James Gunn's Superman Coming In 2025

[Ascended]

I love the "but it breaks up the blue!" argument. Yeah, that's totally how design works. It's why Flash has trunks, right? To break up all that red? Wait, what do you mean Flash doesn't have trunks? I thought people called his costume one of the greatest designs ever put into this medium? If we need trunks to break up that red, how can this be?

That's not how art functions people. We don't 'need' the trunks from an art perspective, you're all just so accustomed to them everything else seems off to you. But from a pure design standpoint they're not needed to 'break up' anything. A good, wide belt is more than enough to do the job, if it needs to be done at all.

I can take or leave the trunks, as long as the suit looks good and works within the story I'm game for whatever. But I'd rather not have them, if I get a choice. Nothing against the trunks but for this particular character and the particular complaints that get leveled at him (often unfairly) I think it's probably best to lean into more modern design aesthetics and ditch the outside underwear. No reason to give idiot casuals another reason to whine about how 'old fashioned' and 'out dated' Superman is. But whether the trunks are there or not, it won't make any difference in the actual quality of the movie and that's the only thing that truly matters.

Personally I'd like the Reborn suit. Best update to the classic suit Clark has ever seen. I love a lot of the alt-costumes; Morrison's t-shirt non-costume, the Justice Lord Superman, Michael Turner's weird, too-busy design....lot of cool original stuff out there, but for updating the classic you can't beat Reborn.

[Lairston]

No reason to give idiot casuals another reason to whine about how 'old fashioned' and 'out dated' Superman is. But whether the trunks are there or not, it won't make any difference in the actual quality of the movie and that's the only thing that truly matters.

Except the only thing old fashioned and outdated is the whining about undies on the outside since according to my dad the trolls were saying the same thing to comic book buyers back in the late forties and fifties when he was kid buying comics.

[Ascended]

True, but that won't stop the complaints or help course-correct the public perception.

Having or not having trunks won't really move the needle too much on that either, and if the film is good nobody will care either way. But it's a minor complaint that can be cut out entirely before filming even begins, just by leaving them behind, and it's not gonna hurt anyone to do that.

[Vordan]

For me it just comes down to wanting something new. Batman and Spider-Man get suits that occasionally shake up their look dramatically, I think Superman should likewise enjoy the same design freedom. He’ll always default back to the trunks eventually, but in the meantime we might as well experiment.

[Frontier]

I love the "but it breaks up the blue!" argument. Yeah, that's totally how design works. It's why Flash has trunks, right? To break up all that red? Wait, what do you mean Flash doesn't have trunks? I thought people called his costume one of the greatest designs ever put into this medium? If we need trunks to break up that red, how can this be?

That's not how art functions people. We don't 'need' the trunks from an art perspective, you're all just so accustomed to them everything else seems off to you. But from a pure design standpoint they're not needed to 'break up' anything. A good, wide belt is more than enough to do the job, if it needs to be done at all.

I can take or leave the trunks, as long as the suit looks good and works within the story I'm game for whatever. But I'd rather not have them, if I get a choice. Nothing against the trunks but for this particular character and the particular complaints that get leveled at him (often unfairly) I think it's probably best to lean into more modern design aesthetics and ditch the outside underwear. No reason to give idiot casuals another reason to whine about how 'old fashioned' and 'out dated' Superman is. But whether the trunks are there or not, it won't make any difference in the actual quality of the movie and that's the only thing that truly matters.

Personally I'd like the Reborn suit. Best update to the classic suit Clark has ever seen. I love a lot of the alt-costumes; Morrison's t-shirt non-costume, the Justice Lord Superman, Michael Turner's weird, too-busy design....lot of cool original stuff out there, but for updating the classic you can't beat Reborn.

Well, in fairness I think the Flash is designed differently from Supes though people still debate the gold belt.

[Jeffrey2]

For those who want the trunks, be careful what you wish for. This is Gunn who loves gutter jokes, has called the character a galoot (oafish, foolish, buffoonish) and who would quite likely make the trunks the butt of jokes in the film. Check out Gunn's "Super" and you'll see why his Superman definitely should not be wearing trunks.

[Ascended]

Well, in fairness I think the Flash is designed differently from Supes though people still debate the gold belt.

