Re-Versus: Marvel vs. DC, v0.7.25

Summer is usually a relatively slow season for movies. This July, however, turned out to be quite a strong one – especially for fans of comic book cinema – and much to my (and your, as readers, of course) delight, I managed to be among the first to give proper credit not only to my beloved MCU, but also to the emerging competition in the face of the DCU. And since I realized it’s been a while since I’ve done a re-versus of two films, I figured this would be the perfect moment to bring you the latest Marvel vs. DC showdown, July 2025 edition (for those wondering about the title – yes, the programmer in me took over a little, I’ll admit) and take a closer look at the two undeniable blockbusters of the summer – “Superman” and “Fantastic Four: First Steps”. Without dragging it out too much, I say we dive straight into the pages of these two comic book classics and explore what stood out to me the most (it’s all completely subjective, after all, and I’d love to hear your thoughts at the end of the review). Overall, let’s try to break down both films into more or less meaningful components and take a look at their strengths and weaknesses.

Directing

Let’s start with the easiest part – at least for me – and that’s the clear winner in the directing showdown: James Gunn. At the risk of repeating myself once, twice, and probably who-knows-how-many-more times, I’m a huge fan of this man’s work, regardless of the universe he’s creating in. There’s a lot to be said about Gunn – his projects, his choice of characters, actors, techniques, and everything else he brings to the table. Sure, not everyone likes what he does, but one thing is undeniable: he deserves credit for his boldness, his love for experimentation, and his willingness to make decisions – sometimes single-handedly, that impact the direction of entire cinematic universes. A simple example is his firm stance on not tying “Guardians of the Galaxy” too tightly to the rest of the MCU. He refused to simply continue previous storylines or tease future ones through post-credit scenes that might never go anywhere (and let’s be honest – there are plenty of examples of those). As a result, his Guardians trilogy is arguably the strongest standalone arc within the MCU and one of the most memorable and distinct stories told in the entire franchise.

But back to the topic at hand – put simply, Gunn is a true entrepreneur, and he’s now taking on the challenge of building a new cinematic era from the ashes of DC’s rather underwhelming extended universe, which crumbled after Dwayne Johnson’s frankly pitiful attempt to prop it up with “Black Adam”. In classic Gunn fashion, the director throws us right into the action, skipping over yet another retelling of Superman’s oh-so-familiar origin story – and that’s a breath of fresh air for audiences. Instead of a rehashed narrative, we get a new take on Superman – lighter, more comic book-inspired, and far more upbeat than the brooding version Zack Snyder gave us 12 years ago. Gunn knows exactly how to choose his projects and collaborators, and his earlier contributions to this rebooted DC era were spot on (“Peacemaker”, “Creature Commandos”, and – coincidentally or not – the previous contender in one of my re-versus posts, “The Suicide Squad”). That’s why I genuinely believe the future of this reborn universe is in good hands.

On the other side, we have Matt Shakman – someone I mostly know from seeing his name in the credits of “WandaVision” and a handful of episodes from, admittedly, globally popular shows, though primarily in the realm of television rather than feature films. Still, the task he’s been handed is far from easy, because – let’s be honest – the MCU hasn’t exactly been thriving after its last few attempts. The responsibility of kicking off Phase 6 in a promising way could have easily crushed him under its weight. Fortunately, that’s not what happened at all. While “Fantastic Four” isn’t a revolution by any means and sticks fairly closely to the formula Marvel’s comic book films have leaned on in recent years, the director’s first steps in introducing some of the brand’s most iconic characters – and integrating them into this ongoing chaos – are actually quite successful. Even though Shakman doesn’t take a particularly bold approach (perhaps due in part to the influence of those above him – Kevin Feige included), his film is a breath of fresh, optimistic air in the otherwise stale atmosphere of the MCU.

Plot

This is definitely the part where I have the most to say, but I’ll try to limit it to just a few paragraphs without diving into unnecessary details or spoilers, since the films are still fresh in theatres – and I wouldn’t want to ruin the joy of experiencing them for yourselves. Even though they’re both comic book movies, revolving around a few central characters and touching on similar themes to some extent, the focus points of the two films are quite different. And from an objective standpoint, I think Shakman handled his better.

