View Poll Results: What did you think of Man of Steel?
Up, up, and away! It was great!
69
35.94%
It's a bird! It's a plane! It was good. Not great.
62
32.29%
This is a job for...not really. It was just ok.
31
16.15%
Can you read my mind? I didn't like it.
21
10.94%
I'll wait for it on BD
9
4.69%
Voters: 192. You may not vote on this poll
Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
#601
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#602
DVD Talk Legend
#603
Banned by request
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
I'm really surprised some of you have such a hard time understanding this movie, because a Goyer script means each character clearly explains what's on their minds at the moment they're thinking it. I actually shudder to think what would happen if you'd actually watched a more nuanced film.
If someone didn't understand Primer, for example, I'd try to explain elements of the film so they could go back and possibly appreciate it more. If my response were simply "Haha, look at the troglodyte who can't figure out Primer!", then what motivation would they have to reconsider their stance on the film?
And, ultimately, it's just a fucking movie. You didn't make it. You make no money off of it. No need to get so defensive over it.
Also, let me reiterate that I really wanted this movie to be awesome. Do you think I relish rewatching the same two movies over and over again, and not get any new quality Superman films? Hell no. I love the Donner movies, but I'm ready for something new--but I won't accept something subpar.
Fighting Superman personally was NOT his end goal any longer. He explains this. He actually says these words.
I shall refer you to post 526:
His primary goal was to commit genocide/wipe out humanity. Not to kill Clark/Kal-El. Clark attacks him to stop this. Zod states this quite clearly. So unless you think he's lying for some reason, there is no real argument here. He fights Clark because Clark attacked him to try and stop him from killing every human on the face of the Earth, no doubt starting with those left in Metropolis.
I shall refer you to post 526:
His primary goal was to commit genocide/wipe out humanity. Not to kill Clark/Kal-El. Clark attacks him to stop this. Zod states this quite clearly. So unless you think he's lying for some reason, there is no real argument here. He fights Clark because Clark attacked him to try and stop him from killing every human on the face of the Earth, no doubt starting with those left in Metropolis.
#604
Banned
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
I'd like to see the actual dialogue, because I recall it being (paraphrasing) "You took away everything I have, everything I am, and now I have nothing. So now I'm going to ruin you." That could mean genocide, or it could mean subduing Superman and torturing him for years. If you can give me the actual dialogue, I might be more inclined to agree with your assessment.
Spoiler:
#605
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
Saw it last night and enjoyed it fine. It could have lost a few minutes but I thought the action was great.
I had thought they might skip the Clark works for the Daily Planet angle, then thought like some of the rest of you that Superman had already gone public so hiding under a pair of glasses was silly. But then I realized that his surrender and everything that happened involved the military. They weren't broadcasting his face on TV screens around the world, so aside from some soldiers and a few people on the ground, most don't know his face. So I'm fine with the resolution.
And while I don't have the hate for Superman Returns as some of you, this was easily better. And Cavil, was a great choice for the role.
I had thought they might skip the Clark works for the Daily Planet angle, then thought like some of the rest of you that Superman had already gone public so hiding under a pair of glasses was silly. But then I realized that his surrender and everything that happened involved the military. They weren't broadcasting his face on TV screens around the world, so aside from some soldiers and a few people on the ground, most don't know his face. So I'm fine with the resolution.
And while I don't have the hate for Superman Returns as some of you, this was easily better. And Cavil, was a great choice for the role.
#606
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
Saw it last night and enjoyed it fine. It could have lost a few minutes but I thought the action was great.
I had thought they might skip the Clark works for the Daily Planet angle, then thought like some of the rest of you that Superman had already gone public so hiding under a pair of glasses was silly. But then I realized that his surrender and everything that happened involved the military. They weren't broadcasting his face on TV screens around the world, so aside from some soldiers and a few people on the ground, most don't know his face. So I'm fine with the resolution.
I had thought they might skip the Clark works for the Daily Planet angle, then thought like some of the rest of you that Superman had already gone public so hiding under a pair of glasses was silly. But then I realized that his surrender and everything that happened involved the military. They weren't broadcasting his face on TV screens around the world, so aside from some soldiers and a few people on the ground, most don't know his face. So I'm fine with the resolution.
#607
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
I've always hated the "hide behind glasses" disguise.
