warner bros

A year after tech firm OpenAI roiled Hollywood with the release of its Sora AI video tool, Chief Executive Sam Altman was back — with a potentially groundbreaking update.

Unlike the generic images Sora could initially create, the new program allows users to upload videos of real people and put them into AI-generated environments, complete with sound effects and dialogue.

In one video, a synthetic Michael Jackson takes a selfie video with an image of “Breaking Bad” star Bryan Cranston. In another, a likeness of SpongeBob SquarePants speaks out from behind the White House’s Oval Office desk.

“Excited to launch Sora 2!” Altman wrote on social media platform X on Sept. 30. “Video models have come a long way; this is a tremendous research achievement.”

But the enthusiasm wasn’t shared in Hollywood, where the new AI tools have created a swift backlash. At the core of the dispute is who controls the copyrighted images and likenesses of actors and licensed characters — and how much they should be compensated for their use in AI models.

The Motion Picture Assn. trade group didn’t mince words.

“OpenAI needs to take immediate and decisive action to address this issue,” Chairman Charles Rivkin said in a statement Monday. “Well-established copyright law safeguards the rights of creators and applies here.”

By the end of the week, multiple agencies and unions, including SAG-AFTRA, chimed in with similar statements, marking a rare moment of consensus in Hollywood and putting OpenAI on the defensive.

“We’re engaging directly with studios and rightsholders, listening to feedback, and learning from how people are using Sora 2,” Varun Shetty, OpenAI’s vice president of media partnerships, said in a statement. “Many are creating original videos and excited about interacting with their favorite characters, which we see as an opportunity for rightsholders to connect with fans and share in that creativity.”

For now, the skirmish between well-capitalized OpenAI and the major Hollywood studios and agencies appears to be only just the beginning of a bruising legal fight that could shape the future of AI use in the entertainment business.

“The question is less about if the studios will try to assert themselves, but when and how,” said Anthony Glukhov, senior associate at law firm Ramo, of the clash between Silicon Valley and Hollywood over AI. “They can posture all they want; but at the end of the day, there’s going to be two titans battling it out.”

Before it became the focus of ire in the creative community, OpenAI quietly tried to make inroads into the film and TV business.

The company’s executives went on a charm offensive last year. They reached out to key players in the entertainment industry — including Walt Disney Co. — about potential areas for collaboration and trying to assuage concerns about its technology.

This year, the San Francisco-based AI startup took a more assertive approach.

Before unveiling Sora 2 to the general public, OpenAI executives had conversations with some studios and talent agencies, putting them on notice that they need to explicitly declare which pieces of intellectual property — including licensed characters — were being opted-out of having their likeness depicted on the AI platform, according to two sources familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment. Actors would be included in Sora 2 unless they opted out, the people said.

OpenAI disputes the claim and says that it was always the company’s intent to give actors and other public figures control over how their likeness is used.

The response was immediate.

Beverly Hills talent agency WME, which represents stars such as Michael B. Jordan and Oprah Winfrey, told OpenAI its actions were unacceptable, and that all of its clients would be opting out.

Creative Artists Agency and United Talent Agency also argued that their clients had the right to control and be compensated for their likenesses.

Studios, including Warner Bros., echoed the point.

“Decades of enforceable copyright law establishes that content owners do not need to ‘opt out’ to prevent infringing uses of their protected IP,” Warner Bros. Discovery said in a statement. “As technology progresses and platforms advance, the traditional principles of copyright protection do not change.”

Unions, including SAG-AFTRA — whose members were already alarmed over the recent appearance of a fake, AI-generated composite named Tilly Norwood — also expressed alarm.

“OpenAI’s decision to honor copyright only through an ‘opt-out’ model threatens the economic foundation of our entire industry and underscores the stakes in the litigation currently working through the courts,” newly elected President Sean Astin and National Executive Director Duncan Crabtree-Ireland said in a statement.

