Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Thursday Aug 14, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST. This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process.
More info here
I'm undecided until they reveal in a sequel that Brainiac altered the message before Kal-El's ship left. There's a lot of room for a further reveal and this plays well as a lead up to a top Superman villain who still hasn't appeared in live action film.
Yeah, nope. None of you points have any remote validity or anyway rebut anything I said.
It is condoning the harmful stereotypes because that is exactly what Jor-El and Lara are. It would be one thing if it was a fake out or manipulation by Lex like in Birthright, but within the film, it is accepted as truth that they are Kryptonian supremacist imperialists that wanted Kal-El to conquer Earth.
And the film is not about Clark finding balance between his Kryptonian and human parents or just learning to appreciate the Kents more, if it was I would have no concern whatsoever. The film literally has him flat out replace the images/messages of the Els from the start of the film with that of the Kents. Those are literally the first and last scenes of the film.
You are also ignoring the fact that there is precedent of a hateful, bigot John Byrne doing this exact thing in the comics:
If you can't understand the problematic subtext that is implied in this film, whether intentional or unintentional, there is no point is us discussing this.
I think I've pretty succinctly rebutted your point about him rejecting his heritage. He's rejecting the harmful parts of it, sure, but not all of it.
Ok, so Jor-El and Lara are
Kryptonian supremacist imperialists.
But it's a reach to say they're "harmful stereotypes" of immigrants....because they're like...space people who never came to Earth.
Superman is the immigrant the film attempts to portray as a harmful stereotype, not Jor-El and Lara. Jor-El and Lara can't be considered immigrants. They never emigrated.
The harmful stereotypes that can be associated with immigrants are found in the attempts to paint Superman himself in broad strokes by Lex Luthor and certain aspects of the media.
And again, the film immediately undermines and depicts these stereotypes as harmful, read: wrong, so no, there's no "condoning" of them to be found in the film. Quite the opposite.
I didn't just say that the film is about him finding balance between his families. I said also "heritage". There's an element of finding balance between his two heritages to the film. There are numerous indications that this is the case. It's not an accident that the film is bookended with
him going to the Fortress to heal, and going to Kansas to heal in the middle.
Yes, he replaces the images of his Kryptonian parents (this one time, mind you, there's no actual emphasis that he will only ever watch these Kent videos again during his sessions, just that in this moment he feels comfort from them). This act is clearly symbolic of the rejection of some of the values of his family of origin, but so was the previous scene with Lois where he rejects those ideals.
But this is also a story about the nature of adopted family, not just being an immigrant.
So the end of the film is
symbolic of him rejecting the problematic elements of his original parentage and embracing his adopted family.
It is not however, symbolic of him rejecting his heritage as an immigrant, and it doesn't paint all immigrant heritages as something to be rejected, either. At all.
He's still on the mission to save people that he believed his Kryptonian parents sent him on originally. He's still using a Fortress directly tied to his Kryptonian heritage, wearing a costume that one assumes is also directly tied to that heritage, and working with robots who, one assumes, are also tied to that heritage. He has kept it The Fortress as his base of operations despite it being breached (metpahor?), so he clearly still finds some value there. He's just also shown to be aware of the impact his human parents have had on who he has become. But those images are circling around in front of the backdrop of Kryptonian crystal. From a visual standpoint, it couldn't be clearer what the filmmaker is doing.
I liked the twist. Adds more to the character of DCU Superman, imo.
I was convinced it was doctored , till I heard Gunn confirmed it wasn’t in his recent interview.
I think I've pretty succinctly rebutted your point about him rejecting his heritage. He's rejecting the harmful parts of it, sure, but not all of it.
Ok, so Jor-El and Lara are
Kryptonian supremacist imperialists.
But it's a reach to say they're "harmful stereotypes" of immigrants....because they're like...space people who never came to Earth.
