In NARROW defense of Gunn’s point… I’m fucking sick of the repeated origin stories. There are only so many ways Uncle Ben or the Waynes can be murdered.
Yeah, fine, but you've got to give me *some* reason to care... I need to see *this superman/batman/spiderman* having emotional reactions to hardship; it's ugly for a director to hijack the broad cultural warmth toward his IP without making any effort at all!
You weren’t old enough to see how dumb most libs were before 2009. Dixie Chicks, Green Day doing an entire “FuCk BuSh” album (American Idiot)… it was even more cheap and hackneyed than this stuff. The artists didn’t even bother insulting your intelligence by whacking you over the head with stuff, they’d just shout it out on stage for the shits and giggles of pissing off half the audience.
(If you're reading this comment first, scroll down to the last one... these are posted in reverse order 💀)
You make some other claims and comments throughout this post, but frankly these were the only ones that felt worth responding to. The rest were sorely lacking in evidence, and many just feel (ironically) like sensationalist slop. Which is disappointing, because from what other posts of yours I've read, you seem to generally approach things with a lot more thought and nuance. It's unclear from this how big of a Superman fan you are. If you're a big fan, and you were seriously disappointed with this movie, I can understand having such an extreme reaction (trust me, I've been there). But if not... what are you doing, man?
I really enjoyed this movie. It may not seem that way, with all the criticisms I've conceded or leveled against it myself, but I genuinely think the good outweighs the bad, and despite its flaws, it remains a refreshing take on the character. I'm excited to see again tomorrow, and I'm excited for the future of DC (and superhero movies in general) in a way I haven't been in a long time. But I also don't blame you for not enjoying it, because yeah, it's far from perfect (and I don't know, maybe it's just not your kind of film). You're more than allowed to not like Superman, and you're more than allowed to criticize it. None of this is meant to be a personal attack, and I hope you don't take it that way. I just woke up to some bullshit this morning and I felt the need to call it out. Wish I had woken up earlier though lol so this didn't take up so much of my day.
Appreciate the perspective! I'm not particularly into Superman, and I think many of the points you raise are valid. Instead of answering one by one, I'm gonna try to explain why I got so angry with this movie, and hopefully that'll clear up some of your disappointment in me...
Put simply, it's less to do the "IP" in "treatment of the IP" and more to do with the "treatment." In many ways, I hate the internet and all that it's created—so the aesthetics of today's superhero movies—the fact that they're half-CGI and full of crumbling buildings and multiverse-level stakes—are really grating to me. I felt like Superman leaned more heavily into this style than any other similar film I've seen recently, and at the expense of important storybuilding elements—even Thunderbolts, which I also disliked (https://mistakesweremade.substack.com/p/film-review-thunderbolts), did a much better job of humanizing its leads and encouraging the viewer to empathize with them. It was full of special effects and weird concepts and high stakes, sure, but it also had flashbacks and complexity and heart; not awkwardly-blurted-out "I love yous."
The closest Superman gets to any of this is with that guy Malik, who shows up and seems nice for about five minutes, and then gets shot in the head just so the filmmakers can prove that Lex Luthor really is a jerk. Maybe you could say that the Superman-going-home bit is supposed to be emotionally stirring—but it a) mostly fell flat for me, because *I don't know these parents, they just popped up now, why should I care what they say* and b) came way too late, to the point that I was too fatigued to care regardless.
Now, my slightly-conspiratorial theory is that Gunn was intentionally neglectful of all this so he'd have more space to make political arguments about billionaires, immigration, and war. I agree that Lex Luthor is somewhat more complicated than average-billionaire, but look at it from the lens of left-economic populism and "a megalomaniacal narcissist ... [who] can't stand the idea that anyone could possibly be greater than himself" is basically the canonical derogatory psychoanalysis of Bezos/Musk/Zuck/etc.
Mutatis mutandis for the other categories: Superman is a super-immigrant whose intentions are ultimately pure and skills ultimately useful; the war is a starkly-delineated fight between Evil Whites and Noble Browns ripped straight from the pages of Al Jazeera.
