Snyder vs. Gunn: Two Visions of Superman- One Timeless Hero

Aug 17

14 min read

Snyder’s Superman: A Conflict of God and Man

Zack Snyder’s interpretation of Superman (as portrayed by Henry Cavill) emphasized the hero’s struggle with his place in the world – is he a god or a man? In Man of Steel (2013) and Batman v Superman (2016), we see Clark grappling with extreme moral grey areas. He is torn between following his human moral compass versus the god-like expectations placed upon him. Snyder’s films often put Superman in no-win scenarios – for example, the controversial moment where he is forced to kill General Zod to save a family, a devastating act that leaves him screaming in anguish. This was a bold departure for film Superman, but it does have precedent in the comics (more on that below) and is portrayed as a last resort, not something he takes lightly.

Snyder’s Superman is frequently met with public mistrust and political backlash (Senate hearings, media debate) as people question whether this powerful alien is a savior or a potential tyrant. By the end of Snyder’s arc, however, Superman has found clarity. After sacrificing himself to stop Doomsday and then being resurrected in Justice League, he returns more at peace with his dual nature. No longer does he see himself as a “god” above humanity, nor is he simply a normal man – he embraces that he’s something in between, with a unique responsibility. In Snyder’s vision, death and rebirth teach Clark that while he isn’t a god, he also isn’t bound by human limitations, and he can inspire hope without needing to rule. His resurrection marks the point where he fully embodies the hopeful, idealistic Superman comic fans recognize – smiling, optimistic, and confident in his role as a protector.

Snyder himself envisioned this as the culmination of Superman’s journey: by the end of Justice League, Clark “had found who he truly was as a person and his ideals, embracing them completely” . In short, Snyder’s take gives us a Superman forged through trials and doubts – a hero who walks through fire to reaffirm his goodness.

Gunn’s Superman: The Immigrant Hero and Moral Idealism

(Possible Spoilers Alert- this may give things away if you haven't seen it) James Gunn’s forthcoming Superman (as seen in the 2025 film Superman, sometimes referred to as Superman: Legacy) takes a different yet fundamentally classic approach. Gunn has explicitly described his Superman story as “the story of America” – about an immigrant who comes from afar and embodies basic human goodness . In this vision, Clark Kent already strongly knows who he is and what he stands for; the conflict comes from figuring out how to make his ideals work in the real world. Gunn’s Superman is an alien raised as an American farmboy, and the film foregrounds that “immigrant” aspect in a contemporary context. For example, early in the movie, Superman intervenes in a geopolitical crisis: the nation of Boravia invades its neighbor Jarhanpur, and Clark unilaterally steps in to end the conflict. He even goes so far as to confront and threaten Boravia’s president to stop the invasion . This is a heroic act that saves countless lives, but it isn’t without consequences. Boravia is a U.S. ally, and Superman’s intervention creates a political incident.

In a powerful scene, Lois Lane interviews Superman afterward and pointedly asks if he considered the political fallout and who gave him the right to intervene. Clark’s answer, essentially, is that none of that matters to him – people were in danger of dying, so he acted . Gunn’s Superman thus prioritizes moral duty over borders, echoing the classic ethos that Superman’s loyalty is to all humanity, not any government. Notably, this Superman isn’t a government agent or “America’s hero”; he operates independently of any state, and even the U.S. authorities are uneasy about him. In fact, it’s established that he doesn’t represent the USA at all and will even work against U.S. interests if it’s the right thing to do . This raises realistic questions in the film about how the world and government perceive him – essentially, what do you do with a being who answers only to his own conscience? Gunn uses this setup to hit on the “illegal alien” aspect in a literal sense.

When Lex Luthor later exposes Superman’s extraterrestrial origin (by releasing a recording of Jor-El and Lara from Krypton), public opinion swings against Superman out of fear . Suddenly people wonder: is this powerful alien operating on our soil even entitled to our rights and protections? Can he be trusted, or should he be treated as a dangerous outsider? Superman briefly loses the trust of the very people he’s sworn to protect – a clear parallel to real world xenophobia and immigrant experiences. The government even detains him at one point (implying that once his alien status is revealed, due process might not apply). Despite these setbacks, Gunn’s Clark stays true to his values. He doesn’t lash out or abandon hope in humanity; instead, he doubles down on doing good.

By the film’s climax, Superman not only saves the day (thwarting Lex and the supervillain “Hammer of Boravia” who attacks Metropolis ), but also wins back the people’s faith when it’s revealed Lex himself orchestrated the conflict. Perhaps most inspiring, Superman’s principled stance rubs off on other heroes: the film shows members of the Justice Gang (a proto-Justice League) initially hesitant to “rock the boat,” but by the end they follow Superman’s lead and take action against injustice, even if it means defying political authority . In other words, Superman leads by example, and his unwavering kindness and righteousness start to change the world around him.

