When James Gunn announced his intent to bring Superman back to his comic book roots in Superman: Legacy, fans were intrigued and excited. Gunn’s promise seemed to be a declaration of respect for the legacy of the Man of Steel, particularly as portrayed in the golden and silver ages of DC Comics. However, with the unveiling of David Corenswet’s Superman, a curious disconnect has emerged.

While Corenswet dons the iconic red trunks and brighter colors reminiscent of the classic Superman design, the physical portrayal appears to deviate from the Superman many envisioned. The character in the comics has always been depicted as an epitome of strength, with a physique that is both powerful and inspiring. Corenswet’s version, though charming and youthful, presents a less muscular and looser costume that has left fans questioning: Is this truly the Superman James Gunn promised?

In the comics, Superman’s suit has always been a second skin—a tight, form-fitting outfit that accentuates his extraordinary physique. It symbolizes both his superhuman strength and his Kryptonian heritage. This look not only established Superman as an aspirational figure but also underscored his invincibility.

David Corenswet’s Superman, as seen in the early promotional material, breaks from this tradition. The suit appears looser, lacking the body-hugging quality fans are accustomed to. Moreover, Corenswet’s physical build, while athletic, does not convey the same imposing muscularity that has defined Superman in both comics and previous live-action adaptations.

James Gunn has emphasized that his Superman will focus on the character’s humanity and optimism rather than his god-like qualities. However, by downplaying the physical aspect, Gunn risks alienating fans who see Superman’s iconic look as integral to his character.

Superman’s costume has always been more than just a uniform—it is a visual shorthand for his strength, nobility, and connection to Krypton. The decision to make the suit looser and less defined raises questions about the creative direction.

A tighter, muscle-enhancing suit, such as the one worn by Henry Cavill in Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel, emphasized the character’s superhuman nature. Cavill’s Superman not only looked like he could move mountains but also embodied the ideals of perseverance and protection.

In contrast, Corenswet’s looser costume seems almost casual, which some argue undermines the grandeur of the character. Instead of inspiring awe, this Superman risks blending in with the crowd—an odd choice for a figure meant to stand apart as a beacon of hope.

James Gunn’s decision to downplay the physicality of Superman has sparked debates about authenticity. Can a Superman who doesn’t visually represent the strength and power of the character still be true to the source material?

In the original comics, Superman’s physique was as much a part of his identity as his moral compass. His muscles weren’t just for show—they were a visual cue that this was a being capable of extraordinary feats. By opting for a less muscular and less defined costume, Gunn’s Superman may miss an essential element of what makes the character so iconic.

Part of the backlash stems from the inevitable comparisons to Henry Cavill, whose portrayal of Superman set a high standard for the modern era. Cavill’s version of the character exuded a sense of majesty, with a physique and costume design that paid homage to the comics while updating them for contemporary audiences.

David Corenswet, on the other hand, represents a younger, more grounded Superman. This approach aligns with Gunn’s focus on Superman’s human side, but it risks alienating fans who see the character as an aspirational figure of power and heroism.

James Gunn’s attempt to capture the spirit of the classic Superman is admirable, but some argue he may be overcorrecting. By focusing so heavily on the optimism and relatability of the character, Gunn seems to have sidelined the physical attributes that made Superman a larger-than-life figure.

Superman’s strength and physique are not just aesthetic choices—they are central to his identity. A Superman without muscles is like a Batman without gadgets; it feels incomplete.

As Superman: Legacy approaches its release, it remains to be seen whether Gunn’s vision will resonate with audiences. While the intent to honor the character’s roots is commendable, the execution must balance both the human and superhuman aspects of Superman.

David Corenswet is undoubtedly a talented actor, and his performance may ultimately redefine how we view the character. However, if Gunn’s creative decisions continue to stray from the physicality and presence that fans associate with Superman, Superman: Legacy could face an uphill battle in winning over the audience.

The red trunks may be back, but without the iconic physique and commanding costume, is this truly the Superman fans have been waiting for? That question will likely define the success—or failure—of James Gunn’s ambitious reboot.