Welcome!

Before we begin I just want to make it clear that while I'm comparing Superman and Barbie as IP products of a company, I'm well aware that they're not exactly the same or full equivalents of each other. Superman is a character written with existing fictional history and narrative intention from the start. Sure, Superman eventually got merch made, but he wasn't designed to be a toy. Barbie meanwhile, is a toy and was given character history and depth afterward- but the intention is for kids to make up their own stories while playing with her. She can have fictional interiority through the BCU (Barbie Cinematic Universe), but she is a toy product first and foremost. Superman is the other way around.

This is mostly a Superman essay since that's where my expertise is at. I'm really just a casual who loves listening to doll collectors when it comes to Barbie. I'll be linking to video essayists that are more informed on the topic, but who I want to extrapolate points from for my Superman movie analysis needs. Forgive me for starting off with Barbie context first as it lays the groundwork for the Superman comparison. So let's talk about Cool Capitalism, rebranding, the appropriation of punk to neutralize criticism, and propaganda through film.

Advertisements are evolving into film.

hbomberguy's "Woke Brands" video is a discussion on how ads accidentally and then very intentionally created a new marketing strategy: and that's to pander to progressive politics. In an effort to get around the digital era's adblocker savvy youth, marketing discovered that aligning with progressive values did two things: it gave them free marketing from conservatives who made a grand display of destroying their (already bought) products on viral videos, but also instilled brand loyalty from progressive leaning customers. The video ends with a warning: that marketing is always evolving. Customers get easily jaded over the same marketing trend and will recognize that they're being pandered to eventually. Harris notes in the video that;

"They won't even admit their commercials are commercials anymore. They're "Short films""

"Corporations are not your friends". Ultimately none of these companies are truly ethical no matter how much they try to advertise otherwise. None of these stances are even particularly radical, politically. Because their main goal is to sell a product to a broad audience.

Barbie, Mattel, and Cool Capitalism

Barbie was in desperate need of a rebrand. Even at the height of Barbie's most Barbie-core era in the 80s, Barbie was already being criticized as a sexist symbol. The aggressively popular 90s parody song "Barbie Girl" by Aqua and ensuing controversial lawsuit Mattel filed against the group further tanked the doll's image. Sales plummeted after the release of Peggy Orenstein's controversial (and frankly pretty sexist, in my opinion) book "Cinderella Ate my Daughter". The book served scathing criticism for the doll industry and princess culture at large- thrusting conversations of body image to the forefront. This lead to response-dolls like Lammily being created and praised over Barbie. Mattel tries responding by dropping the Barbie-core hot pink glamor for a line of more "ordinary" looking Barbies, meant to reflect "real women" in all their average glory. They even started putting out new body type casts for Barbie. This wasn't particularly successful. They were struggling, financially [See Darling Dollz' "When Barbie Stopped Being Barbiecore" video for more detail].

Now that kids aren't playing with toys as much anymore, Mattel decided to expand their brand to being one driven by IP over toys. And that means aiming at those aging millennials. Amidst all this came a new strategy to rebrand Barbie: Cool Capitalism. In Broey Deschanel's thorough video "Feeling Cynical About Barbie", Deschanel describes Mattel's rebrand game plan:

"This generation is nostalgia pilled, and Mattel knows it. But it also knows that our generation are feminists and that we're critical of capitalism. So maybe it's time to take a leaf out of Disney's playbook and get a little post modern with it."

"Every Disney film that gets farted out each year is a sardonic, self-aware take on Disney's less than perfect past. Mattel saw this and said: 'Self-awareness, got it.' If we criticize ourselves before the audience does, then we're safe."

Quick summary of the Barbie movie's plot: The world of Barbie Land is populated by Barbies of all sorts that are in charge of society while Kens are essentially second class citizens. Stereotypical Barbie has a midlife crisis and thoughts of existential dread. She learns from Weird Barbie that she must travel to the real world and find "her person" (the person who owns the doll she represents). Ken tags along and discovers how awesome the real world is for centering men, societally (a foreign concept to him). He returns to Barbie Land and remakes their society to be "patriarchal".

Meanwhile after escaping being caught by Mattel (who are worried that change in Barbie Land could drastically affect the real world products), Barbie learns that her person is Gloria! A Mattel employee and mother of jaded tween Sasha (who Barbie initially thought was her person). Gloria is similarly going through existential dread. Barbie takes Gloria and Sasha to Barbie Land to escape Mattel but also hopefully cure both their existential dread by showing how wonderful Barbie Land is. They discover Ken has taken over Barbie Land by making Kens in charge and Barbies as subservient to them.

This affects the real world, where bizarre Ken-centric products and sad Barbies are suddenly being sold. Eventually, Gloria inspires the Barbies to fight back and regain control of Barbie Land from the Kens. Mattel shows up in Barbie Land, grateful that everything is back to normal. Barbie reconnects with her creator, the ghost of Ruth Handler, and decides she wants to be human and join the real world. She does! Becoming Barbara Handler, and has her first gynecologist appointment in the real world. She's a real woman now!

You can see the Barbie movie employing the Cool Capitalism strategy in a number of ways in the film: they portray Mattel as these loveable bumbling business men led by Will Ferrell who pokes fun at the male-led company creating products for girls. This isn't the strict company that tried to sue Aqua for ruining their image. They can make fun of themselves!

Sasha, the #feminist daughter, hurls every meta-textual criticism at Barbie. The film even pokes fun at the Barbie creator's IRS scandal. It's hard to criticize the film when the defense is "well the film beat you to it, it's self aware! And lampshading that awareness is surely the same as tackling the problem."

Deschanel's video reflects how I feel about the culture surrounding the Barbie movie. But I want to bring our attention to the "Cool Capitalism" portion of the video. She starts off by quoting "The New Spirit of Capitalism" by Luc Boltanski and Eve Chapello:

"To maintain its powers of attraction, capitalism therefore has to draw upon resources external to it, beliefs which, at a given moment in time, possess considerable powers of persuasion, striking ideologies, even when they are considered hostile to it,"

The book "Cool Capitalism" by Jim McGuigan, expands on this by arguing that capitalism has embedded itself in society by presenting itself as cool, relatable, and transgressive. Companies would intentionally appropriate countercultural themes and rebellion "aesthetic" to appeal to the youth.

Consider that after Mattel dropped their lawsuit against Aqua for their Barbie Girl song, in 2009 Mattel modified the song's lyrics for a series of ads in an attempt to revive the company's image. To come full circle, the song is remixed into "Barbie World" in the end credits of the Barbie movie, sung by Nicki Minaj and Ice Spice. The original biting criticism of the Barbie Girl song has been absorbed into the corporation. Neutralized from being a threat.

Similarly consider that Mattel is more than comfortable having Barbie sport "Girl Power" shirts while still refusing to refer to Barbie as feminist, despite the feminist roots "Girl Power" came from (the term itself has origins to Black Power). Specifically in the Riot Grrrl Punk Movement, a group that sang about gendered violence, reproductive justice, body image, and sexuality. Their original feminist messaging behind "Girl Power" became diluted once mainstream music got a hold of the concept for branding by having Spice Girls popularize "Girl Power" into a world wide fashion phenomenon. In turn, "Girl Power" was eventually absorbed by Mattel. Neutralized once again.

Deschanel's friend argues that Barbie instead uses "Camp Capitalism"- operating on the same principles as Cool Capitalism, but with bright, pop colors and a comforting aura. The Barbie movie casts talented, beloved actress Margot Robbie to play as Stereotypical Barbie. Margot's Barbie isn't the same Barbie as the fictional character you meet in the BCU animated movies, she's meant to metaphorically portray Barbie as a concept. In a frankly evil genius move, this in turn anthropomorphizes Mattel's product into a real human woman (doubly so by the ending of the movie), nullifying feminist critique as mean spirited towards her. Barbie isn't a product, she's a victim to impossible expectations. A victim of "feminist critique". As Gloria says after her speech about the impossible and contradictory standards placed upon women:

"And if all of that is also true for a doll just representing a woman, then I don't even know."

What a disingenuous framing of Barbie, considering she's the curated image of impossible womanhood that reinforces the very problems Gloria is venting about. Barbie doesn't just passively "happen to represent a woman" she was intentionally designed to appeal to beauty standards and crafted by the company.

This is all calculated. Get a beloved auteur director, get a likeable star to headline your film, make a reactionary-to-criticism "self aware" movie, and then personify the product. This Disney-borrowed strategy did wonders for the discourse surrounding Barbie. Much like how the movie pairs a bunch of valid criticisms about Barbie with a handful of mean-spirited nonsensical ones in Sasha's initial big takedown of Barbie, all the criticism towards Barbie was grouped in the binary side of the culture war as "un-feminist." You can't critique Barbie- she's a real woman! It hurts her feelings.

The Barbie movie itself isn't transgressive at all of course. Mattel themselves hesitate to call Barbie feminist. And despite all the self aware dialogue, the movie never challenges the fact that all the executives of fictional Mattel are men, it just draws attention to it. Despite Gloria's big speech about the impossible standards of womanhood, her very character is the one who dictates the acceptable parameters of femininity for Sasha and Barbie. All under the guise of "authentic, relatable femininity." (see verilybitchie's Why We Can't Fix The Makeover Movie) Barbie starts the movie as a flamboyant pink bimbo, Sasha is the socially conscious feminist in dark goth-like clothing, but they both end the story looking like Gloria. That just "casually feminine enough" standard. It's "authentic", it's "relatable". Not like how they were at the start of the movie.

Everything just reverts to the status quo in the Barbie movie. Gloria isn't promoted to an important position at Mattel even after she pitches her "radical" pitch for "ordinary Barbies." The Mattel CEO just says (after being told this pitch will make money) that it's a great idea! Yup! Never mind that this is an obvious metatextual nod to what Mattel is currently selling with their irl Ordinary Barbie trend and an attempt to rebrand it as a revolutionary idea. A business move criticized by seasoned doll collectors: "Why does added racial and body diversity mean sacrificing imagination? Where's the flamboyant creativity? The very camp aesthetic the film's marketing is banking on? This isn't about inspiring imagination in children, it's about making adults feel socially conscious about buying a Barbie for their kids." to paraphrase.

