Superman

[crookeddy]

He should be someone who believes in equality, and defending the weak from those who abuse them, things like that.

This is necessary to his personality, because without this, he'd probably be inclined to just take over the world.

 

[Guy Gardener]

This is necessary to his personality, because without this, he'd probably be inclined to just take over the world.

He has.

A few months ago, he went to an alien world, and then spoke for Earth.

 

[Ovation]

Link's not working for me, Ovation. I'm actually kind of interested to see what it says, because though you and I obviously don't agree on the subject of Snyderman, I've always found your perspective on him better argued than most, so I'm curious to read the post you're endorsing.

Hmm. Link worked when I previewed it. Doesn't work for me now either. Ok, I'll post the quotations here (found another of her posts just a bit earlier than the one I linked to) but for the benefit of plynch (if truly wants to be unspoiled), I'll put it in spoiler code.

Spoiler: Interpretation of Man of Steel with which I agree (with minor quibbles)

Well, now that I have seen it, I can understand why people are a tad befuddled by the whole thing. It's not at all what 99% of people are going to expect. It is, as someone else said, primarily an alien invasion story - and a pretty frickin' scary one at that, which was something I wouldn't have anticipated in a million years.

Many of the criticisms are valid and how people react will depend on how much those things bother them. The wanton destruction is completely wanton, and a little disturbing, but the movie makes no bones about going for an operatic scale. Like most Snyder movies, it goes for big, testosterone-y conflict most of the time - but does much better than most of his movies at some subtle, tender moments. For instance, Clark and Lois' love affair is established in two, we-are-here-for-each-other hand squeezes that were quite remarkable.There's a coldness to it that goes beyond its steely palette (I see what you did there, Zack!). Particularly early on the deeply emotional family scenes are too thinly written for their pathos to truly sink in. For instance, I'd have liked to have seen Jonathon's point of view more clearly established as being about his own inability to bear losing his son should the truth about him become known.

That said, it is ballsy, risky, and refreshing for not repeating the now-completely-monotonous beats of a superhero movie. This is not your daddy's Superman. Hell, it's not even my Superman- it is an entirely more grown up animal in both its themes and viciousness. And I think that's what's freaking people out. You just don't expect that out of Superman.

Does that mean something has been lost? Give me a break. There's many different interpretations of Superman on screen, and a zillion more in print. There's room for one of them to be this. It may not please people with a, shall we say, mainstream view of superheroes - but I like it when someone finds a rather unmined vein in these stories. I think it keeps them fresh. As far as I know, no Superman origin story has ever handled his introduction to humanity this way.

There's lots more to say, but right now my conclusion is that it is really interesting as an interpretation of Superman, and an enjoyable, if somewhat exhausting and tense, movie. I feel like I felt at the end of the first time I watched The Terminator

.

and

Just read Mark Waid's review. Hmmm - I've been having a hard time with everyone's upset over the "collateral damage" issue and I think I just figured out why. I mean I get it from a perspective of an iconic character having certain basic characteristics and one of Superman's is that he always protects, even in the midst of a big fight. But, given from what a different point this particular version of Superman begins, I'm just not sure it's a valid in-story criticism.

I'm a little undecided on this, but here goes: the crux of this story is that Clark is deeply alienated from humanity. Mostly people are shown being shitty to him. He's not really bitter, but he's in a place of extreme caution. He helps where he can - but always with one eye toward staying as incognito as possible. He's been raised to consider that letting people die to protect his secret may be a valid choice. He's not sure that humans are his people.

So into this comes a challenge far greater than any he's ever imagined. He's an inexperienced fighter - and a good deal is made of this, both in the fight scenes and in the midst of Zod's monologing at the end. He's basically barely holding his own to keep the Kryptonians from killing him. I think this combination of factors makes it hard to imagine how he'd even be able to physically protect others, and he seems so unsure of his position with humanity that he just hasn't developed the instincts yet to think about how to try to save a bunch of humans in the middle of these fights. I think the whole point of the climactic end of his fight with Zod may have been intended to show that these things are coming to form the core of him. He is finally identifying with humans and with his role as their protector.

On the other hand, the film does proceed as if everyone, including Clark, are able to move blithely on after the massive destruction of Metropolis, without a moments mourning, or even acknowledgement of what had to be massive loss of life. I can sort of write it off as movie logic (name a superhero movie where there is significant screen time spent on regret after the massive destruction of the final fight), though the scale of it in this movie makes that a little harder than usual.

I guess it comes down to whether it's important to you that Superman be a character with such a strong inborn personality trait that protecting people always comes first. I can appreciate the idealism in that, but it feels very... naïve to me. And it kinda makes him a less interesting character because that character has a moral compass stuck on Always Unattainably Good and Self-Sacrificing. He's got nothing to strive for, no part of himself to triumph over. That guy can't ever surprise you and a story about him would have a hard time surprising you too.

from Lapis Exilis on p 7 and 8 of the Man of Steel Grading and Discussion Thread (having trouble with the quotation function as well, it seems). My bolding of the parts I find most compelling in her observations. As ever, YMMV.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Superman: The Movie is still the greatest superhero film ever made.

Correct.

 

[Ovation]

I didn't necessarily mean that he has to act like he's from the 1940s, I just meant that he should be a positive, optimistic, character who has older fashioned values. He should be someone who believes in equality, and defending the weak from those who abuse them, things like that.

I don't think I've seen any onscreen (live action, at any rate) Superman where he did not believe in defending the weak, etc. Nor do it think he has to be a "man out of time", like Captain America, to make it work. Just that it's easier to do.

 

[plynch]

Maybe I'll watch Man of Steel and try not to think of it as a Superman movie, more like an alien movie all its own.

