If you go to see the new Fantastic Four: First Steps movie, you're likely going to come out pleasantly surprised — as I did — that Marvel actually delivered something that wasn't just decent, but also pro-nuclear family and maybe even a bit pro-life.
However, you'll also probably step out of the theater thinking, "that wasn't what the access media told me the movie was going to be."
And that seems to be a developing pattern. People get these preconceived notions from legacy media sources that — surprise, surprise — weren't exactly honest about what they were reporting on.
Before I go into that, I want to address where I saw it in full display... James Gunn's Superman film.
Read: I Saw 'Superman' and It's Both Not What You Think, and Still Everything You Expected
The big controversy around Superman was that James Gunn was reportedly trying to sell it as an immigrant story in the midst of Donald Trump's huge expulsion of illegal aliens within the country. The political tensions were — and still are — high enough that violence and riots have become a feature in regard to the topic.
According to Variety, Gunn said in no uncertain terms that the film was an immigrant story and that it was political. The outlet did what many big-time media outlets do and that's put the most divisive part of the quotes into the title, which ended up being "James Gunn Says ‘Superman’ Is About an ‘Immigrant That Came From Other Places’ and How We’ve ‘Lost’ the Value of ‘Basic Human Kindness’: ‘Yes, It’s About Politics.'"
But Gunn's comments were a bit more nuanced, even in the Variety article:
“I mean, ‘Superman’ is the story of America,” Gunn explained. “An immigrant that came from other places and populated the country, but for me it is mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost.”
Gunn acknowledged that the movie’s themes may be interpreted differently across political groups, especially considering the current nationwide unrest around immigration. However, Gunn stands by the ideals embedded in “Superman,” and added that he doesn’t care if anyone takes offense.
“Yes, it plays differently, but it’s about human kindness and obviously there will be jerks out there who are just not kind and will take it as offensive just because it is about kindness. But screw them,” he said.
He continued, “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? It’s really about their relationship and the way different opinions on basic moral beliefs can tear two people apart.”
As it turns out, the quote was originally from The Times, and reading that piece, you quickly learn that they didn't give you the question they asked Gunn to get that response, but they did seem intent to play up the topic. Gunn admitted that the film may play differently in red states than in blue states, but that ultimately, the film is about kindness and there will be people out there looking to take offense.
The Times then decided to play this up further by noting how Gunn ran afoul of conservatives online in the past, bringing up Mike Cernovich bringing up Gunn's social media history of overly-edgy shock-value jokes that were cringe even in the time he told them.
Even at the time, I thought it was a strange thing for Gunn to say just before the movie's release, especially since comments like these can really cause fan goodwill to drain from a movie faster than a rabbit chased by a dog.
Of course, many people took that bait, including conservative-leaning media, further spreading the idea that Gunn had turned Superman into an anti-Trump billboard of sorts.
Then Gunn's position came into clearer focus in that... he didn't have that position at all. Variety's Marc Malkin tried to drag Gunn into the topic on the red carpet with "MAGA's going nuts" over the immigration topic, to which Gunn seemed wholly unwilling to take the bait and made it clear this movie is for everybody.
"I'm not here to judge people," said Gunn, his body language clearly broadcasting discomfort. "I think this is a movie about kindness, and I think it's something everyone can relate to."
James Gunn responds to MAGA backlash over calling #Superman an immigrant: "I think this movie is about kindness, which everyone can relate to." pic.twitter.com/kUdzJleUsT
— Variety (@Variety) July 8, 2025
Weird disconnect from point A to point B, which means either Gunn's original comments were either baited and recontextualized by The Times, or Gunn's publicist wrote that for him. It could also be that Gunn's comments were harming the film through bad PR, and he was now trying to pull back, but again, I think it was an odd statement to make from the beginning and not one that Gunn would typically give. He's usually a very middle-of-the-road guy, or at least he has been in the past handful of years.
I can't speak for his brother, Sean Gunn, who did run his mouth, but all the other actors seemed unwilling to engage with Malkin's baiting.
Walking out of the movie, one of the first thoughts I had was, "That wasn't really an immigration story. It was exactly what Gunn said it was." If it was an immigration story, then it strips the left of the meat they need to make the argument. The plot twist about the intent of Superman's parents sending him there wouldn't have exactly played well with the left, and I notice the immigration angle died off upon the movie's release.
But let's fast-forward to Fantastic Four: First Steps, where we heard all sorts of weird things about the movie.
In an interview with Collider, there's a lot of talk about the film being period accurate, but that Sue Storm will be getting a bit of an upgrade to "leader" of The Fantastic Four. Again, we're not given the question that was asked, but Collider plays up how this will get away from the "male-gazing era of filmmaking," a charged phrase that speaks of its intent to frame things a certain way.
The quote from Collider's interview with producer Grant Curtis is as such:
“If you do go back through the comics, you realize that Sue Storm is arguably the leader of the Fantastic Four, because without Sue Storm, everything falls apart.” While not naming the past films directly, Curtis does recognize the need for better characterization for women in these films, “We had the desire to date aesthetically, but in terms of character and treatment, who should be front and center, it's like, hey, let's tell the best story possible.”
Of course, Pedro Pascal only fed the leadership role with his own quote about how “I love being led in a way," which is definitely something Pascal would say, but again, I want to emphasize that I'm not entirely sure how these questions were framed. It's clear by Collider's own language they wanted this to be the case, so how did they bait the question?
Regardless, other media outlets bit on it and enthusiastically hyped the angle. ComicBookMovie.com slapped the title "THE FANTASTIC FOUR: FIRST STEPS Producer Appears To Confirm That Sue Storm Will Be The Team's Leader" on the top of their page, which was then amped by IMDB. Big Issue also cemented the rumor adding "as she should be" in the title.
Again, stepping out of the Fantastic Four film, I was once again struck with how different the movie was from the media-born expectation. Was Sue Storm the leader of The Fantastic Four? No, Reed Richards was the uncontested head of the group.
Sue was definitely a strong woman who was decisive and wasn't afraid to take action when she needed to, but she wasn't the giving out orders and calling the shots like a commander on the battlefield. She was definitely the moral heart of the four, but it's a role that fit the story well, and a lot of her decisions were made around the love and maternal protection.
Read: Fantastic Four Review: Did Marvel Actually Deliver Something Worth Watching?
Again, I couldn't help but think the media was trying to sell us a lens to see this film through that was ultimately warped.
The question is... why?
We know the legacy media has a habit of reporting on the way they want things to be, not the way they are, but what's odd about this is that Hollywood knows these kinds of things aren't good for movies. The audience has rejected movies and television that centers heavily on modern socio-political sensibilities, so they've been kind of drifting away from that. Gunn himself looked acutely uncomfortable with Malkin's attempt to brute force politics into the conversation.
My guess?
The media is doing this because of the golden rule of media coverage: If it bleeds, it leads.
This means that if it shocks, wows, or gets the blood pumping, it's the story. Controversy gets the clicks. Anger creates flame wars that make back-references to your post.
I can't help but think that the legacy media is happy to sabotage a movie or show if it means their report goes viral and the ad revenue flows.
And if that's the case, how many more times will this happen until producers, directors, and possibly even actors begin shying away from these media outlets? They might agree with each other, but when losing money becomes an issue, silence becomes a virtue. Once it truly sinks in that the legacy media is more concerned with its own revenue, and willing to sacrifice studio money by alienating potential audiences, I can't help but think we'll see these figures get quieter and quieter.
