logo
Superman Ending and Post-Credits Explained: Why It's Not About What's Next for the DCU

Superman Ending and Post-Credits Explained: Why It's Not About What's Next for the DCU

Yahoo2 days ago
Let's make this simple: You want to know if there are any post- or mid-credits scenes in Superman. The answer is yes. The mid-credit 'scene' is really more of a quiet moment of reflection, before a humorous post-credit scene concludes things.
Full spoilers for the movie follow!
Superman has finally hit theaters, acting as the official live-action launch of the new DCU, following the smaller-scale animated series Creature Commandos coming first in terms of release dates. There's a lot at stake here, with Superman being tasked with laying the groundwork for this new DCU and providing a clean slate for the franchise after the previous DCEU ended in 2023 with Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.
Is James Gunn Teasing This Iconic DC Villain for Superman 2?
With the New Lex Luthor, James Gunn Unlocks the Trick to Supervillains
James Gunn Took a Huge Risk By Changing Superman's Origin Story, Does It Work?
Superman Review
Superman and Why the Battle for Truth, Justice and A Better Tomorrow Is Neverending
Ranking the Superman Actors
The Utterly Bizarre History of Superman's Powers
Superman Movies Ranked Worst to Best and Where to Watch Them
The film involves Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult) releasing information Superman (David Cornenswet) himself never knew about his Kryptonian parents (who intended him to 'rule without mercy' on Earth) in order to turn the public against Superman and move forward with his own nefarious plans. So where does the movie leave off as far as setting up what's to come? And why is its more broad approach to universe-building probably a wise call compared to some of the more blatant sequel-bait we've grown accustomed to in comic book movies? Let's break it all down.Superman Ending Explained: Luthor Unhinged
Luthor, who has successfully presented himself as someone standing up against Superman's ominous plans, is able to press forward with his partnership with the president of the country of Boravia to invade Boravia's neighbor, Jarhanpur – something Superman had put a stop to the first time Boravia tried it.
The third act of Superman involves two crises unfolding in two separate parts of the world. First, Boravia's next attack is beginning, with the intention of absolutely decimating the people of Jarhanpur. Boravia and Luthor (who has been supplying Boravia with their weapons) intend to split the land between them after they conquer and kill anyone who gets in their way.
But Superman's attempt help Jarhanpur is curtailed when he's told by Mister Terrific (Edi Gathegi) that the world itself is now in danger because of a pocket universe Luthor had created to use as his own private prison (in which he imprisoned Superman himself for a time during the film) that is now causing a physical rift in Metropolis, literally ripping the city apart. And while Metropolis has been evacuated, the rift will continue to grow far beyond the city, endangering countless lives. Obsessed with killing Superman, Luthor ignores the warnings of his own men about what is occurring, sending his agents Ultraman and the Engineer (María Gabriela de Faría) to fight Superman and Mister Terrific.
In the ensuing fight, Superman is nearly killed by the Engineer, but when he manages to turn the tables on his foes, the mysterious, silent Ultraman is finally unmasked and revealed to be a clone of Superman created by Lex.
While Ultraman's comics counterpart is an alternate reality's dark and distorted version of Superman, the idea of an actual clone of Superman is one with plenty of connections to the comics, though this one doesn't use any of the associated names like Bizarro, Cyborg Superman or Superboy.
Superman and Ultraman have a vicious fight, while both attempt to avoid the black hole the rift has opened up, but ultimately Ultraman is pulled into it, ending his threat. Superman then confronts Luthor in his office, stopping him from escaping, while Mister Terrific is able to use Luthor's equipment to shut down the rift, sending the split portions of Metropolis back together - albeit inelegantly, since it's still obvious where things once had been torn in half. With the truth about Lex's entire plot revealed publicly by the Daily Planet – thanks to Eve Teschmacher (Sara Sampaio) sending info to Jimmy Olsen (Skyler Gisondo) – Lex is arrested and sent to Belle Reve Prison, while Superman's reputation is restored. Superman and his beloved Lois Lane (Rachel Bronahan), meanwhile, are reunited and share a mid-air kiss.
As for Jarhanpur, just when all hope seems lost for its people, they are saved by the arrival of Mister Terrific's Justice Gang teammates, Green Lantern (Nathan Fillion) and Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced), along with Superman's new ally, Metamorpho (Anthony Carrigan) - all of whom answered Superman's offscreen request for help. As his army is defeated, the corrupt, genocidal president of Boravia then finds out the hard way that Hawkgirl does not follow Superman's vow to never kill when she takes him high up in the air and drops him to his death.The Girl of Steel Arrives… and She's Plastered!