#608
DVD Talk God
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
Wow, I am super surprised all the hatred for this movie. I'm thinking people have some sort of soft spot for the Donner Superman movies. I was born around the time they came out. I never saw them until I was a bit older. I always thought they were cheesy, even when I was a kid. While I like Christopher Reeves, I thought he was sort of goofy for the part. Maybe people are nostalgic about those movies and that is why they didn't like this. I don't know.
I think this is the kind of Superman movie I've always wanted. The action in this was spectacular. I pretty much Superman to be punching guys through buildings and we got a ton of that. While I think there were many parts that could've been trimmed, and not all the actors were great in their parts, I think Cavill nailed the shit out of his role as did Crowe.
I think this is the kind of Superman movie I've always wanted. The action in this was spectacular. I pretty much Superman to be punching guys through buildings and we got a ton of that. While I think there were many parts that could've been trimmed, and not all the actors were great in their parts, I think Cavill nailed the shit out of his role as did Crowe.
#609
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
But nowadays when big events happen, lots of cell phone videos end up on Youtube and so forth (take the Boston Marathon bombing, for instance). I would think after the battles in Smallville and Metropolis there'd be plenty of amateur footage of Superman online. And surely news crews would have been reporting these events too even if we didn't see them doing it. I still think the whole hide-behind-the-glasses thing doesn't work this time around.
#610
DVD Talk God
#611
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
Seeing the Lexcorp logos were kind of a nice subtle way of letting us know to expect him in a future installment. I wasn't that surprised we got some sort of a reference to Lex.
#612
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Full review later
The one moment where the film truly came to life when Superman attempted to fly. You got that true sense of elation. Otherwise, the film was a flat-out disappointment. Michael Shannon, quite apart from being no Terence Stamp, is a weak antagonist. He and the rest of his crew are just pantomime villains. They try to give them some sense of motivation in restarting Krypton, but it just all fell flat to me. The movie feels dark and somber when it should be colorful and bright, it uses almost none of the Superman mythology in any interesting way. We have a handful of interesting ideas-Zod's powers overloading like Clark's did, some of the Smallville stuff, but Snyder just doesn't have the chops as a director to make any of it work. The scenes of flashing back to the Kent farm feel like melancholic Americana rather than nostalgic, most of the self-consciously "artsy" shots like Superman's hand reaching for the sun, him floating like a Christ-figure in the sea, Superman sinking into the skulls of dead humans, these are all visually interesting ideas in search of context. This is a superhero movie, not Bergman. You have to earn gravitas like Nolan and Singer did. Snyder is a director who's all about surfaces and design and costumes. Why does this version of Superman want to help people? He's supposed to be raised on a farm by good all-American parents, but Jonathan is almost constantly telling him NOT to help people because it'll expose his secret! We hardly get to see him at all as Clark. The Krypton stuff feels like it's left over from the worst bits of the Star Wars prequels, all of the phallic design elements look like some weird, dark H.R. Giger thing, the spaceships, the fortress, almost everything looks dull. There's no Jimmy Olsen, we hardly see Perry White, we barely see the Fortress of Solitude, we hardly see anything in Metropolis, and even the action sequences disappoint, he doesn't even don the glasses until the last few minutes. The DCAU's set pieces certainly got repetitive sometimes, but at least Adam Van Wyck's manically over the top storyboarding offered pockets of inspiration and cool design elements. Snyder's battle sequences look like PS2 cutscenes. Batman Begins, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (Still a high watermark, IMO.), Casino Royale, these gave me new insights into these characters over half a century old, I understood them better, or at least the films tried to make me. At least the central storyline of Watchmen was strong enough to stand on it's own even when the complex philosophical and political elements were way over Snyder's head. Goyer's screenplay has the same problems as Martin Campbell's Green Lantern. The dialogue actually sounds like a comic book and is stilted and dull, it's simultaneously overstuffed and under-plotted, jigsawing together little that's interesting from the 75 years worth of mythology to choose from. Snyder can make pretty pictures, but he just can't tell a story. The film is dull, ponderous, heavy, and melancholy without reason. Much like Nicholas Meyer's Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, however dated the special effects are, Donner's film looks better with each passing year, and so does Superman: The Animated Series. Is it wrong that all these years past my childhood, I still hold up Bruce Timm as the yardstick by which I measure superhero stories? And he was constrained by the censorship of a Saturday-morning cartoon. Snyder has a massive budget, but a quarter of a billion dollars still can't buy a good screenplay.
#617
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
Also a brilliant explanation for why that ship had a costume from the house of El on it at all. It was the dead male's.