The dispute underscores a clash of two very different cultures. On one side is the brash, Silicon Valley “move fast and break things” ethos, where asking for forgiveness is seen as preferable to asking for permission. On the other is Hollywood’s eternal wariness over the effect of new technology, and its desire to retain control over increasingly valuable intellectual property rights.

“The difficulty, as we’ve seen, is balancing the capabilities with the prior rights owned by other people,” said Rob Rosenberg, a partner with law firm Moses and Singer LLP and a former Showtime Networks general counsel. “That’s what was driving the entire entertainment industry bonkers.”

Amid the outcry, Sam Altman posted on his blog days after the Sora 2 launch that the company would be giving more granular controls to rights holders and is working on a way to compensate them for video generation.

OpenAI said it has guardrails to block the generation of well-known characters and a team of reviewers who are taking down material that doesn’t follow its updated policy. Rights holders can also request removal of content.

The strong pushback from the creative community could be a strategy to force OpenAI into entering licensing agreements for the content they need, legal experts said.

Existing law is clear — a copyright holder has full control over their copyrighted material, said Ray Seilie, entertainment litigator at law firm Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir.

“It’s not your job to go around and tell other people to stop using it,” he said. “If they use it, they use it at their own risk.”

Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. Discovery have previously sued AI firms MiniMax and Midjourney, accusing them of copyright infringement.

One challenge is figuring out a way that fairly compensates talent and rights holders. Several people who work within the entertainment industry ecosystem said they don’t believe a flat fee works.

“Bring monetization that is not a one size fits all,” said Dan Neely, chief executive of Chicago-based Vermillio, which works with Hollywood talent and studios and protects how their likenesses and characters are used in AI. “That’s what will move the needle for talent and studios.”

Visiting journalist Nilesh Christopher contributed to this report.

Warner Bros. said Wednesday it will renew the contract for studio heads Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy after the two orchestrated a string of back-to-back hits at the box office.

The news is a notable reversal of fortune for the co-chairs and co-chief executives of Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group.

Only six months ago, the pair was on thin ice after a series of underperforming films, including Bong Joon Ho’s sci-fi thriller “Mickey 17” and the Robert De Niro-led mob movie “The Alto Knights.”

But the studio’s prospects dramatically changed in April with the release of “A Minecraft Movie,” which hauled in nearly $958 million worldwide. Shortly after, Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners” became a lasting hit at the box office, followed by “Final Destination Bloodlines,” “F1 The Movie” (which Warner Bros. distributed), James Gunn’s “Superman,” horror flick “Weapons” and the final installment of “The Conjuring.”

The studio recently released the Paul Thomas Anderson film “One Battle After Another,” which stars Leonardo DiCaprio, that is generating awards buzz and has so far grossed $106 million in global ticket sales.

In a memo to staff Wednesday, Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav credited Abdy and De Luca for the improved performance at the box office.

He touted the studio’s “balanced” slate with big blockbusters, films based on established intellectual property, horror movies and original works.

“Mike and Pam’s unwavering leadership and commitment to this business has been critical to our success this year,” he wrote. “We have a lot to be grateful for and much to celebrate including several of this year’s best reviewed movies, many of which have pierced the culture zeitgeist in profound ways while also delighting moviegoers around the world.”

Warner Bros. recently surpassed $4 billion at the global box office, the first time it has done so since 2019 and the first studio to reach this mark this year.

“We have the privilege to do this job because of the support and trust [Zaslav] has put in us, and in all of you,” De Luca and Abdy said in an internal note to employees. “We could not be more excited to be leading this team as we introduce an exciting slate of films in the coming years and continue making every film experience an event worthy of the Warner Bros. shield.”

Leonardo DiCaprio can still draw audiences to movie theaters.

