Superman (2025)

[The Dark Knight]

Honestly? I can't say that I am all that interested in this. I wanted to reserve judgement until I saw a actual trailer, and ehhhh ... it just looks like more of the same. A fanciful and whimsical "world" where Superheroes are literally all over the place. So, effectively, just like what we've already been getting for nearly 20 years with the Disney's MCU now? Doesn't exactly scream fresh does it? I get that the film will try and make Supes the standout amongst the established heroes and all that jazz (Gunn literally cannot help himself in littering his superhero films with a mosaic of characters), but it's just a little too "Smallville: The Movie" to my liking.

If anything, I can't help but get Bryan Singer "Superman Returns" vibes from this. Another film that had positive reactions from teasers/trailers/ect, and why wouldn't it? Singer was coming off of X1 and X2, so he certainly had the wind to his back with Superman (I also distinctly remember if you said anything contrarian about Singer's SR, you were usually met with a Kevin Spacey Lex Luthor "WRONG" meme ad nauseam lol).

Then the film came out, and there was a element of stodginess to the proceedings. Which I can't shake with this as well. As it comes across as a barrage of "best of", rather than going with something truly bold, unique, and unwonted by what we've already seen. That, I think, was just one of the major mistakes with Bryan Singer's take, and it could very well hold true here as well. Since, yeah, we're getting crystal Krypton/Fortress (again), goofy/clumsy Clark Kent (again), a variation of the John Williams theme (again ... which let's say I am of two minds. One it's a masterful theme, but at the same time, I very much think the same of Danny Elfman's Batman theme. Do I think it should've been included in Nolan's films, or in the Reevesverse? Not particularly. We're back to the stodgy point again with this.), and a (again) a more whimsical world compared to Sndyer's MOS. Which, unfortunately, isn't anything new these days since we've been absolutely saturated with that sort of "superhero cluttered world" with all the stuff that's happened with the MCU narrative of movies from 2008!

I also agree with TDK about nothing being a sure thing with it comes to Superman. To expand upon this, when SR came out in the summer of 2006, it was accompanied with merchandise and promotional tie in products up the wazoo. Also, it enjoyed the distinction of having a director who previously enjoyed major success within the comic movie genre, and outside of the genre as well (Usual Suspects). SR also had the distinction of being the very first cinematic Superman since Christopher Reeve about 19 years prior to 2006. Yet, it was the slowest crawl to $200 million domestic in recent memory. Where I think it finally hit that milestone just a week or two prior to the DVD release that Nov. Snyder's MOS was somewhere in the $600 million range I think, and that was during the height of the Superhero movie craze. We're on the other side of that, so yeah, I get that WB has essentially bet the farm on this, so to say they have a lot riding on this is an understatement.

Wasn't super surprised the trailer didn't mention anything about "The Suicide Squad", are you?

Colors, I think I would be a little more enthusiastic if Guy looked a little bit more like how EVS depicted him during the GL Rebirth era, and not like as if he literally just walked off the CW back lot. Or to a lesser extent, a SNL skit. I guess we gotta get those chuckles in there somewhere.

^ You can always trust the judgement of Uncle Bingo.

The suit doesn't translate that well from the set pics (it does have a cosplay appearance at times), nor do I like the Clark Kent hair. Corenswet has the general appearance but does he have movie star presence and charisma? That remains to be seen. The first we see Superman he's beaten up on the snow, which is an odd first reveal. Crashing down to the ground brings to mind the MoS first flight, but this looks like a visually inferior knockoff. Kal superwhistles for Krypto but there isn't any snow blowing up from that action, and why is the dog running and not flying? I think Jonathan Kent looks miscast, and they could've done better than Hoult IMO.

The movie might be better than my initial first impressions. But if it is, the ball has been fumbled with the marketing so far. Same goes with the first still photograph that revealed the suit. Just because it's Superman doesn't automatically equal bums on seats. If anything history shows that's a negative. In the character's filmic absence people have moved on, prefer other characters and those stances have hardened. I will be very interested to see the box office.

[thecolorsblend]

If you want, you can consider this post to be a down payment on the inevitable Superman (2025) Comic Book Influences thread. I suspect this movie will keep all of us, me in particular, very busy.

But as a preliminary, at one point in the teaser, Superman seems to battle a fire-breathing stegosaurus looking thing.