One of the few scenes I actually rolled my eyes at.
#618
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Last Frontier
Posts: 4,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
My wife and I saw this last night, and I think this pretty much hits the nail on the head explaining how we felt too. There were elements I liked, but really it was on the verge of not liking it. Definitely my first theatrical disappointment of the year, and I was really looking forward to this one.
Hey guys, so I saw a sneak peak showing of Man of Steel last night for the CW. Just so you know how I felt about the movie going in: This was my most anticipated movie of the year. I was incredibly excited to see what they were doing with the character. I had skimmed a couple of Rotten Tomato reviews before going in, and the negative ones were pretty much critiquing the action (and there being too much). I thought to myself, well - I love action and too much Superman action is just that much better. I didn't feel it would bother me. So here's my spoiler-free review:
There was too much action. Sorry guys. Ok, now let me elaborate on this. As a movie, The Man of Steel looked great, the CG was well done, and most of the actors did a serviceable job. The problem with the action scenes was that they were not rooted in anything. It was just action scene, couple lines of dialogue, another action scene, more actions scenes, all the action you could ever want. But there was no sense of urgency or danger. There were no characters you ever felt were truly in danger. This was wanton destruction only for the sake of showing off set pieces. After a while, there's only so much smashing into buildings you can do before you realize these supermen are really just pointlessly fighting since no one can really get hurt. And put me in the category of one of those people who kept thinking "Aren't they killing a ton of people from their collateral damage?". The plot was simple. You can pretty much figure it out from the trailers. Actually, the trailers, I think, showed too much because it left some scenes with little-to-no impact. Now what about the characters? Well, every single character in this movie looked bored. There was no hint of excitement or fun. Now I understand if the movie was trying to be more serious, but for that to happen I have to have some characters that I actually care about - and there needs to be some real emotion with dialogue that goes somewhere. The dialogue was flat, and each line came off like a sermon, with no one really talking to each another. None of these characters were really fleshed out. Man of Steel isn't a terrible movie, just disappointing. There are still some things to like, such as the entertaining opening scene, the set designs, the costume design, and of course watching a man fly. But I wanted more. I wanted more character development, I wanted better dialogue, I wanted more fun. Everything about this movie was drab (including the color palette).
There was too much action. Sorry guys. Ok, now let me elaborate on this. As a movie, The Man of Steel looked great, the CG was well done, and most of the actors did a serviceable job. The problem with the action scenes was that they were not rooted in anything. It was just action scene, couple lines of dialogue, another action scene, more actions scenes, all the action you could ever want. But there was no sense of urgency or danger. There were no characters you ever felt were truly in danger. This was wanton destruction only for the sake of showing off set pieces. After a while, there's only so much smashing into buildings you can do before you realize these supermen are really just pointlessly fighting since no one can really get hurt. And put me in the category of one of those people who kept thinking "Aren't they killing a ton of people from their collateral damage?". The plot was simple. You can pretty much figure it out from the trailers. Actually, the trailers, I think, showed too much because it left some scenes with little-to-no impact. Now what about the characters? Well, every single character in this movie looked bored. There was no hint of excitement or fun. Now I understand if the movie was trying to be more serious, but for that to happen I have to have some characters that I actually care about - and there needs to be some real emotion with dialogue that goes somewhere. The dialogue was flat, and each line came off like a sermon, with no one really talking to each another. None of these characters were really fleshed out. Man of Steel isn't a terrible movie, just disappointing. There are still some things to like, such as the entertaining opening scene, the set designs, the costume design, and of course watching a man fly. But I wanted more. I wanted more character development, I wanted better dialogue, I wanted more fun. Everything about this movie was drab (including the color palette).
#619
Banned
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
You're literally taking it at face value, which is the main problem most have with that story element. It's not the glasses that make Kal-El's alternate persona work, but a combination of things. His walk, speech patterns, mannerisms...everything shifts together in creating the perfect method for him to hide in plain sight.
#620
Banned by request
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
Oh man, Jennifer Lawrence as Kara? Sign me the fuck up!
I'm going to give Cavill the benefit of the doubt here, because his only scene at the Planet was a minute at the most, but I didn't see anything there but Superman with glasses on. I hope in a sequel that they do more work on differentiating Clark from Kal.
You're literally taking it at face value, which is the main problem most have with that story element. It's not the glasses that make Kal-El's alternate persona work, but a combination of things. His walk, speech patterns, mannerisms...everything shifts together in creating the perfect method for him to hide in plain sight.