Superman is the immigrant the film attempts to portray as a harmful stereotype, not Jor-El and Lara. Jor-El and Lara can't be considered immigrants. They never emigrated.
The harmful stereotypes that can be associated with immigrants are found in the attempts to paint Superman himself in broad strokes by Lex Luthor and certain aspects of the media.
And again, the film immediately undermines and depicts these stereotypes as harmful, read: wrong, so no, there's no "condoning" of them to be found in the film. Quite the opposite.
I didn't just say that the film is about him finding balance between his families. I said also "heritage". There's an element of finding balance between his two heritages to the film. There are numerous indications that this is the case. It's not an accident that the film is bookended with
him going to the Fortress to heal, and going to Kansas to heal in the middle.
Yes, he replaces the images of his Kryptonian parents (this one time, mind you, there's no actual emphasis that he will only ever watch these Kent videos again during his sessions, just that in this moment he feels comfort from them). This act is clearly symbolic of the rejection of some of the values of his family of origin, but so was the previous scene with Lois where he rejects those ideals.
But this is also a story about the nature of adopted family, not just being an immigrant.
So the end of the film is
symbolic of him rejecting the problematic elements of his original parentage and embracing his adopted family.
It is not however, symbolic of him rejecting his heritage as an immigrant, and it doesn't paint all immigrant heritages as something to be rejected, either. At all.
He's still on the mission to save people that he believed his Kryptonian parents sent him on originally. He's still using a Fortress directly tied to his Kryptonian heritage, wearing a costume that one assumes is also directly tied to that heritage, and working with robots who, one assumes, are also tied to that heritage. He has kept it The Fortress as his base of operations despite it being breached (metpahor?), so he clearly still finds some value there. He's just also shown to be aware of the impact his human parents have had on who he has become. But those images are circling around in front of the backdrop of Kryptonian crystal. From a visual standpoint, it couldn't be clearer what the filmmaker is doing.
No ****, they are Kryptonians and not a real species or culture on Earth. Science fiction is allegory and uses fantasy to say things about real life. The fact that the Els use language like "take many wives" arguably plays into Islamophobic/Middle Eastern stereotypes.
Honestly, I don't care about anything you have to say. All of your points are wishful thinking based on things you want to be in the film. You may interpret the film differently, but do you seriously think it was good idea to come in here and try and post point by point takedowns telling people how they interpreted the film is wrong?
Especially as (presumably a white) guy from Ohio whereas the majority of the people in here expressing concerns are people of colour and/or immigrants? Ever heard of unconscious bias or cultural blindspots?
No ****, they are Kryptonians and not a real species or culture on Earth. Science fiction is allegory and uses fantasy to say things about real life. The fact that the Els use language like "take many wives" arguably plays into Islamophobic/Middle Eastern stereotypes.
Honestly, I don't care about anything you have to say. All of your points are wishful thinking based on things you want to be in the film. You may interpret the film differently, but do you seriously think it was good idea to come in here and try and post point by point takedowns telling people how they interpreted the film is wrong?
Especially as (presumably a white) guy from Ohio whereas the majority of the people in here expressing concerns are people of colour and/or immigrants? Ever heard of unconscious bias or cultural blindspots?
Because they're spoilers, and I felt like putting them in spoiler tags.
Right, that one stereotype could be playing into a particular group, but like Luthor and his allies, you're cherrypicking to focus in on that one particular stereotype. They don't only talk about
"taking many wives"
, it's one of several things they reference. And that particular stereotype could also play into, oh, say, Utah-area stereotypes or various other religious groups or cults, and the inference, that foreigners or others are here to take your women, has been used with countless attacks against others throughout history. It's pretty vague stuff, which helps makes it appropriate for the allegoric use in the film.
I agree that stereotyping and demonizing can be problematic, and that the inclusion of those elements could have been, if handled irresponsibly. I don't agree that the film did that, or that it actually presents these concepts in a problematic fashion, other than establishing that stereotyping itself is problematic. Unconscious bias or cultural blindspots? About what? What am I missing here that's actually in the film? You are welcome to elaborate on that.
