MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Given how advanced the Kryptonians were, it wouldn't surprise me if they had long lifespans compared to humans even without the Sun-derived powers. Since Zod was engineered to be the Kryptonian Defender, it'd make sense for him to age slower and retain his vitality and strength even if he was the Earth equivalent of his 50s.
He did look a little older though, he had a grey beard on Earth compared to the start of the film.
He did look a little older though, he had a grey beard on Earth compared to the start of the film.
The movie is too inconsistent with respect to Kryptonian physiology for a discussion of relative ages to be illuminating. We didn't see any adverse effects of our sun on Clark until he was in grade school, while Zod experienced those same effects within hours of being exposed to our sun. Sure, Clark might have experienced something sooner, but it wasn't explicitly shown. As such, all of that is basically hand-waved away in favor of the story's more direct emphasis on Clark's emotional character arc, rather than internally consistent world-building.
That's in contrast to Superman: The Movie, where a toddler Clark was lifting up a pickup within minutes of crashing on Earth. So when, in Supes II, Zod and his minions (only recently released from the Phantom Zone) start exhibiting super powers on the moon, it wasn't quite so farfetched - within the context of the films themselves.
That's in contrast to Superman: The Movie, where a toddler Clark was lifting up a pickup within minutes of crashing on Earth. So when, in Supes II, Zod and his minions (only recently released from the Phantom Zone) start exhibiting super powers on the moon, it wasn't quite so farfetched - within the context of the films themselves.
Krytonians and their genetic cousins the Daxamite's, both gain powers upon immediate exposure to yellow sun environments. There is no sand bagging or specific amount of time that has to go by for K's and D's to gain Superman-eske powers. It's like that in the comics too. The John Byrne era of the late 80's had the elapsed time rule. With so many different writers handling Superman over the years. It's common for the the sand bagging/elapsed time clause to be dropped out of convenience for the narrative of their story.
For example: Zod was brought back (reintroduced as a new character) in the 2006 comic series "Last Son" written by Geoff Jonhs and cowritten by Richard Donner (Superman 1 and 2). Zod and his followers escape the phantom zone and in a single day wreck Superman, the JLA, and the JSA. It's really a matter of author preference. MOS plays by the same rules established in the comics.
Thinking about it, the idea that it's about Earth's atmosphere that makes them have superpowers is not that great to begin with.
That's because we first saw Clark on Earth as a grade-schooler. Martha talked about how he had problems breathing as an infant.
None of that is explicitly seen in this movie, though. There are, perhaps, a few throwaway lines of dialogue, but what audiences see is an inconsistency. The dialogue, then, is the film's way of hand-waving away the technicalities of Kryptonian physiology - mostly because it doesn't really care about it. The film cares more about the emotional journey and the superpowers are just nonsensical magic - a conceit audiences either accept or don't.
Exactly. We don't actually see the near-instant effects of how landing on Earth affects Clark. We get that hand-waving dialogue, and that's it. Like I said above, it's because the movie doesn't particularly care about making these effects consistent. Its priorities are elsewhere.
For the record, I'm not saying the movie has to be consistent here to tell an engaging story. J.K Rowling's magic in Harry Potter isn't particularly consistent, either - and I've enjoyed reading those books a few times over, just as I mostly enjoyed Clark's emotional journey in MoS.
I'd say that it's very consistent...they just didn't think that watching baby Clark sleep was worth wasting a scene on when they could establish it in dialogue.
FYI: there was actually a scene filmed where Jonathan and Martha took little baby Clark to a pediatrician because of his problems adapting to Earth's environment, but it was cut from the film.
It's in Chapter Seven of the novelization if anyone's interested . . .
It's in Chapter Seven of the novelization if anyone's interested . . .
I'd definitely be interested. Next time I'm working, I'll look up that chapter while on a break. Thanks for the "insider" info, Greg. 
It's noteworthy, then, that the final cut of the film deemed it unimportant to show us this scene (there is the already-discussed hand-waving dialogue). As I mentioned before, the film is less concerned with showing consistency with respect to the superpowers than it is with the emotional implications of them. Which is fine by me. Clark's meltdown in school is likely more emotional than the one where he was an infant. Better to leave those kinds of details to the novelization where readers are more accustomed to that depth world building. But to say that the film really prioritized it, or cared to show such consistency? Nah, not really.
It's noteworthy, then, that the final cut of the film deemed it unimportant to show us this scene (there is the already-discussed hand-waving dialogue). As I mentioned before, the film is less concerned with showing consistency with respect to the superpowers than it is with the emotional implications of them. Which is fine by me. Clark's meltdown in school is likely more emotional than the one where he was an infant. Better to leave those kinds of details to the novelization where readers are more accustomed to that depth world building. But to say that the film really prioritized it, or cared to show such consistency? Nah, not really.
I'd definitely be interested. Next time I'm working, I'll look up that chapter while on a break. Thanks for the "insider" info, Greg.
