How are we feeling about Superman? (HEAVY SPOILERS)

[JulieYBM]

By the way, my two cents is that I don’t like the plot point. I find it weird that Gunn referred to the movie as an immigrant story, despite his decision to include that revelation regarding Superman’s birth parents. It kind of has some unfortunate implications behind it.

Gunn referring to the movie as an immigration story is like Bryan Singer referring to his X-men movies as a story of the persecution of minorities. Yes, that is what the story has always been about (or mostly been about in X-men’s case). It’s what made the right wing outrage so entertaining and frustrating. Gunn could have said nothing and it would still be an immigration story because it’s Superman. I’m sure Gunn’s leans into it more than previous adaptations which would rather scream in your face GET IT? HE’s JESUS!!!! But it doesn’t change what the story has always been about.


I don’t think Superman’s parents having nefarious intentions really has any unfortunate implications with the immigration metaphor, they’re not the ones coming to earth. The actual immigrant chooses to accept earth as his new hime and protects it.

Without really saying my opinion on the subject one way or another, either, but Gunn also implies that it's just Jor-El and Lara who feel this way. Apparently, Zor-El and Alura In-Ze are not like Zor's brother. I'm curious if this will be used to contrast the two cousins in future films, since they effectively function more like siblings in modern comics, television and film. If so...well, that just kind of plays up the "Gokuu and Raditz as brothers" angle lol

[WittyUsername]

By the way, my two cents is that I don’t like the plot point. I find it weird that Gunn referred to the movie as an immigrant story, despite his decision to include that revelation regarding Superman’s birth parents. It kind of has some unfortunate implications behind it.

Gunn referring to the movie as an immigration story is like Bryan Singer referring to his X-men movies as a story of the persecution of minorities. Yes, that is what the story has always been about (or mostly been about in X-men’s case). It’s what made the right wing outrage so entertaining and frustrating. Gunn could have said nothing and it would still be an immigration story because it’s Superman. I’m sure Gunn’s leans into it more than previous adaptations which would rather scream in your face GET IT? HE’s JESUS!!!! But it doesn’t change what the story has always been about.


I don’t think Superman’s parents having nefarious intentions really has any unfortunate implications with the immigration metaphor, they’re not the ones coming to earth. The actual immigrant chooses to accept earth as his new hime and protects it.

Gunn isn’t the first director to refer to Superman as an immigrant allegory. Zack Snyder did the same thing. My issue in this case is that the whole idea that Clark was sent to Earth in the hopes of conquering it and impregnating as many women as possible is remarkably similar to the kinds of racist conspiracy theories you see from the anti-immigrant crowd.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_R ... acy_theory

I’m sure that wasn’t Gunn’s intention, but it is not a good look if he also wants to argue that his Superman is an immigrant story.

[MasenkoHA]

By the way, my two cents is that I don’t like the plot point. I find it weird that Gunn referred to the movie as an immigrant story, despite his decision to include that revelation regarding Superman’s birth parents. It kind of has some unfortunate implications behind it.

Gunn referring to the movie as an immigration story is like Bryan Singer referring to his X-men movies as a story of the persecution of minorities. Yes, that is what the story has always been about (or mostly been about in X-men’s case). It’s what made the right wing outrage so entertaining and frustrating. Gunn could have said nothing and it would still be an immigration story because it’s Superman. I’m sure Gunn’s leans into it more than previous adaptations which would rather scream in your face GET IT? HE’s JESUS!!!! But it doesn’t change what the story has always been about.


I don’t think Superman’s parents having nefarious intentions really has any unfortunate implications with the immigration metaphor, they’re not the ones coming to earth. The actual immigrant chooses to accept earth as his new hime and protects it.

Gunn isn’t the first director to refer to Superman as an immigrant allegory. Zack Snyder did the same thing. My issue in this case is that the whole idea that Clark was sent to Earth in the hopes of conquering it and impregnating as many women as possible is remarkably similar to the kinds of racist conspiracy theories you see from the anti-immigrant crowd.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_R ... acy_theory

I’m sure that wasn’t Gunn’s intention, but it is not a good look if he also wants to argue that his Superman is an immigrant story.

But again Superman, the immigrant, is not doing any of those things. The take “immigrants bad because crazy ass white supremacist theory” doesn’t hold up when said immigrant doesn’t do those things.


And neither Gunn and Snyder were the first to note Superman is a metaphor for immigrants. It’s been in his DNA since day uno.

