MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

[GalaxyX]

The writers made a choice to have Superman kill Zod to have a impactful, shocking, moment in the movie. They didn't write themselves in a corner they wrote themselves exactly where they wanted to go. And, for me, it worked. Again, Superman showed pain and remorse over doing it. It didn't come easy to him and that he didn't "simply kill Zod earlier" shows it was his absolute very last choice and not a decision that came to him quickly and easily. (See: Him risking exposing himself to a bus-full of children as opposed to letting them die to protect his identity.)

I think the killing of Zod worked well as far as showing us that Superman was basically outgunned at every turn, and the one moment he got the upper hand, he had to take the opportunity to eliminate Zod because it was the only way he could guarantee that there would be no more deaths (He didn't know if he'd get another chance to subdue him and he might get killed trying)

What I didn't like was how much of a one dimensional character Zod was. The movie tried to explain it as being "programming" in his brain. I guess I can accept that, but it's still unsettling.

I think there's a great movie to be made with a better edit. I would join all the Smallville stuff together into a linear, coherent 30-40 mins at the beginning. I would also extend the scenes where Clark is just moving from job to job making a living while hiding his true nature. If there's deleted footage there, I would add it. There needed to be a solid 1hr at the beginning building up who Clark is, so that when he decided to become Superman, we can feel how he got there (the movie just gave up a connect the dots "he became Superman because he was supposed to". I wanted to see him have an actual choice, and choose good because of the way he was raised).

Then the 1.2hr have a more coherent effort by the military to treat Superman as an enemy at first, but then clearly show that they realize Superman is fighting on their side. I would have loved to see some Michael Bay style military power being thrown against Zod and his minions.

We know that just the military on their own would have been useless. But it would have been cool if, the efforts of humanity's military powers would have distracted Zod's army just enough to give Superman a fighting chance to beat him without Deux Ex Machina "quantum engine triggered black holes".

I guess to recap, my biggest complaints about the movie are:

1. Not enough build up of Clark, and who he is as a person. We are told he wants to be good, but only glimpses as to why.

2. Not enough military involvement. I got the sense that they didn't trust Superman, and then they just did a 180 and trusted him. I didn't feel there was a path to get there. It just happened because the movie said it did.

3. More minor, but still annoying, was the overblown fight scenes. If I can't see what the heck is going on, I might as well be watching a screensaver. Copious amounts of FX doesn't make up for confusing cacophony.


I hope an extended release come out with deleted scenes. I can't wait to put together my own version. The ingredients are all there to bring this movie from a C to an A, at least for me.

What a sad life you must have when you must ignore GOD's number one commandment..On your definition on hero????

I don't understand what the big deal is about this. Zod is a crazy son of a bitch that is killing humans left and right with no remorse and will continue to do so. There is no way to contain him on Earth (at least not yet in this movie save for the trigger of the Phantom Zone again which he managed to dodge). So the Phantom Zone being the only way to contain him, and having that opportunity gone, Superman couldn't take the chance to let him live. His death was necessary to save billions of lives. I don't see that as a bad thing.

 

[Captain Mike]

What a sad life you must have when you must ignore GOD's number one commandment..On your definition on hero????

Actually I'm pretty sure that was the fifth or sixth commandment (apparently commanding that humans worship no one other gods but Him was more important).

It is actually around seven, but who cares in these ovie making days?

 

[RAMA]

The mad dog Zod is the opposite. Somehow seeing no difference is pretty uncritical. If being whipped was going to unhinge Zod, you'd think he'd have gone nuts on Krypton. The Kryptonian Zod probably would have started planning another Phantom Zone escape. Hence the creation of the new personality. Well, if they insist, but no one has a right to insist that the audience must let the makers have it both ways.

I liked Zod's motivation in Superman II much much more, which was to rule. Simple but effective. Also Terence Stamp was awesome.

Zod was just Hitler in MOS. Meh.

I found Zod's motivation and the Phantom zone release to be superior and much more logical in mos.

