DC Superheroes in Cinema and Streaming (2025 and Onward)

This is good.

For perpetuity, I'm very excited about James Gunn's universe.  I like that there's going to be consistency across all media, and I like that there's a singular plan.

My only issue is that we're, again, going to have a younger Superman with an older Batman (presumably).  But I also think it would be a cool idea to have Batman show up in Superman (2025) as a newbie, have a bunch of movies where Batman isn't around (but maybe is referenced) and the next time he shows up, he's already created the Bat-family.

I wonder if they try to find someone like Tom Holland who looks like a teenager even though he's *ALMOST 30* and then age up Damian to 16?

Otherwise, I assume they allow him to age normally.  But even then I think he's gotta be older than 10 or we're in a Walt from LOST situation.  A reference I assume you don't get

I have to agree. I'm looking forward to this iteration of Superman as well. Based on the trailer, I'm also super excited for the movie.

There is an auction place on eBay called Homes for Our Troops that was auctioning off a few tickets for charity to things like celebrity Zoom calls, events, etc. One of those events would have been the James Gunn Superman Premiere, with a chance to meet and hang out with the cast and crew of the movie. For around $1200.00 at the end of the auction. I was heavily...heavily debating getting myself those tickets. But I ended up not doing it...I don't know at this point if the James Gunn version is going to be a flop or a top version. I am really hoping it will be one of the better versions.

And hopefully, it will be a great one.

Cavill's Superman is deeply flawed and I don't think they could salvage it.  And if they wanted to say "this is a different Superman that just looks like Henry Cavill" they could have, but Cavill is also 41.  I assume he'll age pretty great, but he doesn't look like he's in his 20s anymore, and Superman isn't really supposed to age much at all.  Corenswet should look right for the next 10-15 years.

I do wonder about Gunn's style, but I think he's capable of doing the stuff that would work for Superman.  There are parts of the Guardians movies that feel right, and I think the Guardians Holiday Special shows he doesn't have to be fully cynical.

And I think Superman just hasn't been done right.  Gunn is taking inspiration from a couple of great Superman comics, and if he can pull it off, it could revitalize Superman again.

Yeah not only that but the character is broken.  Superman has no connection to humanity outside of Lois Lane.  It was the entire plan for Superman in the Snyderverse - Lois gets killed and Superman goes evil.  He has no friends, and he doesn't seem particularly interested in being a superhero or saving people.  I don't understand why he does it.

Again, I know you could just say Cavill is playing a different version of Superman, but you'd need him to play a Superman in is 30s.  I don't think he could realistically play a young Superman.  And so a Cavill Superman either decided to be Superman as an adult, or he's well into his career.  And that's clearly not the story they wanted to tell.

I assume Cavill will have a role in the new DCU.  I think he'd be a pretty good adult Shazam, and it might be fun to have him play a different spin on what's essentially Superman.

I already bought my ticket to see SUPERMAN on Thursday night when it comes out.

That said... it feels a bit like a non-event in that Superman feels like he's been pretty present, whether in MAN OF STEEL or BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title) or JUSTICE LEAGUE or SUPERGIRL or SUPERMAN AND LOIS.

With SUPERMAN AND LOIS, I feel like I spent 2021 - 2024 watching a long-form Superman film in four parts, so this new film isn't the novelty it might have been without the CW show.

Still, if a Superman movie succeeds, superheroes succeed, so I hope it goes well.

I'm glad it went well!

There's a scene in Season 1 of SUPERMAN AND LOIS where Superman's equally powerful half-brother, Tal-Rho, tells Superman that humans have destroyed our ecosystem and rigged our society to fail and Superman should have taken over our planet and gotten us in line years ago as our ruler and king. Tal-Rho says he intends to do what Superman should have done already.

I was, uh, really struggling to think of any counterargument. Tal-Rho yells, "Make a choice! Us or them!"

Superman quietly replies: "There is no us or them."

I... really needed that. I guess I still do and that's why I'm seeing it tomorrow even though it's a work night.

Somehow, despite deliberately choosing Thursday tickets, the cineplex app assigned me a Friday screening and I did not see the early preview of SUPERMAN. Rao forgive me. May Temporal Flux have mercy on my soul.

So I saw Superman.

S
U
P
E
R
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I liked it.  I didn't love it like I was hoping I would.  But it had a lot of the things that I would want in a Superhero movie, and I think it's a nice, solid foundation for a new DCU.