In the film's final scene, Superman returns to the Fortress of Solitude, where his Superman Robot assistants, trashed during the earlier break-in by the Engineer and Ultraman, have been rebuilt. They are interrupted by a large crashing sound that turns out to be none other than Superman's cousin - Supergirl (Milly Alcock)!
It's not the intro some might expect from a high profile superhero, as Supergirl comes stumbling into the Fortress, asking in a slurred voice 'Why did you move the door?' before asking 'Where is my dog?' - as we learn the superpowered dog, Krypto, who's been accompanying Superman for much of the film, is actually Supergirl's pet. This lines up with dialogue from earlier, when Superman said Krypto wasn't actually his pet and their dynamic was more of a foster situation.
After allowing Krypto to play with her in an amusingly roughhouse manner -- which is to say, he stomps on her with his super strength, smashing the ground beneath her as she laughs hysterically – Supergirl and Krypto depart, with her exclaiming to her cousin, 'Thanks for watching him, bitch!'
Superman then explains to his robots that Supergirl 'likes to go and party on other planets. Planets with red suns. Because of our metabolism, we can't get drunk on a planet with a yellow sun.'
For those who have read the 2021 miniseries Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow, this will all sound very familiar. That comic first introduces a drunken and foul-mouthed Supergirl sitting at a bar on an alien planet, accompanied by Krypto, having traveled there specifically so she can actually get drunk on her 21st birthday. And this reference in Superman makes sense, because next year's Supergirl movie is specifically based on Woman of Tomorrow (and until recently was actually titled Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow). Supergirl's onscreen outfit in this scene – her usual Supergirl uniform, red skirt included, but with a brown jacket over it rather than any visible cape – also mirrors how she looks when we first meet her in that comic.
So for those expecting or hoping the first movie in the DCU to explicitly set up other DCU movies, it very much does with this Supergirl tease… but is there anything beyond that, specifically for Superman himself?
Does Superman Have a Mid- or Post-Credit Scene?
It has one of both… though calling what happens at the mid-credits a 'scene' is wildly overstating things. The initial closing credits play, using the same style and font as Richard Donner's iconic 1978 Superman film, and backed by the song 'Punkrocker' by Teddybears, featuring Iggy Pop - a nod to a scene in the film where Lois and Clark banter about how 'punk' someone as seemingly square as Clark could have been growing up, with Clark arguing that maybe his kindhearted approach to life is itself what's punk these days.
When these main credits conclude, we then cut to a shot of Superman sitting with Krypto. Superman is only seen from behind, as he and his dog – sorry, foster dog – peacefully sit and look at the Earth from the vantage point of the moon, with the two lovingly embracing each other.
If this sounds familiar, it's because we've seen a variation on this image from the film for quite awhile, since it first released as a photo last fall before then serving as the focal point of the IMAX poster for Superman. The moment, in turn, is a big comic book homage, since it's based upon a page from the 2005 comic All-Star Superman, one of Gunn's main inspirations for the movie.
It's a sweet little touch to add to the mid-credits of the film, though it lasts mere seconds and isn't really a scene as much as a moving snapshot.
The post-credits, though, feature an additional bit of interaction between Superman and Mister Terrific. In the scene, we see the two heroes standing next to each other, looking at one of the many Metropolis buildings that was torn apart by Luthor's pocket dimension rift, and then brought back together by Terrific when he fixed things.
Superman, however, is clearly bothered by the imperfect nature of the building's reconfiguration, and when he tells Terrific 'It's just a little off,' Terrific is pissed, replying, 'What do you want me to do!? Do you want me to take it apart and put it back together!?' When Superman stammers no, 'it's just…' Terrific replies, 'Just what!?' and storms off in frustration.
Superman yells after him, 'Hey man, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to bum you out! I shouldn't have brought it up!' But when Mister Terrific continues to walk away, Superman says to himself, 'Darn it, I can be such a jerk sometimes…'
It's an amusing little moment between the two heroes, albeit not an hysterically funny one, but clearly there more as a bit of a slice of life for our clean-cut hero and one of his superpals than anything else. Though, yeah, it will likely lead to some 'That's it!?' reactions from some, who feel if they sat through the credits hoping for an extra scene, it also better be for SOME REALLY COOL THING.
But honestly, that's asking for something that not only has been done many times but has often proven to be a precarious path, as James Gunn is well aware.
Why It's OK Superman Functions as a Standalone Story
