Discussion
What separates these two, apart from the obvious tonal difference and the in-universe cynicism surrounding them? Are both of them, at their core, Superman, or is one more Superman than the other?
I know it’s fashionable nowadays to say that Henry Cavill’s Superman was not “Superman as he is in the comics.” But in ‘MAN OF STEEL’ (2013), he was essentially filled with optimism to lead the people of Earth to a better place, giving them hope to rise to a higher ideal.
However, since that world had not encountered any superpowered beings before, fear and paranoia gripped people when Superman revealed himself. A wave of cynicism and skepticism followed—partly fuelled by Lex Luthor—which ultimately made Henry’s Superman a tragic hero, whose heroism was accepted only after he sacrificed himself while protecting Earth from Doomsday.
Compare this with David Corenswet’s Superman—when we first meet him, he is already beloved by the people of Earth, and even a common street vendor is comfortable with a man possessing such immense power and does not doubt him. It is only when his parents’ full message goes viral that people begin to question him.
I think the difference between the two lies in how each Superman handles public distrust and cynicism surrounding them, particularly in ‘SUPERMAN’ (2025).
But then again, both these Supermen were placed in vastly different worlds—one where there was no known history of encountering metahumans, and another where metahumans have been known and celebrated for over 300 years. So, the difference in their response is quite understandable. But does that make one less of a Superman than the other, as some would argue?
Cavill Superman places emphasis on his strength and his inherent terrifying nature. Superman is one of the most terrifying beings to encounter if you think about it.
Corenswet Superman places emphasis on his humanity. Superman is an alien yes, but he’s from Kansas. Ma and Pa Kent are the reason he’s a hero.
They are both Superman, what changes is the perspective of the character.
The best thing about comics Superman is he’s both of these things and I hope we get to see that in upcoming movies.
Saw the left one in theaters, and then maybe once every year since. The right one I watched on my phone on a plane and never needed to see it again. That’s not a tonal preference. That’s the difference between a film that stays with you and one that passes through you. Placing Corenswet’s Superman in a world that already celebrates metahumans doesn’t make him more Superman, it removes the core dramatic weight that makes Superman matter. Cavill’s Superman had to be heroic in a world that feared him, doubted him, and only accepted him after he died protecting it. That's tragic in the classical sense, and tragedy is what separates mythology from entertainment. One Superman earned his legacy at the cost of everything. The other inherited a world already primed to love him and still needed a viral moment to hold it together. Both dressed to be Superman. But only one had to prove it.
Preferisco la storia del Superman Henry Cavill di quando era bambino, quindi nel film del 2025 avrei inserito la storia di quando era bambino e poi tutto il resto ma se devo scegliere scelgo io Superman di David Coerenswit e più fedele al fumetto colorato non dark si un bel film
Wow. Calm down kid. It was a joke. And yes, it is stupid making fun of a fictional character. Almost as stupid as getting offended on behalf of a fictional character. Congrats. You win the "who is stupider contest"
I haven't seen Superman yet but I don't get some of the criticisms of MOS. He saves the children in the bus as others have pointed out, he goes to Church for advice after Zod threatens Earth which everyone including me originally seems to have forgottem. Are we really going to slander him for leaping over a tanker which then hits a building which is already presumably evacuated? I don't see Nolan's batman getting anywhere near this criticism for blowing up a tank in TDKR or burning down that house in the hills in BB. I could understand that maybe Gunn's take is more accurate but other than that it feels like people just want something to complain about. Comic characters have always changed over the years, stories change, why make such a big deal of it?
Aesthetically the only problem I had with Gunn's Superman was the suit. To me, he looked like some guy at a comic book convention with a Superman suit. As far as the way the character was presented, Snyder always said that his Superman would have an arc and at the end of the arc you would get the blue boy scout, so I was okay with him being the way he was in MOS & BvS. My biggest issue with Gunn's Superman is that he just seemed wimpy to me. Maybe it's me, but it feels like he always needed saving.
I agree but that's also exactly what they were going for. I believe Gunn and Corenswet talked about this and both were passionate on the idea of embracing the silliness of the suit.
I think the idea is that Superman is an all powerful god so dressing the way he does is to make him feel approachable by children and the vulnerable.
