Superman was a good person because he HAD a choice. If he'd been bred a warrior for Kryptons benefit he probably wouldve made another choice...

 

The movie did a pretty bad job at showing us how he made such a choice. That's the crucial part of every superhero movie, which is letting the audience follow him on why he decides to be a superhero.

In this movie, he literally have no choice in being a superhero. Zod forced him out of hiding.

 

Yeah Rusty. I mean, a little tact would've gone a helluvah far away. I understand threatening Earth to draw Clark out; that made sense if a little heavy handed. But he could've said literally anything aside from what he did, and probably would've won Clark over.

 

Hell, they wasted a good opportunity to show how much Clark want to meet and be with his people. That would have made the ending scene have much more emotional impact.

A few scenes of Clark being in wonderment when he finally met another Krpytonian in real life would have done wonders for the movie as a whole.

 

The scene where he met Jorel portrayed that.

 

There is a difference between meeting a hologram and actually meeting a living breathing member of his own race.

 

So, I saw the movie yesterday and...

Well, considering how much I really, really wanted to like it, it's a huge disappointment that I don't. I think the movie is at best okay (reviewed it here), and it's really goddamn frustrating how many things were in place for a great Superman movie and because of the script, they didn't come together.

Also, Superman doesn't kill. End of fucking story. I know some of you can point to the comics where there are specific incidents where Superman might have killed, but like the rest of the 'trinity' (Wonder Woman and Batman), it flies contrary to Superman's character and thematic resonance as the symbol of hope (something Man Of Steel continuously brought up) to have him kill.

 

Superman dosent' kill... in comics/cartoons. He was hardly gonna be able to NOT kill Zod, was he?

 

The more I think about it, the more wasted this film is. One of the most important thing to Superman is the wonderment the world will feel when there is a saviour that can literally save almost everyone from a major disaster.

That is what Superman has always been about. A superhero with superpowers that saves people from hopeless situation. Think how 9-11 would end up if Superman is around to save all those people! Think about how many people will be alive when Superman can prevent the Tsunami from killing anyone in Japan.

It's the exact same reason why we are drawn to the story of Jesus and superheroes in general. The oil rig scene, the school bus scenes all failed to evoke any emotional response from the people he saved as well as the audience.

We have seen so many Superhero movies that the audience are starting to take feats of superhuman strength and abilities for granted. Which is why it is crucial to set up the "saving sequences" correctly. Sadly, that did not happen in this film.

 

I've seen the criticism about the romance a few times now, but I don't quite get it. I mean, yes, it's not "love for the ages", but more "the beginnings of attraction and a kiss".

What I don't get is how that's a problem. It's not like Lois needs much of an excuse to kiss the guy: he's an Adonis with superpowers who saved her life several times and just saved the world. I think pretty much the entire straight female population of the planet would be quite happy to kiss him with zero romantic prelude.

 

I saw it on the 14th and really enjoyed/loved it at the time, I cant wait for the next film which hopefully will come!

 

As I've understood things: Batman probably has the most hardline no-killing rule. Superman doesn't like it and avoids it most of the time, but he's willing to go all-out against big leaguers such as Darkseid if he thinks they're too dangerous or doesn't see any other way. Wonder Woman, though, has killed numerous creatures including mythological, intelligent humanoids, and will kill even humans if she feels they've done enough damage and that people will be better off without them -- case in point, Maxwell Lord. She also killed someone, forgot who, in Kingdom Come, though admittedly that's outside continuity and she had started going off the deep end at that point. Basically Superman is between two extremes on this issue.

In the circumstances the movie presented, Superman had to kill Zod. He tried reasoning with him, but Zod was unreasonable. He outright said "You die or I do." He tried taking the fight to space to get it away from people, but Zod forced it back down. He was struggling to hold Zod at all -- he couldn't just take his hands off and cover his eyes without leaving Zod free. If he'd left any opening Zod would've taken it, escaped his hold, vaporized those people and probably more before Superman could get him again. Not to mention that Clark had been fighting nonstop all day, many had already died from the World Engine's gravity beam, he's inexperienced in fighting, and there's no way they could've jailed him at this point even if he did manage to beat him non-lethally. Better this than pulling something stupid (like, say, time-travel) out of his ass so he could win without getting his hands dirty.

And I liked the way they handled it. Killing him wasn't something Superman liked doing. He was devastated by it, and I really think/hope that the trauma of having to kill Zod is what leads to his traditional attitudes about killing later. Now that he's done it, he knows how it feels and what it leads to, and I think that's better than him not killing based on just speculation. A lot hinges on how they handle the fallout of this movie in the sequel. Like I said before, it needs to be more character focused, and deal with how Superman goes in the public eye from "the mysterious, powerful alien who saved us" to "Superman, universal symbol of hope," or at least take steps closer to that goal.