 

[davejames]

In any event, the Donner movie was a mediocre Hollywood attempt at an "epic" that's redeemed mainly by Reeve's performance - very shakily supported by a script that takes nothing seriously.

Reeve's performance is memorable, but for me the main thing that redeems the movie is John Williams' score, which, to be fair, doesn't take everything seriously, either, but the main title is grand.

I think you guys are being way too hard on the Donner films. Putting aside that it was the late 70s/early 80s, those movies still do a great job making a character as difficult as Superman actually WORK on the big screen. And making the superhero world more credible and believable than it had ever been before-- especially compared to the cartoons and TV series that came before.

And yeah there might have been some campy humor, but the movies themselves never become a complete joke or farce on the level of the 1960s Batman or anything. In fact even while delivering jokes, you still clearly sense the underlying menace in Hackman's Lex (whether in the brilliant kryptonite scene or in his desire to sink and destroy the western seaboard). And despite his silly costume and outdated effects, Stamp's Zod still feels like a huge threat in that movie as well.

As much as I love the serious tone of MOS, I think the approach of the Donner films works just as damn well. You just have to be willing to look past the humor and dated effects.

 

[davejames]

Really tired of this argument that Jonathan was somehow trying to teach Clark "not to save people" or "not be a hero".

OBVIOUSLY he wanted Clark to use his powers for good, and said so many times. He was just worried and conflicted over what might happen when the government and world found out the truth, and about how they would react. Which is probably what every parent would worry about in his position.

So enough of that stupid argument.

 

[GalaxyX]

In any event, the Donner movie was a mediocre Hollywood attempt at an "epic" that's redeemed mainly by Reeve's performance - very shakily supported by a script that takes nothing seriously.

Reeve's performance is memorable, but for me the main thing that redeems the movie is John Williams' score, which, to be fair, doesn't take everything seriously, either, but the main title is grand.

I think you guys are being way too hard on the Donner films. Putting aside that it was the late 70s/early 80s, those movies still do a great job making a character as difficult as Superman actually WORK on the big screen. And making the superhero world more credible and believable than it had ever been before-- especially compared to the cartoons and TV series that came before.

And yeah there might have been some campy humor, but the movies themselves never become a complete joke or farce on the level of the 1960s Batman or anything. In fact even while delivering jokes, you still clearly sense the underlying menace in Hackman's Lex (whether in the brilliant kryptonite scene or in his desire to sink and destroy the western seaboard). And despite his silly costume and outdated effects, Stamp's Zod still feels like a huge threat in that movie as well.

As much as I love the serious tone of MOS, I think the approach of the Donner films works just as damn well. You just have to be willing to look past the humor and dated effects.

Considering the time Superman The Movie was released, Donner did a spectacular job with it!

Even if MoS would have been perfect, it, in no way, shape, or form could it have reached the simplicity of the great story told in STM.

After leaving the theatre from watching MoS, I felt an urge to watch STM and SII back to back just to feel that magic that I felt the cold and sterile MoS lacked.

 

[Turtletrekker]

And as much as the Reeve movies might not play as well with audiences today, can you image trying sell Man of Steel to the movie going audience of 1978? Both takes on Superman are equally a product of their times and geared to the audience of their respective eras.

 

[Trekker4747]

BUT Bruce didn't come out and tie him to the train himself, did he? He also specifically said that he didn't have to save him...IS THAT the same as snapping someones neck?!?!?

Yes, yes it is. Batman made a choice not to save Ra and to let him die.

 

[Camren]

The Donner movies (the first two at least) are infinitely superior to the tripe that was Man of Steel. Those movies are classics and have a timeless appeal to them whereas MoS will soon be forgotten just like Superman Returns was.
I think people are being taken in by the fancy, over-the-top SFX of MoS and ignoring the fact there were no good or memorable characters whatsoever in the movie. Especially the protagonist himself, who was uninspiring and just carried a furrowed brow throughout in some lame attempt to portray anguish.
The plot was nothing special either, and has already been done and done a lot better in Superman 2.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

What a sad life you must have when you must ignore GOD's number one commandment..On your definition on hero????