The lack of an 'important' mid or post-credit scene underlines the feel of Superman as a film that is introducing a big new cinematic universe, yes, but also is telling its own self-contained story that's making a statement in and of itself. Gunn does a deft job of layering in plenty of elements that can be used later in other projects without ever lingering on them or gratuitously highlighting that you should pay attention to this guy or to some doohickey because it's going to be important in another show or film.
Yes, this film includes characters like Rick Flag Sr., with Frank Grillo reprising the role he originated in Creature Commandos and will continue in Peacemaker Season 2. But for those who aren't aware of any of that, he's just a Washington DC power player. Nathan Fillion will reprise his role as Guy Gardner in the Lanterns TV show, but the movie doesn't go out of its way to name-drop Hal Jordan or John Stewart or belabor that Guy isn't the only Lantern, it just presents him as the superpowered, arrogant a-hole he is.
This is a Superman film focused on this particular story, and Clark rightfully remains at the center of the movie from start to finish, despite the other superpowered characters in his orbit. It doesn't repeat the mistakes of some messier superhero films, which often feel preoccupied with various plot threads and characters aiming towards something down the line.
Gunn's 'let this story stand on its own' approach extends to the credits and connects to his overall philosophy on how to craft a superhero universe now that he's the guy calling the shots. As he recently explained to EW, he doesn't love the idea of using a post-credit scene to tease a brand new character or storyline without a locked-in specific plan for them down the line. Gunn uses his own tease of Adam Warlock's arrival in the credits of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 as an example, noting that by the time he was actually writing Guardians Vol. 3, Warlock wasn't an easy fit in the story he was telling, yet now he felt beholden to include him.
Gunn has also stressed repeatedly that no movie will be fully greenlit and produced by DC Studios without a complete script in place, and you can see some crossover with this mandate and why he didn't want to, say, put a scene in the middle of the credits of Superman where we meet Brainiac or General Zod. He's acknowledged their plans to do more with this version of Superman, of course, but without a specific follow-up already 100% in place (script included), Gunn likely doesn't want to bind himself to anything that might not actually make the most sense later on. Which is why the movie's one actual blatant tease, for Supergirl, is the one that he would feel comfortable with - because that movie's actually been filmed and is a done deal!
The most important goal for Superman, more than declaring 'here is the new DCU,' was making sure this was a great Superman movie, and Gunn has excelled in that regard, delivering what is easily the best film for the character since Richard Donner's beloved version in 1978. The Lois and Clark dynamic is excellent (fueled by the wonderful chemistry between Corenswet and Brosnahan), while the juxtaposition between Clark's Superman HQ at the Fortress of Solitude and the loving home Martha and Jonathan Kent have given him is expertly defined. Martha and Clark feel like just the sort of salt of the Earth, loving, caring people you can believe raised a man as good as Clark.
This version of Superman is exactly the sort of sweet, kind and perhaps sometimes endearingly naive hero he should be, without feeling like he's too old-fashioned or out of touch to invest in. The way this Superman goes out of his way to try and save every single life he can, whether it be innocent people targeted by villains, dogs and squirrels (!) in the line of fire, or even a giant kaiju he's fighting, makes him stand out as someone who truly feels like a person everyone should, yet few do, pattern themselves after. But at the same time, when he needs to go all out in a fight, rest assured, he does so, and it's awesome - just while making sure to also keep an eye out for anyone in danger as a result of the fight.
The movie is a joy to watch, exuding pure comic book-derived joy in a way we haven't really seen in live-action since Sam Raimi's Spider-Man, which is insane considering how many comic book movies have opened since then. When the credits began to roll on Gunn's film, I knew I'd happily welcome more of this version of Superman, but most of all, I wanted to rewatch this movie as soon as possible (which is probably why I've already seen it twice, with a third viewing already planned).
So yeah, Gunn could have moved the Superigirl cameo so that it was the post-credits scene, to leave off on a bigger 'here's what's next' hype move, but that just wasn't necessary. Because even if Gunn had removed the Supergirl scene entirely, Superman would still be a joyous, exciting, feel-good movie that doesn't require any baton passing to feel satisfying.
As Clark himself might say, that's the darn truth.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Gillian Murphy, a Ballerina With Joy and Aplomb, Steps Down
Gillian Murphy, a Ballerina With Joy and Aplomb, Steps Down