Anyway, I'm starting to get real burned out on debating Man of Steel (mostly from discussions elsewhere, not just from this thread). I liked the movie. I think it ranks high on the list of superhero movies I've seen; a lot higher than most of the Marvel movies, which, while definitely enjoyable in their own way, didn't really strike me the same way this did. I think I'd put it on par with Batman Begins. I'm hoping to watch it again soon -- maybe something I missed before will pop out at me I didn't see the first time, I don't know. Still, even if that's the case, I doubt my opinion will change drastically.

 

Oh, I fucking hated that comic. Between the face-heel turn for Maxwell Lord and the fact that Diana supposed had to kill Maxwell Lord because he had Superman under mind control - despite the fact that Diana's lasso frees people from mind control - was all the more proof that Geoff Johns was the wrong writer for Wonder Woman. Green Lantern, fine, but definitely not Wonder Woman. Give that book to Gail Simone or some other author who gets her character.

As for Superman killing Zod... eh, I would have tried to find a way to toss Zod in the Phantom Zone or something. I get the argument that it's something Superman 'had' to do, but given the lack of solid characterization for Clark, I found that the death and Clark's sacrifice lacked the weight that it needed.

And yeah, having read a lot of the critical backlash and bitching about Man Of Steel all over the internet, I'm already heartily sick of the debate too. I think it's okay - better than Star Trek: Into Darkness, not as good as Iron Man 3. And I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I still like Superman Returns more than this.

Although I will definitely say this: the Kryptonian armor looked badass. If that's not evidence they could pull off Warhammer 40k in live-action someday (if through some miracle they got the R-rating and a coherent script that didn't focus on the goddamn Ultlramarines), I don't know what is.

 

This movie would have been perfect had they cut 20 minutes of city destruction and added 20 minutes of story.

 

I honestly would've been fine with a movie of just the lead up to Krypton's destruction.

 

I particularly liked how they portrayed Krypton in this. It was almost like science fantasy in style, which is different from most renditions of it I've seen (though they seemed to take some ideas from John Byrne's Man of Steel series with Kryptonians being grown rather than naturally born), and it was a lot better than the Vulcan-like Krypton that was in the Donner movies, I thought.

EDIT: Also if they pursue a DC Cinematic Universe as Marvel has, I'd like to see a World's Finest movie -- a Batman/Superman crossover that introduces a new version of Batman that fits in with a larger universe better than Nolan's, and serves to set up a Justice League movie somehow.

 

I'm a big fan of Superman. He is my favorite superhero second to no one. That's why Man of Steel was probably the most anticipated movie for me since, not very surprising, Superman Returns. But was it worth the wait? That's a good question.

Before I start answering it, let me say this. Man of Steel is a good movie.

It has awesome action in it and probably the most spectacular battle between superpowered people ever. It has actors that know what they are doing (a special mention goes to the actress playing Faora because she was awesome). It has a script that does a decent job reintroducing the main character to the audience. Even if it was unnecessary because everyone knows Superman. They could easily make it like a Bond movie, with him having another adventure, but they decided to give us a new origin story.

There is a lot of good things in this film that make it a really good blockbuster that I would rate 8/10.

But was it good Superman movie? Not really.

In my opinion Superman is about who we should aspire to be, not who we are. That's why I dislike when someone is trying to bring him down to our level. Well, that's not entirely true. I do like seeing other versions of him, more gray or even evil. Like Superman from Red Son or Superboy Prime. They give us a contrast to how Superman could be, but isn't.

But when it comes to the main version of the character, and I consider a movie version to be just that, I want him to be himself. A good guy who grew up in Kansas, has a power of god and cares about humans more than we care about ourselves. A shining beacon of hope and an ultimate role model.

And while these elements are present in MoS, there are a lot of things that I really don't like.

The first thing is what they did with Jonathan Kent. Clark's father was the person that installed all important values in him including the need to help other people. And while he was also concerned with his son's safety, he would never suggest that his secret his more important than somebody's life. That's not Jonathan Kent.

Additionally I disliked the scene where he sacrifices his life to protect his Clark's secret. I understand that it was there to show just how much he loves his child, but it's rather bothersome to me that he would force his son to live the rest of his life feeling guilty about it.

The next thing is Clark himself. I'm not a big fan of how they presented him at the beginning of this movie. I prefer more optimistic approach to him, even in his formative years. Making his brooding loner isn't the best decision, even if it's popular take on many other superheroes these days.