Gunn’s take thus hits the heart of what Superman represents: an outsider who reminds us of our own highest ideals. This Clark Kent doesn’t need to learn whether he should be human or god – he knows he’s fundamentally a good man who just happens to be from another planet. The challenge for him is making the world see past their fear. By tackling themes of immigrant identity, government distrust, and moral complexity in war, Gunn’s story arguably digs even deeper into the character’s real-world resonance. Yet for all these modern issues, at his core this Superman remains utterly hopeful and altruistic. He believes in the goodness of others, even those who hate or fear him. In fact, in a very All-Star Superman-inspired moment, after defeating Lex Luthor, Clark doesn’t humiliate him or seek revenge – instead, he effectively gives Lex a chance to redeem himself. (This mirrors a famous scene in the comics we’ll discuss shortly.) Gunn’s Superman exemplifies “truth, justice, and a better world,” making his story emotionally powerful.

One could even argue that if this bright, idealistic Superman ever did succumb to darkness (as in an Injustice-style scenario), it would be all the more heartbreaking and profound – because Gunn’s version starts from such a place of genuine goodness. (Whereas Snyder’s Superman, having already been tempered by cynicism and tragedy, is a more hardened figure by the time we’d imagine an Injustice turn.) Overall, both Snyder and Gunn treat Superman with epic scope, but Gunn’s approach digs into the compassionate heart of the character in a way that feels especially true to the comics’ highest ideals.

The True Essence of Superman: Hope, Morality, and Humanity

Despite their different approaches, Snyder and Gunn are each exploring facets of what makes Superman an enduring myth: his moral compass and capacity for hope. At the end of the day, Superman is not defined by his power; he’s defined by his values. Perhaps the purest distillation of this is found in Grant Morrison’s All-Star Superman. In that acclaimed comic, even after Lex Luthor tries to destroy him, Superman’s response is not vengeance but encouragement.

As Luthor rants that with Superman out of the way he “could have saved the world,” Superman gently tells him the truth: “If it had mattered to you, Luthor, you could have saved the world years ago.” In a single line, Clark reminds Lex – his greatest enemy – that he still believes in Lex’s potential to do good. This moment is widely cited as the quintessential Superman: a hero who always looks for the good in others and wants even his foes to become better. It’s a direct nod to the idea that Superman embodies absolute hope and moral idealism.

Gunn’s film clearly takes inspiration from this ethos (as well as from All-Star Superman itself), emphasizing that basic human kindness is Superman’s real superpower. Even Snyder’s darker storyline nods to this ideal – after Superman’s death in BvS, the world falls into despair, and only the symbol of hope he represents can inspire heroes (like Batman in Justice League) to unite and save the day. In both visions, Superman ultimately becomes a beacon – “the light to show the way,” as Jor-El’s famous quote says. He is an alien who teaches humanity about humanity itself, reflecting our best qualities back at us. It’s worth noting that none of these themes are new – the Superman comics have long explored questions of moral ambiguity, justice, and the immigrant experience.

In fact, to fully appreciate how Snyder’s and Gunn’s takes resonate with the source material, it helps to look at some iconic Superman storylines that reveal the character’s depth:

All-Star Superman (2005–2008) – Grant Morrison’s celebrated 12-issue story is often seen as the definitive statement on Superman’s character. It’s brimming with examples of Superman’s compassion and optimism. Aside from the Lex Luthor moment cited above, there’s a famously moving scene where Superman saves a distraught young girl from suicide by simply showing up to tell her she’s stronger than she thinks. All-Star Superman reminds us that Superman’s greatest victories aren’t just about punching villains, but touching hearts. The story presents an unabashedly hopeful Superman who faces his own impending death with grace and spends his remaining time uplifting everyone around him – this is the kind of tone James Gunn seems keen to capture in his film. (It’s no surprise Gunn referenced All-Star as an influence, and we can feel its spirit in how his Superman treats friends and foes alike.)

