It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Krypto I guess was too much by design, served a purpose for humor and to carry the story forward with that energy at key points. And recalling a comic book ethos I told myself to be honest. After a point the uncontrollable dog was just a given for me but not my taste coming in.
A film that celebrates the character, as Bond films always do.
Very enjoyable, I really liked it. James Gunn really has made a great movie and clearly understands the genre. David Corenswet is easily the best Superman since Christopher Reeve, he does very well in the role.
Good old fashioned entertainment that does exactly what it says on the tin.
Looking forward to future instalments.
Looks like it’s a $122m opening.
https://www.the-numbers.com/weekend-box-office-chart
Pretty good considering that the DC brand had been severely tarnished in recent years and this is basically Superman in recovery mode. The real test will be how well it performs down the line. I think the best comparison would be BATMAN BEGINS, which was following up a long draught after BATMAN & ROBIN so it really needed strong word of mouth in order to have good legs from week to week.
I can see word of mouth being a huge factor if the film continues to be a hit - everyone for the most part only has positive things to say about the film. If I’m not mistaken, the domestic gross for opening weekend has already surpassed Man Of Steel’s opening?
Box office sales for the weekend should be final by tomorrow. Careful about saying something did better than something Zack Snyder did. His cultists will freak out, lol.
I just got back from Superman (2025). Overall, I liked it. After viewing it, I realize that Superman does have his own version of the MI6 staff with the Daily Planet staff. It was perfectly cast, and I would like to see all the cast members comeback for a sequel. It's biggest strength for me was that it truly felt like a comic book come to life. Next to Batman Forever and the Sam Raimi Spider-Man Trilogy. It wasn't as cramped, as some people were afraid of.
Next to All-Star Superman, there was a bit of influence from the Superman/Batman novel Enemies and Allies by Kevin J. Anderson. In particular with Lex Luthor's plot. Can we move on from Lex and his private property plans? That proves that WB (cinematically at least) doesn't want to move forward with the character. Other than property ownership and his hatred towards Superman. I just hope that Zod won't try to make a new Krypton or rule over earth in the next one. While James Gunn is in charge, lets hope that he uses some of Superman's ACTUAL big enemies. Not just no name C or D list characters. Parasite and Toyman would be perfect for his style.
So overall, I feel that Superman is in good hands. But there are still characters and situations that can help him fly above (pun intended), other superheroes.
I loved most of the cast. David is a great Superman and fits the role to a T. I enjoyed many of the smaller parts. Perry White, Jimmy, Eve to me were all well cast. I enjoyed the action you can follow what is happening and who it is happening to. Thought Krypto was a nice addition to the cinematic family. Nicholas Hoult was really a great Lex Luthor, he was one character who I thought we knew more about. Probably because in the middle of the film it was more about him than Superman.
The thing that stopped it from being a great film for both of us was the lack of tension or caring for the characters. I am not sure if that was a function of stuffing it with so many characters that it kept us from learning more about each character.
It is a good film but to me lacked emotional punch. I wanted to really like it and came away liking it. Certainly not a terrible film, I was left wishing there was more depth to how things played out.
To be fair, we never actually had a well done Lex before. I love Hackman’s Lex, but I consider that its own thing as it was never a comics accurate portrayal. I was elated to finally have a proper Lex Luthor on screen, consumed by his own envy and jealousy of Superman when he could have tried helping better humanity instead.
I welcome diversity in thought. Whenever we lose a different opinion we lose some of what makes this discussion board so good. Discussion. I recall a few of their posts and found them to provoke thought. Didn't always agree with him but respected his opinion.
To be fair, Lex says he doesn’t really care about that land scheme as that was just something he got on the side and he considers that desert area worthless. His primary goal was just to get to Superman. He knew orchestrating all that stuff with that evil dictator would be what draws Superman. I think the land bit was more of a nod to the old Reeve film than anything else, much like him explaining how he created Ultraman out of a strand of Superman’s hair, just like Nuclear Man! At least he could fight in the shade.
It is pretty hilarious to me that the greatest Superman movie borrows from the absolute nadir 😂😂😂
They were already repeating a lot of beats from the first two movies anyway. This is very typical of what sequels used to do back in the day, especially in the 80s. It was all about the formula. This was why both versions of SUPERMAN II ended with Lois losing her memory, because the filmmakers were NOT thinking of the Superman stories as a continuing story but rather as a locked in premise with a status quo that needed to be adhered to. It’s why both BEVERLY HILLS COP II and GHOSTBUSTERS II feel like they’re just repeating the same structure as the original films.
It’s why THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK was seen as an exceptional sequel for its time as that had no Death Star that Luke had to shoot down (though a second Death Star did finally turn up for RETURN OF THE JEDI)
It's true that movie franchises were more repetitive back then. In fact, sequels were not so much sequels as "bottle movies" set in the same universe with the same characters, with everything returning back to normal at the end. Something really changed round 2000.
Here’s a really good blog entry that gets into how writers and readers felt about the idea of Lois and Superman marrying back in the 1970s, and how many of them were against it, arguing such a development would “ruin” a premise that had been going strong for 40 years.
https://superheroeseveryday.com/2022/02/11/superman-ii-2-15/