Director Warns His ‘Superman’ Reboot May Offend Some Viewers — He’s Right
“Yes, Superman is an immigrant and yes, the people we support in this country are immigrants. If you don’t like that, you’re not American.”
In a recent interview with The Times of London, James Gunn, the writer and director of the soon to be released film Superman, noted, “Superman is the story of America. An immigrant that came from other places and populated the country, but for me it is mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost.”
“And yes,” Gunn admitted, “it’s about politics.” He’s also well aware that some viewers will take offense at that.
I suppose one could say that Superman “immigrated” to the U.S. when his parents, Jor-El and Lara Lor-Van, sensing imminent danger on their planet, Krypton, sent him to Earth. If you recall the original story, baby Kal-El’s spaceship crash-landed on a farm in Smallville, Kansas, owned by Jonathan and Martha Kent — a kind, loving couple who adopted him and named him Clark.
Still, comparing baby Kal-El’s 1938 arrival in rural Kansas, via spaceship, to the millions of undocumented immigrants who poured over our open southern border, particularly during the Biden administration, is quite a stretch. In truth, it’s difficult even to equate the experiences of our own ancestors with modern immigration. There are several fundamental differences: immigrants of the past were eager to assimilate, they were determined to become Americans, and most importantly, they came here legally.
Nevertheless, the Times’ Jonathan Dean defended Gunn’s characterization of Superman as an immigrant. “And before you say, ‘Superman has gone woke!’ this is all in Superman’s lengthy history,” he assured readers.
Superman was written by men from immigrant families and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees once released a book in Italy titled Superman Was a Refugee Too. Less than ten years ago, DC Comics backed World Refugee Day: “The Man of Steel’s story is the ultimate example of a refugee who makes his new home better.” In the edition of Action Comics No 987, Superman saves a group of undocumented workers from a violent racist.
Sean Gunn, the director’s brother who also acts in the film, was even more emphatic. When asked by a Variety reporter about MAGA’s response to the politicization of the film, he replied:
It is exactly what the movie is about … we support our people. We love our immigrants. Yes, Superman is an immigrant and yes, the people we support in this country are immigrants. If you don’t like that, you’re not American. People who say, ‘no,’ to immigrants are against the American way. They’re against what the American dream is all about.
The reporter responded with a phrase that has long been associated with Superman: “Truth, justice and the American way.”
Writer Christian Toto quipped, that’s “the Superman line that Hollywood loves to bury.” He added:
Gunn and the reporter are doing what the Left always does. They pretend there’s no difference between legal and illegal immigration. They also ignore the fact that an American can’t just waltz into most countries and immediately gain the rights and privileges afforded to that land’s citizenry.
Sean Gunn on the MAGA backlash to Superman being called an immigrant: "People who say no to immigrants are against the American way." pic.twitter.com/XgivaD34PE
— Variety (@Variety) July 8, 2025
It’s just a fact that if Superman was raised by anyone other than a nice, Christian, midwestern couple, he’d be the greatest evil on the planet. https://t.co/0zD6ELqh3L
— Frank J. Fleming (@IMAO_) July 6, 2025
Well apparently, the MAGA base is offended by the political twist to the movie. According to Mediaite, “MAGA influencers launched a movement to boycott the new Superman movie in response to director James Gunn proclaiming the story is inherently political.”
Frankly, I wasn’t planning to see the movie even before the latest flap. But his comments were foolish as a practical matter. Doesn’t Gunn realize that conservatives buy movie tickets too? Even if a small percentage of conservatives pass on the movie, that equates to millions of dollars in lost revenue to the studio.
As Clay Travis points out in the post below, Gunn was “an absolute moron to say this publicly the week before release.”
Has Gunn already forgotten how Rachel Zegler’s and Gal Gadot’s political statements helped sink Disney’s Snow White remake this spring? While their comments weren’t the sole reason the film flopped, why risk making the same unforced error?
The Daily Beast accidentally published their movie review too early. They took it down, but not before someone grabbed a screenshot. Their take? “Terrible New ‘Superman’ Is Final Nail in Superhero Cinema’s Coffin.”
“I made a fun movie that I hope everyone of all backgrounds enjoys.” Is it that hard to say this when you’ve been given hundreds of millions of dollars of studio money to make a summer blockbuster? It feels like Tom Cruise is the only Hollywood superstar who still gets this.