I'm... simply not aware of a character like this anywhere in Superman's history. The closest I can think of is Krull, a one-off baddie quickly dispatched in All-Star Superman #03.





So, my best guess is that either the fire-breathing dinosaur is an original character or else it's a VERY reinterpreted Krull. No idea which is more likely. Or if I'm even right.

But speaking of All-Star Superman, Pruitt Taylor Vince's appearance...



... somewhat reminds me of Jonathan's overall aesthetic from All-Star Superman #06.



There's also All-Star Superman #09, which begins with Superman escaping from the underverse and crash-landing back on Earth.



I'm not sure if this is another All-Star Superman reference or not. Honestly, crash-landing as shown in the teaser could have any number of possible influences behind it. But in light of all the other All-Star Superman elements going on around here, I figured that I'd at least toss this out as a possibility.

Anyway, if I'm right about the above, then this goes a long way toward supporting Gunn's claim that the film is very heavily influenced by All-Star Superman. Which is no bad thing in my book. I'm a huge All-Star Superman fan.

I'm also a little suspicious of this movie's version of Steve Lombard. What little we see of him reminds me of Steve Lombard as shown in All-Star Superman. So, I might revisit this matter when better images of Lombard become available.

[Silver Nemesis]

One of the difficulties with any Superman film is striking a balanced tone. Audiences want some humour, but not so much that the movie skis off a skyscraper wearing a pink tablecloth. They want drama and emotion, but not so much that Superman spends half the movie moping over his ex-girlfriend and spying on her family with his x-ray vision.

I like how earnest the tone of this new trailer is. Some were expecting Gunn to go overboard with the goofiness and humour, but the trailer isn't played for laughs. I'm sure there will be plenty of comedy mixed in with the drama in the finished film, and I'm ok with that as long as it's balanced. But it certainly doesn't look as though Gunn's turning it into a pure comedy, as some fans feared he might. The tone of the trailer is pleasantly heartfelt.

One thing I've noticed is the overall friendly reception the film seems to be getting. From the set pics to yesterday's teaser of the teaser, the response looks to have been mostly positive on X. People seem pretty interested.

In today's world, it's rare to see a lot of enthusiasm for any comic book movie. It's rarer still for a DC property. And it's practically unheard of for a DC property other than Batman. And for the specific character to be Superman, we're pretty much in unknown territory now.

Audiences have low expectations right now. For superhero movies in general, but especially for DC. Even so, many fans want to see Superman get his moment in the sun. Batman and Spider-Man have both had successful solo movie series over the past few decades, but Superman hasn't.

I don't imagine anyone is expecting this film to be a masterpiece, and I'm sceptical it will remedy the widespread feeling of superhero fatigue or revitalise DC's cinematic prospects as some are hoping it will. But if the genre really is on its last legs, I'd like to see Superman get one more shot at launching his own film series before it's too late. I was really excited to see a new Superman movie series launch back in 2006 and 2013, but in both cases things didn't pan out as I was hoping. This third attempt will probably be the last before the industry decides the superhero genre is no longer worth the effort. What have we got to lose?

For those lamenting the familiarity and lack of boldness in this new film, it's worth remembering how close we came to getting a very fresh, bold and different Superman movie from Jar Jar Abrams and Ta-Nehisi Coates. That fan-baiting film would've been well received by critics, but less so by fans. Considering the current ideological preoccupations of the film industry, the fact we're getting such a traditional and familiar take on Superman is a massive win in itself. The alternative, which came dangerously close to happening, could've been a lot worse.

As for comic book influences, Kingdom Come seems obvious. But All-Star Superman is prominent as well. Both of those stories are The End Of Superman in some form or another. That could be a coincidence. But the film's original title was "Legacy". So, make of all that what you will.

By this equivalent point in Superman Returns's production, we generally knew that Singer was adhering (to whatever degree) to the Donner canon and that the story of the film would revolve around Superman returning to Earth after a prolonged absence. We know FAR less about Gunn's film so far.

So, I personally am not ruling out the possibility that Gunn is essentially resurrecting Superman on film to remove him from the DCU franchise. Maybe that's cynical on my part. But there it is anyway.

The theories I've seen online suggest this film is about Superman reclaiming his legacy. It's not an origin story, but takes place in a world where Superman is already established. One theory is that the film begins with Superman returning a la 2006, only to find a cynical generation of heroes has supplanted him. That the example he's set for others has given rise to unworthy imitators, and that he must correct his 'legacy' by showing them a better example.

