For over a decade, people have had a field day pointing out the “problems” with Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel. You know the greatest hits by now: “He’s too dark,” “He’s too angry,” “Superman doesn’t kill,” and “Why did he destroy half of Metropolis while fighting Zod?” You couldn’t say “Henry Cavill” online in the last few years without someone crawling out of the shadows to remind you Superman is supposed to smile more. That 2013 film has been dissected, criticized, and meme’d to death. But now, in a twist of cinematic irony, James Gunn’s Superman (2025) walks in wearing a bright blue suit and does… almost exactly the same things. No, really.
Despite all the cheerleading and “this is finally the Superman we deserve” noise online, David Corenswet’s Superman racks up just as much destruction, if not more. While Snyder’s version brought down buildings during a slugfest with General Zod, Gunn’s Superman watches as Lex Luthor splits the city in half like it’s a magic trick gone wrong. We’re supposed to believe that no one died, but come on. Half a city ripped apart? There’s no way everyone walked away from that with nothing but a few scratches.
Remember how everyone lost their minds when Cavill’s Superman killed Zod? People called it a betrayal of everything the character stood for. So what does Corenswet’s Kal-El do when he fights Ultraman, his morally wayward clone? He lets him get smacked by a bus and sucked into a black hole. That dude is gone. Like, gone gone. And this version of Superman? Doesn’t flinch. Doesn’t mourn. Doesn’t even drop a “sorry, dude.” But we’re okay with that now?
Funny enough, that’s not even the most violent moment in Superman (2025). That has to be the moment where Lex Luthor casually shoots a civilian (who helped Superman out of a hole and once gave him some food to eat) right in the head. It’s brutal. Snyder’s Luthor may have been mental, weird and twitchy, but he wasn’t rolling around committing cold-blooded murder like he’s in a Tarantino movie.
For all the outrage aimed at Man of Steel, Cavill’s Superman did save people. He pulled a child from a burning building. He stopped a soldier from falling to his death. He saved a family from a flood. He tried. He cared. He didn’t just leave people for dead, no matter how much people wanted to believe that.
Yes, Gunn’s Superman saves a dog, a squirrel, and a few pedestrians in between the chaos, but so did Cavill. So what exactly are we praising here? The tone? The lighter palette? The color grading? The humour?
The truth is, both versions are actually valid. Cavill’s Superman was born into a world that feared him just like Corenswet’s. But while Corenswet’s Superman seemed like he was trying to fit into the world, Henry Cavill’s struggled with acceptance. One is brooding and conflicted. The other’s more Boy Scout, but not without flaws. They punch, they get angry, they struggle with identity. They are both Superman.
So the next time someone says Man of Steel “wasn’t Superman,” ask them how they feel about Corenswet letting Ultraman die while Metropolis crumbles behind him. Or how they feel about Jor-El and Lara being dictators in James Gunn’s Superman. Or their thoughts on Hawkgirl straight-up killing off the President of Boravia. If you’re okay with one, maybe it’s time to admit you were a little unfair on the DCEU.
RELATED: Henry Cavill Wasn’t the Best Superman. Here’s Who Was…