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) July 6, 2025
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
How can I be offended if I don’t watch it?
That’s right!
When will Hollywood realize fans don’t go to movies to be preached at
BUT the sole purpose of movies, according to Hollywood is to do that preaching while convincing the rest of us how superior to us they are [no matter how much a lie it is].
Subotai Bahadur
Doggone, beat me to it.
There is a huge difference the character of Superman and Hollywood, Dems, illegals and Muslims. He assimilated and immediately started doing good deeds.
Frank:
If the Kents had been Jewish, would that have made Superman evil? Seriously!
I’m not offended, I just won’t watch it now. As for pointing towards DC Comics support of World Refugee Day or whatever, people should realize what the two comic book companies have become. They are ultra woke and have been for some time. Both comic companies have jammed gay characters down peoples throats, inserted character race changes for no reason and are all in with every woke theme out there none of which are integral to the characters for any reason. Did we really need to ret con The Green Arrow to make him gay? What purpose was that for?
I’m offended it isn’t titled Superperson.
Mediocre Person Without Front Hole.
Hi!
I suggest dong some research. Variety misquoted Gunn. Go get the actual full unabridged quote – it does not say what some claim. Just saying be careful as multiple sources have started to catch on to a disinformation campaign originating from anti-Zaslav sources to try to cause political rage posting. For one WDW Pro and there are others.
Nope he said it clear as day and he’s an arrogant SOB….always has been.
The lefty wokiestas don’t create they capture and destroy. They reveal this with every action they take. Far better to recognize this fact in the realm of popular culture as here and refuse them any political power. They can’t be trusted to preserve/protect what came before nor to nurture what’s necessary to keep ‘societal seed corn’ for subsequent generations. Stop giving them power and if in a jurisdiction where the wokiestas have held uninterrupted political power for decades despite their abysmal failures….get out before it gets worse.
Legal Insurrection grouses about a stupid “Superman” movie while alternative media and many MAGAs are furious over Trump’s and Bondi’s “just shut up about Epstein and move on”.
And you just grouse furiously. Well done!
Yeah, NOT happy about Epstein, but you know what? I can be unhappy about more than one thing.
Perhaps on weaker medications you might be able to hold more than one thought at a time too.
We can multitask. Do better.
He can’t.
You sound just like JR. Congrats!
🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡🤡
Yes, one has quite a bit to do with the other. You know how you can tell someone with TDS? They insert it into every story they find
I can’t wait to NOT see this movie!
I didn’t wait. I’ve already not seen it!
What? They didn’t make Superman a black hispanic fat lesbian handicapped transvestite with numerous sexual fetishes? Whatever were they thinking?? They could have trumped Disney’s “put a chick in it and make it lame and gay” several times over, Missed opportunities.
Hollywood continues to drive their own audience away. I won’t be seeing this one.
Another reason I won’t be seeing it is I liked Henry Cavill as superman but they effectively threw him away as they did with Gail Gadot as wonderwoman. Bad casting decisions!
I stopped following Superman when they made his kid lame and gay.
I stopped following comics when they began retconning them to be more woke. They suddenly decided that The Green Arrow needed to be gay and Iron Man black. Both could be but they made a giant fuss about it showing their woke bonifides.
Cavill was a great Superman and the first movie was actually quite good.
Fan-baiting:
A marketing strategy used by actors, producers, and film studios to stir up controversy. This also serves to rationalize and justify negative reviews of a new and often highly anticipated product. Frequently employed even before the product’s release.
I don’t remember Superman waving a Krypton flag while demonstrating against law and order!
According to CHATGPT:
“In earlier stories, Superman (as Clark Kent) is clearly depicted as a U.S. citizen—raised in Kansas, works for the Daily Planet, etc. But whether the character of Superman himself (not Clark Kent) was ever formally granted U.S. citizenship was never canonically spelled out in legal terms in the comics.”
That’s not true, and/or ChatGPT is well behind the times. A couple of years ago, I think it was, Superman renounced his US citizenship in the comic book seties, so he must’ve had some to renounce.
What you’re suggesting would have that a man who at some point determines he’s a woman would lose his citizenship because of his change in identity. But wouldn’t citizenship attach to the person and not merely to the persona?
This is Legal Insurrection. I thought it was time to pose a question about an actual legal matter!
