Glen Powell has drawn a boundary around one of the entertainment interview circuit’s most reliable detours: politics. The actor says he has little interest in turning press conversations into arguments over current affairs, describing the contemporary discourse as divisive and unhealthy. His preferred focus, he said, is his work rather than public political debate.
That position arrives alongside a more directly movie-business discussion. Powell also addressed a difficult run at the box office following major hits including Top Gun: Maverick, Anyone But You and Twisters. He pointed to the circumstances around the release of Edgar Wright’s The Running Man, which earned less than $70 million worldwide against a reported $110 million production budget, and spoke of insufficient time on A24-backed dark crime comedy How to Make a Killing, which reached $21 million worldwide.
The two topics are different, but they meet at a common reality for a screen star: interviews are expected to carry a lot of weight. They sell the project, define a public persona and can turn a carefully intended conversation about filmmaking into a referendum on everything else. Powell’s remarks suggest a desire to keep that job narrower.
Powell’s case for leaving politics outside the interview
Powell recalled growing up in a household where current events did not dominate the dinner table. As an adult, he says political discussion interests him even less. His objection is not framed as a criticism of people who choose activism; he specifically credited people who fight for their beliefs. Instead, he described politics as an area where people often try to win an argument rather than have a worthwhile conversation.
That distinction matters. Choosing not to discuss politics publicly is not inherently the same thing as declaring that politics has no consequence, or that artists have no right to participate. Powell’s point is more personal: he does not regard it as his calling, and he does not believe the present format of highly visible political discourse is productive for him.
For audiences, it is also a reminder that promotional interviews serve multiple purposes. They can illuminate a film, give viewers context for a performer’s decisions and build anticipation. But the questions asked of actors can extend well beyond the work. There is no universal obligation for a performer to use the platform in exactly the same way as another performer.
A broader recalibration among major stars
Powell is not alone in voicing reluctance about political commentary in public-facing media. Dwayne Johnson previously said he wanted to keep attention on his art, after concluding that his 2020 presidential endorsement contributed to division among his fans. He expressed deep frustration with the constant hostility that surrounds politics.
Jennifer Lawrence has likewise reconsidered the value of giving her views on politics in press settings. Lawrence had spoken forcefully against Donald Trump during his first administration, but later questioned whether celebrity commentary changes voters’ decisions. Her concern was that opinions delivered in a promotional setting could further polarize audiences and distract from art that might otherwise reach people.
Importantly, Lawrence’s position also outlines a different route from public silence. She said political beliefs can be expressed through the projects a person chooses to make. Her production work includes Bread and Roses, about three women in Afghanistan amid the effects of the 2021 Taliban offensive, and the abortion documentary Zurawski v Texas.
That creates a useful distinction between speaking about politics and making politically engaged work. The former often happens through direct interview answers, social posts or endorsements. The latter occurs through subject matter, characters, documentaries and the creative choices made long before a premiere. Neither approach guarantees agreement from audiences, but they are fundamentally different forms of public expression.
‘The Running Man’ and the release-window problem
Powell’s comments on The Running Man were less about creative intent than release conditions. The fall 2025 tentpole was directed by Edgar Wright and arrived while Paramount Pictures was going through a merger. Powell said the company let go of an entire marketing department roughly a month before the film’s theatrical release, referring to layoffs that occurred in late October 2025.
Marketing is not a decorative add-on to a wide theatrical release. It is the campaign that tells prospective viewers a movie exists, clarifies what kind of experience it offers and gives it a reason to matter now rather than later. Trailers, media buys, publicity coordination, promotional partnerships and audience targeting are all part of that broad job. When a film is launching at scale, its marketing operation has to turn awareness into an opening-weekend decision.
That does not mean every movie with a robust campaign will succeed, nor does it establish a single reason for a disappointing result. Box-office performance is shaped by many factors, including audience interest, release timing, competition and the cost of making and promoting a picture. But Powell’s account identifies an obvious practical challenge: a movie may be nearing release precisely as the team responsible for its public-facing rollout is being dismantled or reshaped.
The reported numbers underline why the situation drew attention. The Running Man finished under $70 million worldwide, while its production budget was in the $110 million range. A production budget is the cost of making the movie itself; it is not automatically a complete accounting of every expense connected to release. That makes it a useful benchmark, but not a simple final scorecard. Still, the wide gap between the stated budget range and global ticket sales makes clear why the release has been characterized as a commercial disappointment.
The industry context can be as consequential as the finished film. Corporate upheaval can affect staffing and priorities during the short, high-stakes period when a studio needs unified messaging and momentum. It is one reason movie coverage cannot be reduced to the headline number on a weekend chart. The mechanics behind a release matter as well. That wider production-and-finance ecosystem remains visible in stories such as the California production tax credits awarded to Michael 2: films are creative works, but they also move through complicated business structures before anyone buys a ticket.
What Powell took from ‘How to Make a Killing’
After The Running Man, Powell appeared in How to Make a Killing, an A24-backed dark crime comedy. The film reached $21 million worldwide. Powell said there were many problems and singled out the lack of time needed to do the project properly. Looking back, he said it reinforced the lesson that there is no need to rush.
That is a notably restrained way to assess a setback. Powell did not claim a simple explanation for the film’s performance or present a neat formula for preventing future disappointments. Instead, he focused on preparation and pace. In creative industries, schedules are often treated as immovable because release calendars, financing arrangements and the availability of talent all impose constraints. Yet the question of whether a project has enough time can affect development, production, post-production and its path to viewers.
For an actor coming off a run of crowd-pleasing successes, two lower-grossing films are also a reminder that a career does not move in a straight upward line. Individual titles face different production circumstances, genres and distribution challenges. A hit does not make the next release automatic, just as a disappointing gross does not erase earlier successes or determine what comes next.
The practical takeaway: an interview is not the entire story
Powell’s comments offer two connected lessons about celebrity culture. First, viewers can reasonably care about what public figures say, while also recognizing that not every actor wants to serve as a political commentator. A refusal to make politics part of a promotional conversation is a choice about the role a person wants to play in public life.
Second, the performance of a movie cannot always be read as a clean verdict on one star, director or premise. The state of a studio’s marketing operation, internal corporate changes and production timing can all form part of the backdrop. Those factors do not remove creative accountability, but they do make the usual win-or-flop framing less complete.
Powell’s preferred lane is clear: make the work, discuss the work and avoid treating every press stop as an arena for a national argument. His reflections on two troubled releases point to an equally grounded priority behind the scenes—give the work, and the campaign around it, enough time and support to have a real chance.