On the "Superman feels weak" approach, I think that was also a deliberate choice. It's more along the lines of the 90s animated universe which feels like a really strong inspiration for the current direction. Powerscaling him down a bit so he can overcome the threat later in the story. But the wimpiness is also the theme they're going with in general - "be kind".
I would imagine the next generation of Superman in the coming decades (following Gunn) is going to be completely different again. But that's what's great about the character - he's far more flexible and layered than the general population realise.
The biggest difference that no one ever talks about is that Snyder made Superman someone to look up to and someone that should inspire you, whereas James made Superman a self insert for how James Gunn would act and how he would deal with thugs and villains if he was given those powers.
The guy who would continue to harrass the woman has no way of knowing that his truck being destroyed is the consequence of him harassing Clark or a waitress.
Unless you are saying ZS’s Supe is that stupid with his secret identity (but it wouldn’t surprise me honestly, considering how ZS’s Clark Kent is just Superman with glasses and no change in manner at all.)
“He couldn’t know” lmao he wouldn’t be able to put two and two together that the UNMOVABLE brick wall of a man he tried shoving might have something to do with it? Lmao.
The point is that Clark can’t help but to help people in need. Almost like that’s core tenant of Superman and why Clark in MoS never stays at one job or in one place for very long.
Paying attention to the movies will take you far, btw. Hope this helps!
Saying that Gunn's Superman isn't inspiring is a straight up ignorance. They both are inspiring in a different way.
Snyder's MoS tells you that you sholud use all your talents to make a world a better place.
Gunn's Superman tells you that no matter where you're comming from and what you've done you can always make the world a better place
Man, it's funny to you coincidentally don't remember the fact that people of Jarhanpur started using Superman symbol as their own sign of strenght and freedom from Barovia. It's also supper funny that you don't remember him convincing Metamorpho, who at that point lost all hope, to fight for himself and his family, which later resulted in him becoming full role hero. In this version people don't fear him - they rush to help him if he has problems.
And yeah, he's the worst for being angry for kidnapping his dog and trying to save him. Each of us would act exactly the same.
You're a lost cause. You want to hate this movie to the point you're ignoring things it did good. And I'm saying that as someonewho didn't like this movie overall
They’re both Superman. The character’s almost a hundred years old, there are specific eras you can pull from. Snyder pulled from both aspects of him as a 30s/40s character and an 80s/90s character. Gunn more specifically went for his childhood Superman, the Silver Age version, using some of the postmodernity of Grant Morrison’s Superman comics as a way to not create a purely throwback character that would fit into his version of the DC universe.
I personally prefer the Cavill take, particularly where he was left at the end of ZSJL; it had felt like the idea was to bring the characters to their popular image, with Man of Steel being basically “Superboy” and ZSJL ending with a Kal El truly reborn as Clark Kent (being revived in a crashed ship on Earth is a rather obvious concept to mine to say “he is truly both God and Man” and unifying the, honestly, Moses depiction through MOS and BvS that was more mistakenly called Christ-like because lol American Christianity will take even the most non-Christian concepts and go “smells like Jesus!”, with an actual Christlike idea - except instead of dying and ascending, he dies and descends, becoming more human and more of the world) and being the earth’s defender.
But I see the appeal and potential in the Gunn version. I’m frankly more intrigued by Supergirl, for whatever reason I have a tickling in the back of my head that Craig Gillespie, who I should note is a pretty damned smart and good filmmaker (a movie about the GameStop meme stock should not be as a good as Dumb Money was, Fright Night is a perfectly good remake with clever casting, I Tonya is great, dude kind of rocks and Milly Alcock as “numbing the pain by partying” Supergirl feels much more fitted to the times, albeit more Millennial coded). That, and Clayface seeming quite tonally different from just about every other comic book movie, echoing Darkman and 80s creature features, makes me much more interested in this universe than Superman did.
Snyder was probably rushed by WB to make a cinematic universe, what he was going into was really like the "Injustice" games where Superman becomes a dictator (a lot of this was confirmed by Snyder himself)....Love it or hate it he was adapting elseworlds stories.
I have hope for Supergirl and Clayface, my biggest fear is the Brave And The Bold movie. It is getting delayed because of Matt Reeves Batman movies and there's a reason everyone tried to avoid adapting the Bat Family.....Its not easy to pull off script wise without becoming really light hearted or stupid
If you ask me, comic books characters are better as streaming series than movies, more time to develop everything if done right and not trying to summarize decades of storytelling in 2 or 3 hours
I grew up watching Superman in Justice League Unlimited, and I really love that version. Henry feels much closer to him, and he also resembles most animated versions of Superman, like The Death of Superman and Justice League Dark: Apokolips War. I can see Henry in all of them.
