New 'Superman' Beats 'Man of Steel' Opening Amid MAGA Backlash—With a Catch
Official numbers for opening weekend for James Gunn's Superman movie have come in, marking a strong opening that has topped Zack Snyder's 2013 film Man of Steel as Warner Bros. looks to completely overhaul its comic book movie universe.
However, fans of Snyder's film have pointed out that the opening box office numbers require some context.
Newsweek reached out to Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) by email outside of normal business hours on Sunday afternoon for comment.
Why It Matters
A lot rides on the success of Gunn's film, which is meant to serve as the first entry in a new DC Comics movie universe. Warner Bros., as the company was known in 2013, tried to launch a new comics cinematic universe to compete with the wildly successful Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).
However, as opening weekend drew closer, several politically charged moments threatened to derail the movie's potential success. Gunn did not shy away from the fact that his movie would tackle politics, telling British newspaper The Times that "Superman is the story of America. An immigrant that came from other places...but for me, it's mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and something we have lost."
His comments prompted backlash from high-profile right-wing media personalities and "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) supporters, such as Fox News host Jesse Watters to jokingly say: "You know what it says on his cape? MS-13," and "Superman is fighting for truth, justice, and your preferred pronouns."
Kellyanne Conway, the senior counselor to the president during the first Trump administration, also weighed in by saying: "We don't go to the movie theater to be lectured to and to have somebody throw their ideology on to us."
Dean Cain, an ardent supporter of President Donald Trump who played Superman in the 1990s TV series Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, during an interview with TMZ also criticized Gunn for making Superman "woke," saying: "I think bringing Superman into it... I think that was a mistake by James Gunn to say it's an immigrant thing, and I think it's going to hurt the numbers on the movie. I was excited for the film. I am excited to see what it is...I'm rooting for it to be a success, but I don't like that last political comment."
People cross the street near billboards advertising the new "Superman" film in Times Square on July 9 in New York City.
People cross the street near billboards advertising the new "Superman" film in Times Square on July 9 in New York City.
CraigWhat To Know
Man of Steel, the first entry in what is now known as the Synderverse part of the DC Extended Universe (DCEU), had a strong box office following the lukewarm success of the 2006 film Superman Returns but had very divisive reviews from critics.
Fans were more open to the new interpretation, but failure to deliver a cohesive and engaging universe with further entries, which included Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, Wonder Woman, and Justice League, prompted a major change of course, especially after Warner Bros. merged with Discovery to become Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), and new CEO David Zaslav looked to resurrect the company's greatest assets.
When Gunn, the writer and director behind the wildly successful and popular Guardians of the Galaxy series for Marvel, crossed the proverbial aisle and made The Suicide Squad, Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) seized on a major opportunity. Gunn and producer Peter Safran have now charted a new course for the company's superhero movies, starting with the Gods and Monsters phase of films.
James Gunn attends the "Superman" Fan Event at Cineworld Leicester Square on July 02, 2025 in London, England.
James Gunn attends the "Superman" Fan Event at Cineworld Leicester Square on July 02, 2025 in London, England.
Samir Hussein/WireImage
So far, Superman, starring David Corenswet in the title role alongside Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane and Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor, is off to a flying start, raking in $122 million domestically and $217 million for a global cumulative gross, according to Deadline.
This narrowly beat out Man of Steel, which opened to around $116 million domestically and just over $200 million globally over four days, making Superman the best-ever opening for a solo Superman film, and the biggest opening for a film featuring Superman after Batman v. Superman, which had a monster $420 million worldwide opening, including $166 million domestically.
However, fans of Man of Steel have been quick to point out on social media that adjusted for inflation, Snyder's entry performed better. On the Box Office subreddit, users posted an adjusted inflation total for each Superman movie, and with that calculation, Man of Steel made just shy of $160 million domestically and $295 million globally.
An average film sees around 40 percent drop from week one to week two.
Superman not only had a strong opening, but very positive critical response, with Rotten Tomatoes posting an 82 percent critics rating and a 95 percent audience rating compared to Man of Steel, which posted a 57 percent critics rating and 71 percent audience rating.