If anything, I can't help but get Bryan Singer "Superman Returns" vibes from this.

I'm getting that vibe too, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. I've always maintained that Singer's idea of using the Donner films as a launching pad, of starting off on familiar turf so he can hit the ground running, was sound. The problem is that Singer got bogged down in producing a nostalgic Force Awakens-style retread, when what he should have done was move forward and produce the sequels Donner would've made had he not been booted off the series in the late seventies. At least that's my take.

If Gunn is doing something similar, then Superman '25 could be the movie Superman Returns should have been.

The first we see Superman he's beaten up on the snow, which is an odd first reveal.

Some are interpreting this as a metaphor for Superman's Hollywood journey, and in particular for how the character has been sidelined and mismanaged by the industry in recent years. At the beginning of the trailer he's lying wounded, and at the end he's soaring triumphantly. Rising from the ashes of defeat, so to speak.

Of course if this movie ends up bombing or turns out to be terrible, then the trailer will age about as well as the "This will make things right" line from The Force Awakens.

Anyway, if I'm right about the above, then this goes a long way toward supporting Gunn's claim that the film is very heavily influenced by All-Star Superman. Which is no bad thing in my book. I'm a huge All-Star Superman fan.

I love All-Star Superman. It's probably my favourite Superman comic, so I'm happy to see Gunn taking influence from it.

[The Dark Knight]

For those lamenting the familiarity and lack of boldness in this new film, it's worth remembering how close we came to getting a very fresh, bold and different Superman movie from Jar Jar Abrams and Ta-Nehisi Coates. That fan-baiting film would've been well received by critics, but less so by fans. Considering the current ideological preoccupations of the film industry, the fact we're getting such a traditional and familiar take on Superman is a massive win in itself. The alternative, which came dangerously close to happening, could've been a lot worse.

You're not wrong there. Whatever this ends up being would automatically be preferable to the JJ project. I will say the one segment that did raise my interest was Superman punching through the glass, presumably being held captive by Lex. That had a spark about it. I wouldn't mind seeing more of that.

I love All-Star Superman. It's probably my favourite Superman comic, so I'm happy to see Gunn taking influence from it.

I'd say mine are Lex Luthor: Man of Steel, Earth One and Death of Superman.

I admire MoS and even BvS even more now as time marches on. It was a brief window that has gone and will probably never return. I loved how it was truly contemporary, wiping the slate clean without keeping its feet in the past visually or musically. Abandoning Zimmer's theme from WhedonLeague onwards was very disappointing to me and especially in that timeline it didn't make sense. Now Williams is here to stay full time and with the trunks. Snyder could have pushed the darkness too hard (your mileage may vary) but I think the groundwork made sense. But doing that was still a radical action for sections of the fanbase. I just don't accept that Superman only works with a Reeve foundation. But here we are again. No matter what is different it still feels like Groundhog Day. So indeed, while I'm not expecting spying on families, the Singerman comparison is still there.

[The Joker]

You can always trust the judgement of Uncle Bingo.

I like how earnest the tone of this new trailer is. Some were expecting Gunn to go overboard with the goofiness and humour, but the trailer isn't played for laughs. I'm sure there will be plenty of comedy mixed in with the drama in the finished film, and I'm ok with that as long as it's balanced. But it certainly doesn't look as though Gunn's turning it into a pure comedy, as some fans feared he might. The tone of the trailer is pleasantly heartfelt.

I got that there will be dramatic sequences throughout the film, but much of that will be undercut by comedic scenes (the MCU formula if you will). Case in point, Krypto dragging Superman away by his cape. Which, I can only assume, is supposed to elicit a response from the audience. Which is to chuckle at the absurdity of what we are seeing. A classic Gunn trope.

One thing I've noticed is the overall friendly reception the film seems to be getting. From the set pics to yesterday's teaser of the teaser, the response looks to have been mostly positive on X. People seem pretty interested.

As they say, different circles. I've seen reactions from embarrassingly gushing praise, to outright hatred, to just plain unimpressed.

I don't imagine anyone is expecting this film to be a masterpiece,

To say the least.

To say the very least!