John Byrne’s 1986 Man of Steel Reboot – After the cosmic upheaval of Crisis on Infinite Earths (1985), DC relaunched Superman with a clean slate. Writer/artist John Byrne’s Man of Steel miniseries (1986) and subsequent run redefined Clark in a more modern, human light. Byrne emphasized Clark Kent’s upbringing and morals, making him feel more like a real person navigating a world that fears and loves him in equal measure. Notably, this era tested Superman’s no-kill rule in a dramatic way. In a 1988 story, Superman encounters three Kryptonian criminals (led by General Zod) from a pocket universe who annihilated an entire Earth. Unable to imprison them (and knowing they would never stop killing), Superman makes the harrowing decision to execute the depowered Zod and his cohorts using Kryptonite. This canonical incident shocked readers – Superman himself is devastated by having to take a life, and he loses sleep haunted by “the actions he had to take” . Byrne wrote this to reinforce why Superman holds life so sacred (afterward, Clark redoubled his vow never to kill again). The darkness of the villains “informs Superman’s lethal decision” and he only does it because they were utterly irredeemable . This storyline shows that even in comic canon, Superman can cross that line if absolutely necessary – but it traumatizes him. It provides context for why Snyder’s version, who is younger and less experienced, might also end up forced into a similar choice with Zod. It also underlines a key point: Superman will do anything to save innocent lives, but unlike darker heroes, he feels immense remorse if he must kill. He is fundamentally a protector, not an executioner – a nuance both Snyder and Gunn understand in their stories.

“The Death and Return of Superman” (1992–1993) – This famous trilogy of story arcs (Death of Superman, Funeral for a Friend, Reign of the Supermen) was a defining Superman saga of the 90s. In it, Superman pays the ultimate price: he sacrifices himself in battle against the monstrous Doomsday to save Metropolis. The world mourns, realizing how much they relied on this beacon of hope. Then, after a series of events (including four “replacement” Supermen appearing), Clark is resurrected, symbolically affirming that hope can never truly die. This storyline was not only a pop culture phenomenon, it also reinforced Superman’s dual nature of alien and human: he dies as a man might, but returns more powerful (almost in a Christ-like parallel, which Snyder alludes to heavily in his films). Importantly, Death of Superman showed how irreplaceable Superman’s moral leadership is – no other hero could fill the void he left.

As one DC.com retrospective put it, “his tragic end at the hands of Doomsday led to new beginnings… establishing an entirely new status quo” for the Superman mythos . In the aftermath, we see ordinary people and heroes alike inspired by Superman’s example to step up. Snyder borrowed elements from this arc (Doomsday, the death scene, the black resurrection suit, etc.), while Gunn’s film intriguingly is set just a few years into Superman’s career – before such a sacrifice – allowing us to see a world that’s still figuring out who Superman is. In both cases, the lesson from the comics stands: Superman’s presence or absence profoundly affects society’s hope.

Tragedy and Moral Lessons in Early ’90s Comics – Superman comics in the early 1990s didn’t shy away from real-world issues and dark turns, adding layers to Clark’s moral world. One heartbreaking example is a storyline in which the villain Toyman (Winslow Schott) murders Cat Grant’s young son, Adam. This occurs in Superman # 84–85 (1993): the once-campy Toyman snaps, abducts a group of children, and when Adam tries to lead an escape, Toyman stabs the boy to death . It’s a chilling moment that leaves Superman – and readers – stunned and grief-stricken. The usually jovial Man of Steel is forced to confront the senseless evil of a child-killer.

This story showed that even Superman, for all his power, cannot save everyone all the time, and it gave a rare glimpse of his anger and sorrow (Clark has a confrontation with Toyman and must restrain his rage over Adam’s death). Another powerful arc from 1992, “Crisis at Hand,” has Superman tackle the issue of domestic violence. In this two-parter (Superman: The Man of Steel # 16 and Superman # 72), Clark discovers his neighbor is beating his wife. Superman intervenes forcefully – in fact, it echoes the very first Action Comics # 1 where Golden Age Superman stops a wife-beater.

But DC made this a sobering lesson: in Crisis at Hand, after Superman’s initial interference, the abusive husband only becomes more enraged. Tragically, he ends up murdering his wife despite Superman’s efforts . Clark is devastated to learn his well-intentioned rescue failed; a stark reminder that some problems aren’t solved by punching. When a similar situation arises with another couple, Superman hesitates – he’s afraid of making things worse – until the victim asks for help. Ultimately, he and Lois manage to save the second woman and even prevent the abuser’s suicide, getting him to seek help . These events humble Superman: they prove that even with all his power, he can’t control human free will or guarantee happy endings.

Stories like this added realistic nuance to the character and reinforce why Gunn’s approach to show Superman dealing with societal issues (like being viewed as an illegal alien or deciding when to intervene in foreign wars) is so fitting. They ground the fantastical hero in the real moral challenges everyday people face. As one summary of “Crisis at Hand” noted, it highlighted that domestic abuse “isn’t easy [to solve by] swooping in and saving the day” – a lesson Clark takes to heart.

