James Gunn suggests Superman may have already met Batman

Is there a chance that Superman and Batman have already met in the DCU? DC Studios Co-CEO James Gunn isn't ruling it out.

Gunn sat down with Jake's Takes to discuss Superman, but, inevitably, topics arose about the future of the DCU. The host asks, "What I love about this movie is often times seeing Superman's reaction to things because he is so human that even though he is Superman he has a very human reaction to things. What do you think his reaction is going to be the first time he sees a man dressed up as a bat?" To which Gunn replied, "Well, first of all, we don't know he hasn't already seen a man dressed up as a bat. But I think that he'd probably see a kindred spirit in that another crazy person wearing a crazy costume with a very different intent."

Creature Commandos, which is in the new DCU continuity, made it very clear that Superman is already active, so it seems logical they may have already encountered one another.

The cast of Superman is set to include David Corenswet as Superman, and Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane. They will all be joined by Isabela Merced as Hawkgirl, Edi Gathegi as Mister Terrific, Anthony Carrigan as Metamorpho, Nathan Fillion as Guy Gardner, Skyler Gisondo as Jimmy Olsen, Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor, Sara Sampaio as Eve Teschmacher, Wendell Pierce as Perry White, María Gabriela de Faría as the Engineer , Mikaela Hoover as Cat Grant, Christopher MacDonald as Ron Troupe, and Beck Bennett as Steve Lombard.

Superman will hit theaters in wide release on July 11, 2025.

63 comments

jrvc

July 1, 2025

so let's see if I get this straight: for years people complained that having the heroes appear in movies, moreso if there were other heroes, with no previous solo/origin movie was a terrible idea, but now that we have, already in the first movie of this new universe, a bunch of superheroes banding together everyone is fine with this? And of course, Batman is already there too!

wtf...

