Is James Gunn About to Ruin Superman the Same Way Taika Waititi Ruined Thor?
I have two seemingly contradictory opinions when it comes to one of the most famous MCU movies, Thor: Ragnarok.
On the one hand, I find it hilarious and incredibly entertaining (most of the time). On the other, I consider it to be one of the worst MCU movies.
Shocking, I know—a practically scandalous opinion to have on the internet, to say anything negative about what some consider to be one of the most triumphant movies in the pantheon of Marvel films. But hear me out.
There’s a difference between an entertaining movie and a good movie. (This, of course, can be applied to any storytelling medium, such as books or TV shows.) And one doesn’t necessarily equate to the other.
When Stories Lose Their Meaning
So while Ragnarok might have been entertaining and funny as all get out, do you remember when it was released? Did it feel like an MCU movie? Did it align with the previous Thor movies? Did you feel or notice the thematic and tonal shift that Ragnarok introduced to the MCU?
I sure did, and I didn’t like it one bit. And here’s why.
Stories and story universes should mean something. They should stand for something.
Thor: Ragnarok, which was taken to its logical extreme in Thor: Love and Thunder (though admittedly produced much worse), never understood what the MCU was and never really even cared.
If you asked someone who is moderately aware of Star Trek what Star Trek is about, they’ll probably say it represents hope for humanity and our collective future.
If you asked that same person what Star Wars is about, they’ll probably say something like it’s about personal growth and the battle between light and darkness.
These stories and their shared universes meant something… until they didn’t.
If you were to ask—ironically—what the J.J. Abrams versions of Star Trek and Star Wars stood for, what do you think people would say?
crickets
The Problem with Subversive Entertainment
Consider Star Trek: Lower Decks, a cartoon adult comedy about life aboard the Starship Enterprise, told from the perspective of the ship’s support crew.
Is the premise slightly amusing? Sure.
Does that make it a good Star Trek project? Of course not.
In our nihilistic and post-modern world, there is always a segment of the population that finds these kinds of subversive works gleefully entertaining, almost as if mocking tradition is an end in itself.
Rather than building something meaningful, they choose instead to mock the very thing they’re a part of, eagerly dismantling what has endured and resonated over time.
Think about the Lord of the Rings books or film trilogy. Theoretically, could you make a comedy set in the LOTR universe? Could you take the humor from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and transpose that into a LOTR story? Well sure, you could. But that doesn’t make it a good idea.
In the eternal words of Ian Malcolm: “Your scientists (or writers) were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should!”
Circling back to Thor: Ragnarok, it was such a departure from the films that came before, and from the tone and storytelling methods of the universe that came before, that it was not only jarring but kind of uncomfortable to watch.
All of a sudden, Thor and Hulk were goofballs who were childlike in more ways than one. And it’s fitting that I quoted Ian Malcolm earlier, because Jeff Goldblum acted as if he didn’t know that he was being filmed and was just acting like Jeff Goldblum. Maybe he should have taken instruction from Ian and considered whether or not he should have played in Ragnarok.
History Repeating?
Which brings me to James Gunn’s Superman.
It’s fitting, seeing as Gunn was the person to bring comedic antics to the MCU to begin with through Guardians of the Galaxy, which predated Ragnarok and probably set the stage for Ragnarok to come in and destroy everything.
But with the new trailers that have been released for Superman, starring David Corenswet, I’m getting serious Thor: Ragnarok vibes.
Does Superman look entertaining? Yes, it does. It looks colorful and exciting, with a huge dose of James Gunn-style humor thrown in for good measure.
Which just feels… wrong.
Copying and pasting that same approach to Superman, of all things, just comes across as… (how do I say this scientifically?) icky.
Superman may very well turn out to be a very fun and entertaining movie in its own right. But will that make it a good Superman movie? I don’t mind Clark Kent having a sense of humor, but being goofy has never been Superman’s MO. Superman isn’t Star-Lord and never has been.
In much the same way that critics lambasted Zack Snyder’s dark take on Superman—and rightly so—we should be lambasting James Gunn’s emphasis on an overly comedic tone, turning Superman more into a joke and punchline than an aspirational character.
So will I walk away from Superman thinking it was a fun night out at the movies? Probably.
Will I consider it to be one of the most thematically and comic-accurate versions of Superman that took the character seriously and made serious attempts to bring the character to life in a way that honored the character? Probably not.
Sign Up for My Newsletter & Explore
If you enjoyed this article, consider signing up for my newsletter for more insights, updates, and behind-the-scenes content — you can join here. And if you're curious about the stories I write, head over to my store to check out my books.
Thanks for reading!