Once the Barbies regain control of their world from the Kens' takeover, President Barbie proclaims to the Mattel CEO that "I don't think that things should go back to the way that they were. No Barbie or Ken should be living in the shadows." They won't be mean to Kens and Weird Barbie. But really we don't get to see the after effects of what this means. She hires Weird Barbie as a part of her cabinet (and we don't see how that changes anything), but when the Kens ask for a position in Barbie court- they are brushed off and given a lowly position. One that the narrator remarks is less power than women have in the real world. An uncomfortably dystopian statement when the Kens are essentially second class citizens in Barbie Land. Don't think about it too much. You might start implying more radical systemic changes need to be made in society at large- or even at Mattel!

Barbie makes this emotional speech before becoming human: "I want to be a part of the people that make meaning, not the thing that's being made. I want to do the imagining. I don't wanna be the idea." it's a beautiful speech on its own, but we don't see the follow through (and barely any of the build up) at all. Just a montage of girls and women living life before we see Barbie, drained of color and camp, going to an office to inquire about her gynecologist appointment. I want to see what she means by joining in on the "imagining" and being creative. But if we're not even promoting Gloria, I guess we're not giving Barbie a creative job either. Back to the status quo. She's average and that's good enough.

Ultimately, the film uses a progressive aesthetic to decorate its conservative core. It's all meant to reach a broad liberal audience just like those "woke" ads from before. The Barbie movie's feminism is shallow and simplistic. Mattel pokes fun at itself, sure. But not by that much, because labor exploitation gets a little too real to talk about. Just think of Mattel as silly guys running around in suits! Not a corporation taking advantage of people working in their factories. The "patriarchy" is presented as silly dude bro insecurity instead of a systemic and often times violent problem.

Jaded tween Sasha's arguments against Barbie giving women body image issues, "sexualized capitalism", "unrealistic physical ideals", "set the feminist movement back 50 years", "destroy girls' sense of worth", "killing the planet with glorification of rampant consumerism" and lastly "fascist" are all presented without in-universe context. Barbie cries upon being called all these things because of course she would! Who could blame her? We don't see Barbie tangibly do any of these things in the film. Sasha's points are robbed of real world context- rendering them as mean spirited empty arguments. A threat neutralized through the logic of the film.

What's sad is that if the film wasn't so hell bent on being a flattering ad for Mattel- there could've been a great Legally Blonde-esque story to be had here. People assume the worst out of Barbie because sexism likes portraying blonde white women as idiotic and vapid. Imagine having Barbie challenge those expectations to the point of breaking free of even Mattel's vision of her (this is alluded to in Ruth's speech, but it's not reflected by Barbie's actions in the movie). While there's plenty of valid criticism of Barbie as a product, a good bunch of it is rooted in sexism.

I've briefly mentioned that "Cinderella Ate My Daughter" has biting commentary sure, but also has some disgusting internalized sexism in its arguments. This other argument that Barbie has "unrealistic proportions" is a double standard we place on fashion dolls for girls that we don't criticize in action figures for boys. The study that beauty standards reflected in dolls "affected girls with body issues" was actually inconclusive. People just saw the title of the study and ran with it. We shouldn't be asking for hyper realistic Barbie dolls (since that's impossible for creating clothes at such a small scale), we should be encouraging more diversity in stylizing bodies for fashion dolls.

Lammily, the anti-Barbie doll that went viral for portraying a fashion doll with "average" proportions, didn't have feminist intentions behind its creation. The creator isn't passionate about fashion doll designs, or positive role models for children, he just got viral and kept trying to make the next "shock value anti-Barbie" doll to grab headlines. It was never about expanding diverse representation of women, especially when his attempt at a Native American doll was appropriative. It was about setting his own standard of what a "natural" "non-intimidating" woman looked like. Also he's a Trump supporter. So. It's just interesting that the Barbie movie appropriated this criticism and made it look like their own brilliant idea.

Even a video I linked here, "The Plastic Feminism of Barbie" by verilybitchie perpetuates an exhausting misinformed myth: that "Barbie's design is actually snatched from a sexy German doll made for men! Bild Lili. No wonder it made parents uncomfortable!" While it's true that Barbie's design essentially plagiarized Bild Lili, what's not true is this idea that Lili was a "sex worker German doll for men". Lili was adapted from her popular comic character counterpart and was a flirt, but not a sex worker (the closest suggestion to her job being either assistant or journalist). Her doll was popular with everyone, a gift for girlfriends and beloved by children. Funny how even feminist critique of Barbie can still trip and fall into sexist misinformation. Assuming things based on appearance.

It's a shame that the movie doesn't have Barbie meeting with her true grandmother Bild Lili instead of a metatextual nod to her creator Ruth Handler. Seeing how someone who is basically her original incarnation endure uninformed sexist critique- Barbie sees herself. She's not bad, she's just drawn that way. Both women holding hands and deciding to break free of society's expectations for both of them. But that would highlight the plagiarism lawsuits. And that's too real. Too radical. A story like that can't exist in the corporate machine.

Superman Saw All That And Said Hold My Beer

Superman was in desperate need of a rebrand. To the casual movie going audience, the last Superman movie to grace screens was Man of Steel. A poorly received film part of a DC media universe with more misses than hits. As the Snyderverse came to a close, James Gunn was hired on to helm a new DC film universe starting with Big ol' Blue. Cinematically, general audiences are deep into Superhero fatigue. Why would they want to watch a Superman movie? The most generic Americana superhero ever? Let alone the start of a new cape universe? There's also that pesky Marvel Cinematic Universe boycott. The last thing people want to watch is a Classic American Hero, when America isn't seen as a particularly heroic country on the global stage as they fund genocide. To follow in the steps of the "woke" ads and Barbie movie, how do we make Superman stand out of the saturated superhero genre? How can we make this film feel important to watch? Not something you should see. Something you need to see.

Keep in mind!! I'm referring to casuals who don't read Superman comics. Anyone who engages with Superman past the vague pop culture idea of him knows there's a lot more depth to Superman than that. But we're talking about normie general audiences who only know Superman through mainstream adaptations. Still don't worry, the Superman film will be sure to make plenty of nods at comic fans to keep them distracted and satisfied. They want your money and fan loyalty most of all. You're part of the marketing plan. Gunn promised "Barbie-level" marketing after all.

Rao give me strength in my attempt to summarize this mess of a movie: Superman is broiled in controversy for taking a stance against the fictional country of Boravia (an ally to America) invading the fictional country Jarhanpur. He loses a fight against the Hammer of Boravia, an enhanced soldier controlled by Lex. Things are tense for Superman as Metropolis citizens are critical of Superman's actions, and after a heated interview- Lois thinks their relationship won't work out. Lex sends out a monster to distract Superman as he breaks into Superman's Fortress of Solitude and steals his Kryptonian parents' message and Krypto the superdog. The Justice Gang (Kendra Hawkgirl, Mr. Terrific, and Green Lantern Guy Gardner) instead take down the monster by murdering it, to Superman's dismay.

Devastating news drops: Lex has translated the Kryptonian message in its entirety (Superman only ever heard the first half of the message) to reveal that Superman was sent to Earth by his parents to conquer the "simple confused" humans and create a harem to repopulate Kryptonians on Earth. They tell him to murder anyone who gets in the way of this plan. Superman's image is ruined. Realizing Krypto is missing, Superman turns himself in to hopefully be imprisoned and find his dog. The plan works! Superman is imprisoned by Lex in a pocket dimension jail where Superman is kept subdued with Kryptonite created by Metamorpho. After Lex kills a random Metropolis citizen, Metamorpho agrees to help Superman escape. Superman, Metamorpho, Metamorpho's baby, and Krypto all escape thanks to Mr. Terrific (the only Justice Gang member who helped when Lois asked for the team's help) who kept the portal open with Lois as a rescue mission.

Lois flies Superman home to the Kent farm where he recovers. Lex is furious that Superman escaped, and accelerates his pocket dimension into creating a black hole. Lex Luthor is actually working with the leader of Boravia, and promises that this black hole will distract Superman long enough to give Boravia time to invade Jarhanpur. When Metamorpho and the Justice Gang witness Jarhanpurian children holding up a Superman flag in the face of the Boravian invasion on tv, they're inspired to suddenly be political and go to Jarhanpur to fight- where they kill the Boravian leader.

Superman deals with the black hole, fights the Hammer of Boravia who turns out to be a clone of himself created by Lex. Superman defeats all his foes and Mr. Terrific stops the black hole from spreading. With the help of Jimmy's connection to Lex's hot girlfriend Eve Tessmacher (who sends Jimmy incriminating evidence), Lois publishes a news piece that reveals Lex's connections to Boravia, leading everyone to turn against Lex and forgive Superman. Kara Supergirl shows up at the end and destroys all logic in the film as a Kyptonian (born and raised on Krypton) that could've cleared everything up. Superman happily watches footage of his human Kansas parents(tm) back at his fortress, fully rejecting his harem-obsessed Kryptonian alien parents.

While Barbie employs a camp approach to Cool Capitalism, I would describe the Superman movie's approach as Patriotic ""Punk"" Rock capitalism. In Superfandom spaces, they would describe this as "Hopecore". Not only does the film get ahead of everyone's criticism of Superman being a goody-two-shoes character with having lots of characters poking fun at his kindness (borrowing from Barbie's self-aware playbook strategy), but the film appropriates "punk" and rebrands their Superman's Classic American kindness as more transgressive.