Things I liked:
- I liked this version of Superman.  I like my Superman to be innocent, and I loved that Clark kept saying things like "gosh" and golly" when he was fighting.  I liked that he saved the squirrel.  I like that he was upset when the Justice Gang killed that kaiju monster.  I like a Superman that feels like he has an obligation to save every human life, and I appreciated a Superman that considers himself to be human first.  I know, somewhere, Informant would've liked that too.  Although I have no idea where he or his head is anymore.
- I liked this version of Lex Luthor.  Gunn has said that he really likes the Rosenbaum Lex, and I think you can tell that.  What's funny is that Nicholas Hoult doesn't *seem* imposing, but he's basically the same size as Corenswet.  Maybe not as "big" but almost as tall.  I like that Lex admitted that he was envious, and that it's what is driving him.  I liked that Lex was basically Ultraman, and when Ultraman was beating up Superman, it was really Lex doing it.
- I worried that the movie would be too full.  Superman and Lex and Lois and Green Lantern and Hawkgirl and Mr Terrific and Metamorpho and Ultraman and the Engineer and this Hammer of Baravia.  A lot of characters.  But they made it work.  The movie didn't seem too bloated, and it still felt very much like a Superman movie.  I liked all the supporting characters from Guy Gardner to Jimmy.
- I liked Lois Lane.  In Nando v Movies' spoiler-free review, he remarked that Lois usually gets the short end of the stick in movies like this, but I really liked her portrayal.  She's confident in her journalism, but she's vulnerable everywhere else.  She feels like a well-rounded character.
- Everything with the Kents and young Clark and being a parent and being a son got to me as a parent.  I almost teared up a handful of times.

Things I didn't like / were confused by
- The plot seemed like a bit too much.  I think you could've simplified some of the plotlines and it would've maybe been a cleaner movie.  I didn't love the inclusion of a Superman clone in the first movie, and I think I might've preferred a movie where the Engineer is Lex's only muscle.  She seemed to give him all he could handle, and it wouldn't just be a punching contest.
- I don't understand how Superman survived the nanobot attack.  What did he do?
- Why was this called Superman: Legacy, originally?  Someone pointed out years ago that a lot of characters in this aren't the original version of themselves.  It's the second Green Lantern.  It's the second Engineer.  Hawkgirl is the second hawk person.  I thought the movie would delve into the idea of following in someone's footsteps.  Obviously, Clark's story is about how he was supposed to represent the legacy of Krypton but is choosing to follow the legacy of the Kents.  But I don't know if that's clear enough that it would be the title of the movie, and I feel like it's a bit of a stretch.
- We gave Man of Steel a lot of issues for destroying Metropolis and leading to so much death.  I'm not sure there was a whole lot less death in this.  I know they were evacuating Metropolis, but how many entire skyscrapers were destroyed?  We know there were people in some of them - probably most of them.  I think getting rid of the pocket dimension storyline and removing the black hole threat would eliminate that issue.  I just don't love Metropolis being destroyed with no consequences, and I don't know why they keep doing it.
- Along the same lines, are we going to have another Superman that people don't necessarily love?  I think the movie tried to sweep the whole "he's here to rule us" under the rug, but I think a lot of people wouldn't forgive him.  I think he'd win some people back by turning the tables on Luthor, but I think the movie needed to end with a big interview from Superman where he promises to win people back or something.

And then there's Krypto.  I think he was a good addition, and I liked how they worked together.  But was there way too much Krypto?  I think maybe.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So I agree we shouldn't hold the Legacy title against it.  Maybe there was more legacy stuff and he ended up streamlining it.  It was a good decision to drop the subtitle.

It's funny...I do this a lot where I rewrite movies in my head.  Or in this case, I wrote Superman: Legacy in my head.  To me, I was thinking it might be interesting if the movie took place after the Justice Society (or just another team of superheroes) had aged out.  And when something (I assumed Brainaic) shows up, this second generation of heroes was going to have to step in and save the day...along with this brand new guy who doesn't know where he fits.  There would be a second Green Lantern (although I know he's the third one), a second Hawkgirl, a second Mr. Terrific - these heroes who have a clear legacy that they're following in.  And Clark, who's trying to blaze his own trail.  And how each of those has positives and negatives.  Clark could tell Guy how scary it is to be out on his own and be this alien and not sure if people will trust him.  And Guy could say that he's always being compared to Hal and how he wished he could be his own guy. 

