MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

[davejames]

The movie is definitely a lot more action-heavy than I probably would have preferred, but I still think it works well. The idea of him being tested in battle-- and having to learn his powers completely on the fly with the fate of the world at stake-- is a pretty compelling one, I think.

 

[The Old Mixer]

The basic idea is sound, but the execution is sloppy and lazy, for reasons that others have articulated time and again. The action half of the film is heavy on the spectacle, but light on storytelling.

 

[Ovation]

Yes, already. Zod could have moved his eyes, but the movie made it pretty clear that he was only threatening to kill the family so Superman would kill him instead. Since Krypton had been destroyed for good and his programming gave him no other purpose or reason to live. Which is what he tells Superman. And why he threatens to continue killing until he is stopped.

Not sure how much clearer they could have spelled things out.

[Q
Pretty much. I really fail to see where any confusion lies about this moment in the film. Zod wants Kal to kill him.

Way back when, I used the phrase "suicide by cop," only to have the idea contemptuously dimissed. Moreover, are you really sure you like this idea? After all, if Zod wants to be killed, why should Superman feel bad for giving Zod what he wanted. It was a mercy killing, really. Why not give Zod a little win, since he couldn't win big? Since it was Zod's total choice, Superman angsting so much is kind of pussy, self indulging emo.

What a load of bollocks. There is no contradiction between Superman killing Zod, thereby giving Zod what he wanted, and regretting the need, as he saw it, to do so.

Snyder and Goyer and Nolan and whoever thought crunching up buildings was fun to watch (and again, there were enough of us so bored as to wonder about the people off screen because those scenes felt like they just went on and on.)

And many more who were not bored. Your point (except for tedious repetition)?

And similarly, they thought the hero killing the villain was fun to watch. But for some of us that wasn't our idea of a hero, at least not one so powerful. Everything else from them I think is just rationalization.

Really? You got a "Hell, yeah!!" vibe from that scene? You really think that's the tone the filmmakers were attempting to create? If so, you were not watching the same film I (or anyone else in the packed cinema where I was) was. There was no celebratory tone in that moment--none.

 

[JacksonArcher]

The basic idea is sound, but the execution is sloppy and lazy, for reasons that others have articulated time and again. The action half of the film is heavy on the spectacle, but light on storytelling.

Pretty much. There's good action, and then there's lazy, sloppy, inherent action (which Man of Steel has an overabundance of). Superman Returns didn't have enough action according to some fans, so WB/Snyder over-compensated with a film that had too much action. There's a nice compromise somewhere.

 

[stj]

Your point (except for tedious repetition)?

The point of course is that there are criticisms to be made of the film that are neither nit-picking nor contrarian, about what's entertaining. Admitted, the refusal to accept that gets tedious.

Really? You got a "Hell, yeah!!" vibe from that scene? You really think that's the tone the filmmakers were attempting to create? If so, you were not watching the same film I (or anyone else in the packed cinema where I was) was. There was no celebratory tone in that moment--none.

Yes, the scene was meant for those who enjoy seeing the villain die. That's why the script clumsily saved Zod from disappearing with the others; that's why the script clumsily set Zod up for suicide; that's why the script set up a supposed dramatic choice that wasn't a choice at all, robbing the whole exercise of any genuine meaning.

So what if Superman suffers? It would make it altogether too obvious what was going on if he chuckled and quipped. But if he suffers, you get double your pleasure: Hero Kills Villain and Suffering Hero. You've let your stubborness in refusing to tolerate criticism lead you into denying that people can't enjoy suffering hero fantasies. As you said, what a load of bullocks.

This nonsense makes it a little hard to forget that Man of Steel did some things, especially Lois, very well.

 

[theenglish]

Yup. Instead of giving us a really compelling scene, in which, say, the Jor-El hologram tells Clark he must use lethal force against Zod, and have Clark have to deal with that idea before the big battle, a totally manufactured moment is just dropped in at the end there, because interesting dialogue scenes are for pansies, I guess. Besides, can't Zod move his eyeballs while in the headlock?

