James Gunn's Superman Coming In 2025

[manwhohaseverything]

I mean, Gunn himself said he thinks traditional superheroes are ridiculous and that was why he always gravitated towards screw-ups like GotG and Suicide Squad (plus Super and Brighburn if you want to count that).

This is the first time in his two decades long career that he will be making a movie on a lead character who is supposed to be sincerely good.

Dude! guardians are sincerely good.You have wierd idea about "sincerely good" people is all.Heck! I would accuse superman of being fake most of the time.Especially when he ain't written by a moore or moreison or others who actually get it.

[All Star Superman]

I mean, Gunn himself said he thinks traditional superheroes are ridiculous and that was why he always gravitated towards screw-ups like GotG and Suicide Squad (plus Super and Brighburn if you want to count that).

This is the first time in his two decades long career that he will be making a movie on a lead character who is supposed to be sincerely good.

Indeed. Gunn is the wrong person to be writing, directing, or producing a Superman movie, yet he's doing all three! WBD is as clueless as ever.

[Vordan]

I agree. I don’t see him depressed, dour, or whatever else in the image. I see him as preparing to do his job and being concerned and/or nervous, all of which is fine. It’s okay to like one’s job and not smile all the time; it’s okay to like a job that’s not easy. To borrow metaphorically from Tom Hanks in A League of Their Own, “… it’s supposed to be hard. If it wasn’t hard then everyone would do it. The hard it what makes it great.” Superman can do his job, love his job, and can be worried about doing at the same time. And he can (and should) show emotion, whether that’s being happy/smiling or worried/concerned.

Snyder’s take has divided the Superman fandom into two major camps. One side wants a toothless figure of nostalgia who is wholesome and nothing else. No struggle, no inner conflict, no doubt, no physical threat, just a happy smiling man wearing a cloth suit who is good. The other side which is primarily composed of the Snyder fandom wants Injustice. They want scowling red eyed Superman who goes nuts after Lois dies and only exists to make Batman look cool for taking him down.

I want to see a Superman who expresses a full emotional range. Not a nostalgic caricature or murderous tyrant, but a frustrated yet compassionate man doing his best to save as many people as he can, all the while confronting with physical threats that can hurt even him. I believe in Gunn’s ability to deliver that. For all that handwringing from the usual suspects about Gunn being a bad fit, his Suicide Squad was extremely idealistic. Even the villains are capable of being heroes and saving the world, as we see with how the Squad defies Waller to stop Starro, and how Waller’s staff rebel against her to help them.

[Laser_Man]

Snyder’s take has divided the Superman fandom into two major camps. One side wants a toothless figure of nostalgia who is wholesome and nothing else. No struggle, no inner conflict, no doubt, no physical threat, just a happy smiling man wearing a cloth suit who is good. The other side which is primarily composed of the Snyder fandom wants Injustice. They want scowling red eyed Superman who goes nuts after Lois dies and only exists to make Batman look cool for taking him down.

To be fair, I can't even blame Snyder alone for this. DCAU used Superman in a similar way and Injustice carried it forward. By the time BvS was released, a lot of the damage was already done.

[All Star Superman]

Snyder’s take has divided the Superman fandom into two major camps. One side wants a toothless figure of nostalgia who is wholesome and nothing else. No struggle, no inner conflict, no doubt, no physical threat, just a happy smiling man wearing a cloth suit who is good. The other side which is primarily composed of the Snyder fandom wants Injustice. They want scowling red eyed Superman who goes nuts after Lois dies and only exists to make Batman look cool for taking him down.

Your knack for oversimplifying one side of an issue to support your own viewpoint is impressive. You should consider a career in politics.

Those of us who want a faithful adaptation of the Superman character don't want a "toothless figure of nostalgia." We want THE character, who is, yes, good and noble and who does the right thing because it's the right thing to do. However, this outlook on life is complex and brings with it tremendous potential for conflict with those who don't share it. This means there will indeed be struggle and inner conflict and doubt, just as Christopher Reeve's Superman experienced in Donner's film and to a lesser extent in the sequels. Just as the character of Superman in the bulk of 86 years of adaptations experienced.

Take, for example, the Steve Rogers of the MCU. Remarkably, he was allowed to be pure and noble Steve Rogers of the comics. He is laser-focused on and completely committed to his view of the world, which brings him into conflict with Tony Stark, his teammates, and the villains of the MCU. He wasn't remade to resemble Tony Stark or Thor, unlike Goyer and Snyder's approach to Superman, which made him more like Goyer and Nolan's Batman.

As for nostalgia, you need to find a new argument. Those of us who loathe Goyer and Snyder's take have been hearing this since 2013. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. The reason Donner and Reeve's Superman is a touchstone is because it was a faithful adaptation for the most part. The unities of the character were present and were respected while the world around the character was the dark and cynical world of the late 70s.

This can be done with Superman again, but WB and filmmakers like Goyer, Snyder, Nolan, and now Gunn refuse to take the character seriously because their own cynicism keeps them from believing such a character can exist. This is despite the fact that this is a fantasy character, an aspirational and inspirational character but a character nonetheless.