Fisch
July 1, 2025
People complained because they did a Justice League movie where half the team of major A-list characters hadn't even had a speaking line in the DC cinematic universe yet, let alone their own solo movie. That's a complete non-comparison to a Superman movie featuring a selection of B and C list heroes in supporting roles and who none of which will be part of a future Justice League team or movie.
And Batman already existing in the DCU is just basic common sense. What else should they do, yet another Batman origin movie? another Batman meets Superman movie? After BvS viewers can't wait to see that again! lol
1. ItzSilentStorm
  July 1, 2025
  I hope Hawkgirl makes it to the JL tbh. Would love to see the DCAU lineup tbh
  1. Jobs248
    July 1, 2025
    I was thinking the same, theyre gonna have Stewart from the Lanterns show 🤞
  2. Fisch
    July 1, 2025
    Yeah I did think that was the one character who could potentially to get a spot on the DCU Justice League team.
    Guy Gardner and Mr Terrific will keep appearing in various DCU projects but the only way they'd appear in a Justice League movie if it's like an Avengers Endgame type situation where literally every hero character unites to fight a mega threat.
2. jrvc
  July 1, 2025
  really? you telling me than before the JL movie characters like Aquaman, Flash or Cyborg were A-listers?
  C'mon...
  1. Fisch
    July 1, 2025
    Flash and Aquaman have been Justice League members since the groups first appearance in 1960. And Cyborg became a member during the New 52 relaunch in 2011. So they've all been A-listers before the movie released.
    And regardless of any of that, the main reason the B tier characters are featured is to show viewers that the DCU already has active heroes aside from Superman. That doesn't mean Hawkgirl and Guy Gardner are going to have screentime the equivalent of what Batman and Wonder Woman would have in a Justice .League movie.
    1. jrvc
      July 2, 2025
      I didn't mean A-listers in comics, but in movies. Before the Snyder's movies people didn't have in high regard the likes of Aquaman or Cyborg. Just look at what happened with the first Aquaman movie, before that it was unthinkable!
    2. Fisch
      July 2, 2025
      This "A-lister" quote is being continuously and pointlessly twisted from my original comment. I was referring to the core Justice League members who have been featured throughout comics and animated series for decades before the DCEU started, and the fact that it clearly wasn't wise to throw half of those characters into a Justice League movie without first having their own solo movie to establish them.
      The Avengers in 2012 would've never made anywhere near as much as it did if Marvel didn't do their original release formula of two Iron Man movies, a solo Hulk movie, a solo Thor movie, a solo Captain America movie, and Black Widow having a (meaningful) supporting role in an Iron Man movie. Now imagine if instead of that Marvel just did Iron Man 1, Captain America VS iron Man, then The Avengers. It would've had no chance of a billion, let alone the 1.5 billion it made.
    3. jrvc
      July 2, 2025
      did you just ignore what I said? I was referring solely about MOVIES!
      I know who are the heavy hitters in DC comics, but that doesn't translate into global recognition/love when it comes to movies. That's where Batman excels, but others as big as Superman still struggle
    4. Fisch
      July 2, 2025
      Christ almighty, you are the lord emperor of deflecting the actual topic being discussed with repeated incoherent garbage.
      No one gives the slightest toss about which fictional character was or wasn't a "movie A-lister", it means literally nothing to every single point i've repeatedly made to shut down your original cryfest where you were cluelessly trying to equate nobody Hawkgirl and a third rate Lantern to factual DC Comics A-LISTERS Aquaman and The Flash only appearing on a mute computer screen before the first ever Justice League movie, which big surprise bombed as a direct result.
      All you people do is repeatedly get told 2 + 2 = 4 then ridiculously reply with "no it's not it's BLUE!". Take the L and move the F on already, it's beyond embarrassing.
    5. jrvc
      July 4, 2025
      all that verbal diarrhea you dropped just made my point right.
      People said BvS was crowded even if those A-listers just appeared for a few seconds and cried for ORIGIN STORIES for them and for the likes of Batman (point which, how curious, you just ignored because you know I'm right about that).
      Now, as YOU say, there C-listers characters taking the front stage, characters even more unknoen to general audiences, and now nobody begs for origin stories??
      Oh, and before you deflect again, that last question is what I've been talking about since my first comment. Now try to coherently reply to my actual point or go away
ItzSilentStorm
July 1, 2025
I think they were complaining about the lack of appearances for major characters before they debuted in a team film. But I think the DCEU sometimes got bogged down a bit by trying to do this whole "its the first time the world has seen something like this" with characters like Superman and it created some unnecessary complexities for the overarching story and not to mention a number of continuity errors later down the line(though that may have also been when Snyder was gone and they pretty much abandoned everything he was trying to do). An interesting idea, but the execution just didn't completely land. So they are doing the opposite now perhaps to try and avoid those same issues. There is apparently even a Star Wars-ish opening crawl explaining the state of the world
I mean, I don't really care personally. I just wanted a Justice League franchise lol. But the MCU changed everything and now everything is so much more complicated. I wish over the 2010s we could have just gotten a trilogy of standalone JL films, and then now we would be seeing a return to more isolated solo movies like The Batman for a while.
1. jrvc
  July 1, 2025
  I can assure you that I don't really care about this specific topic as I didn't with the DCEU. It was done in a different way than the MCU and I liked that approach.
  What annoys me is that people poured vitriol for this reason and now they act like it is all well. Heck, even after having the excellent Batman Begins people complained about not having another origin story for Batfleck, the most unnecessary thing for that reboot.
  But now let's have a bunch of characters that the masses don't know already operative in the new universe, totally coherent with the previous reasoning about how the DCEU was failing on each step...
  PS: Sorry for the rant, obviously not directed to you
Mr Smith1466
July 1, 2025
