By Peter Tonguette
Superman has been given many monikers in the course of seeking truth, justice, and the American Way: the Man of Steel, the Man of Tomorrow, the Last Son of Krypton, and so on. But one of the most consequential, as far as Hollywood is concerned, might just be Moviedom Trail-Blazer.
Long before comic book characters were the subject of cinematic universes, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster’s creation was mined for his filmic potential in everything from animated shorts produced by Fleischer Studios to a hugely influential television series starring George Reeves. In 1978, producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind marshaled the resources of big-budget A-list filmmaking to produce “Superman: The Movie,” directed by Richard Donner and starring Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, and Marlon Brando. That film birthed three sequels, from 1980 through 1987, and has loomed over subsequent big-screen revivals, including “Man of Steel” (2013) and “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” (2016).
Now comes writer-director James Gunn, who, with his own “Superman,” makes his own additions to, and subtractions from, the ongoing cinematic mythology. In Gunn’s phenomenally popular film, which DC Studios/Warner Bros. released to enthusiastic notices and substantial box-office returns this summer, David Corenswet stars as Superman, who, in this version, confronts confusion over his earthly mission, widespread doubt among the public he serves, and innumerable bad guys. Rachel Brosnahan stars as Lois Lane, the Daily Planet reporter who shares office space (and romantic feelings) with Superman’s alter ego, Clark Kent. Gunn has deepened Superman while widening his world, incorporating into the story not only Lex Luthor (played by Nicholas Hoult) but Mister Terrific (Edi Gathegi), the Green Lantern (Nathan Fillion), Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced), as well as Krypto the Superdog and an unruly kaiju. All of this activity is going on as Superman is playing a role in a war in the nation of Jarhanpur, and contending to ambiguous messages from his late Kryptonian parents.
Expertly managing the well-wrought emotions, dabs of humor, and kinetic action are picture editors Craig Alpert, ACE, and William Hoy, ACE—first-time collaborators who each brought their unique skillsets to the mega-production: Alpert previously worked with Gunn as an additional editor on “The Suicide Squad” (2021), but his background rests heavily in comedy, including “Knocked Up” (2007) and “Deadpool 2” (2018). Hoy, for his part, counts among his many credits several prominent comic book adaptations, including “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” (2007), “Watchmen” (2009), and “The Batman” (2022).
In a recent interview with CineMontage, both editors agreed that Gunn’s “Superman” represented a unique—and uniquely fulfilling—collaboration. Below are excerpts from our conversation with Alpert and Hoy.
CineMontage: Bill, how did you approach this project given the mythology that precedes any entrant in the Superman film franchise?
William Hoy: When James sent the script to me, I had questions about Superman and his actual character and how he exists in the American psyche. I always had had those questions because I had an association with Zack Snyder, just before he did “Superman.” So we had discussions about that: What do you do with Superman, who’s omnipotent and could actually be God? That could make for a very bland character, but when I read James’s script, I found that he’s actually more vulnerable in this particular version. When we discover him, he’s beat up. I mean, when have you seen Superman so beat up—without Kryptonite? James had a whole new take on it, leaving some of the other ones behind.
CineMontage: He’s not only physically vulnerable but anxious to be perceived as doing the right thing for humanity.
Hoy: His psyche is vulnerable, too. That is something completely new. He just wants to be human, basically, or at least fit in with the human community.
CineMontage: Craig, how do you think this movie fits in the larger Superman movie universe?
Craig Alpert: Even before I read it, I knew James would have a different take on the character than we’ve seen before. It did remind me a lot of Richard Donner’s original film, but it also just read more comic book-y, which I found appealing. James’s approach to Superman just felt like a more hopeful, heartfelt, and sincere reinvention of the iconic hero that I really hadn’t seen before.
CineMontage: There are a lot of elements that feel like they are from a comic book, from the presence of characters like the Green Lantern to unusual set pieces, like Superman battling the kaiju.
Alpert: James also had a kaiju in “Suicide Squad.” And even during that intimate scene in Superman’s apartment where Lois comes to speak to him, in the background there’s a dimensional imp that the Justice Gang is fighting. It speaks to James’s vision and creativity that he can layer in interesting world-building into Clark’s story. He’s a true fan, and it shows in the film.
CineMontage: So what is a dimensional imp, anyway?
Hoy: It comes from a different dimension! It’s a funny thing, because Lois and Superman are playing a very intimate scene there, and you have this imp in the background and we have the Justice Gang trying to beat it back. If you play the sound effects too loud, it really takes away from the intimacy of the scene. By the way, it was shot that way—that thing is back there. There was no taking it out. If you were to take it out, it would just disrupt the whole lighting of the scene.
CineMontage: Could you both talk about the tone you were hoping to achieve in the movie? Gunn is not afraid to go for jokes in between the emotion and the action.
Hoy: Once we got scenes and the movie in a certain shape, we saw the movie as a whole. Then we could go and say, “This is not the time for humor.” Or: “This is the time to lighten it up.” We did lose a bit of humor here and there, because it wouldn’t have been appropriate for the moment. Take the scene when Lois is interviewing Clark. I mean, Lois and Clark are fantastic in that scene, but a lot of those particular performances were already there. The performances and the direction gave us a good indication of how to approach the tone.
