People ask me what I think of James Gunn and Peter Safran's departure (firing) from the DCU. You got me. I'm no Nostradamus, let alone the Phantom Stranger or Sandman, but I suppose I can offer some reflections.
I mean, if Man of Tomorrow does hit big at the box office, Superman 2025's thread could continue. On the other hand, by the time Man of Tomorrow premieres, everyone under the sun will know Gunn and Safran have skipped town, which may give some cause to ignore a cinema visit to a saga that won't proceed. (Perhaps that's a reason why The Flash, Aquaman 2 and Blue Beetle fizzled at the box office.)
I believe that DC (as it now stands in the Paramount/WB pool) should stick to exploratory pieces. If the movies should be one-shots, so be it. Clayface, for example, may be the most obvious case in point: an unintentional trendsetter, in that regard, though Matt Reeves' Batman continuation would go against the trend. Even so, its Serpico-steered content seems confined to its own noir-ish niche. (As for Lanterns: Season 2, Peacemaker: Season 3, The People v. Gorilla Grodd, Jimmy Olsen and Poison Ivy, doom-nation seems the inevitable rule of the day, but time will tell.)
From my perspective, the necessity of shoehorning comic-book elements to build piecemeal franchises (whether for DC or Marvel) has run its course, but the interest in superhero storytelling prevails. A passion for such modern, mythical adventures has existed for decades, whether on the page, the theatrical screen or television. That passion has no choice but to thrive. It's just a matter how, and there's no shame in scaling it back to do it right, no matter who departs or takes charge.
Well, if my two cents doesn't hit the mark, maybe you'd consider good ol' JesterBell's. I find her take on the Gunn/Safran topic most invigorating!







































