In a year when the biggest studio for superhero movies released three feature-length films, the highest-grossing superhero film of the year was James Gunn’s Superman. Superman is not an unfamiliar character, in fact, the image of superman is synonymous with the word superhero and would likely be the first image most of us think of when thinking of superheroes. Yet, on the silver screen, the ‘Man of Steel’ has not been very lucky. Historically speaking, Christopher Reeve’s Superman is indisputably one of the greatest portrayals of a hero on screen, but since then, there have been countless interpretations and adaptations. From movies and TV shows, to animated renderings of the character, Superman's story has started to feel like a dead horse that industry executives do not know when to stop beating.

In 2022, DC Studios appointed their new Co-head James Gunn (Guardians of the Galaxy, Suicide Squad), and the new Superman project was announced in early 2023. Gunn was appointed because DC desperately needed to present a unified vision for the future of their company, especially after a messy few years of rebooting the same universe and inconsistencies from one film to another.

The previous iteration of Superman was undertaken by Zack Snyder in Man of Steel (2013), a film which was highly praised for its darker and more gritty tone at the time of its release. The puzzle lies in the fact that this narrative changed greatly in the years since the film’s release, and today, the legacy of Henry Cavill’s Superman is divisive. Some appreciate it as a new, more grounded take on Superman, while others critique the very things that it was first praised for at first. In light of Gunn’s Superman, it is normal to go online and see people saying things like “Superman is back!” or “Superman is good again!”, as if Cavill’s Superman had damaged the image of Superman greatly.

Before diving into that, it is important to understand how the film develops and why that plays an important role in how people have received it, especially compared to Man of Steel (2013). Superman (2025) wastes no time before diving into the story; as almost no time is spent on origins, and from the very first scene of the film, there is no question as to what his hero status is. At that point, Clark Kent has been Superman for almost three years. He is an established reporter at “The Daily Planet”, and he and Lois Lane have been together for a few months. Notably, Lois is also in the know about Clark’s secret identity and early on in the film, and it becomes clear to the audience that she is operating within her own storyline alongside the main plot; she is not just there to support Clark’s character.

The central conflict of the film is a moral one, where Clark feels torn between conflicts in his home city and other places abroad. The story opens with Clark crashing into the arctic (close to his fortress of solitude), gravely injured after a failed rescue attempt against a villain, self-proclaimed as “the Hammer of Boravia”. The film begins with a failure by Superman, highlighting one of the undercurrent themes of the film from the very beginning. Going back to the plot, as the story develops the audience finds out that Clark is currently facing some backlash for intervening in an overseas conflict between two fictional countries - Boravia and Jarhanpur. The conflict at hand is Boravia’s plan to displace the indigenous Jarhanpurians to expand its territory through a settler-colonial project. The scene briefly shows images of military confrontation, with Boravian soldiers facing down civilians and fights from Jarhanpur’s side. Simply put, Clark intervenes to stop an attempt by the Boravian military to attack unarmed civilians in Jarhanpur, however, seeing as Boravia is backed by the United States, this move is criticized by the government. He is critiqued for going against US policy and is asked about why he did so in a heated interview with Lois Lane - who is strictly interviewing him as Superman in the scene. His fiery response is that, instead of trying to represent the political interests of a state, he saw oppressed people in need of his help and went to rescue them.

All the while, Lex Luthor, a well-known Superman villain, is collaborating with the Boravian government to help advance his own interests in securing overseas territory. Lex also has a secondary goal, which is to destroy the heroic image of Superman that the public has, because of his incredible jealousy of him, but also a deep-seated belief that Superman is a threat to humanity’s survival. Lex cannot conceive of a situation in which Superman does not betray humanity with his overwhelming power, which is the core external conflict of the film; Lex cannot imagine having that power and not using it for one’s own interests, because that is what he (and most people) would do.

The film’s climax comes when Superman finally confronts Lex and resolves his internal conflict for the entirety of the film. He has been struggling with his sense of humanity, feeling a disconnect between his alien heritage as opposed to his human adoptive parents. At some point in the film, Superman must confront a hard truth - his parents were not the best people, and they did send him to Earth to conquer humanity. However, Clark makes a deliberate choice to go against what his parents have instructed him to do, even though he has craved some kind of direction from them his entire life. By the end of the film, he reconciled this difference within him, and accepted his humanity, recognizing the sacrifices his adoptive parents have made for him, feeling unashamed to embrace his human side.

Many have interpreted the film’s central conflict as a critique of existing power structures in the world, and maybe this is why it grossed over $600 million. Although, seeing the response this movie has gotten has prompted me to ask an important question: Why is this superman different? What makes him such a symbol of hope and good?

Superman has always been a symbol of hope and justice. In fact, his catchphrase for decades has been “truth, justice, and the American way”, which was also changed by Gunn’s team to be “truth, justice, and the future of tomorrow”. It is clear that this new Superman is a universal one, not just an American or western hero. He is above politics and is inherently good.

Perhaps that is too optimistic of a take, but from the audience reactions so far, it seems like people do not really want something realistic.

The media reflects the times in which we live, but not in the way one might think. Films are created as a form of escapism, and if the world is in a bleak state, people are probably looking for something difficult to run away from. Perhaps it is too presumptuous to assume that the entire world feels bleak to everyone, but the reception of Superman (2025) says otherwise. People are hailing the new Superman for reinvigorating the character by showing his love for humanity. Driven by love and compassion, his intentions feel pure.

How can we not cheer for him when he smashes past bureaucracy and rescues people indiscriminately of where they are from? How can we not look up to him when he stands for everything we would expect in a hero?

In a world where TV shows like “The Boys” exist, and movies like “Man of Steel” try to represent the nitty-gritty parts of being a superhero, maybe people are tired of realism.