#621
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
Didn't mind Zod's death. I did mind the collateral damage that superman does in both fight scenes.at some point that type of fight gets boring. I thought the fight in superman 2 was much better because superman is not only fighting zod but protecting the people of metropolis. When he realizes that his fighting is going to cause death, he hightails it out of metropolis. I can't believe that aspect was missed.
#622
Banned by request
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
Here's a great article (from EW, of all places), about why Man of Steel's ending is so problematic:
http://popwatch.ew.com/2013/06/15/ma...man-zod-death/
http://popwatch.ew.com/2013/06/15/ma...man-zod-death/
The most boring complaint a comic book fan can make about a comic book movie is “They Changed Stuff!” A superhero movie can, should, must be different from the source material. That’s partially just a matter of simple narrative physics.
The typical superhero has several decades of history to draw from, with generations of comic book creators putting their own distinctive spin on the character. The typical superhero movie is around two hours and 20 minutes — a running time that, plotwise, allows for maybe three issues’ worth of content. More importantly, filmmakers should never feel shackled to what’s come before. The Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight is radically different from any earlier version of the Joker, and that turned out just fine. Likewise, the Iron Man trilogy has playfully chopped the character’s comic history to pieces, a strategy that has arguably made Movie Iron Man a much more compelling character than Comic Iron Man ever was.
There are a lot of radical reinventions of the Superman character in Man of Steel. Some of them are intriguing. The film reimagines young Clark Kent as a loner whose superpowers are a source of profound discomfort. The best scene in the movie finds young Clark, freaked out beyond all measure by his sudden ability to see the skeletons inside of people, blockading himself behind a door at school — and his mom slowly talking him down by asking him to focus on the sound of her voice.
The outcast/age of autism overtones are miles removed from the old-fashioned notion of Clark as an All-American football-playing über-kid; likewise, the film’s portrayal of a young-adult Clark as a job-hopping wanderer feels tapped into our recessionary age. (In Man of Steel, Clark gets his first steady job at the age of 33, which practically sounds optimistic in the current professional climate.) Like pretty much everything in Man of Steel that doesn’t involve punching things, these reinventions of the Superman myth are quickly introduced and forgotten, because the film is only 143 minutes long and there are so many things that need punching. But the changes are interesting: They seemed like purposeful additions.
And then there’s the thing that happens at the end of Man of Steel that was so ill-conceived and poorly handled that you almost start to wonder if anyone attached to Man of Steel knows what makes Superman so special. (SPOILERS FROM HERE.) The film ends with an extended series of inscrutable action scenes where Superman flies places and destroys things while General Zod and his fellow Kryptonians set up confusing Kryptonian technology to destroy things or whatever. Zod’s plan fails because Superman destroys stuff more better than Zod destroys stuff. I’m sorry, that sounds stupid. What actually happens is that Superman opens up a black hole in the middle of a major American city, which is clearly not a stupid thing to do.
All of the Kryptonians die except for Zod, because this is the kind of movie where the climax has to feature the hero and the villain punching each other. (ASIDE: Weirdly, this is the kind of rote climax that Christopher Nolan previously deconstructed in The Dark Knight. I quote the Joker: “You didn’t think I’d risk losing the battle for Gotham’s soul in a fistfight with you?” In Man of Steel, it’s all one big fistfight. END OF ASIDE) Superman and Zod punch and punch and punch each other, sometimes while flying through buildings and sometimes while not flying through buildings. Ultimately, Superman gets Zod in a choke hold, which is kind of like Kryptonite for Kryptonians who are appearing in a movie that’s too cool to have Kryptonite. Zod uses his heat vision to attack some locals. Superman tells him not to. Zod refuses.
So Superman kills Zod.
This is a shocking moment. It’s shocking for all kinds of reasons. Superheroes don’t kill people, but Superman definitely doesn’t kill people. It’s a defining aspect of the character. He isn’t just good, he’s too good. It’s an insanely powerful moment. When it happens, you think to yourself: “Geez, what a radical redefinition of the character. Classically, Superman has never taken a life, even the life of his worst, most homicidal enemy. How will this change this character going forward?”
Answer: It doesn’t change him at all. Lois Lane runs over to comfort him. Cut To: A few days later, and Superman is having extremely forced Iron-Man-and-Nick-Fury banter with General Swanwick about how they just need to trust Superman, because he is Superman and Superman is good. And then Superman becomes Clark Kent and the origin story is finished.