Actually I'm pretty sure that was the fifth or sixth commandment (apparently commanding that humans worship no one other gods but Him was more important).

It is actually around seven, but who cares in these ovie making days?

It's actually the sixth commandment, and maybe you should care if you're going to start condescendingly lecturing people about God out of nowhere and criticizing the lack of accuracy in movies when the movie wasn't the one who screwed it up or even mentioned it; you were.

 

[Shazam!]

I think you guys are being way too hard on the Donner films. Putting aside that it was the late 70s/early 80s, those movies still do a great job making a character as difficult as Superman actually WORK on the big screen. And making the superhero world more credible and believable than it had ever been before-- especially compared to the cartoons and TV series that came before.

It's the 'new is good, old is bad' mentality that plagues these boards. Apparently it's impossible for the old and new to be good.

No wait, it is possible but just try suggesting that the old is in any superior and you'll be torn down as if you just insulted their firstborn.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The whole set up wherein Superman "had" to kill Zod was because Snyder and Goyer wanted it in there to "reinvent" the character. So they rewrote the ending, which originally, had Zod getting sucked into the PZ, to create a situation under which he "had" to kill Zod.

Yes, thus making it a far better and more dramatic ending.

The technical word for this, BTW, is "writing."

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I think you guys are being way too hard on the Donner films. Putting aside that it was the late 70s/early 80s, those movies still do a great job making a character as difficult as Superman actually WORK on the big screen. And making the superhero world more credible and believable than it had ever been before-- especially compared to the cartoons and TV series that came before.

It's the 'new is good, old is bad' mentality that plagues these boards. Apparently it's impossible for the old and new to be good.

No wait, it is possible but just try suggesting that the old is in any superior and you'll be torn down as if you just insulted their firstborn.

Oh, give it a rest already. You've been peddling this complaint all over the board and it's getting tedious. Liking a new film or show more than an older one or being able to recognize the flaws in an older movie/TV show but still enjoying it does not mean you have some kind of agenda to always promote the new at the expense of the old.

It's true that when something new comes along that is highly acclaimed by fans they will tend to assign it a greater value at first, and then that value often (but not always) is reduced a bit as time goes on, the initial excitement fades somewhat, or you reevaluate your stance based on reading other opinions. You can see that when each new comic book movie that is fan (and/or critically) acclaimed comes out and is frequently declared the "best comic book movie ever." It seems to happen every year or every other year at this point, because fortunately we've gotten a lot of great comic book movies recently. But that's just human nature, it's not part of any concerted effort to shit on what's come before.

 

[stj]

Sometimes being the Hero means you have to do something that is against your morality.

Malignant nonsense, a reactionary cliché that functions as an apologetic for numerous real life crimes. It also has nothing to do with the movie. Clark shouldn't and didn't have a serious moral problem with a justifiable homicide. He had a few bad moments dealing with the emotions, but Lois kissed it and made it all better. In the context of the movie, he should have been more upset that he now really was going to be the last of his kind.

I hate the whole won't kill code anyway as it was written in a time when Heroes had to be pure, it just doesn't suit the more gritty realistic heroes that are potrayed in todays TV/Movies.

The world is a lot of grey and it will always be that way.

Many of today's heroes may be more gritty but they're not one whit more realistic. This Superman could be a virgin for all we know. We can imagine he's a love'm and leave'm guy as he peregrinates the planet waiting for an opportunity , but this movie sure isn't going to rub our faces in it. This movie isn't bravely disdaining puerile ideas of purity, it's merely pandering to a reactionary view. Being conventional in all the important ways is the working definition of a Hollywood movie, which this is, despite the Canadian actors.

The movie hardly suggests that Superman killing Zod was a "heroic" thing, only that it was necessary in that moment-- just like it often is for our own cops and soldiers.

And very often, dare I say it, even more often, not necessary for "our" own cops and soldiers. (Can I see your PBA card?) This supposed necessity usually is treated in Hollywood movies as a defining characteristic of heroism, and there's no reason to view this as anything different.

