Superman Is Cool, But Gunn Ain’t Legend

DC’s Superman promo campaign has been everywhere lately. Teasers, posters, all the loud marketing bells and whistles. James Gunn ’s name is getting blasted louder than the actual title. Even though the word “legend” never appears in the trailer, they might as well have stamped it across the screen with that epic background score and the fact that he’s the only name mentioned in a teaser for a film made by thousands. Yeah, we get the message: James Gunn is the legendary Chosen One.

But when you check the numbers on Peliplat, the movie’s sitting at a 7.9. Not bad. Not great. Just... there. For a work of the 'Chosen One', that feels a little mid, doesn’t it?

A legendary director, in my book, is someone who makes The Godfather, Titanic, The Dark Knight—films that you keep thinking about years later. Stuff that sticks with you, that you revisit and find new layers in.

James Gunn? Sure, his movies are fun. I’ve laughed, I’ve vibed. He’s made bank. But calling him “legendary”? That’s a reach.

His biggest hits are all comic book adaptations, especially the Guardians of the Galaxy series. And look at the credits where it’s due—they’re entertaining, the soundtracks slap, the characters are likable. People love them. They’re successful as hell, and they gave the MCU some much-needed flavor. But are they cinema-defining classics? Do they change the way we tell stories or explore something deeper about human nature or society? Honestly? Not really.

Now, if you look at some of the past directors in the DC universe, you’ll realize just how loaded the word “legend” really is.

Take Zack Snyder . I know he’s divisive. People say his films are too dark, too brooding. But you can’t deny the man has packed a lot in his works. He has a vision style, a message, a vibe. Whether it’s Watchmen or Batman v Superman, you can feel his fingerprints all over it. He digs into big themes—godhood, morality, institutional rot. He wanted superhero films to hit on a mythic, almost philosophical level. It didn’t always land, but at least he tried. And even if you hate his movies, they’re hard to ignore.

Then there’s Christopher Nolan , who brought us The Dark Knight trilogy. He didn’t just make good superhero movies—he redefined what they could be. They’re gritty crime thrillers, psychological dramas, social commentary all rolled into one. Gotham felt real. Batman felt human. And the Joker? Iconic. These films crushed the box office, won awards, and left a lasting cultural mark. That’s what a “legend” does.

Even Bryan Singer , who’s more associated with X-Men, gave us Superman Returns—a movie that wasn’t a financial knockout, but one that genuinely gets what Superman is really about. The loneliness, the weight of responsibility, the quiet love he carries for Lois Lane—it made Superman feel like an actual person, not just a walking symbol. It paid tribute to what the character represents: hope, morality, justice.

Now compare all those names with James Gunn. Yes, he’s fun. Yes, he knows how to build energy. But can he deliver something as layered as The Dark Knight? As stylistically bold as Watchmen? As emotionally sincere as Superman Returns? I have my doubts.

Honestly, putting him on a pedestal as the guy who’s going to revive DC just tells me that the future of the DCU is gonna lean heavy into the same kind of “funny but hollow” vibe we’ve seen a hundred times. Movies that are loud, colorful, quirky—and a little too self-aware for their own good.

But Superman? He’s more than just another cape. He’s a symbol. He stands for hope, moral clarity, selflessness. He’s not just some alien with powers—he’s a metaphor for the best parts of humanity. To tell his story properly, you need a director who understands that complexity. Someone who gets his inner conflict, his humility, the constant tension between being a deity and choosing to be good.

Gunn, for all his strengths, leans toward deconstruction. He likes to break down superhero tropes, inject irony, make things feel edgy or cool or subversive. That’s totally fine—in fact, it’s refreshing when done right. But apply that same lens to Superman? You risk hollowing him out. You make him “relatable” at the expense of what makes him inspiring.

And here’s the scary part: if this is the new tone of the DCU under Gunn, are all our future heroes going to get the same cheeky, try-hard, wink-at-the-audience treatment? If so… yikes.

Right now, it feels like DC is throwing everything at the wall, desperate for a comeback. And sure, they need a change. But banking everything on a director who’s great at chaos and charm—but light on depth—and then branding him a “legend” before he’s proven anything in the DC world? I doubt it's a thoughtful decision.

To be clear: I’m not saying James Gunn is bad. He’s a talented commercial filmmaker. But “legend”? That word should be reserved for directors who changed the game. Gunn’s fun, sure. But let’s not rewrite the definition just because DC needs a win.

Catch you later for more movie musings!