I think this is the single most disturbing plot point in any blockbuster movie this summer. Disturbing, because I get the vibe that the filmmakers don’t even come close to understanding how crazy, how unexpected, how just plain wrong Superman killing someone is. Back in 1986, Alan Moore wrote a famous story about Superman called “Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?” that became the swan song for the first 50 years of Superman’s history. Terrible things happen to Superman over the course of the story — seriously, you gotta read it — and in the end, Superman has to make the ultimate sacrifice. Not suicide; Superman is the kind of guy who would give his life to save a kitten from a tree. No, Superman has to break his first rule and kill someone.
The person he kills is incredibly evil and responsible for untold terrifying actions. Much like in Man of Steel, he is immediately comforted by Lois: “B-But you had to! You haven’t done anything wrong!” Superman does not stand for that, though: “Yes, I have. Nobody has the right to kill … Not you, not Superman … especially not Superman.” Having superpowers doesn’t give Superman the moral authority to decide who lives and who dies; if anything, it gives him less authority, since he has so much more absolute power to abuse absolutely. The crazy thing is that, in Man of Steel, his power is exactly what gives him the authority.
“Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?” was written by Alan Moore right as he was embarking on writing Watchmen. Coincidentally, Zack Snyder did his best to film Watchmen a few years ago, and the weirdest thing about his adaptation was how it captured the graphic novel’s visuals while generally missing the point of the narrative. This was especially true of the violence. On the page, Watchmen‘s violence is relatively unadorned and realistic; onscreen, every violent act was shot with all the gorgeous, hyperdetailed delicacy of a car commercial. You get the vibe that Snyder doesn’t really understand violence in any meaningful real-world context: He can’t help but make violence look “cool.” (When Superman snaps Zod’s neck, I believe there is a sonic boom on the soundtrack.)
But Snyder is an easy target, what with Sucker Punch and that movie about the heroic owls. I’m inclined to think that the whole “Superman kills” plot point originated from David Goyer and Christopher Nolan, who conceived the film’s story together. It makes sense: The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises both asked a number of fascinating questions about Batman’s moral and ethical role in society. Weirdly, both movies came up with radically different answers. The Dark Knight concludes that Batman is a kind of necessary evil for society, a parasite created to kill other parasites before ultimately being extinguished; Rises concludes that Batman is Jesus Christ, basically, although the movie throws in enough complications to make you wonder if Nolan isn’t secretly incepting us. Man of Steel is kind of like Rises without even the bare pretense of sacrifice. If I read the ending correctly, we are supposed to understand that Superman has become a better superhero because he has been forced to kill someone. The movie expects our sympathy: “Poor Superman. He had to kill Zod. That must be so hard for him.”
Or maybe not: In stark contrast to the philosophizing Dark Knight movies, Man of Steel doesn’t talk very much about the main character’s code of ethics; maybe he doesn’t have one. But perhaps accidentally, Man of Steel nevertheless feels topical in one respect. Not to get heavy, but there’s been a lot of talk lately about the use and abuse of government power, and of how drone strikes radically reshape the rules of warfare in terrifying ways. Last year, Esquire writer Tom Junod wrote a piece called “The Lethal Presidency,” written in part as an open letter to President Barack Obama. Junod details how the Obama administration has created a whole sequence of legal maneuvers to justify assassination — part of the sequence being the idea that the people involved in the decision-making (basically, the president) have to struggle with the gravity of killing someone. To the president, Junod writes:
But neither you nor anyone in your administration has allowed the impression that that struggle is anything but an obstacle to be surmounted and that you are anything but resolute in surmounting it. You struggle with your moral qualms about the Lethal Presidency only to gain the moral distinction of triumphing over them — and to claim, as the Lethal President, the higher morality of killing.
Basically, replace “Lethal President” with “Lethal Superhero,” and you have Man of Steel, a movie that allows Superman to kill because it shrugs and says, well, there was nothing else to do, and Superman is a better man for triumphing over the adversity of having to kill someone. Of course, everything about the end of Man of Steel is ludicrous: This is yet another movie, like Star Trek Into Darkness, where, like, half a city is destroyed, and nobody seems to notice. But ultimately, the movie comes down to one question: “Zod is about to kill a human being. What can Superman do? Nothing! Murder is justified!”