That's what I thought the movie would be.  It would be a fresh start but it would feel lived in.

The post-credits scene was confusing to me.  Were they repairing the city, or was that just how the city reformed?  There's the scene at the end after the portal is closed where the building comes back together on its own.  That's what I assumed the building at the end was done, but obviously the scene doesn't make any sense if that's the case because why would Terrific feel any ownership of how that building came back together?

It's funny.  Most of the criticism I've seen is that the movie is too messy, and I do think that some of the movie could've been streamlined a bit.  The movie, to me at least, was trying to talk about what it means to be human.  Because I think Clark has every right to think of himself as a human.  And as long as the movie ended with Clark telling Lex that, I think the movie would've been good.

Yeah, I think BvS tainted the DCEU.  I've seen every movie, but it always felt like a universe that didn't need to exist.

The Black Adam vs Superman storyline would've been interesting, but I don't see how it would've worked.  They made it seem like they'd build up to a confrontation between the two of them, but what does that even look like?  Black Adam makes it seem like their "versus" movie would've been next.  I suppose they could've stretched it out, but "stretching it out" would've just been solo Superman and Black Adam movies, but it would've just gotten them to the same point they were in that cave.

Now could you have had something like this?

2023 - Black Adam v Superman: Dawn of Society
2024 - Justice Society
2025 - Man of Steel II
2026 - Black Adam II
2027 - Black Adam v Superman: the Rematch

Maybe there's a throughline where Superman and Black Adam can lick their wounds in their own movies, and maybe they could have a rematch that would be huge?  I don't know.  It just seems like it'd be the same thing as BvS but it'd be Black Adam instead of Superman.  And it would just be Superman being the heavyweight champion who constantly has to keep fighting random people

It is wild and incredible to me that James Gunn (sorta) cut the legs out from Superman's theatrical run to release the film on digital so that more people could see it before the release of Peacemaker because Peacemaker is a vital piece of the DCU...

...and for the Peacemaker premiere to have an orgy with full frontal male nudity.  The same universe that has Superman refusing to curse has a scene like that?  It's bizarre but also pretty funny.

No I get that and I assume that young children who loved Superman aren't going to be forced to watch an NC-17 rated TV show on a premium network to enjoy the next movie.  But I do think it might be funny for someone who only knows James Gunn for the Guardians movies, jumped over to Superman and enjoyed the wholesomeness there, and then to immediately jump into Peacemaker Season 2 and see a dramatic shift in tone.

And technically Gunn has written the entirety of the DCU.  Creature Commandos, Superman, and Peacemaker Season 2.  He's also writing the Superman sequel.  I assume he's a guy who either works really fast or really loves working.  I do worry he's either going to have to do the whole thing himself or the whole thing will lose momentum.  Supergirl will be the first thing released he didn't write, and I don't know how Clayface really fits in with the overall narrative.  After that, it's a lot of question marks.

I agree with having a final script before proceeding and I think he's learned a lot from working in the MCU.  But they gotta make stuff that he doesn't make himself, I think.

Yeah I think Gunn is giving himself preferential treatment, but I think he's earned the trust to be able to do that.

What I don't understand is how this whole "we have to have a script we believe in before we proceed" works in an expanded universe.  Let me paint a picture:

So let's say that Superman comes out and Supergirl's script isn't ready.  So they don't make the Supergirl movie because the script isn't ready.  Well...what happens the next time Supergirl shows up.  Is she the drunk party girl that she is in Superman, or do they jump to her post-Woman of Tomorrow persona where she's grown up and evolved a little bit?  Maybe it works for Gunn because he's writing the next script, but what if it's a different writer?  How does that writer know how to write Kara?

Events in these movies can cause ripples in other movies.  Or, I guess, they *should* cause ripples.  Growth in one movie can affect actions in a different movie.  Whatever happens in Lanterns should impact the next time we see Hal or John or Guy.  So how do you get a finished script for the second movie if the first script never gets approved?  And if you're constantly waiting for the next script to get approved, how do you even plan another script?

I think that's sorta what is happening with the DCU right now.  Other than Supergirl, the only feature scripts that have been approved are by James Gunn (and like you said, that script is an exception because it isn't finished) or are mostly unrelated to the greater DCU (Clayface).  How do you write a Batman appearance if you don't know if Brave and the Bold is approved?  How do you write in Wonder Woman if that Wonder Woman TV show is in limbo?