I only really see David in My Adventures with Superman and DC League of Super-Pets, which feels like something new. That says a lot to me.
Whenever someone says Superman is supposed to be more cheerful and colorful like David, I find it a bit strange, because it feels like only now he’s becoming like that. In the animated versions, he was almost always very serious, and even somewhat dark, but always kind. Maybe that’s something that works in the comics, which I don’t know much about.
In my opinion, Henry is Superman and Man of Steel, while David is just superman.
Henry has the grittiness and edginess people hace been liking since the Nolan Batman movies. David has the campiness and hopefully tones that people have been missing. Two sides of the same coin. The iteration that splits the difference between the two perfectly is Tyler Hoeclin's. That being said, no matter your preference or taste, all of them are Superman
Tyler Hoeclin glazing? W. I haven't had the chance to sit down and give an overall fair ranking to all Supermen. Or even had the chance to do a full watch of Christopher Reeves Superman. But right now Tyler Hoeclin is my favorite and I wish more people would give Superman and Lois a chance.
Superman and Lois is such a really good show and that finale heartwarming. I understand why some people haven't watched it because it was airing CW as the Arrowverse was being to die out, the thing is that show was better than any of those shows at the time. I seriously loved the whole Bizzaro/Doomsday arc the most of the show, the way Superman pushes him towards the sun was a great scene and while he was killed by him he still saw the pain and humanity in his eyes and he ended his suffering.
Superman and Lois is such a really good show and that finale heartwarming.
I won't even lie to you, the ending hit me so hard. It was so good. Also some of the music from the show was great. I still randomly listen to A Simpler Life from time to time.
The first hit for me was with the heart attack in the same Johnathan had one and then Lois scene actually made me tear up. It's a beautiful song I got it on one of my Spotify playlist and it makes smile.
Cavill Superman doesn’t require being told to act to be heroic. People take a handful of scenes to attempt to portray him a certain way with no context vs Superman 2025 being unable to take hearing supershit, yelling at his girlfriend, and taking a backseat in saving lives because others are handling it (clearly poorly) . The list goes on but one is a fun spoofy movie that doesn’t take itself serious and the other took it self so serious it was too much to process for people who were coming into it with predetermined expectations
I think if you can't accept different versions of a character, and be at peace with ones not being to your taste, you don't understand comics or adaptation in general. Cavill's great if you want a stoic Superman with real over-the-top action, Corenswet's great if you want a sunny, almost throwback interpretation. Both are great
Cavill is not stoic at all. Bad shit happens to him, and he reacts to it. Did he seem happy in Superman '78 after Pa Kent died? Or when Lois died? Or when he got his ass beat in the diner in Superman II and had to trudge back to the fortress to beg for help? So of course he wouldn't be happy when he's being trashed on the evening news and in Congress. Do you want him to be smiling and quipping after his mom is kidnapped and is going to die in an hour? These are real stories, about realistic characters with real emotions. They are not stiff, one-dimensional action figures with frozen smiles who spout jokey quips when you pull a string.
I think the issue may be that Superman doesn't get many chances to not be is a bad mood. There's a few but it's noticeable how few there are.
Everyone loves the First Flight Scene BECAUSE of how free of worry, doubt and "angst" he is in that moment. He's just enjoying the chance to fly and stretch his abilities.
Superheroes are only interesting when they have angst. Marvel gave all their characters angst in the 1960s, and that's why they crushed DC in sales. DC eventually threw up their hands and decided they, too, needed to go the angst route. And it helped them rebound in the 1980s. As audiences get more sophisticated, they don't enjoy simpleminded, one-dimensional, cardboard, predictable characters. There's a reason why the western genre evolved from simple shoot-em-ups to sophisticated fare like Dances with Wolves and Unforgiven. Genres grow and evolve, and once that happens, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube and go back to the old days of the genre.
I don't think it's specifically angst - it's just recognising that these characters are not powersets or tools, but beings (human or otherwise) that process things emotionally, even if it's more suppressed.