In a world of jaded, edgy superhero movies, maybe it's the good ol' fashioned wholesome one that's subversive. Sure the Justice Gang are tougher, meaner heroes who get the job done with (sometimes lethal) violence- but it's Superman's ability to inspire them into action (to commit more sometimes lethal violence) that is the true "punk" rock here! Superman 2025 saw all the ways Cool Capitalism would appropriate rebellious aesthetic as paint over conservative ideals, and instead posits: what if the traditional was the NEW radical?

To achieve this, the film strictly engages with Superman through a shallow pop-culture lens of the character. An aesthetic level. Even with how inconsistently Superman's ideals are written in the comics as source material, seasoned Superman fans can tell you that the throughline behind the eventual evolution of Superman refusing to kill his enemies is because Superman believes in their potential for redemption. This is most clearly shown through his rivalry with Lex Luthor; Superman knows Lex could use his genius to make the world better so he's always showing mercy and asking Lex to try. Because if Superman's foes die, then where they were at when they died would be the best they ever could have been. And Superman believes you can be super too.

Meanwhile Superman 2025 doesn't dig into this. There's never a true moral discussion had between characters, just aesthetic gestures towards one. When Superman tells Guy Gardner that they didn't have to take down the big monster by killing it, Superman just says "I was hoping we could capture it and take it to an intergalactic zoo or...at least euthanize it less painfully." Guy responds "Come on bro. Don't be such a wuss." Superman isn't an animal monster rights advocate who recognizes there's no such thing as an "evil" animal, he doesn't argue to take care of an abused creature lashing out. That would be too real. Superman's just sad that it's dead.

On a tv talk show, Peacemaker speaks of Superman less like a character having an ethical discussion within a fictional story, and more like the kind of superhero fan discussion you'd hear in a comic store. Peacemaker says "[a guy like him] thinks he's better than everyone else. Makes this declaration he's against killing people unless it's absolutely necessary. It kinda sounds like you're trying to make the guys who are a little more edgier than you look like jerks." When Superman has his big speech to Lex, he only mentions the possibility of Lex's redemption as an adage to how great Superman himself is as a human superhero.

The closest to ideals Superman has in this movie is the initial first half of the message from his Kryptonian parents that he clung to at the start of the movie. "...But hope vitalizes our hearts. And that hope is you, Kal-El. We have searched the universe for home, where you can do the most good. And live out Krypton’s truth. That place is Earth.” When Superman re-explains this message to Lois he says "My parents had sent me here to serve the people of Earth. And to be a good man." Again, it's vague. So what are Superman's ideals in this movie? What does being good mean for him?

In promotion, producer Peter Safran describes their Superman as "the embodiment of truth, justice, and the American way." along with "kindness in a world that thinks kindness is old fashioned." Gunn believes similarly, saying kindness is an "American value":

"yeah, it’s a story about an immigrant, but mostly it’s a story to me about kindness, which it is. That’s the center of the movie for me." "I mean, people did value kindness in the past. That was an American value, was kindness, and it doesn’t necessarily seem to be that way to me anymore. So that was always the center of the movie for me, and it wasn’t about anything other than that."

I would describe Gunn's view of kindness as similar to that of an instagram boomer. The kind of person who says "it was better in the old days because people were more polite." but this person can't really clarify what made people morally better back then. The aesthetic, nostalgic idea of niceness is what interests Gunn.

The reason it comes off like these people can't tell you why they feel like it was better back then is because they're leaving out historical context. Back in the war times when Superman was created, morality was a lot more black and white back then. The earliest Superman comics were escapist wish fulfillment. It wasn't about kindness since he had a way looser no-kill-rule, it was about seeing Superman punish corruption. As time went on, people became more critical and cynical of what higher powers told them was "good". People went from cheering for America to defeat its enemies during the war, to questioning if war was necessary at all. They became critical of America itself.

This reflected in media through greyer depictions of morality; the rise of the anti-hero. In superhero spaces this led to (and wasn't limited to) satirized deconstructions of the superhero genre through Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's Watchmen. Watchmen was a critique of the old-fashioned black and white morality of superhero spectacle. It was a story that interrogated why we put our faith in the unquestioned good of superheroes. Gunn doesn't mention this in promotion, and this context for how the world became jaded isn't reflected in Superman 2025. Because removing historical context is part of the Cool Capitalism game.

If I had to pin point what Gunn and his team believe is "old fashioned" "American value" kindness- I look to how the movie portrays the Kents. After Superman escapes the pocket dimension prison and recovers at the Kents' farm, we are treated to an idealistic farmland. Ma and Pa Kent are generic, fuddy duddy kindly country people with no dimension outside of being supportive parents. We don't see them do sweaty, laborious farmer work- instead it's an overly romantic rural image of an elderly American couple with a farm that just kind of runs itself. Here, Superman is reminded of what's important from Pa Kent:

"Parents aren't for telling their children who they're supposed to be. We are here to give y'all tools, help you make fools of yourselves. All on your own. Your choices, Clark. That's what makes you who you are."

There's this emphasis on kindness being a core belief that exists in everyone in the promotion for this movie- to the point Gunn rebrands that classic Superman saying into "truth, justice, and the human way". Pa Kent assures that because Clark assumed the best of the Kryptonian parents' message from his inherit goodness, that the actual message doesn't matter. Because Clark already decided who he was. And as the movie ends, Superman watches a montage of videos where he is raised by the Kents. He assumed the best of the message because his Classic American parents taught him goodness. To see the best in people. This is the "kindness that was valued in the past" that Gunn keeps going on about. His Kansas Parents (tm) is the reason Superman is good.

All of these are nothing burger character motivations for Superman. As I've outlined before in my "Why Superman is boring sometimes" essay, kindness is broad. A conservative and progressive person's idea of kindness are radically different from one another, so where does Superman fall in this spectrum? What does he believe in? I was also critical of the frankly lazy answer that "Superman is good because he's raised by good American parents". Because then the question goes to the Kents! What do the Kents believe in? They adopted an undocumented alien immigrant. Surely they have some kind of radical beliefs that differ from conservative American values. I concluded in that essay that believing in "classic American kindness" as inherit and universal to human nature is a conservative interpretation of Superman. It doesn't challenge people to learn and grow, it just hand waves towards the general vibes of being a nice person.

When Superman 2025 said "hold my beer" for Barbie's employment of Cool Capitalism, I think it did something nefarious with comics history. I think it's looking at the cynical grey morality of comics like Watchmen (a comic critical of superheroes serving the government) and saying "let's go back to a simpler time." Remember when things were black and white and you knew who to root for? That's why you'll notice an emphasis on Superman's kindness being powerful enough to break political differences. Because he has no political ideals of his own.

The name of the game for Superman 2025 is plausible deniability. If they have a Superman that won't define his heroism outside of an aesthetic idea of "being good", then people can project whatever they want to see on the character. Speaking of projection, did we mention this film very loudly makes allusions to Israel and Palestine?

Boravia is Israel and Jarhanpur is Palestine

Audiences were shocked to find the film made strong allusions to Israel and Palestine in the fictional form of Boravia and Jarhanpur respectively. Reviews came pouring in that the film was anti-Israel, because Superman takes an active stance against Boravia and protects Jarhanpur from the Boravian invasion! Don't go off watching Marvel films with the boycott going on, invest your money here! Ignore the zionist actors and the behated ex-CIA agent that acts as the consultant to this universe! We're so Punk Rock. To quote a fanboy I would soon block for being annoying: "This film isn't propaganda, Superman basically looked at the camera and said Free Palestine!" and sure. Despite Gunn's insistence that the film wasn't about "The Middle East" (Much like how Mattel assures us Barbie isn't feminist), that didn't stop the masses from projecting onto the film. And who could blame them? Even with the very little characterization both Boravia and Jarhanpur are afforded, it's clearly coded to be Israel and Palestine specifically.

I've seen some reviewers say it could be a Russia and Ukraine allusion too, but I'm here to argue that it's Israel and Palestine. And that Gunn is being dishonest about it. The Boravians are portrayed and coded as white people, while the Jarhanpurian people are intentionally coded and casted as vaguely Middle Eastern, despite canonically taking place in Eastern Europe. Marketing blows up the role Afghan-American actor Fahim Fazli plays as a Jarhanpurian extra in the background. Once we see Jarhanpur, it's the typical Hollywood shorthands to signify "the Middle East"- sand dunes, no real buildings, warm colors, and vaguely eastern clothing. Boravia's flag has a star and stripes that echo Israel's flag. Notably, Boravia is emphasized as being an ally to America- while Jarhanpur is not. Something that directly diverges from the Russia and Ukraine comparison. Lex Luthor funds the Boravian army, much like how the US and its billionaires fund genocide.

Similarly, Jarhanpur is described both by Lois in the movie as "historically has not been a friend to the US" and having a "tyrannical regime" while Gunn describes Jarhanpur as "a country that's problematic in terms of its political history". Something that the film never actually shows the Jarhanpurian country or people being. The Jarhanpurians show up in the last half hour of the Superman movie and do nothing but beg Superman for help and cheer once the Justice Gang saves them. We never see this "problematic" aspect of the country, because Gunn wants you to project it. He wants you to do the work so he can plausible-deniability-style stay apolitical. The film can't point to a concrete political problem the Jarhanpurians have, because that would make it too real, so they keep it vague. Keep in mind, Gunn's statement that "this isn't about the Middle East I promise" came days before the film's release. He knew the comparisons were coming.

"In some ways, I would say it’s the right Superman because I don’t think he’s a part of the cultural moment"

Gunn tells Variety, in response to being asked how Superman fits in the current climate of anti-immigrant sentiment in America.

What exactly are anyone's politics in Superman 2025?

