Geeking with Destination Venus 26th July 2025: LOOK UP!

So. The Geeking show is back on Harrogate Community Radio, and can once again be found in your podcast feed wherever the finest pods are casted. Or you could go and download it HERE. Should there be a need for show notes you will find them here, but when they're not needed, as is the case this week, I'm just going to post up the script in case you feel the need to read my nonsense rather than listen to it.

If you ever listened to the old version of the show you may notice some changes. The show is mercifully shorter, just half an hour, because honestly I don't think anyone should be subjected to an hour of me every single week. and every episode is going to be much more focused. We'll still talk about movies and TV and science space but we're not going to leap around and try to fit everything in. We're not even going to try to be topical - although we might occasionally be topical by accident.

Obviously first week back we're talking about Superman, and there are spoilers ahead although most of the spoilers here are going to be things that even if you haven't seen the film yet you'll probably know about because they've been extensively ripped apart on social media.

Superman 2025!

So. Superman. James Gunn's first movie since he took over as well essentially DC's Kevin Fiege. There was a lot riding on it - DC movies have not had the best reputation of late, and that's that's because generally speaking they haven't been very good. I mean I carve out Robert Pattinson in The Batman Gal Godot's first Wonder Woman movie was not terrible and the rest of it all of it had promise (I liked Henry Cavil's Superman, I really did I thought the costume was too dark. I mean I hated all the movies he was in as Superman but he himself was great. I liked Ben Affleck's Batman too. The movies they gave him the scripts they gave him were not great from my point of view but they have their fans...)

But for me it had been pretty much miss after miss from DC for more than a decade at this point, and crucially the box office sort of thought so too. Add to that the fact that Marvel, which has been a cinematic powerhouse for a decade and a half at this point has also seemed to falter at the box office - the more recent marvel movies haven't been particularly well received and there has been a lot of talk about "superhero fatigue".

It's a tough environment to make a Superman movie. So how how did they do? "Really well" would appear to be the only honest answer you can give. What this movie did more than anything was to understand who Superman is in a way that I don't feel the Snyderverse ever did. There are a couple of really obvious examples from Man of Steel. The killing of General Zod is the obvious example of Cavil not behaving like Superman, but also there's also a moment in Man of Steel where Superman picks up a truck and throws it, presumably killing the man inside.

Contrast that with the scene in this Superman movie where Superman is fighting alongside the Justice Gang* to try and stop a Kaiju** which is about to stomp on a lowly squirrel. Superman saves the squirrel. It's not the most "Superman" thing he does in the movie, but is emblematic of the difference. Saving everyone is what a Superman is all about.

I've seen this movie criticised by the people I'm going to continue to refer to as the "Snyder Bros"*** claiming that Man of Steel was a "grown up" movie, while Superman is for kids. I disagree. Man of Steel is not an adult movie. It is an adolescent movie. It's teenage power fantasy of a movie - which again is not a criticism per se - I used to be a teenage boy, after all. I used to have those kinds of power fantasies. But let's not kid ourselves that it is in any way "grown up".

Further, while Superman is a movie that kids can watch - it's a movie that's fine to take little kids to, mostly, I wouldn't take a very small child to it. There is real darkness in this movie - the scene in the pocket dimension where Lex Luthor tries to torture Superman by killing people he cares about springs to mind. That's a genuinely shocking scene, this movie is not just bright and bouncy like a Kryptonian dog.

But it's not just Superman. It "gets" all of the principal characters: Superman also known as Clark Kent, Lois Lane and Lex Luther. To start at the very beginning, David Corenswet. Oh my goodness. I've not seen an actor embody the Man of Steel quite as well as David Corenswet since Christopher Reeve. Everything about him radiates "SUPERMAN". The looks, the frame, the stance, and the way he is just different when he switches between his Clark Kent and Superman personas.

Which brings us to Lois lane played by Rachel Brosnahan. Lois Lane in the comics, for a very long time served the purpose that all superhero's girlfriends serve in comics, which is to be the person that gets rescued. They avoid that so beautifully in this movie, which is good because that is such a tired old cliche now. What they presented us with is a Lois Lane who is fierce, independent, smart, loyal and brave.

She's funny too. So funny that while I might be the only person in the world who has not watched her in the Marvellous Mrs Maisel I am going to go and watch it now because if her performance as Mrs Maisel is a tenth as good as her performance as Lois I am one hundred percent in.