 

and I'm sceptical it will remedy the widespread feeling of superhero fatigue or revitalise DC's cinematic prospects as some are hoping it will. But if the genre really is on its last legs, I'd like to see Superman get one more shot at launching his own film series before it's too late. I was really excited to see a new Superman movie series launch back in 2006 and 2013, but in both cases things didn't pan out as I was hoping. This third attempt will probably be the last before the industry decides the superhero genre is no longer worth the effort. What have we got to lose?

I for one would just like a simple and straightforward Superman movie without all the usual trappings of having to establish a "shared universe" at the expense of the film itself (and we all are well aware how that tends to work out, rigbt?). Thus making the movie feel just like a trailer for the next one.

Let's see here, we have; Superman, Lois Lane, Perry White, Jimmy Olson, Cat Grant, Lex Luthor, The Authority, Mr. Terrific, Hawkgirl, Metamorpho, Jonathan Kent, Martha Kent, Krypto, Ultraman, Guy Gardner, Teschmacher (again), Rick Flagg Sr. (carryover from Creature Commandos .. yay), Maxwell Lord, and Otis (again), correct? Am I missing anyone? Brainiac? Is Starro back?

Nevermind the bloated cast list, what's the budget on this?

I don't know. This just comes across as more Superfriends than Superman. I understand not wanting to get out of your comfort zone with the usual road taken by incorporating a mosaic of characters, but it would've been appreciated when you're tackling something like Superman.

For those lamenting the familiarity and lack of boldness in this new film, it's worth remembering how close we came to getting a very fresh, bold and different Superman movie from Jar Jar Abrams and Ta-Nehisi Coates. That fan-baiting film would've been well received by critics, but less so by fans. Considering the current ideological preoccupations of the film industry, the fact we're getting such a traditional and familiar take on Superman is a massive win in itself. The alternative, which came dangerously close to happening, could've been a lot worse.

Probably the worst case scenario, but at the same time, that would be just like something WB would do. Hell, I would gladly take a Superman Returns 2 over anything that Coates guy is associated with, but it's a very low bar.

I've always maintained that Singer's idea of using the Donner films as a launching pad, of starting off on familiar turf so he can hit the ground running, was sound.

Respectfully disagree, Silver.

I distinctly remember groaning out loud when I read that Singer was keeping the Donnerverse stuff as some sort of "vague continuity". To me, it just made it painfully clear that Bryan Singer was either unwilling, or unable to leave what Donner/Reeve did in the past, and begin anew. With a clean slate. We know it can be done. But for whatever reason, it's always two steps forward, and one step back with Superman. Where the refuge of Donner's version, and the whimsical silver age, is always there to go running back to. Perhaps this is me speaking as a child of the post-crisis Superman era (and I would place STAS in that as well, since it was definitely Post-Crisis adjacent), that achieved a quite admirable job in pushing past the silver/bronze age eras, but when it comes cinematic depictions? I'm afraid the that sort of earnestness we saw in the late 1980's and throughout the 1990s, almost always takes a back seat to playing it safe.

Comics aren't immune to this either to be perfectly honest. There's the New52, to a lesser degree, but compare John Byrne's Man of Steel to Geoff Johns' Secret Origin, and .... yikes. The regression and nostalgia was patently unconcealed. Hell, I'd take Birthright over playing it safe like Secret Origin. 

The problem is that Singer got bogged down in producing a nostalgic Force Awakens-style retread, when what he should have done was move forward and produce the sequels Donner would've made had he not been booted off the series in the late seventies. At least that's my take.

I'd say the red flag for Singer, was Batman Begins. A film that neither needed, nor wanted, to be tied to the Burton films (much like Burton with William Dozier before him), and did it's own thing. It would either succeed or fail. Sink or swim. In my mind, BB and SR were polar opposites of one another. Where one was bold, and presented a new direction, the other got bogged down by nostalgia, retreading, and being unable/unwilling to let go of what came before.

When I heard the Top Gun-esque guitar riff of John Williams score, my feelings were very similar to how they were when I heard the Jon Ottman rendition of theWilliams score in SR...

Welp, here we go again.

If Gunn is doing something similar, then Superman '25 could be the movie Superman Returns should have been.

We'll see. Unless a subsequent trailer is a banger, I really can't see myself rushing out to watch this next summer. I'll probably eventually get the blu ray though thanks to my OCD completionist mindset. As far as Singer and Gunn go, both men have their share of problems as human beings, but if I were to assess who's the more talented filmmaker, I'd say Singer wins that one pretty easily.