His latest film, “One Battle After Another,” landed in the top spot at the box office this weekend, hauling in $22.4 million in the U.S. and Canada. Globally, the film made $48.5 million in its opening weekend. Industry analyst estimates had pegged the film’s debut at $20 million to $25 million, though some had predicted $30 million or more. Studio sources expected the film to bring in $20 million in its domestic opening.

Written and directed by auteur filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson, “One Battle After Another” tells the story of a one-time revolutionary, played by DiCaprio, who must band together with old friends and community members to rescue his daughter from a former enemy. The film, which is loosely based on a Thomas Pynchon novel, also stars Sean Penn, Teyana Taylor, Benicio Del Toro and Regina Hall. Its budget was $130 million.

“One Battle After Another” had strong interest from Hollywood cinephiles, but there were questions about whether it would connect with more casual moviegoers, particularly since early marketing was more ambiguous about its genre. In addition, adult dramas have not performed at the box office as they did before the pandemic, as older audiences have been slower to return to theaters. Fans of DiCaprio, who may have followed his career since his turn in 1997’s “Titanic,” fall into that group.

But the film notched a solid 98% approval rating on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes and has benefited from buzz about its awards potential.

“One Battle After Another” marks the latest win for Warner Bros. The studio has had a string of success at the theaters starting with April’s “A Minecraft Movie,” which has grossed a total of $957 million. That streak continued with Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners,” James Gunn’s “Superman,” Zach Cregger’s “Weapons,” and the latest installments of franchises like “The Conjuring” and “Final Destination.” It’s been a remarkable turnaround for the studio and its film chiefs Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy, who earlier this year were reportedly on the hot seat for under-performing films.

At that time, “One Battle After Another” was seen as an especially risky bet for De Luca and Abdy, but the success of the rest of the year’s lineup has reduced the pressure on this film, said Shawn Robbins, director of movie analytics at Fandango and founder of site Box Office Theory.

“They’re in an envious position right now because they don’t need this movie to over-perform,” he said. “‘One Battle After Another’ is a little bit of a cherry on top.”

“Gabby’s Dollhouse” came in second place at the box office this weekend, grossing $13.5 million. “Demon Slayer,” “The Conjuring: Last Rites” and “The Strangers: Chapter 2” rounded out the top five.

James Gunn’s “Superman” soared to the top of the box office this weekend, giving Warner Bros.’s DC Studios much-needed momentum in the superhero genre after a string of underperforming movies.

“Superman,” which stars David Corenswet as the Man of Steel, hauled in a robust $122 million in the U.S. and Canada. Globally, “Superman” brought in a total of $217 million.

The movie was a big swing for Burbank-based Warner Bros. and DC, costing an estimated $225 million to produce, not including substantial spending on a global marketing campaign.

“Superman” benefited from mostly positive critics reviews — the movie notched a 82% approval rating on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. Moviegoers liked it too, indicated by an “A-” grade from polling firm CinemaScore and a 93% positive audience rating from Rotten Tomatoes.

The performance for “Superman” fell short of expectations from some analysts, who had projected an opening weekend of $130 million. Industry observers attributed that to heavy competition from other blockbusters, including Universal’s “Jurassic World Rebirth” and Apple and Warner Bros.’ “F1 The Movie.”

Shortly before its release, “Superman” came under fire from right-wing commentators, who criticized comments Gunn made to the Times of London about how Superman (created by a Jewish writer-artist team in the late 1930s) is an immigrant and that he is “the story of America.”

“If there’s any softness here, it’s overseas,” said industry analyst and consultant David A. Gross in his FranchiseRe newsletter, after describing the domestic opening as “outstanding” for a longrunning superhero franchise.

The movie generated $95 million outside the U.S. and Canada.

Analysts had raised questions about whether Superman’s reputation for earnestly promoting truth, justice and the American way would still appeal to a global audience, particularly as other countries have bristled at the U.S. tariff and trade policies enacted by President Trump.

“Superman has always been identified as a quintessentially American character and story, and in some parts of the world, America is currently not enjoying its greatest popularity,” Gross said.

