Does Superman Have a “Problematic” Message?

James Gunn’s Superman is a cinematic triumph, reinvigorating the Man of Steel myth with a heartfelt story that champions kindness, community, and personal choice. A core element of its narrative is a massive change to the hero’s classic origin – a twist designed to frame Superman’s (David Corenswet) heroism not as a destiny inherited from his Kryptonian bloodline, but as a conscious choice forged by his human upbringing. Because of that, the film’s message is overwhelmingly positive on its surface, making a powerful statement that our actions, not our origins, define who we are. However, in its effort to deliver this empowering theme, the film presents Superman’s journey through a lens of immigration that is far more nuanced and complicated than it appears.

Warning: The following article contains spoilers for James Gunn’s Superman

Throughout James Gunn’s Superman, Clark Kent draws comfort and inspiration from a damaged holographic message left by his biological parents, Jor-El (Bradley Cooper) and Lara (Angela Sarafyan), believing it to be a call to protect Earth and embody hope. This all changes when Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult) unscrambles the message’s final portion and broadcasts it to the world, revealing that Jor-El’s true instructions to his son Kal-El were to conquer Earth and rule over its “primitive” inhabitants, using women to breed many descendants and ensure the continuity of Krypton’s genetic material. This twist instantly reframes Kryptonian culture as hostile, forcing Superman to confront the idea that the heritage he once honored is fundamentally corrupt.

How Does Clark Kent Deal With His Kryptonian Heritage?

By severing the hero from a noble Kryptonian legacy, Superman gives Clark an impressive amount of agency over his own identity. While at first he decides to become a hero because of some genetic predisposition and a destiny handed down from his alien parents, the shocking reveal of the Kryptonian message forces Superman to embrace his heroic calling, despite it. In order to do so, Clark needs to reconnect with his human experiences, perfectly embodied by his foster parents. Unsurprisingly, when a shaken Clark retreats to Smallville, it is Pa Kent (Pruitt Taylor Vince) who reminds him that the message’s original intent is irrelevant: what matters is how Clark interpreted the broken recording and the heroic choices he made based on that interpretation. This heartfelt exchange reinforces the idea that Clark’s goodness is innate to him, not genetically inherited, but a product of the values instilled by his adoptive parents.

The hero’s updated origin in Superman also serves as an elegant solution to a long-standing challenge in adapting the character. For decades, writers and filmmakers have struggled with Superman’s perceived perfection, which can make him seem distant and unrelatable. By making his heroism an active choice against a dark inheritance, Gunn makes him fundamentally more human. Christopher Reeve’s Superman drew strength from a noble Kryptonian heritage, while Zack Snyder’s take was defined by the burden of being a god among men. Gunn’s hero, however, is heroic precisely because he chooses a human path.

Superman’s moral thesis culminates in the final scene in the Fortress of Solitude. When Clark asks his robot assistant to show him his “family,” the hologram of Jor-El and Lara is gone, replaced by home videos of his childhood with Ma (Neva Howell) and Pa Kent. In the context of the film’s thematic arc, this is the ultimate affirmation that Superman’s true identity is not Kal-El of Krypton, but Clark Kent from Kansas, a hero forged by love, not born to conquest.

Why Is Superman‘s Feel-Good Message Potentially Problematic?

While Superman’s intention to celebrate individual choice is clear, the narrative path it takes stumbles into a sensitive debate about cultural identity. By making Krypton an unambiguously imperial world, the story creates a stark binary where the only moral choice is to reject that foreign culture entirely. This vision aligns with the classic “melting pot” ideal, an early 20th-century term that framed America as a crucible where immigrant identities should be melted down and forged into a single, new, homogenous national identity. This concept argues that assimilation requires shedding one’s old-world language, traditions, and loyalties in favor of those that belong to your new home.

In recent decades, many sociologists and cultural critics have challenged this model as insufficient and even harmful. They have advanced alternative metaphors to describe a healthier multicultural society, such as the “cultural mosaic” or “salad bowl.” In this view, a nation is stronger and richer when its diverse communities contribute to the whole while retaining their unique characteristics, like distinct ingredients that create a better dish together without losing their individual flavors. The immigrant experience is often defined by the creative and sometimes difficult process of navigating multiple worlds and forging a hybrid identity that is authentic to both old world and new, fully reflecting that individual’s life experience. This act of synthesis can be seen as a source of cultural richness and personal growth.

Gunn’s Superman seems to reject this modern perspective. The narrative never offers Clark a chance to find a more nuanced path to a balanced identity. There is no opportunity for him to sift through Kryptonian culture, perhaps discovering that Jor-El’s extremism was not its only facet, and to build a new identity from the best parts of both worlds. The final scene, where Clark literally replaces the hologram of his birth parents with his adoptive ones, is an act of complete and total cultural replacement. This inadvertently states that for an outsider to be truly accepted and, their original culture must be deemed unworthy and left behind in favor of total assimilation. In Superman‘s specific case, that \ means embracing American ideals as the superior cultural identity.

To be fair, Superman makes a conscious effort to present a diverse world, populated by people from multiple ethnic backgrounds. The film’s straightforward morals are also designed for a blockbuster film, which is meant to deliver an uncomplicated feel-good experience to a broad audience, regardless of political preferences. That automatically means a certain loss of nuance when exploring these deep subjects. However, in a period where these sentiments are resonating globally, insisting on framing Superman as an immigrant, while simultaneously arguing that he must fully erase his native identity to become a true American icon, can feel tone-deaf to international audiences. It is plausible, then, that this unintentional theme of cultural superiority is one of the factors contributing to the film’s initial lukewarm box office performance in overseas markets.

What do you think of Clark’s decision to reject his Kryptonian heritage in Superman? Is the film problematic in that (or for other reasons)? Join the discussion in the comments!

David Corenswet Reveals Geeky Dream Role He’d Pass on a Superman Sequel To Play