James Gunn Agrees With Zack Snyder's Most Controversial Superman Scene

Superheroes killing in the name of justice has been a controversial topic for decades now. In 1992, Tim Burton's weird experiment "Batman Returns" hit theaters and managed to upset audiences on several different levels. Parents (and McDonald's) were affronted by the general tone of Burton's nightmare Gotham, to the extent that the Warner Bros execs decided to change course dramatically with the next movie, dropping Burton as director in favor of Joel Schumacher, who then delivered 1995's more colorful, fan-friendly blockbuster "Batman Forever" (an overlooked Batman movie that's more groundbreaking than you realize). But some fans were dismayed by "Returns" for another reason — namely, that Michael Keaton's Batman was a stone-cold killer, dousing one criminal in jet fuel and blowing another sky high without flinching.

Fast-forward to the 2010s and the same debate was playing out among fans, only this time it also involved DC's other biggest hero: Superman. When Zack Snyder took the creative lead for DC and Warner Bros, he introduced us to a cinematic universe that was a lot darker than we'd seen before. But this wasn't the dark of Burton's magical expressionist horror fairytale. Snyder's vision was a bleak, almost cynical take on the source material that was best characterized by an infamous moment in which the director lashed out in response to fan questions about Batman's willingness to kill in "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice." "Wake the f*** up," began the screed. "Once you've lost your virginity to this f***ing movie and then you come and say to me something about like, 'My superhero wouldn't do that.' I'm like, 'Are you serious?' I'm like down the f***ing road on that."

Perhaps even more controversial that the Dark Knight offing his victims in Snyder's movies was Henry Cavill's Superman doing the same in a notorious scene from 2013's "Man of Steel," in which he snaps the neck of Michael Shannon's General Zod in order to save a group of Metropolis citizens from the villain's heat vision. Naturally, this didn't go down well with certain fans of the character, who had previously been known as the ultimate boy scout. The controversy hovered over the DC Extended Universe, otherwise known as the Snyderverse, throughout its existence and remains a topic of contentious debate among fans today.

Now, James Gunn has introduced us all to a new, brighter, more light-hearted version of Superman. As such, you might expect him to be one of those who took exception to Snyder's murderous Supes, but it seems Gunn might be with the Snyder bros on this one.

Zack Snyder's take on Superman was about as far as you could possibly get from Richard Donner's seminal 1978 "Superman," which to this day remains the gold standard of Superman movies (and arguably superhero movies in general). The film is a reverent celebration of everything the character stands for, so it's perhaps unsurprising that Donner had some strong opinions about the DCEU's take on Superman, even going so far as to say, "I think we're in strange, dark days of moviemaking."

You'd be forgiven for thinking that James Gunn, who won over audiences worldwide with his colorful, fantastical, family-friendly "Guardians of the Galaxy" trilogy, would agree — especially since his vision for the newly-launched DC Universe is a heck of a lot more light-hearted than the Snyderverse. Gunn, who took over as co-head of DC Studios alongside Peter Safran in 2022, has now introduced us to his silly, charming crowd-pleaser "Superman," infusing the film with a "Guardians"-esque humor and plenty of heart that represents the opposite of Snyder's more cynical take on superheroes. But it seems Gunn isn't actually all that opposed to a Superman that kills, at least when it's in defense of innocent lives.

During a Wired Q&A, Gunn responded to the question "Why doesn't Superman kill?" by agreeing that the character "believes in a basic right to life." But the "Superman" director then went on to add an important caveat: "I'm not a purist in that respect, I think that if, for instance, he had to kill to protect somebody's life, he would probably do that, even though that would be hard for him." In fairness, Gunn doesn't necessarily say he was all for Snyder's infamous "Man of Steel" scene, but this is tacit support for the idea of Supes killing when he needs to, which surely means Gunn at least understood what his directorial predecessor was going for.

Superman is known for being an upstanding figure of morality — a paragon of truth, justice, and "a better tomorrow," unless you prefer the old-school slogan which ended with "the American way." Either way, the character is supposed to be a deeply moral figure who would never kill if he didn't have to. Christopher Reeve's version of the character didn't kill at all in 1978's "Superman," though there's some debate about whether he technically allows Terence Stamp's General Zod to die in "Superman II." But Donner was replaced as director on that movie, and as such, the Superman of the 1978 film remains the epitome of the character in the popular consciousness — at least for multiple generations who grew up with Reeve as their Man of Steel.

With that in mind, it was always going to be controversial to have Henry Cavill's Superman snapping necks in "Man of Steel," regardless of whether the character had killed on several occasions in the comics. Indeed, the ending of "Man of Steel" was controversial even before the movie debuted, as producer Christopher Nolan initially did his best to convince Zack Snyder to change it. Ultimately, however, Snyder was allowed to realize his own vision and, for better or worse, the public was shown a Superman that was willing to kill to save innocent lives. 

Now, James Gunn has introduced us to David Corenswet's dorky good guy Superman, who seems like the last person who would break his enemy's neck. Based on Gunn's comments, however, such a thing might not be completely out of the question. You could also read his answer as tacitly suggesting that it's not actually all that interesting to probe this particular point about whether Superman would kill if pushed to do so — a sort of "yes, he could conceivably do it but it's not really as fascinating or worthy of focus as Zack Snyder thinks it is." What's more, not only has Superman killing his enemy been done on-screen, but it would also be a massive bummer if we saw Corenswet's version having to make the same choice in the near future — one which could quickly deflate the burgeoning DC Universe and its more upbeat tone. On the other hand, who's to say what will happen if "Superman" doesn't make as much money as "Man of Steel" at the box office...