James Gunn's Superman Post-Credits Scenes Are Pointless (And That's The Point)

This post contains spoilers for "Superman."

With James Gunn's "Superman" now in theaters, one of the most-anticipated superhero movies in recent memory has arrived. We will surely be discussing the latest take on the Man of Steel for weeks, months, and years to come, but while many of us gather our thoughts, it's worth discussing the last tidbits that Gunn left us with — specifically, the movie's two credits scenes.

Those who stayed during the credits are surely aware that "Superman" has both a mid-credits and a post-credits scene. That's not surprising, since a big comic book movie having credits scenes is nothing new. Heck, Gunn's own "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" had a whopping five of them. What is perhaps surprising — if not frustrating — is the fact that these scenes are, by and large, utterly pointless. There is no hint for a sequel to come. There are no teases of characters who will be joining the new DC Universe in the years ahead. Nothing of the sort.

Instead, the mid-credits scene is mere moments of David Corenswet's Kal-El looking down on the Earth with his cousin's dog, Krypto (his cousin being Supergirl, who made a brief cameo at the end of the movie itself). This scene seems especially superfluous, given that it's essentially just a motion shot of the first image of Krypto that Gunn released publicly.

As for the post-credits scene, one that audiences had to wait much longer for, it's just a little gag between Superman and Edi Gathegi's Mr. Terrific, with Supes halfway calling out his super-powered, super-genius pal for his handiwork in putting Metropolis back together. And that's it. Just a little joke between super friends. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's not difficult to imagine a great many audience members being some combination of puzzled and/or frustrated at these scenes. They're by no means essential, and quite frankly, they don't add a whole lot to the overall experience. Comic book movie fans have been trained to wait through the credits for fear they are going to miss out on something big.

At the same time, it's not a given that credits scenes have to be anything more than a little bit of fun for the audience. While 2012's "The Avengers" had a mid-credits scene that introduced Thanos, it also had the now-infamous post-credits scene that features Earth's mightiest heroes enjoying some shawarma together after a tiresome battle. In this case, Gunn opted to go for fun and cute, not hugely consequential. That may frustrate certain moviegoers, but it's not inherently a bad thing, particularly in this case.

One of the reasons audiences might have expected something more is the fact that Gunn, as the co-head of DC Studios alongside producer Peter Safran, is in the midst of rebooting the DC Universe. There are movies on the way next year like "Supergirl" and "Clayface." There are TV shows in the works such as "Lanterns" and "Booster Gold." It's not unreasonable to expect that Gunn might have wanted to help tee up one of these projects.

At the same time, Gunn is showing some meaningful restraint here. Yes, he did include Milly Alcock's Supergirl at the end of the movie, which almost felt like a credits scene, but even that didn't explicitly tee up something that Warner Bros. and DC Studios are obligated to pay off. The fact of the matter is that Gunn clearly doesn't want to set any unreasonable expectations, like when "Black Adam" included Henry Cavill's Superman in a credits scene that will never pay off. Gunn and company aren't operating on any level of presumed success right now.

Gunn and Safran are very aware of the issues that plagued the previous DCEU, which kicked off with "Man of Steel" in 2013 and never fully gelled. They have no interest in making the same mistakes. In building out a universe, they do have to think ahead; "Supergirl" has already wrapped filming and "Clayface" is about to get underway. But they aren't making promises they can't deliver on. It's more or less one thing at a time right now. Not putting the cart before the horse seems wise.

Even the Marvel Cinematic Universe, for all of its success, has delivered more than a handful of credits scenes that were never paid off, and some of them probably never will be. Gunn, having directed the "Guardians of the Galaxy" trilogy, is very aware of the dangers that can come with the assumption of success and teeing up balls that might never actually leave said tee. For audiences who are invested in the DC Universe moving forward, these scenes should be taken as a good sign, broadly speaking.

For better or worse, these credits scenes seemed to be more or less pointless by design. On the one hand, Gunn clearly felt the need to keep the tradition of credits scenes in comic book movies alive with his take on "Superman," but it's not hard to argue that the scenes were the definition of fluff. Might the movie have been better off with no credits scenes at all? Maybe, but at the very least, Gunn isn't making promises he can't keep right now, which strikes me as a refreshing thing in the world of big studio franchise filmmaking.

"Superman" is in theaters now.