To be honest my only complaint about Lois lane in this movie is that we don't see enough of her. Every scene she's in she sparkles and in particular there's a 12 minute (ish) scene where she is interviewing Clark Kent (in his persona as Superman) in her apartment - she goes full on reporter at him and we see why Lois Lane is the lead reporter at the Daily Planet. She is tough and she asks the hard questions even though she knows the answers because as a journalist she knows those are the questions that the people want to ask. However uncomfortable it makes the man she loves, she will do her job.

That's the other thing about the way Lois is portrayed in this - she's smart, she's clever and she's loyal. She knows people and she's confident in her judgement. That means when we get the big reveal about Clark's origins and why he was sent to Earth and the public has turned against him she doesn't. She knows the man he is. When she hears what the message says she's like "OK fine, but that's not the Clark I know". We get a Lois who thinks critically and never needs to be rescued. I liked that.

Finally we have Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor. Now. I maintain that the best on screen Luthor is Michael Rosenbaum because I loved Smallville. But Hoult is just squeaking past him. I note with interest that Nicholas Hoult actually auditioned for the role of Superman and didn't get it. Given that in this movie everything that Luther does is essentially driven by his envy of Superman that's an interesting twist which I'm sure was worked into his performance.

He gives us a Luther who is, yes, incredibly intelligent, yes, incredibly quick thinking but also small and petty and vindictive and utterly without conscience or soul. The the beauty of that is he is attacking Superman because he doesn't know who Superman is. He's attacking Superman for being an alien but Superman is so, so, much more human. Luthor is beautifully handled - again - like so much else in this movie it's not stated it's simply shown. Brilliant.

Which brings me then to the wider characters. You have Jimmy Olsen who is so often a badly underused character. I think Skylar Gisondo he plays such such a charismatic Jimmy Olsen I think he's under used again, but in a movie like this there just isn't time to give him more. But they give they do give the character something to do and make him more than just a sidekick - his actions and relationships are key to the story. And I can't emphasise it enough, the role is played with such charisma he stands out even in the small amount of screen time he gets.

On the villain side we have The Engineer, who is a character stolen from The Authority comics. I'm not really sure what she's doing in this movie particularly, I can only assume she's being introduced to be utilised in another project somewhere else. However, she's beautifully played by Maria Gabriela D Ferrier. Angela/The Engineer is quite a complex character in the comics but here she looked more basic, much more in tune with Luther. I hope we see her again in a project that gives her space to develop as a character - she should be more than just Luthor's muscle.

Then there's the "Justice Gang".* Mt Terriffic, Hawk Girl and of course, Guy Gardner.

He's the least good Green Lantern - beautifully played by Nathan Fillion who we know can do this stuff in his sleep. An interesting choice to introduce people to the Green Lanterns with the least likeable person in the entire Green Lantern Corps. It works as good Comic Relief though. Fillion is charming enough to carry the character off, and I liked they way Gardner does right thing but usually by accident. Nathan Fillion is perfect in this part.

Mr Terrific is also pretty Terrific. This is a character who is not terribly well known even in the comics. I mean I know who Mr Terrific is because I own a comic shop but I suspect most comics readers, even most DC fans are probably not terribly familiar with him. I enjoyed that they don't bother explaining anything to anybody. It's a great, understated but oddly charismatic performance from Edi Gathegi, and I'm thrilled at the idea that he's getting a TV show.

Speaking of obscure characters we've got Andy Corrigan as Metamorpho. I am a big fan of Metamorpho, when I first started reading comics one of the first back issue runs I spent some time trying to put together was Batman and the Outsiders and he was a key team member of that late eighties team-up. He then went on to be part of Justice League Europe, or Justice League International, certainly one of the many, mildly obscure Justice League teams from the 80s and 90s.

He has always been a weird character and I loved that that this movie did not shy away from that weirdness. In this movie we are introduced to him as the guy who can essentially turn himself into kryptonite so that Lex Luthor can imprison Superman and he initially seems grotesque and villainous. Then we find out why he's doing what he's doing and that he is, in fact, a victim.

So here is a weird character, a quirky character, often used in the comics for Comic Relief. He can turn bits of his body to any element he wants, but that doesn't mean that he has to turn bits of his body into giant hammers. That's just something he's done in the comics though, and it's something he does in this movie. It's silly and yet it works. You couldn't have pulled that off in the Snyderverse another sign that this version of the DC universe is much closer to the comics version of the DC universe, where you can do stupid stuff like that in serious stories. It works there, and it works here.