Barreling ahead like Marvel does means that sometimes the movies are weak, but at least the story is cohesive.    Gunn's way might mean better movies but it also might mean a story that isn't cohesive.  What is better?

Wouldn't that cause the same issues, though?  If Supergirl starts preproduction but isn't ready to be filmed, it still puts the next project to feature Supergirl in some kind of limbo.

Imagine if Endgame needed additional work on the script but Spider-Man: Far From Home was ready to shoot.  Do you wait to start filming Spider-Man until Endgame is filmed?  Go ahead and film but wait to release?  I guess the other option is to remove all the references from Tony from Far From Home, but I don't think that's even possible.

I assume James Gunn would say that they'd prioritize fixing the Endgame script and there wouldn't be a significant delay, but I don't know if you can do that for everything.

I'm just using Supergirl as an example.

If James Gunn greenlighted preproduction on a Brave and the Bold movie where Damien Wayne is hospitalized at the end of the film and a Justice League movie where Bruce starts the movie by Damien's bedside, how would it work if the script for Brave and the Bold isn't ready but the script for Justice League is?  Would they wait to film Justice League until the Brave and the Bold's script is ready?  Would they remove the scene where Bruce is with Damien and set it earlier?

I'm trying to figure out how "we won't film until a script is ready" plays in a format where Story A has to exist before Story B can be told.  If story A never gets finished, how can there be a Story B?

I heard the other day that Gunn used to have some sort of substance abuse problem, and he's replaced that in his life with writing.  Good for him.  I think he's a great writer, and I'm impressed with how much he's been able to do and how fast he's been able to do it.

At the same time, I don't think the DCU can succeed with Gunn throwing it on his back.

Well that's horrible.  I think Gunn seems like a really good guy and a very strong creative mind and a great writer.  He seems to have a good heart and a wicked sense of humor.  I hope he's been able to get passed his demons and that writing is helping him keep them away.

Oh I strongly disagree with the last piece.  I can't think of a similarity between Gunn's film and Snyder's.  Snyder's film had literally no appreciation for the comics, for Clark's personality, for what makes Clark special.  I think, if anything, Gunn's story has too much appreciation for comics - I think it was a bit of a barrier of entry to enjoying the film (there's so much going on).  Man of Steel showed Clark with literally no regard for the safety of anyone, and Gunn's Clark goes out of his way to save not just people but animals.

Hopefully you get a chance to see it (I think it hits HBO this week) because whoever told you that could not be more wrong in my opinion.

Yeah but would you say any of that was in Superman?

I think, besides the colors being totally different, the tone of the character is so much different in Gunn's film.  Snyder's Superman doesn't seem to care at all about humanity, and I can't imagine he cares at all about any other Earth animals.  Snyder's Superman is sad that his father dies, but he still allows it to happen.  At the end of the day, he agreed that his father should die to protect his secret.  I think Gunn's Superman would've found a way to save his dad, even if it meant sacrificing his identity.

I'm also pretty sure that a comic-accurate Superman could've saved Jonathan without anyone even noticing he left.  Clark in Smallville was able to save someone during a football game without anyone noticing he'd moved.

I think Gunn's Clark will always do the right thing.  I think Snyder's Clark will do the right thing as long as it doesn't make his life any harder.  I think Gunn's Clark is there to protect humanity with no interest in allowing any collateral damage if he can help it.  I think Snyder's Clark is there to protect some humans and willing to accept as much collateral damage as it takes to get the job done.

There is a very dark moment in Gunn's Superman, but other than that, it's a very hopeful and bright and character-forward movie.  I could easily see Gunn making a pessimistic/hopeless Superman movie like Snyder did, but I think he did a good job of making Clark more comic accurate.

I'm sorry you didn't like it.

I thought it was nice and fine and good, but I admit, after four years of SUPERMAN AND LOIS, Gunn's movie felt like Superman Lite.

Who would be your non-terrible choice?

I mean, that's a pretty fair comment, that any superhero movie is a race to run the IP into the ground.

I did binge through Peacemaker's season 2, which of course featured the parallel "Nazi" world with doppelgangers and such.  Fantastic work by all involved.  Of course, Gunn was noncommittal on the show's future, though I suspect characters will play a run in the Lanterns show.