What the New Superman Movie Tells Us About Choosing Between the Arctic and Antarctica

Every blockbuster needs a grand entrance, and few settings can deliver awe like a vast, frozen wilderness. In the new Superman film, that cinematic moment comes early and with force: a sweeping panorama of ice and silence fills the screen. It’s not just a dramatic backdrop; it’s Superman’s spiritual retreat, the Fortress of Solitude. Fictionally located in Antarctica, the setting’s real-world counterpart is the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard, and its stark, immersive beauty is very real. For travellers drawn to epic landscapes and remote drama over traditional comfort, both polar regions hold irresistible appeal. But which end of the Earth should you choose? And how could a superhero film help clarify that question?

Just a week before seeing the film, I found myself in the Arctic, in the remote settlement of Longyearbyen, Svalbard. My mission? To visit six expedition ships in five days, while exploring the town and its surroundings. Longyearbyen, often described as the world’s northernmost town, is a paradigmatic frontier town, a blend of surreal beauty and logistical hub, making it a logical stopover and turnaround port for many expedition cruise travellers. Some tour operators even include it in their itineraries as a land option, and it's easy to see why.

So, why the Superman angle? I’m no superhero aficionado; I lean more towards Star Wars (my brother once played the Emperor’s bodyguard in The Phantom Menace, only to have his stardom dramatically cut short by getting run over by the remote-controlled droid R2-D2, a tale that continues to earn him bar kudos. But it was Superman who found me in Longyearbyen, and that encounter reignited a debate in my mind, one all too familiar to the world of expedition travel: Arctic or Antarctic?

During my time in Svalbard, I was determined to tick off every item on my Arctic micro-bucket list. That included an early morning polar plunge, a rite of passage in polar travel, somewhere between madness and badge of honour, and purest catnip for social media. After my plunge and subsequent Instagram post, I wandered back into town, where something unusual caught my eye: a gleaming silver polar bear sculpture outside a nondescript unit. Curious, I investigated and discovered it belonged to a polar film logistics company. Inside their perimeter sat high-end equipment, and a quick check of their Gram revealed recent involvement in the new Superman film. Now I was intrigued

From a travel perspective, this location decision aligns with a growing trend: people often visit the Arctic before heading to Antarctica. And it’s easy to see why. First, there’s proximity. The Arctic is accessible from major population centres in Europe, Asia, and North America, with regular commercial flights to destinations like Iceland, Norway, and Alaska. By contrast, Antarctica demands a more complex journey, usually via long sea voyages from South America or expensive charter flights to remote airstrips.

Cost is another consideration. Arctic expeditions tend to be less expensive and offer more varied pricing. Antarctica benefits from singular brand recognition as a destination, while the Arctic is perceived as a broad, fragmented expanse. From Greenland to the Russian Far East (currently off-limits), the Arctic spans multiple regions and cultures, and its diversity can dilute its marketing power, but greatly enriches the traveller’s experience.

Human infrastructure also plays a key role. The Arctic has settlements, indigenous communities, roads, and hotels. It has logistics support for both tourists and filmmakers. Antarctica, in contrast, has no permanent residents and only a scattering of research bases, no public infrastructure or traditional hospitality. This difference makes the Arctic more logistically feasible for both film crews and first-time polar travellers.

Wildlife is another compelling argument. While the Superman film features little beyond a superpowered dog, Antarctica and the Arctic offer very different experiences. Penguins or Polar Bears? Both destinations are teeming with life, but I would say there is more variety in the Arctic, especially Svalbard: polar bears, walruses, reindeer, Arctic foxes, beluga whales, puffins, and thousands of migratory birds. On a short boat ride from Longyearbyen, I spotted belugas, a minke whale, a walrus, and countless seabirds flying so close to the deck their wings almost brushed my phone camera. There was no need for a Zoom. 

The landscapes are equally diverse, with the Arctic featuring fjords, tundra, glaciers, alpine peaks, and even hot springs. Unlike Antarctica, which is only accessible during the Southern Hemisphere’s summer (November to March), much of the Arctic can be visited year-round, with the Northern Lights visible in winter and wildlife viewing in summer. In fact, due to the light and snow, I would imagine the Superman location crew visited Svalbard as winter morphed into spring.

So why did Gunn choose the Arctic to depict an Antarctic legend? The answer is simple: the Arctic offers the same cinematic spectacle with fewer obstacles. For travellers, the same logic applies. If you're considering a polar adventure, you may find the Arctic is not only more accessible, but more varied, more inhabited, and, dare I say, just as magical.

Superman may call Antarctica home, but it was the Arctic that brought his solitude to life.