To a point sure, but it's still the same basic foundation. Barry actually has more monocolor, what with the mask and gloves, and doesn't have a cape to help provide a contrast backdrop. If the idea that design demands trunks were true, then I feel like it'd be an even bigger problem for Barry.

The trunks argument is kinda fascinating really, sociologically. From a sheer 'art' perspective the trunks aren't 'necessary' and the debate about that isn't super fun or anything. But Superman is such a big figure in pop culture and he's had them so long, it truly does look odd without them. Like Abe Lincoln without a beard. And that's kind of fascinating; our brains trick us into thinking it breaks some kind of 'art' rule, yet we don't even register other characters doing the exact same thing.

I'm still fine without the damn things. Superman has looked just fine without them before, and when there's been a problem with a trunks-less costume, it hasn't been the absence of trunks that's been the real issue, it's been whatever else DC did to the suit.

But I'm not gonna be terribly bothered if Gunn uses them either. Not the call I would make, I don't think; Clark's particular situation and status with the general population makes me think trunks aren't the min-max best choice right now. But it's not a big deal either way. It's not gonna lose or gain ticket sales or impact reviews. All it'll do is add another pebble or three one way or another, on the mountain that is the "is Superman out dated?" thing, and that's been a discussion since before any of us were alive.

[FBarnhill]

She’s basically been playing Lois already for a while lol. I trust Gunn, he saw something in Pratt when no one else at Marvel did, if he thinks Corenswet has the goods then he does. He’s got the look at least, he’s Juilliard trained just like Reeve, and he’s Jewish. That last bit might lead to some interesting places if he pushes to incorporate that aspect of Clark back into the role.

He's not Jewish. His father is but his mother isn't. By Jewish law, your mother has to be or else you're not.

[Jeffrey2]

It's no longer a young Superman film - that shouldn't surprise anyone as Gunn's credibility is slim to none.

Superman Legacy is not about a young Superman

[StarSpangledMan]

It's no longer a young Superman film - that shouldn't surprise anyone as Gunn's credibility is slim to none.

Superman Legacy is not about a young Superman

It never was.

[TheKryptonMan]

I think a Superman movie with Brainiac would be cool .
The Origin has been done too many times and Lex as well . Everyone knows who Superman is and Clark & Lois too .
No need to explain that Clark grew up in Smallville , Kansas .
Just that he works at the Daily Planet as a reporter . And don't make Jimmy a young kid either .

[Prime]

Looks like Davis is bulking up. Just saw some pics.

[Jeffrey2]

Good piece from today's THR asking the obvious. Where have all the DC fans gone in light of the recent string of DC box office disappointments and how will that impact Gunn's DCU.

This line from the piece is a shot of sort at Gunn and his Superman Legacy which is already overstuffed with non-Superman characters, with more rumored to be added after the strike. Characters that are there, despite what Gunn says, to build his cinematic universe. Fans want a standalone Superman film and not an ensemble film meant to build a universe that likely will never come to fruition - just as happened with Snyder. The author of the piece gets what Gunn seems completely oblivious to.

"The future of the DCU relies on Warners’ awareness that much of this particular fan base is less interested in cinematic universes and cameos, and more invested in filmmakers with distinct, sometimes even controversial, visions."

Where Have All The DC Fans Gone?

[llozymandias]

James Gunn seems to like turning intelligent characters into idiots. Perfect example Star-Lord. Gunn has already talked about his superman being a farm boy & a galoot. I am very tired of Superman being depicted as at best a border line idiot. So, no i am not looking forward to this movie.

[Vordan]

“You know, at the time, they did exactly what we’re doing now. They’re going through tons and tons of actors to see who captures that spirit. The thing they don’t talk about much when they talk about Christopher Reeve, they talk about his pureness, his hope, his goodness. They talk about, you know, the way that he plays Clark as being so different from the way he plays Superman, and how he can turn that on in an instant. But there’s this playfulness about Superman, when he’s saving a cat, he’s got that wry smile. And that is one of the best parts of the movie is the playfulness of Superman. He enjoys what he’s doing. He likes helping human beings and he likes saving them.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sup...an-legacy/amp/

Seems like Gunn understands Superman to me! Least we might finally get a film Superman who isn’t a total stoic bore.



I’m assuming they can’t show the suit until Corenswet can come in and get fit for one, which means not until the strike is over.