The way the movie bends over backward to get to that moment is an embarrassment of plot illogic. The fact that nobody involved in the making of the movie could come up with a clever way for Superman to not kill Zod — like maybe use any of his superpowers besides his incredible ability to punch real hard — says more about the filmmakers than about Superman. The fact that nobody thought that Superman should have any emotional reaction to killing someone is either confusing or incredibly cynical. The fact that this is being sold as family entertainment proves that we are really just screwing with our kids now.
The movie unforgivably tries to have its cake and eat it too, striving hard to make Superman “realistic” while nevertheless overdosing on Christ imagery. It’s a balancing act: They cover Superman in mud and then pretend his hands are clean. Maybe they think his hands are clean. Maybe Man of Steel is a Superman movie that doesn’t understand or even care about basic questions of morality. Maybe Man of Steel assumes that killing is just something heroes do now.
I wonder if the people who made Man of Steel think it’s somehow impressive — or realistic, or even cool — to make their Superman a killer. Personally, I think you’ll need to dig deep into 75 years of Superman history to find an interpretation of the character so shallow, cynical, and just plain ugly.
The typical superhero has several decades of history to draw from, with generations of comic book creators putting their own distinctive spin on the character. The typical superhero movie is around two hours and 20 minutes — a running time that, plotwise, allows for maybe three issues’ worth of content. More importantly, filmmakers should never feel shackled to what’s come before. The Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight is radically different from any earlier version of the Joker, and that turned out just fine. Likewise, the Iron Man trilogy has playfully chopped the character’s comic history to pieces, a strategy that has arguably made Movie Iron Man a much more compelling character than Comic Iron Man ever was.
There are a lot of radical reinventions of the Superman character in Man of Steel. Some of them are intriguing. The film reimagines young Clark Kent as a loner whose superpowers are a source of profound discomfort. The best scene in the movie finds young Clark, freaked out beyond all measure by his sudden ability to see the skeletons inside of people, blockading himself behind a door at school — and his mom slowly talking him down by asking him to focus on the sound of her voice.
The outcast/age of autism overtones are miles removed from the old-fashioned notion of Clark as an All-American football-playing über-kid; likewise, the film’s portrayal of a young-adult Clark as a job-hopping wanderer feels tapped into our recessionary age. (In Man of Steel, Clark gets his first steady job at the age of 33, which practically sounds optimistic in the current professional climate.) Like pretty much everything in Man of Steel that doesn’t involve punching things, these reinventions of the Superman myth are quickly introduced and forgotten, because the film is only 143 minutes long and there are so many things that need punching. But the changes are interesting: They seemed like purposeful additions.
And then there’s the thing that happens at the end of Man of Steel that was so ill-conceived and poorly handled that you almost start to wonder if anyone attached to Man of Steel knows what makes Superman so special. (SPOILERS FROM HERE.) The film ends with an extended series of inscrutable action scenes where Superman flies places and destroys things while General Zod and his fellow Kryptonians set up confusing Kryptonian technology to destroy things or whatever. Zod’s plan fails because Superman destroys stuff more better than Zod destroys stuff. I’m sorry, that sounds stupid. What actually happens is that Superman opens up a black hole in the middle of a major American city, which is clearly not a stupid thing to do.
All of the Kryptonians die except for Zod, because this is the kind of movie where the climax has to feature the hero and the villain punching each other. (ASIDE: Weirdly, this is the kind of rote climax that Christopher Nolan previously deconstructed in The Dark Knight. I quote the Joker: “You didn’t think I’d risk losing the battle for Gotham’s soul in a fistfight with you?” In Man of Steel, it’s all one big fistfight. END OF ASIDE) Superman and Zod punch and punch and punch each other, sometimes while flying through buildings and sometimes while not flying through buildings. Ultimately, Superman gets Zod in a choke hold, which is kind of like Kryptonite for Kryptonians who are appearing in a movie that’s too cool to have Kryptonite. Zod uses his heat vision to attack some locals. Superman tells him not to. Zod refuses.
So Superman kills Zod.
This is a shocking moment. It’s shocking for all kinds of reasons. Superheroes don’t kill people, but Superman definitely doesn’t kill people. It’s a defining aspect of the character. He isn’t just good, he’s too good. It’s an insanely powerful moment. When it happens, you think to yourself: “Geez, what a radical redefinition of the character. Classically, Superman has never taken a life, even the life of his worst, most homicidal enemy. How will this change this character going forward?”
