This post contains spoilers for "Superman".

With the Superman of Jamesesiyes Gunn now in cinemas, one of the most anticipated superhero films in recent memory has arrived. We will surely discuss the latest man's takeover of steel for weeks, months and next years, but while many of us are collecting our thoughts, it is worth discussing the latest features that Gun left us - specifically, the two scenes of the film.

Those who remain during the loans are certainly aware that Superman has both medium -sized loans and a scene on the loans. This is not surprising, since a big movie for comic book scenes is nothing new. Hook, Own "Gardaxi of Galaxy Tom 2" had incredible Five From them. What is maybe surprising - if not frustrating - is the fact that these scenes are, greatly, extremely meaningless. There is no hint of a sequel to come. There is no tense of characters that will join the new DC universe in the coming years. Nothing of this kind.

Instead, the scene of the middle credits is just moments of David Corenvet's mud-El, looking at the ground with the dog of the cousin, a crypto (his cousin is a superger, who made a short arrival at the end of the film itself). This scene looks particularly superfluous, as it is essentially Just moving footage of the first crypto image that Gun publicly posted.

As for the scene of the post-credit, the one for which the audience had to wait much longer, it is just a little wrapped between Mr. Superman and Eddie Gategi, Mr. Straini, with the SUPS halfway to call his super-bitch, a super-genius palat for his handmade work in the Metropolis. And that's it. Just a little joke between super friends. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is not difficult to imagine many members of the audience being a combination of confused and/or frustrated on these scenes. They are in no way essential, and honestly, they do not add much to the overall experience. The fans of the comic book film are trained to wait through the loans for fear of missing something big.

At the same time, it is not given that the scenes of the loans should be more than a little fun for the audience. While 2012 is "The Avengers “had a scene with medium -sized credits introduced by ThanosThere was also the infamous scene of the post-credit, which features the strongest heroes on Earth who enjoy a tired battle together. In this case, Gun decided to go to fun and cute, not much consequent. It can frustrate certain film movements, but it is not an inherently bad thing, especially in this case.

One of the reasons that the audience might have been expecting more is the fact that Gun, as a co-head of DC Studios along with manufacturer Peter Safran, is in restarting the DC universe. There are movies on the road next year as "Superger" and "Clayface". There are TV shows in works like "Lanterns" and "Booster Gold". It is not unreasonable to expect that Gun may have wanted to help use one of these projects.

At the same time, Gun here shows some significant restraint. Yes, he also included Super Milli Alcock at the end of the film, which almost felt like a scene of loans, but even did not explicitly explicit thing that Warner Bros. and DC Studio are obliged to pay off. The fact is that Gun clearly does not want to set unreasonable expectations, as when Black Adam included Henry Caville's superman in a scene with credit It will never pay off. Gun and the company are not working at any level of superior success at the moment.

Gun and Safran are very aware of the issues that have kept the previous DCEthat started with "Steel Man" in 2013 and was never completely strong. They have no interest in making the same mistakes. In building the universe, they need to think forward; "Supergirl" has already finished filming and Clayface is before it starts. But they do not make promises they cannot deliver. It is now more or less one thing at a time. Not putting the cart before the horse looks wise.

Even Marvel's film universe, for all its success, deliver more than a few scenes with credit that have never been paidAnd some of them will probably never be. Gun, after directing the trilogy "The Guardians of the Galaxy", is very aware of the dangers that may come up with success and collect the balls that they could never leave, you said. For the audience investing in the DC Universe advancing, these scenes should be taken as a good sign, widely speaking.

For better or worse, these lending scenes seemed to be more or less meaningless with the design. On the one hand, Gun has clearly felt the need to maintain the tradition of loan scenes in the movies with comics living with his download to Superman, but it is not difficult to claim that the scenes were a definition of foam. Maybe the film is better without any scenes with credit? Maybe, but at the very least, Gun does not make promises that he cannot keep them right now, which affects me as a refreshing thing in the world of Big Studio Franchise.

Superman is now in cinemas.