When James Gunn took the reins of the DC Universe, fans braced themselves for bold moves — and he didn’t disappoint. With Superman (2025) now out in the world, one of the film’s most talked-about creative decisions is also its most controversial: Gunn changed Superman’s origin story.
In a cinematic landscape defined by reboots, remakes, and reimagining’s, Gunn’s version of the Last Son of Krypton was bound to raise eyebrows. The question isn’t whether the risk was big — it was colossal. The question is: did it work?
The Change: A Softer, More Human Kal-El
Traditionally, Superman’s mythos is clear: infant Kal-El is rocketed from Krypton moments before the planet’s destruction, raised by Kansas farmers Jonathan and Martha Kent, and eventually discovers his powers, guided by a strong moral compass instilled by his adoptive parents.
Gunn tweaks that — not drastically, but significantly. In this version, Kal-El arrives on Earth older, sent with full awareness of his home planet’s fate, equipped with a crystalline archive of Kryptonian culture that allows him to grapple with dual identity from the outset. He doesn’t grow up fully unaware of his origin; instead, he’s haunted by the knowledge of what he lost before he even learns how to fly.
This Kal-El isn’t just discovering who he is — he’s reconciling who he was supposed to be.
Why It’s a Risk
There’s an almost religious reverence surrounding Superman’s origin — it’s a myth burned into pop culture consciousness. Changing it even slightly risks alienating fans who believe there’s a “correct” version of the story. For decades, filmmakers have leaned on the emotional gravity of a small-town boy with godlike powers choosing to do good. By injecting more complexity and existential weight into his arrival, Gunn is playing with legacy — and fan expectation.
And in the age of hyper-online fandoms and post-Snyderverse fatigue, even a well-meaning shift can become a lightning rod.
Why It Works (Mostly)
Gunn’s gamble works because it serves a clear narrative purpose. By making Superman emotionally aware of his alien identity from a younger age, Gunn positions him not just as a beacon of hope — but as a character burdened by the weight of two worlds. This isn’t just Clark Kent pretending to be normal while hiding his powers; this is a Superman who understands, profoundly, that he’s alone.
And that makes his choice to be good, kind, and human all the more powerful.
Moreover, David Corenswet’s portrayal adds emotional heft to this retelling. His Superman isn’t angsty — he’s earnest. There’s vulnerability in his eyes, a weight behind the cape. Gunn isn’t interested in making Superman “cool”; he wants to make him real. And oddly enough, that’s where the change hits hardest — not in sci-fi spectacle, but in quiet moments of doubt and resilience.
The Cost of Reinvention
That said, not all fans are sold. Critics of the new origin argue that by skipping over Clark’s formative years in Kansas — or condensing them — the story loses some of the grounded Americana that’s always been essential to his moral compass. Superman’s strength has always been rooted in his upbringing as much as his biology, and while Gunn’s version nods to that, it doesn’t dwell on it.
But perhaps that’s the point. Gunn’s Superman is not about what’s familiar — it’s about what’s possible.
Verdict: A Risk Worth Taking
In a franchise desperate for a fresh start, Gunn didn’t just reboot Superman — he redefined him. The origin shift is bold, emotional, and occasionally divisive, but it reframes Superman not as a god among men, but as a man torn between galaxies — and still choosing Earth every time.
Is it the Superman we know? Not entirely.
Is it the Superman we need? Maybe now, more than ever.