And so I left the theater thinking, "what a waste." I expected a *story* about a *guy* who does *stuff,* but instead I got a series of lectures from someone who's very sure of himself, and very sure that the world is uncomplicated.
Sorry for the late response; it's been a busy week.
This is actually exactly what I was hoping for: some clarification as to where you're coming from. While I still disagree just as strongly, this is a take I can respect more than... whatever I read in the actual article. I've now seen the movie a second time, and I will say that I enjoyed it less on a second viewing. My issues with it were cemented, and there were even a few new ones that I picked up along the way. But I still enjoyed it.
And reading your reply now, I'm realizing that I think we just came out of the theater with almost diametrically opposed takeaways, despite sharing many of the same complaints. I honestly believe (and this stance was also cemented upon a second viewing), that the political commentary of the film, while present, takes a complete backseat to its moral themes and its genuine desire to entertain. This film feels very sincere to me, which is why I appreciate it despite its flaws—because that's pretty rare in Hollywood these days. It actually reminds me a lot of the Christopher Reeve films in that way (although they had more sincerity and more serious flaws).
You, on the other hand, seem pretty convinced that Superman is first and foremost a political vehicle with a corporate facade, and that anything else (if it's anything else at all) comes second. And that's fine, but I don't think there's really a way to reconcile these two points of view. I'd bet you probably agree.
1. "Billionaires are bad." This one's probably the most offensive to me, because it feels like you're either completely missing or completely ignoring what is at the core of Luthor's character. In either case, this is a wild misrepresentation of what I found to be easily the best part of the movie. His (primary) goal is not to make money, and it's certainly not to establish himself as ruler of a country. His goal is to kill Superman. Everything else is a bonus. In fact, he outright says so in the climax of the movie: (paraphrasing, since the movie is still in theaters and I can't pull the exact quote) "I'm not killing you so I can start a war, I started a war so I'd have an excuse to kill you." Luthor's hatred of Superman is the driving force for everything he does. He views Superman as an afront to humanity; a perverse symbol of perfection who hoards his power and shines a blinding light on all of our weaknesses. Furthermore, Luthor is a megalomaniacal narcissist. He can't stand the idea that anyone could possibly be greater than himself, so he's dedicated the whole of his being to proving that Superman *isn't*, no matter the cost. Again, paraphrasing, "I'm aware that envy consumes my every waking moment, but I've learned that my envy is a calling. It's that envy that's given me the power to defeat you." When written well (and I'd argue that he was written, as well as portrayed, just about perfectly here), he's a fasicnating, layered, and terrifying villain, which to this point we've never seen on the big screen.
4. "Well, you know, the viewing public might kinda care!" First, no, I don't think the viewing public does care (I'll explain why in a moment). But second, I think you're misunderstanding his comment. It's not that he thinks Superman's origin story is irrelevant, it's that he doesn't think we need to see it (again) in order to tell his story. And I agree. This movie takes the Star Wars approach to worldbuilding, throwing you into the middle of the action, and trusting you to piece things together as you go. It only tells you what you need to know, and you're allowed to let your imagination fill in the gaps. And that's just assuming you know nothing about Superman's origin. After two mainstream films that told his origin start-to-finish, and 87 years of Superman's almost unwavering presence in pop culture, you'd be hard pressed to find a moviegoer who doesn't at least know the basics of his story. Skipping the prologue and jumping right into the story we're here to see gives the writers so much more time to tell it.
In fact, I'm a little confused about what you want this movie to do. You say "Why show when you can tell?" but then complain about "Concepts [being] introduced without a hint of exposition." This movie makes use of exposition when it's necessary (as any story has to), but also contains many prime examples of the "show don't tell" philosophy, many of which you criticize later. We don't need to see the start of Lois and Clark's relationship because that isn't what the story is about; it's about their relationship *now*, and we let their interactions (which I disagree were "deeply awkward" and "unromantic") speak for themselves. We don't need to know who Metamorpho is (though they do give us some exposition to work with) or anything about his baby or his history with Lex. All we need to know is that he's the key to Superman's imprisonment, so Lex is holding his kid hostage. From there, we learn everything we need to about the character through his actions. He takes a huge risk to help Superman escape because he can't continue being party to Luthor's evil. And later, even after he's safe at home with his family, he steps in to stop innocent people from being massacred. He's a hero, and for now that's all we need to know for this story to work (I'm sure they'll expand on his character elsewhere in the franchise).