If we weren’t living in this current clown show timeline Gunn’s comments would have come off as “no shit”

[JulieYBM]

By the way, my two cents is that I don’t like the plot point. I find it weird that Gunn referred to the movie as an immigrant story, despite his decision to include that revelation regarding Superman’s birth parents. It kind of has some unfortunate implications behind it.

Gunn referring to the movie as an immigration story is like Bryan Singer referring to his X-men movies as a story of the persecution of minorities. Yes, that is what the story has always been about (or mostly been about in X-men’s case). It’s what made the right wing outrage so entertaining and frustrating. Gunn could have said nothing and it would still be an immigration story because it’s Superman. I’m sure Gunn’s leans into it more than previous adaptations which would rather scream in your face GET IT? HE’s JESUS!!!! But it doesn’t change what the story has always been about.


I don’t think Superman’s parents having nefarious intentions really has any unfortunate implications with the immigration metaphor, they’re not the ones coming to earth. The actual immigrant chooses to accept earth as his new hime and protects it.

Gunn isn’t the first director to refer to Superman as an immigrant allegory. Zack Snyder did the same thing. My issue in this case is that the whole idea that Clark was sent to Earth in the hopes of conquering it and impregnating as many women as possible is remarkably similar to the kinds of racist conspiracy theories you see from the anti-immigrant crowd.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_R ... acy_theory

I’m sure that wasn’t Gunn’s intention, but it is not a good look if he also wants to argue that his Superman is an immigrant story.

I would agree, but Clark and his parents are explicitly white. If anything, I think this could be read more like a colonialism allegory, but even then I feel like Gunn's shooting himself in the foot by explicitly using the term immigrant here, because I do think that he's using it to annoy anti-immigration types.

Of course, going back to Dragon Ball, we look at how there really isn't an explicit immigration bent in Dragon Ball. With the Saiyans being far more coded as 'barbarians'...that would definitely not be a good look.

[WittyUsername]

Gunn referring to the movie as an immigration story is like Bryan Singer referring to his X-men movies as a story of the persecution of minorities. Yes, that is what the story has always been about (or mostly been about in X-men’s case). It’s what made the right wing outrage so entertaining and frustrating. Gunn could have said nothing and it would still be an immigration story because it’s Superman. I’m sure Gunn’s leans into it more than previous adaptations which would rather scream in your face GET IT? HE’s JESUS!!!! But it doesn’t change what the story has always been about.


I don’t think Superman’s parents having nefarious intentions really has any unfortunate implications with the immigration metaphor, they’re not the ones coming to earth. The actual immigrant chooses to accept earth as his new hime and protects it.

Gunn isn’t the first director to refer to Superman as an immigrant allegory. Zack Snyder did the same thing. My issue in this case is that the whole idea that Clark was sent to Earth in the hopes of conquering it and impregnating as many women as possible is remarkably similar to the kinds of racist conspiracy theories you see from the anti-immigrant crowd.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_R ... acy_theory

I’m sure that wasn’t Gunn’s intention, but it is not a good look if he also wants to argue that his Superman is an immigrant story.

But again Superman, the immigrant, is not doing any of those things. The take “immigrants bad because crazy ass white supremacist theory” doesn’t hold up when said immigrant doesn’t do those things.


And neither Gunn and Snyder were the first to note Superman is a metaphor for immigrants. It’s been in his DNA since day uno.

If we weren’t living in this current clown show timeline Gunn’s comments would have come off as “no shit”

My point is that it kinda muddies the overall message Gunn is supposedly trying to tell. It doesn’t help that the reason Clark doesn’t end up doing those things is thanks to the influence of his adopted parents, who happen to be a couple of good ole fashioned white American farmers.

To cycle this back to Dragon Ball, Toriyama obviously never intended for Goku to be some immigrant allegory, so I’m not gonna go and claim that Goku’s pre-Minus backstory is problematic. I mean, there are plenty of things about Toriyama’s writing that can be seen as problematic, but he also wasn’t trying to make any kind of political statement with his work.

[MasenkoHA]

Of course, going back to Dragon Ball, we look at how there really isn't an explicit immigration bent in Dragon Ball. With the Saiyans being far more coded as 'barbarians'...that would definitely not be a good look.

To be fair with the whole less savory aspects of the Saiyan race being downplayed in favor of “Pride of the Saiyans” and a “True Warrior Race” Saiyans becoming more and more a metaphor for Japanese nationalism. With Goku even sympathizing with Vegeta’s point of view. The Saiyans being barbarians and the bad guys pretty much gets phased out after the Saiyan arc if course that brings up other issues, there is a bit of a “blood purity” aspect. The story reminds us that Goku and Vegeta are “true pure-blooded Saiyans” and their half-blood offspring don’t have the Saiyan spirit and aren’t “true Saiyans”

[WittyUsername]

Dragon Ball in general has this weird trend where it seems like different races more or less have these universal personality traits, regardless of the individual. Saiyans are warriors who naturally love to fight, Namekians are naturally peaceful, and Freeza’s race is implied to naturally consist of evil aristocratic conquerors, at least going by everyone’s response to Frost being a bad guy.

