Superman | July 11, 2025 | James Gunn writing and directing | David Corenswet is Clark, Rachel Brosnahan is Lois

[excel1]

7 hours ago, John Marston said:

It was definitely a mistake to make BvS next and not just make a MOS sequel with some course correction. BVS definitely is very flawed and with a huge miscasting (Jesse Eisenberg) and is definitely the film responsible for this universe not really being able to take off. I really liked ZSJL though and thought it was a nice redemption. I am sad this universe overall didn't work and I understand the need to reboot. I am not that interested in James Gunn's likely approach though (he will probably make DC feel like Marvel 2.0 in tone and feel and that just doesn't appeal to me) but I am happy for the fans who are looking forward to it and will likely love it 

 

After the boring, glum, gloomy but emotionally engaging SUPERMAN RETURNS and the bizarre, electrifying, nonsensical MAN OF STEEL series....frankly, all I want from SUPERMAN LEGACY is something in vain of Raimi's first Spider-man film or the Captain America film. Please forego the "WHAT IF GOD WALKED AMONG?!?!" shit and just go back to the basics.

 

 

[poweranimals]

My biggest issue with Superman Returns was that I felt like they should've just started fresh as opposed to vaguely connecting it to the Reeves movies. I know people were annoyed with the smaller scale but that didn't bother me so much as the sequel was going to give us Brainiac and then instead we got Man of Steel and they decided to recycle Zod instead. 🙄 No hate on Man of Steel though. Movie had its issues but it was better than Superman Returns.

Edited May 8, 2023 by poweranimals

[cax16]

 

[WittyUsername]

Superman Returns was too focused on being like the Christopher Reeve films. It was almost like a proto-nostalgia sequel, except that they obviously couldn’t bring back Reeve himself. Man of Steel tried to modernize the character and make him relevant again by following the Batman Begins template, but even in that case, it still borrowed a few things from the first two Superman movies. 
 

What this movie really needs to do is forge its own identity. Be its own thing, while still feeling like Superman. 

[excel1]

4 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

Superman Returns was too focused on being like the Christopher Reeve films. It was almost like a proto-nostalgia sequel, except that they obviously couldn’t bring back Reeve himself. Man of Steel tried to modernize the character and make him relevant again by following the Batman Begins template, but even in that case, it still borrowed a few things from the first two Superman movies. 
 

What this movie really needs to do is forge its own identity. Be its own thing, while still feeling like Superman. 

 

Snyders version of modernizing Supes meant making him emo, though LOL. Pale as a ghost and no smiling. 

[WittyUsername]

1 minute ago, excel1 said:

 

Snyders version of modernizing Supes meant making him emo, though LOL. Pale as a ghost and no smiling. 

MoS ends with a shot of him smiling. 

[grim22]

1 minute ago, WittyUsername said:

MoS ends with a shot of him smiling. 

And that's why people were disappointed with where the character went in BvS. All character development from MoS was thrown out the window 

[WittyUsername]

12 minutes ago, grim22 said:

And that's why people were disappointed with where the character went in BvS. All character development from MoS was thrown out the window 

I can’t exactly argue with that. The ending of MoS did seem to hint at a brighter future where Superman would be a symbol of hope for the world, but then BvS doubled down on the darkness, and didn’t even give him very many lines. 

[kayumanggi]

2 hours ago, cax16 said:

 

 

 

[excel1]

2 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

I can’t exactly argue with that. The ending of MoS did seem to hint at a brighter future where Superman would be a symbol of hope for the world, but then BvS doubled down on the darkness, and didn’t even give him very many lines. 

 

This actually gets back to the note about "phony depth". I remember the MOS official plot synopsis noted how Kal-el must embrace his destiny as there symbol of hope for the world...

 

How the hell is Superman a symbol for anything by the end of MOS? BvS has that somber (as opposed to uplifting) montage of Superman performing heroic acts. Lois Lane says "that symbol is all some people have. It is all the gives them hope". What in gods name was going on about? Contrast this with Batman Begins, where there is a very linear explanation as to why it is important for Batman to be a symbol of fear to criminals and hope to every day citizens, as well as easily understood means for how achieves this. MOS seeks to do the same thing with Superman and the ideal of hope, but there is not anything resembling that type of clarity. 

 

MOS IS solid, thrilling film with perfect casting, some truly memorable moments, several breathe taking sequences, and an excellent big picture approach to modern Superman origin story. But gosh do they whiff on the execution. Script is so flawed.

Edited May 8, 2023 by excel1

[Porthos]

Trying to pivot from/bounce off of the Snyder discourse, one way to differentiate the Gunniverse from the Snyderverse absolutely would be an inclusion of Krypto!  I don't care how serious you make it, just including him at all is a tone setter of sorts.

 

Mind, Gunn might have been joking in that clip, but it really does appear to be legit.

 

(I say legit because Gunn has been playing this game long enough to absolutely know how his comments would be construed)

Edited May 8, 2023 by Porthos

[Mr Roark]

5 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

I can’t exactly argue with that. The ending of MoS did seem to hint at a brighter future where Superman would be a symbol of hope for the world, but then BvS doubled down on the darkness, and didn’t even give him very many lines. 

Because the world started to question him in every possible way and Lex plotted against in a pretty diabolical way. 

[dudalb]

20 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

MoS ends with a shot of him smiling. 

But then he went right back to brooding and moping in BvS.

Real problem was that Snyder just could not get away from Supes being dark, brooding, and morose for any length of time. That template works great for Batman, but is wrong for Supes.

As someone said, Snyder wanted Supes to be Dr. Manhatten from Watchmen.

Edited May 8, 2023 by dudalb

[dudalb]

I was just knocked out by GOTG 3, and can't wait to see what Gunn does with Supes.

[dudalb]

On 5/7/2023 at 4:42 AM, TheDarkKnightOfSteel said:

I mean I don’t get why the destruction level in MOS gets so much debate. I mean this is the plausible scenario if two gods were throwing punches at each other. I though critics were just reaching and at some point it just became cool to hate on the film.

 

The truck scene is not up for debate. You assault a human being you are worthy of whatever comes your way. Not two ways about it.

Sure maybe Snyder over stylising everything made somethings stand out more but they did not make a decision that was not logical and in fact Clark is being Superman as through the film he both saves people and risks his life to do so.

 

And to this day I consider this to be my favourite comic book movie even with its flaws.

Also, Don't forget that Zod was trying to basically exterminate the Human Race. Supes had no choice but to fight him in Metropolis,

I always thought a weak spot IN bVS was Bruce Wayne not getthing this, Made him look like an idiot. Snyder could have found a better motivation for Batman taking on Supes. Frank Miller certainly found a good one in The Dark Knight Returns.

[kayumanggi]

 

[WittyUsername]

1 hour ago, kayumanggi said:

 

I mean, it’s probably going to be John Murphy, right? 

[ChipDerby]

James called me on the phone yesterday morning.

[Eric Prime]

On 5/7/2023 at 11:21 PM, kayumanggi said:

 

 

 

[poweranimals]

On 5/7/2023 at 11:21 PM, kayumanggi said:

 

 

Annoying how people are running it as a story when he was clearly joking.