Yes, already. Zod could have moved his eyes, but the movie made it pretty clear that he was only threatening to kill the family so Superman would kill him instead. Since Krypton had been destroyed for good and his programming gave him no other purpose or reason to live. Which is what he tells Superman. And why he threatens to continue killing until he is stopped.

Not sure how much clearer they could have spelled things out.

Of course it wouldn't have taken much more than a few creative thinking sessions to write an ending where Kal-El renders Zod unconscious and then cryo-freezes him in the fortress of solitude--or returns him to the phantom zone. Grant Morrison would have found a way.

 

[DEWLine]

But they didn't want a Grant Morrison plot, did they?

 

[Anwar]

Yup. Instead of giving us a really compelling scene, in which, say, the Jor-El hologram tells Clark he must use lethal force against Zod, and have Clark have to deal with that idea before the big battle, a totally manufactured moment is just dropped in at the end there, because interesting dialogue scenes are for pansies, I guess. Besides, can't Zod move his eyeballs while in the headlock?

Yes, already. Zod could have moved his eyes, but the movie made it pretty clear that he was only threatening to kill the family so Superman would kill him instead. Since Krypton had been destroyed for good and his programming gave him no other purpose or reason to live. Which is what he tells Superman. And why he threatens to continue killing until he is stopped.

Not sure how much clearer they could have spelled things out.

Of course it wouldn't have taken much more than a few creative thinking sessions to write an ending where Kal-El renders Zod unconscious and then cryo-freezes him in the fortress of solitude--or returns him to the phantom zone. Grant Morrison would have found a way.

They were going to just take the lazy, easy way out and dump Zod back in the Phantom Zone but then changed their minds and went for something unexpected and human.

 

[davejames]

Of course it wouldn't have taken much more than a few creative thinking sessions to write an ending where Kal-El renders Zod unconscious and then cryo-freezes him in the fortress of solitude--or returns him to the phantom zone. Grant Morrison would have found a way.

Wow. Knocking him unconscious and freezing him. Powerful and dramatic stuff.

 

[kirk55555]

Sure they could have written a more traditional scene where Superman stops Zod without killing him, I like the fact they they took a different route and did something unexpected. I don't see Superman's reaction to killing Zod as being hammy. I thought it was good acting and emotional.

Or Superman could have ambiguously just thrown him into a pit of mist and clouds like in Superman II.

I love that movie, but come on! That scene doesn't bother me it is just ironic that people complain that Superman kills Zod in this movie and yet it is implied that he killed him in Superman II but because it is shown in such a "G" rated manner nobody bats an eye.

I thought that scene in SM II was weird, but come on. He could have been throwing him into anything. I've always just assumed it was some kind of prison, or somehow putting the back in the negative zone. Based on the tone of the other movies, I doubt he was supposed to have been killing them.

Anyway, Superman not killing is part of the character. Pre Gritty DC reboot, He would never kill Zod. Zod could be shooting his eyes at Lois or Ma Kent and he wouldn't snap his neck. But, comic superman was also a hopeful person and had personality, so maybe its not a good compariosn. Still, its like I said. The Zod neck snap is exactly the same as if Batman had just shot Bane with a gun in TDK Rises. Its an action that is totally against everything the hero is about. You could probably find a time in the golden age where superman killed someone, or bizarre rare occurrences of idiot writers doing it in more modern times. On the same token, Batman used a guy on Darkseid in Final Crisis (it was a super science gun, and it was already established that Darkseid would survive into the 31 century so he wasn't actually killing him, but it still kind of counts).

