Superman (James Gunn, 2025)

[dx23]

I imagine a lot of it will be incidental or brought in without explanation. Guy Green for instance will probably be just a quick scene.

Exactly. One of the questions people get when watching the early Marvel films is where the hell are the rest of the heroes. Gunn gives that to us from the get go. Most of these characters will be cameos or just brief appearances as backdoor pilots for future films and TV shows. Like Hawkeye showing up in Thor, or Howard the Duck in the Guardians of the Galaxy. The main story is Superman vs Lex Luthor. Everyone else is just garnish

[knives]

The new Superman is the real deal. Easily the best theatrical work for him since the Fleischers. You can tell Gunn has thought a lot about these characters as they are all incredibly well fleshed out the second they are on screen. He delivers a weirdly intimate piece that brings to the fore relationships. This is once even represented literally as when Clark and Lois work in their relationship as a fight occurs in the background. I especially loved the characterization of Ma and Pa which is unlike anything I’ve seen before, but makes absolute sense.

I know many were afraid of too many characters, but there’s surprisingly few major roles. There are a lot of great side characters reminding me of how films like New Jack City could feel epic while remaining small. Gunn has a great sense of how to scale roles.

The film also is based around optimism and possibility yet also manages to feature the darkest scene I’ve seen in a major picture in a very long time. It shows how careless, in contrast to squirrel saving Supes, Luthor is and really sobered up the proceedings.

Also Clark joins Lesley Knope in the breakfast for all meals fandom which is the greatest highlight of how he’s a good guy.

[reaky]

This is the most polarised bunch of “I loved it, captured the comics perfectly / What a bunch of scattered crap” reviews I’ve seen for a big marquee feature.

[domino harvey]

Right Wing talking heads are going to have to find a new spin when this makes a lot of money this weekend

[knives]

That reminds me: Michael Ian Black is Ben Shapiro in this which a great example of casting making your point for you.

[domino harvey]

That actually sounds amusing, maybe I’ll watch this one when it’s streaming

[Zot!]

The new Superman is the real deal. Easily the best theatrical work for him since the Fleischers.

I wonder how you feed about Donner's Superman, because being an old fart, that's kind of my measuring stick for movies based on the funny books.

[knives]

I prefer Lester’s take in terms of the Reeves films, but Gunn clearly likes those films as the score refers them abundantly.

[hearthesilence]

The '90s cartoon with Tim Daly and Dana Delany was pretty solid, something that would appeal to longtime Superman followers and be palatable to even those who don't follow comics. The stories were firmly adaptations of pre-existing stories, but the tone and acting was kind of a throwback to old Hollywood in terms of seriousness and frothiness within a "rated G" context. No surprise when the Batman cartoon at that time had done the same, setting a template for the studio to follow, and even the inevitable "World's Finest" crossover carried that spirit pretty well. (Having Clark Kent watch Bruce Wayne sweep Lois Lane off her feet and possibly out of Metropolis was a nice touch.)

[knives]

It’s also a really multifaceted cartoon able to switch between pure grounded drama, Looney Tunes, and everything inbetween from episode to episode while remaining coherent. I’m rewatching this with my wife who’s generally antagonistic to stuff she thinks is too nerdy, but she’s really warmed up to especially liking the two Bizzaro episodes we’ve gotten to.

[willoneill]

Took my 6 and 4 year old boys to Superman yesterday. Overall, I thought it was solid fun, and I liked Gunn's take even if I didn't completely understand every detail (I've never been a comic reader). To that end, in dealing with the 4 year old who was getting a bit restless, I'm wondering if I missed something:

Spoiler

Was the second half of the message to Superman from his birth parents ever definitely shown to be either real or doctored, or is it left ambiguous? If it's doctored, that makes perfect sense as that fits the classic Lex Luthor character. But if it's real ... then that's a pretty fucked up take on Jor-EL and his wife. Again, I've never read a single Superman comic and only watched some of the 90's Dean Cain tv show, so all I know are the Superman movies. I don't remember anything close to take ever being suggested, but maybe there's a comic book storyline that goes into that. And I suppose if it's just supposed to be ambiguous, then that's maybe more material for a future sequel (maybe a more nuanced General Zod take?) Anyway, genuinely curious if I missed a detail.

[knives]

It’s left ambiguous probably to better emphasize its points on the Kents.

