This column contains minor spoilers for the 2025 “Superman.”
I grew up liking superheroes and owning their action figures. Batman, Spiderman and Iron Man were my big three. Superman, though, never stood out to me. I feel it’s because I wasn’t exposed to good Superman content during my childhood.
When it comes to live-action films, Christopher Reeve is the definitive Superman for many — but his films came out in the 70s. I never got around to watching Brandon Routh’s 2006 adaptation, and I found Henry Cavill’s version forgettable.
When I saw trailers featuring David Corenswet in a bright blue suit and red trunks, reminiscent of the hero’s suit in the comics, I was invested. The new film looked bright, colorful and faithful, and Superman felt welcoming. I felt like I might finally see why he’s a favorite for many.
Superman is often dismissed as a boring, all-powerful Boy Scout, but his newest iteration made this characterization meaningful. He confronts evil with overwhelming kindness and believes everyone can do good.
This attitude, combined with his god-like powers, makes him seem generic — almost lacking emotional depth. But as the face of superheroes, he should be generic and embody common traits that people find inspiring.
Even with his powers, you watch him struggle, and he carries himself like a man raised by humble Kansas farmers. James Gunn’s writing made it overwhelmingly clear that Superman wants to help everyone in Metropolis, even a giant kaiju terrorizing the city or a squirrel about to get stomped.
This makes him relatable and lets us know we can aspire to be like him. Although we can’t fly or shoot lasers from our eyes, we can choose to help others and do what’s right. It’s a beneficial message for kids growing up in a fractured world plagued by war, discrimination and unrest.
Despite its hopeful tone, the film hasn’t been without controversy. Gunn has faced backlash for branding Superman’s character development as an immigrant story and including a territorial conflict between the fictional nations of Boravia and Jarhanpur, with some viewing it as a symbol of the war on Gaza. Ex-Superman Dean Cain criticized the film for being too “woke,” with its apparent pro-immigration commentary.
Superman was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster, sons of Jewish immigrants. They understood the challenges faced by refugees and used their knowledge to shape the character. If we ignore the fantasy and consider his origins, we realize Superman’s story is about a refugee (from another planet) trying to do good and striving in the face of persecution.
Despite criticisms, Gunn maintains the film is about kindness, something “everyone can relate to.”
As apolitical as he wants the film to remain, superheroes are reactionary constructs. Superman’s character is a reaction to the struggles that people face when they adjust to life in a new country.
The rise of the gritty Byronic superhero in films (take for example Cavill’s Superman) is a reaction to post 9/11 politics. These heroes symbolized America, specifically the dichotomy between the country’s bad actions and its status as the model republic. They were a digestible way of representing America’s identity crisis.
This new adaptation of Superman moves away from that, instead symbolizing classic democratic values like championing the weak and fighting against corporate greed. To me, "Superman” (2025) is a reaction to the division in the U.S., advocating for hope and unity over cynicism and conflict.
There’s no separating it from politics, and that’s divisive. But maybe America really needed this new Superman film, because it reclaims his hopeful essence and presents a moral compass and positive role model in the form of a superhero on the big screen.
Joaquin Baerga (he/him) is a junior studying journalism.