[MasenkoHA]

, but he also wasn’t trying to make any kind of political statement with his work.

He based Freeza off land sharks because at the time of the Japanese asset price bubble that was occurring when the Namek arc was being writtrn he thought land sharks were the worst sort of person. I wouldn’t say he wasn’t make any kind of political statement.

To say nothing of the fact that every significant female character in the original manga finds happiness as a wife and mother. Or the Boo saga ultimately deciding “this new generation of youths are slackers, guess we still have to take care of things”

But yes, I don’t think Toriyama was trying to say anything when he decided Goku came from another world other than he clearly saw the first two Christopher Reeves Superman films

[JulieYBM]

, but he also wasn’t trying to make any kind of political statement with his work.

He based Freeza off land sharks because at the time of the Japanese asset price bubble that was occurring when the Namek arc was being writtrn he thought land sharks were the worst sort of person. I wouldn’t say he wasn’t make any kind of political statement.

To say nothing of the fact that every significant female character in the original manga finds happiness as a wife and mother. Or the Boo saga ultimately deciding “this new generation of youths are slackers, guess we still have to take care of things”

But yes, I don’t think Toriyama was trying to say anything when he decided Goku came from another world other than he clearly saw the first two Christopher Reeves Superman films

All art is political, as they say. I think the issue that Dragon Ball faces in that regard is that as a fandom, we take Toriyama's interviews as some sort of gospel, when I don't think we can really say that Toriyama even understands his actions. He can say one thing or another about how he doesn't want Dragon Ball to have any sort of message, but it's quite clear that he inevitably puts that into his work. Actions speak louder than words, after all.

[Zephyr]

Yeah, anything someone creates is going to betray some sort of perspective on society, and in that sense all art is political. But we can make a pretty easy distinction between someone deliberately aiming to proselytize that perspective and someone who is not. Toriyama and Torishima seem to have for the most part fallen into the latter camp, even if some sort of message unavoidably shines through anyway.

[MasenkoHA]

, but he also wasn’t trying to make any kind of political statement with his work.

He based Freeza off land sharks because at the time of the Japanese asset price bubble that was occurring when the Namek arc was being writtrn he thought land sharks were the worst sort of person. I wouldn’t say he wasn’t make any kind of political statement.

To say nothing of the fact that every significant female character in the original manga finds happiness as a wife and mother. Or the Boo saga ultimately deciding “this new generation of youths are slackers, guess we still have to take care of things”

But yes, I don’t think Toriyama was trying to say anything when he decided Goku came from another world other than he clearly saw the first two Christopher Reeves Superman films

All art is political, as they say. I think the issue that Dragon Ball faces in that regard is that as a fandom, we take Toriyama's interviews as some sort of gospel, when I don't think we can really say that Toriyama even understands his actions. He can say one thing or another about how he doesn't want Dragon Ball to have any sort of message, but it's quite clear that he inevitably puts that into his work. Actions speak louder than words, after all.

Oh I agree. Toriyama can say whatever he wants about not wanting any messages. The reality is Dragon Ball does have pretty strong social conservative messages. His own feelings on what it means to be a man and a woman’s place among other things are reflected in pretty heavily his writing in Dragon Ball.

The Freeza/land shark is just one of the more blatant examples of Toriyama copping to his politics in his work.

[JulieYBM]

He based Freeza off land sharks because at the time of the Japanese asset price bubble that was occurring when the Namek arc was being writtrn he thought land sharks were the worst sort of person. I wouldn’t say he wasn’t make any kind of political statement.

To say nothing of the fact that every significant female character in the original manga finds happiness as a wife and mother. Or the Boo saga ultimately deciding “this new generation of youths are slackers, guess we still have to take care of things”

But yes, I don’t think Toriyama was trying to say anything when he decided Goku came from another world other than he clearly saw the first two Christopher Reeves Superman films

All art is political, as they say. I think the issue that Dragon Ball faces in that regard is that as a fandom, we take Toriyama's interviews as some sort of gospel, when I don't think we can really say that Toriyama even understands his actions. He can say one thing or another about how he doesn't want Dragon Ball to have any sort of message, but it's quite clear that he inevitably puts that into his work. Actions speak louder than words, after all.

Oh I agree. Toriyama can say whatever he wants about not wanting any messages. The reality is Dragon Ball does have pretty strong social conservative messages. His own feelings on what it means to be a man and a woman’s place among other things are reflected in pretty heavily his writing in Dragon Ball.

The Freeza/land shark is just one of the more blatant examples of Toriyama copping to his politics in his work.

Oh, yeah, no, sorry if my wording made it seem like I wasn't agreeing with you. I just wanted to build off of what you were getting at. There's ostensibly, also, room to interpret Toriyama's feelings on government in general, given how the gods and the afterlife are all framed as incompetant most of the time.

Then there's Toriyama out here saying "Girls don't have balls" in the second chapter, though, oof.

[ABED]

The land shark / Freeza thing is so surface level. It's political, but it's about as deep as saying dictatorship is evil or "all art is political."

[MasenkoHA]

The land shark / Freeza thing is so surface level. It's political, but it's about as deep as saying dictatorship is evil or "all art is political."

Sure but you’ll have works take the bold stance of “bigotry bad “ and people will complain it’s too political

[JulieYBM]

While I do agree that dictator in media is a very surface-level political statement, how often are media properties aimed at kids going after landsharks of all things?

[kemuri07]

The land shark / Freeza thing is so surface level. It's political, but it's about as deep as saying dictatorship is evil or "all art is political."

Kinda how I feel about Superman (2025) in general to be honest. For all the buzz about Superman being an immigrant or the contrasts towards Zack Snyder’s own Man of Steel, I found James Gunn to be extremely lightweight. So much so that it was already kinda drifting from my mind once I left the theater.


Because Superman (2025) isn’t really about that. Hell, right now Absolute Superman is going all in on the Superman as an immigrant story, complete with a darker skinned Superman to drive the theme home. Gunnman doesn’t do any of that? Like sure, there’s the whole reveal that Jor El is a space fascist a la original flavor Bardock, but it doesn’t really hit as hard as it should because it’s not something that this version of Kal El wrestles with. It’s why the whole thing with the Kents fall flat, because they’re pretty bland and barely in the movie. Their one characteristic is that they love their son. And don’t get me wrong that’s nice and all. But that’s just it-it’s just nice. It’s cute. It feels like watching a Saturday morning cartoon and we reach the part of the episode where we learn the moral of the day, everyone’s happey and a child from “non distinctive Middle eastern country” smiles for the first time.

And I get that’s why people like this movie. I get that people want a no frills, none-deconstructive, superhero film that reads more like a silver age comic book than what we’ve gotten before. And I think it more or less succeeds at that. It’s just where people start trying to add complexity to this is when I start rolling my eyes. Because it’s not really about any of that. Or like Abed said: if it is, then it’s all so surface level.

[ABED]

The land shark / Freeza thing is so surface level. It's political, but it's about as deep as saying dictatorship is evil or "all art is political."

Kinda how I feel about Superman (2025) in general to be honest. For all the buzz about Superman being an immigrant or the contrasts towards Zack Snyder’s own Man of Steel, I found James Gunn to be extremely lightweight. So much so that it was already kinda drifting from my mind once I left the theater.


Because Superman (2025) isn’t really about that. Hell, right now Absolute Superman is going all in on the Superman as an immigrant story, complete with a darker skinned Superman to drive the theme home. Gunnman doesn’t do any of that? Like sure, there’s the whole reveal that Jor El is a space fascist a la original flavor Bardock, but it doesn’t really hit as hard as it should because it’s not something that this version of Kal El wrestles with. It’s why the whole thing with the Kents fall flat, because they’re pretty bland and barely in the movie. Their one characteristic is that they love their son. And don’t get me wrong that’s nice and all. But that’s just it-it’s just nice. It’s cute. It feels like watching a Saturday morning cartoon and we reach the part of the episode where we learn the moral of the day, everyone’s happey and a child from “non distinctive Middle eastern country” smiles for the first time.

And I get that’s why people like this movie. I get that people want a no frills, none-deconstructive, superhero film that reads more like a silver age comic book than what we’ve gotten before. And I think it more or less succeeds at that. It’s just where people start trying to add complexity to this is when I start rolling my eyes. Because it’s not really about any of that. Or like Abed said: if it is, then it’s all so surface level.