[Brian C]

Was it supposed to be ambiguous? I thought the movie tried as hard as it could to definitively tell us it was real. Even Supes himself seems to accept it, and his conversation with Pa Kent late in the film seemed to take it for granted that it was real.

Short of a scene showing us his parents recording it, I'm not sure what more the movie could have done to make it less ambiguous. I don't think there's a single indication in the film of actual in-universe ambiguity.

[hearthesilence]

I haven't seen the movie, but thankfully this is the kind of a movie where it's not hard to find spoilers all over the internet. Re: that message, it's no surprise to me because IIRC that was always a big part of the modern day Superman story, the one redefined by John Byrne in the '80s (around the character's 50th anniversary). In the very first issue that relaunched Superman, before they even send him to Earth, his parents are blunt about how they feel about the planet and humankind (accompanied by a glimpse of farm life that horrifies his mother), and the whole backstory of the new character, "the Eradicator," that was introduced by John Byrne wasn't exactly subtle.

[domino harvey]

and the whole backstory of the new character, "the Eradicator," that was introduced by John Byrne wasn't exactly subtle.

This is now my favorite comic book adaptation

[hearthesilence]

I can see Gunn throwing that into a future sequel as an in-joke.

[knives]

Was it supposed to be ambiguous? I thought the movie tried as hard as it could to definitively tell us it was real. Even Supes himself seems to accept it, and his conversation with Pa Kent late in the film seemed to take it for granted that it was real.

Short of a scene showing us his parents recording it, I'm not sure what more the movie could have done to make it less ambiguous. I don't think there's a single indication in the film of actual in-universe ambiguity.

To clarify which I was saying I don’t think the characters treat the footage with ambiguity but I thought the film eye treated it with ambiguity for how much Luthor manipulated things.

[jbeall]

Thoroughly enjoyed the new Superman. I'm not a big comics fan (nothing against them; I just don't have time to read them), but as someone who's not up to speed on the lore, I really appreciated that a) Gunn didn't bother to tell Supes's origin story again, b) didn't bother to spend a lot of time introducing the secondary heroes, and c) had a problematic "foster situation" central to the narrative.

The last point is obviously a personal thing; my wife and I have fostered ~45 dogs over the past dozen years, some easier than others, so I'm used to dogs that appear cute but are (maybe?) well-intentioned pests.

Hoult is easily my favorite Luthor. That's no knock on Gene Hackman, but his role was always more comic relief, and Hoult's Luthor, an obnoxious tech-bro to the core, is freaking loathsome, the kind of villain you legit want seriously bad things to happen to beyond mere incarceration.

Anywhoo, a lot of fun. I would love it if future comic-book superhero franchise reboots dispense with origin stories and just get down to business.

[Matt]

I would love it if future comic-book superhero franchise reboots dispense with origin stories and just get down to business.

This seems like the best thing to happen to superhero movies in the last several years. So many superhero movies belabored heavily emotional origin stories, and then Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse just breezily yadda-yadda-yadda-ed its multiple heroes' origin stories. I hear the new Fantastic Four movie does something similar by not spending half the movie getting them into space to be exposed to cosmic rays. Let people go to Wikipedia if they need to learn origin stories and just let us have fun!

James Gunn:

“There are three things I don’t ever need to see again in a superhero movie,” says Gunn, an amicable, booming, bullish 58-year-old who gets to the point. “I don’t need to see pearls in a back alley when Batman’s parents are killed. I don’t need to see the radioactive spider biting Spider-Man. And I don’t need to see baby Kal coming from Krypton in a little baby rocket. We have watched a million movies with characters who don’t have their upbringing explained, like when we see Good Night, and Good Luck we don’t need to know the early life of Edward R Murrow to explain how he became a journalist. Who cares?”

[swo17]

Counterpoint: If Edward R. Murrow had been born on another planet, I might want to know that

[Matt]

I didn't realize that DC was making a Supergirl film, but the trailer for it will be released tomorrow. Directed by Craig Gillespie. I generally liked Cruella, so this might be halfway decent.

[jazzo]

It’s based on a terrific standalone Supergirl story, Woman of Tomorrow, by Tom King and Bilquis Evely, and it’s kind of like a grand coming of age space opera. Think John Carter of Mars but with tears.

I didn’t love Gunn’s picture, but I also didn’t hate it. I’m hoping this one works a bit better for me. Because it’s all about me, don’t y’know.