Then finally the elephant - or least the small fluffy white dog - in the room we have to talk about Krypto. I had not fully understood that Krypto in this movie is 100% CGI. They motion captured James Gunn's own dog to create Krypto while I don't like dogs - I'm not a dog person in any way at all - but this CGI dog steals every single scene he is in just by being a dog. He's not super clever, he's not super good, he's just a dog happens to be able to fly. That is just brilliant. Great comic relief, great plot device, incredibly engaging. I'm even looking forward to seeing him again...

But why am I spending so long talking about characters and not about stories? Well, because the story doesn't matter much. There's Lex Luther and a "pocket dimension" and a rift in reality and wanting to get back at Superman and something about how he's helping fund an invasion of one small Eastern European country by another small Eastern European country 'cause he wants land and mineral rights (and that doesn't sound familiar at all) and really it doesn't matter all that much. That's not what this movie is about. This is all about character probably how it gets away with having so many characters in it...

I mean I haven't even mentioned Cat Grant. I haven't talked about Jimmy Olsen's girlfriend. SO MANY CHARACTERS!!!!!

if you are a plot person, then, if you are somebody who wants an intricate story this may not be the movie for you. It's not story driven. There are some overreaching narrative arcs, some big picture statements that this movie is making - it is about the fact that Superman is an immigrant, but also what being an immigrant means and it's about what being human is. It has quite a pronounced anti war theme running through it too, but again these themes are mostly shown through character and not plot.

As is usual these days I've seen people saying "I hate that Superman does politics now" and that is their privilege, but superman's always "done politics". Superman has always been an immigrant story. It's always had things to say. Just go back and read the early stuff - particularly go back and look at stuff from the 50s which does not have the politics you might imagine from a mainstream company in the 50s.

And here it is all justified by character. The point of Superman intervening in the invasion of that place by the other place (I can't remember the names of these countries and it really doesn't matter, they're made-up) the point is that he intervenes as he so beautifully puts it when Lois challenges him is "people were going to die! He is the guy who saved a squirrel, he is certainly not going to be the guy who lets a big country invade a little country for no reason. That is just not happening in a world that has a proper Superman in it.

This investigation of what it means to be human, driven by Clark Kent - not Superman, Clark Kent is at the core of everything. When Luthor finds the message from Superman's parents basically telling him that it's his job to take over and rule Earth because you're better than them is key to this. Lex is genuinely afraid, and genuinely believes in the threat because that's what Luthor would do if he was that position.

Kal-El only ever heard the first bit of the message, which is all about being good and saving people, which worked for a man who was raised by two good people, two good ordinary human people on a farm. That's who he is, so he's never going to rule the world. He doesn't want to. He's a good man and he's human. The point of this message is you are not defined by where you're from. Where you're from is always part of you, but who you are? That's a choice and you can choose to be of the place that you are now.

That's what Superman has done and that is, largely, the American immigrant story. I think that's a powerful message to send right now in the current global political climate. I think the world needs to hear it. I think it's good for the world to hear it - I think the fact that so many people are annoyed at having heard it is kind of indicative of how important it is that Superman be Superman right now. (Yes the boring preachy part is back...)

So yes. James Gunn's the Superman ticks every single box for me. It is comic book (More or less) accurate. That message from Jor-El is not in the comics (I think they have done it in the comics that way before but it's not really comics cannon) but that could be easily undone. (Although James Gunn says it won't be). It is suitably bright, it is optimistic it evokes the spirit of the Christopher Reeve Superman from 1978 - which I think is a good thing - but it does it in a really modern way.

I think actually the best emblem that is the music, which leans heavily into the John Williams score for Superman 78 - such an iconic thing why would you not use it? But of course it's not 1978 is 2025 and so the score has been using elements of the John Williams original.

Superman (2025) is a perfect blend of action, drama and comedy. If you have not yet seen it, make a point of seeing it. It is, truly, super, man.

Oh, and I promised you a link to the shownotes for my other show - if you really feel the need to subject yourself to more of me, you can find them HERE.

*Great name, by the way...

**Or, "Giant Monster", which is what we always used to call such things. I thought "Kaiju" was a term we only applied in the context of Japanese pop culture. I guess I missed a memo...

***To be clear, when I talk about "Snyder Bros" I don't mean "people who like Zack Snyder's DC films. I mean "the people who won't shut up about how everything except Zack Snyder's vision is in some way either 'woke', 'childish', 'stupid' or to use their favourite word 'dumb'." Those people get on my nerves.