Warner Bros. Bosses Say James Gunn "Understood The Assignment" With SUPERMAN; Talk Involvement With DC Studios

@vectorsigma - while I agree with the sentiment that it needs a storyteller and not a career executive but don’t get you turning this into us vs. them.

Marvel hired Gunn in the first place, gave him creative control to tell the story of Rocket and then got him back after he got cancelled from righties for making of Trump. Disney fired him because of the political pressure but Gunn happily came back to finish his story.

Feige isn’t a career executive either, the guy breathes these stories. Not saying he’s not spread to thin these days but I would say WB took Marvels blueprint here.

Besides, it’s not like you can’t clearly tell that other filmmakers like Ryan Coogler, Destin Daniel Cretton and now Jake Schreier got to do what they wanted. There might be mandates for certain plot beats and character appearances but these movies are through and through by these directors

@Blergh -

This is really well said and I wholeheartedly agree (minus one point below). I would also add that the Bruce Timm Superman is also a perfect rendition as well. Even though Clark isn’t played for laughs, the show highlights the detective side of journalism AND Superman is not indestructible just strong, which makes fights a lot more fun.

Superman isn’t a Greek god in disguises. He’s a regular human in every way minus the super powers. He didn’t know he was an alien until many years later in life and that was AFTER he donned the tights and Superman moniker.

He’s an old fashion farm guy who just wants to help people. That’s it.

Yes, Reeves made “Clark” - bumbling around: his disguise and Superman was who he really was. But I think even the Reeves movies got this a little wrong…
Clark is the real man. He grew up genuinely as Clark from age 1 as a farm boy and son of the Kent’s. Superman was the character he created so he could help people and still have a personal life. But since he’s didn’t want a mask, he had to create a mask via glasses and acting dorkish (in some versions).

So ultimately, both Superman and “Clark in metropolis” are both disguises for the real Clark underneath it all.

@dragon316 - Yeah, let's listen to a guy who hates any fantasy franchise! He's shown us the way!

@vectorsigma -
I'm going to have to disagree on Fiege. He's a storyteller first and foremost and that is what made the MCU great up until Endgame. It's when people who weren't storytellers first got their hands on the money when things got squiffy. It also got so big and busy that he was not able to give full attention to the creative.

As for Wright, they disagreed with a few creative decisions, which is thier right, and he refused to make anything other than an Edgar Wright movie.

@vectorsigma -
You don't have to write the script to be a storyteller. His involvement was as much based on the stories told during the first phases as anything else. He was involved intimately. The problems post Endgame were a result of Victoria Alonso and others pushing a slew of crazy shit that nobody wanted to see. There was too much going on for him to focus on. I think Thunderbolts is the first one since Iger took over again where he had a higher degree of involvement. Iger got his job back in 2022, which is when Thunderbolts went into production. It has all the hallmarks of early MCU films, being character driven and more self contained.

Feige was recently quoted as saying that the MCU has felt more like homework than entertainment for the last few years and this is a change to that.

@vectorsigma -
Feige is different from Gunn, no doubt, but still focused on story. We have FF coming up, which was a passion project for Feige and then the whole Doom/Secret wars thingie. We will soon see what's up but blaming people who were involved with a big pile of shite isn't too off base, especially when things improve after they are gone.

@TheJok3r - depends on people who want to see it thunderbolts and transformers one have goodd reviews fighting stay alive transformers lost thunderbolts still fighting

@bkmeijer1 - I’ll say this in response to your assessment: these two aren’t the typical executives. They’re film nerds and lovers of the medium. They get it. They’ve somehow, in their respective careers, found a solid balance between corporate and creative. You should listen to the episode! Very good!

@bkmeijer1 - Nice! Hope you dig it!

@Blergh - Curious, how did Snyder's and Routh's come across as a "god in disguise"? Also, I never got tht impression that Reeve was PRETENDING to be cool as Superman. I mainly remember Superman 1978 portraying Superman as who he really is.

You mention Clark just being a good guy, but Snyder's Clark is never told to save people prior to doing so. Especially since he'd been doing it since he was a child despite his father's warnings.

@Blergh - Yeah, these guys seem like they get it. It was so refreshing hearing studio execs speak like just normal everyday fans. You can they love cinema and respect the medium. Not to mention their filmography which is quite impressive.

@Highflyer - "doing it since he was a child despite his father's warnings"

So, he disobeyed his father and saved people a couple of times but listened to his father that one time when his father was about to die? What a great guy. Seems to me like the guy had a grudge on his father.

@Highflyer - Maybe this will help you understand.



The one time he chose not to help. Similar beats. Except Parker doesn't know what that leads to while Clark knows exactly what it leads to. "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."

@Highflyer - "You're not my dad. You are just some guy who found me in the fields."

Failure of a dad, failure of a son. Imagine being a dad and telling his son to let people die and being the son who never listens to his dad unless its his dad who is dying. Great storytelling. Great characters. In the real world, this is called criminal negligence.

