On paper, the "Superman" of Jameseims Gan retained the pace with Zac Snyder's "Man of Steel", but it seems that when it comes to net profit, Gun's film beat Snyder. According to DiversitySuperman is said to have made a profit of about $ 125 million, while The deadline In 2014, it announced that "The Steel Man" eventually made $ 42.7 million for Warner Bros.. It should be noted that the studio has not confirmed these figures, but all signs suggest that Superman is a more profitable film.

The film industry can be in an insecure place but Warner Bros. has an incredible 2025. The studio fueled the hit after the hit, and while some were bigger than others, even modest successes were important to help the historical studio for the box office break. "Minecraft Film", "Sinners", "Finish Destination Bloods", "F1: Film", "Superman" and "Weapons" were all successes. Now, with "Conjupation: Last Rituals" that breaks the biggest horror records in the box officeRealizing $ 83 million domestic and $ 187 million globally during his open weekend, Warner Bros. has officially had a record year. As Variety points out, the studio made a history of box office with seven consecutive films that open over $ 40 million.

Of course, when it comes to Hollywood accounting, it's always tricky for outsiders to know for sure whether the film actually made a profit or not. Aside from the fact that studios receive only about half of the theater gross (less when factoring in China), there are marketing costs, which do not represent part of the advertised budget and are often significantly high in itself. As such, even obvious successes in box office cannot make money, especially in an era where Studies routine green light irresponsible budgets that kneel their profit potential.

As the year has been played, however, it has become clear that Werners is on a hot string and almost certainly earns money on these films. "Superman" is an interesting example in this regard, especially compared to "The Steel Man", which, when you adapt to inflation, seems to be a bigger film than Gun film.

Even before the Jameseshei Gun film debut, there was quite a bit of speculation about Whether Superman could coincide with Zac Snyder's effort for 2013 "Steel Man". It was understandable because Perners and DC suffered a drastic overhaul that resulted in the closure of the expanded DC universe, or Saiders as it became known, and the beginning of Gunn's new DC universe. But if the new DC Studios co-chief couldn't make a Superman movie that made Snyder's debut efforts, it will surely get up, "what do we even do here?" On the other hand, "steel man" came out 12 years before Gun's Superman, so comparing box office earnings will always be brazen when factoring in inflation and the general state of movement in 2025.

However, the comparisons were always inevitable, especially since Snyder took over Superman launched the current DCE, and Gun's film did the same for the newlywed. "The Man of Steel" led by Henry Cavill ended with the opening of $ 116.9 million and ended his treasurer with $ 668 million worldwide. It was against a huge budget of $ 225 million - the same amount spent by Werners on Gun 2025.

When Superman hit theaters on July 11, 2025, climbed to $ 125 million openingSlightly outdoors "steel man". But when the inflation account, the "steel man" jumps from the opening of $ 116.6 million on a $ 160.5 million debut in today's conditions. Also, its global $ 670.1 million box office would be tailored $ 924.55 million for inflation. While Gun's "Superman" certainly saw great success for the global treasurerWith a $ 614 million final report, it seems not as a big movie about Werners as Zack Snyder's 2013 efforts, especially when you adapt to inflation.

But on the basis of recent reports, Gun's film seems to have actually been more profitable than its predecessor. How? Well, explaining that a quick excursion in the dark swamp is a Hollywood accounting.

DiversityThe claim that Superman made a $ 125m profit has yet to be confirmed by Warners, but given the film needed to make about $ 500 million to break even (unless marketing was huge) and ended with $ 614 million, mathematics is still checked - especially when the factor is still checked. However, we do not know how much the studio has spent marketing on the film, and given that these costs of "print and advertising" can sometimes take up to half of the film's budget, Superman may have cost Warner Bros. somewhere in the $ 325 million range.

But let's say that the number of Variety is correct, how can the film make something less than "steel man" more profitable? The deadlineThe claim that Zack Snyder's film eventually made $ 42.7 million for Warner Bros. also included a calculation that the last spending was actually closer to $ 258 million plus an additional $ 58 million paid to multiple contributors by producers Christopher Nolan and Jonon Peters. Adams, manufacturers of comics. All this is thought to have contributed to the "steel man" more than it advertised and eventually making a relatively less "Superman" in terms of net profit.

That, he said, remains something mystery How actually works the treasurerGiven the uncertain accounting practices of these study. Often, companies will do everything they can to reduce the net profit to ensure that they do not have to pay debris, including paying their own marketing and distribution costs to increase film costs without increasing their costs. It is part of the reason why Crushing box office, such as "Batman", probably never made a profit (though much of it was reduced to an absolutely crazy Jackack's back end). As such, these profit claims should always be taken with grain salt, especially with Warner Bros.. So far, of course, Gun's Chinese universe seems to be a strong start.