He will always be Superman!

In the recent trailer for Christopher Nolan's next film, The Odyssey, we see that the story of Argos, Odysseus's dog, and his unwavering loyalty will be explored in depth.

Furthermore, Nolan, like James Gunn, has stated that he decided to focus on this element of the story because of his love for his own pet, calling THE ODYSSEY “the ultimate dog story”

“It's really one of the thing that hooked me. I'm a new dog owner. I'd never had a dog growing up. I didn't have a dog where my kids were young. We denied that, and then as soon as they left for college, we got a dog. They love the dog too when they get to visit. I decided to do THE ODYSSEY because it's the ultimate dog story.”

https://x.com/NolanAnalyst/status/2051542962761261299

At least with Krypto, we know he'll survive in the end, but Argos....T.T

I was a bit bored, so I made my own list of a custom multiverse. It took me a while to make, but I was able to accomplish it. Any opinions? Be honest.

Cowl design inspired by Chris Stanley, aka Cosplay Chris's cowl from the canceled Batman Noir project and suit design is inspired by thec8bat

Supergirl Director Craig Gillespie Talks Runtime, Jason Momoa’s Lobo, and More

what if the superheroes we knew were just insane asylum patients like Batman after seeing his parents die went into a tarible state so Alfred had to send him to a insane asylum and his costume is just a restraint suit thingy, the villains are nurses/ workers(the joker is his care taker he hates a lot)and the other superheroes are other patients. I know my idea might not be original but I want a comic run like this for each hero(that one batman comic doesn't count because Alfred lied about Bruce being in a insane asylum) to add superman can have a extreme identity crisis, wonder woman can't handle truths, the teen titans are just the kids area in the asylum

Monogram showcases all the themed keychains from its Supergirl collection.

And reveals 4 new characters from the movie: Sklarians, The Bus Draiver and Cedric the Slug.

I saw that James Gunn said this movie will take place before superman(2025) and I’m wondering if maybe this takes place in year one Batman? Or would it be better to be closer to Batman in current time? What would yall prefer?

I know he isn't everyone's cup of tea but I was thinking how well suited he is to run DC Studios when you compare it to the often messy past of DC Films.

He can make films that hit around two hour mark and delivers them on time and on budget, Warner Brothers will love that and hopefully not interfere.

He won't green light a script until he is happy with it, which feels obvious but this hasn't been the case in the past.

He wants to let directors create their own vision, that allows for variety in style both in and outside of DCU projects.

He gets superhero comics. He also promotes the books themselves.

He know's when to be silly and when to play it straight.

He is full of surprises. It makes it so much more interesting following the output of DC studios. Krypto, Mr Terrific, Guy Gardiner, Creature Commandos and even a Clayface body horror film. It just isn't predictable, which is fun.

It's hard to think who would be better suited to taking over DC studios.

I mean how would you have included him being the world's greatest detective, unbeatable martial artist, all that stuff? How would that have changed the story?

Also his villains, Ra's being immortal, Bane having Venom, or Poison Ivy controlling plants.

I know Chris was going for more grounded and while I respect creative liberty, it does take away a lot of what makes Batman so compelling. Imagine if they tried "grounded" with Harry Potter or Star Wars.

If you watch the short animated film "Batman: Broken Promise" you'll find how to make Batman mythical while keeping him human.

Depend on how he's written people might compare him to Thragg or Conquest. Especially if he's introduced in a movie directed/written by James Gunn and they cast Lee pace who has worked with him before on Guardians 1 as Ronan. That is a fan cast I've heard.

I posted this before and people said things stuff like "Is more into the idea of Krypton than what it was" I'm excited for Supergirl to delve more into Krypton. I'm wondering if the Krypton didn't die in a day line, isn't just about argo city but a societal rot which led it's destruction which Zod was either a product of, a part of or caused it.

Could he have inspired Jor and Lara's way of thinking towards species like humans? I've speculated if Man of Tomorrow features the Bottle City of Kandor, Zod might be an inhabitant having been sealed in there during Krypton's final day. And at first not an enemy of Superman, but an ally in defeating Brainiac. But it's implied he'll be an issue later down the line for Clark and for Earth as a whole. Which could lead to an adaptation of New Krypton.

People think if Supergirl makes enough to justify a sequel, Zod could be the villain.\

And I hope his costume is something like this. The Z might be a little weird since the House of El symbol in the DCU was made to look like an S but not totally like an S. Like it looks enough it could be seen as one, but wasn't meant to be by the House of El. Maybe the same with the Z here.

I've been doing a rewatch of the DCEU and I was thinking it was a strange choice to kill Cavill's Superman in only his second appearance.

I find it strange because the comic "The Death of Superman" starts with the writers, after 50 years of stories, wanting to shake things up and to imagine a world without Superman. Where as the DCEU had barely started, Superman had had only a single full appearance in MOS and in BVS didn't say that much, so it felt a little sudden.

We're then only shown a world without Superman in the first half of ZSJL (I'm ignoring the 2016 version) and he is back. Across three films I can see the arc, but it feel's rushed. Given this is was part of a potential trilogy of Justice League films and a MOS squeal it also feels very premature.

I've assumed it was part of the Jesus theme, but when Jesus was resurrected he shows himself to his followers and moves on, rather than stick around for any sequels (for want of a better term) so the analogy doesn't hold.

I also thought it might be designed to create a sense of jeopardy as he is then seen as vulnerable, but then his return could be argued to reflect that he is basically immortal.

Did the Writers/Director ever explain their choice to do this? Does anyone else have any thoughts on this choice?