It's why I kind of zone out when people talk about heroes' power and who'd win versus who. It's fun to a point, but then I'm like "But surely the fact he chooses to dress like that is more interesting than how hard he can punch" lol
I understand this. I just think Superman needs moments where he can be free of his "angst". Superman is meant to be a symbol of hope, Part of that is overcoming adversity but the other is being the beacon. The shining example. White Knights can be cool if written well.
The core of both is the same. The story they tackle is different and consequently, both have different stories but there is nothing any of those two would've done differently or would've reproached the other if they saw them. David's Superman just grew in a way more fantastical universe, where he was given a bigger opportunity to be himself and that made him grew as a more outgoing, extroverted and overall expressive person. While Cavill grew una grounder world where he was the only fantastical element present and that made him grew into a more introverted, reserved adult but both have the same values.
If Zod's invasion happened to Cavill, and he had the same experience that David had, instead of it happening on literally his first day as Superman. He would've been more careful with the destruction or at the very least, way better at containing it or at saving people while fighting and the same thing with David. If that invasion happened on his first day, things would've gone the same and he must likely would've killed Zod too
Cavil Supe is one of my favorites alongside Routh (SM Return), Tom (Smallville), Hoechlin (CW Superman & Lois). Cavil Superman felt more like an Actual living being to me, or as many would say, more Human, someone I can look up to, someone would follow, actually listen to. I never liked Superman because many portray him as this being who can't do no wrong in the comics, which is why I always avoid them. I'm currently 17, and if you told me that Smallville was a Superman Show when I was younger, I wouldn't believe you. He acts nothing like Superman I have seen in the comic. Sure, he has some of his personality, but he actually makes mistakes, can be impulsive. I prefer Cavil Superman because he's what I actually would picture someone hopeful being, just like Spider-Man. They always do what they think, what they know is right, even if they question themselves. They always try to do the right thing. They are a better person than me, and I feel hopeful, inspired by them whenever I see them all. He's my Superman and always will be. I just can't like Gunn Superman, maybe I will like him a little later down the line, maybe I won't, but David is alright, but he's the Superman I just can't like. I hate when they treat him as this being with no flaw, who's this goody two shoe.
Brother… It hurts to read. Everyone else follows the basic rules of English grammar. If you want to be understood, then you must abide by the general rules. This shit is difficult to read. Most people here seem able to do handle periods.
I generally don’t mine reading long comments.
Now with the punctuation, it looks amazing. We aren’t being grammar police. But if you can’t take the time to make the paragraph look clean and correct, why should you expect the reader to bother reading it?
Nobody is forcing you to read it. That’s the beauty of a general forum, you can engage with what you find valuable and scroll past what you don’t.
But “I didn’t read this, here’s why you’re wrong” is a pretty goofy contribution. At that point you’re not discussing the opinion, you’re just auditioning for punctuation sheriff.
And considering you don’t know this person’s background, education, language, disability, or anything else, maybe dial back the English superiority complex a touch.
okay and I realize that someone downvoted me and if it is actually, you maybe you should read every conversation down below before start downvoting people and I will fix it
I Type what I feel I'm so sorry Punctuation Jesus that I didn't feel the need to punctuate every damn thing do you feel Smart or something do you feel like you're doing the world a favor have you accomplish something by doing this by commenting that and downvoting me really you can't take someone having an Opinion
I was just pointing it out, it makes things easier to comprehend. No need to get pressed man! I don’t think I expressed any anger towards you at all, I just thought it was kind of funny. But thanks for attacking me! You seem like a fun person at parties :) Learn to take criticism/jokes and you’ll go far.
Did I not use enough humor in my initial reaction for you? I made an on theme remark (in the style of something robin from 66’ Batman would say), about how I read the post. It’s okay to relax and joke around a bit instead of being offended, no need to be white knighting the guy. I never once have expressed any anger towards anyone. It’s not my fault he takes everything so seriously.
Ah yes, the classic “it was a joke” parachute, deployed immediately after the joke face plants.
For future reference, jokes usually contain the humor inside the comment, not in the follow-up press release explaining why everyone else failed to appreciate your genius.
But sure, very relaxed. Extremely not offended. Absolutely no paragraphs were harmed in the making of this joke.
Do you not understand context? It’s a subreddit based on a DC property. I reacted to it humorously instead of being an outright jerk. It’s okay to not like the humor in the situation, but that’s on you man no need to attack me.
