MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

[RandyS]

^ I watched all the Christopher Reeve movies over the weekend and something about his take on the character doesn't sit well with me. Too handsome, too much of a boy scout and too much of an ideal in general. My favorites right now are Dean Cain and Henry Cavill. Their versions of Superman are more humanized and real.

I certainly agree with your approval of Dean Cain (but then, LOIS & CLARK has been my favorite take on the Superman characters for the past twenty years, too bad it doesn't get more recognition.), but I also loved Christopher Reeve, and what he did with the character.

And Henry Cavil is okay.

I think Christopher Reeve nailed Superman with perfection! Not a huge fan of his Clark Kent, but for the movie it worked to make us believe he could have been 2 different people.

Dean Cain on the other hand, is probably the best Clark Kent on screen. I think he nails the Clark role almost to perfection. His Superman on the other hand is always looking like he's really uncomfortable in the role. Maybe they wanted to play it that way? But it took extra effort to see him in the costume.

Every other incarnation post Christopher Reeve (other than Dean Cain's take) has been trying to emulate Chris Reeves in looks. The guy from Superboy (Gerard something, his full name escapes me) was a lookalike. Brandon Routh was a lookalike. Tom Welling was a lookalike. Henry Cavil deviates a bit, but not by far.

Maybe it's just because Christopher Reeve is so engrained in the Superman look to us that Hollywood doesn't want to deviate too much from that facial style.

Well, in the case of Gerard Christopher (The Superboy series), it makes sense that he would emulate Chris Reeve since that show was produced by the Salkinds, who, as I'm sure you know, produced the Reeve films. So the simularity in that case was no doubt intentional.

And in the case of Dean Cain, you probably think he makes a stronger Clark Kent because you're SUPPOSED to. The whole point of the characterization in that show was that Clark Kent was the real person, while Superman is the disguise that lets him use his powers in public. In fact, one of my favorite second season episodes addresses this when Clark tells Lois, "Superman is what I can do, Clark is who I am.".

 

[Agent Richard07]

^ For me, that's the most memorable line from the show.

 

[Ovation]

Saw this a few nights ago (wanted to go earlier but between kids, family vacation, work and, well, life, I no longer get to the cinema nearly as often as I used to when I was single).

Gave it an A-. I'm glad I went in spoiler-free (I usually do that for movies--didn't do it for the latest Trek and while I still enjoyed it immensely, I regret dropping my usual spoiler-free policy). Made the death of Zod moment more powerful.

Overall, I was entertained (first order of business for a movie). I had no issues with the "updates" to the mythology. Casting was first rate. My only quibbles really have to do with the lengthy action scenes. There is nothing specific I consider objectionable about any scene or shot in particular, but some judicious editing could have shortened them a bit without sacrificing the overall effect of demonstrating exactly how powerful such beings would be (and the consequences of that power). This could have freed up 3-5 mins. in the running time for a bit more development of Martha (of all the important characters, she's the one that most felt, to me, like a few more moments of screen time would have been beneficial--plus I'm a big fan of Diane Lane). Not in one chunk, and not solely Martha--a few quick moments with Martha, Jonathan and Clark together (beyond the truck/tornado scene) would have been nice. It seemed like it was Clark/Martha and Clark/Jonathan but rarely all three together. But these are minor quibbles.

I was a bit sorry to see Hamilton die--thought he'd make a good recurring minor character.

Nostalgia, at present, keeps the two Reeve films at the top of my favourites list for Superman film/TV, but that could change with a few more viewings of MoS. I'm certainly looking forward to further outings from this production.

 

[GalaxyX]

I certainly agree with your approval of Dean Cain (but then, LOIS & CLARK has been my favorite take on the Superman characters for the past twenty years, too bad it doesn't get more recognition.), but I also loved Christopher Reeve, and what he did with the character.

And Henry Cavil is okay.

I think Christopher Reeve nailed Superman with perfection! Not a huge fan of his Clark Kent, but for the movie it worked to make us believe he could have been 2 different people.

Dean Cain on the other hand, is probably the best Clark Kent on screen. I think he nails the Clark role almost to perfection. His Superman on the other hand is always looking like he's really uncomfortable in the role. Maybe they wanted to play it that way? But it took extra effort to see him in the costume.

Every other incarnation post Christopher Reeve (other than Dean Cain's take) has been trying to emulate Chris Reeves in looks. The guy from Superboy (Gerard something, his full name escapes me) was a lookalike. Brandon Routh was a lookalike. Tom Welling was a lookalike. Henry Cavil deviates a bit, but not by far.

Maybe it's just because Christopher Reeve is so engrained in the Superman look to us that Hollywood doesn't want to deviate too much from that facial style.