The Superman movie can't actually answer this question confidently because of what "The New Spirit of Capitalism" has taught us: that it's engaging with politics actively hostile to it. So why does Superman side with Jarhanpurian people? In other words, why is Superman pro-Palestine? If he's the classic American raised hero, then why does his opinion on this topic diverge so strongly against the American conscious? No seriously. In a country as Anti-Arab and Islamophobic as America, how did Superman get radicalized into fighting against an American ally? The film shrugs. "Superman's just nice! He's punk rock! His parents raised him to be a good boy! Don't think about it too hard! It's human to care! Everyone just forgot how to be nice, and Superman is here to remind them."

This is how Cool Capitalism's patriotic cousin "Punk" Rock Capitalism operates. Superman 2025 will touch on rebellious topics, but only on the surface level. If it digs too hard, you might just realize the film is a part of the problem. Just look at how vague Superman's radical kindness serves as "inspiration" on other characters in the film:

When Metamorpho holds Superman hostage, how does Superman radicalize him? Well, he sees Metamorpho's son imprisoned elsewhere and says "I could fly over and get him" This doesn't work and Metapmorpho assures him there's no way out. After Lex murders a random Metropolis citizen in front of Superman, Metamorpho witnesses Superman wail in pain and starts crying himself. "He just killed that poor guy[...] I didn't do anything. [long pause] You said you can get to my son, right?". Superman nods and Metamorpho frees him. There is no ideological appeal to Metamorpho's values in this scene. It is meant to emphasize that the true heroism of the moment is Superman crying because he has feelings. It's so human to have feelings. And that made Metamorpho help, along with the promise of Superman's exceptional abilities of course.

How does the Justice Gang switch from being apolitical to fighting against the Boravian army? Well, when Lois asks them for help she doesn't say anything about Jarhanpur itself. She says "I think this is being done to keep him (Superman) from interfering with the Boravian invasion" to which Green Lantern assures her that he is staying neutral, because he doesn't want beef between the US Government and the Justice Gang. Hawkgirl agrees. Lois later says "So you're just gonna let your friend rot in a pocket universe?" This causes Mr. Terrific to help her. Okay so this is about friendship. And centered around Superman.

Eventually in the last 30 minutes of the film, Metamorpho and the Justice Gang watch tv and see the Jarhanpurian children lift up a Superman flag. This is what inspires them to stop the Boravian invasion. I don't think there's anything that could stroke the liberal ego quite like the image of a devastated brown child holding up a flag that begs for their help instead of putting up their own Jarhanpurian flag. The Justice Gang's moral development goes from killing a monster (which Superman disapproves of) to killing a dictator (which Superman doesn't notice). This isn't an ideological change in the characters, it's an inspirational aesthetic image. Never mind that none of this is a proper rebuttal to Green Lantern worrying about the Justice Gang and the US Government beefing with each other over this. Just enjoy the inspiration vibes. Hopecore at its finest.

And then there's Lois Lane. Which leads to the very relationship that leads to a scene that inspired this whole essay in the first place.

How Superman says Kindness is Punk Rock.

Lois and Superman start the movie in an adversarial place in their relationship. Superman fights against Boravia's plans to invade Jarhanpur. Meanwhile Lois... wishes he'd ask permission before doing all that. The two attempt an interview where Lois grills Superman for how his actions as an "American" hero could reflect on the larger world. It's a scene that requires both of their true beliefs to bubble to the surface. Lois needs evidence that Boravia is ill intentioned in invading Jarhanpur because Boravia publicly said they're saving Jarhanpur from a tyrannical regime. Superman assures her "I wasn’t representing anybody! Except for me! And myself! And I don't know! Good! Doing good!". He adds that the Boravian government is "not well intentioned" and that their statement is "silly". Nice and vague talking points.

In another Variety article Gunn says this about their relationship:

“Yes, it’s about politics. But on another level it’s about morality. Do you never kill no matter what — which is what Superman believes — or do you have some balance, as Lois believes? It’s really about their relationship and the way different opinions on basic moral beliefs can tear two people apart.”

I think he's misspeaking a bit here since there wasn't a single moment in the movie where Lois made her position about "balance" in regards to "not killing" a thing at all. But what Gunn's saying is that Lois Lane is goddang centrist. She's the guy holding the "compromise?" sign when the Boravians, with their superior army, plan to invade Jarhanpur. She questions everything. She needs explicit evidence of an ill intended invasion. She's a character removed from being aware of the historical instances of benevolent colonialism that claims to be in service of "civilizing the barbaric" or "rescuing them from terrorism". Much like how the Barbie movie decontextualizes Barbie criticism from its real world consequences. Meanwhile Superman is a nice human guy.

But this seemingly ideological conflict comes to a fruition in a later scene. When Superman apologizes for the fight they had, Lois assures him that they were bound to fight eventually because they're so different. She says "I was just some punk rock kid from Bakerline, and you're Superman." Superman replies that he thinks he's "punk rock" too. Lois disagrees. Superman lists the fictional pop radio bands he listens to; Strangle-Fellows, the P.O.D.s, the Mighty Crabjoys. Lois laughs this off, "that's not punk! And the Mighty Crabjoys suck." But the main point is that she says: "I question everything and everyone. You trust everyone. And think everyone you've ever met is like...beautiful." To which Superman replies "Maybe that's the real punk rock."

This here, is the crux of the film's Cool Capitalism. Its appropriation and regurgitation of the transgressive. It's the culmination of everything this Punk Rock Hopecore Patriotism strives for. Lois claims to be brought up punk, but she's no Vertigo John Constantine. Punk culture revels in rebellion; it is anti-authority, anti-permission, anti-conformity, anti-consumerist, anti-corporate, anti-bigotry, and most importantly, it's anti-war. Lois' initial interview with Superman boils down to questioning why he didn't go through the proper channels before inserting himself in foreign affairs. She's concerned with political diplomacy, asking "Superman did you consult with the president before entering Boravian air space?" So why does Lois call herself a punk?

Remember, the Superman movie only engages with morality, politics and ideological differences on an aesthetic level. Lois isn't a punk because she's anti-authority. She's a punk because she questions everything; Superman sees the world as beautiful and Lois is jaded. To Superman 2025, punk is when you're a jaded, negative, cynical rebel. Much like how the Barbie movie takes all the criticism hostile to the brand and puts it into Sasha's mean spirited takedown of Barbie, the Superman movie takes all the punk things that threaten America's image and washes over it by saying "all of that is you being a cynic." Remember how Watchmen was about interrogating our trust in superheroes? Well Lois needs to not do that and trust this beautiful, honest, kind man. Punk no longer means "Death to the American Empire" or "All Cops are Bastards". It's an aesthetic removed from context.

When Superman offers his taste in pop radio bands as proof of his punkness, that's the corporate brand trying to convince you that Spice Girls is the new Bikini Kill. Superman posits that his good old fashioned kindness is the new punk rock. He doesn't say he's "punk", he says he's "punk rock", like the genre of music. Much like how the Spice Girls turned Girl Power into a fashion trend, I guess radical kindness is just a music genre. The point is it's an aesthetic. In reality, kindness has always been core to punk culture. Radical kindness in punk spaces is driven politically, it's about offering kindness to the marginalized, the people who mainstream society disregards. By placing this constructed false dichotomy between an aesthetic of "jaded critical rebel" against "kind pop punk rock" they ahistorically flatten punk culture. Superman's shallow, unspecific, aesthetic niceness is now framed as transgressive and radical.

And just like how Sasha from Barbie will come around to the magic of Barbie by the end of the movie, Lois will come around from her skepticism of Superman's wholesome ways. The Barbie Girl Aqua song will be consumed by Mattel and spat back at you. Barbie will in fact, wear Grrl Power t-shirts inspired by underground punk feminist spaces. The threat must be neutralized. And real punks are a threat to America, so how do you neutralize them? Make those punks look like the old fashioned ones. They're out of style. Hating America is so last year, hopecore is in season.

When Lois brings Superman home to his Kansas Parents(tm), she watches them care for their injured son. She looks around the room and sees all the ways Superman is human. Back in Kansas, he has a teenage boy's room; filled with trophies, model airplanes, and a Mighty Crabjoys poster. This is what Superman will claim to be his greatest power at work; his humanity is what's going to fix everything. Including his relationship with Lois. This scene doesn't make sense of course since Lois already knows Superman personally. She already knows he's Clark Kent and more than just a caped guy who saves people. It's not like Superman ever acted in a way that made him come off as inhuman, he's friendly. He's not Dr Manhattan from Watchmen, the Superman-analog character who loses his humanity and becomes an unfeeling God-like entity the more powerful he becomes. Because discovering that guy's humanity would genuinely be a big deal. But the logic of this Superman scene doesn't matter. It's about the aesthetic vibes it gives. The hopecore feels.

In a RollingStone interview, Gunn describes this scene like this: "When I was writing the scene of her looking around in his room, it was initially more just about the childhood of it all. The moment for me in that scene that’s the most potent is actually not the poster. It’s her seeing his parents being so sweet to him. And for me, that’s a moment in which I think we see Lois understands who he is and maybe even falls in love with him. I think there’s still a part [...] of her that’s skeptical about who he is and his intentions, and when she sees that, she understands why he is the deep, loving soul that he is, and it’s all completely honest."

This quote from Gunn is strangely at odds with the film. Right before Superman has the "punk rock" conversation with Lois, he explains that he never knew the full version of his Kryptonian parents' message. Clark says "I'm not here to rule over anybody, Lois." to which Lois responds "I never thought you were, even for a moment, Clark." Odd considering she is characterized to "question everything" but Lois did get lip service confirmation from Superman directly, so she takes his word for it. In fact, she didn't need to because she said she "never thought" otherwise. Hence, Superman's Kryptonian background isn't what Lois is skeptical about.

The "part of her that's skeptical about who he is and his intentions" section of Gunn's quote would only make sense in the Private Interview scene Lois has with Superman, earlier. It's the only scene that isn't a "performance" for their co-workers to see them butt-heads, and is the closest to their ideals being at odds. Therefore, Gunn's intentions for the payoff of seeing Clark's childhood bedroom only works if Lois' true respectable centrist opinions surfaced in that initial interview. But that brings up the question; in what way does seeing how doting Superman's Kansas Parents(tm) are to him act as a rebuttal (or relate at all) to Lois' concerns about Superman's undiplomatic intervention? It doesn't. Just enjoy the hopecore vibes.