The movie’s overall success is key to a planned reboot and refresh of the DC universe. Gunn and producer Peter Safran were named co-chairmen and co-chief executives of DC Studios in 2022 to help turn around the Warner Bros.-owned superhero brand after a years-long rough patch.

While 2013’s “Man of Steel,” directed by Zack Snyder, and 2016’s “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” each achieved substantial box office hauls, they did not receive overwhelmingly positive reviews. 2017’s “Justice League,” which was intended to be DC’s version of Marvel Studios’ “Avengers,” was a critical and commercial disaster for the studio.

More recently, films focused on other DC characters such as 2023’s “Shazam! Fury of the Gods,” “The Flash” and last year’s “Joker: Folie à Deux” struggled at the box office.

With Gunn and Safran at the helm, the pair are now tasked with creating a cohesive vision and framework for its superhero universe, not unlike its rival Marvel, which has long consolidated control under president Kevin Feige (though its films and shows are handled by different directors).

Starting the new DC epoch with Superman also presented its own unique challenges. Though he is one of the most recognizable superheroes in the world, Superman’s film track record has been a roller coaster. Alternatively sincere, campy or gritty, the Man of Steel has been difficult for filmmakers and producers to strike the right tone.

Gunn’s version of “Superman” — still mostly sincere but a touch of the filmmaker’s signature goofy humor — worked for critics and audiences. It was a tall order, considering some fans still hold Richard Donner’s 1978 “Superman,” starring Christopher Reeve, as the gold standard.

“Pinning down ‘Superman’ has been a challenge,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Comscore. “It’s been like Kryptonite for years for many filmmakers and producers to get it right.”

“Superman” bumped “Jurassic World Rebirth” to second place, where it collected $38.8 million domestically over the weekend for a total of $231 million so far. “F1,” Universal’s “How to Train Your Dragon” and Disney-Pixar’s “Elio” rounded out the top five at the box office this weekend.

Later this month, another major superhero movie will enter the summer blockbuster marketplace: “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” from Walt Disney Co.-owned Marvel Studios.

He can outrun a train, hold up a collapsing tower on a fiery oil rig and fly around the world to turn back time. But Superman’s greatest challenge might just be saving the DC film franchise.

The Warner Bros.-owned superhero brand — one of Hollywood’s most important — has hit a rough patch in recent years.

Films such as 2023’s “Shazam! Fury of the Gods,” “The Flash” and last year’s “Joker: Folie à Deux” struggled at the box office. Despite owning a lucrative stable of well-known superheroes like Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman, the studio has failed to become a consistent competitor to Walt Disney Co.‘s Marvel Studios.

Now under the new leadership of filmmaker-producer pair James Gunn and Peter Safran, DC Studios is counting on its new “Superman” film, hitting theaters Thursday, to revive not only the Man of Steel series but the entire DC universe.

Choosing the flying Kryptonian refugee to kick-start DC’s new era was a risky bet for Gunn, who wrote and directed the new film.

Although Superman is recognizable all over the world, his aw-shucks demeanor and nearly limitless superpowers have made him a tough character to make relevant to today’s audiences. His global reputation, as an overgrown godlike Boy Scout spouting American ideals, for years made him less hip for modern viewers than his brooding billionaire vigilante counterpoint, Batman.

“DC has been playing catch-up with Marvel,” said Arlen Schumer, a comic book and pop culture historian. “They’ve given James Gunn the keys to the DC kingdom and said, ‘You’ve got to restore Superman. He’s our greatest icon, but nobody knows what to do with him. We think you know what to do with him.’”

“Superman” is expected to gross $130 million to $140 million in the U.S. and Canada in its opening weekend on a reported budget of about $225 million, according to analyst estimates. The movie received an 85% approval rating on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. (Times critic Amy Nicholson said it wasn’t “quite the heart-soaring ‘Superman’ I wanted,” but enough to be “curious to explore where the saga takes him next.”)