Lastly, no love triangle. I know that a lot of people think that it's stupid (including the screenwriter of this movie) that Lois Lane, the best reporter ever, can't figure out that Clark Kent and Superman are the same person, but personally I aways liked the dynamics that it creates between characters.

And it's not like it's impossible to invent few good reasons why she is unable to discover his secret. Saying that it's stupid and removing it is just a lazy way out.

While I dislike these things, they are not a deal breaker for me. No, the deal breaker is what happens at the end of the movie.

After a long and very destructive fight Superman kills Zod with his bare hands.

While I could ignore that he also basically helped eradicate his entire race just a few minutes before, this was too much.

Superman doesn't kill. Never.

Maybe in the real world there are situations that would force him to kill, but it's a fiction and it's not what his character is about.

He is not there to show us that failing is sometimes inevitable. He is not there to make us believe that sometimes there is just no way for us to win without compromising our moral code. He is not there to make us feel better about ourselves thinking that even someone like Superman makes mistakes sometimes. He is not there to make us accept our limits. There are other superheroes for that.

He is there to show us how we should be. He is there to inspire us to be a better people. He is there to show us that there is always another way and if not we can make it ourselves. He is there to make us believe that we should never give up because as long as we are trying there is a chance to we will succeed. Just as he always does.

And the movie fails to show it, choosing instead to portrait Superman as another generic superhero.

Maybe the audience will like. From the comments I read I take that they do. Maybe it makes him more relatable to them. But I think it's a mistake because we shouldn't make Superman more like us. We should thrive to be more like him.

There are other problems with this movie. Some parts of it are more like a disaster movie than a superhero movie. This is a result of a more “grounded” approach that they decided to use which I think doesn't really fit Superman. But I was willing to ignore it. Killing Zod I just can't.

To think that Nolan and Goyer let Batman keep his no killing rule (even if they bended it few times), but they decided to make Superman a killer. And I'm really disappointed that most people seem to be fine with it.

But like I said at the beginning of this post, Man of Steel is not a bad movie. It's pretty good blockbuster and superhero movie.

It's just not a good Superman movie.

And since that's what I think about it, I'm really conflicted about its big success in the cinemas. On the one had it's a good thing because while I may not personally agree with this version of the character it will at very least make Superman relevant for the modern audience. On the other do I really want the next generation of his fans be introduced to him by this film? I'm not really sure.

If it was up to me the next reboot movie would be an animation. That way everybody could embrace these "ridiculous" elements of his mythos like the red trunks, “S” curl, the Big Blue Boy Scout's morals and the glasses as a disguise without feeling embarrassed about it.

I would like Superman to be the main character of the movie that could be watched by people of all ages and I'm not sure if this one can be.

 

As Superman says, he is about as American as you can get.

It's appropriate, then, that a modern treatment of him has him in a moral/identity crisis. American values are sitting on a shaky foundation right now.


... or at least, that's what I would say if I bought into all that themes and symbolism shite. Instead, I'll just say it was quite plausible, within the story that was laid out, that he would kill Zod.

 

And I would acknowledge your argument if you didn't follow it up with this contempting shite. Instead I will just say that you proved enough times that you don't get Superman at all.

 

IMHO, I think those are the reasons for most of older generations - the ones who had read the Superman comics since long time ago - to see this movie. They are the first fans of Superman, the ones who see him as figure of perfection. But I also know that since the very beginning, this movie intends to show the 'more human side of Superman'.

By being more human, he has to take a long road to reach those level of perfection. And by being more human, this movie shows how Clark began his journey, as an Alien child from Smallville, through his coming to terms with his powers and his first battle against people as strong as he is. But I also think that those journey of him is actually the one thing most first fans of Superman don't really like: again, they want to see a figure of perfection. Not a flawed character who has to work very hard to become the 'hope' of his race and humankind.

That's why Superman Returns is more preferred by several of the old fans more than this: the Clark Kent in Superman Returns was closer to those level of perfection than the Clark Kent in Man of Steel.

For people outside US - or in this case, people in my country, and most Asian countries, where Man of Steel broke records here for being a best-seller movie - Man of Steel is well-received. Similar to Batman, most people here hadn't read the comics before, and we accept what the movie shows us: a man coming in terms with his super-ability, a man with a big journey and adventures awaiting him.

I'm not one of the first-generations of Superman fans. Further, before Batman Begins, superhero stories and comics almost didn't exist here. We know Superman, just like everyone, but we don't really know Superman. And maybe I don't get Superman at all, but IMHO I think this movie is really good, that it will help Superman to get more recognition, though maybe it's not exactly like what the fans want it to be.

And I think those recognitions are really good for Superman franchise, because maybe then the public here - including me - can get to really know what Superman is all about, so we can appreciate it more.