Hollywood can't get out of its own way.

For most of the last decade, the entertainment industry has worked extremely hard to alienate large numbers of potential customers. A confusing business strategy for a business facing increased levels of competition from social media, apps like TikTok, or "content creation" platforms like YouTube.

But Hollywood has been dedicated to infusing politics into its movies at every opportunity, including into superhero movies and films targeted to children. That trend only picked up starting in 2020, particularly with Disney and Marvel Studios. It backfired, and films like "Lightyear," "The Marvels" and "Snow White" lost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

Just this month, the cinematic reboot of the Star Wars universe, "The Mandalorian and Grogu," became yet another box-office disappointment. But it's not just Disney that's lost the benefit of the doubt with some moviegoers.

STAR WARS FRANCHISE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE AS 'THE MANDALORIAN AND GROGU' DISAPPOINTS IN OPENING BOX OFFICE

DC Studios, housed at Warner Bros. Pictures, has tried to revamp its film and release strategies under the direction of James Gunn. Gunn, who was responsible for the "Guardians of the Galaxy" series, joined DC in 2022. His first big movie, made to jump-start the new DC direction, was 2025's "Superman." While not exactly a flop, it was a box-office disappointment. And Gunn himself may have been partially to blame.

Though the film avoided politics almost entirely, for some inexplicable reason, Gunn himself brought it up in pre-release promotional interviews.

"Yes, it’s about politics," Gunn explained in a story from The Times of London. "But on another level, it’s about morality.

FILMMAKER POLITICIZES HIS UPCOMING 'SUPERMAN' MOVIE, SAYS BLOODIED SUPERMAN REPRESENTS 'OUR COUNTRY'

"I mean, ‘Superman’ is the story of America – an immigrant that came from other places and populated the country," he continued. "But for me, it is mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost."

"It’s about human kindness, and obviously, there will be jerks out there who are just not kind and will take it as offensive just because it is about kindness. But screw them," he concluded.

Sure enough, "Superman" brought in substantially less money, before and after adjusting for inflation, than "Man of Steel." And pre-release tracking for the latest entry in Gunn's new DC Studios series, "Supergirl," is tracking to do substantially worse.

"Supergirl" hits theaters on June 26 in the U.S., and star Milly Alcock seems to have made it her mission to be as divisive as possible. In March, Alcock gave an interview claiming she's been the target of criticism for "simply existing as a woman" in a superhero movie.

"It definitely made me aware that simply existing as a woman in that space is something that people comment on," she told Vanity Fair. "We have become very comfortable having this weird ownership of women’s bodies. I can’t really stop them. I can only be myself." 

Then, when receiving criticism for the absurd remark, she doubled down in a recent Variety interview entitled "Milly Alcock's Supergirl Interview: Sexism, Superheroes, and More."

"I didn’t even say ‘men’ — I said ‘people!’" she said. "And they got so angry. I was like, ‘You’re proving my point. You’re proving my point!’"

She also claimed she's "pi***** off" the right people, including those who identify as a "Christian" and "Dad."

"And it’s from a lot of people whose profiles have no photo, who are burner accounts," Alcock said. "Or someone’s name and then ‘Dad of four, Christian,’ which is hilarious to me."

Well, based on how the film is tracking, "Supergirl" is about to prove the point many Hollywood critics are making: they don't know what they're doing and keep making the same predictable mistakes.

Latest estimates from Box Office Theory put the film's opening weekend between $47 million and $65 million, which would be, to put it mildly, a disaster. Production costs were estimated at around $175 million, with marketing likely to exceed $75 million. Given the traditional 50/50 split between studios and theaters, that's a break-even point of $500 million at the domestic box office.

ZERO BS. JUST DAKICH. TAKE THE DON'T @ ME PODCAST ON THE ROAD. DOWNLOAD NOW!

Even if it gets near the top of that range, say, $60 million, the likelihood of reaching $500 million worldwide is virtually zero. It's not a one for one comparison, but "Superman" opened to $125 million domestically, and finished its theatrical run with $618 million. If "Supergirl" can't clear half that opening weekend, it doesn't bode well for its chances of even reaching $400 million globally. Which would likely mean substantial financial losses.

But even that buries the lede. Simply reaching profitability in theaters is one thing. But Gunn has yet to show that DC Studios under his leadership is capable of producing the type of film that grabs interest in a broader "cinematic universe." The "cinematic universe" model that made Marvel into the dominant comic book production house.

There's little reason to expect that "Supergirl" will change that. From Alcock's remarks, to the underwhelming trailers, to Gunn's attitude toward fans, nothing about DC is moving in the right direction. And once again, it's their own fault. All they have to do to promote a movie is talk about how good they think it is. How great a story it has. Or how exceptional the performances are. Instead, they've done nothing but accuse potential customers of unacceptable behavior, made divisive remarks, and made an entire movie's promotional campaign about their own views and insecurities.

No wonder they keep losing money.