This all culminates in the climax where Superman makes his grand speech to Lex Luthor. When Lex derisively calls Superman an alien, Superman rejects this, saying;

"That is where you’ve always been wrong about me Lex. I’m as human as anyone. I love, I get scared. I wake up every morning and despite not knowing what to do I put one foot in front of the other and I try to make the best choices I can. I screw up all the time but that is being human. And that’s my greatest strength. And someday, I hope, for the sake of the world, you understand that it’s yours too."

At this moment, it's clear to me that Superman isn't actually a character in this movie. Much like how Barbie isn't fictional the way her BCU counterpart is, Superman is just a concept in this movie. Because if this version of Superman had to deal with any competently written superhero conflict, he'd be the most lousy superhero there ever was. He doesn't cleverly solve problems by outsmarting his captors, he just cries and they feel bad. Which any character can do. He doesn't fix his relationships by putting work in, he wins Lois over because she realizes he has a teenage boy's room and parents who love him. Which any character can have. What makes Superman here special? Because his so-called "greatest strength" sucks.

In a behind the scenes feature going over the Superman speech, we see that Gunn wanted Superman to show Lex how human and vulnerable he is. There's literally a cut line where Superman says "Every time you say that I don't belong, it hurts my feelings!". It's not like this speech works on Lex. In fact, Superman doesn't redeem a single character in this movie. But can you imagine Batman telling the Riddler that his feelings are hurt. Do you genuinely think that in Batman 2022 when Riddler murders people he didn't stop to think that it might hurt their feelings? Do you think it would have been a huge revelation for him if Riddler was told that Batman has hurt feelings.

It's part of why watching both Barbie and Superman leaves me feeling hollow. I don't think I was engaging in a story with themes and characters, I felt like I was watching an ad. You might be looking at all this and thinking "but Superman is an anti-war movie, that's what makes it punk." So for this next part of this analytical essay, let's interrogate how effective Superman is as an anti-war movie.

How White Saviorism Upends Superman as an Anti-War Movie

In comparison to Barbie, the Superman movie had bigger fish to fry. Where Barbie shied away from talking about the reality of exploited workers who make Barbie dolls in factories, Superman went head first into half hearted political commentary. They've got to rebrand America, after all! Even though this severs the comparison between Barbie and Superman, I think it's a necessary point to talk about punk and being anti-war. It'll come full circle I promise.

In Broey Deschanel's It's (Almost) Impossible To Make An Anti-War Film video essay, she thoroughly analyzes the pitfalls with war movies commonly thought of to be critical of war. Everything from the trope of "Pitying the Poor Soldier" by taking the perspective of a soldier and showing the trauma they face, to showing how grotesque and un-glorious the realities of war are, to having characters in the text of the story be critical of war. I'll be summarizing relevant parts of Deschanel's work here, but just know I'm paraphrasing her already really good video.

To many film critics way more familiar with this "genre" (it's broad) than I am, it's not just about the attempted messaging of the narrative. The medium of film itself can be at odds with the goal of being anti-war. Sure, you can have characters that are critical of war and a narrative that agrees with them, but it's proven that even those kind of films have been used as propaganda to encourage recruitment and hype up soldiers. And that's because of the inherit hypnotic adrenaline and awe that comes with portraying a beautifully shot spectacle of an action piece. "War movies often create a lustful image of violence. One that plays upon a morbid impulse in the viewer." says Deschanel. Even when action is grotesque and gory, there's still an excitement to it. This is sensationalism through cinematography.

Some filmmakers try to get around this by portraying an "objective and apolitical" image of war with "no fictionalization" like in the film Warfare. But that in itself is an impossibility of the medium. Writer Susan Sontag remarks in "Regarding The Pain of Others" in relation to the war photograph that "Photographs had the advantage of uniting two contradictory features. Their credentials of objectivity were inbuilt. Yet they always had, necessarily, a point of view." In essence, by authoring a shot through composing and framing it, you inherently exclude something from the frame. So let's ask; what does Superman 2025 exclude from its frame when it depicts war? How does the film stack up to the pitfalls and supposed tenets of the antiwar film?

Superman presents a very clean and inoffensive picture of war. There's a moment early in the film where Jimmy Olsen notes that during the first fight Superman has with the Hammer of Boravia, 22 people were injured, and there's been 20 million dollars in property damage from the fall out of their fight. He says “It does make you wonder. As great as he is, maybe Superman didn’t completely think through the ramifications of the Boravia thing.” I thought at this moment Clark could sassily say something like "Do American lives and property hold more value than Jarhanpurian ones?" But then I realized that was a projection on my part. When Superman has his escalated interview with Lois, he shouts "PEOPLE WERE GOING TO DIE". This is where the conflict of the film isn't like that of Israel and Palestine. It's cleaner. While I'm imagining the genocide this movie alludes to, the movie has presented a convenient image of an invasion. One that hasn't started yet.

This way Superman isn't pressured to be present in Jarhanpur 24/7 to fight against an existing, ongoing genocide. Because "the invasion" didn't happen yet! We forgive him for being distracted with a side quest to find his dog, who obviously needs more screentime. It also makes the centrist and apolitical characters less obviously unlikeable. It's not like they're just letting a genocide happen, they just don't know what a "war" results in.

A strange metatextual parallel the movie has with Israel and Palestine is the way the conflict is framed in the narrative. It's referred to as a "war", but we don't see any kind of crude military force from the Jarhanpurians to fight back against the Boravians. A newscaster in the film states “Over at Eastern Europe, Boravian troops gather at the border seemingly mere minutes away from invading Jarhanpur once again. Now, nearby villagers are willing and ready to defend their country despite the exponentially superior fire power of the well trained Boravian military.” It looks like a genocide happening to monolithically helpless people. But the narrative assures us it's a war.

By cleaning up its depiction of war, the movie presents to us a pristine image of violence. The only on-screen human death we see is one of Malik, the random Metropolis falafel vendor citizen who is murdered in front of Metamorpho and Superman for their character development. The rest of the movie either cuts away or offers us a very PG 13 standard of cartoony war violence. Guy Gardner conjures a bunch of third-finger-gestured-giant-hand constructs to tip over Boravian tanks. Metamorpho turns his hand into a giant hammer to crush a tank. When Mr. Terrific wrecks a base to get to the pocket dimension portal, the camera spins around Lois Lane so that you can get your dose of cartoony violence and a hot woman staring gob smacked at the spectacle at the same time. Safe to say, Superman fails at one of the basic tenets of anti-war filmmaking. It doesn't make the violence grotesque, it makes the action look fun and badass. It's a superhero film, what were you expecting?

I've thoroughly talked about the white saviorism of Superman 2025 on here. The way it centers how Americans feel about the geopolitical conflict between Jarhanpur and Boravia, how this conflict is shoved into the background and is revealed to just be a plot device Lex Luthor created to ruin Superman's reputation, how there are no named Jarhanpurian characters, how it takes until the final 30 minutes of the film before we see the Jarhanpurians, that whole deal. The Jarhanpurians are a prop in service of making Superman look good for noticing their plight. They are monolithically helpless in a way only Superman can assist them.

In Dayan Mustafa's essay "Do all films glorify war?" he notes;

"Western audiences can't discover that a society without war is possible because that would mean the United States and other imperialist powers would have to lay down their badge and gun, resigning from their role as the top goon squad for war mongering CEOs"

This is why war films often center soldiers. It's more about how being a solider is sad and not about how being a soldier is wrong. But Mustafa proposes a different approach to making a film more truly anti-war:

"Audiences in the west recognize Iraq only when it is subsequently followed by 'war'; by severing the connection between the two and proposing that the film should be harmonious and peaceful, viewers are made privy to exactly what war steals from us- joy. Only then can a film be anti-war, according to Coppola."

Deschanel concludes that the most air tight anti-war film is the one that takes place from the perspective of helpless civilians. The ones most affected and caught in the crossfire. Her main examples being the Soviet 1985 film Come And See, along with Ghibli's Grave of Fireflies. It's important to see joy, so that we know the weight of its loss.

So how does Superman stack up to this? Well it primarily takes place from the perspective of Americans and how they feel about Jarhanpur. Lex Luthor uses Boravia and Jarhanpur as a plot device to ruin Superman's reputation. To Americans like Jimmy, standing up for Jarhanpur led to the Hammer of Boravia causing American property damage, and that's such an inconvenience. Lois doesn't care about the Jarhanpurians at all. Superman's relationship with Jarhanpur is left underdeveloped outside that of a white savior, with the film favoring his insecurity over his Kryptonian parents' message cancelling him as the main driving force of the story. We never see Jarhanpurian culture, families, named characters or storylines. Their only line of dialogue is chanting "Superman! Superman! Superman!" The white saviorism completely upends Superman 2025 from this crucial tenet of anti-war filmmaking.

The most substantial meta criticism the movie tries to deconstruct is Superman's historical attachment to "The American Way". How he appears to act out of serving a national agenda instead acting toward some kind of common good. Basically this idea of Superman being tied and loyal to corrupted power. Instead of having a critical discussion about US assimilation, respectability and what it could look like to have Superman break out of that, the movie decides to move this problem up a generation.

In a frankly evil racist move, the Superman movie pins this metatextual issue with Superman onto the most foreign parts of his character; his alien heritage. This isn't a Superman that critically interrogates his relationship with America, he's a Superman who realizes he is not what his oriental-alien-conqueror-harem-obsessed parents planned for him. Those alien parents symbolize the corrupted power he is loyal to. By rejecting what makes him foreign, Superman fully embraces what makes him American, uh I mean- human. And in doing so, the film ends up circling back to being patriotic instead of being critical of America.

