Superman Reminds Us What Heroism Can Look Like

First, Some Thoughts on the Controversy

Media companies naturally try to figure out how to increase their audience. If there is a conspiracy to interfere in media, it’s a conspiracy to increase the number of customers. Recent controversies about inclusion in media are not authentic reactions. They are part of a manufactured conflict designed to normalize exclusionary discourse.

An Inclusion Problem

Inclusion is anathema to some of today’s most vocal social media critics, and they construct paradoxical arguments that rest on the idea that they are victimized by efforts to include others. They speak and behave as though they lose something if other people are included – or even seen as belonging. To construct that world where this attitude is normal, you have to require other people accept exclusion. And for that to happen, you have to keep attacking media in such a way that uncivil speech isn’t just allowed in the “free speech sense,” but becomes normal to hear. No matter how narrow or widespread, home-grown or astroturfed the online reaction to Superman has been, it’s part of a background political effort that seeks to mainstream uncivil talk (.i.e. make objectionable ways of talking acceptable and normal) about the struggles of marginalized people (Johnson, 2024).

Some of these reactions started out in our culture bolstered by the idea that inclusive efforts were ruining media. The inclusive values you can see in the media from half a century ago are some of the same values you can see in media being attacked today, just applied to new groups of people. I can see how some people might find that prospect upsetting if they viewed themselves as apolitical and were concerned about the entertainment they loved. But in turning the online speech about media so normally uncivil, this concerted political effort to apply an anti-inclusive lens to any and every piece of media has diminished enjoyment of media. It’s made the whole environment around genre media gross.

A History of Promoting Social Progress

I’ve been recently re-watching Star Trek with my family, both the original series and Star Trek: The Next Generation. It’s impossible not to notice two things: the preachy¹ elements that relate to social justice issues of the time, and how popular culture has progressed in some ways. Civil rights was an extremely prominent issue in TOS. Anti-war sentiments related to mass destruction were also very prominent. The dangers of foreign intervention were in specific stories and in the idea of the Prime Directive. We accepted it then. Should we have expected that social justice would never progress? Consider how naive it is to think that the media of today should declare victory on all facets of social justice and simply move on from allegory that’s been its mainstay from the beginning.

Alternately, are people truly expecting that the problems of the 60’s should be exactly as relevant to people today as they were then? It’s very startling when you consider any sci-fi genre fan saying today’s social commentary is heavy handed has to deny that Star Trek of the 1960’s hit the viewer on the head with its commentary. Which is why these discussions usually devolve to “well, I just think they sacrificed entertainment for wokeness.” This is exactly the attack on DEI - setting up a dichotomy between excellence and diversity, equity, and inclusion. This idea that one can’t coexist with the other (DEI vs. excellence) as a core value for some people that has no basis in reality. Recent films like Black Panther or series like Star Trek: Strange New Worlds prove that inclusive storytelling can be both critically acclaimed and financially successful.

Values in Conflict

We all pick up our values from family, friends, and the media we consume. But lately, some values—like inclusion or empathy—have been treated like they’re at odds with things like excellence or toughness. That false conflict has been manufactured, and it’s made it easier for people to dismiss compassion as “virtue signaling” or equality as some kind of threat. Some critics argue that inclusive portrayals can feel heavy-handed or tokenistic. While this can occasionally happen, the solution isn’t exclusion. It’s demanding nuanced, high-quality storytelling, which is entirely compatible with inclusive values.

When the values we absorb start to clash, it creates tension. Maybe you’ve noticed more division in your daily life, or that simple conversations feel more charged than they used to. People say “don’t talk politics,” but most of what shapes our choices is personal, not political. Manufactured conflicts over values don’t just disrupt our civic life. They make it harder to enjoy the stories we share, setting up a strange paradox where the people demanding “better” media end up working to ruin it.

The Paradox of Ruined Enjoyment

Inclusive, equitable, empathetic, and compassionate media is vilified because it threatens exclusionary worldviews. If people keep enjoying media like Star Trek, Star Wars, Superman, Marvel movies, and Disney, with all their updated allegories, then the argument that inclusion ruins everything starts to fall apart. That’s a problem for those who rely on outrage. So they attack, mock, and root for failure—not just because they dislike what they see, but because they need others to dislike it, too.

You can sidestep this waste-of-time controversy by embracing the idea of inclusive media by ignoring the controversies and even being glad that a larger tent possibly means more opportunities for genre media to enjoy. The growing tent of fans has brought us so many mainstream science fiction that has enriched the lives of people who appreciate it. Be one of those people. Find yourself represented in these stories, which are about the human condition, even though the face and specific circumstances of that condition may be different than yours.

OK, on to Superman.

The Review

James Gunn (the director of films such as Guardians of the Galaxy and the more recent Suicide Squad) has released his directorial take on the character of Superman. I want to talk about what it was like to see this, and why I’d watch it again.

A controversy over Superman began after director James Gunn referred to Superman as an immigrant story. This description, which is entirely consistent with the history of the character, was attacked in manufactured outrage online and in conservative media. It even attracted the attention of one former Superman and Lois actor². The outrage is proving to be short-lived. Today, as the opening weekend is still going on, people are replacing the criticisms with their own perceptions of the film, and there have been great responses by the people involved with the production³. I began writing this in the middle of the controversy, but looking at the movie through a lens of disapproval over inclusion made me think “what is it about this Superman that people might identify with?”

