The DCU Has a James Gunn Problem…

Update #2 11/11/2026

It wasn’t…it wasn’t supposed to end like this. What have I done? 

In all seriousness, I was surprised to read James Gunn’s instagram post earlier this week. For those out of the loop, Gunn “stepped down” from running the DCU this week. Gunn said that his time running the DCU had been tiring, and that he wanted to get back to what he called “pure filmmaking.” Admittedly, my knee-jerk reaction was to shout “called it!” But then I read further. 

According to Variety, the DCU will now be run by Jeremy Latcham, a producer who worked on some of the earliest and most definitive films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’d rather James Gunn stay behind the wheel. 

If you click Latcham’s name above, you’ll see that he’s executive produced 9 movies in total, 6 of which fall under the MCU’s umbrella. None of the 6 are bad, but they’re ALL PG-13 movies. Myself and many other fans of the DC comics were ready for an R-Rated superhero universe. In fact, the main reason I was beginning to change my stance on Gunn running the DCU was linked to the fact that shows like Peacemaker and Lanterns were R-Rated (or TV-MA for the sticklers out there). Neither of these shows were ultra-violent by any means, but seeing the characters use foul language was almost reassuring. It made the characters feel human, grounded, and relatable, which was something the MCU, and even Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy sometimes lacked. Hearing superheroes talk like regular people was fresh, needed, and almost comforting at times. 

That is why, at this point, I think I’d rather Gunn be back at the conn. (Yes, that’s a reference for all you Trekkies out there.) Latcham recently said in an interview that a “guiding light” of his time running the MCU was whether or not his grandmother would like seeing something on the silver screen. How sweet. But guess what Jer-Bear? My grandmother can handle some violence here and there. Hell, she lived through the Vietnam War, I’m sure she can handle a little bit of blood, and I'm sure yours can too. Also, your grandmother isn’t running the show. I think part of the reason “superhero fatigue” became a buzz-word in the past few years was because so many adaptations of superheroes were pretty bland. Sure, some superheroes shouldn’t be heard using the F-bomb, and I don’t need to hear Batman call a street thug a POS, but I like the option. To me, hiring someone who once ran the MCU, which eventually fell off extremely hard, was a terrible call by Warner Brothers.

Okay, now for the part of the dance that causes people to trip. Many people online have speculated that Gunn didn’t just step down. I’ve heard discourse saying that Gunn and his production partner Peter Safran were fired. Obviously there is no proof of this now, but a lot of the speculation comes from the fact that Gunn allowed, and possibly even encouraged political commentary in the DCU. Lanterns outright implanted itself in the discourse surrounding systemic racism, the hardships of being Black in America, and racial dynamics in the modern power structure. As well, people smarter than me have claimed that Superman was a commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian war. This is what a lot of speculation I’ve seen online covers. Due to Warner Brothers being bought by media conglomerate Skydance earlier this year, I’ve seen rumors that Gunn was fired because he and the studio took these political stances. I have to say, if this is the case, I’ll be severely disappointed. 

As I explained in an opinion piece I published a few weeks ago, I try to avoid expressing political opinions on this blog, mostly because I’m not smart enough to get into political discussions. So I’ll just say this: if this was a decision grounded in politics, shame on Warner Brothers and Skydance. Cinema is SUPPOSED to be political. Star Wars was famously created with an inherent and direct criticism of the Vietnam War embedded into the story. If Skydance did require Warner Brothers to fire Gunn because he allowed for political views to be expressed in the DCU, then we’re in for yet another disappointment labeled as a cinematic universe. 

I’ll wrap this update up. I refuse to say I’m happy about Gunn leaving the DCU, as his replacement is probably the last person I’d want running the gambit now. The one comfort I had about Gunn heading the DCU when I originally wrote this article was that he’s a true nerd. He’s not just some producer that took comic book characters and told directors: “hey, make this modern, and trim it up a bit yeah?” Gunn took the time to give us original stories, with fresh takes on classic characters, and just when I was beginning to see the light, they took it away from me. Once again, I guess we’ll have to see where this goes, but I’m now much more concerned for the DCU’s future than I ever was when I first wrote this article. If Gunn did truly step down of his own volition, fine. I’d accept that. But if the speculation online that he was fired for expressing political beliefs is true, I think DC fans, myself included, are in for a world of hurt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update 10/27/2026:

I have to eat my words a little bit. While I’m not backing down on my stance that Gunn isn’t my optimal choice for the DCU’s quarterback, I will say that I’ve recently been given a lot of hope for the DCU’s future. 

Last weekend I had the privilege of seeing James Watkins’ Clayface. Admittedly I went into this film expecting not to like it. I hadn’t heard of most of the cast, and while the trailer looked phenomenal, I still had my doubts because Gunn was serving as a producer, and I didn’t really care for 2025’s Superman. But let me tell you, within 20 minutes those doubts were eschewed post-haste. Watkins didn’t pull any punches with Clayface, and it was an exceptional film. 

