MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

[Sto-Vo-Kory]

He may have thought he had no choice, but there were things he could of done..... The comic book Superman could have defeated Zod in that situation without killing him.

Name them or shut up.

At this point you're just a blithering kid who spent a lot of time getting emotionally invested in wanting to hate a movie, look authoritative on something and made a lot of noise about it on the internet. You've ridiculously made allowances for times when he's killed and lived in a world with hundreds of heroes to help and more fantastic tech at his disposal. In the case of Doomsday, it's clear you differentiate the two situations because one looks like a scary, hulking "monster" and one looks like a regular person.

This Superman had neither of those options listed to him available at the time. But you're too invested and entrenched in holding a specific opinion that you made a lot of noise about in front of everyone, and because you can't back down now, you point to inane examples where Superman had more options open to him, yet still killed and say "he had no choice" or "the stakes were higher" even when the "stakes" were exactly the same. You look more and more ridiculous, if that's even possible, every time you reply.

But I need a good fucking laugh, so give the specifics on what these "other options" were. Go ahead. Keep in mind that Zod, having just murdered THOUSANDS of American citizens is subject to American law, and since we executed Bin Laden for less death and destruction, Zod would be found guilty and sentenced to death. And since nothing human made affected Zod, Superman would have to carry out the execution. He doesn't get to escape our laws or punishments.

So let's hear these options that don't result in Superman killing him. I mean, I guess Superman could spend the rest of his days struggling to keep him in a bear hold or something.

"...Superman would have to carry out the execution." What? He would? How exactly would the US government force Superman to do anything of that nature?

As for Super-alternatives to dealing with Zod, he could have used his own heat vision to blast an escape hole in the wall behind the civilians and hold Zod's head a few moments whilst they climbed thru to safety. After they were away, Superman could have lifted Zod up beyond the earth's atmosphere (Supes is, after all, a solar battery and should be considerably more powerful than Zod at this point having lived a life of saturation in the yellow sun of our solar system). I can't remember if MoS Superman needs air to breathe or not so he does one of two things: 1) he gut punches the air out of Zod and waits for him to lose consciousness, or 2) he carries Zod to the dark side of the moon and waits for him to lose his solar-powered mojo enough to knock him out. Either way, it's lights out for Zod and this will give Kal-El an hour or so to burrow out a spider-hole prison to keep Zod incarcerated in, away from the sun and the source of his troublesome powers. With Zod tucked away, now the people of Earth can turn its focus to the complicated and challenging questions of how to deal with an alien that possesses this level of destructive capabilities. And Zod.

This alternative -- obviously -- came off the top of my head but suggests just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Superman's options at his point in the movie. David Goyer was paid a lot of money and (one would hope) spent a lot of time writing this movie. To paraphrase Mark Waid, Supes killing Zod isn't a failure of the movie's title character; it's a failing in the movie's writer and his lack of a greater imagination. It's not my responsibility or Kirk55555's responsibility to come up with better or more satisfying solutions to Superman's dilemma -- that's why Goyer got the paycheck and not us.

I realize I'm not the "blithering kid" you were calling out but maybe I still gave you that "good fucking laugh" you needed.

 

[Sindatur]

I ask this out of ignorance, I'm not a comic reader, probably never read more than 10 or 15 comics of Superman in my youth, and only know Superman animated from Justice League in the 1970s.

Where does this idea that being in Yellow sunlight longer stores up more super power like a battery come from? I'm not familiar with that at all, and certainly didn't notice that detail in this specific movie? The concept I am familiar with is simply that yellow sun gives Kryptonians Super powers, but, not that it stores more and more the longer you are under the yellow sun.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

As for Super-alternatives to dealing with Zod, he could have used his own heat vision to blast an escape hole in the wall behind the civilians and hold Zod's head a few moments whilst they climbed thru to safety. After they were away, Superman could have lifted Zod up beyond the earth's atmosphere (Supes is, after all, a solar battery and should be considerably more powerful than Zod at this point having lived a life of saturation in the yellow sun of our solar system). I can't remember if MoS Superman needs air to breathe or not so he does one of two things: 1) he gut punches the air out of Zod and waits for him to lose consciousness, or 2) he carries Zod to the dark side of the moon and waits for him to lose his solar-powered mojo enough to knock him out. Either way, it's lights out for Zod and this will give Kal-El an hour or so to burrow out a spider-hole prison to keep Zod incarcerated in, away from the sun and the source of his troublesome powers. With Zod tucked away, now the people of Earth can turn its focus to the complicated and challenging questions of how to deal with an alien that possesses this level of destructive capabilities. And Zod.