Batman isn't in the movie. And having a bunch of pre-existing heroes wasn't the problem. Having pre-existing heroes with vague backstories that don't make sense was the problem.
1. jrvc
  July 2, 2025
  yeah? well tell that to the people who always complained about not having solo movies with their origins! Especially with Batman even if we had the great Batman Begins just a few years prior!
  And the vague stories started after WB shoved the Snyderverse aside. Then everything started to go down the flush
  1. Mr Smith1466
    July 2, 2025
    Snyder was the one who made a massive story point in bvs being "batman is acting far more violently than normal and that's why he wants to murder superman". A plot point that utterly doesn't work, because we have literally just met this batman and have no idea what constitutes normal behaviour.
    It's hilarious to see people blame the studio, when the film-maker was the one who did it.
    There was a pretty simple way to handle batman in bvs, and that was quite simply make him a younger hero already established but still learning the ropes, allowing audiences to simply enjoy his character development, which would all happen before our eyes.
    But no, Snyder absolutely loved dark knight returns. So his batman was a vaguely defined 20 year veteran.
    The problem was never "do origin movies first". The problem was "make the characters have their development in a way that allows audiences to all be on the same page".
    A movie like seven samurai didn't need seven origin movies for us to be invested in who these characters were. Because Kurosawa was a brilliant storyteller who could tell his narrative in one concise film.
    Not to compare Gunn to Kurosawa (because that would be insane), but he's proven repeatedly he can introduce a multiple of characters in a single narrative and allow audiences to care. And there's zero reason why it can't be done for superman.
    Gunn has been extremely precise with picking his heroes for superman. Namely, he's not picking any A-list hero, and he's not picking anyone with a story so complicated that it will drag things down. Mr terrific needs little context other than "he's smart and uses high tech stuff".
    1. Fisch
      July 2, 2025
      Expertly said on all points.
    2. jrvc
      July 2, 2025
      I stopped reading after you said you don't know what Batman's normal behaviour is...
      Whatever, Batman didn't need another origin story, peopled demanded it anyway but now they don't demand anything even after we are on the same spot as before. Logic out of the window for those who criticized Snyder and his movies
    3. Mr Smith1466
      July 2, 2025
      I meant the AFFLECK BATMAN. If you can point to specific evidence in that movie that indicates what his normal behaviour is, by all means, point to it.
    4. Fisch
      July 2, 2025
      He's an illiterate, braindead snyder fanboy. Actual facts and truth about those movies and characters mean nothing to these people.
    5. jrvc
      July 4, 2025
      "new rules" scene. Everything was there if you paid any attention to the movie
    6. Mr Smith1466
      July 4, 2025
      Uh huh. And this is exactly my point here. Batman in that movie is using "new rules". Lay out for me exactly what the old rules were for the affleck batman? Don't cite a bunch of comic book examples. Because you and I know batman well enough for that to be useless. I'm talking explicitly about the narrative of BVS. Batman there is doing "new rules".
      What precisely are those, how long have they been happening and how do they differ from what he was doing under old rules? And remember, you can only cite content from the movie in question.
      Here's a bonus question for you: how long was affleck's Robin in operation for and how long ago did he actually die? Because a shot of batman looking at a suit with a laughably helpful message from joker isn't storytelling. It's shoddy and vague exposition at the expense of actual character development.
      Go. The floor is yours.
    7. jrvc
      July 5, 2025
      again, all that is in the movie, maybe you should watch it paying attention to it, I'm sure you will enjoy it. And about Robin, it's been stated several times that was going to be explored in subsequent movies, but alas it never came to be thanks to WB. But for BvS, it needn't be any other way, it was clear he lost Robin and that left a mark on Batman (obviously) and that it was killed by Joker (obviously), what else was it needed to make it work at that point? Nothing else if you were able to put one plus one together. Again, just pay attention to the movie.
      And it's funny that you give me limits about how to aswer you. Not mentioning comics? Heh, ok. As I said, Batman Begins wasn't all that far ago. Anyone who had watched that movie or that had any notion about the character knew how Batman operates normally. No origin story needed. The new rules thing that you so blatantly choose to ignore showed perfectly that he was changing his modus operandi. The blind man also tells so to Clark. There was no more needed to let you know this Batman was going into a dark path, what brings me again to my original point that you never address nor tell me I'm right:
      Why were people claiming for solo movies for those characters in the DCEU when it wasn't needed, but not now even though the characters are even more unknown?
    8. Mr Smith1466
      July 5, 2025
      As I said, point to things in the text of the movie that state these things. Going "Oh, it was going to be answered later" isn't a defence. It's a sign of poor storytelling.
      My point about not mentioning comics is that we're discussing the affleck batman and purely that one. Did he ever have a no-kill rule? How long has he been branding people? How long ago did his robin die? These are all fundamental questions with no answer and you can dance around that all you want.
      Film-makers like Reeves, Nolan and even Burton didn't leave gaping holes in their batman heroes. All the narrative and storytelling was contained within the actual text of the movie. Because you see each of those protagonists undergo a journey.
      As I said earlier, there was literally no reason for snyder to introduce a vaguely defined older batman, other than DKR is the one comic he actually knows. The story of BVS would actually work far better if the Batman was younger and newer at the game. Because then...wow! He wouldn't need a hardwave about his casual violence and disregard for life being "new rules". He wouldn't need a pointless dead robin. He could simply be a novice making mistakes and gradually learning how to be better as a hero before our eyes. That's how storytelling works.
      As I said with the new superman as well, we don't need origin movies for Mr terrific or the other heroes, because they're not complicated figures and none of them are acting outside of standard understanding of how heroes work.
