I like how the backstory was handled in The Batman, via lightly doled out exposition. Just enough to fill in the audience on the character's motivations without the need of flashbacks.

​​​​​​​[NERDHAT]John Byrne fixed that in the '80s by having Superman literally being born on Earth. Maybe Gunn's Superman will follow that origin. [/NERDHAT]

Well, if nothing else at least we know it’ll be colorful. Superman’s outfit will be red and blue instead of black and burgundy.

Gunn officially confirms the news

Twitter

Now the real question is who is Sean Gunn going to play in this and how does Nathan Fillion get shoe horned into this?

Duh, Nathan Fillion as Jonathan Kent.

Because Kal being from another country, raised by Farmers in the Mid-West, who then grows up and Simps for America makes them Hard?

But seriously...
Superman is a Refugee. Wonder Woman is an Immigrant. Though I'm guessing she is Legal, but I could be wrong.

You forgot Gunn's wife as well. Lois Lane? Lana Lang? Ma Kent?

He could just write in Harcourt as a character like they did in Black Adam.

It’ll be interesting seeing James Gunn’s style in a Superman movie.

Gunn also has a good professional relationship with Elizabeth Banks from Slither and Brightburn. Maybe she could be shoehorned in? Ma Kent?

Already Snyderverse cult going online and shitting on the Gunn directing news, calling for a boycott. What a horrible toxic fanbase the Sydercult is.

I mean they falsified his birth records even if technically he was "born" in America (I have to re-read Man of Steel because I don't remember exactly how Byrne rewrote it). Same for Wonder Woman, she falsified her information, at the very least to hide her lack of aging. But they are very good looking, powerful people who look a certain way so...

In any case, please please be good. I mean be a good movie, of course, but have Superman be lawful good.

Maybe..

They would ignore that since both Supes and WW fly the Colors of the good ole US of A. Either way, I'm happy DC Films will keep buggering on.

Yeah, that's what I mean, there's no way the US would let "a weapon of mass destruction" who identifies as American go leave for somewhere else because of a little thing like immigration laws.

Nah, they already said this is the Daily Planet years so Fillion has to be Perry White.

I believe Gunn stated he was a big fan of All-Star Superman.
When I finally got around to reading it, it kind of surprised me how much of it was channeling more whimsical Silver Age plotting and complications.
It did that while balancing some over-arching, weightier dramatics that are much more typical of the tone of industry material since the mid-eighties.

Donner hit a pitch perfect grounded tone for the character for a post-Watrergate era.
Gunn has every opportunity now (technological capability; audience acclimation to broader fantasy material; studio resources etc) to produce a live-action Superman movie that could truly channel the vibe of a good chunk of this character's fanciful history.
And just like All-Star showed, that kind of material can co-exist just fine with more sophisticated, and thoughtfully mature content.

As much personal nostalgia, and love, I have for the original Donner film, I can easily envision someone with Gunn's sensibilities making the absolute definitive Superman film.

The issue with adapting something like All Star Superman is you have to get the studio to get away from the standard "reintroduce the character/origin story" plotline and fully embrace a world where superheroes are already established and silly crap has happened that is somewhat unexplained. Gunn was able to get away with it with his Suicide Squad where he just threw in a bunch of characters (with some flashbacks for origins) and went with it (like where did Mongal come from? just go with it) but I'm not sure if he can convince them about something like Superman. Would be pretty cool though.

Gunn should have enough reputation to do what he wants at DC. He took nobody characters like Peacemaker and the Guardians of the Galaxy and made them household names.

I think he can do a lot to make Superman both relatable and fun. After all, if Marvel can somehow work the Thanos Copter into canon, James Gunn should be able to make Lex Luthor steal some hostess pies.

Gunn isn't the problem. It's WB. The owners may change, but the idiocy seems to stay the same.

I am sure he did a deal where he has creative control with Safran.

Hopefully. But I doubt he'd truly have free reign. So I wouldn't put it past the execs to have a clause which allows them to veto what they please. And although that's reasonable, the problem is not the veto privilege but how they might exercise the same. And WB has a poor track record in that regard.

I bet you are wrong. With his track record, including with 2 DC properties, he absolutely would want complete creative control.

They've already said in their presentation that DC Studios (which didn't exist previously) is a completely separate entity from Warner Bros. Pictures.

Umm...

So, yeah, Gunn/Safran and the newly renamed DC Studios exist under Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., which itself is under the umbrella of Warner Bros. Discovery. So it's unrealistic to assume Gunn/Safran have total creative freedom. Hell, that's why Gunn and Safran had to pitch their vision to Zaslav after they had been named co-chairmen of DC Studios.

In fact, regarding WB...

Do any of you really believe all those studios are free from corporate oversight?