This alternative -- obviously -- came off the top of my head but suggests just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Superman's options at his point in the movie. David Goyer was paid a lot of money and (one would hope) spent a lot of time writing this movie. To paraphrase Mark Waid, Supes killing Zod isn't a failure of the movie's title character; it's a failing in the movie's writer and his lack of a greater imagination. It's not my responsibility or Kirk55555's responsibility to come up with better or more satisfying solutions to Superman's dilemma -- that's why Goyer got the paycheck and not us.

I realize I'm not the "blithering kid" you were calling out but maybe I still gave you that "good fucking laugh" you needed.

^ Remember when Superman was imprisoned on Zod's ship? He was reduced to human level in a matter of seconds. When Lois and Jor-El changed the ship's environment, it didn't take Supes long to recharge up to presumably full strength. As he was able to fly, survive reentry and partake in a protracted fight in Smallville minutes after.

Traditionally, Superman's solar charge functions like a photonucleic effect. Like a plant, as long as Superman gets sunlight to charge his cells he doesn't need to eat, breath and can go days without sleep. He does need to achieve REM sleep every once in awhile.

There simply isn't enough time to deal with Zod or build a prison for him. You look at the prison built for the Hulk in Avengers (that Thor was trapped in). That was built after years of examining the Hulk's strength and durability. If they had time or an unwrecked Kryptonian ship with it's environmental systems still intact. They could fashion a prison for Zod. But first you would have to disable him in combat. Zod was unrelenting in his attack on humanity and Superman at that point. Rewatch the scene, Zod wanted to die. He didn't focus any effort on escaping the headlock. A vulnerable position for anyone to be in but Zod didn't care.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I ask this out of ignorance, I'm not a comic reader, probably never read more than 10 or 15 comics of Superman in my youth, and only know Superman animated from Justice League in the 1970s.

Where does this idea that being in Yellow sunlight longer stores up more super power like a battery come from? I'm not familiar with that at all, and certainly didn't notice that detail in this specific movie? The concept I am familiar with is simply that yellow sun gives Kryptonians Super powers, but, not that it stores more and more the longer you are under the yellow sun.

The Idea comes from the 1986's Man of Steel comic series by John Byrne. It was used to explain why it took Superman so long to fully develop his powers (he didn'y fully develop them until adulthood). In the Silver Age (1960-80's)/Modern/New52 Age, Kryptonian's get powers as soon as they are exposed to the a yellow environment. As we see in MOS. The battery concept is a way of sandbagging Superman as the strongest K, since he's been exposed to yellow sun the longest; in comparison to Supergirl, Superboy (clone) and other K's.

It's a writers ploy that is not always followed, and is only brought up if the plot demands Superman be the strongest.

 

[Sindatur]

I ask this out of ignorance, I'm not a comic reader, probably never read more than 10 or 15 comics of Superman in my youth, and only know Superman animated from Justice League in the 1970s.

Where does this idea that being in Yellow sunlight longer stores up more super power like a battery come from? I'm not familiar with that at all, and certainly didn't notice that detail in this specific movie? The concept I am familiar with is simply that yellow sun gives Kryptonians Super powers, but, not that it stores more and more the longer you are under the yellow sun.

The Idea comes from the 1986's Man of Steel comic series by John Byrne. It was used to explain why it took Superman so long to fully develop his powers (he didn'y fully develop them until adulthood). In the Silver Age (1960-80's)/Modern/New52 Age, Kryptonian's get powers as soon as they are exposed to the a yellow environment. As we see in MOS. The battery concept is a way of sandbagging Superman as the strongest K, since he's been exposed to yellow sun the longest; in comparison to Supergirl, Superboy (clone) and other K's.

It's a writers ploy that is not always followed, and is only brought up if the plot demands Superman be the strongest.

Thanks

In this movie, I didn't get the impression Clark/Superman was stronger than the others, they seemed equally powered. It seems where he got his advantage was being more used to the superhearing and supervision which incapacitated Zod, because he hadn't learned to deal with the "flood" of so much sound and vision, he was unable to focus his ability to separate them all out.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I found Superman's decision in the much-cited Superman #22 to be more questionable. He had more time to think it through, and he had already exposed the Kryptonians to Gold Kryptonite, which should have robbed them of their powers forever. But he didn't want to take the chance that they might somehow regain their powers (which were greater than his in that version) if he brought them to his Earth, so he executed them.