Gunn’s efforts on “Superman” faced intense scrutiny online almost from the moment he started working on it. Fans and critics have picked apart the trailers, grousing about the heavy screen time for Krypto the Superdog (inspired by Gunn’s own dog, who is also a foot biter), or how actor David Corenswet, who plays the iconic superhero, is a relative unknown.

Warner Bros. itself is counting on “Superman” to continue a box office rebound stemming from a string of hits including “A Minecraft Movie,” “Sinners,” “Final Destination Bloodlines” and “F1.”

Shortly before its release, “Superman” came under fire from right-wing commentators, who criticized comments Gunn made to the Times of London about how Superman (created by a Jewish writer-artist team in the late 1930s) is an immigrant and that he is “the story of America.” He’s an alien from the planet Krypton, after all.

“I think this is a movie about kindness,” Gunn told Variety on Monday at the film’s Hollywood premiere in response to the backlash. “And I think that’s something everyone can relate to.”

That appeal is what Warner Bros. and DC Studios are counting on.

“You need a track record of success to build a brand,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Comscore. “This is a monumental moment for DC with one of their biggest characters of all time and that’s very important to the box office, to the future of DC and to the perception of DC as a brand.”

DC Studios did not respond to requests for comment.

Superman returns

This summer’s Gunn-directed “Superman” is the first stand-alone film about the famous hero in more than a decade, following a history of dramatic ups and downs.

The 2013 blockbuster “Man of Steel,” directed by Zack Snyder and starring Henry Cavill, introduced a grittier, darker tone to the superhero’s story, including Superman’s controversial neck-snapping kill of a villain. “Man of Steel” received mixed reviews from critics, though it hauled in about $670 million in global box office revenue.

That was followed by 2016’s “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” with Cavill returning and Ben Affleck as Batman, which was panned by critics but made more than $874 million worldwide. Then came the even more reviled “Justice League” the following year, both a critical and commercial disaster for the studio. Ironically, Cavill’s portrayal of Superman was reclaimed by an unruly online fan base demanding that Warner Bros. #ReleaseTheSnyderCut, which it eventually did.

For many, the gold standard of Superman films was 1978’s “Superman,” starring Christopher Reeve and directed by Richard Donner.

Schumer remembers watching the sweeping wheatfield scene when Clark Kent says goodbye to his adoptive mother after his father’s death and embarks on his journey to learn who he truly is. Schumer marveled at the camera sweeping from the golden fields to the blue sky, symbolizing the fledgling Superman’s look toward the future. He ended up seeing the movie 10 times in theaters.

While 1980’s “Superman II” was still well-received, the third and fourth installments of the franchise “went off the rails” and became “campy,” Schumer said.

Unlike Marvel, which centralized control under president Kevin Feige, DC and Warner Bros. for years allowed Snyder’s vision to determine the direction of the film universe. Batman, on the other hand, has been successfully molded by multiple filmmakers (e.g. Christopher Nolan, Snyder and Matt Reeves), allowing new aspects of the character to shine through, Schumer said.

“DC Comics, [Superman] is your flagship property, but they’ve often never really treated it like their flagship property,” he said. “This affected the way DC made movies, versus Marvel.”

The studio has also been criticized for its lack of a cohesive vision and framework for its superhero universe, analysts said. The studio allowed its intellectual property to be splintered into parallel storylines, which became chaotic.

It’s why Gunn and Safran were installed as co-chairmen and co-chief executives of DC Studios in 2022.

Gunn seemed a surprising choice to co-run DC Studios. He started as a screenwriter at indie production house Troma Entertainment — known for B horror pictures — and eventually achieved global success in the superhero genre by directing Marvel’s “Guardians of the Galaxy,” beloved for its irreverent humor. He also had experience with DC, directing 2021’s “The Suicide Squad.”