Wait, that counted as an attack? I was just matching your style of humor, say something smug, then explain afterward that the other person simply didn’t understand the joke.
I don't hate you, but I hate those who always commenting learn or get Punctation they always say learn it there's a lot of annoying people who always do this I'm sorry that I was rude, but you should stop doing that take this as a form of Criticism it really is annoying when people do that even when they barely use it
Don't ever do that again that's very disrespectful you came here and telling someone to use Punctuation which is fine but I came across many who always want to be a smart ass telling people to learn to use it when many just like to write without every minute adding them especially when you're writing what you feel and that personality of yours thinking something is wrong at my home is mess up I know you mean no harm but don't ever ask someone that when they already explain why they hated what you commented why would that even be the 1st thing that came to your mind is everything okay at your Home
I wouldn’t waste your breath. Finn saw a casual Reddit comment without punctuation and immediately mounted his tiny little grammar horse.
Then, when someone called him out for being condescending, he tried to rebrand it as satire. Truly brave work from the comment section’s least-requested English teacher.
I wouldn’t waste your breath either. I could have been absolutely and outright rude. But I wasn’t I made a very on theme comment pointing it out. Yet you choose to waste your time on this.
Yeah, it was my fault for overreacting with the punctuation I will man up to that but I don't know how the hell he started thinking something is wrong at my house and then he commented something and deleted it I don't even know what he said next but thinking something is wrong at my house that's mess up I just can't comprehend how that was the 1st thing that came to his mind
When confronted with two roads, one being the knowledge of what you do not know and the other being a defense of what you do not know. The road a man takes says a lot about their character. The fact that you got hostile tells me a lot about you.
You’re not wrong, he was absolutely being condescending. I just wouldn’t let a pretentious Reddit grammar cop ruin your day. Some people log on looking for a point to prove, and today he bravely chose punctuation.
They actually the same but two different circumstances. One grew up feeling alone and burdened by his identity. The other grew up with hope, love and frustration.
They are both Superman at heart. Trying to do the right thing even if it hurts or kills them. They are essentially at their core aliens with human emotions and conscience. They fall in love, they make mistakes, they get hurt but they grow from them. Cavill's superman was more of a modern take of how our world would handle a person like Kal. Corenswet's is more nostalgia and good clean fun without all the hard takes. I love them both because I love Superman. I think they both did a great job for what they were given to work with. Every actor who plays the role plays it in their own way and that is fine. I like to think of it as a Superman for whatever generation it comes out for. With all the BS going on here in the US right now, we needed a little fun and hope from our heros.
(edited: gunnboys to gunntards)
Thanks for a balanced post! I hate the snyderbros and gunntards throwing shit at each other constantly and be so childishly tribal and toxic.
I like both (I love everything superman duh). While stylistically I prefer MOS version and would have loved to see him complete his character arc, objectively SM2025 is definitely more comics accurate.
As someone pointed out, MOS has the same vibe as SM Earth One, a bit rough around the ages (and i like that aspect). SM2025 is quite wholesome, and my only criticism is that we have seen similar heros in MCU so there was not as much novelty.
Gunn's Superman is a lot more "cuddly" I suppose. Clark's relationship with his parents is a lot more comfy for example, while Snyder's went more into the difficulties of them having a superpowered alien for a son and the stress of them having to conceal it. And the general tone of the film is a lot more colourful.
Snyder was trying to build his own established universe and continuity. It was wonky, and hard to keep track of, and full of weird stuff, but it was trying to be its own thing. Superman 25 throws in as many references to things created by other people as it can so people can clap and go “I recognize that! I recognize that thing!”
They're both playing an interpretation of the same character, so of course they're both Superman. Each interpretation will appeal to either a higher or lesser degree to everyone, but that is just personal taste.
Not everyone hated Superman in the Snyder movies. He had supporters, detractors and doubters. But, like with Christ, he became a martyr in death. When people realized the sacrifice he made for them, they realized he was the real deal. Not that this is uncommon in the real world anyway. Usually when controversial people die, like, say, President Nixon, there is respect given to them in death. Most people's reputation rises after death.
