I didn’t enjoy Superman 2025. The reason for this wasn’t just because of the social media discourse leading up to its release, but I will admit that James Gunn’s offhand comments about immigration were, indeed, part of it. His remarks weren’t rooted in any real engagement with geopolitical nuance. They came across as the typical Hollywood parroting of progressive talking points.
But even if I wasn't aware of what James had said, structurally, the film suffers from the same issues that plague much of modern storytelling: a lack of sincerity, a missing moral center, and real-world political commentary that is far too blunt.
To be fair, political themes aren’t inherently a problem in art. A skilled artist can integrate them naturally, letting ideas emerge through character and story rather than through brute force. But in this film, scenes like a dark-skinned foreigner lifting Superman from the rubble, or the mind-controlled monkeys running LexCorp’s digital propaganda machine, are so pointed that they stop the narrative cold. The messaging isn’t woven in. It’s broadcasted.
What’s funny is that pointing all this out in a kind of "Cinema Sins" type breakdown doesn’t even feel subversive anymore. These days, everyone sees the game. Both the Left and the Right are fluent in the mechanics of meme warfare and media symbolism. Ironically, many of those defending the film have already adopted the “monkeys at computers” image as their own. They don’t seem to realize they are acting out the very critique the film puts forward.
Originally, this essay started as a kind of Cinema Sins-style takedown. These were the bullet points:
-Clunky exposition
-Superman’s fight vs. “Hammer of Boravia” cuts off abruptly, unresolved.
-Krypto is a deus ex machina.
-Boravia conflict is an obvious political allegory to Ukraine/Russia and other geopolitical conflicts.
-Justice Gang refuses to fight, then joins at the last minute. No explanation as to why. -Jor-El is an imperialist now because subversion.
-Moral tone inconsistent: Superman shows compassion, Hawkgirl kills without remorse.
-Public opinion flips instantly against Superman after Lex's video.
-News prioritizes a story about Superman's parents and not the rampaging kaiju.
-News prioritizes story about Lex Luthor's plans and not the city almost being destroyed.
-Luthor wants to become "king." A clear a reference to the "no more kings" movement.
-Lois Lane has a long argument with Clark that adds nothing to the story. -Superman has no arc. He was right the whole time.
-Lois has no arc. She was right the whole time.
-There's no thematic parallel between Superman and Luthor.
The problem with breaking things down like this is that the average viewer, the so-called "normie", has usually already made up his mind. I remember going to see Star Trek: Beyond in 2016 with some friends. There’s a scene where the character Sulu is shown with his husband and daughter on Yorktown. It was obvious the film was depicting Sulu as a homosexual, but one of my friends immediately said, "That's his brother." That was his on-the-spot headcanon to explain it away, allowing him to keep enjoying the movie without challenging his beliefs. He even said it aloud to make sure no one else could tell him otherwise.
Most people don’t engage with media to think critically about what they’re being shown. They engage with it to have their existing beliefs affirmed. That’s why, even when a film clearly promotes a political message that contradicts the viewer’s worldview, they can shrug it off and say, “Nope, not what I saw.” And if you try to explain how media conditioning actually works, you’ll quickly be labeled the enemy.
This is how dystopia works today.
Spend any time on social media and you’ll see that both Left and Right users understand how propaganda is gamified. Many even use the “monkeys on computers” imagery in retaliation against criticism of the new Superman movie, ironically reinforcing the exact concept that imagery was meant to critique, just flipped in their direction.
If you want to understand how this dynamic functions, I recommend reading Byung-Chul Han’s The Transparency Society. In a society driven by transparency, common trust disappears. All that’s left is exposure and measurement. Everyone is constantly performing their freedom on social media while actually conforming to invisible pressures.
That’s why any discussion of Gunn’s Superman—whether you like it, hate it, or compare it to other films—leads to turf wars online. Everyone claims moral authority in Superman’s name, even as their behavior directly contradicts what he represents.
Han describes this perfectly: social media culture suppresses ambiguity and critique in favor of positivity and self-optimization. I unpack this further in my video, From Hero to Symbol: The Psychopolitics of Superman. Superman used to represent “Truth, Justice, and the American Way.” But that phrase used to mean something grounded. It had a moral foundation.
Now, superheroes have been reduced to ideological chess pieces. They’re emotional triggers used to sell you on someone else’s version of virtue. And if you disagree, you get painted as the villain. “You’re just like Lex Luthor!”
This is the real dystopia.
We used to think dystopia meant a boot on your neck, like in Orwell’s 1984. Instead, our cultural gatekeepers use nostalgic icons to make you feel morally defective for having different opinions. They don’t need a police state. All they need is an audience of consumers eager to call you a bad person for not loving your entertainment slop.
So now, “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” really just means "Don’t ask questions. Just consume the product and get hyped for next product."
For real comic stories that have characters that progress and meaning, get on the JDA COMICS SUBSTACK:
 | A guest post by
|
H-wood keeps telling us this is what we want to see. Keeps pushing the same people making the same slop that fails. Then H-wood blames us.
Can't "reason" or persuade H-wood that their message is hurting sales: they don't care about profits, they care about message. Which is why they claim every failure is "a success." Because people paid to go see their message. Message delivered. Cost? Doesn't matter. Success. Message delivered.
This must be fought with competition. H-wood must be starved into oblivion.
They will never change; they can only be starved out of business.
Lot of Catholic Teaching and Discussion on this topic. No need to present the most simple observations as brilliant analysis.
If you want this article but actually Good, try Dr Jason Morgan's "opiate of the missus" during the pandemic on Remnant News.