What People Are Saying
Writer and director James Gunn told The Times: "Yes, it's about politics, but on another level it's about morality. Do you never kill no matter what — which is what Superman believes — or do you have some balance, as Lois believes? It's really about their relationship and the way different opinions on basic moral beliefs can tear two people apart."
He later said: "Superman is the story of America. An immigrant that came from other places and populated the country, but for me it is mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost...obviously there will be jerks out there who are just not kind and will take it as offensive just because it is about kindness. But screw them."
"I'm telling a story about a guy who is uniquely good, and that feels needed now because there is a meanness that has emerged due to cultural figures being mean online."
Gunn's brother, actor Sean Gunn who plays Maxwell Lord in the film, said, per Variety: "My reaction to [the backlash] is that it is exactly what the movie is about. We support our people, you know? We love our immigrants. Yes, Superman is an immigrant, and yes, the people that we support in this country are immigrants and if you don't like that, you're not American. People who say no to immigrants are against the American way."
What Happens Next?
Superman has two weeks before Marvel releases its much-promoted Fantastic Four: First Steps, which starts a new phase of the MCU and will tie into the mysterious and course-correcting Avengers: Doomsday, which will see Robert Downey Jr. return to the franchise in a new role as Doctor Doom.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
31 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
The Lingering Shadow of India's Painful Partition
You can't actually see the Great Wall of China from space but the border dividing India from Pakistan is unmistakable. For over 1,900 miles, from the shores of the Arabian Sea to the icy mountain peaks of Kashmir, a line intended to divide Hindus from Muslims is visibly etched onto the surface of the globe. The jagged border was hastily drawn by a British judge when the Indian subcontinent won its independence from Britain in August 1947 but was divided into a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan. In the weeks that followed, millions of Hindus and Sikhs fled from the regions newly designated as Pakistan into India, while millions of Muslims left their ancestral homes in India and moved in the opposite direction—to what they hoped would be a safe haven in Pakistan. Some 15 million people were rendered refugees, and between one and two million were killed in the violence that accompanied the Partition. The trauma of the Partition continues to define South Asian attitudes toward past, present, and future. Today, layers of fencing, accompanied by 150,000 floodlights, thermal sensors and landmines have turned the border between India and Pakistan into a veritable Iron Curtain. The edgy, militarized border renders Indians and Pakistanis, who had lived together in overlapping communities before the Partition, almost completely inaccessible to one another. One of its most disastrous legacies of the Partition is the dispute over the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, which erupted into a war between India and Pakistan soon after independence and left Kashmir divided between the two countries after a ceasefire. Three more wars, political intrigues, nuclear weaponization, decades of insurgency and counter-insurgency in Kashmir exacted a great human toll and unleashed passions and prejudices which have contributed to excessive dominance of the military in Pakistan, and have helped intensify religious nationalism in India. A massacre in arcadia On April 22, terrorists attacked a group of Indian tourists in a pristine meadow in the Kashmiri town of Pahalgam and murdered 26 people—the largest killing of Indian civilians in years. India quickly blamed Pakistan and Indian politicians, television networks and civilians all clamored for revenge. The massacre in Kashmir came after a fraught decade for the two countries. Since 2014, India has witnessed a significant political transformation with the rise of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and his emphasis on muscular nationalism and Hindu majoritarianism. At the same time, Pakistan was weakened by several economic and political crises, and the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 reduced Islamabad's importance to Washington. After New Delhi revoked the semi-autonomous status of Indian-administered-Kashmir in August 2019 and brought it under direct rule, diplomatic, political, economic, and cultural ties with Pakistan all but disappeared. A tense peace followed, maintained by heavy military and police presence, as most Kashmiris withdrew from separatist politics and militancy. India, focused on positioning itself as a global power, largely ignored a struggling Pakistan. Prime Minister Modi responded to the attack by changing India's military doctrine to consider a terrorist attack in India as an act of war: Indian planes struck deep inside Pakistan, even hitting a military air base close to the headquarters of its Strategic Plans Division responsible for overseeing its nuclear weapons. Fears of India and Pakistan being a mistake away from nuclear war rose as the two countries hit each other's military infrastructure with airstrikes and swarms of drones. The history of hostility and violence gave the conflict an aura of inevitability. 