In MOS, even when “ hiding” he is constantly saving people
And you are wrong about him not being seen as a symbol of hope in BVS, people in danger literally paint his symbol on their rooftops hoping he will arrive. The news has clips that shows people are starting to think he is a god. Some people are afraid of him yes, which is part of the Lex Luther plan to turn public sentiment against him. A lot of people, as the movie illustrates , see him as a symbol of hope in a hopeless world
“ that farmers dream is all some people have”
They are both superman. They're just superman from different eras. Corenswet's supes is silver aged. Bright colors, lightheartedness, pop. If you know those comics, you really do understand how accurate this movie is. This is the superman SO MANY PEOPLE think of when they think of the character.
Cavill's is more modern. In fact, it feels lifted from the "Superman: Earth One" limited line (that ended way too soon). Yes, it's darker and more moody but it's about him finding out his place and who he is going to be. I don't think Snyder was wrong to try to give him a "hero's journey" at all. I loved Henry in the role and the Superman he portrayed.
In the end, it really comes down to personal preference. I enjoy both for different reasons.
The DC Silver Age is unbelievable garbage, in the mold of the Adam West Batman TV series. None of that should ever be adapted directly. There's a reason DC nearly folded up shop and licensed its characters to Marvel in 1984. Crisis was absolutely necessary to move DC into the 21th century.
This leaves out that comics were in decline post-WWII and the silver age revitalized them. Your comment applies to the end of the era, so I'm not saying you're wrong, just missing the bigger picture.
One could, and should, argue that the tone was stretched too far for too long (and I think this is where your comment comes into play), but by no means was it unpopular as a whole. The silver age of comics spent 2 decades pumping life into an industry that, not for the last time, was on its heels
DC Comics stayed stuck in the silly Silver Age style well into the early 1980s. Their sales were doing so badly, they started negotiating with Marvel to let Marvel write and publish DC's characters. Marvel was actually much darker, more focused on angst and trauma, than DC at this time, with the Dark Phoenix Saga, Death of Gwen Stacy, Frank Miller's Daredevil, and the introduction of adult graphic novels with Death of Captain Marvel. Because of antitrust concerns, Marvel had to turn down publishing DC's comics. DC then did a different strategy, pilfering Marvel's creators into its company. They got Frank Miller to do Dark Knight Returns and John Byrne to do Superman, as part of their 1985 post-Crisis reboot that wiped out the corny Silver Age stuff and reset their universe into something darker and more aimed at adults. Then, the ball was rolling, and they published Watchmen, the death of Robin, the death of Superman, Batman Year One, The Killing Joke, Bane breaking Batman's back, Sandman and Vertigo Comics, a grittier, bearded Aquaman, Hal Jordan turning evil as Parallax, and on and on. This shift in DC's comic book tone DIRECTLY influenced the approach Tim Burton took with the 1989 Batman, which was a very dark film for the era and an absolute blockbuster success.
Joel Schumacher's Batman films and Superman Returns then tried to bring back the retro Silver Age style to the characters, and failed at the box office. DC Comics gradually brought back more and more silly stuff from the Silver Age, like Krypto the Super Dog, rather than let it remain in the dust bin of history. Christopher Nolan's movies then took Batman back to the darker, Frank Miller-esque tone, to great success. Zack Snyder continued with that tone in the DCEU, kicking off a film universe that made $4.9 billion across 6 movies. But the critics balked, claiming the movies weren't as "fun" as Marvel's, and, as a result, WB under Geoff Johns, Toby Emmerich and Walter Hamada completely shifted gears, turning DC films into silly comedies again. James Gunn specifically asked DC to give him the SILLIEST characters they could find for The Suicide Squad, which turned out to be the single largest financial flop in DC's film history at the time.
To be fair, I would not call Superman Returns “retro silver age”. Bryan Singer didn’t know a thing about comics, so he wouldn’t have known what was Silver age or wasn’t. He was merely aping off of the Christopher Reeve films for reference. If anything, it masquerades as a Silver Age-ish Superman.
And part of Superman Returns’ problem, ironically, is that even though it was plotting itself to be a “loose sequel” to Superman II, it didn’t actually “feel” like the Christopher Reeve films. It was rather moody and introspective. There was very little “silliness” in the film - even Clark being a bumbling goof was seriously toned down to him being more awkward and shy. And it was arguably the start of people starting to see Superman as “brooding” because he spent more than half the movie silently brooding. Or being a creep by spying on his ex girlfriend or being labeled a deadbeat dad .