[Silver Nemesis]

I got that there will be dramatic sequences throughout the film, but much of that will be undercut by comedic scenes (the MCU formula if you will). Case in point, Krypto dragging Superman away by his cape. Which, I can only assume, is supposed to elicit a response from the audience. Which is to chuckle at the absurdity of what we are seeing. A classic Gunn trope.

I think that scene is a nod to Grant Morrison's New 52 run. Specifically Action Comics V2 #16 (March 2013).

Gunn seems to be taking a lot of inspiration from Morrison, who was in turn heavily influenced by the Silver Age. The scene with Krypto tugging on Superman's cape is typical of that era.

My main concern about the inclusion of Krypto is that he might end up being this movie's answer to baby Groot, BB-8, baby Yoda, etc. A cute sidekick who's only there to sell toys. But I like Krypto, so I'm hoping he'll be used for more than just merchandising.

I for one would just like a simple and straightforward Superman movie without all the usual trappings of having to establish a "shared universe" at the expense of the film itself (and we all are well aware how that tends to work out, rigbt?). Thus making the movie feel just like a trailer for the next one.

Let's see here, we have; Superman, Lois Lane, Perry White, Jimmy Olson, Cat Grant, Lex Luthor, The Authority, Mr. Terrific, Hawkgirl, Metamorpho, Jonathan Kent, Martha Kent, Krypto, Ultraman, Guy Gardner, Teschmacher (again), Rick Flagg Sr. (carryover from Creature Commandos .. yay), Maxwell Lord, and Otis (again), correct? Am I missing anyone? Brainiac? Is Starro back?

I'd have vastly preferred that too. The overcrowding has been a consistent problem with DC's movies since Batman v Superman. I'd rather it was just Superman vs. Brainiac, with Lois, Jimmy, Perry, etc, appearing as supporting players. But sadly this is where we are now. Everything has to be a shared universe.

See the latest news about Amazon and the James Bond franchise for an even worse example.

Respectfully disagree, Silver.

I distinctly remember groaning out loud when I read that Singer was keeping the Donnerverse stuff as some sort of "vague continuity". To me, it just made it painfully clear that Bryan Singer was either unwilling, or unable to leave what Donner/Reeve did in the past, and begin anew. With a clean slate. We know it can be done. But for whatever reason, it's always two steps forward, and one step back with Superman. Where the refuge of Donner's version, and the whimsical silver age, is always there to go running back to.

When I say use Donner's movie as a starting point, I mean simply not retelling his origin story for the nth time. By 2006, Superman's origin had been repeatedly depicted in both animation and live action. In fact we'd had two prequel TV shows on the subject: Superboy and Smallville, the latter of which was still airing at the time of SR's release. Beginning the story with all the characters in place was, in my opinion, a perfectly reasonable strategy. If implemented properly, it would've saved Singer from a lot of groundwork and spared his movie from unfavourable comparisons with Superman I and II, or with the extended origin story that fans were following on television at the time.

Instead Singer ended up inviting those comparisons by reusing lines of dialogue and repeating images and plot beats from the earlier movies; in effect, pioneering the modern day 'legacy sequel'. Ultimately he got mired in member berries and nostalgia bait (Gunn might fall into that same trap, but it's too early to say for sure). But if he'd avoided that pitfall and had just started the story with the characters in place, like a James Bond movie, I think it could've worked.

I'd say the red flag for Singer, was Batman Begins. A film that neither needed, nor wanted, to be tied to the Burton films (much like Burton with William Dozier before him), and did it's own thing. It would either succeed or fail. Sink or swim. In my mind, BB and SR were polar opposites of one another. Where one was bold, and presented a new direction, the other got bogged down by nostalgia, retreading, and being unable/unwilling to let go of what came before.

I'd argue the Batman situation was different, as prior to Batman Begins Bruce Wayne's origin story had never been adapted into live action. It had been shown in the Galactic Guardians TV show and Mask of the Phantasm, but never in live action. Burton and Schumacher both gave us only brief flashbacks to the Wayne murders. Nolan was telling an important part of Batman's story that hadn't been depicted in live action before, and he did it well. When Matt Reeves rebooted Batman he skipped the origin and got straight down to business. I maintain Singer could've done the same thing in 2006.

As far as Singer and Gunn go, both men have their share of problems as human beings, but if I were to assess who's the more talented filmmaker, I'd say Singer wins that one pretty easily.