New York Times

time18 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Gillian Murphy, a Ballerina With Joy and Aplomb, Steps Down

Gillian Murphy, one of American Ballet Theater's most enduring stars, was living in rural Pennsylvania with her husband, Ethan Stiefel, and their infant son, getting curbside delivery from a market 20 miles away. Murphy and Stiefel had joked that the two-bedroom cabin in the woods was their apocalypse house, and in a way, it was. When the Covid pandemic hit, they moved there. 'Full isolation,' Murphy said in a recent interview at Lincoln Center. 'But in terms of the timing of it, for me as a mom it was kind of amazing. That being said, I also thought my career was over.' Early in the pandemic, Murphy told Kevin McKenzie, then Ballet Theater's artistic director, that if and when the company made it back onstage it would be time for her to wrap things up. He told her that she had years left in her. 'That conversation was really incredible because I would have come back and maybe done 'The Dream' and retired years ago,' Murphy said, referring to the Frederick Ashton ballet. But 'when I got back in the studio,' she continued, 'I ended up feeling so much better than I could have ever expected. I absolutely love to dance. It's actually a little unclear to me why I was just going to walk away from that.' She knew, though, that she wanted to stop while she was still feeling good and to leave on her own terms. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

‘Untamed' Review: A National Park Procedural From Netflix
‘Untamed' Review: A National Park Procedural From Netflix

New York Times

time18 minutes ago

  • New York Times

‘Untamed' Review: A National Park Procedural From Netflix

In the category of 'Shows That Play Differently Under the Current Administration,' this week brings 'Untamed,' a new Netflix mystery mini-series set in Yosemite National Park. On one hand, you can't help wondering whether all those rangers would have time to investigate a mysterious death on the face of El Capitan when the National Park Service has lost nearly 25 percent of its permanent staff since President Trump took office again. Aren't there restrooms that need cleaning? On the other, hiring rangers who look like Eric Bana and Lily Santiago — who play the primary investigators of that mysterious death — might be explained as part of the recent 'Make America Beautiful Again' executive order. Bana, 20 years along from his action-star heyday (when he appeared successively in 'Hulk,' 'Troy' and 'Munich'), plays Kyle Turner, who is not just any ranger. He's an agent of the National Park Service Investigative Services Branch, so he's sort of a federal cousin to the naval investigators at 'NCIS.' Maybe CBS would have gone ahead and called the show 'NPSISB,' but Netflix, cautious by nature, has gone with 'Untamed.' The title refers both to the landscape — mountainous British Columbia locations stand in for California — and to Turner, a laconic loner with a tragic back story and an entire Douglas fir's worth of chips on his shoulder. Even his horse thinks he's too intense. With Bana playing a modern lawman hemmed in by bureaucracy and fueled by guilt and resentment, 'Untamed' sits between neo-frontier soap opera (like 'Yellowstone') and neo-western crime drama (like 'Dark Winds' or the late, lamented 'Longmire'). Mark L. Smith, who created the show with his daughter Elle Smith, has experience in this region of the American imagination, having played up the brutal aspects of the western mythos as a co-writer of 'The Revenant' and creator of an earlier Netflix mini-series, 'American Primeval.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Magazine editors used to be gatekeepers. Do we need them anymore?
Magazine editors used to be gatekeepers. Do we need them anymore?