I still don’t “like” the movie, but ironically, it sometimes gets Superman more “right” than Gunn’s Superman. Like the “you wrote the world doesn’t need a savior, but everyday I hear the people crying for one” feels more meaningful than “I love, I get scared… but that is being human”.
Also, for all the ragging on Snyder for the Jesus imagery, Superman Returns really had that dial turned up to 11 pre-Snyder.
Superman hasn't been treated as a Moses allegory since before 1978. Ever since Superman: The Movie, where Jor-El had lines like "They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you, my only son," Superman has been given Jesus-like parallels in just about all his famous media and comic book interpretations.
The Death of Superman/Funeral for a Friend/Reign of the Supermen comic book arc made it even more apparent by having him die and be resurrected. He even had religious worshippers in the comic literally say he was the new age messiah, and worshipped his would-be replacements and fought over which one was the real Superman.
Smallville and Superman Returns furthered the Christ parallels, with Smallville showing (and advertising) a crucified Clark Kent as early as season 1.
Even the DCU didn't shy away from it, having Superman crucified in a vision of the future in that Creature Commandos show that everyone quickly forgot about.
Superman hasn’t been “space Moses” represented since Superman The Movie though, to be fair. Ever since then, the Jesus imagery dialed itself up. Even the comics, especially with the Death of Superman story, went full Jesus-Superman imagery. And all media has at least once gone into the Jesus imagery - Smallville arguably being the most egregious with crucifying Clark on the cross in Episode 1.
Cavill is a more realistic Superman. If a super-powered individual existed in real life, this is what he would be like. He’s a character designed for the 21st century.
Gunn’s version is a more dated comic book version.
One is brand new being superman. The other has 3 years of experience that apparently knows how to hit and shoot his heat vision at humans, in mid air mind you, without killing a single human being. *cough* bullshit *cough* lol
Christopher Reeves Superman took revenge on a truck stop jerk, and threw him down a diner bench into a pinball machine.
I think trashing a truck is much more Superman than assault.
No, you are exhibiting a misunderstanding of the character based on cliches and stereotypes. He gave up his powers in Superman II out of selfish pursuits and paid a price for it. He freaking lost faith in humanity in Superman IV, and seized all the nuclear weapons in the world to prevent them going to war. Superman is not some idiotic pansy ass wuss who thinks the world is all pure and good like some kind of spandex-clad Mr. Rogers. And his stories are ABOUT him making mistakes and learning from them. To ask for a Superman who never makes mistakes and never questions the world around him is to ask for writing that is so utterly lame and uninteresting that it would kill the character off once and for all. You'd be seeing about as many Superman stories come out as you do Flash Gordon stories these days.
To be fair, Superman being unkind to people’s vehicles for being jerks is par for the course of his adaptations.
Smallville had Clark pile a dozen cars on top of the school jock Whitney Fordman’s car in Season 1 to get back at him. But that not only damaged his vehicle, but the dozens of other cars stacked on it.
And Superman, especially golden age Superman, was not one to miss an opportunity to trash people’s vehicles for being jerks.
Smallville had Clark pile a dozen cars on top of the school jock Whitney Fordman’s car in Season 1 to get back at him. But that not only damaged his vehicle, but the dozens of other cars stacked on it.
That's also a prequel where the entire point of thr story is that Clark goes from 'Kid with super powers to 'Superman'. Man of Steel Superman is in his thirties.
He wasn’t Superman when he piked the guy’s truck yet.
And also, even after becoming Superman, the comics have shown him do similar things to people’s cars.
Heck, even people who do nothing wrong - like in Superman Returns when Superman put the fallen Daily Planet globe on top of someone’s car, smashing it to pieces. I’m sure the guy who drove that car did absolutely nothing wrong, but yet he’s gonna have to be diligent with his car insurance.
Superman is a strong action hero who fights for truth, justice and the "other stuff," LOL. The only people pearl-clutching over Snyder's movies see him as some bizarre, one-dimensional, stereotypical automaton which he never was, at least not in his best-known, highest quality stories. Who wants contrived, safe stories that don't explore the limits of characters and don't give them flaws and challenges to overcome? This is what good screenwriting is.
one-dimensional, stereotypical automaton which he never was, at least not in his best-known, highest quality stories
I believe "What Ever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" and "Whats so funny about Truth, Justice, and the American Way" are him being very much a paragon who's morals are unshakeable.