It's so patriotic that Gunn constantly compares Superman to America itself. When discussing the trailer, he said: “We do have a battered Superman in the beginning. That is our country. I believe in the goodness of human beings, and I believe that most people in this country, despite their ideological beliefs, their politics, are doing their best to get by and be good people — despite what it may seem like to the other side, no matter what that other side might be. This movie is about that. It’s about the basic kindness of human beings, and that it can be seen as uncool and under siege [by] some of the darker voices are some of the louder voices.”

When Superman didn't perform as well overseas, Gunn blames this on the assumption that non-Americans don't know mainstream pop culture along with "Anti-American sentiment." "Superman is not a known commodity in some places. He is not a big known superhero in some places like Batman is. That affects things. And it also affects things that we have a certain amount of anti-American sentiment around the world right now. It isn’t really helping us."

Basically, to dislike this Superman is to dislike America itself. And people outside of America are just too ignorant to be familiar with the IP. To quote my own white saviorism write up:

"Superman doesn’t say to Lois “After all I’ve been through and all I’ve lost, I’m not letting that happen to anyone else.” Because that would INFORM his heroism based on lived, immigrant experience.[...] If the Superman movie ends with him rejecting the foreign alien parents and embracing his American human ones, that Superman can never identify with the foreigners he saves. They may be other humans, but they’re not American."

And because of this, Superman's relationship with the Jarhanpurians is left underdeveloped. He's not the White Man Going Native flavor of white saviorism. That kind of white character gets to engage with indigenous culture and outdo the natives at it. He gets to have relationships with the indigenous people he'll ultimately save. But Superman is less than that. He only cares about the Jarhanpurians through the most basic moral high ground there is. That it's bad if they die from a war.

When we think of a film being anti-war, what we're looking for is something that radicalizes us. We're asking "how are we to prevent a war?" Deschanel concludes:

"What is an anti-war film? It's a film told from the perspective of the innocent. Which sees war not as continuous and natural, but something that is unnatural. That obstructs our ability to live. Something that is good for no one, except the few men who line their pockets with it. And lastly; the true anti-war film, is a film you would never want to watch again. No chance at adrenaline, or excitement and accuracy or even morbidity. Just loss."

The anti-war film can exist, just probably not in Hollywood. This kind of portrayal of war would have to go against narrative conventions for a satisfying catharsis, or the mainstream superhero movie's tone as being feel good action pieces. In other words, it would be a punk and transgressive piece of work.

And I think that's why the self proclaimed "punk rock" angle of the Superman movie is so frustrating. Whenever I call this out, I'm immediately met with people framing James Gunn as a radical creative held back by the pressures of Hollywood; that we're witnessing a radical message that's been softened around the edges in order to be mainstream. And to that I say, at least be honest and don't call your sandpapered work "punk rock". Because Superman 2025 doesn't even hit the most basic characteristics of an anti-war film. Its white saviorism and xenophobia actively work against that goal while framing itself as progressive.

Revising History and Censorship, an Escapist Portrayal of Convenience

If loss is at the center of the anti-war film, then having a clean narrative where there are no Jarhanpurian casualties actively robs us of a radical message. The film preys on how this generation is routinely exposed to violence on our social media timelines amidst this ongoing genocide. The movie casts a boy who looks like the ones you see suffering when Palestinians call out for help online. It has him hold up a Superman flag and be saved by the Justice Gang. It's pure escapism, and that's the problem.

It is convenient, the way the Barbie movie retells how Ruth Handler created the iconic fashion doll. Portraying a familial relation of mother and daughter between Handler and Barbie, naming Barbie after her real daughter Barbara. This completely excludes how Handler based Barbie off of Bild Lilli, and the ensuing attempts the creators of the Lilli doll made to sue Mattel, before Mattel acquired the rights to Bild Lilli only to cease production in favor of Barbie. More competition swallowed up by the company. For all the fun self aware jabs the Barbie film makes of Mattel's history, what they choose to exclude is telling. The self awareness gives off the illusion of transparency from the company so that you won't notice the stuff they leave out.

If I asked you to send me a screencap of Superman saving or protecting Jarhanpurian citizens, you would come up empty. Because we never get to actually see it in the film. It's only ever referred back to and said through dialogue that Superman protected Jarhanpur from Boravian invasion. Superman tells us in his interview with Lois that he smashed some tanks, planes, "and other stuff". We don't even get to see these broken tanks or planes. I have to wonder, is the imagery of Superman protecting these Palestinian-stand-ins too political an image to actually depict? Because we're certainly not showing it. I'm not even asking for more white savior imagery- what I'm saying is that we don't see Superman, the all American hero, even talk to (let alone interact with) a single Jarhanpurian. At all. It's a convenient omission.

Linking back to what I said about the clean image of war, Superman assures Lois in the movie that, "There were no casualties and no significant injuries" when he prevented the Boravian invasion from happening. In Gunn's assurance that this isn't about "the Middle East", he says "When I wrote this [the Superman movie] the Middle Eastern conflict wasn't happening." He portrays a world where "Israel" hasn't ever taken a single "Palestinian" life. Over here in the real world, the genocide of Palestinians didn't start with the airstrikes on October 2023. The colonization of Palestine by Israel was decades in the making. But in the Superman film, we have this ahistorical portrayal of events for the sake of American comfort: no guilt has to be had over entire Palestinian generations lost to genocide. No death toll. None of the loss that is central to an anti-war film.

Similarly, the complicity of America's involvement in funding Israel is all conveniently funneled into Lex Luthor. We get to see the Boravian government personified through its leader Vasil Ghurkos, but the US is given a vaguer treatment. We see Lex have a meeting with the Defense Department to propose his Planet Watch project. The movie gets the Asian actor in the meeting to express how uncomfortable he is at the thought of "a being from another planet as dangerous as him [Superman] on the loose." (So it's okay if we get the Asian man to say this right? Right.) Ultimately the Defense Department decides Superman needs to be cancelled before they can do anything about him since he's so popular. Lex can only go after Superman when the general public no longer likes him. When Superman turns himself in, Lex acts on behalf of the US government by questioning him while threatening Malik. But the demands from the government are vague questions like "Who are you working with here on Earth?" and "Who raised you as a child?". We never see a fictional US president in the film. No Biden or Trump stand in.

Never mind all these companies we're boycotting in the real world, just focus on Lex. To quote Maxwell Lord in this movie: "Seems like the one thing conservatives and liberals can finally agree on is that Lex Luthor sucks!" How nice, a target that won't make the in-universe conservatives angry. It's almost like it matches the centrist stuff Gunn talked about in interviews. How "most people in this country [America], despite their ideological beliefs, their politics, are doing their best to get by and be good people". Once Lex is imprisoned and the Boravian leader is assassinated, then Boravia will stop being a threat, right? That's how easy it is to solve colonialism! This decontextualizes all the ways America is far more complicit than one Lex Luthor-guy when funding ongoing genocide. History and reality don't match the Patriotic Punk Rock aesthetic.

What about all the ways American censorship represses awareness of Palestine? In the movie, we don't get to see the Jarhanpurian flag raised like the American or Boravian ones. In the real world, the Palestinian flag has become so political that its presence is routinely censored and repressed. The watermelon symbol became a way to represent Palestine as a form of avoiding censorship. We see an army of monkeys on computers in Lex's pocket dimension, spreading hashtags like #SuperShit and #Superharem to piss off Superman. It's a tongue in cheek meta call out to all the backlash the film's development got from Snyderverse campaigns, many calling the movie "SuperWoke" before its release. Gunn has had to publicly announce that he stays off the internet, the same way Superman does in the movie. Imagine if this movie instead used the monkey army to talk about how algorithms suppress Palestinian news. But I guess that would've been too real. Gunn can't even say "Palestine" by name- it's just "The Middle East". How Punk Rock.

When Lois uncovers Lex Luthor's ties to Boravia, she doesn't encounter any pushback from publishing or making this discovery. Sure, Lex has his government-rented pocket dimension to imprison political agitators and petty bloggers, but where are the journalists who get silenced for speaking out? Where are the activists who get targeted for drawing attention to it? Lex punishes Eve Teschmacher for exposing him, but that's hardly a reflection of government sanctioned censorship. Lois just publishes her piece, it goes up without a hitch and all of Metropolis is immediately radicalized against Lex.

The difference between Superman 2025 and Andor, another big IP driven project under a large corporation, is night and day. While Superman 2025 never utters the words "genocide" or "colonialism", one of the big climactic points of Andor is watching an imperial senator use her position to explicitly call out genocide and the way the Empire hides the truth from them. We see the censorship take place throughout the two seasons. So when senator Mon Mothma finally says "I believe we are in crisis. The distance between what is said and what is known to be true has become an abyss. Of all the things at risk, the loss of an objective reality is perhaps the most dangerous. [...] When truth leaves us, [...] we become vulnerable to the appetite of whatever monster screams the loudest [...]WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY ON GHORMAN WAS UNPROVOKED GENOCIDE! YES! — GENOCIDE! — AND THAT TRUTH HAS BEEN EXILED FROM THIS CHAMBER!" it's a resonantly political move and it's immediately met with consequences. This is an obstacle we never see Lois Lane overcome to get the truth to the masses.

And most damning of all. What about the way Superman's history is cleaned up and simplified? I talked about how he doesn't have a deep relationship with the Jarhanpurians based on being foreign survivors of mass destruction. There's no shared solidarity over facing cultural loss. But what about the ways his alien immigrant side is vilified to glorify his American side? Superman's alien parents are characterized with all the classic xenophobic characterizations of old timey Great Replacement Theory and Yellow Peril. The foreigners are coming for your wives with their rampant non-monogamous sexuality. They'll repopulate America with their filth and they'll destroy anyone who gets in their way.