S stands for hope, yeah right, he didn't even have hope to save his dad or the fact that even if people found out, they would understand. Some hero.



Imagine being Superman, who should have greater morals than Spider-Man, end up with lower morals than the very ideal he supposedly represents. Snydermen won't understand how much the character was butchered. I'm out.

@Highflyer - When I said Snydermen, I was referring to people like you who love his desecration of the character. And according to you, in those 4years, he was indifferent to people who could have been saved and you are saying he doesn't resent his father for it? Looks to me he was waiting for it. You know for the greater good? Its all hypothetical but in the real world, everyone would be making the same assumptions.

Earth changing event anticipated by who? The guy who is asking people to die for his son who can't die by then any apparent human means? Have you ever seen or read any media regarding Superman before Man of Steel?

And who in Spider-Man accepted it like nothing? JJJ? MJ? Harry? Who did? It's a fitting comparison. Peter knew the risk and he still wanted to save the people. Clark gave up on his dad as his dad asked him to. There's a reason it is widely hated scene and divisive movie. Just cause you are unable to see or accept doesn't make it any better no matter how much you want it to be.

The writing was on the wall when MOS came out, the only reason the whole Snyderverse sucked is the weak foundation laid by Superman's weak portrayal. Which is why they are starting fresh exactly where they F***ED up last time.

And he didn't have hope when he surrendered, he knew he can't be held. No one stays good in this world. Very hopeful indeed.

@Highflyer - "I'm sure you've disagreed with the majority regarding a film"

Surely I have, but disagreeing with a movie is a different thing than disagreeing with the core of a character. That's what fans of Snyder fail to understand. I can watch MOS right now and enjoy the movie for what it is, a dumb popcorn flick like Transformers but I will still hate the movie for what it did to Superman. I enjoyed BvS more than MOS and that's saying something but I still hate the movie for what it did to Batman, Superman, Lex while also forcing Wonder Woman into a flick where she wasn't even needed.

I loved Affleck in the role and I hate that I never got a proper flick with him. I liked Cavill in the role and I hate how he has been a laughing stock thanks to Snyder or that he didn't even get to be Superman until Josstice League. Now imagine how good BvS would have been with the same cast as a sequel to a better and different Man of Steel.

The same story could have been told so much better if someone else was at the helm who actually loved Superman. And I can bet that the only reason Snyder made Batman into a killer with branding issues was to justify MOS. So, not only did he ruin a character that he never really liked but he also ruined another character that he did like to justify his previous failure.

MOS is the source of what went wrong with DCEU. Everything that went right with MOS has nothing to do with Snyder but everything that went wrong with MOS is all Snyder. Shaky camera work, no importance given to characters, motive, morals and relations. The cast pulled the whole weight of the movie and epic music was wasted on a trashy flick.

@Highflyer - Did you see me point out Zod's death at Superman's hands? It is an issue that could have been avoided but I still didn't bring it up, you know why? Because in the list of things that were wrong, that was the least of it. Pointless destruction, pointless somber dialogues and pointless forced moments to get a rise out of people in a disguise of auteurism rank way high up.

In case you didn't get my point, I'll say it in a simpler terms. Batman killed before but in BvS, like many things that has happened in Snyder flicks, he killed people pointlessly.

Imagine loving the character of Batman so much that you give him Superpowers to make him relevant in the superhero filled world. Imagine loving the character of Iron Man so much that you remove his initial irresponsibility that brought so much responsibility and accountability to his life. Destroying the core of a character and still arguing that Snyder loved Superman? Well, he didn't show it.

Changing the external and the edges is a fine thing but changing the core of the character and saying its flawed thinking to hate a film or incarnation for it is asking way too much. As I have come to see, the only people who love that incarnation is the people who were introduced to the character with that incarnation. So, they love that incarnation not the original character.

In a drastic situation, Spider-Man could lose hope but he wouldn't give up. Batman would look for the best possible alternative and be a realist. Superman would never lose hope. (1/2)

@SpiderParker -

I'm going to skip some of what you said, not as an attempt to dissmiss, but as a result of it being subjective. If you feel like a scene is pointless, then that's that. I can't force you to feel a scene to be organic.

1)Batman killing
I understood what you said. However, you just pointed out that the previous incarnation had a point to the killing. So I'll ask this as I'm genuinely curious. What point was the killing in the Burton films?

2) The core of the character.
Your Batman having Superpowers and Iron Man not feeling responsible are good examples (the batman example could have been better) but you've failed to show how the core was changed in these films.

3) Why do people love Snyder's Superman?
While there are certainly people who were introduced to Superman through these films, to suggest those are the ONLY people who love it is a stretch. I was introduced to Superman through the 1978 Donner film. Enjoyed the Dean Cain series, Justice League animated show, Smallville (still haven't finished it) and believe it or not, when I watched MOS for the first time, I initially didn't like it.

4) Josstice League
What was wrong with his performance in ZSJL?