    9. Arthur Knowlson
      July 5, 2025
      He could simply be a novice making mistakes and gradually learning how to be better as a hero before our eyes. That's how storytelling works.
      And that's exactly what we got in the Matt Reeves Batman movie.
    10. Mr Smith1466
      July 5, 2025
      And that's why that movie was great. We jump in when he knows enough, but not everything, so we bypass the origin stuff but still feel a sense of investment in his character, with the added bonus that all the necessary backstrory and narrative was within that actual film, with no gaping holes to be filled by poorly defined sequel plans. And yet we also leave him in a place where sequels can naturally keep building off what was done.
    11. jrvc
      July 6, 2025
      prrrfff more verbal diarrhea! hurray!
      And again you just ignore blatantly things that are totally clear in the movie!!
      The actual text of the movie?? wahahahah! Dude, it can't be clearer in BvS! FFS Alfred basically points to all that you either ignore or can't catch while watching the movie (if you have ever seen it as I think more and more you haven't). Then you have the scene with the blind man pointing to it again. Then you have the scene of the 1%. Then you have the scene of the hunters. All of them pointed to that you can't grasp for whatever reason (although maybe you are one of those who wanted origin movies because you need everything spoonfed).
      Another funny thing you mention is you "problem" with the dead Robin. None of what you say was needed at that point. It perfectly functioned as vehicle to convey why Batman was at a time low and to show this Batman already had history and his lore was bigger than other cinematic members. In any case this should've left people hungry for more and for that Batfleck movie Affleck was penning.
      And here we have the best thing you regurgitated:
      You say that NOW you don't need origin movies because the new characters are NOT COMPLICATED?? Really????
      Characters with their origins as complicated as Hawkgirl?? Or with a lore as big as the Green Lanterns??? GTFO!! You just showed to me how ignorant you are to DC things. That's why you needed a Batman solo for Batfleck, you don't know sht about Batman either, I'm sure.
      There, you have been proven wrong, AGAIN. Now, as I know you from our other conversation some weeks ago, I'm just going to tell you this once: just surrender yourself to the evidence of your not paying attention to BvS/not knowing about DC lore and finish this conversation with decency. If you, as the last time, just reply again ignoring everything I pointed and moving again the goalposts, know that I won't answer as I know you just want the last word, wrong as it is, but know that you'll have it totally defeated (again)
    12. Mr Smith1466
      July 7, 2025
      What necessary lore do you think audiences need to comprehend hawkgirl, Mr terrific or guy Gardner?
      And again, I laid out for you some key questions about batman's character in bvs, and you were unable to answer.
    13. jrvc
      July 7, 2025
      dude, again? Why do you ask for answer when you don't read what I answer?? all the key "questions" are answered, not only by me, but also by the movie.
      And what necessary lore was needed to comprehend Batman in BvS? ANd really? Again?? Dude, read a fcking DC comic, and then you would be able to see how difficult the history of several of those characters is.
      Oh well, as I can see, you just answered two lines to everything I exposed to you because, as I figured, you are unable to refute nothing of what I tell you.
      Ok then, have your last word, you just showed you are defeated, again
      Have a nice one! Bye!
    14. Mr Smith1466
      July 7, 2025
      I told what lore was necessary to understand batman in BVS. How long has he been active? Did he ever actually have a no kill rule? How long ago did hod robin die? All those are fundamental questions to his character arc and all have no answer. This is what highlights what a mess that film is. I've read countless DC comics. Countless. But a movie is a movie, and needs to be judged as a movie. And BVS has fallen short here for many years. Because key elements of the charcter of their batman are left as gaping holes.
      I have repeatedly asked you, for days now, to cite the actual text of the movie that answer any of these questions, and you have literally just cited the vague "new rules" throwaway line and then gone on about how those non-existent sequels were totally for real going to explain everything.
      If snyder wanted to introduce a two decade long batman, he had to lay out exactly who the hell this batman is and what journey he has gone to reach this point that we see him. If he didn't want to answer any of that, the simple solution was to simply not do an older batman at all!
      So why on earth was an older batman done here at all? I know you won't answer, because you snyder fans aren't able to actually critically analyse work.
      And what exactly is the lore you thing audiences will need for Gunn's heroes? Do we need to see that Hawkgirl is a descendant of a reincarnated being that may be ancient Egyptian or may be an alien? (Depending on what convoluted lore of hawgirl is currently canon) Or do you really think the concept of "she's a superhero with wings who works alongside the protagonist" is a concept that audiences cannot understand? Or you think guy Gardner being a cheerful douchebag with a magic ring is tough to get?
      There's a pretty major difference here between Gunn's heroes and the snyder batman: Gunn's heroes are part of the background supporting cast, and aren't driving the central narrative. Snyder's batman is the driving force of the narrative for bvs. Get it? No, I know you don't. So I'm done now.
    15. Mr Smith1466
      July 7, 2025
      I wrote a long thing that's currently on pending.
    16. jrvc
      July 9, 2025
      look who's talking
    17. Mr Smith1466
      July 9, 2025
      The gag on you now being that the film has had glowing audience and critical responses. Funny how gunn can tell stories so well they get that response.
    18. jrvc
      July 10, 2025
      and again you don't answer anything of what I threw to you...
      and what with the reviews? Haven't you seen other inflated RT scores for movies that were crap? Like The last Jedi? And in any case, that only adds to my being right: people are big hypocrites! Just like MoS, this movie has a very big scene full of destruction, with a frigging monster like in BvS. Two things that were heavely criticised, and now everybody is happy with that?? WTF...