There are two origin stories for the identity of Clark Kent. The original, from a gentler time, is that he was an adopted foundling of unknown parentage. He spent a short time in an orphanage, where they were glad to be rid of him. There would be little disputation of his citizenship by anyone (including government) because of the era and circumstances (the 1930s was a low point for Chinese maternity tourism in Kansas). The revised origin story, one more suited to our more Karenated society, has Martha reporting a “home birth during a blizzard” in order to obtain papers for the baby,
Superman, on the other hand, is a public figure known to be a space alien. Questions of his citizenship would arise early. And since we know that canon had Superman renounce his US citizenship in 2011, it must have been explicitly granted him previously. And we find that happening by an Act of Congress in 1974. He was also granted citizenship in every member country of the UN, by the UN. (Wrap your head around that, dual-citizenship distrusters.)
All this is muddled by the fact that the canon on this subject has been deliberately retconned at least once by the “Crisis.” I believe the current version has him conceived on Krypton but actually born on Earth, making him a natural Kansas citizen.
Offending was his intention, apparently, but his offending is permitted as an act of virtue.
Mr. Gunn appears to have quite the chip on his shoulder. Well, I don’t care enough to knock it off for him.
In the trailers, I saw a weak and whiny fool wearing Superman’s clothes and I didn’t like him. So I’m not going to the movie. Maybe I’ll catch it when it hits streaming. I’d like to see Krypto, anyway.
“In the trailers, I saw a weak and whiny fool wearing Superman’s clothes and I didn’t like him.”
Deja vu. A lot of people did the same for James Bond when they tapped an actor who was vocal about being scared of guns.
Illegal aliens are NOT “immigrants”. They are not “undocumented immigrants” (LOL) and they are not “illegal immigrants”. They are not “immigrants” of any sort any more than a burglar is an undocumented homeowner or an illegal guest or that any invader is an immigrant.
The left started with the “undocumented/illegal immigrant” junk just to get to this point, where they drop the modifiers and just call the illegals “immigrants”. But they are not immigrants and they are not even any of the retarded euphemisms the left used to try and worm them into the American population.
What they are, are hostile foreign invaders who need to be dealt with accordingly.
Subotai Bahadur
This again?!
An immigrant is one who immigrates. To immigrate means to move ones residence into a place. That is all. It’s an objective act, and has nothing to do with any laws that may or may not exist.
Someone who drives illegally is a driver, because there’s nothing about the verb “to drive” that implies legality. Someone who drinks illegally (e.g. during prohibition) is a drinker, because there’s nothing about the verb “to drink” that implies legality. Someone who publishes illegally (e.g. in breach of copyright, or military secrets, etc.) is a publisher. And someone who immigrates illegally is an immigrant.
All well and good, but a person who enters a country illegally can be labeled an invader, as a person who illegally enters a home is not just an “uninvited guest” but a “home invader.”
If Hitler had sent millions of German civilians across the Polish border instead of troops, would it have been any less an invasion? People who enter a foreign country in order to establish their own culture (including their political culture) are invaders every bit as much as foreign soldiers are because their objectives are the same – to supplant the order in the entered country and replace it with one’s own.
Troops are part of an invasion, so are immigrants.
and here we have a leftist trying to make his point stick.
But it won’t.
Someone who steals someone else’s things doesn’t become their owner because they have them, Milhouse.
The examples you chose are asinine. Driver? Drinker? No one has ever heard of an ‘illegal drinker or driver. It’s not phrased that way BECAUSE there’s nothing about legality in drink or drive.
There IS legality in ‘immigrate’. As there is in ’emigrate’
The word you failed to use in ‘migrate’. No legal status is implied in ‘migrate’
Someone who breaks into your home doesn’t suddenly become a ‘resident’ even though they are residing in your home.
They are there illegally They are alien to the premises. The have invaded.
Is English your second language? We know your first language is leftist propaganda.
The left started with the “undocumented/illegal immigrant” junk just to get to this point, where they drop the modifiers and just call the illegals “immigrants”. But they are not immigrants and they are not even any of the retarded euphemisms the left used to try and worm them into the American population.
And Azathoth the liar lies again. Everyone knows what an illegal driver is. And during prohibition everyone knew what an illegal drinker was.
The liar even admits that there is no legal implication in “migrant”, but insists that there is in “immigrant” and “emigrant”. But that’s completely ridiculous. “Immigrant” simply means a migrant into a place, and “emigrant” simply means a migrant from a place. Every migrant is both an emigrant from the perspective of his old place and an immigrant from that of his new place. If someone moves from the UK to the USA he is an emigrant there, an immigrant here, and a migrant in both places. There is absolutely no difference between these three words, other than direction.