But, its still the most anti superman thing ever. The point of superman isn't to make him super realistic (which they didn't, but they tried). He's supposed to be a hopeful guy, a guy so good that he's literally a superhuman. He doesn't kill, and he saves the day. Making him (and the movie) dark and gritty was just a weird tone that didn't fit the character, and the killing was part of that. They definately have an uphill battle to make Superman/Batman good. I'm hoping they do something with superman realizing that he was wrong, and vowing to never kill again (maybe batman can teach him that lesson). That would atleast make the death not just a pointless moment for people who think every hero should kill the villains Otherwise it becomes a comedy sketch, with Superman just snapping every villain's neck. If he'll do it with Zod with no real hesitation (and he really didn't hesitate, he didn't even try to move Zod or stop him, he just yelled at Zod few times) he has absolutely no reason to not snap everyone's neck. If he can justify Zod, he can easily justify killing any bad guy he comes across, from muggers to supervillains

 

[sojourner]

Pre Gritty DC reboot, He would never kill Zod.

Superman executed 3 kryptonians as earlier as the late 80's. Caused him to have a mental breakdown for a while, but he did it.

ETA: This occurred in Superman #22 in 1988.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Pre Gritty DC reboot, He would never kill Zod.

Superman executed 3 kryptonians as earlier as the late 80's. Caused him to have a mental breakdown for a while, but he did it.

ETA: This occurred in Superman #22 in 1988.

I doubt there was a pile of plushy foam animals at the bottom of that abyss in the Reeve movie. Also, he was indirectly responsible for those two folks who discovered his ID in the George Reeves TV show. They fell off the cliff side when he went off to get them supplies. Killing isn't his thing, but he's been responsible for a few. He took the whole thing rather cooly, too.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuP6zrTYVC8[/yt]

 

[GalaxyX]

That's an even bigger pile of bullshit. First, Man of Steel ends in the Daily Planet and everyone acts like nothing at all happened. Second, Avengers was a lot more concerned with the people in comparison. Almost everyone of the Avengers is shown to help innocent bystanders, and at the end of it all, we see a montage of interviews with New Yorkers. And New York isn't even trashed as much as Metropolis either.

Which brings me to the end. Superman goes from screaming his lungs out to swatting a UAV that the Military was using(which we the audience are supposed to chuckle at)


The movie didn't know whether end on a somber note or uplifting note

It's almost a whiplash effect.

Ugh! I hated that scene. It made Superman look like an asshole. What does it matter if the government wants to keep tabs on him. What could they do to stop him if he wanted to do something bad?

 

[Taylirious]

That's an even bigger pile of bullshit. First, Man of Steel ends in the Daily Planet and everyone acts like nothing at all happened. Second, Avengers was a lot more concerned with the people in comparison. Almost everyone of the Avengers is shown to help innocent bystanders, and at the end of it all, we see a montage of interviews with New Yorkers. And New York isn't even trashed as much as Metropolis either.

Which brings me to the end. Superman goes from screaming his lungs out to swatting a UAV that the Military was using(which we the audience are supposed to chuckle at)


The movie didn't know whether end on a somber note or uplifting note

It's almost a whiplash effect.

Ugh! I hated that scene. It made Superman look like an asshole. What does it matter if the government wants to keep tabs on him. What could they do to stop him if he wanted to do something bad?

I didn't care for it either. Grave site to The Planet would have been fine.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Which brings me to the end. Superman goes from screaming his lungs out to swatting a UAV that the Military was using(which we the audience are supposed to chuckle at)


The movie didn't know whether end on a somber note or uplifting note

It's almost a whiplash effect.

Ugh! I hated that scene. It made Superman look like an asshole. What does it matter if the government wants to keep tabs on him. What could they do to stop him if he wanted to do something bad?

I didn't care for it either. Grave site to The Planet would have been fine.

Plus, it was so abrupt. It was something else being destroyed, and I thought "Is Zod still attacking?" Ugh

 

[The Old Mixer]

Also, he was indirectly responsible for those two folks who discovered his ID in the George Reeves TV show. They fell off the cliff side when he went off to get them supplies. Killing isn't his thing, but he's been responsible for a few. He took the whole thing rather cooly, too.