Don’t get me wrong – like I said at the beginning, Gunn’s attempt to throw us straight into the heart of the action and reintroduce both well-known and lesser-known characters is bold, but not always successful. Honestly, I’ve never been much of a Superman fan to begin with, and this film didn’t fully convince me why I should be. The sluggish beginning doesn’t help either, and even though we’re supposedly right at the centre of the events, the character development feels like it takes far too long. By the time the real action kicks in, I felt like three hours had already passed. And even during the climactic, supposedly most epic part of the film, I still wasn’t fully convinced that Superman was the one I should be focusing on. And yes, that does mean the supporting roles here carried Clark Kent on their shoulders. The extremely charismatic and excellently cast Lois Lane and the Justice Gang – especially the standout portrayal of the Green Lantern – are among the film’s strongest elements. I was far more intrigued watching the solo missions of Mister Terrific and Guy Gardner and the effortless way their takedowns and banter unfolded, than I was by Kent’s battles against giant monsters, for instance.

The family drama surrounding Superman, which more or less sets the story in motion, occasionally clashes with the attempts at comic relief – usually delivered through his loyal dog, Krypto. At first, Krypto felt like a cool idea, but at one point, to be honest, it started to feel like too much. I found myself wishing they hadn’t given him that much screen time, especially considering how the film ends. And while the improvised interview between Lane and Superman was a clever idea and managed to offer viewers some food for thought in those 12 minutes Gunn dedicated to it, the somewhat dull introduction had already lost me a bit as a sympathizer. As the film progressed, it never quite managed to convince me that the protagonist deserved much empathy after his emotional catharsis. In fact, quite the opposite – I was more impressed by the villain. Honestly, I feel like this film gave us one of the most well-developed and pure versions of Lex Luthor we’ve seen on screen. And although his little crew of assistants was largely forgettable, his presence definitely helped provide a fresh perspective on the overall conflict – to the point where, at times, you almost want him to win the fight against his eternal rival.

On the other side, we have a truly family film. Not only because it’s made for families, but because it actually tells the story of one. And that’s exactly what I liked about it – sure, we didn’t see a ton of action from the Four in the literal sense, but there were plenty of bonding moments, emotional warmth, joy, and on-screen chemistry between the characters – something I honestly didn’t expect going in. Even though “First Steps” tells the story of the family’s first steps in a new situation, the first steps of their newest member, the first steps of the heroes in this universe – the film’s pace was surprisingly brisk. Much like in “Superman”, we’re thrown straight into the action with just a bit of backstory about prior events, and I’m actually glad some scenes were cut (mainly the ones with John Malkovich). Shoving too many characters into a film just for the sake of name-dropping rarely does the narrative any favours. And even though the movie still spends a decent amount of time developing the main characters, it never feels like it does. Before I knew it, the Four were already encountering and chasing cosmic creatures. The next moment, they were frantically preparing for the looming battle. It’s as if the film keeps you on edge the entire time, wondering when things will finally explode – which, just like in Gunn’s film, happens in the final act – but the journey there felt much more engaging and effortless.

And the story actually managed to surprise me, as it unfolded a bit differently than I had expected. It’s impossible not to mention – and I think it’s a widely acknowledged positive – that unlike the cosmic dust we were previously served as one of the most iconic entities in the universe, this time we get a fully fleshed-out and grandiose Galactus. Sure, he’s not the size of multiple planets like in the comics, but the way he’s portrayed here fits the storyline really well. Small details like him observing the landmarks and natural beauty of Earth help flesh out his character even more. And while he may not be as fully developed as Lex Luthor, they still make him far more relatable and grounded, if you will. As for the criticism about the Silver Surfer? Completely baseless. Honestly, the way Shalla-Bal’s story was presented would’ve played out exactly the same with Norrin Radd, so I’m glad we got to see a different dimension of the character here. And I’m 99% sure that in the upcoming films we’ll see the original Silver Surfer as well – and everyone will be happy. Oh, and before we move more specifically to the individual character-level fights – H.E.R.B.I.E. was definitely a more interesting and far less annoying sidekick than Krypto. This is probably one of the rare cases where I’m actually glad the film didn’t lean into the typical MCU-style comic relief during moments of panic or helplessness among the heroes.

