![takuchat:
Man Of Steel: Where it Succeeds and Where it Fails at Takuchat.com by user Leon Evelake
Want to get in on the discussion with a great community? Then join us!
—————————————————
Well, after months of hype and anticipation, the new Superman film has come out and is doing quite well. The odd thing is how people are reacting, critics are mixed giving it a 56% positive rating but the majority of viewing public seem pleased at 82% positive (Editor’s Note: These numbers are correct at time of editing). Despite this, there has been some controversy and debate about certain events in the film. So much so, that long time comic scribe Mark Waid, who wrote critically acclaimed stories such as Kingdom Come, Irredeemable, and Superman Birthright, tweeted that Man of Steel broke his heart, and Entertainment Weekly ran an article by Darren Franich titled “What ‘Man of Steel’ gets wrong about Superman”. So what’s the controversy about? Are the critics just out of touch? Or is all the praise coming from people that don’t get the character?
Spoilers To Follow
Well let’s start with what the film does well. The opening scenes and anything concerning Jor-El work fantastically. Russell Crowe was a great casting choice and works perfectly. This version seems a bit inspired by Superman: The Animated Series’ version, where Jor-El was a badass literally fighting to save his son. There are some unexpected twists on Krypton and it takes some influence from John Byrne’s cold scientific world devoid of real emotion and while there are some odd choices, overall it works. My only real complaint with this part of the film is changing events so that Jor-El and Lara don’t get to hold one another as the planet erupts around them. The film utilises flashbacks to tell of Clark’s childhood and upbringing and, while making him a bullied child reading Plato and over focusing on his sense of isolation was a bit much, these parts of the film manage to create some of the most moving moments. When a young Clark having just been told of his alien origins asks Jonathan Kent “Can’t I just keep pretending I’m your son?” and his adoptive father hugs him and says (seemingly holding back tears) “You are my son.” it really seems the films creators understand the characters and what a Superman film should be. And while the take on Jonathan Kent is not quite in line with past versions, it makes a strong impact on the story, and Kevin Costner does a great job as well.
Henry Cavill really surprised me in his portrayal of Clark/Superman and when the script works he does a great job. Similar to the John Byrne and Mark Waid versions of the character, he doesn’t become Superman until his 30′s and has travelled the world helping people covertly. The film also does a good job keeping some of the nice old fashioned boy scout elements of the character. He is still a polite, respectful guy that deeply cares about his family. Heck, they even show him going to a pastor for advice. Another strong point is the display of powers and action sequences. Whatever may be said of the moral implications, they are an incredible spectacle. Whenever Kryptonians fight humans, it’s a curb-stomp battle that really illustrates how outclassed the military is, and whenever Superman fights Zod and his compatriots it is an intense experience that shows how devastating a clash of powers on this level would be to the surroundings. It’s also noteworthy that the movie has a surprisingly even-handed portrayal of the military, which to me was a nice change of pace from some films.
Now while I enjoyed the action for its incredible displays of Dragon Ball Z-like throwdowns, it leads to one of the films biggest problems. A large section film is the final fight and most of it is fairly exciting and very well done (with the exception of a scene involving mechanical tentacles that seemed added to just fill time), but during this scene dozens of buildings are destroyed and by the end the majority of the city is completely devastated. Surely thousands, if not millions, are dead. During this incredible epic battle, Zod and Superman devastate the city whilst pummeling each other, crashing through buildings, shredding streets, and blowing stuff up. Yet during this entire and fairly long scene they never show Superman make real effort to move the fight to another location, save any civilians, or yell at people to evacuate, which is the type of thing Superman does as a responsible, intelligent man. Instead he is singularly focused on fighting Zod. After a bit, the writers kind of force this odd situation where Superman has Zod in a headlock inside a building while Zod unleashes his heat vision trying to kill civilians, with Superman begging Zod to stop. He is forced to break Zod’s neck.
The above has been mentioned to have bothered some viewers. A major issue here is how poorly the scene was done. Why didn’t Superman fly up, or since he had the strength and leverage to break his neck, pull Zod’s head back? Why didn’t the civilians move, as they had plenty of space to do so? More importantly, why force Superman to kill at all? Why put him in a no-win scenario so abruptly, and in the first film?
Source: ‘Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?’
This is a problem because Superman does not kill. It’s against his code of ethics and what he wants to inspire. Superman is about leading by example and as the movie played with “hope”. He believes that even though he certainly has the power to do so, he never has the right to take a life. Now, people have been defending the film with comments about Superman killing in the past. Which is true, given 75 years of comic history many different takes have come and gone. But certainly not everything done in the comics is a good thing to include in the films. Batman used to kill criminals and shoot them with his Batgun, Superman in the Golden Age was cold, brutal and prone to saying “papa spank” and in the Byrne series was once mind-controlled into nearly starring in a pornographic film. Obviously these things do not match what the characters became, or at least could not be included in the film adaptations if you were trying to portray the character well. You have to pick and choose what will work in making the character come off properly in an adaptation, given the time restraints.