As he points out in the story, he had every right to do so...he was literally the only other person on that Earth, and thus the task of serving as judge, jury, and executioner on behalf of the billions that they'd murdered fell to him by default.

 

[Anwar]

The survivors of the destroyed Pocket-Earth told him to do anything it took to stop the Kryptonians. That means he possessed the legal authority to execute them.

It's not murder, he had the legal right to do so.

 

[The Old Mixer]

[Spock, raising eyebrow]I believe I said that.[/Spock raising eyebrow]

 

[GalaxyX]

As a side note. I hate the concept of gold kryptonite. What a stupid concept. How exactly do you "permanently" take away the powers of a being who by nature, soaks up radiation from the yellow sun and stores it in their cells? It would have to be something that not only can destroy genetic coding, but rewrite DNA to be exactly like a human being's.

Gold kryptonite assumes Kryptonians are humans who have extra powers. In reality, Kryptonians have no extra powers amongst themselves. For them, that level of strength and abilities is normal. It's only when compared to us humans that, relatively speaking, they are much different and far better physically than us.

This is why I stopped watching Smallville after the 4th Season. I could only take so much of Clark "permanently" losing his powers until some deux ex machina brought them back for him.

 

[sojourner]

Maybe it gives them the kryptonian equivalent of Leukemia?

 

[Anwar]

As a side note. I hate the concept of gold kryptonite. What a stupid concept. How exactly do you "permanently" take away the powers of a being who by nature, soaks up radiation from the yellow sun and stores it in their cells? It would have to be something that not only can destroy genetic coding, but rewrite DNA to be exactly like a human being's.

In the Superman/Batman Generations story that's exactly what it does do: It changes the DNA of a Kryptonian into Human DNA.

 

[The Old Mixer]

All I can say is that there's a reason they tried to jettison such elements of the Superman mythos with the Byrne reboot of the 80s. The Pocket Universe that the Kryptonian criminals came from was modeled on the Silver Age version of things, as part of an ultimately unsuccessful continuity implant to allow for Superboy to have still factored into the Legion's continuity post-Crisis.

 

[Neroon]

Name them or shut up.

At this point you're just a blithering kid who spent a lot of time getting emotionally invested in wanting to hate a movie, look authoritative on something and made a lot of noise about it on the internet. You've ridiculously made allowances for times when he's killed and lived in a world with hundreds of heroes to help and more fantastic tech at his disposal. In the case of Doomsday, it's clear you differentiate the two situations because one looks like a scary, hulking "monster" and one looks like a regular person.

This Superman had neither of those options listed to him available at the time. But you're too invested and entrenched in holding a specific opinion that you made a lot of noise about in front of everyone, and because you can't back down now, you point to inane examples where Superman had more options open to him, yet still killed and say "he had no choice" or "the stakes were higher" even when the "stakes" were exactly the same. You look more and more ridiculous, if that's even possible, every time you reply.

But I need a good fucking laugh, so give the specifics on what these "other options" were. Go ahead. Keep in mind that Zod, having just murdered THOUSANDS of American citizens is subject to American law, and since we executed Bin Laden for less death and destruction, Zod would be found guilty and sentenced to death. And since nothing human made affected Zod, Superman would have to carry out the execution. He doesn't get to escape our laws or punishments.

So let's hear these options that don't result in Superman killing him. I mean, I guess Superman could spend the rest of his days struggling to keep him in a bear hold or something.

WHOA! Take a breather and calm down, please. There is no cause to react this way in a discussion about a fictional character.

 

[Kelthaz]

The Nostalgia Critic recently did a review of Man of Steel. Doug Walker (Nostalgia Critic) who hates the film and Joe Vargas (Angry Joe) who loves the film did a joint review looking at the pros and cons of the film. I think the review did a pretty good job at covering both sides of this debate and it's worth a watch if you have the time. Unfortunately, you need quite a bit of time.

Given the extreme love it or hate it reception Man of Steel received they decided to make a lengthy review. 49 minutes to be exact. Yeah, a bit overkill, but it's worth watching.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vi...heglasses/nostalgia-critic/41449-man-of-steel

 

[M.A.C.O.]

^ I watched the review and I did find it very even handed. Even if Angry Joe came off as more as a screaming fanboy than an objective critic at times.

