Superman has existed in cinema for nearly 50 years. The big blue Boy Scout has been portrayed by many actors, each of whom brought their own ideas of what a live-action Superman could be, and (for better or worse) we’ve just about seen it all. From the campy-yet-tender performance of Christopher Reeve to the stoic deconstruction of the character adapted by Zack Snyder and played by Henry Cavill — the only non-American to ever play Superman in a movie… ironic, or perfect?
Well, in either case — today I’m going to settle the score in this summer’s hottest debate. I’m going to compare James Gunn’s hit Superman film to arguably the most cult Superman film in existence — Man of Steel (which almost got a cool-sounding sequel). We’re going to break down the plot, characters, world-building, and tone of each film, seeing where the two are different, where they overlap, and ultimately acknowledge the high points and low points of both.
Now, depending on which version of the character you prefer, I’m inevitably going to say some things you may not agree with — but I’m going to keep this as objective as possible and just analyze the films without editorializing too much. I’m also going to be spoiling these movies, and probably some other Superman movies and TV shows at some point, so let’s get our spoiler warning out of the way. By now, if you haven’t seen these movies, the odds are they’ve already been spoiled for you anyway.
So, let’s kick things off by talking about the plot of both movies to see how they stack up against each other.
PLOT:
Man of Steel is an inspired retelling of Superman’s origin story with a bit of a dark twist. We know Superman’s origin as two Kryptonian scientists sending their newborn baby, Kal-El, in a rocket pod to Earth to save him from Krypton’s fate. When the baby arrives on Earth, he’s adopted by Kansas farmers Jonathan and Martha Kent and raised to be human despite possessing extraordinary abilities like flight, strength, invulnerability, X-ray vision, heat vision, freeze breath — basically anything you can think of.
In Man of Steel, Clark receives the same origin story, only instead of his adoptive parents encouraging him to use his powers to help people, his Pa is more like Harry Morgan from Dexter in that he wants to control his son’s abilities and hide them from the world. This culminates in the death of Pa Kent and Clark learning that he can never stand idly by and let someone innocent get hurt again. This results in a now-grown Clark starting a life of his own as a boat hand for hire, keeping to himself and trying his best to blend in. That is until he discovers the Fortress of Solitude and unveils his true purpose in life as the alien protector of planet Earth — Superman.
Now, this plot and story pretty much honor comic book continuity (I mean, there have been so many Superman comics that you can pretty much do anything and it’ll be accurate to some story out there), but so far we’re feeling like classic Superman. When General Zod (Krypton’s own native terrorist) comes to Earth seeking to dominate the planet and usher in a new era for Krypton, Superman must rise to the occasion and fight to protect us all. By working against (and eventually with) the U.S. military to track Zod and strategize his defeat, Superman is able to save the day and fly off into the bleak sunset.
I admit, this definitely sounds like Superman on paper.
In Superman (2025), we’re not given much in the way of Superman’s origins. Instead, this film catalogues one week in the life of Superman, who in this world has already been established and out as Superman for three years. This story is more focused on fleshing out a lived-in world where metahumans and monsters just exist, and everyday people aren’t shocked or taken aback by seeing people fly and punch giant kaiju.
When Lex Luthor and his squad of henchmen hatch a plan to destroy Superman’s public reputation, they aim to use this image attack to gain government permission to kill him using a special metahuman task force. Clark then assembles a ragtag team of his own to save Metropolis from Lex’s destruction and remind the world that even in the face of darkness, Superman brings us hope.
Definitely a much simpler plot, with admittedly a lot of dangling threads that leave us primed for more movies in this universe.
Something the two movies have in common is the management of Superman’s public image. The Snyder-verse had Superman being one of a kind, with very little involvement from other superpowered people. As such, Superman’s public persona is one of mystery and divisiveness.
In Superman (2025), it’s the same but different. This Superman isn’t mysterious; he’s a goofy, smiley, wholesome hero who just blends in with all the other heroes despite being the most powerful. But when his public image is questioned by the reveal that his Kryptonian parents were evil, he’s greeted by ridicule and fear from the very people he’s committed to protecting. So, Cavill and Corenswet both had the same task of restoring Metropolis’ faith in his mission to help the world, not dominate it. Both feel like classic Superman.
CHARACTERS:
Obviously, there is NO point in talking about Man of Steel if we’re not going to talk about how much Henry Cavill embodied the LOOK of Superman. He’s giant, bulky, and literally looks like he might be bulletproof. Cavill did a great job; I don’t think anyone will take issue with that opinion — but the other characters in this movie… kinda suck.
This movie doesn’t do much in the way of character dynamics and relationships outside of the few sweet moments between Lois and Clark. Amy Adams as Lois Lane feels a bit miscast in that her chemistry with Cavill is almost completely wooden with very little meat on it — and we get nothing from Jimmy Olsen, Perry, Ma and Pa, or anyone besides maybe Michael Shannon as Zod. This movie feels like it’s really just about these two characters and everyone else is just there to move the plot forward a few steps between building smashes.