And there was hardly anything thrilling or exciting about him doing it either. In fact it was actually pretty tragic to watch-- which was the point.

Superman feeling bad for a minute ain't a tragedy. Hero is (emotionally) hurt, heroine comforts him, we're not talking great drama here.

And they were right that that original ending would have been deeply unsatisfying-- and way too easy for the character. Not only did the movie still need some kind of powerful conclusion, but we needed to see Superman truly tested as well....

We needed to see that pain, because that is something only the Superman of the comics would truly feel (even if it was over the death of someone who had killed his own father!) In fact in my mind this act only makes him seem MORE like Superman to me.

I liked the movie too but I don't feel any compulsion to post nonsense. The original ending would have been deeply unsatisfying because convention demands the hero kill the villain as the emotional payoff. Whether the hero gets to feel sorry for himself too is optional, it's the killing that's essential. Clark at the Planet was in one sense the proper ending and it was still deeply satisfying, for me at least. No twaddle about the heroism of killing a helpless person there.

Soldiers of the empire may need to believe that killing the helpless because they're not just hopelessly evil, but by some evil magic still a menace. Touting this is a requirement for propaganda, not drama. In this story, Superman is test by his powers, by temptation, by years of loneliness, by the air in the Kryptonian spaceship. The need to see him tested for whether he's capable of murder comes from an agenda, not the script. In particular, the notion that the this is more of a test than Jonathan Kent's martyrdom borders on nuts. Why try to spin this so the supposed lesson validates the old version of Superman who refuses to kill instead of going out of its way to introduce a Superman who does? It's going to be a lot of wasted effort, because it isn't so.

Yes, thus making it a far better and more dramatic ending.

The technical word for this, BTW, is "writing."

Just because you like it doesn't make it good writing. Also, "histrionic" is not a synonym for "dramatic." Clark was vastly more dramatic at the underpass. I do wish there had been some writing in this movie. Clark only wins because Zod was too stupid to leave someone to guard the other end of the malarkey machine. It would have been far better and more dramatic writing if Clark didn't have victory handed to him by the script. CGI of him having a tough time doesn't cut it, because we don't understand his powers.

 

[Jeyl]

I'm not a Superman fan but I do enjoy some of his stories. I've seen all the movies and watched his animated series that followed Batman: The Animated Series, but I'm not one of those fans who have a critical perception on what his character is supposed to be so I'm open to whatever changes they make. Now that's not saying that anyone who likes a particular Superman or has an idea of what they think Superman should be is wrong. Not at all. With the constant changes in super heroes over the many decades, it's become a matter of personal preference regarding which depiction of a super hero you like. It's not enough to simply say "I like Superman" because when you say why, it will no doubt conflict with others.

With that being said, I did not like this movie at all. For an origin story, it's way too ambitious and epic. So many things happen on such a large scale that it becomes tiresome and worn out by the half way point. The last action piece between Superman and Zod felt like it should have occurred in the third movie, not the final act of the first. Metropolis barely gets any set up to make it an important location for Supes to save, and attempting to evoke images of 9/11 with buildings collapsing and survivors fleeing covered in gray dust while trying to free trapped victims just didn't make the film fun to watch.

And the camera work. That stupid, #!(%($(@ camera work. For a film that has some gorgeous effects work, I wish the camera would just stay still for a second so that I could take in and enjoy what I was seeing on screen. But instead the camera shakes more than a dune buggy going down a rough hill with added zooms to boot. When Snyder's wife said that it wouldn't be as bad as the Bourne movies, that was a flat out lie. I actually thought it was worse than the Bourne movies.

And while I did say that I didn't really care how Superman would be interpreted, I would like to make a comparison point which I thought the original Donner film did brilliantly that this film just squanders. Jonathan Kent's death. In the original, he unexpectedly died of a heart attack that left Clark with a revelation that really fits what I can perceive to be his most generalized super hero characteristic. Even with all his powers he had, he couldn't use them to save his father's life. This shows Clark that life, despite being very precious, is also very fragile to the point where it can all be taken away, even when it didn't have to. So when I see Superman doing his heroics, I see it as someone who really does see not only how precious life is, but also how easy that life is to lose.

