Written by Will Hinton
In the 21st century, DC Comics’ cinematic presence can be neatly partitioned into three eras: the Christopher Nolan era, the Zack Snyder era, and the emerging James Gunn era. As the fledgling DCU branches out into horror and cop dramas, the trend between the three becomes clear. DC constantly pushes superhero movie boundaries in an attempt to keep up with Marvel Studios. With the release of Clayface, the question emerges: can James Gunn strike the balance between creative licence and commercial success?
With his 2005-2012 Dark Knight trilogy, Christopher Nolan brought darkness back to a Batman who had been little more than a punchline in Joel Schumacher’s mid-to-late 90s outings, revitalising DC’s cinematic presence. However, this renovation came through what some have described as a Batman overlay on a Nolan-style crime film, pushing DC away from what would emerge as the superhero mould. Coinciding with the inception of the Marvel Cinematic Universe with 2008’s Iron Man, DC was already establishing itself as the more high-brow of the superhero rivals.
In a sense, Nolan’s trilogy may have ultimately harmed DC’s cinematic prospects – precisely due to its commercial success and critical acclaim. They set a near-unattainable bar of individuality every subsequent creative has struggled to meet. All three, though, most notably 2008’s The Dark Knight, received wide critical praise, with the entire trilogy appearing in IMDB’s top 150 films of all time. This success left them at a crossroads: follow this unconventionality or risk losing what had made them unique and successful.
2013 saw the spiritual passing of the baton with Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel. A far cry from the spandex-wearing boy scout of Christopher Reeve’s Superman, Henry Cavill’s big blue was a darker, grittier take on the character. Featuring a more nihilistic slant on how superheroes could exist in the real world. Man of Steel saw the progression of Nolan’s gritty realism into Snyder’s theological take on the idea of gods among us, a dual dynamic that would carry through Snyder’s pseudo-trilogy: Man of Steel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and Zack Snyder’s Justice League.
The trade-off for this grander scale came at the cost of the critical acclaim, as despite their relative commercial successes, both Man of Steel and Batman v Superman remain contentious topics within film circles. While external factors such as studio interference and personal tragedy played a hand in the downfall of the DC Extended Universe, it seemed that the balance had not been struck correctly.
This was the moment where Marvel, through consistent and accessible two-hour movies, was able to soar ahead of DC’s bloated mythological epics. Following Snyder’s departure in 2017 after Justice League, DC was left releasing projects that lacked any sense of overall direction, and it seemed the writing was on the wall. A series of box office flops, studio infighting, merger rumours, and Dwayne Johnson’s bid to change the ‘hierarchy of power’ with Black Adam all spelt the end of Snyder’s era at DC. Warner Bros. decided it was time for some fresh faces at the helm of their flagship franchise.
In 2022, James Gunn and Peter Safran were appointed as the heads of the newly established DC Studios, Warner Bros.’ bona fide superhero machine. Here arrived the team expected to rival Marvel Studios, with Gunn himself something of a superhero movie auteur and Safran a successful, though not remarkable, film producer. Their first theatrical effort, Superman, directed by Gunn himself, returned the character to his more jovial roots, flitting past the divisive darkness of Man of Steel. Praised by critics and fans alike, Superman made an estimated $125 million profit according to IMDb, and seemed a strong omen for things to come with the DCU. 2026’s Supergirl, directed by Craig Gillespie, received far less favourable reviews and failed to break even at the box office, marking a stylistic and commercial misstep of the new universe.
The most interesting part of Gunn’s cinematic strategy comes in its tonal variation between projects. Even before Superman, the DCU started with Creature Commandos, an 18-rated adult animated series that certainly showed Gunn is not afraid to lean into the darker side of the franchise. While Marvel works hard to keep almost all projects within a safe PG-13 window to maximise appeal, Gunn and Safran attempt to balance creative licence and commercial success. With traditional superhero blockbusters for the many, cop shows and body-horror for adults, Gunn and Safran are demonstrating a real willingness to work outside the usual franchise constraints. But are they taking too many risks?
Clayface has received an R rating in the US and a BBFC 18 rating in the UK, instantly lowering the commercial ceiling, in favour of allowing director James Watkins to stick to his grisly vision. Unavoidably, profit plays a key role in the relative success of a franchise. This formula has worked for DC in the past, with Todd Phillips’ Joker grossing over a billion dollars and winning two Academy Awards.
There’s one key difference: Joker was a standalone project, not part of a universe trying to establish an identity and an audience. In Metropolis, happy-go-lucky Clark Kent saves squirrels from falling buildings, and in Gotham City, Matt Hagen is losing his mind after failed cosmetic surgery. These contrasting tones can function together in a wider story, but Gunn needs to ensure they do or risk a disconnect within the universe that may alienate casual moviegoers. Add on top of this the separate Matt Reeves Batman universe, especially with him producing Clayface, and we’re left with a franchise seemingly unsure what it wants itself to be.
Even when building a shared universe, DC seemingly cannot let go of separate director-driven projects like The Batman, a clear fallback to the tried-and-tested approach pioneered by Nolan. As Marvel gears up for an expected box office behemoth in Avengers: Doomsday, Gunn’s choice to prioritise artistic licence over reliable income seems far more speculative than ever.
It remains unclear whether Gunn and Safran can reconcile their darker and more whimsical DCU projects. How do they balance them when they eventually come to Justice League crossover films? The goodwill of a casual fan of Superman may not extend to a body-horror like Clayface, risking low audience transfer between projects. Despite tackling vastly different genres, Gunn needs to find a way to create a thematic and narrative thread or risk failing to build a cohesive universe. The danger comes from the parts of the narrative missed by those not old enough or interested enough to see the more niche DCU projects, such as Clayface. How will this affect the overall comprehensibility of the universe?
As we approach the sixth release in less than two years for the DCU with Clayface, the breakneck pace of their worldbuilding becomes clear. Far ahead of the initial pace of both the MCU and DCEU, Gunn and Safran seem set on establishing themselves fast. Though, with little synergy between projects so far, their approach seems in danger of being rushed and losing fan interest, and thus studio approval.
With the recent Warner Bros. / Paramount merger, the pressure is on for Gunn and Safran to prove that their tonally varied DCU can compete, or there will be some tension when their contracts expire next year. With Clayface having lower pre-sales than the box-office flop of Supergirl, this feels like a sink-or-swim moment for the DCU. The question remains: will Gunn and Safran’s creative gamble pay off commercially, or will we see yet another new iteration of DC in the near future?
To see whether this tonal gamble bears fruit, read our Clayface review.
Will Hinton is a second-year English Literature student and aspiring film journalist. A passionate fan of the superhero and horror genres, he enjoys exploring the stories behind the camera as much as the finished product on the screen. He is particularly interested in how films can push the boundaries of their respective genres, listing Wes Craven among his cinematic idols.