Zack Snyder vs James Gunn’s Superman: What’s the Difference?

There’s a new Superman in town, and not everyone is happy about it. After 12 years of Zack Snyder’s vision of the character dominating his cinematic appearances with Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, and Justice League, James Gunn has rebooted the character with Superman. Angered fans of Zack Snyder’s version organized under the #RestoreTheSnyderverse and launched a multi-year feud with those who were excited by Gunn’s new version of the character. Of course, no one really knew what Gunn’s vision was, because his version wasn’t out yet. Now that has changed.

So, how different is James Gunn’s Superman from Zack Snyder’s? Surprisingly, while Gunn’s version is very different from Snyder’s in some ways, it’s also shockingly similar. These similarities and differences are deeply telling about the way things have changed since 2013, the year Man of Steel debuted.

TONE

The biggest difference between Zack Snyder’s Superman and James Gunn’s is the tone. Zack Snyder’s Superman was darker, quite literally. The colors were desaturated, it was shot more like a documentary than a comic book film, and there were very few jokes. The conceit was always, “What if Superman existed in the real world? What would that be like?”

 James Gunn’s Superman is the opposite. Superman’s world is bright and colorful in both vibe and visuals. It’s explicitly set in a world where superheroes and monsters are relatively commonplace. Jokes fly between characters constantly. Outlandish sci-fi characters and elements from Superman comics (Krypto, hypno glasses, pocket dimensions) are brought in and embraced uncynically. 

One symbol that exemplifies the difference between the two Supermans is the trunks. Zack Snyder’s Superman didn’t have them; James Gunn’s does. Zack Snyder didn’t put Superman in trunks because he couldn’t figure out a way to “make it work.” James Gunn doesn’t try to make it realistic or cool, because that’s not who Superman is. As Gunn told GQ, “I think that oftentimes people can see Superman as Pollyanna. They [say], ‘How can we make Superman cool?’ So if it’s the ’90s, they give him a mullet. But the thing is that he’s not cool. He’s kind. He loves little kids. He wants little kids to like him. I think it’s about owning that and being okay with that. It’s not trying to hippify him, you know?”  

But it’s not quite right to call Snyder’s version dark and cynical and Gunn’s sincere and hopeful. Snyder’s Superman was deeply sincere. He was a good man trying to do the right thing in a modern world. He was sent by his alien father to make the world better while learning from his earthly father’s wisdom. Zack Snyder’s Superman takes the character seriously and gets rid of anything that couldn’t be justified realistically. While James Gunn’s Superman embraces the silly aspects of the character, he also makes jokes about how silly it is (“You have a dog?”). In some ways, it is more cynical than Snyder’s version.

This cynicism is more clearly evident in the retcon of Jor-El. In every cinematic incarnation of the character, Jor-El told his son not to impose his rule on humanity but to serve them. This was true of Zack Snyder’s Jor-El, but not of James Gunn’s. Here, Lex Luthor reveals that Jor-El always planned for Superman to rule over humanity and eventually replace the population with Kyrptonians by taking multiple earth women as mates. This revelation causes Superman to have an existential crisis that leads him to reject his Kyrptonian heritage in favor of earth’s.  
 
 This development reflects DC comics embracing the “metamodern” era that Marvel embraced long before. As Brett McKracken wrote, metamodernism is what comes after postmodernism in art. While modern art is sincere and postmodern art deconstructs its subject, metamodernism embraces the sincerity of its subject while winking at the fact that we know it’s all silly. Snyder tried to deconstruct the superhero mythos, but it didn’t work for most people. Gunn decided to acknowledge its silliness and embrace it instead. But it’s hard to call the approach less cynical in practice, even if it is in style.

FAITH

The biggest difference most people don’t acknowledge is the way each franchise handles faith. Zack Snyder’s Superman has it everywhere, while James Gunn’s Superman has it nowhere. 

In Man of Steel, Jor-El frames Superman’s mission on earth as one to save humanity, echoing the obvious Christian allegories from Superman: The Movie. “You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun, Kal. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.” When Superman is trying to decide if he should turn himself in to the US government to save humanity, he asks advice from a priest, who says, “Sometimes you have to take a leap a faith first. The trust part comes later.”

Batman v Superman is even more explicit. Superman’s existence on earth has led many people to treat him like a god. Lex Luthor’s motivation to kill Superman is to prove that a good, loving God couldn’t exist: “If God is all good he cannot be all powerful, and if he’s all powerful, he cannot be all good. And neither can you. They need to see the fraud you are.” At the end of the film, when Superman is dead, a priest preaches a eulogy during which he talks about faith in a resurrection. Throughout these movies, Superman is constantly framed in messianic contexts, particularly when he’s injured or dying.

While these references don’t always seem to carry a deep meaning, they are still strongly embedded in the films. In James Gunn’s film, I can’t see any reference at all to religion or God or Christianity. This omission is a radical departure from prior films, as every single film version of Superman since Superman: The Movie (including Superman Returns) has dealt heavily with Christian themes.

On the one hand, this shift may simply reflect the fact that the world has become more secular. The percentage of people who identify as religious has gone down since Snyder made his films. On the flip side, that drop seems to have stopped, and there’s some indication that the popularity of faith is on the upswing. Time will tell if future trends will make this film seem in or out of step with the times.

SIMILARITIES

In many ways, the two versions of Superman are actually similar. Both are fundamentally about how Superman relates to the modern world and whether his ideals are relevant. In Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel/Batman V Superman and James Gunn’s Superman, the hero is a good man who scares people who think he’s too powerful to be trusted. Both have Superman in conflict with the government because they can’t control him. And both have Lex Luthor manipulating people and governments behind the scenes in order to turn both against Superman.

Likewise, both versions raise good questions about how much accountability people with power should have and then give cop-out answers. Superman’s critics are right that Superman’s power is frightening and the fact that he does what he wants without any accountability is even more so. In the real world, Lex Luthor would be correct: we need some way to keep someone like Superman in check. That’s why we created the American system of government (dare I say… the American way?) to ensure there are checks and balances on powerful people. Superman and his friends can’t go around toppling governments without becoming the defacto rulers Superman claims he doesn’t want to be.

Neither movie explains how Luthor is wrong so much as they discredit him by revealing that he has been manipulating things behind the scenes. In Batman v Superman, that, along with Superman proving his innate goodness, is enough for Batman to drop his concerns and become a Superman cheerleader. We suspend our disbelief and decide that Superman can be trusted with this power because, well, he’s Superman. Superman doesn’t even have that last part, because his big speech is that he’s just as flawed and human as everybody else.

Christians believe the only perfect person was Jesus. Therefore, he is the only person who can be trusted with absolute power to rule over us. Many Christians are comfortable with portraying Superman that way because he serves as a Christ metaphor. That’s fair. But far too often, Superman movies try to have it both ways. They want him to be a Christ metaphor, but they also want him to be flawed and relatable. 

That ongoing tension reveals one thing that hasn’t changed about Americans (Christian and non-Christian alike): we are very conflicted about men with power. We want people to have unlimited power to do things we like, but we don’t like powerful people when they’re against us.  

WHAT NOW?

With Superman’s positive critic and record-breaking audience score, it’s probably safe to say James Gunn’s version of Superman will be with us for a long time, as will its metamodern cynical sincerity and its conflicted views of power and accountability. Zack Snyder’s deconstructive sincerity, for good and ill, is gone. Time will tell how this new vision will shape us and what version of Superman will ultimately replace it.