Is Clark Kent really "that one friend that's too woke"?
What do people want from films now if we don't want a superhero to be nice?
Within the past few years there has been a rise in calling elements of culture “woke”. However, there has been an overall shift in what that word means especially related to media, within this period. Although starting as a description of bringing awareness to various topics of justice and social equality, the word has now become a demonization of the work it is being used to describe. By being used to negatively describe things as simple as including an LGBTQ+ person as a side character or mentioning politics in any way, the question is raised: what are these angered groups actually fighting for?
In recent years, there has been a shift in arguments surrounding film. Sure, there is a rise in outlets for people to share their opinions, but there has also been a rise in people being upset about things. I can’t think of a single movie that has been universally loved and not had conversations surrounding its quality. This is going to happen, of course, because art is subjective. There is always going to be something that people don’t like, or that people love. Film has become even more polarizing as the years have gone on, but this year might take the cake. With Snow White (2025), Lilo and Stitch (2025), and now Superman (2025), this year has been one that has shown a true shift in how audiences are perceiving movies. The most recent controversy, however, brought me to the real root of the issues at hand:
The issues have almost nothing to do with the movies themselves.
The conversation was brought to my attention again because of the term “woke” being used to describe James Gunn’s Superman (2025) in the last few weeks. Arguments were raised before the film even came out about how it would be taken in by both sides of the political spectrum. Although every movie is inherently political because all art is inherently political, each side seemed to have a different belief as to why it was political, and even more as to why they were upset about it.
When looking at it through the lens of the left, which is primarily who worked on the film as the majority of its actors and creators do fall left on the scale, there are few things to be upset about. The film shows a well-rounded Superman who is kind and who is, quite frankly, struggling with his immigrant identity rather than being directly proud of it. These themes all of course relate back to the comics, which cannot be said about these depictions of Superman as a “Man of Steel”. He feels very human, despite being so. There is an overall acceptance of all groups, except those causing harm to others of course, and a recognition of the ability to change situations and even people, for the better. Some, however, feel differently about what they saw, and took the messages of kindness and acceptance as an ideology that didn’t align with their own.
Kellyanne Conway, who said in a Fox News segment Monday people “don’t go to the movie theater to be lectured to and to have somebody throw their ideology onto us.”
On the other hand, when looking at Superman through the lens of those who are upset by it, it is easy to see many things that would be red flags. The issue that started these debates, along with the inclusion of political unrest within two countries, is the statement James Gunn made referring to Superman as an immigrant. While the sentence feels small in nature, at least in my opinion, it appears that the connotation has been taken out of context. This statement has been taken as Gunn forcing ideology and accepting of immigrants onto a nation that is currently in a debate over the topic of immigration. Gunn has shared that it was not his intention to be overly political in this film, but that comic book movies, especially superhero based, have always been inherently political. “Yes, it’s about politics. But on another level, it’s about morality. Do you never kill no matter what — which is what Superman believes — or do you have some balance, as Lois believes?”
There is no one that I have personally seen that feels indifferent to this film.
People either love what they have seen, or they hate it. There is also no one going into this that doesn’t have a preconceived notion of what the film will be. Everyone grew up with a different version of Superman, but they all revolved around the same themes:
Gunn is correct, a loss of kindness is at the root of Superman, and is at the root of the issues the film is facing as well. There are now new narratives of what a film should and shouldn’t include, and these narratives are constantly changing. While some groups of people think that there should be no expense spared when it comes to representation and inclusion, others feel that these issues should be spared completely. I have come to realize that often the problem is not with the inclusion alone, but with the amount of inclusion within the work that is the issue. However, there are also groups who think any inclusion at all is too political, which is mostly where I think Superman falls into the conversation.
The paradox here is that any superhero film or comic book is inherently political and has been way before it became “woke” to be so. The ideas of good and evil are rooted in the beliefs of various individuals and therefore are political. Because of this, the film would have always been political regardless of if the term “woke” was accompanying the film. The idea of someone being a champion for good is always going to be political, so the idea that people were shocked going into the new film is quite hard to understand.
With all this being said, what do people want from films now?
When looking at what has already been discussed, there are many opinions coming in about what audiences want from the entertainment they are consuming. If you can’t please them all wouldn’t the next best thing be to please as many as possible? Superman and other films such as Eddington, and even fellow comic book film Thunderbolts* have been under fire recently for not leaning enough to one side of the aisle. These centrist films that used to be a saving grace are now being viewed as shallow and even sometimes problematic. Because companies are trying to appeal to all audiences, even if they are failing, these attempts at being “woke” are just registering as shallow attempts to profit off of these groups. On the other hand, not including any type of progression in media is just not possible either. The bottom line is there has to be sincerity to the work that is being produced. The company cannot try to be appealing to wide audiences if the themes explored in the film are not widespread themselves. Whether or not the themes in the film should or should not be widespread has nothing to do with the director or creators, but within the choices of the audience.
People have become too fixated on every type of media being catered to exactly what they want. Because of the society we live in, with everything we could ever want at our fingertips and algorithms telling us we want it, making movies and the discourse around them has changed. There have always been movies that were polarizing, I highly doubt that everyone thought that Superman (1978) was good when it was released, but the way in which they are being consumed is much different now.
It seems that audiences have become more difficult than ever. Sure, there are some things that are coming out worth getting upset over, but the majority of things are simply art for universal consumption. I don’t personally believe that film now is setting out to be upsetting all the time, or that each film is always trying to have some hidden undertone worthy of uncovering. I don’t think that any media has inherently become more or less polarizing, I think the target audiences have shifted in focus.
There will always be controversy surrounding new releases.
Controversy will forever surround film, especially in our current political and societal climate. The thing most worthy of note in my eyes is that companies don’t attempt to shift the focus of their art because audiences themselves have shifted. When companies begin to change the work they make in order to please groups that ultimately can’t be pleased, the quality of the work begins to deteriorate. When film becomes more about creating a fandom, or sometimes an argument, rather than creating art for the sake of art, that’s when things take a turn for the worse.
Making a conscious effort to go into movies with an open mind is more important now than ever. While looking at what people are saying about a movie beforehand might be fun, it is crucial that you not let it sway your own opinion. The beloved creator you follow on Facebook that is telling you Superman (2025) is bad news is getting paid to do that. They have an opinion that can be swayed based on whether their content does well or not. Each side of the aisle is at fault in the way that new releases are perceived now, and it doesn’t appear to be changing any time soon. While Clark Kent might not be “the friend that’s too woke” it is safe to say that audiences themselves, on both sides, have gone too far.
