly questionable and downright reprehensible—such as Superman’s biological parents being space conquerors who wanted their son to impregnate as many Earth women as possible (apparently with or without consent), or a Supergirl who wants to lecture on the intoxicating nature of revenge, only to immediately take the villain's life herself. So I ask myself: Where did the good values go... the ones DC characters championed throughout the 80's, 90's, and 2000's?
For all that Gunn’s Superman mocks the idea of being a paragon of wholesome positivity (a "punk rocker", as Corenswet calls himself) and saves a squirrel or tries to save a giant monster out of respect for all life, it is all overshadowed when he acts in incredibly immature and violent ways—like forcibly entering Luthor’s office, knocking out teeth left and right (because it "looks cool", I guess?) or losing his temper during a simple interview with Lois. And if it isn't Superman’s own behavior, it’s the behavior of those around him; ike when Hawkgirl decides to take the law into her own hands without any fear of reprisal (because she knows full well that this Superman won't even notice, and even if he did, he wouldn't punish her in any way). In other words, it has nothing to do with what the animated series My Adventures with Superman and the old DCAU promote.
In short—and to avoid dragging out this analysis any further—I do not see Gunn’s vision as truly positive, or even healthy, for the brand. Why? Quite simply, there is little to nothing of value for a child to watch. All Gunn has done is fill the screen with characters who are mentally unstable, crude, ill-mannered—and, in some cases, downright disturbing or even insufferable—all in the name of delivering edgy comedy or action. It is done without genuine reflection or consequence, solely to appease an audience that views superheroes as corny figures with "stupid" names (yes, I’m looking at you, Lanterns showrunner). Where is the sense of wonder in these superheroes? Whatever happened to the ability not to take oneself so seriously?
Gunn himself and those working under him seem more interested in filling the screen with F-bombs than in respecting the characters' lore. Well, good luck trying to sell DCU toys and merchandise to anyone with children who isn't a negligent parent (since a franchise like this will never be able to sustain itself on box-office revenue alone). Not to mention the attempt to establish a cinematic Justice League capable of rivaling the competition—whose Iron Man, Thor, and Black Panther (to name three) may have had complicated family dynamics with their respective parents, but at least I never saw the latter needing to market themselves as amoral beings to capture the audience's interest. Sure, Howard, Odin, and T'Chaka weren't exactly saints, but they seem like it compared to the kind of a-holes Gunn tends to present.
P.S.: And by the way, unlike the approach taken with Spider-Man, the Runaways, and the Young Avengers, I don't see Gunn having the slightest interest in giving us characters who fit the child or teen mold. Nah, his preference is for the Green Lanterns to be wrinkled old men, right? I'm sure that’ll really help his brand's demographics, too!