Cast

We’re entering the most competitive part of the battle now, and, as you’ve probably already guessed, it’s time to take a closer look at the cast of both films. The situation on both sides has its highs and lows, but there are definitely a few things that are easy to spot and worth pointing out. First, the obvious female power, both literally and figuratively, coming from the two lead actresses. Doubts around Gunn and Shakman’s casting choices for their leads still haven’t fully disappeared, even post-premiere. We’ll talk about Superman and Mr. Fantastic a bit later, but I can’t deny how spot-on the casting was for Lois and Sue. With all due respect to Amy Adams and Jessica Alba (count Kate Mara out here), Rachel Brosnahan and Vanessa Kirby steal the spotlight from their male counterparts. They stand out not just visually, but as well-developed and powerful characters. Lane and the Invisible Woman aren’t just central to the plot – they’re the hidden aces that help the men and serve as emotional bridges to the audience. Lois Lane is charming, intelligent, focused, and fearless, and Brosnahan makes the most of every second on screen to win over the fans. On the other side, despite all the early pre-release scepticism, Kirby more than successfully embodies the pillar of family values – a resolute woman and mother (made even more beautiful by the fact that the actress herself is pregnant while simultaneously filming the upcoming “Avengers: Doomsday”, making her a hero in the truest sense). She also brings an alien force strong enough to go head-to-head with the threat to her family.

The bigger issue, if there is one, with the casting lies in the leads themselves, the ones who are ultimately meant to become the leaders of their respective universes. That’s not to say Corenswet or Pascal did a poor job – perhaps it’s just that the shadow of their characters is too big. In one case, we have the inevitable comparisons to Henry Cavill, who may have been a fantastic Superman, but was cast in the wrong environment at the wrong time. He truly didn’t deserve the fate that befell both him and his franchise. But that left Corenswet with big shoes to fill and the fact that his Superman is portrayed as quite vulnerable and sensitive at times might have worked against him. Personally, I think David is a good pick and a fitting Clark Kent, who just needs more space to showcase Superman as the cosmic force (in the best sense of the word) that he’s meant to be. In Pascal’s case, the competition isn’t as fierce when it comes to past portrayals of Reed (maybe with the exception of Ioan Gruffudd, driven mostly by nostalgia for the first modern adaptation, and the fan-favorite John Krasinski, who had his moment – which, for me, was enough). The real challenge is Pascal’s own massive filmography from recent years. It’s honestly impressive how many major franchises he’s been part of. I respect his dedication and work ethic immensely, but here I was hoping to see a slightly more convincing genius. Still, the connection between him, his best friend, his wife, and brother-in-law was clear enough to give me hope that Richards can step up as the future leader of the superhero team – though that’s far from guaranteed, given the recent rumours swirling around the upcoming Doomsday.

The salvation for both leads really comes from the supporting characters, who, at times, carry the biggest weight on their shoulders. Nicholas Hoult is without a doubt the best Lex Luthor I’ve ever seen, and his transition from the X-Men to the “L-Men” was definitely a successful move. I’d be more than happy to see him in the role again, and knowing how Gunn treats the actors he works with, that wouldn’t be surprising at all. Ebon Moss-Bachrach jumps straight into his second Marvel role without hesitation, and although he spends 99% of the time behind CGI, his portrayal of The Thing felt authentic and true to the comics (and I already respect him deeply thanks to “The Bear”). I haven’t had much exposure to Joseph Quinn or Julia Garner (sorry, still haven’t seen “Stranger Things” or “Ozark”), but they definitely had chemistry – even if it was a bit awkward at times – and I’m glad we got to see a different take on the Human Torch and the Silver Surfer, especially one that has nothing to do with Chris Evans’ version (though at least “Deadpool & Wolverine” gave that some closure) or Doug Jones.

Beyond the ones already mentioned above, I absolutely have to point out the perfect addition of Nathan Fillion, who once again proves why he’s a frequent pick for Gunn – and who restored my faith that we might finally get a quality version of one of my most anticipated characters and worlds on the big screen. And I’m not just talking about Hal Jordan – though in that case, I’m placing my hopes on Chandler. Mister Terrific was also a fantastic choice, and I’m really glad Edi Gathegi was given enough screen time to flesh out and develop a character who’s otherwise not that well-known within DC’s ensemble. The same goes for Anthony Carrigan, who’s incredibly good at playing villains (Victor Zsasz in “Gotham”) and antiheroes alike, and he did a significantly better job as Metamorpho compared to the competing Super-Skrulls from “Secret Invasion”. On the other side, I have to mention the inclusion of Mole Man and Paul Hauser, as well as Ralph Ineson, of course – though we didn’t see all that much of the former, and the latter was mostly heard and shown in a form quite different from standard proportions. Still, his costume and overall design were an absolute treat every second the cosmic being was on screen. Overall, many of the small details – and even the smaller roles – were a great way to breathe life into lesser-known characters or nod to the more hardcore comic book fans. I must mention the homage once again paid to Stan Lee, but even more beautifully, the well-deserved tribute given to Jack Kirby, who was just as essential in the creation not only of the Four but also of many of the most iconic superheroes in the Marvel universe.