Hard disagree on all this. There's far more nuance here than you give it credit for. To keep this about Dragon Ball, Toriyama wasn't making any sort of big statement or a point. His view of the world will find its way into his art but it isn't making any explicit point. Gunn's work does have something to say about the world. Taking a shot at lank sharks is low hanging fruit. Saying kindness in a world that sees kindness as naive has substance. Also, I really like Jonathan's line about "parents aren't for telling their kids what to do. They're there to give them to tools and letting them make fools of themselves" because it's not a cliched platitude. Dragon Ball doesn't deal in that sort of thing. The closest we get to that is Muten Roshi's scene with Tenshinhan where Tenshinhan confronts him about why he gave up in their match.

While I do agree that dictator in media is a very surface-level political statement, how often are media properties aimed at kids going after landsharks of all things?

I get your point, but it's not really going after them in any meaningful way. What I do like is that despite Toriyama using that as a basis for Freeza, you don't have to know that or know anything about Japanese economic history to be find Freeza interesting. It's how art should work.

[JulieYBM]

Perhaps it's just because I've seen the movie three times, but I thought Superman (2025) did a pretty good job of getting across several points that Gunn wanted to make about not just billionaires and how they control government policy, but about how their wealth allows them to act on their petty impulses and harm innocent people and even animals. Mali—a brown immigrant—was murdered by a version of Lex Luthor clearly inspired by the racist white South African Elon Musk. Lex's blatant xenophobia borderlines on Musk's weird natalism. Lex also crashes out like Musk often does in publicly and is abusive towards his ex-lovers.

I would also like to agree that the Pa Kent stuff was pretty damned important. Anyone who has ever had a difficult/terrible relationship with their dad understands how impactful a conversation like that would have been if they had had it with their dad, I think.

I also think the film doesn't do a disservice to the politics of Superman's place in the world. Lois asks the questions you'd want any journalist to ask a powerful figure, but the film landing on the side of, "Hey, maybe humans can have power and not be corrupted by it and that's what it means to be a hero" isn't some sort of lack of deconstruction. If anything, while the film might not deconstruct superheroes, it does deconstruct our real world through superheroes. I think that's far more interesting and fresh a perspective.

Also, I just think we should drop genocidal dictators from high up in the sky so that they go splat and die terrible deaths.

[kemuri07]

And again I’d argue that Gunnman isnt really about any of that. Like it’s been said, the immigration stuff is really more about pissing off Snyder bros and the alt right than actually being something the film grapples with.

In regards to “being kind during a time where kindness is seen as naive”….nah.

Two reasons:
1. I believe that in order for any work of art to get its point across, it has to dramatize these things effectively. “Less saying and more doing”. So yeah, that Pa Kent quote is nice—but that’s it. It’s nice. But because the film doesn’t really dramatize this internal struggle within Superman between his Kryptonian heritage and Earthling upbringing, it can’t be anything more than that. Gunnman is not about Superman really struggling with anything internal because Superman is already fully formed by the time we first see him.

2. Gunnman doesn’t really go into a “Superman in a modern world” because the world in Gunnman is every bit as silly and goofy as it’s “What the Hay” protagonist. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. It’s definitely fun, like “Luthor having an evil lab where he builds Kaiju because fuck you that’s why” fun. but in terms of saying anything about our world and the need for kindness for kindness sake. I don’t see it. I found the interview scene with Lois and Clark compelling because it seemed to be hitting on those themes, with Clark’s silver age morality bouncing against the morally grey of the “real world”…but then the movie doesn’t really do anything with it. Superman gets proven right, all he has to do is punch a dude in the face, and everyone is saved! And that’s kinda it.


I remember someone saying this to me once, and it’s that the actual modern day Superman story we all want is not in Superman—it’s in Captain America: Winter Soldier. And that movies goes all in on that theme of a hero with a sole called “simplistic view of the world” going against moral ambiguity—and choosing to stay the same while acknowledging that the world has change. I found that way more powerful than anything going on in Gunnman.

[kemuri07]

Julie I think your point kinda gets at kinda how I feel about the movie at large: I think it’s so empty that people are putting their own experiences into a movie that isn’t really doing the work to justify it.

Like I think you’d have to stretch a lot to suggest that this movie has anything on its mind about Palestine/Israel. I mean I wasn’t thinking about that at any point throughout the film, and instead it reinforced what I think Gunn was actually doing: making an ode to the type of comics that he grew up reading. And “ever suffering brown people needing to be saved by the WHITE omniman” is very much a used trope even during the 70s and 80s

And sure I’ll concede that perhaps that is what art is, that we take from it what we will, regardless of the intentions of the artists. I just so far find a lot of these explanations to be a bit shallow. Mostly because I think Gunn has done this type of stuff better (see: The Suicide Squad) and that I very much view Supes as low-tier Gunn. It ain’t the worst of his: that belongs to GoTG vol 2, but it’s close.