James Gunn is already writing his next movie following Man of Tomorrow. Deadline reports the development with a brief statement from Gunn: “Already in it.” For readers wondering whether he has begun another feature, that answers the immediate question. It does not, by itself, identify the movie or tell us what story he intends to tell.
The distinction matters because “Gunn’s next movie” invites a much bigger conversation than the announcement can currently support. A screenplay in progress offers something concrete to anticipate, but its appeal ultimately depends on more than where it might sit in a sequence of releases. The most interesting question is what dramatic problem has made Gunn want to start writing again.
This is spoiler-free development commentary, rather than a review of either film. There is no basis here for evaluating unseen scenes, quoting character dialogue, or declaring how an ending prepares the next installment.
What Gunn’s writing update actually establishes
The news has a clear center: Gunn has begun writing the movie described as his next after Man of Tomorrow. His short response communicates activity. It does not provide a measure of progress. Being inside a writing process might involve exploring a structure, revising scenes, or developing a draft; the quoted words do not distinguish between those possibilities.
That leaves several practical questions unanswered by this announcement. What is the title? Who is the central character? Is the project connected narratively to Man of Tomorrow? What commitments exist beyond the writing itself? Those are separate pieces of information, and none should be smuggled into the phrase “next movie.”
In particular, “following” describes a relationship in a filmmaker’s workload without necessarily explaining the relationship between two stories. It is reasonable to be curious about a continuation. It is premature to treat that curiosity as a synopsis.
The useful reading is therefore straightforward: there is a new writing effort to follow. Readers do not yet have enough information from this update to decide whether its premise appeals to them, much less whether it will succeed.
Why the character question should come before the title
A title would make the announcement easier to discuss. A character’s predicament would make it more revealing. Knowing who appears in a film tells us less than knowing what that person wants, why they cannot obtain it easily, and what pursuing it might cost someone else.
For Gunn’s next screenplay, those are the questions worth keeping at the center of the conversation. Does its protagonist have a goal that can sustain a feature? Is there a relationship capable of making that goal uncomfortable? Can the conflict expose something the character would prefer to hide? These are critical criteria, not claims about what Gunn has written.
My preference would be for an eventual announcement that provides a compelling dramatic situation alongside any recognizable names. A familiar character can attract attention immediately. Sustaining that attention requires decisions whose consequences feel personal, even when the surrounding spectacle is enormous.
The same approach informs our character-focused discussion of Hal Jordan’s legacy and John Stewart’s future: the value of a continuing story depends on what its movement means to the people living through it. Applying that standard to Gunn’s next film will require actual story material.
Man of Tomorrow deserves its own dramatic destination
News about a subsequent project can subtly change how audiences approach the film immediately before it. Instead of asking what Man of Tomorrow wants to accomplish, the conversation can become a search for whatever it might announce next. That is an understandable temptation, but a limiting way to watch a movie.
Our critical standard should remain the same regardless of Gunn’s writing schedule: a film needs to make its own conflicts worth experiencing. Connections to another story can enrich that experience. They cannot substitute for a satisfying development of the relationships, choices, and consequences within the film itself.
For a character-centered review, the decisive evidence would be how someone behaves under pressure. Does a later decision complicate an earlier conviction? Does a reconciliation require sacrifice? Does a victory change a relationship, or simply end an action sequence? Those questions remain useful even when viewers know nothing about future installments.
Nothing in Gunn’s brief update establishes how Man of Tomorrow handles those challenges. Equally, beginning another screenplay is no reason to assume that the earlier film exists primarily to prepare it. Each work should earn its interpretation through what appears on screen.
Writing momentum is interesting; quality remains an open question
“Already in it” is an appealingly direct answer. It gives the announcement a sense of forward motion without offering the language of a formal pitch. Still, enthusiasm about a writer working should remain distinct from a verdict on the work.
A writing update cannot tell us whether the scenes have tension, whether the humor fits the characters, or whether the emotional climax has been earned. Those judgments depend on execution. Even a promising premise can become inert if its characters merely deliver explanations; an apparently modest premise can become absorbing when competing desires collide.
This is the same separation between external narrative and artistic evidence explored in our discussion of what a “misunderstood masterpiece” argument needs to prove. Expectations and reputations help frame a conversation. A persuasive assessment must eventually return to the film.
What would make the next announcement meaningful?
The most useful follow-up would clarify the project’s identity and basic dramatic premise. Readers would then be able to distinguish a continuation from a different creative direction and understand why this particular story might warrant a feature.
Until then, the deeper significance of Gunn’s update lies in the gap between starting a movie and giving audiences a reason to care about it. Writing is where a prospective production must become a sequence of human choices: someone wants something, someone resists, and neither emerges entirely untouched.
That is the promise worth watching. Gunn has indicated that the work is underway. The next revealing step will be learning whose story has drawn him back to the page—and what makes that story necessary to tell.
Original content by this site's editorial team. Published: October 4, 2026 at 23:41:59 PDT (Los Angeles time)