The same applies to the Justice Gang, the "really big dinosaur-alien-thing", and the pocket universe (though I'll grant you that the antiproton river and the black holes were a little overkill and only served to raise questions). As for Ultraman and the Engineer, both were given plenty of exposition so I'm not sure where your problem lies. The same goes for the universal rift, though I actually wasn't a fan of the rift either. Not only don't I think this movie needed world-ending stakes, but you don't even really feel those stakes because this literal *rift in the universe* isn't treated with the right level of gravity. It wreaks havoc on Metropolis and kills what is surely thousands of people, and no one really seems to care. It reminded me (in the worst ways possible) of the climax of Man of Steel, where entire skyscrapers are being toppled for what feels like pure spectacle, and we never see anyone in danger (save, in this case, one woman on a bridge), so it doesn't *feel* like anyone is in danger. At least this time, Superman wasn't the one causing (or at best, doing nothing to prevent) the destruction. Either treat world-ending stakes like world-ending stakes, or find another way for Luthor to distract Superman.
3. "War is bad." First of all, obviously war is bad. Anyone with any sense of right and wrong should be able to tell you that war is evil (and I don't think you're trying to say otherwise, to be clear). And yes, it's very complex and very nuanced, and, yes, sometimes it's unavoidable or even necessary. But the movie isn't trying to deny that. It's trying to provide insight into Superman's sense of morality. He isn't someone who cares about politics and borders. He knows his actions have ramifications, but saving lives always comes first for him. Is that irresponsible? Well, that's the moral dilemma that the story poses.
You're right though, because while it's an interesting question (and the conversation that initially poses it, between Clark and Lois, is really well done), it avoids providing an answer by making the war in question undeniably wrong. The Israel/Palestine parallels feel extremely on-the-nose, and though I'm admittedly not well-informed on the conflict, I know it's more complex than the painfully black-and-white picture painted here. I also don't like that Hawkgirl assassinates the head of Boravia; it was completely unnecessary and Superman would never stand for it. The animated film "Superman vs. the Elite" (which remains the best Superman film to date; I highly recommend it) does a much better job at exploring these ideas and Superman's morality in general. That said, it seems like this dilemma may carry over into later installements in the DCU, which they hint at towards the end with line "the metahumans make the rules now." One of the next films planned for this franchise is about The Authority, and it seems that may be the story's central conflict. I hope they approach it with more care next time.
2. "Immigration is good." I'll be honest, I'm on the fence about this one. I'm going to see the movie again tomorrow and I'll probably have a better idea of where I stand after that. But here's where I'm at right now. I think James Gunn's agenda has been overblown (here, and by every media outlet I've seen). Yes, the immigrant subtext is there, and yes, it's obviously intentional, but I don't think it's as heavy-handed as people are making it out to be. I can't blame people for being frustrated that political agendas are once again being brought into a film where they don't belong—especially one like Superman, which should be aiming to unite people above all else. That said, reading Gunn's actual comments on the subject, he continually emphasizes the universal, moral themes of the movie over the political ones. At the premiere, when asked about MAGA's response to his comments, he said, "I think this movie is for everyone . . . Like I'm not here to judge people, you know. I think this is a movie about kindness and I think that's something everyone can relate to." You could argue that he's downplaying the politics to draw more people into the movie, but come on, when has modern Hollywood every shied away from gatekeeping its films at the expense of viewership? Hell, *Sean* Gunn did exactly that in *his* comments at the premiere.
I also think (and this is the part I really need to watch the movie again to better assess) that emphasis of moral values over political statements is reflected in the film itself. The dynamic between Superman's alien origins and his human upbringing is an integral part of his character. He's meant to be the most truly human of us all, *despite* being born on another planet, which is an idea the film captures really well (with one exception; I'll get to that in a minute). The problem is, they try to present this idea as an allegory for immigration as well, and it doesn't work because from an objective standpoint, Superman isn't human. You're tackling *true* xenophobia with Superman (fear of something truly alien, unknown, and potentially dangerous), not irrational xenophobia (fear of something *perceived* to be alien, unknown, and potentially dangerous). It's the same reason the X-Men don't work as an allegory for racism, because they're *actually* part of a different race. You can tackle similar themes (e.g. judging people on their own merit), but to draw a direct line between these characters and these issues is irresponsible.
