Superman Reportedly Earns Nearly Triple the Profit of Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel

Based on recent reports, it appears that James Gunn’s version of Superman might surpass Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel in terms of profit, despite earning less at the global box office.

2013 marked the year when I personally witnessed the grand debut of Zack Snyder’s “Man of Steel.” This movie was hyped as the groundbreaking foundation for a cinematic universe that Warner Bros. envisioned could stand toe-to-toe with Marvel’s Avengers dominion. The film raked in over $670 million globally, an impressive earnings that earned Snyder a multi-film deal and laid the groundwork for what would later be known as the Snyderverse.

By 2025, James Gunn’s interpretation of Superman has shown to be quite distinctive. The financial data is available now, and although Gunn’s reboot of Superman didn’t outperform Zack Snyder’s “Man of Steel” worldwide, it remains the more promising venture-due to a crucial factor: profitability.

The Raw Numbers

According to a report from Variety, let’s examine the earnings to understand how Superman surpassed Man of Steel financially.

Worldwide Gross:

Man of Steel: $670 million
Superman: $614 million

Profitability:

Man of Steel: $42.7 million
Superman: $125 million

Despite generating lower total revenues, Gunn’s version of Superman yielded almost three times the profit of Snyder’s Man of Steel. According to Variety’s report, this was due to Gunn’s film having better cost management and stronger domestic performance, which allows studios to keep a larger percentage of ticket sales in that region.

Why Profit Beats Gross

Efficiency is key to success, as demonstrated by Snyder’s movie that had an initial production budget of approximately $258 million, not including additional expenditures on residuals and participations. Despite this substantial investment, it proved lucrative by performing exceptionally well in global markets such as China and Russia, where Hollywood typically earns a small percentage of the box office revenue.

In contrast to Gunn’s “Superman,” which resonated strongly with North American audiences, it achieved a staggering $122 million opening domestically, surpassing the initial earnings of “Man of Steel” ($116.6 million). This film eventually emerged as the top-grossing standalone Superman movie in the U.S., although its global earnings were lower. However, Warner Bros. reported significantly improved profit margins from this release.

Snyderverse Fans Won’t Like This…

Supporters of Snyder, sometimes known as “Snyder-Fans,” have consistently maintained that Man of Steel served as the foundation for DC’s most daring cinematic concept. However, when you look at the financial data, the fact becomes undeniable: James Gunn’s version of Superman is the more financially successful project. The Snyderverse didn’t succeed, and that’s why we ended up with Gunn’s DC Universe in the end.

This doesn’t take away from Snyder’s global influence or the cultural impact of “Man of Steel” in 2013. However, for a studio aiming to regain audience and investor trust, Gunn’s Superman offers something unique: a project that ensures a strong financial success, which was not consistently achieved by Snyder.

The Bigger Picture

The substantial profit generated by Gunn’s version of Superman isn’t just a success, but a strategic triumph versus Man of Steel. Given the pressure Warner Bros. Discovery has faced to strengthen its DC brand due to inconsistent past performances, Gunn’s demonstration that the world’s timeless superhero can be profitably rebooted-even if it doesn’t reach billion-dollar milestones-has laid a sturdy base for upcoming sequels.

In other words, despite the grandeur of Snyder’s movie, it serves as a costly echo of Warner’s past strategy: make things larger, shell out more money, and cross your fingers that it all turns profitable.

Final Thoughts

For hardcore Zack Snyder fans, the comparison might be painful. While Man of Steel remains the highest-grossing Superman movie, studio executives are likely to advocate for James Gunn’s Superman as the wiser, safer, and more economically viable direction for future projects. After all, the true measure of a project’s success isn’t just its profit; it’s about the balance between what you earn and what you spend to make it.

In simpler terms, a film that has to earn $800 to cover its costs but goes on to make $1 billion is considered less successful compared to a film that needs only $150 to break even and manages to make $500 million in profits. This means the second film is more profitable despite earning less overall revenue.

If increasing Snyder’s profits almost threefold didn’t spark controversy, wait for the heated discussions on social media attempting to twist this fact. However, it seems the accountants have already declared a victor in this matter.

2025-09-09 19:42