It's doubly uncomfortable having Jor El refer to humans as the "simple, easy to control" people- playing into the antisemitic belief that Jewish people see themselves as "superior" chosen ones- a purposeful misinterpretation of their religious beliefs. Absolutely incredible to characterize the Kryptonians this way with your first Jewish Superman actor. Yeah, make Clark celebrate Christmas with the Kents in that final montage while you're at it. Really rub salt in the wound to anyone hoping for Jewish representation from your Superhero created by two Jewish sons of immigrants.

What about how the Kents are made into this romantic image of simple rural American kindness? A clearly Christian brand of American kindness at this point. In the comics, some versions show the Kents with the depth to talk about assimilation and protecting their foreign son through respectability. There could've been a great conversation about passing and what it means to come out as a white-passing foreigner. Or a discussion of the ways Superman himself could rebel against his Kansas Parents(tm) and not be portrayed as someone who just follows everything his parents raised him to be, without question. But all this is gone in favor of the romantic aesthetic.

But then what about Superman's relationship with Supergirl (a character who, despite her age, spent her formative years in Krypton)? Well Gunn answers this seemingly plot destroying issue:

"You’re assuming that everybody on Krypton is the same! And how would she know? She’s younger than him, so she wouldn’t know. She wouldn’t know anything about his parents."

Part of the reason I think Gunn is so inconsistent in promotional material is that the movie and his direction go on vibes. Because this answer undermines the actual blatantly xenophobic text of the film. When Superman disagrees with Lex for calling him an "alien", he doesn't deny his relation to Lara and Jor El specifically. He denies being alien period. And if Lara and Jor are just cultish freaks obsessed with being the living embodiment of Replacement Theory, then why do they describe their quest for their son to be "living Krypton's truth"? Why doesn't Supergirl know her own aunt and uncle?

Because Gunn isn't thinking about this movie outside of aesthetic vibes. In that same article, Gunn is asked if he pulled influence from John Byrne's infamously xenophobic comic run, "where Krypton was cold and sterile, and Clark embraced Earth over Krypton". To which he answered "Yeah. Listen, I read that when it came out. I definitely had that in my head. And isn’t it also a little bit in Birthright, too? So I did have the comic background excuse to do it." He doesn't think about the implications of his storytelling. It's just a surprise for comic fans who expected Superman's alien parents to be characterized differently. It's a quirky reference for any of you who recognize that xenophobic comic run. Of all the things that flew over people's heads, I think this one disappoints me the most. You shouldn't be upset because this is a "mischaracterization" of the Els, you should be upset because this is blatantly classic xenophobic writing that goes unchallenged. And don't hope for this characterization to be retconned either. According to Gunn you're "shit out of luck!". We're stuck with this xenophobic writing for an entire generation of normies being introduced to Superman through this universe. Hoorah.

The simplification and sanitization of historical context even through entertainment is an insidious facet of propaganda. Superman 2025 flattens its commentary because it needs to constantly insist upon its radical place in pop culture. You might ask "Why can't we just be grateful that Superman 2025 was as anti-war as a mainstream big blockbuster movie can be within its limits?" Because that's how capitalism chips away at your critical eye towards it. That's how Cool Capitalism convinces you that the status quo is transgressive. That's how we end up calling a cartoonishly xenophobic white savior film "punk rock". And if there's anything I've learned about the response to Superman 2025 and Barbie, it's that we are all so, so, so gullible.

How Cool Capitalism makes the product impervious to criticism

In Deschanel's Barbie video, she says "Corporations have begun folding the language of progress into their products. Barbie did it by lathering itself in pink and promising us artsy visuals and self aware messaging and what makes me so frustrated is that we as a public are so easily placated by that. [...] Barbie is wearing the clothes of Artful Cinema and putting on an edgelord voice and hitting all the necessary talking points so that we have nothing left about it to criticize and everything left to buy. In fact, it's disguised so well that Barbie itself has become feminism, become progress in the industry. So that now when you critique it, you're not a feminist, you don't believe in the future of cinema, you're a contrarian."

Following the film, Forbes even placed Barbie on the 2023 Forbes Power Women List on a list with 99 other actual real human being women. "Barbie may be a doll, but in 2023 she became much more. On the strength of Greta Gerwig’s Warner Bros. movie, Barbie expanded beyond a symbol of female empowerment to become an avatar for the necessity of fighting to recapture power that’s been taken away." And as for Barbie's contribution to women's rights? The article talks about how the movie boosted toy sales. Don't worry, the article is self aware. "It’s an unconventional choice, we know, and could be especially controversial in a year of wars, environmental challenges, creeping threats to democracy and the continuing rollback of women’s rights." So you can't be mad at it.

Around here I've been calling this process "A conservative idea dressed up in progressive aesthetic" And it has been such an effective strategy for capitalism. We as a public seem generally aware and critical of it when Disney puts out live action re-makes of their animated classics, but not so much when the technique is employed anywhere else and dressed up a little better.

Much like how any criticism of the Barbie movie was shut down as misogynistic pick-me behavior, contrarian cynicism and "being against the triumphant return of the artistically driven blockbuster film", criticizing the Superman movie has been a surefire way to get people calling me a hateful conservative/zionist, a butthurt bitter Snyderbro, and a depressed cynic who just doesn't know how to have fun. It's not even just me, I've witnessed other critical Superman fans deal with movie fans expressing faux concern for them by using "how much you enjoyed James Gunn's Superman" to diagnose critics for mental illness. There are whole harassment campaigns hellbent on making sure people don't criticize the new Superman movie, and they promise they're not like the Snyderbros. Corporations love it when you shut down all critical discussion of their product with "let people enjoy things." It delays the realization that you're being played by the company.

"Someone out there needed to hear the super basic feminism speech in Barbie, so you're not allowed to critique it." What good was Barbie's supposed feminism if a bunch of you watched Superman afterwards and left the theatre completely fine with the mean spirited misogyny Gunn inflicts on every blonde woman in his "basic human kindness" movie? Last I checked, the military never requested Marvel to treat their women characters that way when they developed Captain Marvel. So maybe instead of framing Gunn as a radical creative held back to be more respectable by the mainstream stage, we look at his pattern of demeaning women in his movies and place that blame onto him. Because what good is your basic unchecked human kindness if you can't even treat women with respect?

Post-Snyderverse, there's been this culture war that places Superman media into an arbitrary divide: If it resembles the Snyderverse by being dark cynical and edgy, it's a conservative take on Superman. If it's bright and optimistic, it's a progressive take on Superman. The actual contents of the narrative don't matter, just the aesthetics.

Our relationship to modern media literacy and consumerism has become so reactionary that we look at how a piece of media pisses off conservatives, and just assume that means it did something right. Ignoring how just the involvement of a marginalized character, regardless of quality and respectful writing, would've pissed bigots off regardless. And so we get protective and fight for corporate media like this as if it's a moral duty to enjoy it, and a moral failing when you don't. We let how bigots feel about media dictate our relationship with it so that we don't have to develop a single critical thought of our own. And then we assume anything slightly critical of that media must be coming from another bigot. So we don't pay attention to the criticism and actively ignore it. Or worse yet, we choose to fight and suppress it so that we do the marketing and PR for the movie ourselves.

It's the "woke ad" again. Only now we say "Superman 2025 is pissing off zionists, so it must be doing something right! I guess I can now relinquish all critical thought of it. The Barbie and Superman movie made Ben Shapiro mad and that's all I need to know." It's an outcome where only the corporation wins and the rest of us get duped. I'm not saying that Gunn's Superman turned people into patriots for America, because I think people projected something far more radical happening. As a product of Cool Capitalism that romanticizes nostalgic simplistic black and white American kindness, the ultimate goal of Gunn's Superman was for all people -regardless of political difference- to come together and buy tickets to watch Superman 2025. It's a centrist movie claiming to be radical.

If Mattel released a Legally Blonde-esque story about Barbie, where I got to know her as a fictional character, I would've loved it a lot more. If the Superman movie just told a Superman story, like an expanded adaptation of a comic like The Kansas Sighting, I would've adored it. But neither of these movies want to engage with these characters as stories. They're driven by the insecurity to justify Barbie and Superman's place in pop culture. "Barbie is relatable, we swear!" "Superman's old fashioned heroics are cooler than edgy cape movies, we swear!" And so we get these meta-movies; self aware, self-referential, post modern products that prey on your nostalgia. If you're a superhero fan that means comic references and the John Williams Superman theme. It's an experience where we engage with these characters as pop culture concepts, and leave the theatres feeling like an activist for watching a blockbuster movie, but with a hollowness we don't want to confront.

In the end, Superman couldn't come through with its promise for "Barbie level marketing". I definitely noticed that outside some toys and some ugly t-shirts, the Superman brand wasn't as all encompassing as Barbie's was when her film came out. But Superman didn't need to be. It succeeded at the Cool Capitalism game regardless.

I saw someone talking about Superman in relation to the movie once, they said "Superman is more relevant now than ever" I thought to myself well yeah, immigrant stories will always be relevant. But with the current state of America, they're especially vital. That person continued "Internet culture makes people so mean nowadays, and Superman reminds us to be kind." I realized at that moment how the movie succeeded at Cool Capitalism. It took up everything actually transgressive about the character and spat it back out as feel good slop about nothing.

According to Gunn, I'm just a clueless non-American who doesn't know what a "Superman" is. Too foolish and uneducated to know one of the most recognizable mainstream household-names in pop culture. And I dislike the movie because I hold anti-American sentiment towards it. I hope this essay shows that he is right about only one of those things.

So for one, like I said, this was supposed to be an interview about Season 2 of Peacemaker (spoilers for Peacemaker season 2 if you're watching it). While the Superman film is brought up in conversation, the interviewer's focus is on Peacemaker. The context of this quote is that the interviewer was pointing out how, in the current plot of the series, Peacemaker is exploring an alternate universe where Nazis won and took over. The interviewer remarks how this parallels what's going on in America right now (America becoming more fascist and alt right). He asks twice about the presidential elections:

"You said on the official “Peacemaker” podcast about this episode that the first scene outside of Vigilante’s house was shot on Halloween of 2024. How present in your mind was the presidential election while you were shooting this episode and the episodes that are to come?"