You make a fair point about the plot point regarding his parents though. This is the biggest misstep the movie makes in my opinion, which is unfortunate because I actually don't mind the idea of flipping Superman's origin on its head and making his parents just as awful as the rest of Krypton's bureaucracy. It turns the dynamic between his origins and his upbringing into a *conflict* between them (a la "Invincible"), and though I don't want this to be the status quo for Superman stories going forward, I think it provides for an interesting take on the character. However, that reveal should have been a private one—a purely personal struggle. By having Luthor reveal that recording to the entire world, the writers ensured that the world could never fully trust and embrace Superman as they're supposed to. Best case scenario, he surrenders himself to direct government oversight/audit, and even then there would be a large contingent of people who still feared him. What's worse, is that this isn't addressed. Lex Luthor is outed by the press, and suddenly everyone seems to forget about the recording. An easy fix would have been to reveal that the recording was forged, and the experts who analyzed it coerced—which yes, would have somewhat diminished Superman's character arc, but at least it would've made sense. At least when Man of Steel did the same thing (put Superman in a situation where he couldn't possibly become a symbol of hope for humanity), they built the entire sequel around tackling that very problem (not that they actually resolved it). This is a glaring flaw, and I'm willing to concede that.
I can't take this one lying down. You make some valid points here (including some criticisms that I had even as a fan of this movie), but you also make some that cause me to question whether you actually watched the movie at all (because I know you're smart enough to recognize the nuance in some of the elements you're portraying as shallow slop). I'll break down your points in the order you present them in... (apparently in separate comments since Substack didn't tell me there was a character limit)
In NARROW defense of Gunn’s point… I’m fucking sick of the repeated origin stories. There are only so many ways Uncle Ben or the Waynes can be murdered.
Yeah, fine, but you've got to give me *some* reason to care... I need to see *this superman/batman/spiderman* having emotional reactions to hardship; it's ugly for a director to hijack the broad cultural warmth toward his IP without making any effort at all!
Meh.
You weren’t old enough to see how dumb most libs were before 2009. Dixie Chicks, Green Day doing an entire “FuCk BuSh” album (American Idiot)… it was even more cheap and hackneyed than this stuff. The artists didn’t even bother insulting your intelligence by whacking you over the head with stuff, they’d just shout it out on stage for the shits and giggles of pissing off half the audience.
At least these guys are trying to have a message.
(If you're reading this comment first, scroll down to the last one... these are posted in reverse order 💀)
You make some other claims and comments throughout this post, but frankly these were the only ones that felt worth responding to. The rest were sorely lacking in evidence, and many just feel (ironically) like sensationalist slop. Which is disappointing, because from what other posts of yours I've read, you seem to generally approach things with a lot more thought and nuance. It's unclear from this how big of a Superman fan you are. If you're a big fan, and you were seriously disappointed with this movie, I can understand having such an extreme reaction (trust me, I've been there). But if not... what are you doing, man?
I really enjoyed this movie. It may not seem that way, with all the criticisms I've conceded or leveled against it myself, but I genuinely think the good outweighs the bad, and despite its flaws, it remains a refreshing take on the character. I'm excited to see again tomorrow, and I'm excited for the future of DC (and superhero movies in general) in a way I haven't been in a long time. But I also don't blame you for not enjoying it, because yeah, it's far from perfect (and I don't know, maybe it's just not your kind of film). You're more than allowed to not like Superman, and you're more than allowed to criticize it. None of this is meant to be a personal attack, and I hope you don't take it that way. I just woke up to some bullshit this morning and I felt the need to call it out. Wish I had woken up earlier though lol so this didn't take up so much of my day.
—Owen Widdis
Thanks Mr. Widdis...