After I first posted this article, a friend of mine pointed out that the reason I likely didn’t feel confident in James Gunn’s direction for the DCU was because there wasn’t one yet. He explained that unlike the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Gunn wants the connected films to explore various cinematic styles and not have any real theme quite yet, which does make sense to me, but I was still hesitant, especially considering that at some point, they’d have to introduce Batman, and I feel that has to be taken very seriously, unlike Superman’s presentation. After Clayface, I now believe that the scourge of Gotham’s underbelly, and his rogues gallery are in good hands. 

My college friends and I have a group chat in which I’ve made it a habit of giving the fellas unsolicited, spoiler free reviews of movies that I see in theaters, and the main takeaway from that review was this: 

“If this is the direction being taken by the DCU surrounding Batman and Gotham, then we’re in good hands.”

Clayface blew me away. Despite not calling myself a fan of horror movies, I’ve seen a lot of them this year. It may be recency bias, but I think Clayface may be in my top 3, maybe even top 2 movies I’ve seen this year. It presented a completely original take on a character that, while always a tragic character, had been viewed by fans mostly as a gimmicky one up to this point. Clayface starred young actors that I had never heard of before, which I’ve always found to bring out very memorable performances, and this was no exception. The acting and storyline were both great, but the true silver bullet for me was the ending. They really made me think they were going right, just to suddenly turn left before the cut to black. Overall, the film was a very well done, tastefully crafted origin story for the character, and it served as an excellent introduction to the new Gotham City. 

Side note: Gotham looks amazing. Initially, you can see hints of New York, and what I at first thought was Seattle, but apparently a large portion of the film was shot in Liverpool. The gothic architecture actually played really well in the overhead shots, and the neon lit streets helped sell The Narrows incredibly well. While nothing will beat Nolan’s Gotham City filmed on the streets of Chicago, this was a nice alternative. 

This film also served as a great jumping off point for whoever will take on the massive role of coordinating Batman’s entry into the DCU. If it were me running the show, I’d wait to debut Batman for at least 3 or 4 more years. The studio really shouldn’t rush it, and if they’re smart, they’ll create a series of horror movies centered around his villains, establishing the rogues gallery well before introducing the caped crusader. 

Like I said in the original article, James Gunn is going to have to stick every landing for quite some time. I have more faith in the DCU now then I did a few weeks ago, but there’s very little margin for error as of right now. That being said, I really hope they continue to create R-rated comic book movies. Considering how dark some comics get, (i.e. The Killing Joke) creating films that allow for the truly heinous things some DC villains get up to would create a DCU that has higher stakes, feels more gritty, and would be an apt setting for Batman’s arrival. 

This is my first official article update, so apologies if its transition into the full article feels a little clunky, but I felt I needed to get this out there. Checkout Clayface if you get the chance, I really enjoyed it, and any horror fan will too. Have a great day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Artice Published 9/29/2026 begins here:

DC Comics has had…let’s just say a tumultuous cinematic run. Multiple rebrands have occurred and there has been a smattering of universes employing characters from the comics since the early 2000’s. In general, the DC comic book movies have been a mixed bag. We’ve seen some of the best and worst adaptations of famous comic book characters, and it’s not ridiculous to say that the lack of direction is the cause. Or, it was the cause. 

A few years ago, James Gunn was hired by David Zaslav to advise, or, more accurately, conduct his search for the new head of DC Studios. Gunn was hired alongside Peter Safran, a producer with whom Gunn has worked extensively since the early 2000’s. Eventually, Zaslav just decided to hand Gunn and Safran the keys to the castle. The search must have been a really difficult process for the pair.

When the news broke, I was over the moon. The James Gunn?!? The guy who made the Guardians of the Galaxy movies is now running DC Studios? Sign me up. At the time, movies centered around DC Comics were in the gutter. Pictures like 2016’s Suicide Squad and the god awful Justice League era had decimated the reputation of superheroes like Superman and The Flash.

Sidebar: Yes, I said god awful. Whoever decided that Zack Snyder, the guy obsessed with slow motion, should be directing a franchise that has a central character known for being fast, should never work in show-business again. Don’t even get me started on 2021’s “Snyder Cut.” I know that Snyder left the original 2017 version of the Justice League movie due to a family tragedy, but there was no need to regurgitate Joss Whedon’s trainwreck of a superhero movie. The whole era should’ve been marked up as a sunk cost and been left as a gaping hole in Henry Cavill’s otherwise excellent career. Snyder was essentially polishing a pile of mud when it came to Justice League, and I’d almost feel bad for him had he not delivered a 4 hour plate of nothing with a side of air. The 2021 version of that film is a boring, slow paced nightmare that I refuse to watch again, as I have too much respect for Batman.

