'Anti-American sentiment' hurts 'Superman' at the international box office, James Gunn says
While the latest Superman has done incredibly well at home — to the tune of $253 million so far — the DC Universe movie hasn't flown quite so high in the rest of the world. Writer-director James Gunn has some theories about why.
"Superman is not a known commodity in some places. He is not a big, known superhero in some places like Batman is. That affects things," Gunn told Rolling Stone this week, after he was asked why superhero films don't seem to be connecting with international audiences the same way they are in the United States. "And it also affects things that we have a certain amount of anti-American sentiment around the world right now. It isn't really helping us."
The superhero film starring David Corenswet as the "Man of Steel, Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane, and Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor, won the box office in a landslide in its second weekend in theaters. In addition to its staggering domestic haul, the DC Universe pic has raked in $173 million internationally, for a total of over $426 million globally, as of Wednesday, according to BoxOfficeMojo.com.
President Donald Trump's administration has shaken up the world order by, for instance, withdrawing from treaties or alliances with other countries. Last month, Pew Research Center found that overall views on the country have dimmed in his second term, although it's unclear how that plays into moviegoers' choices.
But Gunn was hopeful.
"We're definitely performing better domestically than we are internationally, but internationally is also rising and having really good weekday numbers in the same way we are," he said. "So obviously the word of mouth is very positive both here and everywhere else, which is the thing that we needed to do the most. At the same time, there are certain countries in which it's really performing well: Brazil and the U.K."The director of other superhero films, including Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy and DC's The Suicide Squad, noted that Superman had already seen a lot of success.
He found it "incredibly overwhelming."
Gunn, who took over DC Studios alongside Peter Safran in November 2022, is rebooting the DC universe with interconnected movies and TV shows scheduled years out. The duo's master plan — dubbed "Gods and Monsters" — technically started with last year's animated series Creature Commandos on Max. Though the show isn't crucial to the bigger picture, Superman and season 2 of Max original series Peacemaker (premiering Aug. 21) are "both pretty important in terms of getting to the bigger story," Gunn told EW for our June cover feature.
The next DCU film queued for release is Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow, starring Milly Alcock as Kal-El's cousin Kara Zor-El, on June 26, 2026, and a Wonder Woman movie is "being written right now," Gunn said.
Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle jeans ad sparks controversy: Here's why
Move over, Kendall Jenner, there's a new tone-deaf ad starlet in town. "Euphoria" star Sydney Sweeney, known for her curvy figure and blonde locks, popped out as the face of American Eagle's newest campaign this week and some viewers are sounding the alarm, calling the ad blitz a dog whistle for eugenics. It wasn't so much the denim itself that offended, as it was the language Sweeney (and no doubt the marketing minds at AE) were using to hawk it. In one of several videos for the campaign, Sweeney, clad in a denim-on-denim fit, dabbles in some word-play, telling cameras: "Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color." The internet has a wild obsession with Sydney Sweeney's body. So she got in on the joke. "My jeans are blue," she continued, with jeans doing double duty as the camera panned both across her true blue denim fit and her blue eyes. With the lens lingering intimately on her figure, and the apparent sensual tone throughout the campaign, consumers were quick to point out what they saw as the regressive nature of the material. A blonde bombshell catering to the male gaze, they argued, was a quintessential symbol of a bygone era. "How far back do you plan on going? Do you still wanna vote?" one commenter asked, while another chided: "You accept these jobs that objectify your body. Fight the patriarchy, don't join it." , an American Eagle ad campaign and why it sparked backlash Even more concerning, critics argued, was the use of Sweeney as the archetype of "good genes." A conventionally attractive, white, thin, blonde woman with blue eyes being held up not just as the beauty ideal but as the pinnacle of good breeding bordered on eugenic thinking, they asserted, and contributed to the glorification of whiteness. Defined generally as the use of selective breeding to "improve" the human race through emphasis