I thought the first Guardians of the Galaxy film was ok, albeit overrated, but other than that I can't say I've ever really enjoyed any of Gunn's movies. Singer, on the other hand, gave us The Usual Suspects, X-Men II, Valkyrie and Days of Future Past, which are all good films.

Regarding the teaser, I more or less agree with Nerdrotic's take.

I've been catching up on CBMs recently, and over the past month I've watched Venom 2, Black Adam and Morbius. I thought all of them were slop. In fact with the exceptions of The Batman and No Way Home, I think every superhero movie of the 2020s has been slop. Too many of them were either overstuffed or overly dependent on audience nostalgia. Will Gunn's Superman be any different? Perhaps not. But until I know for sure, I'm trying to keep an open mind. I felt the same way about Todd Phillips' Joker back in 2019. I wasn't hyped for it, but I wasn't totally against it either. I was on the fence, hoping it would be good. That's how I feel about this movie.

I'm pretty sure the superhero movie genre is dead. The bubble's burst and the trend has run its course. I doubt the reboot of the DC universe will be a success. At best, we might get one or two ok movies amid a wave of mediocrity. For that reason, I predict Corenswet will be the last big screen version of Superman we're going to get for some time. I'm rooting for him to succeed.

[thecolorsblend]

As superficial as this might seem, one reason I'm rooting for Superman25 to succeed is because Corenswet is more or less wearing the traditional Superman outfit with the red trunks and the yellow symbol on his cape.

Those two design elements have not both been included in a film since Superman IV back in 1987. So, including them in the film now even tho modern audiences have no familiarity with them is a pretty big step in my opinion.

As to what Singer should've done with SR, for me, the real answer is NOT make the movie. Or at least, hold off on making it until Singer himself had the life experience in his own right to tell a story about middle age, midlife crises, regret and so forth. As it stands, the movie never addresses its own premise. Namely, that Superman has been absent for five years. It's pretty much swept under the rug following the airplane rescue sequence. Only Lois holds onto it. And even that goes away before too long.

There is mojo to the idea of Superman being MIA for a while. But SR doesn't handle that issue in a graceful way. And like I say, it also doesn't handle his return in a graceful way.

For better or worse, SR is arguably the first major requel to be released by Hollywood. It's easier to contextualize its bizarre continuity now than it was twenty years ago.

By contrast, Nolan had to play the ball where it lay. And in 2005, that meant moving away from the previous franchise, zigging where Burton/Schumacher zagged and so forth. One thing that has aged BB age well is how dissimilar it is to what came before. There's a very strong argument that BB has aged the best of that entire trilogy, in fact.

Like SN, I have long suspected that the comic book trend is dying. There doesn't seem to be much room for originality anymore. The Superman fan in me would actually be quite happy if Superman25 puts a bow around the CBM era. In a sense, it ends where it began, with a Superman film. "It's like poetry, it rhymes."

Also, I forgot to mention this in my influences post from a few days ago. But is that Solaris menacing Metropolis near the end of the teaser? If so, then it's safe to say that Grant Morrison is quickly becoming an unindicted co-conspirator in this film.

[The Dark Knight]

But for whatever reason, it's always two steps forward, and one step back with Superman. Where the refuge of Donner's version, and the whimsical silver age, is always there to go running back to. Perhaps this is me speaking as a child of the post-crisis Superman era (and I would place STAS in that as well, since it was definitely Post-Crisis adjacent), that achieved a quite admirable job in pushing past the silver/bronze age eras, but when it comes cinematic depictions? I'm afraid the that sort of earnestness we saw in the late 1980's and throughout the 1990s, almost always takes a back seat to playing it safe.

Absolutely true. There's a part of me that would like to see this movie fail for that very reason, and to cheer on Doomsday while he pounds Superman into the ground and kills him permanently. Imagine Schumacher, Nolan, Snyder and Reeves films all with the same Elfman Batman Theme and general aesthetic. Imagine what we would've missed out on just because they wanted to be lazy and play it safe.

I'm feeling f***ing over a lot of things now anyway. And that includes The Batman series with Reeves. This is a Superman thread but the more I think about that incarnation of Batman the more I find fault with character choices. The genre does feel played out or simply just not the same in general. I'm still wondering if it's me that changed or the genre. I'm thinking it's a bit of both.