Answer: It doesn’t change him at all. Lois Lane runs over to comfort him. Cut To: A few days later, and Superman is having extremely forced Iron-Man-and-Nick-Fury banter with General Swanwick about how they just need to trust Superman, because he is Superman and Superman is good. And then Superman becomes Clark Kent and the origin story is finished.
I think this is the single most disturbing plot point in any blockbuster movie this summer. Disturbing, because I get the vibe that the filmmakers don’t even come close to understanding how crazy, how unexpected, how just plain wrong Superman killing someone is. Back in 1986, Alan Moore wrote a famous story about Superman called “Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?” that became the swan song for the first 50 years of Superman’s history. Terrible things happen to Superman over the course of the story — seriously, you gotta read it — and in the end, Superman has to make the ultimate sacrifice. Not suicide; Superman is the kind of guy who would give his life to save a kitten from a tree. No, Superman has to break his first rule and kill someone.
The person he kills is incredibly evil and responsible for untold terrifying actions. Much like in Man of Steel, he is immediately comforted by Lois: “B-But you had to! You haven’t done anything wrong!” Superman does not stand for that, though: “Yes, I have. Nobody has the right to kill … Not you, not Superman … especially not Superman.” Having superpowers doesn’t give Superman the moral authority to decide who lives and who dies; if anything, it gives him less authority, since he has so much more absolute power to abuse absolutely. The crazy thing is that, in Man of Steel, his power is exactly what gives him the authority.
“Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?” was written by Alan Moore right as he was embarking on writing Watchmen. Coincidentally, Zack Snyder did his best to film Watchmen a few years ago, and the weirdest thing about his adaptation was how it captured the graphic novel’s visuals while generally missing the point of the narrative. This was especially true of the violence. On the page, Watchmen‘s violence is relatively unadorned and realistic; onscreen, every violent act was shot with all the gorgeous, hyperdetailed delicacy of a car commercial. You get the vibe that Snyder doesn’t really understand violence in any meaningful real-world context: He can’t help but make violence look “cool.” (When Superman snaps Zod’s neck, I believe there is a sonic boom on the soundtrack.)
But Snyder is an easy target, what with Sucker Punch and that movie about the heroic owls. I’m inclined to think that the whole “Superman kills” plot point originated from David Goyer and Christopher Nolan, who conceived the film’s story together. It makes sense: The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises both asked a number of fascinating questions about Batman’s moral and ethical role in society. Weirdly, both movies came up with radically different answers. The Dark Knight concludes that Batman is a kind of necessary evil for society, a parasite created to kill other parasites before ultimately being extinguished; Rises concludes that Batman is Jesus Christ, basically, although the movie throws in enough complications to make you wonder if Nolan isn’t secretly incepting us. Man of Steel is kind of like Rises without even the bare pretense of sacrifice. If I read the ending correctly, we are supposed to understand that Superman has become a better superhero because he has been forced to kill someone. The movie expects our sympathy: “Poor Superman. He had to kill Zod. That must be so hard for him.”
Or maybe not: In stark contrast to the philosophizing Dark Knight movies, Man of Steel doesn’t talk very much about the main character’s code of ethics; maybe he doesn’t have one. But perhaps accidentally, Man of Steel nevertheless feels topical in one respect. Not to get heavy, but there’s been a lot of talk lately about the use and abuse of government power, and of how drone strikes radically reshape the rules of warfare in terrifying ways. Last year, Esquire writer Tom Junod wrote a piece called “The Lethal Presidency,” written in part as an open letter to President Barack Obama. Junod details how the Obama administration has created a whole sequence of legal maneuvers to justify assassination — part of the sequence being the idea that the people involved in the decision-making (basically, the president) have to struggle with the gravity of killing someone. To the president, Junod writes:
But neither you nor anyone in your administration has allowed the impression that that struggle is anything but an obstacle to be surmounted and that you are anything but resolute in surmounting it. You struggle with your moral qualms about the Lethal Presidency only to gain the moral distinction of triumphing over them — and to claim, as the Lethal President, the higher morality of killing.
Basically, replace “Lethal President” with “Lethal Superhero,” and you have Man of Steel, a movie that allows Superman to kill because it shrugs and says, well, there was nothing else to do, and Superman is a better man for triumphing over the adversity of having to kill someone. Of course, everything about the end of Man of Steel is ludicrous: This is yet another movie, like Star Trek Into Darkness, where, like, half a city is destroyed, and nobody seems to notice. But ultimately, the movie comes down to one question: “Zod is about to kill a human being. What can Superman do? Nothing! Murder is justified!”