Yes, Superman Has Killed – in Film & Comics – A common misconception is that Superman “never kills.” In truth, while Superman spares life whenever possible, there have been rare occasions where he’s taken a life to protect others. We’ve already mentioned the 1988 comic where he executes the Phantom Zone criminals. Even in the classic Christopher Reeve films, Superman crosses that line. In Superman II (1980), after depowering General Zod, Ursa, and Non, Reeve’s Superman famously throws Zod into a pit in the Fortress of Solitude. The other two villains also fall into the chasm after losing their powers. In the theatrical cut of the film, it’s implied all three Kryptonians fall to their deaths (the scene was shot such that they disappear into a foggy abyss).

This was long accepted by audiences as the villains’ demise (only decades later did alternate cuts reveal survival scenarios, but those weren’t in the original release). So even the beloved silver-screen Superman of yesteryear effectively killed his enemies in that instance – and notably, it was after they were rendered harmless, which makes it even more striking. The intent was likely to give finality to the threat (and was a product of a more cavalier era of filmmaking), but it shows that the myth of a completely no-kill Superman has some wrinkles.

In modern storytelling, writers handle such situations with more weight – as seen in Man of Steel (2013) mirroring that Zod scene but emphasizing Clark’s torment over it. The takeaway is that while Superman can kill, he does so only when there is absolutely no other way and usually at great personal cost. His consistent ideal is to find a better way – that’s why these instances remain so rare and controversial. It’s also why when fans debate “Snyder’s Superman killed Zod,” it’s important to remember Superman has done similar under extreme circumstances (both in comics and film canon) .

The key difference is how it’s portrayed: Superman is not casual about killing – it haunts him, reinforcing his determination to uphold the value of every life. Both Snyder and Gunn respect this aspect, ensuring that even in morally grey situations, Superman’s goodness shines through his regret or restraint.

Conclusion: Modern Mythmaking and Truths Behind the Cape

Both Snyder’s and Gunn’s renditions demonstrate why Superman endures as such a powerful modern myth. These stories – on page and on screen – use Superman to wrestle with big questions:

What if a being of absolute power lived among us? Would he be above the law, or the ultimate law-abider? Would we accept him or fear him as an alien? How should an all-powerful hero act in an imperfect world?

Through these explorations, the character has proved to be one of our most effective vehicles for examining the human condition. It might sound grandiose, but superhero tales (Superman in particular) are a form of contemporary epic, akin to the myths of Hercules or the moral parables of old. They allow us to discuss ideas of absolute good and absolute evil, of justice and mercy, in a heightened way that can reveal truths about our real society.

As you may have noted, this genre can drop “truth bombs” about society more freely than realistic fiction, precisely because the fantastical context lets us consider extremes without the baggage of real-world politics. Superman – an immigrant raised with Midwest American values, a demigod who chooses to remain humble and kind – is a figure through whom writers have commented on immigration, religion, authoritarianism, self-sacrifice, and hope.

From the bright optimism of Gunn’s story (which shows that basic decency is revolutionary) to the somber questions in Snyder’s (which ask whether humanity can trust what it doesn’t control), all these interpretations add to the rich tapestry of Superman. In the end, what makes both versions epic is that they aspire to say something meaningful about heroism. Snyder’s Kal-El says, “This is my world” and gives his life for it; Gunn’s Kal-El reminds the world that he’s here to help, not rule. These are two sides of the same coin. And at the heart of that coin is the symbol of hope.

Superman represents our hope that someone with unlimited power would use it solely for good – and the hope that no matter how dark things get, doing the right thing is worth it. This is why, as a genre, superhero fiction (often dismissed as mere fantasy) can be so profound and underrated. It wraps primal moral and social dilemmas in capes and costumes, making them accessible to all ages. Whether it’s a goddess or an illegal alien, we see a reflection of our own struggles and ideals. As one commentator eloquently put it, Superman has “seen enough to know the good and the bad of what humanity can be,” and because he loves us, he believes in our capacity for good .

That belief is contagious – it spreads to us, the readers and viewers. So, in comparing Snyder and Gunn, we’re really appreciating the same core: a hero who in Snyder’s world finds his faith in humanity, and in Gunn’s world reminds us of our faith in humanity. Both interpretations, in their own way, celebrate what Superman stands for. And through references to comics like All-Star Superman, the 1980s reboot, and seminal ’90s arcs, we see that truth, justice, and hope are always at the center of Superman’s story – no matter the era or medium. Each new take, whether it’s Snyder’s operatic, morally complex saga or Gunn’s heartfelt, socially conscious journey, just adds new layers to the legend of the Man of Steel.