on desirable traits, the pseudoscience of eugenics has a dark backstory, used in the past as a vehicle for racial violence and sterilization. Lifting Sweeney's genes up as "good," critics said, notches into a painful and dangerous history, and tightens the bind whiteness has on the beauty ideal. USA TODAY has reached out to Sweeney's rep and American Eagle for comment. That the controversy stems from a denim ad, and one from a company with "American" in the name, further complicates the reception. Americana and denim go hand in hand, the stiff fabric harkening back to cowboy culture, workmen's uniforms and other mythologized aspects of the national identity. If denim ad copy is aimed at reflecting America back to itself, some were certainly horrified by their reflection. Pepsi, another quintessential symbol of the American way, fell into a similar trap in 2017, when they employed Jenner to recreate an iconic civil rights photograph by adding an officer a soft drink during a protest. Viewers were quick to lambast the ad, arguing it glazed over the violent history between law enforcement and the Black community in the U.S. and seemed to imply that soda could solve civil unrest. Doja Cat joins internet mockery of Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle jeans ad As debate continues to rage over when a woman's sexuality is her own, how it can be ethically employed, and where the marketing budget comes in, Sweeney's ad did not stick the landing with viewers. Across the internet, parody videos began popping up, poking fun at Sweeney and the content of the campaign. Musician Doja Cat even joined in, mocking the "good genes" monologue that sparked the original controversy with a hyperbolically "country" accent. Sydney Sweeney 'good jeans' ad to support domestic violence awareness Adding yet another layer to the ad campaign's messaging, American Eagle announced that Sweeney's custom denim cut would help to raise money for domestic violence awareness and prevention. "The Sydney Jean," a limited-edition style made in collaboration with the actress, features an embroidered butterfly motif on the back pocket, representing domestic violence awareness, which Sweeney is passionate about, AE's campaign materials say. In support of the cause, 100% of the purchase price from the jeans will be donated to Crisis Text Line, a nonprofit offering free, 24/7, confidential mental health support to anyone in need. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle good jeans ad embroiled in controversy Solve the daily Crossword
Tom's Guide
2 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
5 reasons ‘Fantastic Four' is better than ‘Superman'
Not since the summer of 2012 have Marvel and DC gone toe to toe like two comic book titans are right now. The battle for the big screen is currently being fought by DC's 'Superman' and Marvel's 'The Fantastic Four: First Steps.' And, at least for me, the winner is clear. There's no doubt, my more lukewarm reaction to 'Superman' is something of a hot take. And if I didn't already know that based on its 91% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, the myriad of less-than-impressed comments on my recent opinion piece certainly made that point clear. However, having now seen Marvel's tentpole blockbuster for 2025, in my eyes, there's no denying that the MCU's First Family soars higher than the Man of Tomorrow (and for what it's worth, FF's RT viewer score is 93%). The margins are somewhat slim. Both movies have clear faults, falling into many of the predictable superhero tropes that have seen the genre grow stale over the past 15 years, but if you can only see one in theaters this summer, I'd recommend spending your money on Fantastic Four." So, here are the five reasons I believe that 'Fantastic Four: First Steps' beats 'Superman.' 'Fantastic Four's' biggest strength is how it successfully balances its four main players, the eponymous quartet, ensuring that each is given their moment to shine, while also feeling part of a superhero team as well. Pedro Pascal, Vanessa Kirby, Ebon Moss-Bachrach and Joseph Quinn are all well cast in their roles, and I really enjoyed how each brings something to the comic book collective. Which isn't to say 'Superman' isn't also well cast and stuffed with acting talent, David Corenswet is a promising Clark Kent, and Rachel Brosnahan nearly steals the whole movie as Lois Lane. However, 'Superman's' struggles to balance its roster of heroes, with some upstaging the titular cape-wielder (Edi Gathegi's Mister Terrific is the focus of the flick's best action scene), while others are relegated to barely background extras like Isabela Merced's Hawkgirl. 