A "takedown", by definition, would be a lot briefer and more to the point. I don't really do that.
I don't know if this would be a "plot hole" or if it legit casts doubt on the message being 100% real (despite what Gunn is saying).
but, how would Earth linguists even be able to translate Kryptonian into English? Are we just chalking that up to the Engineer's abilities or Lex's "resources?"
Because they're spoilers, and I felt like putting them in spoiler tags.
Right, that one stereotype could be playing into a particular group, but like Luthor and his allies, you're cherrypicking to focus in on that one particular stereotype. They don't only talk about
"taking many wives"
, it's one of several things they reference. And that particular stereotype could also play into, oh, say, Utah-area stereotypes or various other religious groups or cults, and the inference, that foreigners or others are here to take your women, has been used with countless attacks against others throughout history. It's pretty vague stuff, which helps makes it appropriate for the allegoric use in the film.
I agree that stereotyping and demonizing can be problematic, and that the inclusion of those elements could have been, if handled irresponsibly. I don't agree that the film did that, or that it actually presents these concepts in a problematic fashion, other than establishing that stereotyping itself is problematic. Unconscious bias or cultural blindspots? About what? What am I missing here that's actually in the film? You are welcome to elaborate on that.
A "takedown", by definition, would be a lot briefer and more to the point. I don't really do that.
That is absolutely not the primary thing it evokes and you know it. It is completely irrelevant that it can also apply to fundamentalist Mormons because the story is not coded as being about that on any level. Superman's origins are foreign coded, therein lies the issue. No one thinks Gunn is being intentionally racist or xenophobic, we just think his screenplay was incredibly throughtless and ill judged.
The breeding with human women thing is really, really strong emphasized. It's the main element of his Evil Foreign Heritage that characters harp on.
tho I think the message was legit.... there might still be more context revealed about it in the future
like, maybe Kryptonians visited Earth during a more primitive time of our development and they were met with great hostility, and Lore on Krypton of this "primitive planet" kept getting exaggerated with each generation that passed on the stories (and they were basically raised to hate Earth) not knowing what we've become since
not that it justify such a thing
but, at the end of the day what his parents exceptions were of him, doesn't matter...he still choose his own path to do good (and there's nothing more human then defining your parents and not following their ideals for you)
I get it doesn't fit the traditional Jor-El we think of from the comic
but, if they didn't change it the story wouldn't have happen (they needed a conflict for Superman to over come) something that would turn the people against him, an even make him question himself
does it suck they had to dishonor the El name to do so... Yes
tho I think the message was legit.... there might still be more context revealed about it in the future
like, maybe Kryptonians visited Earth during a more primitive time of our development and they were met with great hostility, and Lore on Krypton of this "primitive planet" kept getting exaggerated with each generation that passed on the stories (and they were basically raised to hate Earth) not knowing what we've become since
not that it justify such a thing
but, at the end of the day what his parents exceptions were of him, doesn't matter...he still choose his own path to do good (and there's nothing more human then defining your parents and not following their ideals for you)
I get it doesn't fit the traditional Jor-El we think of from the comic
but, if they didn't change it the story wouldn't have happen (they needed a conflict for Superman to over come) something that would turn the people against him, an even make him question himself
does it suck they had to dishonor the El name to do so... Yes
'I know Lex's guys' they wouldn't lie about this' or whatever the line was, and then everyone instantly turns on Supes.
And then the lex story breaks and everyone instantly turns on him. Its the most fickle world ever.
And doesnt this kind of taint the Superman costume / emblem? Like if Martha makes him a homemade costume for the next film with a more classic S, then great, I'll take it. But how can he proudly wear this films' symbol anymore. It would be like having a favourite t shirt, and then realising the logo on it is linked to some err, pretty shady movement. You wouldn't wear it again right?