Washington Post

time18 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Magazine editors used to be gatekeepers. Do we need them anymore?

It's 2025 and veteran Vanity Fair and New Yorker editor Tina Brown is on Substack, opining on private jets and Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theories. Former Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter recently published a memoir about his magazine world heyday, and did a jolly round of interviews with all the new media talkers: fashion podcasts, food podcasts and sound bytes for Interview. And multiple generations of fashion fanatics are pouring one out — and by 'one,' I mean a splash of nonfat oat milk matcha — for Anna Wintour's (pseudo-)retirement from the day-to-day operations of American Vogue. Soon the 21st-century decline of the fashion media landscape will move from tidbits in media newsletters to the silver screen: 'The Devil Wears Prada 2,' a follow-up to the 2006 hit that helped make Wintour a household name, has just begun filming. It follows Wintour's stand-in, Miranda Priestly, navigating the digital revolution. And on the podcast front, a look at what made the company so extraordinary in its prime is the subject of 'The Nasty,' featuring remembrances from Condé Nast's power players on the elevator gossip and the famed Frank Gehry-designed cafeteria at 4 Times Square. Meanwhile, Mr. Big and Carrie — also known as former Condé publisher Ron Galotti and writer Candace Bushnell — are still trading barbs in the press, in recent pieces in New York Magazine and the Times. Welcome back to the '90s! The latest cultural artifact to capture this longing for an earlier, more sparkly zeitgeist is 'Empire of the Elite: Inside Condé Nast, the Media Dynasty That Reshaped America,' by New York Times media reporter Michael M. Grynbaum. Tracing the Newhouse family business that owns Vogue, Vanity Fair and the New Yorker throughout the 20th century and into this one, the book's buzziest reporting focuses on the careers of Brown, Carter and Wintour. Their 1980s go-getter tenures saw them begin as outsiders who, through their unusual points of view and the largesse of Si Newhouse, created a powerhouse of influence and style — 'one company in Manhattan told the world what to buy, what to value, what to wear, what to eat, even what to think,' Grynbaum writes — that is the subject of continued fascination on social media and in pop culture writ large. 'When you look at Condé Nast, it's almost the history of social aspiration. And this goes back all the way to the founding: Vogue comes out of the 400 and the Gilded Age,' said Grynbaum in a recent interview, referring to the list of society insiders established by Caroline Astor in the late 19th century. 'If you look at the Condé Nast of the mid-century, you see the WASPy, eastern establishment of the sack suits and threadbare sweaters, and it has this kind of understated aesthetic. By the time you get to the '80s, you have the rise of Wall Street and Gordon Gekko, and this newfound willingness to flaunt.' As Grynbaum noted, Brown's first issue of Vanity Fair appeared the same week that 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous' appeared on TV. 'It represented a new establishment,' Grynbaum said, 'and idea of what it meant to be successful in America at that time.' You can see why younger generations are fixated. Grynbaum's book has all the goods to induce mania in anyone with aspirations to work in media, mostly a rare combination of shocking budgets and provocative taste: anecdotes about expense accounts, interest-free mortgages on West Village townhouses and photoshoots with eye-popping budgets for items like $30,000 to rent a live elephant. Carter would dispatch his assistant to travel destinations a day in advance to set up an exact reproduction of his New York desk, complete with pencils (and no paper clips — he had a distaste for them that was noted in the staff manual). One editor was told that her chosen hotel wasn't splashy enough — upgrade! 