'Fantastic Four' juggles its heroes significantly better, ensuring that all of them feel developed and play a key part in the overall story, and of course, contributing to saving the universe. Audiences have been treated to (or in recent years forced to endure) a lot of superhero movies since the MCU debuted in 2008 with 'Iron Man.' With dozens upon dozens of big-budget flicks all mining similar source material, it's increasingly hard to stand out in such a crowded field. From a narrative, tone, and character perspective, 'Fantastic Four' is largely more of the same. It sticks to the largely quippy vibe of the MCU without any real deviation. However, where it does stand out is in its 1960s aesthetic and its retro-futurism setting. Inspired by the Golden Era of Comic Books, which birthed many of the heroes we love together, and the 'Fantastic Four's' own debut in 1961, 'The First Steps' has a charming retro look which intentionally feels like a '60s-era idea of the far future. Yes, that does mean that 'Fantastic Four' drive a hovercar at one point, and the Baxter Building TVs remain delightfully chunky. This visual design helps elevate 'Fantastic Four' and ensures that even when the narrative falls into predictable tropes, there's a novel quality about the proceedings that kept me hooked. Plus, the cast's supersuits are just the right amount of dorky for me to love them. I often find that modern-day superhero movies hinge on their villains. After all, a compelling superpowered protagonist needs an equally well-considered antagonist to defeat in the grand finale. 'Superman' offers up the mack daddy of comic book foes in Nicholas Hoult's Lex Luthor, and while this take on the character has been met with much praise, it did little for me (through no fault of Hoult). His whiny tech bro persona grates, and the attempts to make him seem threatening feel manipulative. The less said about the army of trolling monkeys, the better. In this third 'Fantastic Four' reboot, the First Family faces off against an equally legendary villain: Galactus (Ralph Ineson). And oh boy, does this big purple boi feel intimidating. The first scene where the four encounter Galactus in his hulking ship sent a shiver down my spine, and his cold-blooded approach to consuming whole planets feels befitting of an enemy that is supposed to strike fear into the hearts of even the most powerful heroes. That Julia Garner's Silver Surfer is also thrown into the mix is a very appreciated bonus. I do wish that Galactus wasn't defeated quite so easily in the third act. However, this is a problem with superhero movies in general. The villain is hyped up to be a near undefeatable threat to the whole world, only to be snuffed out and dealt with inside a studio-demanded two-hour runtime. If you didn't already disagree with me on my point above, now I'm really going to put the cat among the pigeons. Or should that be dog, because Krypto was one of my least favorite parts of 'Superman.' As I noted in my previous 'Superman' article, I find the modern blockbuster trend of including some form of 'cute' animal/creature very tiresome. The cynic in me can't see it as anything other than a calculated attempt to create a sidekick ripe for merchandising opportunities. 'Fantastic Four' doesn't escape this trend either, with robot helper H.E.R.B.I.E. on hand to assist the family throughout. And, to the surprise of nobody, you can now buy a Pop Vinyl figure of the adorable android for the low price of just $15. Still, at least director Matt Shakman shows a little restraint with H.E.R.B.I.E., and unlike Krypto the Super Dog, he's not used as a 'get out of jail free' card to save the heroes whenever they're in a sticky situation (Krypto is used for those purposes twice in 'Superman'). Frankly, I could probably do without either sidekick, but if I'm picking between the two, at least H.E.R.B.I.E. fits within the '60s aesthetic and isn't leaned on like a cheap crutch. Both 'Superman' and 'Fantastic Four' aren't shy about winking nods to future comic book movies in the pipeline at their respective studios. But while 'Superman' leans into sequel-baiting and universe setup pretty hard, 'Fantastic Four' mostly saves it for the post-credits stinger. 'Superman' is so busy introducing us to the Justice Gang that it forgets this is the viewer's first chance to get acquainted with a character who is supposed to be the lynchpin of the new-look DC universe going forward. Marvel, who admittedly have the benefit of a well-established universe already humming, focuses first on establishing the 'Fantastic Four.' In the post-credits scene, we get our first glimpse of Robert Downey Jr's return to the MCU as Doctor Doom, and this tease feels well handled. It's a great preview for next year's 'Avengers: Doomdays,' but it also reminds us that the Fantastic Four are part of a larger world. It's enough to get superfans speculating, but it doesn't dominate the actual movie.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Explained: Why is Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle fashion ad being called ‘tone-deaf' and ‘Nazi'?