      Oh, and don't forget this piece of news from just a couple of days ago: Gunn said it wouldn't be a problem if the movie underperforms, that they don't need to do that much money... What the heck, they even spent 200 million on marketing alone! They have to make BIG bucks, and now it's not a problem if they don't? After all the crap that rained down on Snyder because his movies didn't reach a billion? (Yes they wanted it even with MoS, as stupid as it sounds).
      If this movie just makes under or around what MoS made and they just say everything is fine, it would be the last proof I need of how people just would go on defending this movie in order not to acknowledge how wrong they were.
      I'll watch this movie, but I know i'll watch just a cartoon version of a great character who deserves more respect and gravitas on his own movies (just like MoS did)
    19. Mr Smith1466
      July 10, 2025
      Having now seen the movie, I can happily confirm that all the characters were used well and got proper context for who they were. All without slowing down the movie!
      The justice gang is only introduced at the end of act 1, well after superman has been properly established.
      Guy gets his immediate character, and helpfully tells the audience about his alien Corp and his oath. He gets some fun scenes to be a hero. Mr terrific helps anchor a wonderful sequence in act 2, allowing him to come into his own as a character. Metamorpho is also introduced during act 2, and is tied to superman in a lovely way.
      Hawkgirl gets the least screen time of the gang, but her character of "she flies and hits people" is pretty clear to absolutely everybody.
      Literally nobody needed an origin! Because lo and behold, Gunn knew how to establish absolutely everybody in one concise movie.
      If someone like Metamorpho becomes a breakout character, they can find ways to dive into his backstory with Simon Stagg and so on. If they don't, and if this is the sole time we ever see him, then that's fine too! Because all we need to know about him (his powers, his personality, his motivations and his central arc) is all done as a side plot in this superman movie. Rinse and repeat that for all the heroes.
      The movie will make whatever money it makes. If it succeeds, great, there's a lot of material here to explore for future works. If the film bombs and this is it, then that's fine, because this single superman completely stands alone and needs no prequel or sequel or spin off to fill in any gaps or pay off any sequel teases. (Refreshingly, there are no sequel teases).
      Gunn's attitude is that he made the movie he wanted to make, and quite clearly worked hard to fine tune it to both be distinctly his while also making it approachable for both new audiences and hardcore fans. His comments about the box office are simply that he knows nobody can control it. So why worry?
      The movie exists. It's great fun. I'm sure you'll absolutely hate it. But so what? The movie exists forever.
    20. Mr Smith1466
      July 10, 2025
      And as a bonus here! The city is evacuated immediately before the city destruction sequence. So any buildings being destroyed are emptied. The giant monster sequence is entirely about superman handling every civilian and animal to avoid any deaths. (Then the justice gang come in to help out).
      See the movie and then form your thoughts on it! Very simple philosophy to life! You'll find it makes life easier, rather than speculating wildly based on trailer scenes that you don't know the context of.
    21. jrvc
      July 10, 2025
      ha! And why would I believe you? You've been one of those hypocrites I've been denouncing! You've never replied to anything I told you about cause you knew I'm right!
      And look! Even in your "review" you just confirm that the very same "sins" that there were in Snyder movies are now in that movie, like when you say there is a side plot for every hero. Where are now the complaints about a muddled plot and many players at once with no establishment before?? Ha! I should thank you for saying I'm right! Oh, what's that? wait a minute! You telling me that the kaiju was spoilt in the trailers like Doomsday but also nobody complains about that?? Oohh what a surprise!
      And bold of you saying I'd hate that movie when I haven't even seen it. It has to be veeery bad for me to hate a movie. But of course, you think I'd do that because that's what you did with Snyder's movies, when it's clear they have many things that you should like for what I've seen from your comments.
      Again, thanks for proving me right!
    22. Mr Smith1466
      July 10, 2025
      Been over this for days. Everything you need to know about the justice gang is in the movie. No origins needed. It's all there. See the movie. Then I'll hear your opinions on it. You're reacting off trailers.
      The kaiju is literally a distraction that lex throws out at the end of the first act. He's not the final threat. The final threats aren't in the trailers. Your doomsday comparison makes no sense here.
      Plot isn't muddled in this film either. Moves like a bullet. Two hours. Bang boom, done. It's all about how the time is used.
      Problem with Snyder's work wasn't what he did, it was how it was done. Execution. Execution!
      You're like if someone goes "batman and robin has too many villains" and then praises The batman, and then you swoop in and go "but the batman has the same number of villains as batman and robin! You're a hypocrite". This is what you're like here.
      There's a vast difference between dropping a batman with an ill defined twenty year history and a bunch of unseen misery that weighs heavily on every action he takes to drive the narrative, and introducing Metamorpho in a way that we see and immediately understand his motives and get to watch his development into being a recognisable hero actually happen before our eyes.
      I hope you enjoy the film when you see it. Let me know what you think. After you see it. Because you're going round in circles. So see the movie, then we will discuss the movie. But only the movie. Not the trailers.
    23. jrvc
      July 11, 2025
      uh uh, but you still prove me right with everything you say. Because you still say "no origins needed" while just some comments ago you needed them for a character as big as Batman, even though I pointed to you how BvS greatly exposed the why of his actions at that point of his career. We perfectly see his development by the end of the movie, and how that translates into ZSJL. You are just ignoring me and the movies just to not admit you are a hypocrite.
      And again, bold of you assuming things about me. I'll never fall into what you say with your example of "many villains". Why am I going to complain about the heavy use of CGI when I no problem in other movies? For superheroes movies it is needed after all (another thing is that the CGI looks bad in comparison). Why would I complain about Superman having somber moments in the new movie when it is sth common for the character (although I fear thos are deluded within a myriad of jokes as it happens in Gunn movies - Look Suicide Squad as an example of epic moments that always finish in a joke...)? Why would I complain about darker color filters when they are also needed to avoid movies to look like a cartoon? And a long etc.