Well, in the case of Gerard Christopher (The Superboy series), it makes sense that he would emulate Chris Reeve since that show was produced by the Salkinds, who, as I'm sure you know, produced the Reeve films. So the simularity in that case was no doubt intentional.

And in the case of Dean Cain, you probably think he makes a stronger Clark Kent because you're SUPPOSED to. The whole point of the characterization in that show was that Clark Kent was the real person, while Superman is the disguise that lets him use his powers in public. In fact, one of my favorite second season episodes addresses this when Clark tells Lois, "Superman is what I can do, Clark is who I am.".

I agree.

Which is why, even as campy as the show could get, I enjoyed watching it.

Superboy was very sci-fiish which I enjoyed, but it was very much an 80's product. Lois & Clark was more of a 90's take, which worked well to distinguish itself from everything else.

 

[davejames]

And in the case of Dean Cain, you probably think he makes a stronger Clark Kent because you're SUPPOSED to. The whole point of the characterization in that show was that Clark Kent was the real person, while Superman is the disguise that lets him use his powers in public. In fact, one of my favorite second season episodes addresses this when Clark tells Lois, "Superman is what I can do, Clark is who I am.".

I don't know, personally something always kinda bugged me about that. I don't mind making Clark more of a real persona like we saw in L&C, but to me Superman should still be more than just a "costume", or a flashy symbol that Clark presents to the outside world so he can live a normal life outside of it.

To me Superman should be just as much his real persona as Clark is. And maybe even more so, considering it's the one time he can be fully Kryptonian and do all the incredible things he can actually do-- instead of having to hide his superpowers and pretend to be just a normal, everyday human all the time.

I see Superman as being almost the purest version of him. Which is what comes through so strongly in STM and MOS, and why I think I prefer that take the best.

 

[TheSeeker]

I was a bit sorry to see Hamilton die--thought he'd make a good recurring minor character.

I had the same thought until it occurred to me that it's possible he is just trapped in the Phantom Zone and not dead. I really liked Colonel Hardy too so I'm hoping they are both trapped there and find a way back.

 

[Ovation]

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.

Just read Waid's review as well. I concur with your points across the board. Well said (as usual--even if I don't always agree with what you say, though that is rare enough, it is always well said).

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymTDDYN2cdk[/yt]

 

[Ovation]

Saw this again last week. Found it even better the second time around. Standouts to me are Jonathan the imperfect father (reminds me more of real fathers, including myself) and a Superman in the making rather than a fully-formed and veteran superhero.

Would have liked a bit more of Martha (both alone with Clark and with all three of them), but then I am a big fan of Diane Lane. Didn't find the action sequences as long the second time through. I think my minor objection to their length the first time around owed much to having read complaints about that before seeing the movie. Will definitely be added to my shelf along with all the other superhero films I've got. Looking forward to the next installment.

 

[JarodRussell]

Saw this again last week. Found it even better the second time around. Standouts to me are Jonathan the imperfect father (reminds me more of real fathers, including myself) and a Superman in the making rather than a fully-formed and veteran superhero.

When was the last time we had a fully formed and veteran Superman in a good Superman film?

 

[davejames]

Would have liked a bit more of Martha (both alone with Clark and with all three of them), but then I am a big fan of Diane Lane. Didn't find the action sequences as long the second time through. I think my minor objection to their length the first time around owed much to having read complaints about that before seeing the movie. Will definitely be added to my shelf along with all the other superhero films I've got. Looking forward to the next installment.

Yeah compared to the neverending final battle in TF3, I didn't think the battles here dragged on too long at all. At least assuming you were still invested in the characters and hadn't completely tuned out by that point.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

Man of Steel will be released on blu-ray and dvd November 12

 

[Guy Gardener]

Was it in the theatres for like 5 minutes?

 

[Gaith]

^ It's a holiday release. This way, you can pick up the set, enjoy the extras, and a few days later gather the whole family 'round the projector for a post-Thanksgiving supper screening.

If, you know, you hate your family.

 

[TheSeeker]

Was it in the theatres for like 5 minutes?

It was released at the beginning of June and Box Office Mojo has sales figures for it up to August 15th. So no.

 

[Dream]

Was it in the theatres for like 5 minutes?

You really need to go to movie theaters more often!

 

[Greg Cox]

Was it in the theatres for like 5 minutes?

It was released at the beginning of June and Box Office Mojo has sales figures for it up to August 15th. So no.

Heck, it's still playing at one local theater around here. (I saw it on the marquee this Sunday.)

 

[USS Firefly]

Was it in the theatres for like 5 minutes?

That's impossible because the duration of the movie is 143 min.

 

[Captrek]

They ran the projector fast.

 

[davejames]

The box office has definitely slowed to a crawl. It's been inching towards $290 for a while now, but just can't seem to get there.

Still though, $649 million worldwide is pretty good for a reboot that most everyone supposedly hates.