5) Batman's logic in BvS
I'm not sure if you mean his motives for fighting Superman but you need give more than just calling something "stupid". How?

6)This is where I disagree big time. The film makes it clear that he's born to be who he is and do what he does. It's in his DNA pretty much. The same goes for the people under him. They're born to protect Krypton. Even Faora is brought to tears at the sight the ruins of Krypton and Zod empathises with her because he feels it too.

Look at what he says when Superman takes away any chance at saving Krypton.
"I exist only to protect Krypton. That is the sole purpose for which I was born. And every action I take, no matter how violent or how cruel, is for the greater good of my people. And now... I have no people. "
You even see him get emotional as he says this. Not only is his people gone, but so is his purpose for living and he's bitter about it. You make it sound like a vengeful villain can't be a desperate and ruthless villain at the same time.
Look at some of the villains we've seen. Thanos, Scarecrow, Joker, Donner's Zod. We don't have to see the backstory of a villain to see how exactly they became the person we meet in the film. How exactly did he risk his species? Krypton was gone. He said it himself.

@Highflyer - 1) Batman either killed unintentionally or tried to save, although there are instances that were arguably closer to murder, such as in the Burton films and Batman Begins when he left Ra’s al Ghul to die. I won't defend those choices as I was pretty much pissed about that as well. But in the end the good outweighs the bad, whereas, the bad outweighs the good in every case related to Snyder movies. But since you brought this up, even though Burton movies are cartoonish and yet seems more lethal than Nolan’s, it is much closer to Batman than Nolan’s in certain aspects.

And while it does seem that like Burton movies had Batman kill more people, most onscreen kills are in fact attributed to Affleck while if you consider off-screen kills then Bale leads with no competition. But again, they were good movies and each had a side of portrayal down including Affleck but Affleck backstory, no thanks to Snyder, is more f’ed up than others which shows with his Branding issues. And even then Affleck was the best Batman which is worse considering how royally he was f’ed by Snyder.

2) It is pretty self explanatory, so I don’t see the need to elaborate further into it. But if you read or watch Red Son, you will understand my point.

3) Well, your initial reaction was the correct one. Most times, a first reaction is pretty accurate and if you changed your mind, either you were coerced or learned to accept it. In any case, the art didn’t change, you did.

4) What was good about it? The movie is inferior to Josstice League in every way with possible exception of Batman. Why only a possible exception? Cause the movie is so bad it is forgettable as hell. I vaguely remember ZSJL having better portrayal of Batman, but that’s questionable, and I’m not checking out that terrible movie again just to be certain.



5) After almost 10 years since the movie came out, you really need people to remind you of what went wrong? I’m certain you remember all of them by heart by now. The greatest detective jumped to conclusions as fast as he jumped out of them. How about that?



6) Wrong. He is not born to be Superman, and that's one of the core themes of every Superman story. Again, refer to Red Son. He was intended to be like a normal 'human being' who was forced to leave his planet to survive and landed on our planet, which provided him with superhuman abilities. What he does with those abilities is directly linked to the nurturing he received from the Kents.

FYI: Jor-El didn't even know the extent of the powers granted by a yellow sun, so he would never say anything like 'He will be a god to them.' This further proves how both of his parents are better portrayed in the Donner movies.



7) Zod killed his own people, he tried to take over Krypton, and he led a coup against the Kryptonian Council. The last thing on a dictator's mind is the greater good of their people. His words and actions are contradictory, and his motives are unclear and counterintuitive. He doomed Krypton one way or another. His persistence in terraforming Earth ensured that Kal-El had to stop him. He could have worked it out with Kal-El and looked for an alternative, such as a different planet. It was never truly about Krypton and its people. He was a vengeful dictator pretending to be a tragic, duty-bound leader. Had they executed it better, he could have been interesting.



Thanos had a backstory, as did Donner's Zod. And believe it or not, so did Joker and Scarecrow. It doesn’t need to detail a character's life from Age 1, but it should be enough to show us their motivations and how they lead to their actions without contradiction. The amount generally depends on the type of story being told. For some characters, even a little is enough, while for others it is not. As is the case with different iterations of the same character. It all depends on the execution.



Donner’s Zod was a trusted general turned criminal who wanted to be a dictator and rule Krypton. This is simple enough and doesn't require further exploration of his one-dimensional methods. Snyder wanted a three-dimensional character but made it worse by having contradicting story-elements and not enough backstory for his flawed behavior. In such a case, having a well-executed one-dimensional villain is much better than a flawed and contradictory supposedly tragic hero turned villain who was, in fact, a villain from the start.

#) I'm taking a time out from this as someone who has made up his mind is unlikely to change their mind even if the logic and reason are sound. I'll attribute it to the fact that either you hated the character or weren't all that excited about it until the Snyder revamp. You were probably fooled by the aesthetically pleasing elements in that movie into thinking that the story and characterizations were all that great as well. Which is just sad considering you have checked out the other portrayals.