DaveGin, even if someone who enters a country illegally could be labeled an invader, if he plans to stay he’d still be an immigrant. The only criterion for being an immigrant is that one has moved ones residence to the place from whose perspective we are looking.
As to whether it’s possible for an individual to be an invader of a country, as opposed to a single home, the answer is no, it isn’t. Invasion requires an organized armed force, generally (though not always) representing a sovereign. That’s why Trump insists that TdA represents the Venezuelan government; we shall eventually see whether the courts will buy it. So far it appears that they won’t, but let’s wait for the outcome.
Sometimes I just wish a squatter would “immigrate” into your house.
Sorry. Not a “squatter.” An “undocumented homeowner.”
A squatter is an illegal tenant. He doesn’t pay rent, and you never allowed him in, but once he’s gained tenancy the law requires you to go though the same procedures to evict him as you would with a legal tenant. And if you don’t do anything then eventually he will gain ownership by adverse possession.
He did this because projections were not looking good, its basically a foregone conclusion that this will NOT make as much as Man of Steel, and everybody is going to rightly go after Gunn for firing Henry Cavill only to make a movie that underperforms Cavill’s opening movie.
So Gunn needed an excuse why its underperforming, and he’s trying to provide that excuse.
This entire project has been about James Gunn and his ego.
It’s a shame, right up until this point I was actually planning to go see it this weekend with somebody in IMAX, now I see no reason to give them my money.
Go see F1. It’s supposed to be a more traditional movie about rivalry, competition, and team work. It has received very good reviews.
Hollywood is committing suscide, I wish they would hurry up.
In typical look at me fashion they will dramatize about it 100 times before actually doing it.
Too bad they don’t use celluloid anymore.
So flammable, just like the rest of LA.
What happens when you add an oxidizer to celluloid?
I’m sticking with the best Superman. George Reeves.
I liked George. Bullets could never hurt him, but when you had shot your gun empty and you threw it at him, he always ducked.
Those hard rubber dummy guns hurt!
The origin of the fictional “Superman” reminds me of the story of Moses whose mother placed him in a basket on the Nile River with the hope that someone would find and adopt the baby. The Egyptian Pharaoh had ordered all Hebrew boys drowned. After all the originators of the Superman story, Jerome Siegel and Joe Shuster were both Jewish. Similarly Superman’s parents put their baby in rocket and launch him into space to avoid the natural cataclysm of their planet. I wonder if Gunn realizes that the Superman character was a vigilante, and an American patriot. Thinking of him as some kind of “immigrant” is way off the mark.
Fundamentally Gunn falls prey to what I deem the “micro/macro” fallacy. A good deed at the micro level can become an atrocity at the macro level. Sure a individual immigrant can be a great guy, but millions of Third World invaders will destroy the country you know. Exactly this is happening to America as many millions of infiltrators seek to transform and ultimately destroy the original republic the founders created. People like Gunn must be resisted by any means necessary.
He is more like a “refugee” because his home was destroyed – it is impossible for him to go back even if his spaceship could take him. And, as is traditional for asylum seekers, he received asylum in the first country he entered after leaving his home, the US. This is very much unlike the vast majority of today’s “asylum seekers” who travel through multiple countries before arriving here and only then claiming to be “refugees” in search of asylum.
I’d classify Superman as a refugee not an immigrant because an immigrant can be sent back to their country. Krypton is destroyed. He could have applied for asylum but if it was turned down where would he be sent? The UN building?
I suppose that next, these vile Hollywood Dhimmi-crats will claim that Superman is a “Palestinian,” just as they’ve brazenly claimed that Jesus was.
The better to desecrate Superman’s creation by two Jewish writers and artists.
Justice for Zod!
In “Man of Steel,” Zod was a sympathetic character. He was genetically programmed to defend Krypton and its people from its enemies, and understood his mission after Krypton’s destruction to re-establish his race on Earth.
I don’t know about that, “Man of Steel” wasn’t my cup of tea, but James Gunn is a retard who is really advocating for the Zods of the world. An illegal alien criminal wanted for heinous crimes outside of the US. And any infant discovered on American soil, without any ties or claims by another outside the US, will be adopted and raised an American. Gunn’s brain is ass-backwards.