A new ad campaign featuring Euphoria and White Lotus star Sydney Sweeney has sparked fierce backlash over racial undertones, leading some to label it as 'tone-deaf' and even 'Nazi'. Another case of Godwin's law – which states that any online discussion that goes on for long enough will increase the probability of a comparison involving Nazis? Or is this ad so poorly fashioned that critics have a point? Let's start - as logic dictates - at the beginning. The popular American actress appears in a campaign for American Eagle, designed to celebrate American style. In it, the 27-year-old sports a pair of jeans, flaunts her curves and tells viewers: "I'm not here to tell you to buy American Eagle jeans... And I definitely won't say they're the most comfortable jeans I've ever worn, or that they make your butt look amazing." Then, the slogan "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans" pops up on the screen. Fair enough, as they do look comfy. However, the actress then says: 'See what I did there, right?' - highlighting the 'jeans' / 'genes' double entendre. This was taken a step further in a follow-up video posted to American Eagle's Instagram, which shows Sweeney approaching a billboard with the phrase 'great genes' and striking out the word 'genes' and replacing it with 'jeans.' In another spot, Sweeney says: "Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair colour, personality, and even eye colour... My jeans are blue.' This is followed by a voiceover that states: "Sydney Sweeney has great Jeans." Clever wordplay for some; significantly more problematic for others. Indeed, critics have accused the ad of peddling 'Nazi' propaganda, pointing out that the play on words with 'great genes' has racist connotations and veers towards white supremacist ideals. Many have also highlighted that considering Sweeney is blue-eyed and blonde-haired, it echoes eugenic messaging. Cue: a heated and viral culture debate between those who think the controversy is overblown by the 'woke brigade" and those who believe that this is not only a reminder of the fashion world's long history of celebrating white privilege, but an unintentional mirroring of fascist ideas. Then there are also those who are convinced that the phrasing of the ad was by design, and that American Eagle was looking to kick the hornet's nest when it comes to issues of race and nationalism. Check out some of the reactions below: 'I didn't know what everyone was freaking out about with that Sydney Sweeney ad but then I realised I should watch it with the sound on and OH MY GOD. Yeah that's some f*cked Aryan eugenics shit.' 'So Sydney (& American Eagle) somehow expect audiences to not interpret this visual as a euphemism for eugenics and white supremacy?' 'Maybe I'm too f*cking woke,' another added. 'But getting a blue eyed, blonde, white women and focusing your campaign around her having perfect genetics feels weird, especially considering the current state of America.' 'I hate the Sydney Sweeney jeans ad, it's like why are we promoting eugenics with the state of this country rn, NO I don't want your genes actually. F*ck you American Eagle.' To make matters knottier, the campaign also purports to raise awareness of domestic violence with a line designed by Sweeney called The Sydney Jean - with the full purchase price going to the Crisis Text Line, which offers mental health support. Many online have labelled this 'completely tone-deaf.' As of writing, the actress has not released a statement regarding the backlash. Neither has American Eagle. How damaging is this to both Sweeney and the company? It's up for debate. As recently evidenced by Coldplaygate, not all controversy can be hurtful to a brand... However, that was properly handled. In this case, the company's silence has rubbed people up the wrong way and intensified calls for the campaign to be pulled. Sayantani DasGupta, a professor of Narrative Medicine, has even analysed the ads in a viral TikTok post, showing how the American Eagle campaign is "imbued with eugenic messaging", which has seen the "forced sterilization and decrease of reproduction among undesirable communities" in the American South. The professor concluded the American Eagle advert is "contributing to and reinforcing this kind of anti-immigrant, anti-people of colour, pro-eugenic, political moment." So, what do you think? An innocent mistake? A fascistic campaign? Or a shameless attempt to rile people up to give the brand some publicity? If it's the latter, the viral spots worked. They propelled the company's stock by a reported 15 per cent, representing an estimated $310 million boost to its market valuation since their release. It would seem that courting controversy – no matter how crass – does wonders for your stock, financially speaking. However, when it comes to the court of public opinion and reputational risks, it's a more dangerous gamble. Solve the daily Crossword