I just thought of something funny. When you think about the divided consensus regarding MOS. It's just as polarizing as Superman Returns is/was. Fans and general audiences can't coalesce around a Superman movie and declare it great and inspiring like the first 2 films by Donner and Lester. Oh well just have to keep counting boxoffice grosses to measure success.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Or perhaps both films missed the mark, each in its own way. As I expressed way upthread, IMO, somewhere between the two is a great Superman film that we haven't seen yet.

 

[RandyS]

^ I watched the review and I did find it very even handed. Even if Angry Joe came off as more as a screaming fanboy than an objective critic at times.

I just thought of something funny. When you think about the divided consensus regarding MOS. It's just as polarizing as Superman Returns is/was. Fans and general audiences can't coalesce around a Superman movie and declare it great and inspiring like the first 2 films by Donner and Lester. Oh well just have to keep counting boxoffice grosses to measure success.

I think it's because the first two films by Donner and Donner/Lester were classics. Returns and Man of Steel were made recently, and therefore could never be considered such. Much more effort was put into movies and stuff back then as opposed to now. Now, it's all about "flashy" stuff and titlation.

Just my take.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

^ well to be fair Superman Returns looks and feels a lot like Superman the movie. It wasn't completely verbatim but it hit all the same chords. It tried to capture the poetry and fairytale aspect of the 1978 film for the 2006 audience and people just weren't feeling it. It's a good movie, it's shot, acted and directed well. However it's a terrible superhero movie. There is no challenge or adventure that Superman is living through. Things just happen and he shows up. Really Bryan Singer's fault for applying an ensemble type movie format (like X-Men or Usual Suspects) to a character who who requires singular focus.

Man of Steel isn't perfect but you can see where they tried to differentiate themselves from what had come before. Threading the needle was the hardest part they never quite managed.

 

[stj]

Perhaps we should compromise? The people who want to see a flawed badass hero can watch the new Superman and the people who want to see the old noble and astounding Superman can go to Thor movies.

 

[Warped9]

I must be one of the few who doesn't worship the '78 Superman or Superman II. There are some things I like in them but also a lot I don't like, namely the overt camp.

I don't have a problem with Superman killing Zod. It doesn't go against what has been established before in comics or onscreen. And the moment you bring a fictional comic book character into the live-action medium and try to treat it with any measure of realism you're going to run into a challenge.

The '78 film is very much like a comic book, but there are things in it that might work in a comic book but don't work as live-action unless yoy want to treat it all as a joke. When you're a kid you mightn't notice that so much, but from an adult perspective you notice incongruities. In some ways the '78 Superman reminds me of the Adam West Batman (though not to the same extreme). If you want to laugh at the absurdity then that works. But if you like your superheroes with some measure of gravitas then you have to tone the obvious absurdities down a few notches.

After watching The Avengers seeing the level of destruction and collateral damage in Man Of Steel was really no different. In both cases the hero or heroes are grossly outnumbered. In the end they prevail, but realistically it couldn't happen without some extensive collateral damage. Also when you're dealing with an opponent with deadly force and deadly intent you really can't pussyfoot it with them.

Superman was one lone individual outnumbered by opponents of equal strength. He was also new in the role of being a superhero. Like Indiana Jones said in Raiders Of The Lost Ark, "I haven't got a plan. I'm making it up as I go." (or words to that effect). Superman doesn't have the time to plan and needs to make split second decisions. And as a solitary individual taking on numerous opponents there is no way a novice hero can take the time to save everyone trapped in wreckage or hanging from a suspended girder or whatever. An experienced Superman might have dealt with things differently as they were presented in MoS, but in MoS we don't have an experienced Superman.

The one problem I have with this movie is the fight scene at the end felt too dragged out. It felt endless and ultimately pointless. I feel much the same way when I see similar scenes in DCAU direct-to-video features.

Man Of Steel faces a similar challenge as Watchmen did. There is what the film is and there is what some viewers were expecting or wanted the film to be. One's expectations and wants have next to nothing to do with what the film is. This is the film the producers wanted to make. This is their interpretation of Superman and his universe. The question is: does it work within its own context? Does it work on its own merits?

Most of the issues I see raised about MoS seem based on the film not being what some viewers expected or wanted. Fair enough, but then that doesn't address whether the film works within its own context.

If you hold the '78 film as the standard then I can see why you might take issue with MoS. But then I don't hold that film as the standard. I prefer the early George Reeves Superman and from that perspective I don't have much problem with MoS.