Tuesdays with Tom: Can Superman Fly Again?
An examination of America's Superman journey; plus thoughts on The Pitt, Formula One, micro-retirement, mountaintop weddings and fake-out finales
In three days, Warner Bros. will debut a new Superman movie — again. It’s a familiar cape, but this time it comes with heavier baggage. It’s a test of whether America still has room in its heart for a hopeful alien in red and blue. Directed by former Marvel ace James Gunn, the film launches not just a new take on Clark Kent, but an entirely rebooted DC Comics cinematic universe.
This is a pivotal moment for both Superman and the superhero genre, which in 2025 looks shakier than it did a decade ago. Superman may be the most iconic American superhero, but lately, he’s felt out of sync with the times: a relic of a simpler moral framework and a more unified cultural imagination. So the question is timely and tricky. Can Superman still fly? Are we ready to embrace him once again?
Superhero storytelling is a uniquely American invention. In the 1930s, writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster created Superman as a reaction to the troubles of their time. Amid the Great Depression and rising fascism, Siegel and Shuster envisioned a heroic alien coming to Earth to rescue humanity from its own demise. As Jewish immigrants, they were moved by the story of an outsider making his own way in a foreign land, with hidden talents waiting to burst out. This transformed into Action Comics #1, where Superman made his debut.
You know the story. Kal-El, the last son of Krypton, is jettisoned to Earth as his planet explodes. Raised by Kansas farmers Jonathan and Martha Kent, Clark grows up hiding his powers and posing as a mild-mannered reporter. But beneath the glasses and Daily Planet headlines, he’s a near-indestructible god in disguise, quietly wrestling with the burden of protecting a world that may never fully accept him.
Superman is a symbol of truth, justice and the American way. Whether he’s Kal-El, Clark or Superman, his unyielding morality shines through. Underneath the surface, his conflicting identities mirror the immigrant experience, offering hope to those who feel alienated and overlooked. His literal alien nature is both a blessing and a curse. He’s a man bound by nothing, yet always has to make personal sacrifices for the good of others.
Superman has starred in countless comics, cartoons, and live-action series. Many men have donned the red cape on screen, including within the 17 Superman feature films. There was Kirk Alyn, the star of the 1948 Superman serial and its 1950 sequel Atom Man vs. Superman. Later, George Reeves played him in The Adventures of Superman and Superman and the Mole-Men. These were grounded versions of Superman. He stopped muggers and bank robbers, while the comics took him into cosmic adventures.
Most people think of Christopher Reeve as the iconic Superman. He portrayed the character across four films and helped make Superman into a viable film franchise. Superman: The Movie was a critical and commercial smash, praised for its ground-breaking special effects, John Williams’ score and winning story. Superman II and Superman III extended the legacy, with diminishing returns, before it collapsed with Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. But considering its era, these Superman films were beloved and unexpected hits. Reeve’s matinee idol looks and impressive physique were ideal pairings for the vision of Superman.
As the appetite and expectations changed for superhero movies, our relationship with Superman changed, too. The old-fashioned nature of Superman’s story was exposed and dissected. It’s hard to relate to an invulnerable alien juggernaut. His lone weakness, Kryptonite, often felt like a lazy plot device. His disguise has more holes than Swiss cheese. Glasses can change a man’s face, but are people really that clueless? Between his boy scout persona and some narrative stagnation, fans turned away from the character.
This shift in perception plagued Warner Bros. for decades. At one point, they considered making a Tim Burton-directed and Nicolas Cage-fueled Superman. In the script for Superman Lives, Clark sported long black hair, didn’t fly and needed to be resurrected from death to fight a gigantic spider. Even Nic Cage isn’t crazy enough to go through with that. In 2006, they tried again with Superman Returns, bringing Brandon Routh into the fold. Routh had the looks, but none of the charm or poise that made the Reeves movies great. Superman Returns was dull and unappealing, the exact opposite of what a superhero movie should feel like.