Okay, now that my hatred for Zack Snyder’s contribution to the DCEU has been laid out, let’s get back to business. I’m writing this article today because there’s something going on that isn’t being talked about enough. They actually did it. HBO Max is currently running an 8 episode series about my second ever favorite superhero: Green Lantern. And it’s terrific. 

For those blissfully unaware, Green Lantern has had a rough go of it. In 2011, DC released a CGI filled “film” starring Ryan Reynolds as the titular Green Lantern. I haven’t seen it since I was a kid, but I still remember it being awful. To this day, Reynolds makes fun of it pretty much every chance he gets, and if I’m not mistaken, he’s even said it’s the worst film in his repertoire. Because of the tire fire that is 2011’s Green Lantern, Hal Jordan and the Lantern Corps essentially went untouched in live action film and television for over a decade. They didn’t even include Green Lantern in the Justice League era of the DC Extended Universe (DCEU). It was for the best. The direction style employed by Snyder and Whedon would likely make Green Lantern get blacklisted as a concept by Hollywood in its entirety. 

Thankfully, things are different now. James Gunn’s DCU is actually looking up for once. Peacemaker is utterly hysterical, and finally gave John Cena the chance to prove that he’s a good actor. For someone you can’t see, he is visibly excellent in this role. 2021’s The Suicide Squad, which serves as a transition from the Justice League era, is a massive upgrade from 2016’s catastrophic attempt to bring the team of rogues together. And now, the DCU has created its finest piece of work yet: 2026’s Lanterns.

Lanterns is the best show on TV right now. Kyle Chandler is performing the role he was born to play. The show’s approach to Hal Jordan is, in my opinion, unique. I love how instead of making Hal the typical “superhero in their prime,” the writers decided that Hal would be deep into his career as a Green Lantern. He’s tired, washed up, and he’s seen it all at this point, so nothing surprises him. Chandler delivers every single line expertly, and it is so much fun to watch. 

More importantly, this live action adaption of Green Lantern finally includes my favorite wielder of the ring: John Stewart. By far the most badass member of the Green Lantern Corps, John Stewart was originally a Marine Sniper, and in some iterations, the character was an architect. The way the showrunners combined both these aspects into what we have today was brilliant, and Aaron Pierre was a stellar choice to play the role. The way the showrunners (Damon Lindelof of Lost being the most notable) are framing this show as Stewart’s journey towards taking the ring is excellent, and I simply can’t wait to find out how they wrap the show up next week. 

However, I think the DCU has a serious problem. 

Riddle me this…

What happens when a brilliant actor takes on the role of (arguably) the most popular, and (objectively) the greatest superhero ever created? What happens when a director, who is a superfan of that superhero, is hired to direct a complete overhaul of that character, and build a world around him? What happens when the first movie in this franchise releases in 2022, and teases a sequel? What happens when a Golden Globe winning television show creates one of the most intriguing villains of this decade, based in that same universe?

Well, you get Matt Reeves’ The Batman, and 2024’s The Penguin. These two pieces of media are the resurgence that the world’s greatest detective needed, especially after he was essentially relegated to the sidelines in the Justice League era. They brought Batman back to the ground, with a fresh, moody style that shows Batman as a newcomer, with a distaste for humanity. However, he learns, he grows, and we’re given that shift towards optimism that the Batman needs in order to be the hero he is in classic media like The Animated Series. 

Here's my problem with James Gunn quarterbacking the DCU. In 2025’s Superman, we see Gunn’s directorial style at his most. Not his best, his most. He pulls out all of his tools for this one, and it just…turns me off. Admittedly, I’ve always thought Superman was kind of a mediocre character. He’s indestructible, hypersonic, laser equipped, has X-Ray vision, and he’s an alien? There’s just way too much going on. And that pretty much describes Gunn’s direction style to a T. 

Before I continue, let me say something. I like James Gunn, a lot. I thought GOTG 3 was exceptional, I LOVE the second Suicide Squad movie, and in general, I think he’s good at his job. But have you ever had a conversation with someone that knows way too much about sports? You tell them you’re a fan of Jimmy Butler because you saw him play at Marquette, and then with the Bulls, and suddenly you’ve been listening to them explain how Stephen Curry could have had a professional golf career for 40 minutes, even though you’re trying to get back into the party because that cute girl is making eyes at you.  

To me, that’s what James Gunn feels like as a director. More often than not, I think his projects are obnoxious and loud. While I will give him credit for imagining absolutely stellar visuals paired with dope needle drops, such as the hallway scene in GOTG 3, or, conversely, the laid back, romantic dancing scene between Gamora and Quill in GOTG 1, I think he’s let it all go to his head. I appreciate his desire to bring more niche characters to light, but it also makes this vision incredibly more difficult to market. As for Gunn’s direction and vision for the DCU, there are other noticeable issues that I think need addressing. Superman, The Suicide Squad, and GOTG 3, all have something in common, that to me, is very off putting. What is it? Well, (weirdly enough) it’s goo. There’s really no better word. 

