*Henry Cavill (left), David Corenswet (right). Courtesy of Warner Bros. / DC Studios.*

There has never been a better time to be a Superman fan. In the past decade, we’ve been gifted not one but two distinct and powerful visions of the Man of Steel on the big screen — one from Zack Snyder and one now emerging from James Gunn as part of his new DC Universe. Both interpretations honor different parts of what makes Superman great, and both deserve appreciation. Yet somehow, instead of embracing this abundance, fans have turned the conversation into a battleground of toxicity, missing the point of Superman entirely.

Zack Snyder’s take on Superman, led by Henry Cavill, was a bold attempt to ground the character in our complicated modern world. It wasn’t always easy to watch — but it was never meant to be. Snyder challenged the myth of Superman, asking what it really means to have godlike power in a broken world. In ‘Batman v Superman,’ he gave us perhaps the most powerful moment in Superman’s cinematic history that slipped under the radar of many: Superman, vilified, isolated, and doubted, still chooses to sacrifice himself to save a world that never fully accepted him. That’s not darkness, that’s heroism in its purest, most painful form.

What’s often overlooked is that Henry Cavill wanted to show Superman’s evolution. His intent (during Snyder’s reign) was to start with a man burdened by expectation and fear, and gradually bring us toward the bright, hopeful symbol people were clamoring for. Snyder set the stage for that arc, but the studio pulled the plug too soon. Cavill’s Superman was never allowed to complete the journey, and that’s a tragedy.

Now, James Gunn is taking the reins and he's doing it his own way. His new released ‘Superman’ film already promises a fresh yet familiar tone. David Corenswet looks like he stepped out of a Golden Age comic, but more importantly, he feels real, relatable, and warm. He brings a likability that makes you believe Superman could be your best friend or your next-door neighbor. Gunn’s Superman seems to carry that gentle optimism we associate with Christopher Reeve while still confronting the hard questions about power, identity, and legacy. It’s no less thoughtful than Snyder’s version — just filtered through a different emotional lens.

What’s fascinating is how much mutual respect exists between the two directors. Gunn even consulted Snyder about the Superman costume, specifically about the controversial trunks. These are not men at war; they are artists with different palettes, painting the same symbol from different angles. And they’re friends. Meanwhile, on the internet, the so-called "Snyder Cultists" and "Gunn Cultists" throw digital stones at each other, feeding a war that doesn’t even exist in real life.

This brings us to a bigger problem: the internet’s inability to handle disagreement. Somewhere along the line, fandom stopped being about shared love and became about ownership, tribalism, and ego. People no longer just say, “I didn’t like that version.” Instead, they say, “If you liked that version, you’re not a “real fan.” People mock Snyder for being “too serious” or Gunn for being “too goofy,” not realizing that in doing so, they’re partaking in the very bullying behavior Superman would stand against.

Superman represents kindness, humility, and hope. If you find yourself mocking someone’s love for a film — or spewing terms like “cultist” every time someone disagrees with you — maybe you need to ask yourself what you’re actually fighting for. Because it’s not Superman.

We’ve been gifted with two visionary takes on a timeless icon. Instead of choosing sides, why not recognize the beauty in variety? Superman has always been a reflection of the times. Sometimes he’s a lonely alien trying to find his place. Sometimes he’s a beacon of hope in a troubled world. Sometimes he wears trunks. Sometimes he doesn’t. But at his core, he’s always about doing the right thing, even when it’s hard.

It’s time fans followed his example.

MORE NEWS