If the studio wanted to win over everyone with their next Superman take, director Zack Snyder was the wrong choice. Snyder’s films are an acquired taste: you either love them or hate them. But he got several cracks at Superman, starting with Henry Cavill’s debut in the 2013 movie Man of Steel. Snyder’s DC universe was divisive, to say the least. Many criticized Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice and Justice League (both versions) for being unrelentingly dark -- a stark shift from Superman’s usual tone. Some argued that Snyder fundamentally misunderstood the character. Others embraced his grim realism as a bold reinvention.
Ultimately, the Snyder-verse era was a failure for Warner Bros. and another creative misfire within Superman lore. It didn’t help that as the Superman and DC movies struggled, Marvel Studios experienced an unprecedented apex in commercial and critical success. It’s one of the reasons why they poached James Gunn to don the S and save their fledgling operation. Gunn’s claim to fame is the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise, one of Marvel’s greatest success stories. His penchant for reverent pop culture gags, slapstick raunch, and wacky yet colorful violence defined much of Marvel’s glorious run in the 2010s. He’s the antidote to Zack Snyder in just about every way.
But even the right medicine may not work if it comes too late. Warner Bros., Gunn and this upcoming Superman movie might be missing its moment. Superhero movies aren’t as bankable as they used to be. Superhero fatigue is real and growing. There hasn’t been a universally beloved Superman film since the 1980s. Why will this be any different? Like Clark Kent and Kal-El, there’s two sides to this story.
The optimist argues that James Gunn is a proven director, with a reliable style that fans loved in the Marvel universe. He’s not just directing Superman. He’s in charge of the entire rebooted DC Universe that’s yet to come. Clearly, he has a vision that won over the Warner Bros. executives. There’s a bad taste in the mouths of DC Comics fans and they’re ready for a fresh bite. By bringing back the optimism and fun into Superman, the path forward is tantalizing.
The cynic replies that nobody knows David Corenswet, the newest Superman, and he’s the lynchpin of this entire plan. It’s concerning they’re using plays from the Snyder-verse that notably did not work. Like the ill-fated Justice League, the various Superman trailers are stuffed with tons of characters and appear to be building a fully formed universe on the fly. It reeks of desperation and potentially compromises this Superman story before he even takes flight. On top of widespread superhero fatigue, it’s a perilous moment for American civic pride and immigration allegories.
My hunch? This Superman will land somewhere between greatness and letdown. In a world where a billion-dollar box office is the measure of success, it might just miss the mark. Still, I’m curious to see what Gunn can do with DC, even if these demigod-style heroes don’t lend themselves to the kind of emotional intimacy Marvel mastered. David Corenswet faces a daunting task, stepping into a role that’s more myth than man. He’ll need help from Lois Lane, his supporting cast, and an audience still open to believing.
Call me a patriot, but I want to believe in Superman. I hope it’s entertaining. I hope it connects with the next generation. We don’t need to be so precious with these stories, just willing to see where they go. Like Kal-El himself, we might not have asked for him, but he’s here anyway. It’s a little hokey, but maybe that’s exactly what we need right now.
Tom’s Thoughts of the Week
In the last two episodes of Friday Night Beers, we reviewed Hamm’s and Budweiser. We went hog wild with the Hamm’s history, including their famous mascot, and ranked our favorite ham-related characters. We dedicated a large chunk to Jon Hamm and other performers with food-based names. To celebrate American Independence Day falling on a Friday, we took the plunge into Budweiser. We argued that it’s the most American beer ever, but do you know about its controversial origins? Tune in for that, a dissection of some American icons and some 4th of July film classics. Please subscribe, rate and review our podcast here and follow our Instagram page for relevant updates!