I’m not saying I don’t like it — I’m simply saying that in this particular movie, there’s very little meaningful dialogue between characters. It’s mostly monologues from Russell Crowe or Zod talking at Superman. In fact, other than having the look and voice down, Superman himself says almost nothing in this movie. Like, dude, who are you? We want to know, and that barrel chest of yours is great, but hey man, talk to us.
I’d say the characters in this movie are a bit of a weak point for sure.
On the other hand, Superman (2025) introduces a boatload of new characters (maybe too many?) but does allow for each and every one of them to have their moment to shine. The term that comes to mind is “lived in.” It feels like each of these characters is the main character in their own story, which cannot be said for Man of Steel. I could see Mr. Terrific, Green Lantern, Metamorpho, even The Engineer all having their own movies with rich history and motivations, and that comes through in this movie. The dynamics are human, even though the hero is alien.
I’d put Rachael Brosnahan and David Corenswet’s on-screen chemistry up there with Reeve and Kidder in the original movie. It’s very soft, very real, and definitely gets its share of screen time to develop. Seriously, no matter which version you prefer — you gotta admit the Lois and Clark stuff is just more juicy in this new movie.
WORLD-BUILDING:
Okay, here’s the hot water I’ve been looking for…
Man of Steel doesn’t do any world-building. In fact, it mostly just does world-destroying.
I like this movie (there I go editorializing), but think about it — this is the movie that kicked off what would eventually become “The Snyder-Verse,” which (as we NOW know) is rich with world-building. Zack Snyder’s Justice Leagueshowed us a world where Green Lanterns fight alongside Amazons, and Batman has already had (and lost) a Robin. This is a world where stuff has happened — but none of it is set up in this movie. It’s just kind of shown to us at various points throughout the sequels. I don’t think a flash-forward or nightmare sequence counts as establishing the world when none of it was built up to.
The only bit of universe exploration in this movie is the idea that just across the river is Gotham City — but I don’t think they even say that in the film, it’s just implied. But if the second film is meant to introduce Batman, The Flash, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Cyborg, you’d think some establishment would be present here that other metahumans at least exist — but no, we don’t get that.
In this new film, the world-building is done… differently. This movie literally drops you in the middle of an ongoing battle with Lanterns, Hawkgirl, Mr. Terrific, and other characters already out in the world doing their thing. It doesn’t bog down the movie with an explanation for everything — it just takes you there and expects you to pick it up and roll with it. Which… is a choice.
And where I think Man of Steel had NO world-building, this movie might have TOO MUCH. We hear about Gotham, we see Peacemaker, Supergirl, the early stages of The Justice League, Krypto, Bizarro — just SO MUCH. I could’ve done without the Ultra-Man stuff honestly, that was like the last bite of food when you’re already too full to keep eating.
The way that Superman establishes all of this stuff is through non-explanation. The way Snyder’s movie does it at least shows that there was intent to take it slow and build out this universe over time — Warner Brothers is probably to blame for this one, not Snyder. If you don’t believe me, look at how much rich world-building was set up AND paid off in the Snyder Cut of Justice League. The dude obviously knows how to make a world that we enjoy sitting in.
Truly it’s a clash of styles — Snyder went for the slow, mythical approach of Superman, while Gunn went for the high-octane popcorn romp with heart and soul driving the story.
TONE
So, Man of Steel is the darker (admittedly more grounded) Superman movie. It slightly challenges the audience to see Superman in a new light by showing us how dark he could be if he didn’t choose to do good. And that’s the thing — Snyder’s movie isn’t all brooding and emo — that stuff is just used to contrast his inner-good that prevails even when things are at their worst. You can’t say Zack Snyder doesn’t care about Superman or that he doesn’t understand Superman — he does. He just used his own style to bring that lore to us. And that’s cool!
However, the movie is definitely a bit depressing in tone and I have to admit — it doesn’t inspire me to do good as much as it makes me want to do stomach crunches and punch Michael Shannon.
Superman (2025) is (once again) the opposite. This movie opts for a tone more in line with the golden age of comic books in the 50s and 60s, with daytime lighting, hyper-saturated colors, and the most comic-book costumes we’ve seen in a DC movie since, like, Shazam. These costumes and colors create a poppy, bright movie for us to feel like we’re watching a two-hour sunset. It’s a movie where the tone is optimism, as opposed to Man of Steel which is more cynicism.
I personally prefer my Superman to be lighter in tone so that the contrast between him and someone like Batman can be sharp and clear. If every superhero was realistically tragic like Man of Steel, these movies would be incredibly boring and one-note.
So, outside of the plot, characters, world-building, and tone of these movies — what’s left is two very similar intentions from two very different filmmakers. Filmmakers who are friends, by the way, so let’s not go to war in the comments on their behalf.
But folks, the big question is: which Superman movie do you prefer? Try to be respectful of others in the comments, okay? This isn’t a goddamn political debate — it’s a summer movie discussion.
www.joblo.com (Article Sourced Website)
#Man #Steel #James #Gunns #Superman