If you're going to go back that far, might as well take it all the way to the early days when Superman was known to throw thugs out windows and super-speed them into the paths of their own bullets. On one occasion he kicked a car full of thugs into a pile of scrap while dressed as Clark Kent. Smiling over the wreckage, he didn't seem concerned that anyone would be crawling out to expose his identity....

 

[Ovation]

Your point (except for tedious repetition)?

The point of course is that there are criticisms to be made of the film that are neither nit-picking nor contrarian, about what's entertaining. Admitted, the refusal to accept that gets tedious.

Just because YOU were bored doesn't make it boring to everyone. There are plenty of things to criticize in the film, though not all of them universally seen as worthy of criticism. The tediousness comes from your haughty assumption that because you were bored, it should necessarily have been boring to everyone (and implying that those who were not bored are somehow inferior in their understanding of film, storytelling, and whatever else you want to pat yourself on the back for in terms of being oh so much more clever than everyone else).

Really? You got a "Hell, yeah!!" vibe from that scene? You really think that's the tone the filmmakers were attempting to create? If so, you were not watching the same film I (or anyone else in the packed cinema where I was) was. There was no celebratory tone in that moment--none.

Yes, the scene was meant for those who enjoy seeing the villain die. That's why the script clumsily saved Zod from disappearing with the others; that's why the script clumsily set Zod up for suicide; that's why the script set up a supposed dramatic choice that wasn't a choice at all, robbing the whole exercise of any genuine meaning.

So what if Superman suffers? It would make it altogether too obvious what was going on if he chuckled and quipped. But if he suffers, you get double your pleasure: Hero Kills Villain and Suffering Hero. You've let your stubborness in refusing to tolerate criticism lead you into denying that people can't enjoy suffering hero fantasies. As you said, what a load of bullocks.

First of all, you have no idea what I "tolerate", nor what I "enjoy". Second, you erroneously presume that my disagreement with YOUR criticisms means I have none of my own. Further, you also presume that any reading of the film that differs from yours is not simply that, different, but incorrect. Your presumption is what is actually incorrect.

I did not "enjoy" seeing the villain die. I considered the moment a tragic one for the hero--and I found that a refreshing character moment for Superman. The scene worked for me because it was not what I expected Superman to do, but was rather more interesting than the standard "send him back to the Phantom Zone" solution others are advocating. It reinforces the fact that, in this story, Superman is brand new--literally so--as a "superhero". He makes a number of decisions that a more experienced, mature Superman very likely would not make. That's a different take than prior film versions and adds interest to the story for me. You found it meaningless? Good for you. Doesn't mean it lacked meaning for everyone else.

This nonsense makes it a little hard to forget that Man of Steel did some things, especially Lois, very well.

I presume you mean "remember", rather than "forget". If so, I agree on this point.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Sure they could have written a more traditional scene where Superman stops Zod without killing him, I like the fact they they took a different route and did something unexpected. I don't see Superman's reaction to killing Zod as being hammy. I thought it was good acting and emotional.

Or Superman could have ambiguously just thrown him into a pit of mist and clouds like in Superman II.

I love that movie, but come on! That scene doesn't bother me it is just ironic that people complain that Superman kills Zod in this movie and yet it is implied that he killed him in Superman II but because it is shown in such a "G" rated manner nobody bats an eye.

I thought that scene in SM II was weird, but come on. He could have been throwing him into anything. I've always just assumed it was some kind of prison, or somehow putting the back in the negative zone. Based on the tone of the other movies, I doubt he was supposed to have been killing them.

Anyway, Superman not killing is part of the character. Pre Gritty DC reboot, He would never kill Zod. Zod could be shooting his eyes at Lois or Ma Kent and he wouldn't snap his neck. But, comic superman was also a hopeful person and had personality, so maybe its not a good compariosn. Still, its like I said. The Zod neck snap is exactly the same as if Batman had just shot Bane with a gun in TDK Rises. Its an action that is totally against everything the hero is about. You could probably find a time in the golden age where superman killed someone, or bizarre rare occurrences of idiot writers doing it in more modern times. On the same token, Batman used a guy on Darkseid in Final Crisis (it was a super science gun, and it was already established that Darkseid would survive into the 31 century so he wasn't actually killing him, but it still kind of counts).