      Make no mistake, I'll judge the movie for what it is. I'm just here to point out how people are giving a pass to things that a few years ago were "horrible" and to show how unfair those movies (and their fans) were treated. You are the one going in circles, not admitting that this new movie has exactly the same "issues" as Snyder's movies did, hypocrite
    24. Mr Smith1466
      July 11, 2025
      We've been over this. Snyder's approach to Batman was to introduce him as a version with decades of unseen and unexplained backstory. Gunn doesn't do that with his heroes. He starts them off at a point where they're simple to get behind. Gunn even goes so far as to show the hall of justice under construction and makes a running gag about how the team hasn't even picked a name yet.
      If snyder desperately needed batman for his movie, he quite easily could have introduced a year two batman and we wouldn't be having this never ending conversation.
      Now, go see the movie and then respond to me then. I'm not going round in circles with you again until you have seen the new movie and something to actually say about that.
    25. jrvc
      July 11, 2025
      sigh... BvS didn't need another movie, everything was clearly explain in the movie. Every Batman fan knows Batman and can totally infer. You either ignored everything in the movie (just like you ignore my pointing it out) or you are simply lying and you didn't even watch Snyder's movies.
      And what's with the sudden rush of you telling me to watch the movie? Do you think is going to change anything? I may or may not like the movie, but that's irrelevant to the point we are discussing. Even if the movie were to be as good as some are pointing out (which I doubt, no offense), the movie will be still full of:
      -crowded cast with many (quite) known DC characters
      -destruction
      -color filters
      -lense flairs
      -slow-mo
      -angry/somber Superman
      -overuse of CGI
      Points which, as we can see in our conversation and the reviews, people are passing over even though in the recent past they were considered some of the biggest sins committed to these characters... I'll throw the question again even though I know you'll ignore it: why, suddenly, people are content with that??
      Anyway, all of this proves what a hypocrite you are with Snyder's movies. Just admit it and we can end this conversation till next time.
      Good discussion BTW
    26. Mr Smith1466
      July 11, 2025
      Did the affleck batman ever have a no kill rule? How long ago did his robin die? How long has he been in operation for? Other than joker, killer croc, Harley and maybe riddler, which villains also exist in that batman's world? How long did this batman have his robin? What was their relationship like? Under what circumstances did he die at joker's hands? What was the exact name of this robin?
      And your other points here are hilarious when you try to assume what's in the movie. Utterly hilarious. Literally one brief comedic use of slow mo and that goes for about a second. This new superman isn't somber. CGI is used well. Destruction is minimal and civilians aren't involved.
      Stop trying to assume what's in the movie! A few days ago, you were on the same footing as everybody else when all we had were trailers. The movie is out. Go and see and stop trying to guess what's in it.
    27. jrvc
      July 11, 2025
      and again you avoid answering anything I throw at you, silly me I guess.
      And again repeating questions easily answered in the movie or that, as you say about the new movie, are not needed in order to understand and follow BvS or that Batman. Did Batfleck have a no killing rule? Yes, as we see Alfred talk about that. How long Robin dead? Uninmportant for the plo of the movie, even in TDKR they didn't have a date for that. How long in operation? We know that 20 years, its said in the movie (that you didn't watch as it seems). How many villains? Why care about that number? But a Batman that long working we acan assume thata this universe could have a lot which would've provided many stories for this universe. But again, why is it important here? I'm sure you haven't asked that for others cbms... The new Superman is already established, do please tell me how many villains has he encountered already. How did he die? C'mon, even Joker makes laugh of that! Name? In the beginning it was Dick Grayson, but at one pint there was a movie about Nightwing, and in the bonus contents of BvS bluray we knew that in the end it was Jason Todd. JUST. PAY.ATTENTION. Or watch the movies, I'm sure you'll enjoy them.
      Utterly hilarious huh? Let's see your hilarious excuses:
      One brief use of comedic slow-mo. Two things here: first, it was never used for comedic purposes in SNyder's movies; second, that there is a comedic one doesn't mean that there aren't other uses of slow mo in the new movie, and people hated that Snyder used it. Why not now?? Oh, and before you say "but it is used well here", remember (in case you really watched the movies) that there's slow mo only in ZSJL, not in the other two movies, but people acted like the three movies waere full of that. So Gunn is using more now, as he has used it from the beginning in his new universe.
      Superman isn't somber? Well, Cavill's wasn't either but people called him that because of the dramatic scenes where he was serious. The new one also has scenes like that. Why isn't he called somber? And before you say sth like "but the new one smiles!", remember that I already showed you a lot of pictures where Snyder's Superman smiled, and they were a LOT!
      CGI is ised well? Well you an't deny that Snyder's movies (if you saw them) have even better cgi, but you see, the problem here is that people said that there was TOO MUCH cgi, even if a superhero movies has to use it for almos everything! So, tell me, oh wise man, why aren't people complaining now about too much used of cgi? And don't deny there's a lot, I mean, there's even a giant monster in the movie!
      Destruction minimal? Well, I'll reserve judgment until I see it, but from what we an see in the trailers... Civilians not involved? Well, is not that in Snyder's movies were that many involved anyway, but the funny thing is that that level of destruction and victims were quite accurate to comics. Heck, comics are even worse! (and I know what I'm saying, big DC fan here). But again, Snyder to hell, Gunn to heaven....
      And I'm not assuming sht, unless you tell me that everything that we could see in the trailers doesn't appear in the movie...