For some reason, Gunn really likes grossing out his audience. Superman introduces the “Justice Gang,” who fight alongside Superman to take out some monster attacking Metropolis, and more than once, Gunn shows an up close and personal visual of the monster getting poked in the eye. Similar instances happen throughout the Guardians franchise as well as The Suicide Squad. It’s not my favorite part of his filmmaking style, and I’d like to see it avoided in the upcoming DCU, though Superman showed me that that isn’t likely. 

I don’t know. Gunn’s creative style is fun, it's goofy and usually pretty light. Don’t get me wrong, the man is capable of eliciting emotion in viewers, and it actually takes me by surprise every time he does. No film of his does this better than the third GOTG film. Rocket having been the reason his friends got killed was one of those rare scenes in the MCU that not only tugs on your heartstrings, it snaps them. All of this is to say that I really appreciate and respect Gunn, not only as a director, but a writer. But that doesn’t mean I trust the guy. 

Another thing that all 3 of Gunn’s latest feature films have in common is the use of actor Nathan Fillion. I’ll level with you, this bothers me and I genuinely have no idea why. I feel like Fillion has been around Hollywood forever, and his face just throws me off no matter what. Is it his eyes? His nose? I really can’t tell you, but the man’s whole demeanor makes me laugh for no reason. So, not only is it hard for me to take him seriously as Guy Gardner, the supposedly brain damaged Lantern with a terrible haircut, I also can’t get over that Gardner is Fillion’s second role in James Gunn’s DCU. You’ve read that right, and he’s not the only actor Gunn has given a second life to in the DCU. 

In 2021’s The Suicide Squad, Fillion and fellow frequent Gunn collaborator Michael Rooker make appearances during the film’s title sequence. Fillion plays “The Detachable Kid,” or “T.D.K.” a character that I’d never heard of, and Rooker plays “Savant,” another relatively niche character. Granted, both of these characters are essentially moot points, as they’re both dead now, but it still irks me that Fillion and Rooker both got resurgences in the DCU as different characters. Rooker also plays “Red St. Wild,” an eagle hunter in the second season of Peacemaker. Yes, it’s as silly as it sounds. Wild was apparently made up by Gunn for the show, which I feel like adds points to my number on the scoreboard. 

My distrust of Gunn running the DCU mostly stems from one thing: his projects have an inherent silliness to them. In franchises like the MCU, where the projects all have a sense of humor, even during the most serious films, this silliness works. It’s in character for the franchise, and that’s part of the reason why I love the GOTG movies. When characters like Iron Man and Spider-Man are cracking jokes and dropping quippy one-liners, I think some gooey, light hearted antics can fit into the puzzle. But he’s not running the MCU. This is DC comics we’re talking about. 

When murderous, psychopathic supervillains like the Joker and Scarecrow, sit alongside calculated and brutal enemies like Bane and Calendar Man in Batman’s rogues gallery, there’s a level of seriousness required in order to construct a cinematic universe to contain them. As an audience, we’re owed a serious take on DC characters, and thematically, I think Matt Reeves has the right vision. But for now, while I like him as a director, I just can’t see James Gunn as the man to bring this all to life. Every DCU project he’s helmed so far has been…good? Peacemaker is a great show, and Superman was fine, but neither made me think:

“This is the direction DC needs. There’s a clear and visible way out of the darkness for them right now.”

The only DCU project that’s actually made me feel this way so far is Lanterns. I don’t know if it’s because Kyle Chandler is bringing Hal Jordan to life in a way that should have been the obvious choice 15 years ago, or if it’s because this show seems to be working towards an actual endgame. Either way, it’s the first DCU project that’s given me a sense of hope for the franchise and DC Comics’ resurgence into live action cinema. If the upcoming Clayface film does a good job setting up the rest of the Justice League’s most famous foes, then I’ll buy into the DCU more, but for now, I’m remaining skeptical. At this stage, building the DCU will require everything to stick the landing, and even one misstep could bring the entire franchise crumbling to the ground. 

Do I think James Gunn can lead this franchise towards the light? I don’t know. Is he doing a better job than his predecessors during the Justice League era? Absolutely. Was I happy when it was announced he’d be running the show? Sure. If I knew then what I know now, would he be my first choice to act as DC’s messiah? Almost certainly not.

That’s about all I have to say on this matter. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, these blogs are not making me look any less like a nerd. I know. But hey, if you made it this far, then you’re a nerd too. I want Gunn to do this right, because many of the DC characters are owed a stylistic refreshment. I just hope the gooeyness Gunn loves so much stays out of it. Thanks for reading.