Appreciate the perspective! I'm not particularly into Superman, and I think many of the points you raise are valid. Instead of answering one by one, I'm gonna try to explain why I got so angry with this movie, and hopefully that'll clear up some of your disappointment in me...
Put simply, it's less to do the "IP" in "treatment of the IP" and more to do with the "treatment." In many ways, I hate the internet and all that it's created—so the aesthetics of today's superhero movies—the fact that they're half-CGI and full of crumbling buildings and multiverse-level stakes—are really grating to me. I felt like Superman leaned more heavily into this style than any other similar film I've seen recently, and at the expense of important storybuilding elements—even Thunderbolts, which I also disliked (https://mistakesweremade.substack.com/p/film-review-thunderbolts), did a much better job of humanizing its leads and encouraging the viewer to empathize with them. It was full of special effects and weird concepts and high stakes, sure, but it also had flashbacks and complexity and heart; not awkwardly-blurted-out "I love yous."
The closest Superman gets to any of this is with that guy Malik, who shows up and seems nice for about five minutes, and then gets shot in the head just so the filmmakers can prove that Lex Luthor really is a jerk. Maybe you could say that the Superman-going-home bit is supposed to be emotionally stirring—but it a) mostly fell flat for me, because *I don't know these parents, they just popped up now, why should I care what they say* and b) came way too late, to the point that I was too fatigued to care regardless.
Now, my slightly-conspiratorial theory is that Gunn was intentionally neglectful of all this so he'd have more space to make political arguments about billionaires, immigration, and war. I agree that Lex Luthor is somewhat more complicated than average-billionaire, but look at it from the lens of left-economic populism and "a megalomaniacal narcissist ... [who] can't stand the idea that anyone could possibly be greater than himself" is basically the canonical derogatory psychoanalysis of Bezos/Musk/Zuck/etc.
Mutatis mutandis for the other categories: Superman is a super-immigrant whose intentions are ultimately pure and skills ultimately useful; the war is a starkly-delineated fight between Evil Whites and Noble Browns ripped straight from the pages of Al Jazeera.
And so I left the theater thinking, "what a waste." I expected a *story* about a *guy* who does *stuff,* but instead I got a series of lectures from someone who's very sure of himself, and very sure that the world is uncomplicated.
Sorry for the late response; it's been a busy week.
This is actually exactly what I was hoping for: some clarification as to where you're coming from. While I still disagree just as strongly, this is a take I can respect more than... whatever I read in the actual article. I've now seen the movie a second time, and I will say that I enjoyed it less on a second viewing. My issues with it were cemented, and there were even a few new ones that I picked up along the way. But I still enjoyed it.
And reading your reply now, I'm realizing that I think we just came out of the theater with almost diametrically opposed takeaways, despite sharing many of the same complaints. I honestly believe (and this stance was also cemented upon a second viewing), that the political commentary of the film, while present, takes a complete backseat to its moral themes and its genuine desire to entertain. This film feels very sincere to me, which is why I appreciate it despite its flaws—because that's pretty rare in Hollywood these days. It actually reminds me a lot of the Christopher Reeve films in that way (although they had more sincerity and more serious flaws).
You, on the other hand, seem pretty convinced that Superman is first and foremost a political vehicle with a corporate facade, and that anything else (if it's anything else at all) comes second. And that's fine, but I don't think there's really a way to reconcile these two points of view. I'd bet you probably agree.
1. "Billionaires are bad." This one's probably the most offensive to me, because it feels like you're either completely missing or completely ignoring what is at the core of Luthor's character. In either case, this is a wild misrepresentation of what I found to be easily the best part of the movie. His (primary) goal is not to make money, and it's certainly not to establish himself as ruler of a country. His goal is to kill Superman. Everything else is a bonus. In fact, he outright says so in the climax of the movie: (paraphrasing, since the movie is still in theaters and I can't pull the exact quote) "I'm not killing you so I can start a war, I started a war so I'd have an excuse to kill you." Luthor's hatred of Superman is the driving force for everything he does. He views Superman as an afront to humanity; a perverse symbol of perfection who hoards his power and shines a blinding light on all of our weaknesses. Furthermore, Luthor is a megalomaniacal narcissist. He can't stand the idea that anyone could possibly be greater than himself, so he's dedicated the whole of his being to proving that Superman *isn't*, no matter the cost. Again, paraphrasing, "I'm aware that envy consumes my every waking moment, but I've learned that my envy is a calling. It's that envy that's given me the power to defeat you." When written well (and I'd argue that he was written, as well as portrayed, just about perfectly here), he's a fasicnating, layered, and terrifying villain, which to this point we've never seen on the big screen.