But, its still the most anti superman thing ever. The point of superman isn't to make him super realistic (which they didn't, but they tried). He's supposed to be a hopeful guy, a guy so good that he's literally a superhuman. He doesn't kill, and he saves the day. Making him (and the movie) dark and gritty was just a weird tone that didn't fit the character, and the killing was part of that. They definately have an uphill battle to make Superman/Batman good. I'm hoping they do something with superman realizing that he was wrong, and vowing to never kill again (maybe batman can teach him that lesson). That would atleast make the death not just a pointless moment for people who think every hero should kill the villains Otherwise it becomes a comedy sketch, with Superman just snapping every villain's neck. If he'll do it with Zod with no real hesitation (and he really didn't hesitate, he didn't even try to move Zod or stop him, he just yelled at Zod few times) he has absolutely no reason to not snap everyone's neck. If he can justify Zod, he can easily justify killing any bad guy he comes across, from muggers to supervillains

Pre Gritty DC reboot, He would never kill Zod.

Superman executed 3 kryptonians as earlier as the late 80's. Caused him to have a mental breakdown for a while, but he did it.

ETA: This occurred in Superman #22 in 1988.

For your viewing pleasure I have collected as many scans Superman #22 as I could find.

Written and penned by John Byrne this was the day Superman killed... again. If you read the scans you will see why Supes was justified in kill Zod, Zaora (Faora was renamed again for some reason) and Quex-Ul, and why the death of Zod in MOS is fine with me and other people.

Missing Page: Zod thanks Lex for freeing him and destroys the parallel universe Superboy's phantom zone projector. Zod and his followers begin their rampage on the parallel earth.

That is Oliver Queen/Green Arrow, Bruce Wayne/Batman and Hal Jordan/Greeen Lantern in the final panel. In this parallel universe they never became superheroes, but they are still defending planet.

I should clarify that these 3 Kryptonians are Pre-Crisis on infinite earth's Krytponian. Meaning their ability level is way beyond 1986 reboot Superman's level. Superman of the 86 reboot could only travel at the speed of sound and stuggled to move a large skyscapper or small mt. Pre Crisis K' could move a the speed of thought, and under extreme duress could push planets out of their orbit.

Yes that is Zod burning Bruce Wayne alive.

Missing a panel here. Zod and Zaora turn their heat vision on Supergirl.

Idk who Zod and Faora killed, but both Hal Jordan and Oliver Queen were viciously murdered.

The entire population of Earth 5 billion people (circa 1988) murdered by 3 Pre Crisis Kryptonians. Look at their faces. They are smilling about it and boasting they will restore their lost powers and continue to kill more people. They are unrepentant villains. The 86 reboot Superman did not have the knowledge of how to make a phantom zone projector. So he executed them.

Compare this to what we see in MOS in the dream sequence.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0mztu7cHL8[/yt]
Zod hasn't even begun to assualt Earth and already he is displaying the same unrepentantly evil characteristics of his comic counterpart. Human lives mean nothing to him and his followers in both incarnations.

Superman ponders his actions at the end of the issue. The breakdown he would suffer would come in later issues after a battle with Braniac who mental assaulted Superman. After that battle Superman's mental state was weakend and he had recurring nightmares of what he did on the parallel earth to Zod and his followers. The comic Superman Exile deals with Superman leaving Earth as penance.


MOS has Superman execute Zod after (according to Zack Snyder) 5,000 people die. Zod threatend to make humanity suffer after Supes had ruined his plan to terraform the Earth and make a New Krytpon. As we see in the film, Zod was totally cool with wiping out humanity before Superman opposed him.
It may not be pretty but it can be called justice.

 

[Fist McStrongpunch]

Wow, that's really obnoxious. Get rid of that shit.

 

[sojourner]

Wow, that's really obnoxious. Get rid of that shit.

???