The film begins with a scene that is detailed in the trailers: Superman has been defeated and must seek help to survive. Immediately, Gunn is telling us how he wants us to be able to connect with his version of Superman. Soon, he’s getting help in the shape of Krypto, a super-powered dog. And already, you’re seeing pain, defeat, frustration, but also amusement (I heard kids in the theater laugh at the over-enthusiastic Krypto playfully battering Superman) and hope. This is the beginning of the film and was revealed in trailers. Gunn is telling us that this Superman isn’t the solution to your problems. Life is going to beat the stuffing out of you sometimes, and you might even need help to get right again. In a time when many people are feeling let down, we meet a super hero who is let down first by his powers, and later grapples with some more serious internal and external letdowns.

Superman has a complicated relationship with the meta-humans (super heroes) of this fictional world, and one thing I enjoyed was how different fight sequences were from movies like Justice League or The Avengers. I appreciate fights that feel more like good D&D sessions, that is, messy attempts at trying different things to succeed. There are sometimes plans, and sometimes not, and everyone is trying to work together, but things can get weird and not everything works at all like it ought to. But, still, there is the common goal.

Despite Superman getting top billing in the movie, a lot of effort went into making this a film that uses its cast for more than just a way to bridge action sequences. There’s significant character development aside from the hero, his love interest, and the villain. Many of the side-characters are of vital importance to advancing the plot. Again, it feels like an intentional choice to show that the world is more than Superman. You’re going to have to figure out how you fit into solving the biggest problems.

In Sam Raimi’s 2004 film Spider-Man 2, the titular hero saves a train full of passengers headed for disaster, exhausting and injuring himself. The passengers carry the unconscious and unmasked Peter Parker back into the cabin and lay him down, noting that he’s just a young kid. His mask is returned to him with the promise from a young child that they “won’t tell nobody” about his secret identity. Fans recall this scene (and others like it) fondly for showing a sense of connection between a fantastical hero and the people who appreciate his sacrifices. This Superman film has small scenes that connect him with the public, but I believe the sentiment that made that subway scene iconic for Spider-Man is more woven into the script of Superman.

There is a corniness to Superman, not just in the squeaky-clean language of Superman even amid the more realistic modern parlance of his companions and adversaries. Comic book films have a history of campiness seen in the “golly-gee-whiz” of 60’s Batman. Even the Batman films of the 90’s, where Tim Burton (beginning in 1989’s Batman) gave Bruce Wayne’s tortured hero some seriousness, descended back into the zany ridiculousness of Batman and Robin⁴ less than a decade later. Superhero movies came back with some great films (thanks, Christopher Nolan) but arguably over-corrected as everything had to be completely dark and foreboding. Superman struggles with some pretty heavy issues, and even challenges to his values beyond the familiar fact that not everyone around him shares those values. He struggles with existential issues, and though there is some very slight brooding, either the pacing of the film or the people he turns to for wisdom prevents him from wallowing there for more than a few moments.

With Superman, Gunn is not trying to make you believe that a man could fly. He’s reminding us that prejudice, division, and labels are villains that real people face. Heroism in our own stories comes from how we rise above these challenges, and when we judge ourselves or others not by superficial differences, but by the strength of our character and our actions.

Martin Luther King said:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream was once controversial. Today, it still hasn’t been fully realized. And yet it’s echoed in genre stories that ask us to look beyond origin, appearance, or power, and instead see people for their choices and actions.

Superman engages deeply with universal human values, and I think it will resonate with anyone who has wished to be judged by character rather than superficial traits. If Lex Luthor’s villainy hits uncomfortably close to home, perhaps this film arrives at exactly the right moment to remind us that the true power to change perceptions and make a difference lies entirely in our hands.

References

Johnson, P. (2024). (Re)contextualizing the ‘anti-woke’ discourse: Attitudes towards gender-inclusive language in English and French on X (formerly Twitter). Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict . https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00114.joh

Footnotes

1. The term “parable” is often used to describe works of genre fiction that convey moral or social lessons. For example, the National Endowment for the Arts refers to Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 as “a visionary parable of a society gone awry.” Despite this, Bradbury’s work is rarely criticized as “preachy.” The definition of a parable itself is “stories told to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson.” The proliferation of these “parables” suggests that moral commentary is integral to the genre. Critiquing genre fiction as “preachy” ignored the long tradition of using allegory and parable to address social issues. If it’s common in some of the most celebrated works of science fiction, why is it suddenly a problem today for people who consider themselves genre fans? ↩

2. The Internet clapbacks against Dean Cain’s embrace of the Fox News manufactured outrage are worth the price of admission, as fans point out examples of what he’d call “wokeness” in his own show, and other portrayals. Every one of them is chef’s kiss. In a scene from WB’s Smallville, Clark refers to himself as an “illegal immigrant” to make a point to Martha Kent. ↩

3. Nathan Fillion dismissed the controversy with “Somebody needs a hug.” But I also liked the director’s brother-Sean Gunn’s interview reaction. It contained the statement “We support our people.” ↩

4. The theater where I saw this movie, Cinema 140 on Route 140 in New Bedford, MA, was plagued with problems during the showing, with the sound cutting out and the film stopping several times. The cinema closed soon after before closing for good in 2000. ↩