It's noteworthy, then, that the final cut of the film deemed it unimportant to show us this scene (there is the already-discussed hand-waving dialogue). As I mentioned before, the film is less concerned with showing consistency with respect to the superpowers than it is with the emotional implications of them. Which is fine by me. Clark's meltdown in school is likely more emotional than the one where he was an infant. Better to leave those kinds of details to the novelization where readers are more accustomed to that depth world building. But to say that the film really prioritized it, or cared to show such consistency? Nah, not really.
According to an interview with David Goyer, it was cut because it was tonally at odds with the scenes around it; the pediatrician scene is a bit more overtly comic and slapstick than the rest of the movie so it ended up on the cutting-room floor. Probably the right call.
There was talking of including it among the "Deleted Scenes" on the DVD, but I haven't checked to see if it's there yet.
They didn't put any deleted scenes on the Blu/DVD in the end.
I think it's easy to believe that Clark's still-developing body may have taken time to develop the sun-derived powers whereas adult Kryptonians with matured forms might be able to process the Sun faster. There are significant differences between a child's body and an adults after all.
I'd definitely be interested. Next time I'm working, I'll look up that chapter while on a break. Thanks for the "insider" info, Greg.
It's noteworthy, then, that the final cut of the film deemed it unimportant to show us this scene (there is the already-discussed hand-waving dialogue). As I mentioned before, the film is less concerned with showing consistency with respect to the superpowers than it is with the emotional implications of them. Which is fine by me. Clark's meltdown in school is likely more emotional than the one where he was an infant. Better to leave those kinds of details to the novelization where readers are more accustomed to that depth world building. But to say that the film really prioritized it, or cared to show such consistency? Nah, not really.
Why should the film waste time on unnecessary scenes that won't advance the plot or put too much into it? If it has to be edited out, let it be edited out. It should be enough for everybody (it was enough for me) that Clark went through this in school and had to adjust (in fact, this detail makes the movie and his origins into Superman better, since instead of just having an effortless life, he has one where he had to struggle to adapt to living on Earth and work to master his powers.)
I'm sorry, but the show was a POS and then some; if they couldn't afford to bring the world of the comic book to life on the small screen, then why did they bother to do it at all? Why come up with a stupid 30s/40s 'will they/won't they' story line designed to get both Clark and Lois together? Why not explore the vastness of the Superman universe and all of the characters/situations in it? Why not give us glimpses of the other heroes in the DC Universe (team-ups with Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, etc.)
Instead, we got bad guys and gals that could have been tackled by NCIS or Five-O, situations full of cliches, a hairy Lex Luthor (because John Shea couldn't or wouldn't be bald) plus overuse of him in nearly every story.
At least The Flash had the bad guys (all of the Flash's rouge's gallery and an original bad guy), the kicking of bad guy/gal ass, plus the personal moments with Barry Allen's family, girlfriend, and girl friend (Tina McGee). What did Lois & Clark give us? Bullcrap plots and people that wouldn't have survived page one of a Superman comic book. As Jonathan Lemkin said in an issue of Cinescape-he was the writer on a movie of Superman that was never made back in the 1990s-'Superman versus humans isn't an interesting thing to see or write. That's like me versus an ant. Who cares?'
As well, people say that this version of Superman was a haunted depressed person; hey, you've been watching Smallville for ten seasons-if you can put up with Clark being like he was on that show, you can put up with Superman being like this for one movie (and only when he was wandering the world getting ready to become him as well: I don't think that he'll be like that in the next movie at all, or at least in small increments like the rest of us are unlike the way that Clark was on Smallville with his teen angst.) From what I can see, Superman is still a genuinely good guy who's here to help all of us, the unfortunate (but sadly inevitable and necessary due to the way he acted) elimination of Zod aside.
With regards to the Clark being the real person and Superman being his mask, that was John Byrne's vision and version of him, and while that was great for the years it was used, it's time for the slate to be cleared; after all, what good's a reboot if it does the exact same thing as the previous version?
Last edited:
Yeah, Clark's childhood struggle to adapt to Earth's environment, and the fact that Zod's people had to deal with it just as Clark did, never fully mastering their powers in the short time they were on Earth, was something that I thought he film did well.
I never once said that the film should spend time showing a complete internal consistency with respect to the superpowers. I simply said that it didn't show such complete consistency - its priorities elsewhere. To say otherwise is to resort to the same hand-waving that the film does (i.e. there was a throwaway line of dialogue, there was a deleted scene, lore from the comics, etc.). But as I've said a couple of times, I have no objections to the film's priorities. I think it made the right choices.
Because you weren't the intended audience.
^I'm sorry, but I'm a Superman fan, and if it says (and has) Superman in it, I expect to see Superman do his job as shown in the books. If Warner Bros. can'r do this credibly on TV in live action, then they should leave it to the animation division and to the big screen instead. And the ladies and gentlemen that like this kind of thing can find something else to watch-after all, this is about a man in cape and tights that fights crime and natural disasters, not a rom-com.