Now, the modern Superman (post-Crisis, pre-New 52) killed 2 times. Once, he exposed three Kryptonian criminals to kryptonite for having committed genocide (Editor’s Note: Not exactly genocide. It was the complete annihilation of all life on an alternate Earth.). This was done after his no killing stance was established and played with by some writers for its long term effects. That said, many fans and writers were not pleased and Geoff Johns retconned it away with Infinite Crisis. The second was when Superman killed Doomsday. Well, kind of. Doomsday was immortal but Superman didn’t know that. This doesn’t really count, as Superman was desperately trying to stop him and had to keep upping the ante, eventually landing a killing blow in the heat of battle. And it’s worth noting Doomsday wasn’t really aware in a human sense yet or at least Superman didn’t think he was.
While they make it very clear Superman does not want to kill Zod and that it upset him in that moment, by the end they have to wrap things up and he is back to normal. It kind of skips over any aftermath. Now, I assume some of that will be dealt with in the sequel, especially regarding the destruction of Metropolis and story possibilities like LexCorp’s part in rebuilding, but I doubt they will go into the effect it had on Superman. Perhaps it will. Perhaps they will use it to show why he is so against killing, but I doubt it. Which brings up my earlier point of why force a situation where Superman has to kill? Now, taking a technical pacifist and putting them in a situation where they are forced compromise their convictions can make for compelling storytelling. The animated series Trigun did a very good job addressing the possible effects of a similar situation. But in Man of Steel, it adds nothing. They don’t have the time to go into its effects, or how he moved on, or that it helped enforce new convictions. It only serves to make the film feel a bit darker.
Now don’t misunderstand. I wanted a more down to earth take on Superman. I am not a fan of the Donner films and wanted something more grounded and less goofy than those. There are certainly are ways to do dark Superman stories “What’s so Funny ’bout Truth, Justice, and The American way?” and ”Kingdom Come” are two of my favorite Superman stories, but they didn’t compromise the characters ethics or what he stands for, and the dark elements are used to help illustrate what’s special about Superman.
I think part of the problem is the approach Warner Brothers and DC took to this film to begin with. They didn’t seem to start with “what should a Superman film be” but with “what worked with Batman”. So they wanted to go dark, perhaps too dark, which is a shame Superman and Batman are opposites in approach and their films should reflect that to at least some degree. Personally I think the biggest problems here are come from who they put on the film. Zack Snyder does great action and this is easily his best film, but he is ill-suited to Superman. Basically, Snyder was put on this because Warner Brothers thought his name beside Nolan’s would help sell the film because of Watchmen and 300. But the thing they should have considered was that while Watchmen was superficially close to the book, close to the source material, Snyder missed the entire point of the story, and illustrated that by having an ending that made a big moral point shouted at the antagonist, instead of leaving it up to the viewer. In addition to that, Snyder recently said that Christopher Nolan was against killing Zod and that the script originally had him and his sent back to the phantom zone. “Superman should kill him,”…“The ‘Why?’ of it for me was that if was truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained… I wanted to create a scenario where Superman, either he’s going to see [Metropolis’ citizens] chopped in half, or he’s gotta do what he’s gotta do.”. Like with Watchmen he misses the point. Superman doesn’t kill not because he was traumatized, but because he was raised that way, because his parents taught him the value of all life.
As mentioned before, the general audience is mostly pleased and some are very enthusiastic. People criticising the film are met with strong and heated rebuttals, so passions are obviously very high. Now I know some just loved it as is, and assume that some were just happy to see an action packed Superman film and some were likely not big Superman fans that found the darker approach more enticing, but as I read various articles about the film or Mark Waid’s reaction I keep seeing too many comments like “finally superman breaks out of boyscout mode”, “Supermans always been too much of a puss” and “Im glad they killed Zod!! Im so sick of that “I will not kill” mantality from superheros… Stop being a baby… This is a superman I can come to like…”. Now I know that’s not everyone, but still that’s a shame.
This was not a terrible film. Some of it was very good and there is potential for sequels. But perhaps it’s a sad statement that in order to make the character appeal to a broader audience, and in a misguided attempt to make a intentionally old fashioned character more modern, they have tried to turn superman into something he is not.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/49214cf8b478f94505a61d1af2211e45/tumblr_mon3anFrnn1s54ug8o1_400.jpg "Photo posted 4 hours ago")
Remember these things when you’re sad:
- Jeremy Renner got a boner on a plane
- Samuel L. Jackson impersonated Nicki Minaj
- Tom Hiddleston loves the song “Hips Don’t Lie”
- Scarlett Johansson’s catsuit were like sweaty pajamas
- Chris Hemsworth’s daughter was once mistaken for a hot dog when he held her in one hand
- Robert Downey Jr. is really Tony Stark playing Robert Downey Jr.
- And that Chris Evans once dressed up in drag
Okay so a guy held a door open and as I was walking I thought in my head ’ thanks mister attractive face” and then he giggled and I realized it wasN’T IN MY HEAD AND HE JUST KEPT GIGGLING LIKE A 5 YEAR OLD
