Mild Spoilers for Superman (2025) – if you haven’t seen the movie and want to go in blind, bookmark this post and come back later. I’ll be here.
I saw James Gunn’s Superman, and you know what? I didn’t hate it. I’d even say you should go watch it.
In fact, there were quite a few things I genuinely liked. David Corenswet brought a warm, grounded sincerity to Superman that felt true to the character. He wasn’t trying to be a god or a symbol—he was just a guy trying to do the right thing, even when the world didn't exactly make that easy. And yes, as a dog owner, the fact that he saved the dog was important to me. Priorities, people.
Lois Lane was another highlight. This might be the best version of her I’ve seen in a while—driven, flawed, fearless without being omnipotent. She reminded me of the sharp, stubborn reporter from older comics and animated series. Not the perfect “girl boss” archetype that can solve every problem in five seconds, but a woman whose strength was in her tenacity and her capacity to push through despite fear and failure. More of this kind of female character, please.
Alan Tudyk voicing another A.I.? Bless him. It’s better than being the chicken in Moana, but at this point, can we all chip in and get him a break from the sci-fi synth roles?
As for the Justice...Gang? League-in-progress? They're clearly still finding their footing. Mr. Terrific was new to me, but he was a functional backbone of the film’s plot. Take him out and the film plot would have died. I am not sure how I feel on that front. Hawkgirl, on the other hand—while the actress did fine—felt like a character who needed a few more passes in the script. Flying around screeching and occasionally deciding the mission matters just didn’t resonate. And her final action in the film was not heroic at all. Nathan Fillion plays a douchebag a little too well, but I appreciated his acting chops and the character he brought to life in the film.
And then there’s Lex Luthor. Nicholas Hoult nailed the role. It’s the most fun Lex I have seen sinc ethe animated series. It’s especially fun for me since the last film I saw Hoult in was Nosferatu—he’s proving himself to be one of the more interesting actors working today. May he not get ruined in the way other promising talent has been. I do have a minor issue with how Luthor was handled as a character, but that’s part of my main topic.
Masculinity in Crisis...Again
One recurring frustration I had with Superman—and something I’m seeing more frequently in modern writing—is how masculinity, particularly in its traditional or “macho” forms, is portrayed. I am an advocate for men in roles these days and lifting up father figures rather than the narrative that we are better without them. Good fathers are family heroes and need to be praised.
In this film, nearly every strong or stoic male figure has a moment where they break down in tears. The macho sports reporter cried. Clark’s father cried. Clark cried. I just about threw my theater snack at the person in front of me when Lex cried. I am sure some other guy cried that I missed. There was male crying all over this place like this was some Sex in the City movie minus the debauchry.
Now, let’s be clear: Men cry. They’re allowed to cry. Vulnerability is not weakness. But when every traditionally masculine man becomes reduced to emotional collapse, it stops feeling like character development and starts to feel like messaging. It’s not about adding depth—it's about removing strength for the sake of optics.
And ironically, the most emotionally detached, “beta-coded” male in the film is the one treated like a romantic success and moral compass. It feels more like a correction, or even a punishment, for characters who fit a certain masculine mold.
As writers, especially of genre fiction, we have a responsibility not to flatten complexity in pursuit of a trend.
What’s the Better Way?
Let one character—just one—have that vulnerable breakdown. Then show us the arc. Show the rebuilding. We do this all the time with female protagonists. We allow them to fall apart and then come back stronger, more focused, more whole. Why is that opportunity being denied to male characters lately?
Here are some examples of doing it right:
Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings – He wrestles with fear, uncertainty, and imposter syndrome, but rises to meet each moment. He is not perfect, but he grows stronger through the pressure, not by collapsing under it.
Steve Rogers in Captain America: The Winter Soldier – His world is falling apart. People he trusted betray him. Yet he keeps moving forward, not because he’s emotionless, but because he holds the line. And that is his vulnerability: refusing to give up.
Raymond Holt in Brooklyn Nine-Nine – A stoic, traditionally masculine character who occasionally opens up, but it never undermines his authority or intelligence. It adds to it.
Eddard Stark in Game of Thrones (books and early seasons) – Ned is honorable, traditional, and deeply flawed. His strength and downfall come from the same place: loyalty and principle. His emotional moments are understated but powerful. Winds of Winter when?
We don’t need every man in fiction to be a brick wall. Nor do we need every man to crumble into a sobbing mess to prove they have a soul. Balance is the goal. Humanity is the goal. And that includes showcasing a range of masculine expression—stoic, soft, humorous, broken, loyal, angry, gentle. We can honor all of these without tearing any of them down.
Final Thoughts
Superman (2025) isn’t a perfect movie, but it’s one I’m glad exists. There’s heart in it. There’s a lot of good writing in it, and some great performances. But as someone who teaches and thinks a lot about character, especially in genre storytelling, I’d love to see more thought given to how we portray strength—especially male strength—in nuanced, meaningful ways.
We talk about “show, don’t tell.” That applies to vulnerability too.
Thanks for reading, and let me know your thoughts—especially if you saw the film. Did any of the same moments land for you (or not)? Share them.