But this new take? Ugh. It's one thing to have the message be "The world is not ready for you", but it's completely another when you don't discuss when would be a good time. Why is it that Jonathan thought that drying in a freaking tornado was the best course of action? Why does Jonathan come out as right when his actions turns his wife into a freaking Widow and possibly giving his son years of guilt over the fact that his father wanted to die just to teach his son a lesson? Was it really that hard to just tell people to look away from the tornado to shield themselves from the debris while he quickly rushed out to save his Dad so no one could see him do it? And even if they did, you think that having a big tornado might cause people to misinterpret what they saw? He had more at his disposal to save Jonathan than simply doing nothing. This was not a noble sacrifice, this was a selfish cowardly act, and I hated it.

Also, Wonder Woman did it better.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I like Superman, and that's enough.

 

[Shazam!]

But this new take? Ugh. It's one thing to have the message be "The world is not ready for you", but it's completely another when you don't discuss when would be a good time. Why is it that Jonathan thought that drying in a freaking tornado was the best course of action? Why does Jonathan come out as right when his actions turns his wife into a freaking Widow and possibly giving his son years of guilt over the fact that his father wanted to die just to teach his son a lesson? Was it really that hard to just tell people to look away from the tornado to shield themselves from the debris while he quickly rushed out to save his Dad so no one could see him do it? And even if they did, you think that having a big tornado might cause people to misinterpret what they saw? He had more at his disposal to save Jonathan than simply doing nothing. This was not a noble sacrifice, this was a selfish cowardly act, and I hated it.

Jonathan (rightly or wrongly) believed in the greater good in his sacrifice; the 'needs of the many outweighing the need of the one' if you will...

There are many instances of family members allowing others to die, favouring belief over reason and science. Jonathan had beaten Clark over the head with his particular belief and whilst it may be a disservice to the character we grew up reading it's perfectly reasonable within the context of the fictional MoS universe.

 

[Jeyl]

Jonathan (rightly or wrongly) believed in the greater good in his sacrifice; the 'needs of the many outweighing the need of the one' if you will...

The one being Clark, and the many being himself and his wife Martha. I think that's the exact opposite of the phrase.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

because Snyder and Goyer wanted it in there to reinvent the character

How dare those bastards try to reinvent Superman in this new reboot origin story I demand the same thing forever

Thank gods that the creators keep reinventing Superman every ten years or so; it's the only reason the property's not dead and the character's not entirely a fossil.

BTW, looks like the Speedo's gone for...the long-term future.

 

[davejames]

I liked the movie too but I don't feel any compulsion to post nonsense. The original ending would have been deeply unsatisfying because convention demands the hero kill the villain as the emotional payoff. Whether the hero gets to feel sorry for himself too is optional, it's the killing that's essential. Clark at the Planet was in one sense the proper ending and it was still deeply satisfying, for me at least. No twaddle about the heroism of killing a helpless person there.

What is all this "helpless person" nonsense you're going on about? Zod was the furthest thing from helpless in this movie, and made it quite clear that he was going to continue his rampage against humanity unless Superman stopped him (even saying "I will not stop!!").

The only real "contrivance" of the plot is the fact Zod somehow did not get sucked into the Phantom Zone (although since we saw that Superman himself managed to escape it's pull, it certainly seems to be doable). But once Zod does escape, it only naturally followed that the battle would continue and that the two would eventually end up in a position like this-- where Superman would find himself in a position where he could kill Zod and have no choice but to do it (whether there was an actual family in the crosshairs or just a figurative one didn't really matter).

I do agree we probably should have seen a bit more reflection from Superman after the fact, but the fact the movie decided to jump ahead in time doesn't mean that reflection didn't happen (I think that's a problem more with the editing than with the story itself).