      So, again, thank you again for proving my point!
    28. Mr Smith1466
      July 11, 2025
      The robin death timeline is critical. How long have these "new rules" been going? Always hilarious that you think the affleck batman ever had a no kill rule. Because absolutely nothing in the film says that. The new rules that aflred refers to is the branding.
      I was talking about the GUNN MOVIE briefly using slow motion. Read my comments properly.
      Gunn uses it once. Snyder uses it all the time. See the difference?
      Never had a problem with Snyder's CGI and I have said as much already. Again, read what I write.
      I have seen the new movie! Again we have been over this. The destruction is minimal. Metropolis is literally put back together by the end of the film. Civilians are immediately evacuated. Superman never throws someone into a building.
      You completely misinterpreted countless superman trailer scenes. This is a major thing I have been trying to illustrate for you here. You watched trailers and then imagined a context in your head that the film doesn't do.
      So like I said, watch the new movie and then we'll keep talking. Until then, I'm done and won't be replying unless you have seen the new movie.
    29. jrvc
      July 12, 2025
      No, the Robin time line is not critical, as we know the last straw for this Batman to lose sight of what he is is because of Superman's arrival. Again, watch the movies, you'll enjoy them, and you'll see that through the dialogues you can totally see he is changed and "meaner" as they put in the movie. Oh, and I remembered that there are official prequel comics that also dived into that, with outside people like policemen and such discussing how Batman is getting more brutal since the introduction of Superman. So yeah, before that, Batman was as he's always been. If you knew sth about the character, you'd know you didn't need more to understand at what point he's standing. And BTW, nice of you ignoring the rest of things I pointed out in the first paragraph, of course you can't counter all those, HYPOCRITE.
      "I was talking about the GUNN MOVIE briefly using slow motion. Read my comments properly."
      You kidding me? Can't you read? I directly addressed that point, and I told you that at least Snyder neve used it for comedic purposes. OOOHHHHH! WAIIIITTT! Now I see where the problem is. You see I'm totally right about Gunn using more slow-mo in this first movie than in Snyder's first DCEU movie (and you know there's more slo-mo apart from that joke) and you just dodged the point by saying I didn't read properly... How pathetic, HYPOCRITE.
      "Gunn uses it once. Snyder uses it all the time. See the difference?"
      Oohh I fcking love that you wrote this, showing once more that YOU DON'T READ MY COMMENTS! I already told you, multiple times, that SNyder only used slomo in ZSJL, not in MoS and not in BvS. Admit that you are just regurgitating all the exaggerations and lies you saw on the internet about this movies and that you didn't even saw them! Gunn has already used more slowmo in his first movie than Snyder in his first one, and you can't refute that, HYPOCRITE
      "Never had a problem with Snyder's CGI and I have said as much already. Again, read what I write."
      Dude, LEARN HOW TO READ! I never pointed this exclusively at you, I already told you that PEOPLE IN GENERAL criticised the "overuse" of cgi, while now they are happy with the same "issue". And, of course, it's another point you can't refute, HYPOCRITE.
      And again with watching the movie... Unless you tell me that the trailers lied, what I saw in them is a taste of what's in the movie, and again, it doesn't matter if I like the movie or not, there will be still all the "issues" I told you, and people will gloss over anyway, showing how unfair Snyder's movies were treated. Oh but I love your last line:
      "I'm done and won't be replying"
      HA! We know how you like to have the last word even if you don't read/ignore what I write (because of course you can't refute my arguments). So go ahead, have your last word, and, again, my sincere gratefulness for proving my points right.
      THANKS!
    30. jrvc
      July 21, 2025
      dude can't beleive you blocked me! Eeven after you invited to come back here to talk once I saw the movie... well, I'd say that proves once and for all I was right, when you can't even conitune the conversation because you know you don't have any way to refute what I throw to you...
      Anyway, I chose this very comment to reply to you for just one tniny thing that literally tells me you either didn't ever watch Snyder's movies or you just go along with the hate bandwagon and don't even pay attention to the movies. Because, you see , I’m rewatching much stuff about Superman right now, including MoS and Superman TAS. I chose this comment to reply to you because you nonchalantly said that Cavill’s Superman threw people TOWARDS buildings in his fight against Zod, something I’ve read myriads of times before and, silly me, I didn’t answer correctly to that blatant lie when you spat it. Cavill’s Superman NEVER throws Zod against the buildings, it’s just Zod who does that. Superman in that movie only ONCE does he drag Zod through the windows of a bulding, towards the end of the movie, but he never throws him inside the buildings. Here your proof, unnecessary if you had seen the movie before:
      https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
      So, there it is, the proof that you just showed your ignorance about these movies, that you just follow the hate bandwagon, and that, of course, you are just a hypocrite, defending a movie that is objectively inferior AND that it shows the very same problems that you in your ignorance throw to these movies.
      I would really like you to unblock me and have an actual conversation about the new movie, show you how wrong you are about both Superman movies, and how the new one even disrespects worse those characters that were treated as they should in Snyder’s movies (Superman’s puns, beaten at every opportunity, poor Hawkgirl, nothing like her counterpart in comics and that fcking scream; that’s Supergirl?? But of course, it’s Tom King’s version… and so on so on).
      If you don’t unblock me, I’d assume you are a coward and that you know you are already defeated. If not, at least you’d have my respect and an actual discussion about the movie.
    31. jrvc
      July 10, 2025
      oh oh and a bonus one now that I mentioned the Kaiju! How about aaaall the CGI used in this movie, which of course is even worse than the CGI of ten years ago? How come you don't mention it? It was blasphemy that SNyder used so much in his movies! You telling me now that's fine too? Using a big bad monster that is just a CGI blob?
      Cooomeee oooonnnn!