4. "Well, you know, the viewing public might kinda care!" First, no, I don't think the viewing public does care (I'll explain why in a moment). But second, I think you're misunderstanding his comment. It's not that he thinks Superman's origin story is irrelevant, it's that he doesn't think we need to see it (again) in order to tell his story. And I agree. This movie takes the Star Wars approach to worldbuilding, throwing you into the middle of the action, and trusting you to piece things together as you go. It only tells you what you need to know, and you're allowed to let your imagination fill in the gaps. And that's just assuming you know nothing about Superman's origin. After two mainstream films that told his origin start-to-finish, and 87 years of Superman's almost unwavering presence in pop culture, you'd be hard pressed to find a moviegoer who doesn't at least know the basics of his story. Skipping the prologue and jumping right into the story we're here to see gives the writers so much more time to tell it.
In fact, I'm a little confused about what you want this movie to do. You say "Why show when you can tell?" but then complain about "Concepts [being] introduced without a hint of exposition." This movie makes use of exposition when it's necessary (as any story has to), but also contains many prime examples of the "show don't tell" philosophy, many of which you criticize later. We don't need to see the start of Lois and Clark's relationship because that isn't what the story is about; it's about their relationship *now*, and we let their interactions (which I disagree were "deeply awkward" and "unromantic") speak for themselves. We don't need to know who Metamorpho is (though they do give us some exposition to work with) or anything about his baby or his history with Lex. All we need to know is that he's the key to Superman's imprisonment, so Lex is holding his kid hostage. From there, we learn everything we need to about the character through his actions. He takes a huge risk to help Superman escape because he can't continue being party to Luthor's evil. And later, even after he's safe at home with his family, he steps in to stop innocent people from being massacred. He's a hero, and for now that's all we need to know for this story to work (I'm sure they'll expand on his character elsewhere in the franchise).
The same applies to the Justice Gang, the "really big dinosaur-alien-thing", and the pocket universe (though I'll grant you that the antiproton river and the black holes were a little overkill and only served to raise questions). As for Ultraman and the Engineer, both were given plenty of exposition so I'm not sure where your problem lies. The same goes for the universal rift, though I actually wasn't a fan of the rift either. Not only don't I think this movie needed world-ending stakes, but you don't even really feel those stakes because this literal *rift in the universe* isn't treated with the right level of gravity. It wreaks havoc on Metropolis and kills what is surely thousands of people, and no one really seems to care. It reminded me (in the worst ways possible) of the climax of Man of Steel, where entire skyscrapers are being toppled for what feels like pure spectacle, and we never see anyone in danger (save, in this case, one woman on a bridge), so it doesn't *feel* like anyone is in danger. At least this time, Superman wasn't the one causing (or at best, doing nothing to prevent) the destruction. Either treat world-ending stakes like world-ending stakes, or find another way for Luthor to distract Superman.
3. "War is bad." First of all, obviously war is bad. Anyone with any sense of right and wrong should be able to tell you that war is evil (and I don't think you're trying to say otherwise, to be clear). And yes, it's very complex and very nuanced, and, yes, sometimes it's unavoidable or even necessary. But the movie isn't trying to deny that. It's trying to provide insight into Superman's sense of morality. He isn't someone who cares about politics and borders. He knows his actions have ramifications, but saving lives always comes first for him. Is that irresponsible? Well, that's the moral dilemma that the story poses.