'I am very close to India, and I am very close to Pakistan, and they have had that fight for a thousand years in Kashmir,' President Donald Trump remarked. A forgotten history of cooperation Despite the ceasefire holding, even the most modest cultural and diplomatic exchanges between India and Pakistan have now vanished. South Asia's two nuclear armed neighbors are now more dangerously cut off from one another than the United States and the Soviet Union were during the Cold War. Yet Indo-Pak relations haven't always been defined by hostility alone. After a ceasefire brokered by the United Nations divided Kashmir between the two countries, they reconciled surprisingly quickly. Recently declassified intelligence files reveal that throughout the 1950s, India and Pakistan cooperated, shared intelligence, and even considered a military alliance. Indian and Pakistani intelligence services began collaborating in April 1949 to prevent a communist takeover in Burma, which both countries feared would encourage similar revolutions on their own soil. The operation 'must be kept completely secret,' Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, warned his ambassador in Burma. Indian and Pakistani agents worked together to smuggle military equipment worth millions of dollars to the Burmese military into Rangoon, saving the state from total collapse. The Rangoon operation laid the foundation for further collaboration between India and Pakistan. By 1950, a minister in Nehru's cabinet was speaking of 'the very friendly relations between the two governments,' and Prime Minister Nehru spoke of an 'Asiatic federation' in the 'not very, very distant future,' and a 'United Nations of South Asia.' In May 1950, a joint press conference brought journalists from India and Pakistan together for the first time in three years. Correspondents burst into tears upon seeing their old co-workers again. India's National Herald newspaper described the Indian and Pakistani journalists spending hours talking, trying to learn about life in places across the border they had known intimately, which had become mysterious and inaccessible. Prime Minister Nehru championed the idea of India and Pakistan finding ways to allow their citizens to meet as often as possible. India and Pakistan continued to cooperate with one another for well over a decade, convinced that cooperation was the only way to manage the continued flow of refugees across their borders. Indian and Pakistani politicians worked together to resolve questions of refugee rehabilitation, almost implemented a 'No War' pact, and even introduced joint India-Pakistan passports. In 1960, Pakistan's President Ayyub Khan proposed a military alliance, which didn't materialize. But in September 1960, India and Pakistan did sign with the World Bank, the landmark Indus Water Treaty, which enshrines their rights to water from the six rivers that flow between the two countries. For more than six decades, the treaty survived the subcontinental wars and discord but has come under significant strain after India suspended its participation in the treaty after the April terrorist attack in Kashmir. A stark, downward spiral Relations between India and Pakistan began worsening when Indian forces marched into the Portuguese colony of Goa in December 1961. Many in India saw it as the final act of decolonization, ending four centuries of European rule in the subcontinent. But Pakistan's President Ayub Khan viewed it as a sign of Indian aggression. In response, he began supporting rebel groups in India's northeast, prompting India to back separatists within Pakistan. After a brief war in 1965, both countries passed 'enemy property' laws, allowing them to confiscate the assets of citizens who maintained property, business interests, or family connections across the border. Six years later, in 1971, Indian support for Bengali rebels in East Pakistan and its military intervention led to the creation of Eastern Pakistan as the independent nation of Bangladesh. Pakistan retaliated by supporting separatist Sikh militants in Punjab in the 1980s. A popular rebellion against New Delhi erupted in Indian-administered Kashmir in the winter of 1989-1990. Pakistan armed, trained, and funded the Kashmiri militants, and transformed the insurgency by sending in Pakistani Islamist militants. A decade later, President Bill Clinton was referring to Kashmir as 'the most dangerous place in the world.' Fading allure of shared histories and peace 'We stopped a nuclear conflict,' President Trump claimed after the India-Pakistan ceasefire in May. The ceasefire has held but any sense of normalcy has not returned to the relations between the two countries. A period of warm cultural and economic relations and serious efforts at resolving the Kashmir dispute between 2002 and 2012 when India was led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is a hazy, distant memory now. In those seasons of peace, Indian movie stars lit up Pakistani theatres and Pakistani musicians filled out massive venues in India and bilateral trade would cross billions annually. Indians and Pakistanis, who remember a life before the Partition, before the borders, are in their nineties and dying fast. They recall a complex picture of loss of home, language, friendships and separated families. Even the earlier generations of soldiers and officers in the Indian and Pakistan militaries had shared histories. Opponents in the first wars between India and Pakistan were comrades who fought side by side in the British Army in the Second World War. They would smuggle cigarettes and letters across the front lines to their old friends. After India's victory in the 1971 war, Gavin Young, a correspondent for The Observer, asked an Indian general if he had met the Pakistani general who had surrendered along with his men before Indian forces. 