'It was considered unprofessional to go into the office in flat shoes. Maybe a pair of Chanel ballet flats, but a pair of brogues, absolutely not,' Vogue writer Plum Sykes tells Grynbaum. Writers and editors FedExed their luggage so they didn't have to deal with it on the plane. (In business class, or the Concorde, of course.) The accounts of this time of pure luxury are rollicking even as you become desensitized to them. Picture this: Carter had just landed in Venice in 2006 for a Condé retreat with the business's top editors and executives, when he realized he'd misplaced his top-secret mock-up issue of Portfolio, the company's not-yet-launched business magazine that had been given to him confidentially. He called his assistant Jon Kelly (now a founder of digital media start-up of Puck), who had just landed on a red-eye from New York, and told him that he'd probably left it on a gondola. Kelly, armed with his usual 10,000 euros in petty cash for such trips, spent the next several hours bribing gondoliers until he turned up the issue. It's an equally impressive tale of unimaginable resources and assumptions of powerful editors, plus the bygone maniacal pluck of their lowly assistants. It recalls a scene from 'The Devil Wears Prada' in which Anne Hathaway, as Miranda's struggling assistant, Andy, manages to find a copy of the not-yet-released Harry Potter book for the editor's daughters. And it would make a much more glamorous (and likely entertaining) film than the 'Prada' sequel. Who wants to watch Miranda Priestly square off with traffic reports? But the most provocative, eyebrow-raising reveal from the book is this: We still live in the world Condé Nast and its intimidating editors created. We just don't know how to make sense of it, because we lack the requisite curatorial eyes. TikTok is filled with home tours that recall the real estate porn of Architectural Digest; even though they're probably out of reach, we're still obsessed with decoding the behaviors and wardrobes of the ultra-elite. 'Our contemporary Instagram culture — airbrushed, brand-name-laden, and full of FOMO, where pretty people do pretty things in pretty places without you — is a DIY replication of the universe that the celebrity editors of Condé Nast carefully created month after month, year after year,' Grynbaum writes. He argues that, although it may be Brown's tenure at Vanity Fair that is most often celebrated, her time at the New Yorker was more audacious and revolutionary: 'It is striking to realize the degree to which her tenure, so controversial in its day, laid the template for our modern notion of upper-middlebrow journalism,' he writes. 'Tina's approach was giving elite Americans permission to think seriously about subjects that the old version of the magazine had rarely deemed worth of deep consideration: tabloid scandals, hit sitcoms, right-wing demagogues, porn stars.' Today, Grynbaum said, 'I think we get bombarded by different sources of information all day long on our phones. And as much as it's been great to see the rise of new voices in the culture that may have not had a forum in the past, now we live in a state of chaos. I think we're yearning for curators, social curators.' What magazines like Vanity Fair, Vogue and GQ did in their prime was help readers make sense of the world — which, now, with social media and the reliance on video content, is even messier. It's not for nothing that the role of the editor in chief, not the designer or photographer or critic, is the one that most young women aspire to have in fashion. For decades — maybe even centuries, if you want to look at the fashion magazines that emerged in the 18th century to track the whims and shopping sprees of Marie Antoinette — the power of choice, of pointing to one skirt, or restaurant, or reporter, play or artist over another, has been a potent domain. Condé's elitist reputation is one it has long struggled to shake — those stories make for some of the funnier and more disturbing reporting in the book, such as a writer's recollection of losing out on a job for eating asparagus the wrong way — and was first the source of its power, then a contributor to its fall. Wintour in particular has tried to broaden the outlook and perspective of Vogue, with uneven results. Yet the new media that has emerged largely replicates the Condé way. Grynbaum pointed out that many of the most popular Substacks — such as the various shopping newsletters and Emily Sundberg's Feed Me, a highly influential roundup of gossip and stories from across tech, media, style and business — are about an unusual person's singular perspective. There is still a desire for figures who can point us, and our attention spans, to what is worth watching, buying, talking about or pondering. Ultimately, what do we long for when we long for the golden age of Condé Nast? It is the dream of having money — and taste.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store