By Paul Swartz - Voice Editor on September 5, 2025
Graphic by Audrey Garcia
When James Gunn’s “Superman” released on July 11, it was to largely positive reviews. Critics and audiences alike praised it for its brilliant villain, its comic book accuracy and its relentless optimism.
Then, as usual, the internet ruined it.
Instead of analyzing the themes, characters, score or anything else that makes a movie a movie, social media turned to the box office production of “Superman.” Expected to end its theatrical run grossing about $610 million, the film was a solid first step for DC, a franchise that needed to restore fans’ trust.
But its predecessor, Zack Snyder’s 2013 film “Man of Steel,” made $670 million.
Of course, fans of DC’s previous attempt at a connected cinematic universe saw this as proof that Snyder’s vision was superior and more loved by fans. Meanwhile, supporters of James Gunn’s version pointed to lower theater turnout than in 2013, claiming that getting to $610 million was more impressive. As someone who thoroughly enjoys both movies, I have one simple question.
Who cares?
If you want to criticize “Man of Steel” for its relative misunderstanding of Superman and its confounding narrative decisions, be my guest. If you want to criticize “Superman” for its poor pacing and inconsistent messaging, I’ll agree with you wholeheartedly. But there is nothing I care less about when it comes to art than how much money it makes.
At a time when great movies are so easy to access, why would you care about how much money something makes? Unless you’re hoping for success so that a talented filmmaker can make more films, judging a movie’s quality based on box office is absurd.
Let’s do an exercise. Paul Thomas Anderson’s 2007 opus “There Will Be Blood” is one of, if not the, best films of the 21st century. 2022’s “Jurassic World: Dominion” is a pathetic attempt at a legacy sequel that ruins many of the franchise’s iconic characters. But “There Will Be Blood” only made $76 million at the box office, while “Jurassic World: Dominion” made over a billion.
Do you see how ridiculous this is?
Bad movies can make a lot of money. Great movies can make very little. “Blade Runner” was a flop. “Fight Club” was a flop. “The Thing,” “The Shawshank Redemption,” hell, even “Citizen Kane” were flops. Classics have underperformed at the box office since the inception of film as a medium. That doesn’t make them any less great.
When you distill art down to a number, you quantify it in a way that isn’t conducive to the expression. We don’t watch movies to donate money to corporations. We do it because they can change perceptions, ideals, even lives.
The best kind of art is the one you want to tell your loved ones to experience for themselves. The best art isn’t corporate. It’s exciting. It’s painful. It’s imperfect, flawed, emotional, irrational, caring, wholesome, loving, personal and so much more. When you forget that in favor of sales, you forget the fundamental reason we create.
We want to let you know that we use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are okay with it.
Money doesn’t maketh masterpieces
When James Gunn’s “Superman” released on July 11, it was to largely positive reviews. Critics and audiences alike praised it for its brilliant villain, its comic book accuracy and its relentless optimism.
Then, as usual, the internet ruined it.
Instead of analyzing the themes, characters, score or anything else that makes a movie a movie, social media turned to the box office production of “Superman.” Expected to end its theatrical run grossing about $610 million, the film was a solid first step for DC, a franchise that needed to restore fans’ trust.
But its predecessor, Zack Snyder’s 2013 film “Man of Steel,” made $670 million.
Of course, fans of DC’s previous attempt at a connected cinematic universe saw this as proof that Snyder’s vision was superior and more loved by fans. Meanwhile, supporters of James Gunn’s version pointed to lower theater turnout than in 2013, claiming that getting to $610 million was more impressive. As someone who thoroughly enjoys both movies, I have one simple question.
Who cares?
If you want to criticize “Man of Steel” for its relative misunderstanding of Superman and its confounding narrative decisions, be my guest. If you want to criticize “Superman” for its poor pacing and inconsistent messaging, I’ll agree with you wholeheartedly. But there is nothing I care less about when it comes to art than how much money it makes.
At a time when great movies are so easy to access, why would you care about how much money something makes? Unless you’re hoping for success so that a talented filmmaker can make more films, judging a movie’s quality based on box office is absurd.
Let’s do an exercise. Paul Thomas Anderson’s 2007 opus “There Will Be Blood” is one of, if not the, best films of the 21st century. 2022’s “Jurassic World: Dominion” is a pathetic attempt at a legacy sequel that ruins many of the franchise’s iconic characters. But “There Will Be Blood” only made $76 million at the box office, while “Jurassic World: Dominion” made over a billion.
Do you see how ridiculous this is?
Bad movies can make a lot of money. Great movies can make very little. “Blade Runner” was a flop. “Fight Club” was a flop. “The Thing,” “The Shawshank Redemption,” hell, even “Citizen Kane” were flops. Classics have underperformed at the box office since the inception of film as a medium. That doesn’t make them any less great.
When you distill art down to a number, you quantify it in a way that isn’t conducive to the expression. We don’t watch movies to donate money to corporations. We do it because they can change perceptions, ideals, even lives.
The best kind of art is the one you want to tell your loved ones to experience for themselves. The best art isn’t corporate. It’s exciting. It’s painful. It’s imperfect, flawed, emotional, irrational, caring, wholesome, loving, personal and so much more. When you forget that in favor of sales, you forget the fundamental reason we create.
The best art is human.
That’s why we love it so much.