 

[The Realist]

Maybe I'll watch Man of Steel and try not to think of it as a Superman movie, more like an alien movie all its own.

In some ways, it plays like that. It's better as a grand-scale first contact sci-fi disaster epic than it is as a Superman film.

 

[Jayson1]

Superman: The Movie is still the greatest superhero film ever made.

Not sure I would rank it that high but it is in my top 10. My top 10 comic books movies ever are

1 The Dark Knight
2 Avengers
4 Logan
5 Deadpool
6 Superman-The Movie
7Guardians of the Galaxy part 2
8 Captain America Winter Solder
9 Infinity Wars
10 Endgame.

heck might as well go top 20

11 Captain America:First Avenger
12 Spiderman Homecoming
13 Wonder Woman
14 Batman 89
15 Guardians of the Galaxy
16 Batman Begins
17 Iron Man
18 Super
19 Deadpool 2
20 First Spiderman movie.

Should note I haven't seen "Joker" yet.


Jason

 

[suarezguy]

I hate to bring the other side into this, but I think the way the MCU has approached Captain America would actually work pretty well for Superman. The old fashioned, black and white, optimistic hero coming into conflict with a more cynical, shades of gray world.

Hopefully a lot less drastically than with him becoming a fugitive.

 

[plynch]

Joker was terrific. Not a superhero film, as you probably know. Super sad, which I knew it would be, based on the trailer and how people treat the different, plus there's a whole nother layer/level that I quasi-spoilered but deleted just now. Highly recommended, just as a film.

 

[The Realist]

Hmm. Link worked when I previewed it. Doesn't work for me now either. Ok, I'll post the quotations here (found another of her posts just a bit earlier than the one I linked to) but for the benefit of plynch (if truly wants to be unspoiled), I'll put it in spoiler code.

Spoiler: Interpretation of Man of Steel with which I agree (with minor quibbles)

.

and

from Lapis Exilis on p 7 and 8 of the Man of Steel Grading and Discussion Thread (having trouble with the quotation function as well, it seems). My bolding of the parts I find most compelling in her observations. As ever, YMMV.

You're right, Ovation, those are solid, smart posts. I can agree with many of the perspectives even if I don't agree with the conclusions. Thanks for reposting.

 

[Kor]

Modern comics such as "Earth One" have already been giving us a more dour, angsty Superman for years. Casual cinemagoers whose idea of Superman was defined by the 1978 movie simply aren't used to it because they haven't closely kept up with the comics, so to them the Snyder/Cavill portrayal seems to come out of left field.

Kor

 

[Admiral2]

Modern comics such as "Earth One" have already been giving us a more dour, angsty Superman for years. Casual cinemagoers whose idea of Superman was defined by the 1978 movie simply aren't used to it because they haven't closely kept up with the comics, so to them the Snyder/Cavill portrayal seems to come out of left field.

Kor

I don't think it's out of left field for me. I simply don't want to see an emo Superman. I didn't want to see it when they wanted Nick Cage to play him. I didn't want to see it in Superman Returns, and I didn't want to see it in Man of Steel.

 

[The Realist]

Modern comics such as "Earth One" have already been giving us a more dour, angsty Superman for years. Casual cinemagoers whose idea of Superman was defined by the 1978 movie simply aren't used to it because they haven't closely kept up with the comics, so to them the Snyder/Cavill portrayal seems to come out of left field.

That approach doesn't much work in the comics either, which is why the "New 52" Superman was scuttled in favor of the welcome return of the post-Crisis version in the mainstream continuity.

I actually rather liked the Superman: Earth One books (in some ways, they're like a better version of Snyderman), but they're three slim out-of-continuity volumes that don't really represent any kind of trend. Current comics Superman remains much closer to Donner/Reeve in tone and spirit than he does to Snyder/Cavill.

 

[Ethros]

When I saw the thread title the Christopher Reeve Superman is what came into my head. So I guess that answers for me the "who do you immediately think of?"

 

[The Realist]

When I saw the thread title the Christopher Reeve Superman is what came into my head. So I guess that answers for me the "who do you immediately think of?"

Last year I saw a "Superman" edition of those overpriced one-shot commemorative magazines you always see in grocery stores. Who do you think was front-and-center on the cover of this publication, designed as an impulse buy for casual shoppers?

Reeve still embodies Superman in the mind of the general public these 40+ years later.

 

[plynch]

It was why I didn't like angsty-developing Kirk in the JJ movies. Kirk was the mythic hero in TOS. Good guy in the center seat. People don't value the resonance of the mythic archetypes. Superman (or Supergirl on TV, who seems to be doing pretty well as hero-ideal. Primary colors. So corny in 2020, I know, but also eternal. There's room for the brooding, convoluted chaotic-good, too, of course. His name is Batman. But the Apollonian, positive hero has eternal, significant resonance. Probably why, when they want to push magazines to a general audience, they put Reeves' version on the front.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It was why I didn't like angsty-developing Kirk in the JJ movies. Kirk was the mythic hero in TOS.

Never got that from Kirk in TOS, maybe in the movies but not on TV. Kirk was a guy who worried and had stress. He sweated out tough situations and occasionally made the wrong call. He wasn't afraid to admit it either. Not really a guy striding the world like colossus.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Never got that from Kirk in TOS, maybe in the movies but not on TV. Kirk was a guy who worried and had stress. He sweated out tough situations and occasionally made the wrong call. He wasn't afraid to admit it either. Not really a guy striding the world like colossus.

Agreed with this. The "mythic hero" Kirk was created by the fans more than anything else.

 

[cooleddie74]

Just like his notorious womanizing and sleeping with every female humanoid that wandered into his field of vision. The Kelvin Timeline movies ran with that version of Kirk even though it wasn't really who the Prime Kirk was.