Superman & The Rubber-Banding of Audiences

While Superman was created in the late 1930s, the popularity of the character as the "first superhero" spiked after World War II. Audiences searched for escapism and moral clarity, and it is notable that after a time of war and trauma, people turned to entertainment that was morally clear.

As time went on, audiences moved towards craving more morally complex characters, Superman began to be viewed as a "boring" hero, and in the 2010s, the most popular superhero films were those about the morally complex, "The Dark Knight" being the most popular representation of the shift. The media industry noticed, reacted, and began to adapt more morally complex superhero stories, ones that focused on anti-heroes and were not morally "clear-cut". Logan, Injustice, Watchmen, Harley Quinn, Deadpool, Doom Patrol, Jessica Jones, Guardians of the Galaxy, Suicide Squad, Daredevil, Punisher, and Arrow are just some of the many pieces of Superhero media that dominated the 2010s, featuring morally complex characters and plotlines. That is not to say that all morally clear superhero movies did not do well; Captain America movies were also popular over the last decade; however, when his popularity is compared against his contemporary, a much more complex Iron Man, Iron Man is clearly favoured over Captain America.

Recently, it has even transgressed beyond just morally complex superheroes and with the surge of popularity of a show like The Boys (and to a lesser extent, Invincible), people have started to enjoy interpretations of the "Superhero" formula that has interpretations of heroes that are clearly villainous, with few to no redeeming qualities. Homelander in The Boys sticks out as a particularly clear example. The Boys remains a meta-commentary on how the current systems in the United States (and perhaps the world as a whole) are corrupted, and how power is abused. Homelander serves as their representation of this corruption in the real world, by showing his abuses of power in The Boys universe. He is a clear parody of Superman, but taken to the other extreme, he is simply villainous whereas Superman is simply heroic.

It does not seem in this climate that a morally simple character such as Superman could thrive, and he hasn't; recent iterations have not performed well. Not to say that those movies were perfect, however, I simply ask, if they were released in a different time, perhaps they would perform better?

A worldwide pandemic, several global conflicts, and general economic anxiety followed the 2010s, it seems to me that entertainment audiences have shifted since.

SPOILERS FOR SUPERMAN (2025) BELOW

There was a scene in the movie that stuck with me. After Krypto was dognapped by the villainous Lex Luthor, Superman and Lois have a conversation. Lois claims that she questions everything and that makes her "Punk Rock" and the interaction goes like:

Lois: "You trust everyone, and think everyone is like, beautiful"

Clark: "Maybe that's the real punk rock"

This, coupled with a few of James Gunn's statements after the movie, makes the messaging very clear - in a world of conflict and moral complexity, the real rebellion nowadays is simply - to be nice.

In a time where Politics have become more contentious than ever before, and people are becoming more polarized, James Gunn seems to argue through his plot that now to be a true rebel, one must prioritize character, togetherness, and focus on what truly matters, not the details that surround it. He portrays this through an earlier conversation between Superman and Lois, where Lois interviews Superman for interjecting into a global event, which would have led to war if he had not. She challenges his interjection, claiming that he did not have all the information and that he jumped in without considering the consequences. Lois highlights how complex the issue is, while Superman's response is emotional, and simple:

Superman: "People were going to die!"

James Gunn does not wish to lean into the moral complexities of the world, he instead uses Superman to highlight the moral simplicities of it.

Superman seems to have become a force like he was in the post-World War 2 era, and while he struggles with his identity in the movie, who he is is made as clear as day. He is an inherently good person, not because his parents told him to be, but because that is what he is. It is a simple, non-complex, and morally good superhero, as simple as the interpretations of Superheroes back in the 1940s.

Audiences and their desires in entertainment shift over time, good entertainment will always be timeless, but what is created and how well it does is deeply impacted by the time it is released in. However, audiences do not just shift on a linear scale, what is desired by the audience seems to circle back over time, or "rubber-band" depending on the larger political, economic, and social state of the world.

The popularity of this version of Superman leads me to believe that, after years of complex superheroes, Homelanders, and events such as the disappearance of the Epstein files, people may simply just want to believe in superheroes, once again.