      Again, thanks for proving me right!
    32. Mr Smith1466
      July 10, 2025
      CGI looked great to me. See the movie, then share your opinions on the CGI.
      Never had a problem with Snyder's use of CGI for the record.
Kara
July 2, 2025
Yep, everything is feeling very rushed and underbaked again but we’ll see how it all pans out.
1. Fisch
  July 2, 2025
  None of that is actual reality whatsoever. Gunn has planned everything in this movie and all the projects that will follow to a tee. Unlike the DCEU's execs who's genius plan started with rushing to get a director-for-hire for Man of Steel because they were in the middle of a lawsuit that if they lost would've forced them to pay out hundreds of millions from the profits of any future Superman movie.
  1. Kara
    July 2, 2025
    “Everything FEELS rushed.” Chucking a load of characters most people haven’t even heard of before into a Superman movie doesn’t feel like a wise thing to do. As I said, though, we’ll see how it plays out.
    Maybe it’ll work. Guardians worked for most people, but his Suicide Squad was a flop.
    I would prefer solo movies introducing these characters and their origins rather than just throwing them at us.
    1. Fisch
      July 2, 2025
      A Superman movie featuring B and C tier heroes who are only incidental to the main story doesn't make it feel rushed, it's just basic world building. The story isn't going to consist of Clark Kent having a quick 2 minute scene with Lois at the Daily Planet followed by 45 minutes of Superman in the hall of justice talking with Hawkgirl and Guy Gardner about how they're all going to team up to take down Luthor and the other villains in the 3rd act, rather the exact opposite. The notion that this movie is going to be Justice League 0.5 instead of an actual Superman movie is one of the things I can't wait to be disproven forever once the movie finally releases.
      Also, you incorrectly claimed people are divided on Gunn as if they loved Guardians of the Galaxy and hated Suicide Squad when audiences and critics factually gave both a majority positive response.
      "I would prefer solo movies introducing these characters and their origins rather than just throwing them at us."
      The vast majority don't want or need a Superman/Batman/Spider-Man origin movie ever again. Gunn's doing it perfectly, it's Superman in his relatively early days with (lower tier) heroes popping up for brief rescue or fight scenes to simply show the DCU already has active superheroes. You're acting as if those characters are Batman and Wonder Woman who are going to dominate the screen time over Lois Lane, Lex Luthor etc. That would be rushed, yet factually none of that is happening.
    2. Kara
      July 2, 2025
      I haven’t claimed anything of the sort, I simple stated two facts. Reviews are meaningless if no one bothers to turn up a watch. Thunderbolts received good reviews this year, it still flopped.
      I never specified Superman, Batman, or Spiderman as needed origin movies again. You’re jumping to unfounded conclusions again. These C listers you mentioned, might though. We’ll have to see. Unlike you, I’m willing to wait and see how things play out with the public.
      Superman needs to hit big, let’s wait and see, huh?
    3. Fisch
      July 2, 2025
      You haven't stated anything remotely resembling "facts".
      And that goes double for your most recent reply where you laughably attempted to equate Thunderbolts flopping in 2025 to having the same set of factors as a Suicide Squad pseduo-sequel (with the exact same title of the widely hated first movie) releasing in the middle of a pandemic. Clearly neither of those make-or-break factors impacted it whatsoever, lol. I wanted to see Gunn's Suicide Squad but I wasn't going to a cinema at the time so they got zero dollars from me, and countless other people in the same situation. Then with the giant casual audience, they all saw Suicide Squad 2016 and said "fool me once...."
      Meanwhile what was the actual level playing field it was in? Releasing to an audience who mostly saw it on a streaming platform where it broke records as the single most popular DCEU movie on HBO Max and where the majority of viewers who watched it factually loved it. Damn, what a "flop".
      "Superman needs to hit big, let’s wait and see, huh?"
      What does that have to do with anything? You started complaining with a nonsensical "rushed and underbaked" criticism then after I disproved that using known facts and simple logic you sidestep to talking about box office totals as if it's going to make hundreds of millions less solely because the movie features Hawkgirl and Green Lantern number 37 being entertaining characters throughout? LOL
      As I said before, I absolutely cannot wait for this incoherent rhetoric to definitively have zero credibility ever again in just a few days.
    4. Kara
      July 2, 2025
      Everything i have said can be fact checked. I’ve no interest in arguing with someone when they refuse to acknowledge basic verifiable facts.
      Goodbye
    5. Fisch
      July 2, 2025
      LOL everything you said is the literal equivalent of an obese person walking into a gym while scoffing down donuts and telling the trainers you're in peak physical shape which can all be fact checked. AKA you're a hilariously projecting troll, hence why you replied with "errrrrr wrong BYE!" instead of disproving any of the actual inarguable facts that have been said here (which FYI were all exclusively done by me)
      I know you people have been in maximum cope mode about this movie on a daily basis for years at this point, but try not to do anything "rash" when the movie finally releases and you're forced to spend the next decade+ in cope overdrive after all of your clueless keyboard warrior "predictions" are proven laughably wrong and endlessly made fun of until the end of time ;- )
  2. devilman013
    July 2, 2025
    Gunn has planned everything in this movie and all the projects that will follow to a tee.
    I’d say that remains to be seen.

Popc247365

July 1, 2025

pretty big spoiler in that interview for a major cameo in Superman. avoid if you want to go spoiler free.

Arthur Knowlson
July 1, 2025
Thanks, I think at this point I'll be avoiding any further Superman news until after I've seen the film. I've probably seen too many clips and BTS shots. I don't want to spoil my viewing experience.
devilman013
July 2, 2025
He didn’t spoil anything. What are you talking about?
1. Popc247365
  July 2, 2025
  An undisclosed actor was revealed playing a major character in that interview in the 6:00 mark. that's all I'm saying.

pajonk taylor

July 1, 2025

g a b a b a balsldl ddlfdj dldlfl dld
dfdf;ajdsaa ddofaw9r3[jv;j;vja

Batman News Archive

James Gunn suggests Superman may have already met Batman

63 comments

Browse By Topic

Browse By Year