There’s spin—and then there’s what Forbes just pulled about Superman box office profits.
On October 6th, a Forbes contributor analysis by Tim Lammers suggested that James Gunn’s Superman failed to make money at the box office in theaters. By November 8th, the same outlet published a new piece by Mark Hughes flatly claiming the opposite: that the film “generated more than $100 million in profits.”
Hughes blamed “low-quality fan sites that push rumors and clickbait” for the rumors that Superman was anything but a massive box office success.
The problem? This Superman as a box office failure narrative started on his own site.
The Numbers Don’t Lie
Let’s start with the math everyone agrees on.
According to Forbes’ own reporting, Superman ended its theatrical run on October 2, 2025, after 84 days in release. The film earned $354.2 million domestically and $261.1 million internationally, for a worldwide total of $615.8 million.
Superman fighting The Hammer of Boravia in the trailer for James Gunn’s Superman – YouTube, DC
READ: Harry Potter HBO Series Confirms it Won’t Have a Narrator After Rumor Hits Internet
The same article cited a $225 million production budget and a $125 million global marketing budget. These are numbers first reported by Variety.
That’s roughly $350 million in total costs before residuals, interest, or studio overhead.
As industry analysts repeatedly note, studios typically take home about 50% of global box office receipts after splitting revenue with theaters. That means Warner Bros. would keep approximately $308 million of Superman’s total.
Superman beaten down in the trailer for James Gunn’s Superman – YouTube, DC
That’s a shortfall of $42 million—and that’s before any residuals or backend payments are factored in.
So while Tim Lammers stopped short of calling the film a “flop,” his analysis made it clear that Superman lost money at the box office in theaters. Warner Bros., according to that report, would be depending heavily on digital sales and streaming to make up the difference.
Hughes Declares Victory—Over His Own Site
Just a month after Lammers’ article, Forbes contributor Mark Hughes published an article titled “DCU Endgame: What Is James Gunn’s Superhero Universe Building Toward?” and fired off this gem:
“There’s a lot of mistaken analysis out there about Gunn, the DCU, and Superman,” he said. “Some websites (mostly on low-quality fan sites that push rumors and clickbait) are trying to spin things as if Superman is some sort of box office failure and that audiences aren’t interested (the film generated more than $100 million in profits, had great reviews and audience scores, and did big numbers in theaters and home entertainment), but you can safely ignore it and anyone pushing those false narratives.”
Superman arrested in the trailer for James Gunn’s Superman – YouTube, DC
READ: Media Pushes for The Hunt for Ben Solo and Star Wars Sequel Revival—But Is Anyone Buying It?
That paragraph, pulled directly from Forbes, would be unremarkable if it weren’t for one tiny issue: the “mistaken analysis” Hughes is denouncing came from his own publication.
In fact, the only significant change between the two reports is tone. Hughes’ piece doesn’t offer any new revenue data or updated financial breakdowns—it simply declares profitability, scolds dissenters, and moves on.
The Math vs. The Message
If Hughes has inside numbers from Warner Bros. Discovery proving the movie turned a profit, he doesn’t share them. There’s no mention of how much Superman made on home entertainment, digital sales, or streaming rights—nor any citation for the claim of “more than $100 million in profits.”
Instead, he leans into broad generalities about “great reviews,” “strong home entertainment numbers,” and “approaching $150 million globally when all is said and done.”
Superman in the trailer for James Gunn’s Superman – YouTube, DC
That phrasing is a red flag. It moves the goalposts from verifiable box office data to vague, all-inclusive totals that lump together digital rentals, VOD purchases, and potential future revenue—all without transparency or sourcing.
In short, Hughes substitutes assertion for evidence.
Forbes vs. Forbes
The irony is rich. On October 6th, Forbes was a source for fan sites and financial analysts dissecting Warner Bros.’ troubled theatrical economics. By November 8th, Forbes became the target of its own contributor’s accusation of “clickbait spin.”
Superman and Krypto in the trailer for James Gunn’s Superman – YouTube, DC
READ: YouTube TV Offers $20 Credit After Disney Blackout as Dispute Enters Second Week
Either Superman lost money in theaters and Forbes was correct the first time—or it made over $100 million in profit and Hughes just forgot to show the receipts. Both can’t be true.
If the latter were accurate, Warner Bros. would be shouting it from the rooftops. Instead, studio executives have remained quiet, leaving fans and analysts to piece together the truth from scattered public data—and the contradictory coverage of one of America’s top financial outlets.
Why it Matters
This isn’t just about a superhero movie. It’s about media credibility.
When two writers under the same Forbes banner publish opposite financial conclusions about the same film within a month, it raises serious questions about editorial consistency, sourcing, and oversight.
It’s a striking lack of all three from Forbes, where writers like Caroline Reid offer up well-sourced, expertly delivered analysis.
Superman grimacing by a Stagg Industries sign in the trailer for James Gunn’s Superman – YouTube, DC
While Reid and Lammers offer hard numbers and break down the math, Hughes merely attempted to frame all criticism of Superman as “fan-site rumors.” It’s a direct insult to audiences who’ve learned to spot studio-approved spin. You can’t dismiss hard numbers as “clickbait” when they come from your own newsroom.
Until Warner Bros. Discovery opens the books or Forbes provides documentation to support Hughes’ claim, the safest conclusion is that Superman’s theatrical run underperformed, and the “profit” narrative is marketing spin.
Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane in James Gunn’s Superman – YouTube, DC
For now, it looks like the Superman box office story is less about numbers—and more about which version of reality certain Forbes writers want to sell this week.
Which version of Forbes do you agree with when it comes to the Superman box office? Sound off in the comments and let us know!
UP NEXT: Jimmy Kimmel and Wife Mislead Their Kids By Telling Them Trump Was Behind ABC Suspension
This is a typical case of damage control with a “paid pen,” or at least a “bribed pen.” This Mark Hughes guy has been a Gunn supporter for some time now; roughly ten of his articles are completely disproportionate in their shill-like approach. He’s not on X either, but he is on Bluesky, another indication of where his ideology leans. The situation here is simple: Superman quickly loses its appeal, and they have to maintain interest among their core audience, otherwise NO ONE will go see Supergirl next year. The Snyderverse fans are more consistent in their defense, and if there’s no counterweight, the whole thing will fall apart.
Forked tongues.
Mark Hughes must think he’s on Reddit, where they don’t ask for proof.