'Oh, Yes,' the Indian general replied. 'He said he was very happy to see me. We knew each other in college.' After 78 years, there is still no shared understanding of the profound collective loss the Partition inflicted on the subcontinent. The border has hardened, and ironically, it is now easier for Indians and Pakistanis to meet in Britain. In both countries, Partition has been mythologized in ways that leave little space to mourn what was lost. Today, the shared history of India and Pakistan survives only in fragments—confined to memories, archives, and scattered families—as the two nations follow increasingly different trajectories and imagine futures that leave little room for one another. It is politically easier, after all, to say they were always meant to be enemies.
Newsweek
36 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Number of Ice Agents To Increase by 50 Percent: What To Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration is moving forward with plans to expand the size of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), adding 10,000 new staff in one of the largest expansions of the agency in its history. Why It Matters The move, outlined in President Donald Trump's flagship domestic policy, the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), comes with significant incentives for recruitment, including salaries that can top six figures with overtime, hiring bonuses of up to $45,000 and full federal benefits. The OBBB boosts funding for ICE and offers numerous tax cuts while making significant cuts to a number of social safety net programs, including Medicaid and food assistance. Many Republicans view the legislation as Trump's signature domestic policy win, solidifying his agenda for years to come. Under the OBBB, ICE is set to get $45 billion to expand its detention capacity to nearly 100,000 beds, $14 billion for transportation and removals, plus billions more to hire new deportation officers, form state and local partnerships, get technology upgrades and increase retention incentives for ICE personnel. ICE and HSI police secure a van after taking a person into custody outside an immigration court Wednesday, May 21, 2025, in Phoenix. ICE and HSI police secure a van after taking a person into custody outside an immigration court Wednesday, May 21, 2025, in Phoenix. Ross D. Franklin/AP Photo What To Know The law will allocate funding for ICE to hire 10,000 additional agents, potentially increasing annual deportations to as many as 1 million, according to the Department of Homeland Security. That number would represent an increase of 50 percent as ICE currently employs about 20,000 law enforcement and support staff across 400 offices. Supporters of the expansion say that the added manpower is needed to help enforce existing immigration laws and to address staffing shortages that they say have hindered detention operations and case processing times. To this point, there have been limited details on what the increase in staffing will look like. Former acting ICE director Jonathan Fahey, who served briefly at the end of Trump's first term, told Newsweek: "The boost in staffing will enable ICE to have the resources to track down, arrest, and remove the most serious public safety threats. This will allow ICE the resources to detain and remove the 600,000 plus illegal aliens in the country with criminal records" One former ICE agent, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter, told Newsweek: "Due to the refusal to enforce immigration law under the Biden administration, ICE needed extra resources to fix the errors and mismanagement of immigration law caused by the previous administration." "These resources were very much needed by ICE to successfully accomplish the mission," the source said. "The additional staffing will allow ICE to safely and thoroughly enforce the United States' immigration laws," they added. "In the last election, the American people clearly mandated that immigration laws should be enforced, and this additional staffing allows that to happen by hiring new officers/ agents and support staff." Newsweek previously reported that ICE agents can earn as much as $120,000 in base pay plus additional bonuses, making the job an increasingly attractive option for job seekers. The proposed hiring surge has led to critics raising questions about what exactly this influx of agents could mean for immigration enforcement and border operations. Opponents of the move have expressed concerns that the expansion could lead to more aggressive deportation operations and an increase in workplace and community raids. Civil rights groups like the ACLU have voiced concerns about increasing ICE's resources. What People Are Saying Former acting ICE director Jonathan Fahey told Newsweek: "The additional resources provided to ICE under the bill will be immensely helpful in securing our border by providing the resources to remove criminals and gang members. This will also provide a deterrent effect to anyone considering illegally crossing our border because they know they will be caught and removed if they enter or attempt to enter illegally." Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said: "President Trump's signing the One Big Beautiful Bill is a win for law and order and the safety and security of the American people." "This $165 billion in funding will help the Department of Homeland Security and our brave law enforcement further deliver on President Trump's mandate to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens and MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN!" Sarah Mehta, Deputy Director of Government Affairs, ACLU, said: "With over $170 billion, ICE will become the largest law enforcement agency in the U.S., with a bigger budget than most of the world's militaries. Armed with this funding, this administration will be able to multiply its violent raids and detain over 750,000 children, parents, and longtime residents in remote detention camps where, even now, people are dying." What Happens Next This surge in funding comes at a time when border apprehensions have dropped following asylum restrictions, but the political fight over immigration remains a top issue heading into the 2026 midterms. With billions allocated for new hiring, the scale of ICE's growth could reshape immigration enforcement for years to come and will likely remain at the center of a contentious national debate.
Newsweek
36 minutes ago
- Newsweek
USPS Changes Stamp Prices: What to Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Mailing a letter will set Americans back more today than it did last week, after the United States Postal Service (USPS) raised the cost of its stamps. The price increase came into effect on July 13, but has been planned for a while as Newsweek reported back in April. The increased rates come as the embattled agency grapples with losing more than $100 billion since 2007, including $9.5 billion in the 12 months ending September 30, 2024. The USPS has also been fending off calls for privatization amid scrutiny from President Donald Trump's administration, and is now seeking a new permanent leader after Postmaster General Louis DeJoy quit in March. Newsweek has reached out by email to USPS seeking comment. A USPS post office in Los Angeles, California, on February 5, 2025. A USPS post office in Los Angeles, California, on February 5, 2025. PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images Why It Matters Prices rose on July 13 and the new rates are set to affect millions of Americans who rely on the USPS to deliver their mail to friends, families, clients or businesses. The agency serves almost 169 million addresses in the U.S., delivering more mail and packages than any other postal service in the world, according to the USPS website. But long-suffering American customers have been hit with a wave of price rises over the past few years. There was a backlash when the USPS raised its rates last summer; the sixth such rise since 2020. Despite the public's reaction, there was another price rise in January 2025 and a further rise on the cost of stamps from this week. What To Know The cost of a Forever Stamp, which can be used at any time in the future regardless of how much a stamp costs at the point in time, is among those being hit with higher prices. Purchasing one Forever Stamp will now cost an additional 5 cents, with the price rising from 73 cents to 78 cents. Letters metered at 1 ounce will also hike in cost, from 69 cents to 74 cents, while the additional-ounce price for single-piece letters will increase from 28 cents to 29 cents. The price for sending domestic postcards will rise from 56 cents to 61 cents, while mailing costs for sending international postcards and international letters will both rise in price from $1.65 to $1.70. What People Are Saying The United States Postal Service (USPS) previously said in an announcement about this week's price hikes: "As changes in the mailing and shipping marketplace continue, these price adjustments are needed to achieve the financial stability sought by the organization's Delivering for America 10-year plan. USPS prices remain among the most affordable in the world." Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump has appeared to suggest he is considering privatizing the agency, saying in April, "it's an idea that a lot of people have liked for a long time." But Mark Dimondstein, the leader of the American Postal Workers Union (APSU), told CNN in March that the USPS must beware of "a White House intent on breaking up and selling off" the public agency. He added: "This attack on the USPS is part of the ongoing coup by oligarchs against the vital public services APWU members and other public servants provide to the country. Privatized postal services will lead to higher postage prices, and a lower quality of service to the public." What Happens Next USPS customers will notice that stamps are at least 5 cents more expensive this week. Regular service users are likely to be watching to see whether more USPS changes are planned, either politically or financially, in the future.