With the pair at the helm, the goal was to standardize the superhero universe and kick-start a new epoch for the studio. “Superman” is intended to lead off for several upcoming DC movies, including “Supergirl,” starring Milly Alcock, “Clayface,” and “Dynamic Duo” about the Robins — Batman sidekicks Dick Grayson and Jason Todd.

“It’s a table setter,” said Shawn Robbins, director of movie analytics at Fandango and founder of site Box Office Theory. “It’s really intended to be the launching of an entirely new era for DC movies and where that might lead.”

Selling an American hero

But while Superman has generated toy sales, animated series and multiple movies, the character is hard to get right.

Schumer remembers how audiences laughed when Reeve’s Superman tells a scoffing Lois Lane that he was fighting for truth, justice and the American way in the 1978 film, at a time when America was reeling from the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War.

“This idea of truth, justice and the American way was deemed, even back then, hokey,” Schumer said. “And in a sense, it kind of still is.”

From the beginning, Superman has been a quintessential American immigrant story.

Two sons of Jewish immigrants, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, introduced the superhero in 1938 in “Action Comics #1,” which told the tale of the alien, eventually known as Kal-El, who was sent to Earth to escape his dying planet. The comic was “an overnight smash success” that helped launch the comic book medium and the idea of the superhero, Schumer said.

In later stories, Superman’s Midwestern upbringing in Smallville, Kansas and his eventual move to the big city of Metropolis also mirrored the journeys many Americans were making during that time.

But today, there’s questions about whether Superman’s strong American symbolism will be a turnoff for global audiences, who have recently bristled at tariffs and trade policies enacted by President Trump.

“That assumption of Superman being a challenging character in some territories is a legitimate factor,” Robbins said. “What it’s going to come down to is the movie itself and how well it connects with international audiences.”

One advantage: The film snagged a coveted Imax slot — which can boost box office revenue and make a film more of an “event.”

The movie also comes as the once white-hot market for superhero films has cooled, both domestically and abroad. Even Marvel has recently seen lower box office results for its films — despite critical praise, “Thunderbolts*” grossed about $382 million worldwide on a budget of $180 million, paling in comparison to past films.

The potential for “Superman” overseas earnings could be big. Forecasts from entertainment industry analytics firm Cinelytic based on publicly available data found that “Superman” could make about $531 million in global box office revenue, with the top four most likely international markets in Britain, Germany, France and Australia.

Gunn brushed off questions about Superman’s archetypal American symbolism, telling the Times of London in an interview that his own market research found that international audiences viewed the Man of Steel as a global figure.

“He is a hero for the world,” he said in the interview.

But Superman has long-suffered from his lack of flaws and inability to really examine the American ideals he represents, said Annika Hagley, associate dean of the school of social and natural sciences at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island, who teaches a course on superheroes and politics.

Over time, Superman’s advocacy of America has remained constant, despite the evolving perception of the U.S. both at home and abroad, she said. That’s in contrast to his Marvel counterpart, the seemingly U.S.-centric Captain America, who evolved from fighting Nazis during World War II to questioning the morality of government surveillance, Hagley said.

While Superman’s immigrant backstory could lend itself to complex narratives about the treatment of newcomers in the U.S., DC has so far failed to evolve his story to address those questions, she said. He did, however, change his motto to the more borderless “truth, justice and a better tomorrow” in recent years.

As an immigrant in a post-9/11 era, “Superman is a security threat, but he’s also boring,” she said. “They’ve tried to make him less American, they tried to make him more alienated and it just hasn’t hit home for an audience in the way that the Marvel characters have.”

Gunn’s “Superman” does touch on America’s role in geopolitics. In a recent trailer for the film, Rachel Brosnahan’s Lois Lane interviews Corenswet’s Superman, questioning whether his involvement in a foreign country’s conflict and “seemingly acting as a representative of the United States will cause more problems around the world.”

“I wasn’t representing anybody except for me,” he interjects. “And doing good.”