The way the movie bends over backward to get to that moment is an embarrassment of plot illogic. The fact that nobody involved in the making of the movie could come up with a clever way for Superman to not kill Zod — like maybe use any of his superpowers besides his incredible ability to punch real hard — says more about the filmmakers than about Superman. The fact that nobody thought that Superman should have any emotional reaction to killing someone is either confusing or incredibly cynical. The fact that this is being sold as family entertainment proves that we are really just screwing with our kids now.
The movie unforgivably tries to have its cake and eat it too, striving hard to make Superman “realistic” while nevertheless overdosing on Christ imagery. It’s a balancing act: They cover Superman in mud and then pretend his hands are clean. Maybe they think his hands are clean. Maybe Man of Steel is a Superman movie that doesn’t understand or even care about basic questions of morality. Maybe Man of Steel assumes that killing is just something heroes do now.
I wonder if the people who made Man of Steel think it’s somehow impressive — or realistic, or even cool — to make their Superman a killer. Personally, I think you’ll need to dig deep into 75 years of Superman history to find an interpretation of the character so shallow, cynical, and just plain ugly.
#623
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
You're literally taking it at face value, which is the main problem most have with that story element. It's not the glasses that make Kal-El's alternate persona work, but a combination of things. His walk, speech patterns, mannerisms...everything shifts together in creating the perfect method for him to hide in plain sight.
Another thing is why would anyone even expect Superman to be hiding as a human? He doesn't hide his face like Batman does. Superman acts like he has nothing to hide by showing his face openly. The world knows him as Kal-El. So why would anyone think he is hiding as a human?
Shortly after the COIE reboot in the mid 80s, Luthor actually did build a supercomputer that calculated that Clark Kent is Superman, but Luthor refused to believe it. Luthor thought that a "god" like Superman would never pretend to be a mere mortal. To the common DC citizen, they all think the same. They know him as Kal-El and don't think he is hiding anything. If you aren't actually looking for something, you aren't likely to find it.
In the real world we have the benefit of hindsight and metaknowledge that the DC citizens do not have. What seems extremely obvious to us is not so obvious to DC citizens. It would be like if DC citizens read a book where Paris Hilton is Batgirl and think its extremely obvious and that we are all fools for not seeing it.
Plus, in a huge city like Metropolis nobody really pays attention to each other. If you are walking down the street and see someone who looks like Tom Cruise, you aren't going to automatically assume that it is Tom Cruise. You will just think he looks like Tom Cruise. Sure, the people closest to Clark, such as Pretty White, probably know the truth, but they respect him too much to let him know that they know.
This video shows Tom Cruise as a UPS guy, and nobody recognized him.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Bd4XkV5ojT8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
#624
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
Kills Doomsday in Death of Superman
Kills Jax-Ur and Mala in STAS
Kills Zod, Ursa and Non in Superman 2
Kills Darkseid in Final Crisis
Superman does kill. He doesn't like it, but if there's no other way then he'll kill you. He's not Batman. Posting this shit to prove your ignorant point only proves that you and the writer of that shitty article know absolutely fuck all about Superman.
The fact that nobody thought that Superman should have any emotional reaction to killing someone is either confusing or incredibly cynical.
#625
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Man of Steel - The Reviews Thread
Kills Mxyzptlk in WHTTMOT
Kills Doomsday in Death of Superman
Kills Jax-Ur and Mala in STAS
Kills Zod, Ursa and Non in Superman 2
Kills Darkseid in Final Crisis
Superman does kill. He doesn't like it, but if there's no other way then he'll kill you. He's not Batman. Posting this shit to prove your ignorant point only proves that you know absolutely fuck all about Superman.
Kills Doomsday in Death of Superman
Kills Jax-Ur and Mala in STAS
Kills Zod, Ursa and Non in Superman 2
Kills Darkseid in Final Crisis
Superman does kill. He doesn't like it, but if there's no other way then he'll kill you. He's not Batman. Posting this shit to prove your ignorant point only proves that you know absolutely fuck all about Superman.
The original Superman as envisioned by Siegel and Shuster killed quite a few people too. He regularly threw ordinary people through walls, pulled them in the path of their own bullets, and such.
The only Superman that never killed anyone would be the Superman from the 50s through 70s when the CCA was cracking down hard on comic book violence.