You're right though, because while it's an interesting question (and the conversation that initially poses it, between Clark and Lois, is really well done), it avoids providing an answer by making the war in question undeniably wrong. The Israel/Palestine parallels feel extremely on-the-nose, and though I'm admittedly not well-informed on the conflict, I know it's more complex than the painfully black-and-white picture painted here. I also don't like that Hawkgirl assassinates the head of Boravia; it was completely unnecessary and Superman would never stand for it. The animated film "Superman vs. the Elite" (which remains the best Superman film to date; I highly recommend it) does a much better job at exploring these ideas and Superman's morality in general. That said, it seems like this dilemma may carry over into later installements in the DCU, which they hint at towards the end with line "the metahumans make the rules now." One of the next films planned for this franchise is about The Authority, and it seems that may be the story's central conflict. I hope they approach it with more care next time.
2. "Immigration is good." I'll be honest, I'm on the fence about this one. I'm going to see the movie again tomorrow and I'll probably have a better idea of where I stand after that. But here's where I'm at right now. I think James Gunn's agenda has been overblown (here, and by every media outlet I've seen). Yes, the immigrant subtext is there, and yes, it's obviously intentional, but I don't think it's as heavy-handed as people are making it out to be. I can't blame people for being frustrated that political agendas are once again being brought into a film where they don't belong—especially one like Superman, which should be aiming to unite people above all else. That said, reading Gunn's actual comments on the subject, he continually emphasizes the universal, moral themes of the movie over the political ones. At the premiere, when asked about MAGA's response to his comments, he said, "I think this movie is for everyone . . . Like I'm not here to judge people, you know. I think this is a movie about kindness and I think that's something everyone can relate to." You could argue that he's downplaying the politics to draw more people into the movie, but come on, when has modern Hollywood every shied away from gatekeeping its films at the expense of viewership? Hell, *Sean* Gunn did exactly that in *his* comments at the premiere.
I also think (and this is the part I really need to watch the movie again to better assess) that emphasis of moral values over political statements is reflected in the film itself. The dynamic between Superman's alien origins and his human upbringing is an integral part of his character. He's meant to be the most truly human of us all, *despite* being born on another planet, which is an idea the film captures really well (with one exception; I'll get to that in a minute). The problem is, they try to present this idea as an allegory for immigration as well, and it doesn't work because from an objective standpoint, Superman isn't human. You're tackling *true* xenophobia with Superman (fear of something truly alien, unknown, and potentially dangerous), not irrational xenophobia (fear of something *perceived* to be alien, unknown, and potentially dangerous). It's the same reason the X-Men don't work as an allegory for racism, because they're *actually* part of a different race. You can tackle similar themes (e.g. judging people on their own merit), but to draw a direct line between these characters and these issues is irresponsible.
You make a fair point about the plot point regarding his parents though. This is the biggest misstep the movie makes in my opinion, which is unfortunate because I actually don't mind the idea of flipping Superman's origin on its head and making his parents just as awful as the rest of Krypton's bureaucracy. It turns the dynamic between his origins and his upbringing into a *conflict* between them (a la "Invincible"), and though I don't want this to be the status quo for Superman stories going forward, I think it provides for an interesting take on the character. However, that reveal should have been a private one—a purely personal struggle. By having Luthor reveal that recording to the entire world, the writers ensured that the world could never fully trust and embrace Superman as they're supposed to. Best case scenario, he surrenders himself to direct government oversight/audit, and even then there would be a large contingent of people who still feared him. What's worse, is that this isn't addressed. Lex Luthor is outed by the press, and suddenly everyone seems to forget about the recording. An easy fix would have been to reveal that the recording was forged, and the experts who analyzed it coerced—which yes, would have somewhat diminished Superman's character arc, but at least it would've made sense. At least when Man of Steel did the same thing (put Superman in a situation where he couldn't possibly become a symbol of hope for humanity), they built the entire sequel around tackling that very problem (not that they actually resolved it). This is a glaring flaw, and I'm willing to concede that.
Alright Ari,
I can't take this one lying down. You make some valid points here (including some criticisms that I had even as a fan of this movie), but you also make some that cause me to question whether you actually watched the movie at all (because I know you're smart enough to recognize the nuance in some of the elements you're portraying as shallow slop). I'll break down your points in the order you present them in... (apparently in separate comments since Substack didn't tell me there was a character limit)