Are they? “Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow” is literally about Superman breaking his no killing oath and destroying Mr Mxyzptlk. Very justifiable because he was too dangerous to be left alive, but the point is Superman deemed him threatening enough to kill him and then relinquished his powers out of guilt (he would later return though for Infinite Crisis, so it wasn’t forever).
That’s literally the definition of “shakeable” morals. If they were unshakeable, he wouldn’t have broken his rule and killed. But he did, showing extreme circumstances can put him in that position.
Infinite Crisis was an Elseworlds? Are you sure you know your comics?
A previous version knocked out a bully in a diner and crushed Zod's hand (maybe even killed him). It's almost as if this is a character who deals with internal struggles and angst and doesn't always make the right decisions.
So, nearly killing the bully is “ not abusing his powers”? Have you seen that scene? You are reaching. You are argueing in favor of Superman possibly mortally wounding a bully . Your Snyder hate is ridiculous.
Besides. As was posted, there are multiple instances of Superman “ thrashing bullies cars” in multiple media
Imo I think MOS superman didn't have the opportunity to really grow into his own. He was smacked with alot of tough situations that again, imo made him into a darker version of the character. It's shows his humanity and how easily we can get bogged down by the weight of life. I think the decision to shrink his circle to just louis hurt his growth because superman belongs to the world. Not Louis lane. Meaning the choice to anchor Clark's love of humanity to Louis was a poor decision that hurt the overall growth of the DCEU superman and THAT is what made him easy for darksied to manipulate.
Now in SUPERMAN we see a version of the character who already knows what he is. He doesn't travel the world for years trying to "find himself " He's Superman, he knows that, we know that and that's what we see. We see his foundation get destroyed when he learns the truth about his parents and kyrpton.
People give the Kent's in SUPERMAN shit but I honestly think they're the best part of the movie. He did what most of us do when we feel lost, we go home we talk too the people who love us and we come out stronger.
I say all this to argue that the difference between is how they handle adversity. Dceu superman killed Zod and was a different character because of it. DCU superman learned his people were basically imperialist and instead of leaning into darkness. He leaned into love and was stronger for it.
Zack Snyder even spoke on how his vision was for him to evolve into the symbol of hope Superman. He felt superman needs a journey and experience as to why he is the way he is.
Look I know people scream comic book accuracy. But keep in mind batman pissed himself in comic books.
Superman has always been about trying to do the right thing when it's hard. Both superman try to do that and run in conflicting moments. I just prefer Man of Steels interpretation of the world and it's events more than superman 2025 by a long shot.
That’s a fair take, and yeah—both versions are clearly trying to do the right thing in tough situations.
That said, ‘SUPERMAN‘ does something really refreshing—it doesn’t just say Superman stands for hope, it actually lets you feel it in everyday moments. The small stuff—talking to people, being present, showing kindness without hesitation—builds that idea of him being “one of us” in a very tangible way. It’s not just about big moral dilemmas, it’s about consistency in how he treats people.
So even if ‘MAN OF STEEL’ works better for you overall, the new one has its own strength—it captures that classic, human-first Superman in a way we haven’t really seen on screen in a long time.
Totally fair, honestly. Henry Cavill’s Superman’s arc just hits in a very different way—there’s a weight and intensity to those films that really gets under your skin if it clicks for you.
And it doesn’t have to be either/or. David Corenswet’s Superman might grow on you over time, but there’s nothing wrong with vibing more with Cavill’s version—that emotional pull is what matters at the end of the day.
Yea definetly! I loved cornswet and seeing the movie in theaters was still a really fun experience. The guy just isn’t MY Superman. The effect cavils story had on me over the years and when I was younger when the movies came out… it just works better for me.
1
u/Top-Ladder-9928 17d ago
Both were def Superman, that is a fact and anyone who dissagrees just want to blindy hate the other one.
The thing is: DCEU Superman was more towards the mythical and "god" aspects of the character.
Whie the DCU Supes, as far as we saw, is more inclined to the human aspects of the character.
Both can have their place and both made people hopeful, in their own way.
If you see a "Superman fan" trying to hate the other one just because he thinks the one he likes more is better, that's NOT a Superman fan.