I know what Gunn has said about the message being legit, but after watching the movie again, the first half of the message doesn't match the 2nd part for me.
I think Gunn is either keeping spoilers to himself, or, he has a big online presence and will realise his decision about the El's needs to be changed at some point.
Brainiac tampering with the message would be a good story thread in the future as some have suggested.
When I was first hearing about the origin change, it didn't sit right with me. Upon watching the film, I didn't mind the change one bit.
That said, I can totally understand why it would bug some long time Superman fans. I started really getting into the character during the time of Smallville, and Jor-El (in the early seasons) was definitely a bit harsh/cold in that iteration.
I have talked to two of my long time Supes fans, and it didn't sit right right at all with one, the other was sure it was a fake message lol. Both liked/loved the movie still.
If Gunn does go back on it, that's cool with me. If it stays... that's cool with me. Superman is still Superman.
I think we may learn in the sequel that Brainiac was spreading disinformation and influence throughout Krypton and that (at least partially) swayed Jor and Lara to want to colonize other planets to avoid Krypton’s ultimate end. In other words, we don’t find out that he tampered with the message, but that he definitely helped corrupt aspects of Krypton to further his own goals of capturing cities and planets.
I know what Gunn has said about the message being legit, but after watching the movie again, the first half of the message doesn't match the 2nd part for me.
I think Gunn is either keeping spoilers to himself, or, he has a big online presence and will realise his decision about the El's needs to be changed at some point.
Brainiac tampering with the message would be a good story thread in the future as some have suggested.
Yeah that was my thought as well. When you listen to both halves of the message together, they don't really match up in terms of tone and theme.
Plus, when I first watched the movie, my initial impression was it sounded like different voice overs for the 2nd half. That is, the voices for the 2nd half of the message sounded slightly different than the voices in the 1st half.
On my 2nd viewing, I didn't detect that difference as much. But the overall tone or message of the 2 halves does seem to contradict each other. Just the words and language used sound like they are coming from 2 different people.
And doesnt this kind of taint the Superman costume / emblem? Like if Martha makes him a homemade costume for the next film with a more classic S, then great, I'll take it. But how can he proudly wear this films' symbol anymore. It would be like having a favourite t shirt, and then realising the logo on it is linked to some err, pretty shady movement. You wouldn't wear it again right?
I very respectifully dont understand the push back against this. Its a beautiful message about how each one of us make our OWN choices and destiny and nothing about us is predetermined just because we came from rotten roots.
A kid coming from awful parents doesnt mean the kid him or herself has to be awful, they can CHOOSE to break the chain and maybe even redefine what their lineage stands for and be something greater.
'I know Lex's guys' they wouldn't lie about this' or whatever the line was, and then everyone instantly turns on Supes.
And then the lex story breaks and everyone instantly turns on him. Its the most fickle world ever.
And doesnt this kind of taint the Superman costume / emblem? Like if Martha makes him a homemade costume for the next film with a more classic S, then great, I'll take it. But how can he proudly wear this films' symbol anymore. It would be like having a favourite t shirt, and then realising the logo on it is linked to some err, pretty shady movement. You wouldn't wear it again right?
Over a disagreement, no. But if the world learnt they wanted me to conquer the earth and take hareems, then yeah I'd think twice about branding myself with that same name
That is absolutely not the primary thing it evokes and you know it. It is completely irrelevant that it can also apply to fundamentalist Mormons because the story is not coded as being about that on any level. Superman's origins are foreign coded, therein lies the issue. No one thinks Gunn is being intentionally racist or xenophobic, we just think his screenplay was incredibly throughtless and ill judged.
The breeding with human women thing is really, really strong emphasized. It's the main element of his Evil Foreign Heritage that characters harp on.
The breeding with human women thing with human is really, really strongly emphasized by Lex and a certain faction of the media. Because they're the bad guys, who are trying to manipulate people with a soundbyte and sensationalism.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
when we see him and Lara.