Zod literally couldn’t help himself, as you say he was engineered to be what he was.
zod was born that way
Zod lives matter
“the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees once released a book in Italy titled Superman Was a Refugee Too”
The Air Pirates once released a book in which Minnie Mouse… well, let’s just say that Walt was not amused. Canonical is as canonical does.
letting lefty control the narrative continues to be a supreme danger to the usa
we are not against immigrants
we are against illegal acts
it is morally illegal to invade
fjb
There’s a Strong Chance Conservatives Could Lose the Superman PR Battle Against James Gunn
No one cares or if they do they shouldn’t,
Nope. Gunn is a Zodite in reality. Ain’t nobody putting an unclaimed infant on a plane back to his/her home country. Such a child would be adopted and become an American.
With all of these self-sabotages, I’m beginning to believe that failure *is* the true intent.
“Springtime For Hitler”
Superman “populated” the country?
Exactly HOW?
He may have resided in a country, but unless he slipped his Super-Knob on every woman in the country, he didn’t “populate” it.
Immigrants up to the Democrat Biden administration were predominantly LEGAL by the law at the time. No president or Congress has allowed
10-12,000,000 people to just walk in.
In fact, IF Mr. Gunn is a US citizen, most likely his ancestors just may have
had to complete forms, one stating that they would pay their allegiance to the USA and not their home nation, etc. And had to be healthy.
Oh boy – I am an old guy – and got sick of Superman movies long ago. Enough already. But the original story – it worked. REAL ALIEN from Krypton, sent to earth by his parents on the destruction of their planet – he ends up as about the only person left from Krypton – except for Zod of course. Raised by a Kansas rural couple – taught Truth, Justice, and the American way. An alien with super powers – could have tried to take over the world, but the lessons his adopted parents taught him, especially his father – turned him into the benevolent Superman. Nice story,
To try to make this story an analogy for human ILLEGAL ALIENS that flaunt our laws – preposterous – idiotic – and really vile actually. The hypothetical of the Superman fantasy – and the real ‘illegal invasion’ under Slow Joe – the two things are utterly different. So we have Hollywood Leftist lying and virtue signaling – beyond preposterous.
But I would have never gone to this preposterous movie anyway – now I know I won’t. I suggest everybody just spare themselves this political claptrap and watch all nine or ten seasons of Smallville. I have the DVDs, watched them with my grandnieces and Goddaughter. Good stuff. I am one of the great movie fans of all time – and am just so tired of the clueless, lying Leftist Clowns in Hollywood and all their pathetic ‘virtue signaling.’ Sheesh. But we’ll never get another Jimmy Stewart – my favorite actor of all time. I ask a 20 year old American if they liked Jimmy Stewart, the actor, They said – “Whose Jimmy Stewart..’ Oh well..
“he ends up as about the only person left from Krypton – except for Zod of course.”
And a female cousin.
And a little white dog.
And a big bottle containing a whole miniature Krypton city.
Even as a ten=year-old, my suspension of disbelief wasn’t THAT deep.
James Gunn and his brother lack the moral authority to convince anyone that does not already agree with them on what the “American way” is. Their statement can be viewed as a public service, because it prevents my family from wasting money on a movie that we might have been tempted to view in a theater.
Doesn’t Gunn realize that conservatives buy movie tickets too?
It’s more that conservatives don’t buy tickets to crap movies. Progressives don’t buy tickets to crap movies. Gunn probably thinks he can get some progressives to buy tickets to his crap movie if he can pitch buying tickets to his crap movie as a way to stick it to the other team. He should be trying to figure out how to make better movies, but it’s a bit too late for that.
The die is cast. He has a terrible product and he’s trying to sell it to someone.
The point being missed is this movie is not made for us. It is made for Gunn’s friends and social circle. Think he cares if he loses that investment money? Nope. It’s other people’s money well spent for a virtue signal.
Just ignore this movie and Hollywood in general.
The whole thing reminds me painfully of Harvey Weinstein’s frantic bid for atonement for being a serial rapist:
The saddest thing is that, even as this media keeps tanking, none of thee people have grasped that the audience they’re trying to pander to isn’t an audience at all.
They don’t enjoy going to SEE these films, shows and books –they enjoy castigating them for not meeting all their current leftist demands.
Article is coy about whether ‘Truth Justice and the American Way’ was cut out of the story.