"To go back to my earlier question, you obviously wrote this show not knowing what the outcome of the presidential election was going to be. But how has it been for you, knowing that this twist was coming, and watching the real world edge closer to Earth X more than anybody would have anticipated?"

It's the second question where Gunn makes his "Superman isn't about Israel and Palestine" comment. Gunn makes this about Superman when the interviewer was asking about Peacemaker specifically here. Right before that quote I showed at the top, Gunn says this:

"[Long pause] I think I don’t know how to answer the question. Obviously, there are many things in the world I’m not happy with. I’m not so narcissistic as to think of the world in relationship to my TV show. I mean, there’s weird things with this show. There were weird things with “Superman.”"

As other cape-heads have noticed, Gunn seems to have brought Superman up unprompted here. Just as he did on his first statement in this essay, where he made his "this isn't about the Middle East I swear" quote days before the film came out. At this point I think that statement only helped fuel people making the comparison. Back to the interview, you'll notice the interviewer trying to get back on topic because his question wasn't answered:

"Do you feel the same way about this season of “Peacemaker”?"

Now would it shock you if I told you Gunn doesn't answer this question and just talks about Superman again? Because he does. And it's more of his really tiresome nostalgia boomer Americana Kindness is Punk Rock spiel:

Gunn's being a bit disingenuous here. Earlier in this very interview he says:

"I’m writing a show like this, I am telling a story, first and foremost. I’m never thinking, “Oh, I’ve got to prove a point about something.” But undoubtedly, there are things from our actual world that influence what I’m writing."

But when it comes to Superman's allusions to Israel and Palestine, suddenly it's "completely fictional, I wrote it before the October airstrikes" (ahistorically presenting the colonization of Palestine as a recent occurrence, like the film does). This contradictory line of thinking comes from a creative that writes based on vibes. Gunn actually loves writing anti-heroes. He got his footing in the superhero genre with films like Brightburn (a what if Superman was evil movie), Guardians of the Galaxy and The Suicide Squad (movies about unlikely heroes whether they be villains or mercenaries). Gunn publicly says "I'm never thinking, oh I've got to prove a point about something." But when it comes to Superman, he writes the character with the insecurity of someone needing to justify a goody-two-shoes superhero's place in pop culture.

I want to dig into Gunn's nostalgic boomer man logic at the end of the interview though:

"We’ve seen more racism lately, right? Is that because there’s more racism or because it’s more OK to be out in the open? It’s probably the latter."

Consider how this fits with his earlier quote in my essay:

"I mean, people did value kindness in the past. That was an American value, was kindness, and it doesn't necessarily seem to be that way to me anymore."

When Gunn portrays the American Past as this nostalgia driven simple time of kindly Kansas Parents (tm) farmers just helping their fellow man The Old Fashioned Way, and the American Present as jaded, cynical rebels or cruel bigoted racists, he's engaging in a reactionary way of thinking.

It's the kind of nostalgia that is a gateway to fascist rhetoric: "let's go back to a simpler time, where I didn't have to think about all this because it was better for people like me." America as a country is built on exploitation of people of color. Racism didn't exist or "is considered acceptable" recently. It's always been here. You can't time travel back to a point when universal "Americans valued kindness" was a thing because it just doesn't exist. This very country was founded on the genocide of its natives. Gunn rambles;

"If there was a sociopolitical aspect of “Superman,” it’s that there has been an absence of kindness and understanding and loving a human being, no matter what their thoughts or feelings are."

With Gunn playing the plausible deniability game, I've noticed a pattern from his critics. "Can we please stop saying Superman 2025 is about Israel and Palestine now? We got the word of god confirmation, so let's stop giving him credit for making an anti-Israel movie." And while I understand this line of thinking, it leaves out how unreliable Gunn is at voicing his intentions, along with how Superman 2025 plays into Cool Capitalism strategies.

I don't think Gunn doesn't want to admit he alluded to the genocide of Palestine because he's secretly a radical artist who doesn't want to piss of the big corporation he's working for. I think that if he explicitly laid out the true intentions of Cool Capitalism, none of you would ever want to buy a ticket for anything from the DCU ever again.

So let's talk about one more crucial piece of evidence that ties Superman 2025 to Palestine:

Luthoria and the Decontextualization of Imperial Capitalism

In Superman 2025, Lois Lane uncovers Lex Luthor's ties to Boravia through Eve Teschmacher's selfies sent to Jimmy Olsen. She later summarizes her findings to her boss Perry White: "Luthor's been selling arms to Ghurkos for pennies on the dollar for years [...] he did it in exchange for half of Jarhanpur."

Perry White asks what Lex would want with half of, in his words, "a desert"? Keep this in mind when I say Jarhanpur is depicted as a country of sand dunes with no culture, architecture or language by the way. We'll come back to it.

Lois answers:

"[Lex's] cultish acolytes believe he's gonna create a technologically advanced utopia. [...] There's a profit factor as well. I mean, the petroleum deposits alone are worth multiples of his investment."

Hey, you know what this sounds like?

That's right. Current US President Trump once proposed a plan to build luxury resorts in Gaza through his chummy relationship with Israel. Now I know what you're thinking; "Superman 2025 was deep into production when this was announced, how could they have integrated this into their plot?" Because this isn't the first time the US has done something like this.

Back in the Cold War, the US (through the CIA) funded the massacre of leftists and communists in Indonesia by getting chummy with the Indonesian military and its right wing. Fresh off of its Independence, Indonesia was shaping up to have one of the strongest communist parties; its president Sukarno was staunchly anti-imperialist, and it was the largest Muslim majority country in the world. So the US funds a coup to replace the Indonesian president with a military dictator who plunged Indonesia into a totalitarian regime for 30 years. Places like Bali where hit with some of the worst massacres. And it was there in Bali, that the US started making investments to build luxury resorts to turn the area into a tourist attraction.

The US would then employ this strategy, dubbed "The Jakarta Method" (after Indonesia's capital) to the rest of the world. They would slaughter civilians, then invest in the land for profit and take control of its natural resources [read The Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins for more]. While the US did this to become a global superpower, Lex Luthor in Superman 2025 does this to ruin Superman's reputation. Once again, it's convenient that we don't have an American President character in the film.

Vasil Ghurkos (leader of Boravia) says "We will not sleep until the streets are flooded with the blood of every Jarhanpurian!"

I really want to hammer this home; how insidious it is to remove historical context, and what goals decontextualization serves. Why can't the Superman 2025 movie talk about this? Because the objective of The Jakarta Method was to instill capitalism across the world. What could be more at odds with the goals of Cool Capitalism than to expose its violent, imperialist history? You can't cheer at the end of a feel good classic American Superman movie if you knew that! The whole point of the Disney-borrowed strategy was to pretend to be self aware, not to actually interrogate their problematic history. Because who would actually do the work to check if you give off the impression of being transparent?

Through this lens, suddenly all the stuff that's left out of Superman 2025 makes more sense. Why don't we see the culture, language, or architecture of the Jarhanpurian people? Because that would give away Gunn's plausible deniability game wouldn't it? He'll let the Croation actor speak in Croation for the Boravians, but can you imagine hearing an Arabic-sounding language in the film? Or seeing Islamic architecture being destroyed? Or seeing any Jarhanpurian wear a keefiyeh? Or getting a clear view of their flag?

This mainstream superhero film can't ever market itself as being about Israel and Palestine, so playing the plausible deniability game means that the hype for the movie will do all the marketing for them. That's the "woke" ad. Not the Superman movie saying with its whole chest "Free Palestine", but the act of audience projection. Political commentators spreading the word, someone you know sending you a tiktok about it, a hype tweet you saw about Superman 2025, saying the quiet part out loud. Something official marketing itself will never say.

(JLA Classified issue #42)

At this point in time, Gunn has consistently asserted multiple times that he doesn't intend to retcon the Kryptonians as orientalist, harem obsessed, living embodiment of Replacement Theory alien parents. I'm confident that the reason Gunn didn't want to have some twist that Lex's translation of the Kryptonian parents' message was altered is because he's attached to that ending scene. Where Superman is watching home videos of him and his Kansas parents (tm), renouncing his alien parents from the beginning of the film. If any sort of twist that proved the message was faked happened, this romantic American ending wouldn't function. Superman could still watch his Kryptonian parents' message. And so, the xenophobic message has to be true. But there's one other benefit, on a political scale.

Consider that be-hated ex-CIA agent Tom King is the consultant for this film universe. You'll find endless criticism about his patriotism and giddiness to serve America through its various war crimes, along with his blatant propaganda in the comics he has written. But have you ever considered that maybe the thought of debunking a cartoonishly xenophobic message about foreigners might hit a little too close to home for the former CIA agent? That's their whole playbook for making people look bad! [I encourage again reading the Jakarta Method for more information on this]

It all boils down to one question: Why did Superman 2025 choose to talk about Israel and Palestine? Is it out of the goodness of Gunn's nostalgic boomer heart? Of course not. The objective of Cool Capitalism is to re-brand something outdated by loosely engaging with ideas actively hostile to it. What's threatening the state of the superhero movie right now? Other than superhero fatigue, it's that dang MCU boycott. And now that DC is one of those companies bending down to self censorship, it's more important than ever to commodify the aesthetics of progress.

That is why Superman 2025 talks about Israel and Palestine. Because it knows that too many people associate activism with consumerism. Superman 2025 is half heartedly alluding to genocide because it wants your money. But not just your leftist money. They want the plausible deniability for anyone across the political spectrum to buy tickets for the Superman film. That's why they'll never admit their intentions. And at that point, you have to wonder how punk this film actually is when it can't make a stance on anything.