Finally, this obsession many fanboys have with Superman facing a physical threat is also played out. Superman isn't a brawler like Thing or Hulk, he's a character who uses violence only when necessary. I'm all for fights that have dramatic and narrative integrity, but Snyder's film became disaster porn in the last reel. No one with an understanding of the character and a brain wants that again.

As for "handwringing," you overestimate the importance of this film to me, at least. I won't be watching yet another caricature/deconstruction of Superman, which I guarantee this film will be. I don't support projects from DC that don't faithfully adapt DC characters, which is why I haven't watched a "DC movie" in years and why I save a lot of money on comics these days. You seem to have a problem with people who don't agree with you, and that's solely your problem, not anyone else's.

[Vordan]

Yeah I’m not reading all that but you keep popping in here to whine about Gunn. We’re all dying to see you yet again post about how Gunn is a terrible fit because he’s too cynical or whatever. It’s great that this forum hosts so many annoying posters who only show up to complain and talk about how everything is terrible. Guess I’ll just keep adding new people to the ignore list.

[Yoda]

What exactly is cynical about Guardians? Have any of you actually watched Guardians' 3 or are you just basing your assumptions off like twitter comments?

There is absolute zero evidence at all that Gunn is not taking Superman seriously, making him cynical, a joke or any of this nonsense. If you watched Guardians 3 and came away with the impression Gunn is a cynical edgelord still you may have walked into the wrong theater.

[manwhohaseverything]

This is despite the fact that this is a fantasy character, an aspirational and inspirational character but a character nonetheless.

Finally, this obsession many fanboys have with Superman facing a physical threat is also played out. Superman isn't a brawler like Thing or Hulk, he's a character who uses violence only when necessary.
.

An absolute split from realty this take is.. ."Superman ain't a brawler" while wearing a circus suit and featuring in action comics This is a dumb take.His best friend bibbo bibbowski for crying out loud even,in modern versions.The character punches people.MCU captain america is noble cause he is a guy from Brooklyn fighting for freedom.Not because he is trying to be some figurehead.he is guy trying to do what is right.Writers who have forced this "superman needs to be inspirational..Humm drum speech!! Hum drum pose" have failed in the past for me.Will continue to do so.

[Morgoth]

This can be done with Superman again, but WB and filmmakers like Goyer, Snyder, Nolan, and now Gunn refuse to take the character seriously because their own cynicism keeps them from believing such a character can exist. This is despite the fact that this is a fantasy character, an aspirational and inspirational character but a character nonetheless.

Oh, so you're from the future?

[Last Son of Krypton]

Inside the Warner Bros. Discovery Upfront: ‘Superman’ For Sale!

But the opening frames proved to be relatively misleading, as the 90-minute (notably David Zaslav free) pitch to advertisers focused almost exclusively on … advertising. And on linear TV, at that. Film was referenced, of course, but as a vehicle to get Procter & Gamble’s Olay in on the Barbie phenomenon. Ad sales execs literally offered up James Gunn’s first project of the new DC era to the room full of media buyers, asking who wants sponsorship deals ahead of its planned 2025 release: “Do you want to be in Superman?”

We’re probably not getting a version of the The Man of Steel with his cape adorned in logos like a NASCAR vehicle, but it did make one wonder — especially as the presentation wore on.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv...nt-1235900134/

[Jeffrey2]

Huge pressure on Gunn/Superman after the underwhelming suit reveal. Good analysis. I disagree that to be a success Superman needs to breakeven/make 600 million. I think it has to do MOS numbers, 660 - 670 million, which would give it a small profit as MOS had. Agree it has to be a critical hit with audiences.

Huge pressure on Gunn & Superman

[Vordan]

We’re probably in for a repeat of the Sears/IHOP type advertising that was in MoS (I didn’t mind).

[The Frog Bros]

We’re probably in for a repeat of the Sears/IHOP type advertising that was in MoS (I didn’t mind).

Did wonders for Sears, aren’t they completely under now? lol.

To quote one of the best movie promo ads ever, “you must choose, but choose wisely.”

[Laser_Man]

Inside the Warner Bros. Discovery Upfront: ‘Superman’ For Sale!

But the opening frames proved to be relatively misleading, as the 90-minute (notably David Zaslav free) pitch to advertisers focused almost exclusively on … advertising. And on linear TV, at that. Film was referenced, of course, but as a vehicle to get Procter & Gamble’s Olay in on the Barbie phenomenon. Ad sales execs literally offered up James Gunn’s first project of the new DC era to the room full of media buyers, asking who wants sponsorship deals ahead of its planned 2025 release: “Do you want to be in Superman?”

We’re probably not getting a version of the The Man of Steel with his cape adorned in logos like a NASCAR vehicle, but it did make one wonder — especially as the presentation wore on.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv...nt-1235900134/

Yikes, so Superman is the proverbial sacrificial lamb in this DCU? They seem interested in everything else but Superman in the movie.

I don't want the movie to stop for 5 minutes in the middle for Superman to tell me what soda to drink.

[Last Son of Krypton]

We’re probably in for a repeat of the Sears/IHOP type advertising that was in MoS (I didn’t mind).

It wouldn't be a true Superman movie without Clark destroying product placements around.