Alpert: The interview scene is sort of the first intimate scene with Lois and Clark. It’s really interesting when you watch it with an audience because of how engaged they are. They’re laughing at all the right moments. It’s a fairly long scene compared to everything else around it. It’s basically two people having a conversation in a living room, but it was a pivotal relationship moment that showcased Clark’s vulnerability and Lois’s uncompromising journalistic integrity. The scene sets the tone for the rest of the film: Clark is a character with feelings and frustrations, and Lois isn’t just Clark’s girlfriend. She’s a talented journalist who isn’t afraid of asking hard questions, even of Superman. Ultimately we wanted people to root for and believe in these characters and their motivations, which are set up in that scene.
Hoy: What I love about this movie is that there’s lots of character development. That scene goes a long way to laying the groundwork for Lois and Clark’s relationship. It’s long, but I’ve watched the movie many times, and I was always into that scene. There were some comments that maybe it was too long, but in trying to cut it down, you would be losing the buildup. There’s a certain rhythm to that scene, and the actors are so good in it. Let them take over that scene.
CineMontage: Was it nice to have a scene that was free of special effects?
Alpert: I think so. I mean, we worked so closely with the visual effects department on all the other scenes, going all the way through the whole process, that having the ability to have a scene where you are free to make any changes, even up to the last minute, was nice to have. The heavy lifting in the scene doesn’t come from effects or action: it’s two actors having a heart-to-heart, and that’s atypical in a lot of comic book films.
Hoy: For me, certainly on my resume I’ve done a lot of action and visual effects movies, but within that, there are a lot of dramatic scenes, too. When it comes to dialogue scenes in a movie, certainly I love those, but it’s not that it’s easier or more difficult. In heavy visual effects action sequences, you still have to have character. I always look for that when I’m watching other people’s movies.
CineMontage: How did the two of you divide up your work on the film?
Hoy: As dailies were coming in, we just took whatever scenes were available and started cutting. Later on in the process, we might have to overlap scenes and make changes to the other person’s edit. James communicated with us during the shoot itself, so he was giving us notes. We sent him cuts on PIX, and then he watched it and sent us notes by email. So not only did we have dailies coming in, but we were also trying to execute his notes. Ultimately, we were a lot closer once we got to editor’s cut because many of the scenes James had gone through already. Then, after the picture was in one piece, it just kind of fell organically which reel each person was going to take. I think Craig took the first, say, 30 or 40 minutes, we kind of divvied up the middle, and I handled the third act because it had so many visual effects. You have to kind of have one person overseeing that.
Alpert: I thought what was great about the way Bill and I worked is that we constantly communicated, showed cuts to each other, and discussed them. We both sort of had our hands in everything. It was very collaborative.
CineMontage: Did “Superman” evolve a great deal during post?
Alpert: Every movie evolves, but James’s films, in general, I find stay pretty true to the script that he wrote. There’s always a refinement of tone, timing, rhythm, and pace in a scene. It just all slowly developed as we got further into post, and as James shared the film with his friends. In the third act that Bill was working on, he was experimenting with different restructures.
Hoy: Structurally, the movie has a certain continuity. All the way up to the third act, those scenes were played pretty much in continuity. When we got to the third act, the way it was written and shot, and in the very first cut, we spent a lot of time going back and forth: Superman fighting [nemesis] Ultraman, we go to Jarhanpur, Superman fighting Ultraman, then we go to Mr. Terrific. That was how it was laid out, but we found that it was disruptive and it wasn’t interesting. We cared more about Superman than we did some of the other subplots, so we started to refine that by not cutting back and forth.
CineMontage: At about two hours and 10 minutes, the movie is long, but it doesn’t leave the audience exhausted.
Hoy: James never said that we had to hit a particular time. He never cared about that, but we weren’t that long in our editor’s cut—we were like 2:17. It was going to play the way it was going to play, and we were going to cut this movie to make it play the best way possible.
CineMontage: The prominence given to Krypto gives us a clue about Gunn’s perspective. Was there any thought about there being too much Krypto?
Alpert: James loves animals and loves dogs. He has a dog named Ozu, which Krypto was sort of modeled after. There really wasn’t ever a conversation about trimming Krypto. James just leaned into it. Krypto brought a lot of comedy and relatability to Clark, and audiences really enjoyed the character.
Hoy: We had one scene where Krypto was taken out because James realized that it was disruptive there. It was a funny scene, but it didn’t serve the purpose as a whole.
Alpert: Krypto humanizes Superman, which, I think, is why everything works so well together.
CineMontage: Was it fun working with the performances by this cast?
Hoy: When the dailies started coming in, I just thought that Rachel Brosnahan and David Corenswet just embodied those characters. I haven’t seen such character development for Lois and Clark/Superman in many movies. Casting Superman, if he is not your Superman, you’re in big trouble, but I think David Corenswet is Superman now.
CineMontage: Would you like to say something about your crew?
Hoy: We had a great crew. Our assistants, our PAs, and our music editors were, along with us, in a big kind of bullpen area on the Warner Bros. lot. There were dogs everywhere—people would sneak in their dogs. It kept everything light. Certainly there was pressure on this movie in the beginning, but I tried to put it in the back of my mind and hopefully everybody else did.
Alpert: A great crew is essential to an editor’s success, and in our office there was a lot of camaraderie. For the holidays, our PAs would put decorations all around the office. I felt like everyone really enjoyed coming in, and on the last day with the DCP check, it was sort of emotional with people. We all hugged and walked away. It felt very special to me that, with such a large crew, everyone felt like family. It was an amazing experience, and it’s something I’ll always remember. I’m grateful to James and Warner Bros. for the opportunity to tell Superman’s story.