Visuals

This one’s a close call, but I have to admit, “Fantastic Four” appealed to me more visually. Sure, it’s obvious how much CGI was poured in and where a large chunk of the budget went, but in the end, “Superman” isn’t exactly in a different place either. The truth is, despite the much more cheerful and – let’s call it – brighter tone of Gunn’s film compared to “Man of Steel”, for example, a fairly large portion of the movie took place in quite dark environments. And honestly, the constant shifts from arctic white landscapes to gloomy alternate universes weren’t the most pleasant thing, and at times it was genuinely hurting my eyes to make out what was even happening on screen.

Yes, Gunn’s signature slow-motion was once again top-tier, and I can’t deny that the large-scale villains in the style of Starro and the Green Lantern constructs were cool (I’m really looking forward to seeing what they’ll do in “Lanterns”). But surprisingly, I liked the new look of The Thing even more – bearded version included. A lot of effort clearly went into the Human Torch and the Silver Surfer (or should I say Silver Surferess, to stay politically correct), not to mention the space scenes. Their chase through the multiverse was a visual feast and far easier on the eyes than the slugfests between Superman and Ultraman in the murky depths of the pocket universe. I mean, I did wish for a bit more stretching from Mr. Fantastic, but that bubble gum-like scene was a ton of fun (even if it didn’t quite match the scale of the Ferris wheel scene from the Gruffudd version). And thank God for the film’s rating and script, which spared us from reliving Oberyn Martell’s fate – albeit in a slightly different form.

I didn’t get to see either of the films in IMAX – maybe they were worth the big-screen experience – but once again, the 3D was completely pointless. I really don’t like this Hollywood trend of converting everything post-production just to boost ticket sales and jack up the prices, but hey, that’s the world we live in. On the plus side, the sound design was solid – aside from a few scenes (mainly in “Superman”) where the dialogue was so muffled you could barely tell what was being said. Thank goodness for the subtitles, or we’d be lost on what the lyrical hero was trying to convey (well, we’ll excuse H.E.R.B.I.E. – we know we’re not supposed to understand a thing there). The soundtracks for both films were solid, but Gunn’s movies have always impressed me with killer soundtracks, and John Murphy’s score is no exception. That said, I can’t overlook the fantastic work by Michael Giacchino on the other side – he always delivers, regardless of genre or team behind the project. In general the modernization of the classic themes from both franchises into contemporary arrangements really manages to grab the attention of both old and new audiences.

Score

The truth is, I tried to be as brief as possible above, and we could still talk at length about the latest comic book movies (I haven’t even fully opened the discussion about the previous “Superman” or “Fantastic Four” films, but comparisons with them are absolutely worth a separate review). Still, I think it’s better to simply leave it to you – just go, watch them, and decide for yourselves which one is your favourite, because ultimately, it all comes down to personal taste. If I had to pick one of the two – and if it’s not already clear from what I’ve written above – despite my general preference for Gunn, here I’m wholeheartedly voting for “Fantastic Four”. Yes, “Superman” marks the beginning of a new era, but Shakman’s film “only” kicks off Phase 6, which, by the way, is shaping up to flood us with one highly anticipated film after another (on the big screen – we’re not even touching the series here), and it’s expected to wrap up a cinematic age of Marvel, at least the way we’ve known it, in the next two years. But even without those broader industry considerations, Marvel’s film genuinely made me feel more engaged, more connected to the main characters, more eager to see what happens next, and – most importantly – reminded me how enjoyable going to the cinema can be. And in the end, that’s what matters most to me, especially when I could just wait and watch it at home later.

So my advice is this – enjoy both films if you get the chance. Both have their strengths, and both can help you discover something new, unknown, and intriguing – whether in the comics, the characters, or the universes of DC and Marvel. Who knows, you might even see a reflection of yourself in one of the characters or families on the big screen. Behind-the-scenes photos definitely show that everyone involved in both productions had a great time, and based on the latest updates from SDCC, it looks like both universes are set to keep delivering more doses of fun – and hopefully some fresh surprises and reasons to keep paying attention to the seventh art in its comic book form.