I thought that I signed out of the television hospital world for the last time when Scrubs ended. But the doctors of The Pitt defied the odds and wheeled me right back in. The Pitt isn’t re-inventing the wheel of the medical drama, but it is giving it a new-ish spin. It’s designed like ER from the 1990s and it stars former ER actor Noah Wyle in case you forget the obvious homage. The twist that elevates it from cliche territory is that the entire first season takes place during one shift at Pittsburgh Trauma Medical Hospital. Each hour-long episode gradually reveals more about the staff and patients that race in and out of the emergency room. It’s a subtle change, but a welcome one for a television genre that got stale long ago. The Pitt deftly avoids other medical show tropes. There are no suspiciously hot doctors or contrived workplace romances (like Grey’s Anatomy). Its lead is not an unconventional iconoclast with a heart of gold (like House). The Pitt is surgical in its storytelling without lowering the stakes, and the hour-to-hour format keeps viewers engaged. It also doesn’t sacrifice character depth in spite of its premise. I don’t want to be in a real emergency room anytime soon, but I’ve enjoyed my time in and with The Pitt.
When I wrote about Formula One a few years ago, the sport was emerging with Americans as popular entertainment. We have hit a new high for Americans and F1. F1 the Movie, starring Brad Pitt, Damson Idris, Kerry Condon, Tobias Menzies, and Javier Bardem, smashed box office projections with a $144 million opening weekend haul in theaters. Like the F1 teams that race throughout the season, this was a team effort between Apple, Warner Brothers and the league itself. It even has Formula One star Lewis Hamilton on board as a producer. This movie is pretty blatantly an F1 commercial, but clearly that’s enough for American audiences. Formula One fandom continues to grow, with Motorsport reporting that there are 52 million F1 fans in the United States. In a global F1 survey, 61% of U.S. respondents said they engage with F1 content daily. Despite its hilariously lazy title (I mean, seriously?), F1 the Movie is further proof that American interest in this sport is only revving up.
There’s a new Gen-Z workplace trend that may sound very familiar. It’s called “micro-retirement” and you’re going to love what it entails. Micro-retirement is described as “taking a one to two-week break from work every 12 to 18 months” with other variations that can include “frequent work breaks” or simply being unemployed. Once again, we have reached a new low in self-awareness and false innovation. Here’s a quick list of things that aren’t retirement: vacations, naps, logging off, losing your job. And yet, those are all now considered micro-retirement hobbies? Look, I’m an advocate for work-life balance. I sympathize with people who are stuck in jobs they don’t like to make ends meet. But I just wish for once that these remote working zealots would be honest about their demands. These people don’t really want to work. They want to get paid to do as little as possible. These evolving buzzwords are all iterations of that implicit desire. The next time you’re enjoying a long weekend away from the office, try telling someone you’re on a micro-retirement without laughing.
Here’s a quick shoutout to my cousin Isabelle Woodrow, a longtime reader of Tuesdays with Tom. She married Charlie Cardon in Aspen a few weekends ago. I was one of the lucky guests that attended the wedding. I’d never taken a gondola to a mountaintop wedding, and I might never again. But it was worth it for the stunning ceremony and views. The Dohertys did a little western cosplay while in Aspen and it was one that we won’t soon forget. Congratulations to Isabelle and Charlie!
A final word on fake-out finales. In recent years, FX’s The Bear and Netflix’s Squid Game have enraptured television viewers around the world. While entirely different shows, they’ve both taken their time to finish their stories. I viewed the third season of The Bear as an incomplete statement, with the hope that the fourth season would neatly wrap things up. Squid Game was more transparent that its second season in 2024 was the first half of the final stretch, but functioned similarly. We’ve all been duped: these shows teased finales but are nowhere near finished. The Bear was renewed for a fifth season on FX and Squid Game took a hard left turn in its final moments, suggesting that it’s still ready to play. I’m not dumb. I understand why FX and Netflix aren’t ready to close the book on their most popular shows. I’m just sick of the lies and the prolonged, plodding extensions. I’m looking at you too, Stranger Things. That show began in 2016 and won’t end until its fifth “final” season later this year. It should not take 9 years to produce 34 episodes. Stranger Things is making fans watch the final eight episodes over three release batches between Thanksgiving and Christmas 2025. Enough!! Don’t tell us it’s over and then drag it out. Stay, go or risk ending up on my list of worst TV finales.