Got back from it earlier today. Loved it.
Plot holes you can drive a bus through but I don't care, it was bright, fun and funny.
I don't need dark and brooding - I want escapism fun. Best movie Superman since Christopher Reeves.
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
174 points (97.8% liked)
movies
1136 readers
215 users here now
A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
- !television@piefed.social
- !homevideo@feddit.uk
- !mediareviews@lemmy.world
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
Rules
- Be civil
- No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
- Do not spam
- Stay on topic
- These rules will evolve as this community grows
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
fun movies need to be fun. time and time again we have learned to accept giant potholes as long as the ride is fun.
no one complained that the Trex came out of no where at the end of Jurassic park, but we were all glad it did.
this movie hits the right levels of wierd and goofy while still being fun.
did lex luthor steal the plan from Vought?
I thoroughly enjoyed it, after having gone in expecting it to be a flop.
It might be my favorite Superman movie during my lifetime. Haven't decided yet.
James Gunn generally knows what he's doing and I'm sure the movie is fine.
But a film that cost $225M to produce and another $200M to market on a franchise that's nearly a century old and has always been box office gold... If it doesn't turn a cool $1B the studio will consider it a flop. That its cruising in to the box office third place behind Minecraft (predictably disappointing) and the Live Action Lilo & Stitch (Christ, Disney, just die already) is... eh. Not a great sign for The Movies generally speaking.
I think this is one of the few cases where the studio does care more about the critical and especially fan reception than the box office returns. They are trying to relaunch their whole franchise and this is one of the cornerstones.
Also $1b is just way off considering not a single superman movie has ever achieved it based on this source.
Naw man, studios only care about money.
I think a great example to look at is The Suicide Squad. If you look purely at the numbers, Suicide Squad (2016) brought in ~750m globally versus The Suicide Squad (2021) which brought in ~170m globally.
The first Suicide Squad was one of the worst DCEU films. The second The Suicide Squad was one of the best DCEU films and handed DC Studios to James Gunn (and Peter Safran).
I think looking purely at the numbers Superman is likely to come out as small victory (monetarily). However as a franchise, it's a solid start.
The second suicide squad also came out at the height of the pandemic. I’m sure that factored into their calculations.
Children's movies tend to have inflated numbers because kids can't see the movie on their own
An arguement can be made that Superman itself is not a great sign for the movies.
Not telling anyone what they should watch, but for me personally there is little difference between Minecraft, Lilo and Stitch and Superman.
Minecraft movie is nice just as an affirmation that the game is impactful but yeah its full of nonsense famous people doing famous people things. I didnt see the other two, unfortunately I hate live action remakes and super hero movies are so predictable these days.
I'd love to hear why people like superman this time around though, maybe they did come up with some unique ideas.
I was curious about how the Minecraft movie adapted the voxel world, but I started watching it and pretty quickly turned it off.
Superhero movies are OK, I like the Batman series, but otherwise I am good watching one movie a decade (with some exceptions).
To me, a lot of the motifs are extremely provincial and lazy. I remember watching the first Iron Man in 2008, there was this scene where Downey Jr. is imprisoned in a cave by the Taliban and he builds the iron man costume out of spare parts or something and escapes.
It was so stupid. Especially considering in real life an American oligarch in such a situation would do everything to not rock the the boat and exploit his American citizenship and financial status to get released (either via an exchange or giving the Taliban lots of money).
I dont like hero movies mostly because they tend to romanticize a very juvenile view of the world, and it makes it hard to suspend belief when none of the adults act in any sort of rational way.
I do love batman though since you mentioned it, but the universe really. Gotham the tv show was fantastic, I loved the video game trilogy, and I can't think of a batman movie I haven't liked. Thats a universe where people very much act like you would expect them to given the circumstances.
It was so stupid. Especially considering in real life an American oligarch in such a situation would do everything to not rock the the boat and exploit his American citizenship and financial status to get released (either via an exchange or giving the Taliban lots of money).
It's a super hero movie. Tony Stark is an idealized futurist. You're oligarchs in the franchise are Justin Hammer or Obadiah Stane.
That's fair. I am just sharing my perspective. Keep in mind this was in 2008, when it just got released in cinemas and that was my initial gut-feeling reaction. Not sure who the other fellows are, but in my mind the Stark character was clearly an American oligarch.
As I mentioned in my OP, for me positioning Minecraft's popularity as being bad for the movie industry, while at the same time presenting Superman as a contribution to cinema seems a bit inconsistent.
Stane was the main villain of IM1. Hammer was one of the villains of IM2. Stark was an oligarch, but that's part of his character arc. He wasn't a good person in the beginning. That's the point.
As far as Minecraft and other popcorn flicks being bad for the industry, those types of movies have always existed.
You must not have seen any of the recent Superman films.
I've seen quite a few. The box office numbers are regularly better than they should be.
DC Studios will introduce the films Supergirl
That would be great if Gunn directs again!
"Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow" is the source material for the Supergirl movie.
It's dark and gritty as hell. Not Gunn's strength.
Looks like Craig has some solid films under his belt, and it's under Gunn's studio, so one might hope his influence rubs off. I'll remain cautiously optimistic about the film.
Did they really have to have the good guys go Pinochet on the bad guy at the end of the film?
Kind of disturbing.
Idk what Pinochet is
A deranged South American dictator/despot who famously threw his enemies from helicopters to their deaths. That's who Pinochet was.
Oh, then I mean it doesn't matter how the oppressor dies. But Hawkgirl was real for giving him what he desrved.
That ain't justice dude. So much for "truth, justice, and the American way." That's just normalizing the tactics of fascists. If he's a fuckin war criminal send him to the fucking Hague for trial.
isn't killing heads of state willy nilly the American way?
Can't wait till setanyahu gets the same treatment.
It was a Disney villain death. Nothing more. It was a dark moment, but was there to highlight the difference between the naive Superman and the more cynical Heroes. Superman would have dragged him to the Hague, but does Hawkgirl even know about that? I would like to see something like that going forward in the series, but it makes sense now.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisneyVillainDeath