Comic Vine News

677 Comments

Off My Mind: Why 'Man of Steel' Wasn't a Superman Movie

There was a lot to love in the movie but sadly it fell short in big ways. Note: there will be spoilers.

Man of Steel hit theaters this past weekend like Superman punching through a brick wall. It was a spectacular movie with great visuals and some truly touching scenes. Yet the movie didn't seem to be the Superman movie some wanted.

Let's be up front and clear on this. This is strictly my opinion. You've already seen Gregg's Comic Vine review for the movie. We even debated some of the things we did and didn't like over email. We are all entitled to different opinions. I am not knocking the creative process of this movie. It just didn't really feel like a "Superman movie."

Let's also note there will be spoilers for the movie.

Who is Superman supposed to be? He is a hero we can all look up to. Some of those that complain about him refer to him as the "Big Blue Boy Scout." He's the hero that can do no wrong. And as mentioned in this movie and comics, he's supposed to be a symbol of HOPE.

In a day where many young kids aren't too familiar with Superman (there isn't an ongoing show and the title of the movie and trailers make no mention of his name). This could have been a huge leap in connecting with new fans of all ages. Perhaps it still can and will. The problem is a huge part of who Superman is supposed to be was altered in big ways.

The movie did have some great moments. We got to see the struggle of young Clark trying to fit in and showing restraint against the bullies of the world. Kevin Costner did a superb job as Pa Kent, doing everything he could to protect his "son." There were many scenes filled with emotion and it looked like we were getting the Superman movie we've been waiting for these past several years.

Even thought this was nearly two and a half hours, there were parts that felt rushed. Lois Lane managed to easily uncover Clark's trail that must have covered years of his life. Yes, she is one of the greatest reporters around but, in the movie, it felt like she had no difficulty in tracking down this mysterious super-man to the Kent Farm. Clark may have grown up on a farm but he did manage to wiggle his way as part of the crew in a top secret government research center. The passing of time also flew by when Clark finally discovered who he was and quickly put on the suit. But these are things I could easily overlook.

Once we see Superman in costume, he seemed to not possess that need to put all others above himself. Yes, I know he makes a sacrifice at the end, we'll get to that in a moment. Whether it was Pa's words of wisdom in putting himself first, Clark seemed to struggle back and forth with the notion. He did give himself up to Zod in order to save the entire planet. Unfortunately when the attack against his mother occurred, he made no effort to try to remove the fight to a safer location. Downtown Smallville had to fend for themselves. He did manage to get Zod away from the farm but also left the other Kryptonians there with Ma.

Superman made no effort to try to protect the innocent townspeople of Smallville. During the big showdown in Metropolis, the same could be said but on a massively larger scale. Did most residents in Metropolis manage to evacuate before the buildings started to topple? Again, Superman made no effort to try to move the fight elsewhere. Granted, up against others with the same level of power, it wouldn't be the easiest thing. Even in the aftermath when it appeared Zod was defeated, Superman just stood there while thousands were likely trapped under rubble. "Hey Lois, how you doing?"

Again, even this could be overlooked. He was still a "new" hero. He may not have been as heroic as we expect Superman to be but he did push himself as far as he could. He did overall save the day. The fact that many innocents were harmed probably was meant to give the movie a bigger feel. It made the danger more severe.

Then there was that final scene with Zod. Why didn't the movie simply end with Zod pouting in the ravaged destruction of Metropolis? Instead, Superman does the one thing he's not supposed to do. He kills Zod.

You could call this heroic. He gave up his personal moral (that we assume he had) and ended one life in order to save others. He showed an extreme level of remorse and you could utterly feel his pain. The scene was simply completely unnecessary. I'm not a prude. I'm not old fashioned. I just don't see why we have to have a movie, one that introduces Superman to a new crowd, where the hero has no choice but to kill.

Isn't Superman supposed to be better than us?

Why is Hollywood determined to have the villains die at the end? Norman Osborn in Spider-Man, Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2, Two-Face, Ra's al Ghul, etc in the recent Batman movies. I understand this was a PG-13 movie but Superman doesn't kill in the comics. Lois also doesn't say "dick" and so on. Is killing and profanity the only way to appeal to the average movie-goer?

I am aware that Superman has killed before. He did kill Zod before, a Zod from a "pocket dimension" (in SUPERMAN #22 in 1988). He was so filled with remorse and questioned his place. This lead to Superman exiling himself into space.

Superman shouldn't have to kill. In the scene in question in the movie, maybe he didn't have another way. That's debatable. Perhaps it would take careful scrutiny and a repeated viewing. Could he have blocked the heat vision with his hand? Could Superman have found the strength to overpower Zod, just as he managed to overpower that gravity machine? Maybe Superman was just really tired, right?

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a horrible movie. I did enjoy moments of it. Am I too close to the character since a Spanish Superman/Flash comic was the first comic I ever saw or because I used to have a Superman MEGO that I played with until his leg fell off or because I have a tattoo with Kryptonian writing? There should always be another solution. And the filmmakers could have come up with another angle/ending.

Man of Steel may have been a good movie. It just wasn't the Superman movie I was hoping for.

692 Comments
Edited by AndresZR

i saw it twice, and the first part of the film liked more, but the last part was more awful. for me the final act of the film, destroys everything that's right before that.

we are talking here about superman, he is not just another superhero, he at least had to ensure that all his enemy's were in the same point for when the phantom zone arrived.

the decisions he make, the things he has done are far from heroic, what we get is just a man with superpower, instead of a superman.

Edited by Azura_Thena

@muyjingo said:

@azura_thena said:

  • I gave exact documented events. You have yet to present data of equal quality. It is not arrogance, it is proper presentation of facts, completely open to peer review. Please, feel free to do so or do you intend to continue trying to reinforce your arguments with veiled attacks? Because believe it or not, that isn't better than factual data.
  • It is not an assumption because there is no other way that Superman's powers could have been neutralized with the presented data. I gave the data to support my assertion. It is available, with exact times for you to see for yourself. I already presented you with the facts that prove that Kryptonian air was not what removed his powers so the only conclusion that can be reached is that you have intentionally chosen to ignore the data because it doesn't make you feel good about yourself?
  • Now who is making unsupported claims about the movie? You are now making a claim of fact concerning Jor-El without a shred of evidence. Jor-El was not seen or heard from after his digital death. Everything else is an assumption.
  • Your option is not the more moral option. Senseless sacrifice is not moral high ground. The key word being... senseless.
  • I have presented many reasons. You simply refuse to accept them because you are being contrary just for the sake of it, or your ego cannot handle being wrong.
  • I don't see how your opinion on my methods of research is relevant other than to spotlight your personal feelings towards me, which proves my above claim. I was of the mind that good research took precedent and as it happens, I went to a matinee showing. I was the one of three people in my particular showing and I had permission from them anyway for the purpose of research.
  • Let me be clear. When you assert your assumption however plausible it may be as a fact, without supporting evidence, that is arrogant. You have not given any evidence to support your assumption, just an interpretation of what we all saw on screen, no more valid than anyone elses is.
  • Your peers have disagreed with you, and yet you seem to insist you are right. Generally, in the academic community your paper wouldn't be published and you would be considered a kook.
  • Again, you didn't give data. You gave timecodes within the movie. I rewatched the areas of the movie yourefer to as I wrote this, and saw no data to support your assumption, only interpretation.
  • The movie only talks about changes in atmosphere. When earth Atmosphere is restored, Superman regains his power. Nothing else is shown or stated relating to that, implying the change in atmosphere is responsible for him regaining his powers.
  • It is not an assumption that a copy of Jor-El was uploaded. He even states that he is a copy that was uploaded into Zod's ship. The original copy of the program existed in the command key. I don't know if that still existed or if maybe a copy was left in Clark's ship or the ship in Canada. I'm not asserting there was, but it would be plausible if the movie introduced that.
  • Yes, it is the more moral option. Self-sacrifice to avoid taking a life is certainly more moral. You can argue that it is senseless, but then a lot of morality is.
  • I assure you, I can admit when I'm wrong. You simply haven't given any evidence, only assumptions.
  • My stating I would have been annoyed by someone in a movie theater with a stopwatch (presumably taking notes) and complained wasn't directed to you personally. It was a general reaction to the statement. I would have said the same thing regardless of who made it. I didn't mean for you to have to defend yourself...if you're that dedicated to get permission to use a stopwatch in a cinema and do so, then kudos to you.
  • I suppose it is a good thing I never did that then. But it is funny that you are trying to be the pot calling the kettle black.
  • My peers refuse to even attempt to verify their own claims, much less mine, thus their views are invalid based on shoddy research. Generally, when people refuse documented facts out of hand and label someone as a 'kook', they are eventually proven wrong and have no small amount of egg on their face. I can provide numerous examples if necessary.
  • I did give data. I documented exact times for my claims. You refuse to acknowledge it. I believe you are not being truthful about your multiple viewings. Certainly about the ones where you claim to try verify my claims because if you had, you would not be here saying that I am wrong. Unless... it is more of the same; your ego just cannot handle being wrong so you deny the facts just to 'win' the argument. I believe I have proven my case, so while I fully expect you to respond with some haughty, self-absorbed post about how I am wrong and you are right, I will not be continuing the discussion. So if you are a last-word-freak, you will end up 'winning' the argument that way.
  • Yet... Superman retained his powers within Kryptonian atmosphere for a significant portion of time against the World Engine. Implied? Now who is making assumptions? Your hypocrisy is astounding.
  • It is an assumption because you have no facts to support your theory. Hilariously, you inaccurately accuse me of the same action.
  • Needless self-sacrifice is not the moral high ground. I don't know how to state that in a more simplified way. Sacrificing yourself when there are better alternatives just makes the sacrifice a wasted action. Jumping in front of a truck to stop it from flattening a child is not the noble action if you have the time and the means to just pull the child out of danger. Your option was not avoiding killing Zod. Flying to an unknown planet with unknown potential dangers under a star that would strip them both of their powers is most certainly a death sentence... assuming they could even make planet fall before the star depowered them in the vacuum of space. Your option would most certainly have resulted in both their deaths by Superman's hands. It was a stupid option lacking any kind of superior morality because Superman still ends up killing Zod, just by different, much more graphic means as slowly losing your powers in vacuum would most certainly be a painful, gruesome experience.
  • You have been proven wrong several times in my short time being here and in none of those situations did you admit your failings. So while I am willing to admit that you THINK you are capable of admitting when you are wrong, you have not shown to be capable when the situation called for it.
Posted by MuyJingo

  • I suppose it is a good thing I never did that then. But it is funny that you are trying to be the pot calling the kettle black.
  • My peers refuse to even attempt to verify their own claims, much less mine, thus their views are invalid based on shoddy research. Generally, when people refuse documented facts out of hand and label someone as a 'kook', they are eventually proven wrong and have no small amount of egg on their face. I can provide numerous examples if necessary.
  • I did give data. I documented exact times for my claims. You refuse to acknowledge it. I believe you are not being truthful about your multiple viewings. Certainly about the ones where you claim to try verify my claims because if you had, you would not be here saying that I am wrong. Unless... it is more of the same; your ego just cannot handle being wrong so you deny the facts just to 'win' the argument. I believe I have proven my case, so while I fully expect you to respond with some haughty, self-absorbed post about how I am wrong and you are right, I will not be continuing the discussion. So if you are a last-word-freak, you will end up 'winning' the argument that way.
  • Yet... Superman retained his powers within Kryptonian atmosphere for a significant portion of time against the World Engine. Implied? Now who is making assumptions? Your hypocrisy is astounding.
  • It is an assumption because you have no facts to support your theory. Hilariously, you inaccurately accuse me of the same action.
  • Needless self-sacrifice is not the moral high ground. I don't know how to state that in a more simplified way. Sacrificing yourself when there are better alternatives just makes the sacrifice a wasted action. Jumping in front of a truck to stop it from flattening a child is not the noble action if you have the time and the means to just pull the child out of danger. Your option was not avoiding killing Zod. Flying to an unknown planet with unknown potential dangers under a star that would strip them both of their powers is most certainly a death sentence... assuming they could even make planet fall before the star depowered them in the vacuum of space. Your option would most certainly have resulted in both their deaths by Superman's hands. It was a stupid option lacking any kind of superior morality because Superman still ends up killing Zod, just by different, much more graphic means as slowly losing your powers in vacuum would most certainly be a painful, gruesome experience.
  • You have been proven wrong several times in my short time being here and in none of those situations did you admit your failings. So while I am willing to admit that you THINK you are capable of admitting when you are wrong, you have not shown to be capable when the situation called for it.

I have to say, you really are starting to amuse me.

  • You have presented no facts. Only assumptions. That you continue to deny this is why I called you arrogant. It doesn't matter how much your rationalization makes sense to you, how much you think it must be the case that you are correct. All that matters is that no device is mentioned in the film or seen, so unless you can show some evidence of the device -- not speculation, rationalization or interpretation, but actual evidence, what you assert continues to be an assumption.
  • I'm done explaining that to you, and arguing that with you. You can remain as willfully ignorant as you like, admit that what you assert is only an assumption, or show some actual evidence.
  • Your peers have tried to correct you many times. You simply argue with them, telling them they are wrong, and talking about the evidence you have presented, which exists solely of timecodes in the movie and your interpretations of what happened. It's just that most have given up arguing with you by this point because they see it isn't going anywhere. When people insist something to be true despite a lack of evidence, there isn't much point in arguing with them.
  • I happen to have a local copy of the movie, because I have friends in high places. So yes, I was able to rewatch the film several times and verify the specific scenes you refer to. You're still wrong.
  • There are explanations for Superman retaining his powers under the world machine. That's a seperate issue. The difference is, I am only going by what is shown and stated in the film. You are going by further assumptions, not supported by anything seen or stated in the film. I'm not even saying you're wrong, it's a good theory. Just that it isn't a fact, by any means.
  • It's not an assumption. I'm on my work computer, but when I get home I'll give you the timecode where Jor-El states that he is a copy uploaded to Zod's ship.
  • You're not explaining anything. You're insisting once again that your opinion is correct, when there is no objective correct when it comes to morality. I'd suggest you to read up on morality as it is a very deep and complicated area of philosophy...although with your know it all attitude I wouldn't expect you to. Your point is moot in any point, because it wouldn't have had to be a death sentence for Superman. He could have been shown to be stronger than Zod, having reserve energy from being exposed to the sun for longer, which he wasn't aware off.
  • I'm not trying to argue the details of my idea. It's an abstract idea that I spent a few minutes on, while screenwriters spend months on scripts. The point is, it could have been fleshed out and worked as an alternative option. It doesn't matter if you like it or not or if it's better, simply that it is an alternative -- to counter the many, including yourself asserting no alternative action exists.
  • I'm sure with all your talk of research and methodology you understand you haven't been here long enough to collect a sufficient sample. I'm also sure that you are aware this is mainly an opinion based discussion forum and there is rarely an objective wrong or right. Thankfully in this case that we are discussing, there is, and it's easy to see you are objectively wrong as no "device" is mentioned or scene on film.

So, I'm not going to bother discussing this with you. There really isn't any point, if you can't understand that your rationalizations/assumptions/interpretations do not constitute evidence, it's the same as me asking for proof of god and getting told awesome stories, opinions and whatever. If you want to give me the timecode where the device is seen, or talked about, I'll be happy to concede the point.

Otherwise, I see no point in continuing. I'll reply later with the timecode for when the Jor-El hologram mentions he is a copy.

Lastly, I'd also like to point out your post here contains several personal attacks, which I find funny as that is what you accuse others of constantly. Ahh well.

Cheers

Posted by cbishop

I just saw Man of Steel tonight, and I thought it was epic. I think the citywide destruction (and presumably deaths), and the death of Zod were realistic to that level of fight. And keep in mind, for somebody on Superman's level, this movie had to outshine the mayhem in the Batman movies. In that, it delivered.

That said, I do think this movie is going to be a shocker to the general non-comic-reading audience, moreso than the comic fans. What they know is a no-kill Superman, and destruction that only kills military, and maybe a few cops. I think Supes killing Zod will turn some moviegoers off for the next go 'round (and let's be honest: there's going to be a sequel to that).

Also, although I think the deaths and destruction are more realistic than normally portrayed in anything DC (or Marvel), it is a bit disappointing that Superman wasn't above all that. There should have been a better way. I mean, c'mon, Superman encountered the Aliens, and found a non-lethal way to deal with them. I do hope that later movies will show that the scenes in this movie are what lead to his higher-than-mortal moral standards.

Posted by cbishop

On a related note: did anyone notice that one of the Kryptonians was named as Dev-Em, in the credits?

On another realted note, this movie left me wondering if low performance of the Green Lantern movie - and the rumored reboot to that franchise - was calcualted on DC's/WB's part? GL is not as well-known as the other heroes, outside of comic audiences, so the Green Lantern movie gets the name out there, and makes the character known. However, it doesn't follow the pattern...

The first Batman (of the reboot) was Batman Begins, yes, but the 2nd & 3rd were both Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises. This Superman reboot, rather than being called Superman, was instead called Man of Steel. If DC/WB is setting up a pattern for the solo movies leading to the Justice League movie, then will the rumored GL reboot instead be called Emerald Gladiator? And a Wonder Woman movie perhaps Amazon?

Just a thought.

Posted by spidershamrock

He waited until everyone in the town was inside and he saved the soldier falling from the helicopter. This a more realistic and practical superman so he would have known that if he didnt stop zod now then everyone would die, plus he is a novice. You cant save everyone.

Edited by MuyJingo

The most funny thing about this all is that Nolan's Batman films did the same thing; Deviate from the true character. But no one gave Batman as such a hard time (if there was anyone that did) as they're giving Superman.

I've read sooooo many reviews saying different things like "Why didn't Superman move the fight to somewhere else?", "Why did he kill Zod? That's not what Superman does", "That's not the Superman I know".

When it comes to Batman's trilogy, that's not the Batman I know, BUT I like the movie for what it is and respect it for not ruining Batman for everyone like the dreaded Schumacher. When since did Batman kill within the last 60 or so years? He killed Harvey Dent, killed a truck driver and basically killed Talia Al Ghul. Where was the intelligent, two-steps-ahead-of-everyone guy? Nolan's Batman relied on Alfred and Lucius for everything. He wasn't a detective. He wasn't the innovative Batman that we know in the comics, yet I liked the movie and apparently lots of others did.

But when it came to Man of Steel and it not being the Superman everyone CLAIMED to know, "Everybody loses their minds"!!!

I'm with you on this %110.

Edited by MuyJingo

Jor-El says he uploaded himself from the command key at 83 minutes and 40 seconds into the film.

Edited by Lion_Heart22

People dissing this movie make me sick. Where was your unrepentant fanboyism when Batman hasn't worn anything even closely resembling to his comic book outfit in a movie, ever, or how Bane resembles anything except the real Bane from the comics? When was your outrage when Batman said he doesn't kill and then kills Ra's Al Ghul, Harvey Dent, most of the league of shadows, etc? Or before then, when he freely killed in Burton's films? Where was it when Avengers didn't care at all for civilian casualties, Iron Man kills normal humans left and right, or when Hulk "broke Harlem"? How many people do you think died then?

No, all of your complaints focus on this movie even though it is quite frankly the best superhero movie out there. It actually attempts at explaining Superman's conflicted nature and his self-doubt, while still delivering on the action and not being afraid of the source material. "OMG, he's not all american flag and boy scout!". Of course he isn't because a) this is a young Superman quite literally just starting on the whole superhero thing and b) Superman being an inflexible "holier than thou" boy scout is a cliche. Any true Superman fan knows it.

So, you spend years whining about Superman Returns being boring and hoping he would one day be allowed to punch someone on-screen, and when MOS comes around, you whine about the action and collateral damage. What the hell do you think would happen if two beings capable of shattering planets got into a fist fight in the modern world, with one of them actually trying to kill humans? Did you not see Clark taking the fight into orbit before being punched back by Zod?? How come you never whined about the destruction showed in the DCAU shows? Quite frankly I think this is just the last ditch attempt of recent Superman hate-wave to try and damage the character, and it's pathetic.

If you don't understand the ending then I'm sorry, perhaps if you had stopped taking negative notes on the movie to post on your blog and actually payed attention to the movie you'd realized that Zod is a broken man by the end. He's lost everything. There is no meaning in life for him anymore because he was created with the sole purpose of defending Krypton and it's people. When that was taken from him he became outright suicidal. He wanted to die fighting Clark, he said as much, and in the end forced him to kill him.
A lot of critics whine about the nostalgia, because this isn't "American Way Christopher Reeve". I'd like to remind them that in Superman II, Superman kills all the kryptonians in cold blood after having depowered them. He even lets Lois kill the woman, and expresses not a single ounce of regret over it. How is that nicer and less dark than Superman being forced by Zod himself into killing him and being torn by what he had to do in MOS? Because it was Christopher Reeve? Please.

So, go ahead. Whine, cry. It didn't stopped the film from being a success on all fronts and it won't stop Superman. Go ahead, the critics shall keep on hating and wallowing in their utter irrelevance. The rest of us. Well, I don't know about you, but I'm going to join him in the Sun.

Posted by Purgatory

Sigh.

Another, Hey Superman didn't save every single person because that's totally realistic - article.

And about Zod: What possible other way could that have gone, huh? How are you supposed to keep an impossibly powerful being contained? There's no kryptonite. What are you gonna do, handcuff him?!

There was no other choice. None. Zero. He had to kill him.

I love Superman, but his die-hard fans are way too unrealistic; expecting him to save the day with zero bloodshed and knock out Zod with one punch and a WHAM! effect.

Posted by Martian81

@docluthorvondoom: Man I think you are picking the movie apart for no reason

Firstly if Superman is a fantasy, why do you even watch the movie..why does he have such a huge fan base? It's like arguing whether or not Jesus is a myth..you can shout yourself hoarse but people still believe in him.Point is fantasy is of little consequence when people hold the fantasy dear for one reason or another

Second no one is likening Superman to a law enforcer, in the MoS story he is in fact a hostage literally and metaphorically.MoS storyline aside he in the Superman mythos he has to make decisions that hold life or death in the balance in the mythos so it's no point arguing as if all choices lead to one outcome where Superman is incarcerating baddies and pulling kittens out of trees. Besides the onus of 'Super' in Superman is his superhuman abilities NOT his humanity.

Hmm 9/11 where is the connection, falling buildings and rubble? You must be kidding right? Haiti earthquake anyone, Indonesia's tsunami...I think there was plenty or rubble there and none of it has to do anything with 9/11. Movies like Armageddon and Deep Impact came out before 9/11 I dont see them reminding people of that tragedy.

Edited by Elder_Roxas

@muyjingo:

I think we disagree on different things, i.e., our disagreements are over points we are not actually disputing with one another.

All of your main issues are also my issues with Nolan's Batman. And I would agree, the Batman of all three Nolan's movies isn't much like the Batman I believe in. I believe this is most apparent in the second and third films, but you believe it's most apparent in the third.

I give the third film a bit more credit because I believe Nolan does, at the least, bring "his" version of Bruce Wayne/Batman to a natural and logical conclusion. Talia, Bane, Catwoman, Gordon, Alfred, Gotham...everyone and everything seems to develop as one would expect from the premises given in his first film; the story takes its course in a way that's consistent...and sometimes that's a lot to ask (especially from the guy who gave us that ridiculous film Inception).

You miss my point about Bruce Wayne's origins as Batman. As I continue to point out, it's not about retelling the narrative, but keeping in touch with the elements/symbols/primal moments/blahblahblah of pain and tragedy in Bruce's life. As I've pointed out, this isn't just a man who's lost his parents at an early age - he's also lost many friends, lovers, and even adopted sons and his biological son Damian. So a touchstone of Bruce Wayne's continuing mission is to use the tragedies and turn them into triumphs, turn his pains into strengths, etc.

Therefore, while the deaths of his parents are not featured in every comic, deaths and traumas are touched on in every important Batman story---and I am speaking across a broad spectrum of mediums where Batman stories are told. So in terms of audience expectations, and not simply fidelity to comics, The Dark Knight seems to describe an angsty and self-martyrizing James Bond analogue more than the Bruce Wayne people are familiar with, whether they've read comics or not. I'm simply arguing that among the many reasons why is the complete absence of any mention of his parents' deaths. (Comparatively, it's brought up almost too much in the third film.) It's not the orphan narrative that's important, but the fact that this is who Bruce Wayne is: shitty stuff happens to him, and he has to make something of it all.

I'm thinking most of the moment Alfred comes to Bruce, who's lamenting the deaths he feels he has on his hands, and then turning to Alfred asks why Rachel had to die. Here, of any place in the second and third films, it doesn't seem outside the realm of believability for Bruce to also reflect on the night his life first went to hell, outside that theater...I guess I don't understand why you feel at least a passing half-a-line of dialogue here would be redundant or repetitive. I'm not suggesting there's something inadequate. I'm saying even if I'd never read a Batman comic, it's really, really odd to me Bruce never reflects on his parents' death, or being a child and holding the first (of many) dead bodies he'd see...his absent father, or remembering his childhood with Rachel and his parents...god, something? Not even one line? Nothing? All I'm saying is it's just really strange there's nothing at all. It makes him almost unbelievable as Bruce Wayne, and I'm suddenly taken out of the story.

Has someone very close to you ever died, very suddenly and violently, in front of you? I can tell you...you remember that any time anyone around you dies. And, it is a most painful "redundancy." But that's realistic. So it's almost unrealistic Bruce appears to forget about his parents and the oath he swore during his darkest moment when his lover has died at the hands of his worst foe. Therefore, out of all the complaints I could make about the movies, this one does seem very important. (Even that hypercolor debauchery Batman and Robin deals with it.)

I think you also misunderstand what I'm saying in my example about Gotham. I don't like the idea of Gotham representing the worst parts of big cities, and we are more or less saying the same thing about how we imagine Gotham in terms of real cities like NYC or Chicago. What I think you've missed is making it a matter of my interpretation, what's cool or ideal about the comics, etc. --- I am talking in terms of film history, and in fact momentarily disregarding comics altogether: up to 2008, Gotham is never portrayed on film (or on TV) as simply a big U.S. city with high crime rates.

If the DC universe is mythological, the Batman is a nocturnal god of the dark. He deals in the nighttime elements of dream and nightmare. One look at his gallery of villians and it's like fairy tales and folklore exploded all over the place. So it's only proper his environment reflects this as well, and films did until The Dark Knight. I'm not asking for gritty negative city elements...I'm asking for a city worthy of the Batman. (You say hyper-realistic, but "surrealist" or "expressionistic" is probably a better word for what you mean; at any rate, if you don't like things being unrealistic, why watch Batman movies? At least Superman's got a planet to explain his weirdness; I think Batman is the single most unrealistic superhero in mainstream comics.) So again, it's about being consistent with film audiences, and evoking atmosphere. Perhaps you prefer the clean realism in Nolan's films. All I'm pointing out is, the Gotham of Batman Begins feels like a Gotham...the Gotham of the subsequent films is indistinguishable from NYC or Chicago. Even the Gotham of the cartoons was more evocative.

One more thing, about the last point on Burton. I didn't always like Burton's first Batman, and certainly not more than Nolan's. My personal favorite Batman film remains Batman Begins. But personal tastes aside, I am not just a Batman comics fan - I also love the movies. And from that standpoint, of cinema, and ignoring comics: Burton's Batman is simply a superior film to The Dark Knight. It just is. Again, this is coming from a guy who used to hate both of Burton's films (and I'd say Burton's second film is a completely different take, where Batman is a Burton character more than anything else, inhabiting a grimey subterranean world of weird monsters and freaks).

Nolan's film is enjoyable, yes, and it has strong performances where none are needed. But there are many things about Burton's Batman that make it a better film. The acting may not be significantly better, but the character relationships are certainly much more dynamic, which makes all the difference for me. E.g., You've gotta admit: Kim Basinger's Vickie Vale is not only a far superior lead to the comparatively stale and boring Maggie Gyllenhall's Rachel Dawes - Vicky Vale is also actually based in the comics.

The setting and the score are also more interesting, I have to say. The writing is (a bit) better, makeup and costuming is better, set design is better, the overall direction is better.

The final fight between Batman and Joker (where Joker pathetically beats Batman in under two minutes with a crowbar and some punches) in a building under construction, or whatever's happening in there...versus an actual fight, with more dramatic tension, in a gothic cathedral tower, dude!

As a Batman fan, my heart's always gonna be with Batman Begins. But as a film lover? I have to recognize Burton's superior creativity.

Edited by FadeToBlackBolt

I like that a guy who says this;

Lois also doesn't say "dick" and so on. Is killing and profanity the only way to appeal to the average movie-goer?

gives 5/5 for Snyder's Batman, which is the definition of gratuitousness.

Posted by growup

I understand the problem with the civillian collateral damage.

However I don't have a problem with the kill. He was faced with an impossible choice and he decided to put the safety of others before his own personal morals. Of course he was upset, didn't everyone see him freak out?

Superman's writers always give him an easy way out, Goyer did not. Superman was shown to be imperfect in his decision making, this makes him a more human and appealing character to me. His humanity is his weakness, people seem to forget that.

People are always critiquing superman for being too perfect, yet now everyone is throwing their hands up in the air when he isn't. Make up your minds people.

Posted by RAC14

Before MOS my favourite Superhero movie was Avengers. Christopher Reeve superman also killed Zod and he didn't feel anything when he did but no one seems offended by that. Dont understand why there is a problem with destruction in a movie with an alien invasion. It would have been unrealistic for everything to go down and no damage was done to the city. loved the action but I can understand if some argue that superman could have appealed to Zod while they were fighting. Don't think it would have worked though if my whole purpose in life was just lost and the people I blamed were in front of me don't see why I would listen I no longer have anything to lose. I would have found it hard to believe if superman had managed to talk him out of fighting. Just glad this movie was not as boring as Superman Returns. I loved the story line in Superman Returns but it needed a different villain or Lex shoud have has his le suit in the movie.

As to the buildings being destroyed I remember people evacuating the buildings. When people did die most died in the streets running. By the time Zod and superman were fighting they were mostly empty. Some say superman could have lead the fight somewhere else. I say how if it was before when he had a chance of rebuilding Krypton he might have followed Clark if he flew away. But by the time they were going to fight all he cared about was revenge he no longer had a reason to follow Clark in changing the location of the fight, he wanted to cause maximum damage. Lastly I am ok with Clark killing Zod in that setting he had no choice. What was he suppose to do with Zod I could understand the outrage if it was someone he was able to restrain. But it was someone with military training, just as strong and fast who was hell bent on revenge. Zod or the family life is not always a fairy tail ending. Superman made a tough call but one that saved a family and potentially millions. Where would they keep Zod that he would eventually escape and start killing. Look what happened in Superman Elite he captured Atomic Scull he escaped and the first thing he did was start to kill again. Not saying he should have killed Atomic Scull just showing an example. I was ok with him capturing Atomic Scull as he could restrain him safely and killing him after already defeating him would have been cold blooded as we all know he try's to find the last drop of good in someone. But killing Zod in MOS is different Zod was not safely restrained and lives were immediately threatened.

Superman is my favourite hero but before MOS steel if there was a real invasion and I had to pick a hero to defend the earth I would have chosen Marvel's Thor at least I would feel more confident that if it came to it he would make tough decisions based on the situation. Life is not that simple were in a war you can say you will not kill 100% of the time.

Posted by ssejllenrad

@rac14: Why the hell did you have to post that on most MOS threads? One is enough.

Edited by RAC14

@ssejllenrad:

Just felt like I had to defend the movie I was surprised to see so many different threads where people had such an issue with the movie. I know I went over board. I checked on some of the battles before but that was the first post I ever wrote so got carried away when I say the other MOS threads.

Posted by JulieDC

Finally saw Man of Steel and to be honest, I was not impressed. I was let down in fact. I felt the same disappointment I felt with The Dark Knight Rises. These movies did not feel like superhero movies. I could get over all the sacrifices that had to be made so that the film could appeal to the lowest common denominator...but the characters just felt so unsympathetic. I couldn't connect with them. I didn't get excited. Its odd because just a few months ago I watched the 1978 Superman movie for the very first time and that movie actually made change my opinion on Superman. I felt like every the movie only touched the surface and could have went deeper. Also, I really hate the dark feel of the film. I think I'm going to call this the "Batman syndrome". Its like whoever was in charge failed to realize that the reason dark and gritty works for Batman is because his character is dark. The tone and colors of the film just didn't feel like what a Superman movie should feel like. There is more stuff I dislike but I don't really care to list it.

Edited by MuyJingo

@elder_roxas:

I'm not sure if you realize this, but you have a tendency to give explanations within your posts, as though you assume the person you are in a conversation with isn't familiar with the terms you're using. I'm sure you have good intentions, but some people may find that irritating as opposed to helpful.

We seemed to be agreeing over problems only in an abstract sense..when we get into the details, you seemed to have a problem more with the way the city and world is portrayed and some of the narrative. My problems are almost solely with the characterization of the titular character.

I give the third film the least amount of credit, because while it may be a befitting conclusion to the trilogy, it is also the film that departs the most from the source character and has the biggest problems with plot.

I don't think I've missed your point about Bruce Wayne's origins as Batman. As I continue to point out, it isn't something that needs to be a continuing theme of the trilogy. It is an origin story, and once we establish the character there are other, more interesting things to devote time to.

Yes, he has suffered much tragedy, honestly most of it dwarfing the death of his parents. Besides, Nolan's Batman wasn't the type (outside of his origin) to turn his tragedies into triumphs. He was the type to retire and mope. So, I don't know how interjecting the death of the waynes would have helped with character development or plot progression. It would have been superfluous.

I'm not sure why you describe the Batman in TDK as a self-martrizing James Bond analogue.. I'm really not sure how you could come to that conclusion. It takes place after he has been Batman for 18 months, we as the audience are familiar with his story and motivation. There is still tragedy, with the death of Rachel, which has a huge impact on the character. Again, it isn't the Bruce Wayne people are familiar with because he isn't intelligent, knwoledgable displaying any sign of being the worlds greatest detective.

I think you are alone in Bruce not mentioning his parents deaths when talking to Alfred as being strange. With everything that I've read on the film, with everyone I've talked to about it, I've never heard that criticism. It doesn't seem to be at all common. We know he likely saw many deaths during his training, so it's entirely possible he had "that conversation" off screen.

If you were talking about Gotham in the specific context of film history, then perhaps you should have said so. I also think it's been far more common to show Gotham as a large US city with high crime rates. The Burton take was actually the exception. The 60's series, TAS, the serials, the DCAU movies...they all show it as a large US city with high crime rates.

I think we want a very different gotham. I disagree with you about Batman being one of the most unrealistic superheros....I see him as one of, if not the most realistic. At his core, he is a well trained motivated human with practically unlimited resources. Improbably he may be, but not unrealistic. Because of that, I like a world that is pretty close to ours, a Gotham that is pretty close to NYC...but exaggerated. I suppose that is one of the most interesting things about the character though....the varying interpretations and the idealized versions people have in their minds, of how the character should be.

Oh, and on Burton? We have very different tastes. I will always think the man is a hack, outside of Edward Scissorhands. The only other thing I think he did that I thought was decent, albeit still stunningly average, was Big Fish. I agree Maggie Gyllenhall gave a flat performance, but the relationships in the Nolan films surpass anything in the Burton films. Bruce's relationship with Alfred, With Gordon, with Lucius...there are actually relationships. Burton uses those characters solely to progress the plot, no relationship aspect is explored.

Also, he had Bruce sleeping upside down like a bat does. OK. I guess that's creative.

The final fight? It was visually interesting...but I don't care for Nicholsons performance, the acting was horrible, was was the devil in the moonlinght quote. Not to mention, something unforgivable, having Joker as the person who killed Bruce's parents. Could Burton miss the point of Batman any more than that?

I see Burtons take as different, that's all. Certainly not more creative. Adding Gargoyles everywhere isn't especially creative, and I would wonder why you think the fight in the church tower was more visually interesting than the fight in the Skyscraper against the SWAT team.

Posted by derekb

The man of steel, is not based on the original comic book series, it is based on Earth one, so yes it is a different inverse, and the man of steel in the comic earth one is dressed like this one and is melancholy. Not making anyone's opinions small, as we all love Superman, but if we all read the earth one series, we will understand the man of steel better. This superman has flaws and his weaknesses are not kryptonite but his emotions. Also he in the comic book does not initially fight for humanity, he goes through an emotional journey. He battles with the bitterness of being bullied, and now to stand up for those very people. He does however fight for freedom and justice in the end. But for him it is a journey, and the man of steel stays very close to bringing that to the big screen. So whatever our criticism is; and I am not belittling, just giving an alternative view point, this Superman is more human.

Edited by bigboi100000

Ignorant racist

Posted by w0nd

@derekb said:

The man of steel, is not based on the original comic book series, it is based on Earth one, so yes it is a different inverse, and the man of steel in the comic earth one is dressed like this one and is melancholy. Not making anyone's opinions small, as we all love Superman, but if we all read the earth one series, we will understand the man of steel better. This superman has flaws and his weaknesses are not kryptonite but his emotions. Also he in the comic book does not initially fight for humanity, he goes through an emotional journey. He battles with the bitterness of being bullied, and now to stand up for those very people. He does however fight for freedom and justice in the end. But for him it is a journey, and the man of steel stays very close to bringing that to the big screen. So whatever our criticism is; and I am not belittling, just giving an alternative view point, this Superman is more human.

Idk their costumes seem pretty different but everything else you said i enjoyed

Online
Edited by Elder_Roxas

@muyjingo: If it's irritating to you that I don't assume you're familiar with my terms, then by all means, I'll assume you are instead.

Actually, both of us problems have problems with the characterization of Batman/Bruce Wayne in Nolan's films, and in fact they are the same problems. But to me, the depiction of Gotham is part of Batman/Bruce Wayne's characterization --- a small part, anyway. Without a good sense of Gotham, it goes back to that ordinary characterization.

By James Bond analog, I mean an upper-class white man with (basically) tech gadgets and a fancy car (none of which he invents himself) - just add a specialized suit. Remove the bat ears (of the second and third films), and the suit could be for a generic spy or special ops agent hero. I.e., you and I both know there's more to the Batman than having more wealth, smarts, charisma, and better tools and cars than the criminal masterminds he fights. But that's exactly how the Batman of Nolan's second and third films appears.

...Minus the self-martyrization --- which is annoying in the 2nd (for reasons that go back to 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance' and the not-so-subtle criticism of U.S. citizens under the Bush administration) but purely frustrating in the 3rd. The Nolans say Dickens' novel 'A Tale of Two Cities' heavily inspired the themes for the third film, and they go so far as to include it in the film's ending. But Sydney Carton didn't go to the guillotine because he was nobly sacrificing himself. He went to his own death to put his rather unremarkable life life to an honorable end, and have a "far, far better rest than [he had] ever known." The Nolans completely miss the point.

Even forgetting the martyr attitude the film's ending takes: Bruce Wayne certainly deserves a far, far better rest more than anyone in Gotham, besides Gordon. So they should've had the decency to actually kill him off. I digress.

I think you have, in fact, missed my point about Batman's origin --- namely because by talking about the death of Thomas and Martha Wayne, I'm not really talking about the origin at all. (Arguably, that moment is not the birth of the Batman, either.) I also happen to know I'm not alone in making that criticism; even if I am alone, that doesn't make me wrong.

The *fact* Bruce makes something of the pain and death in his life is, for me, so integral to the character (even carrying over to other Batmen and Batwomen) that it seems useless to continue debating it with you as anything but a redundancy in Nolan's 2nd film. The risk of redundancy is not what I'm pointing out, but a sin of complete omission; if, in short, it's not just simply bewildering to you, in the least way, that there's reference to his parents' death in the 3rd film but not the 2nd, there's definitely nothing I can say that will help you see why I think that's so odd. But, of course, I know I'm not the only one.

(The way Bruce Wayne turns tragedy into something that makes him stronger is best exemplified, I think, in the comic 'Batman R.I.P.' by Grant Morrison and Tony Daniels. That gives a better explanation of what I'm talking about than any I could give myself --- besides being a pretty damn good Batman story.)

I am identifying the Gotham of film history, yes --- but that would mean I'm talking about five films. The animated series of the 1990s continued the development of a noir atmosphere in a neo-Deco city. See also many of the video games.

The Adam West film is pretty indistinguishable from the L.A. locations where it was shot; that said, that's part of the parody, I think, best exemplified in that moment from the film where Batman's running around with a bomb trying to avoid nuns, a mother and a baby carriage, a marching band, etc. etc. ("Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb!" Sum of Batman's problem in Nolan's 3rd film.) The humor is Gotham's civilians are not like that at all.

But my point is simply about atmosphere, doing something to create one. Anyone from Frank Miller and Dennis O' Niel to other comics writers have said as much. If flat paper can evoke an atmospheric city, doesn't seem demanding to ask at least the same if not more from film.

It could be said: no, Gotham on film does not, by necessity, have to reference film noir, German Expressionism, etc. But for me, part of the beauty of the DC Universe, distinct from Marvel, is that it only appears similar to ours --- there are whole cities in the DCU which don't exist in our universe, and that's given many artists license to invent cool environments. No such creative license exists in Nolan's 2nd and 3rd films; Gotham is basically Chicago and Pittsburg, and while audiences like you may find that to be more realistic, I think that's super boring. If I wanted something realistic, I'd watch an action movie where a rogue hero or spy agent blahblahblah at least someone better-looking than Christian Bale is saving an actual U.S. city, not a made-up one.

As far as realism goes, I'll reference Grant Morrison on the subject --- even if I assume you're familiar with him... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8Q0bMuvBME&feature=related

I just couldn't agree more. I could argue: it's (not even kinda) unrealistic anyone can find time to manage an international corporate empire; keep up with pop culture and big social events, and what economists call opportunity costs; be a top student in toxicology and chemistry, philosophy and logic, history, architecture, linguistics, and so on; an expert escape artist with martial arts and military training, enjoying a constant peak of physical perfection; sleep around with sexy women (or sexy men? You'd never know, really - he's the mysterious type)...admittedly unrealistic even if this is a Super Privileged White Dude...

All of this, plus the mental abilities to process the stress and trauma of dealing with incredible amounts of violence, poisons and toxins, earthquakes, monsters, mob bosses, aliens, gods (notably, not a single Wall Street suit or other business men who create mass amounts of misery on a daily basis and get away with it on a daily basis)...

All this, and more, is what you would simply call "a well trained motivated human with practically unlimited resources"? If that's realistic for you, I'd sure like to live in your world, man.

Christopher Nolan has said:

The term “realism” is often confusing and used sort of arbitrarily. I suppose “relatable” is the word I would use. I wanted a world that was realistically portrayed, in that even though outlandish events may be taking place, and this extraordinary figure may be walking around these streets, the streets would have the same weight and validity of the streets in any other action movie. So they’d be relatable in that way.

I think this is naive. I'd ask him, what is universally "relatable" about Bruce Wayne? And again, if what I wanted to see were the streets of any old action movie, why bother with an action movie where the hero mopes a lot, doesn't do a lot of interesting things, and wears rubber?

But it's a mute point. We're talking about people who inhabit a two-dimensional world, paper or film. It's just not real. The degree to which it maintains some semblance of "reality" isn't my measuring stick for quality --- it's how good the story is. And in the end, we are talking about a guy who dresses like a bat.

I think you totally missed my point on Tim Burton. I don't like most of Burton's films, and I don't love anything about his style, either. So for me, it isn't about whether or not he's a hack. It's about whether 1989's Batman is better, as a film, than the 2008's The Dark Knight. I believe it is, regardless of whether Burton's a genius or a hack.

When Siskel and Ebert reviewed the film, Siskel enjoyed it - Ebert did not. They both loved the Gotham setting, but Ebert found the characters to be completely uninteresting. Ebert was the best critical voice in the movies --- so while I'm with Siskel on Burton's Batman in general, I think Ebert was right about the characters. That said, I think they're better compared Nolan's 2nd film. The romance between Bruce Wayne and Vickie Vale is just more interesting to me.

I'll grant you the following: Michael Caine's Alfred is more complex. But the Bruce Wayne of Burton's film doesn't need a complex Alfred. The Gordon (and Harvey Dent) of Burton's film is forgettable (as I've said, Gary Oldman is the true nominee in my mind for a Best Supporting Actor award, for all three movies). But Burton's is a Gotham that asks far less of its commissioner.

For you, Burton's unforgivable for mixing Jack Napier with Joe Chill. Maybe you've got something there. I'm not so sure. Without the comics, you'd probably have little basis for thinking it's anything but, at the least, a well-told story of a guy getting revenge on the man who killed his parents.

Perhaps, being faithful to the comics character, Keaton's/Burton's Bruce Wayne is terrible. Again, if I were to judge the film on its own terms, Bruce Wayne's kinda fine the way he is. But even to reference the decades-old character, I think Keaton's nervousness, occasional clumsiness, his weird swank, above all his hilarity as a slightly naive playboy...I think that's all an interesting interpretation of the character, not a sacreligious one.

And as someone who prefers the Jack Nicholson of Five Easy Pieces over pretty much anything else he's ever done, I think he's giving a fantastic acting performance with his take on the Joker. Many prefer Ledger's take - different things for different generations, but remember that until 2008 it was hard to imagine anyone topping Nicholson. Personally, I like Ledger's, but I've read The Dark Knight screenplay and I know most of that is him; the Joker of Nolan's writing is utterly tasteless.

Gargoyles isn't what makes the fight interesting. But a gothic cathedral's a bit more interesting than a generic skyscraper. Regardless, there are many reasons the 1989 fight's cooler for me than the 2008 one, but how about I stick to just one: I can actually see what the hell is going on. Clear flips and jumps, big sock-'em punches, even a couple of sight-gags...compared to a fight that comes down to a bunch of edits, lighting's too dark and obscure --- uh, is that steadicam? No respect for the technique of actually setting up a shot, god forbid. Two quick seconds and the Joker manages to beat Batman to the ground with a crowbar and a couple of dogs. Uh, Batman vs. a SWAT team? Why's that interesting? He did that already in Batman Begins - with bats, mind you. I'm glad I can at least see the stunts in the 1989 fight --- Nolan can't direct an action scene.

But there are other reasons Burton's first film is more creative than The Dark Knight. Different, sure, but also much more creative.

Posted by Herokiller12344

And with that, I have lost all respect for you G-Man.

Posted by randomsuperuser

What I didn't like about the film was everyone knowing who Clark was. The forced relationship between Lois and Superman. Lois Lane lacked spunk and she was just in almost every scene where she didn't belong.

Edited by chrisj_1

These complaints are the same complaints I've been hearing everywhere about the movie. I'm just kinda ticked no one made these same complaints for the avengers movie. We didn't see the avengers really trying to save people in that movie, only scene I remember is the part with captain america and the bomb. Buildings are destroyed all the time in the JL cartoon, I know it's a cartoon but why isn't the complaint the same?

I'm very mixed about the ending. It is definitely interesting because Superman willingly killing someone hasn't really been done except for in alternate universe type stories, to my knowledge. Really I think it all depends on the next movie with how Superman deals with what he had to do. I really hope they don't just brush it off, which is my complaint, that that's what they make it seem like he does at end when he puts on the Clark disguise for the first time.

Captain America took an active part in the savior of the crowd in the building and directed the police to evacuate civilians through the subway (the thing I like about Joss Wheden is his being a nerd and thinking like we would about the little things like that). The problem is in Man of Steel the don't tell the audience straight up that the city is for the most part evacuated and all the hero has to worry about is fighting. Most people aren't worried about the destruction but the people who are complained about that in Avengers too don't worry.

Posted by sentryman555

@chrisj_1: Yeah I understand what your saying but Captain America, Black Widow, and Hawkeye have all had special training so they would know to do stuff like that in that situation. Superman pretty much put on the costume for the first time and went straight into the fight!

Edited by chrisj_1

Oh yeah I agree with you dude don't worry it's only realistic regarding the circumstances of the movie. I was just clearing up the fact that saving people and people getting injured in the cross fire isn't really a complaint you could have about Avengers. That's all.

Edited by ViperKing

@g_man: It was exactly how I felt. I also would add that it was completely, out of line, for Superman to be rejoicing with Lois Lane after millions of people have died. It felt like Superman was not his comic book counterpart. I hated the portrayal of his character and I would give this movie a 6/10.

In the comics, Superman was a symbol of hope. He lead people to take a stand and rarely, if ever, showed the full extent of his abilities on villains. Superman was the savior of Metropolis, willing to die to protect people. Unlike Batman, his mission was not based on vengeance but rather justice. He would isolate himself if he failed to save a life because to him, he was responsible. Every time he took a life, he would do the same.

Posted by DocLuthorVonDoom

@martian81:

Wow, so many things wrong with this...let's pick it apart shall we?

@docluthorvondoom: Man I think you are picking the movie apart for no reason

Firstly if Superman is a fantasy, why do you even watch the movie..why does he have such a huge fan base? It's like arguing whether or not Jesus is a myth..you can shout yourself hoarse but people still believe in him.Point is fantasy is of little consequence when people hold the fantasy dear for one reason or another

What does this even mean? A fantasy can't have a large fan base? I don't understand; was this just a flimsy excuse to say something offensive about Christianity, or are you just a moron? And yes, by definition, Superman is a fantasy, do you know what fantasy means?

@docluthorvondoom:

Second no one is likening Superman to a law enforcer, in the MoS story he is in fact a hostage literally and metaphorically.MoS storyline aside he in the Superman mythos he has to make decisions that hold life or death in the balance in the mythos so it's no point arguing as if all choices lead to one outcome where Superman is incarcerating baddies and pulling kittens out of trees. Besides the onus of 'Super' in Superman is his superhuman abilities NOT his humanity.

Yes, someone was likening Superman to a law enforcer, that's actually the exact thing I was replying to, I think I even quoted him; why don't you read the comment string before you open your big mouth boy? Oh, also, onus? You are such a pretentious douche. And, yes, we can argue about the meaning of the "Super" in his name, but it's irrelevant; Superman has endured for so many years due to his humanity, his humanistic attributes are what make him, at least partially, so compelling, only an idiot would say otherwise...idiot.

Hmm 9/11 where is the connection, falling buildings and rubble? You must be kidding right? Haiti earthquake anyone, Indonesia's tsunami...I think there was plenty or rubble there and none of it has to do anything with 9/11. Movies like Armageddon and Deep Impact came out before 9/11 I dont see them reminding people of that tragedy.

It was a quote genius:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=911%27s+a+joke

it was relevant to the comment I was replying to, which you would know if you actually read things before getting on the offensive.

Posted by Herokiller12344
Edited by Mia26

@drlove said:

in the smallville fight supes tries a few times to fly away and take the fight away from the ppl but he was dragged back to the ground.

@ultimatesmfan said:

@novi_homines said:

LOL! I actually like this one better though.

Lol, says the guy who's superiors wanted to Nuke the city as opposed to trusting their team.

HAHAHAHAHA ..... and it takes Marvel kiddie gloves to make people believe that aliens would only shoot empty cars, miss shoots, and not kill civilians when they clearly want to but are waiting for Captain America to come in to began acting. Yet Hulk went on rampages (despite having control) .... 6 of you and we still had all that damage with a bunch of knock offs that can't even aim vs military trained kryptonians with powers of gods with a world engine that terra forms the earth with just one farm boy Superman who has never fought in his life ? Ok mighty Avengers.

Edited by RazzaTazz

One of the problems with comics as a medium is that they lend themselves to a sort of patchwork development of characters. In the case of Superman, whereas Siegel and Shuster created him, there is no way to say that Superman is their character. Outside of maybe some television shows (ones that are not well scripted) the majority of mediums start with a character and then develop them. In comics it is not so much the case, as a character will often be designed and then someone else gets their attempt to give the same character their own spin. Considering the best all time Superman stories, how many actually list Action Comics #1 as their favourite? Historical maybe or iconic, by favourite is a tag best saved for other stories. Because of this there is not really one story for the character (or any popular character) save for some that have somehow managed to stay with the same creative team for their entire existence (incidentally, the entire DC concept of hypertime is designed to explain this fact, or at least it was). So when comics go to movies they face a problem, mostly of making the background story believable and also having some continuity. Whereas comic writers can (and often do) simply ignore a lot of what was written before (some come writers do so little research as to not even know a character that they are writing about was last seen dying) it is not as easy with movie writers. They have to pick and choose what they want to do in terms of the development of stories which will appeal to comic readers and other movie goers. Assuming that there is no plan here is kind of naive though, as apparently all along the movie's producers were aiming for a second movie introducing Wonder Woman and Batman. This movie was mostly laying the groundwork for what follows, and if it crossed a few fans the wrong way, then I am sure that the same fans will be rewarded down the road.

Of all the developments that shock me about the presumed Justice League movie, the one that shakes me the most is that Darkseid is the likely villain. That is pretty boring and repetitive.

Edited by addikhabbo

@terrific_t said:

The first time I saw it, when it all came down to the THING, I literally thought I might be having a nightmare, especially with everyone around me cheering and clapping while my mouth was hanging open in horror and I pretty much forgot about everything else that happened before it and didn't care very much about what happened after it.

Then I watched it again, and I actually came to respect the THING. I feel like it was a really bold move. And, at first, I resented the idea of a bunch of movie-makers sitting around in a room, saying, "Okay, guys! We're gonna do the unthinkable! Superman is going to kill in this movie! Isn't that exciting? Okay, how can we make this happen?" But after watching the movie a second time, it really didn't seem like that was what that was about.

If you think about it, half of the people Superman is surrounded by in this movie are in the National Guard, and they are depicted as honorable and noble. We know, just by their uniforms, that they have been trained and taught to kill when necessary. We know that a lot of them probably have killed when necessary and that ALL of them are supposed to kill when necessary. And again, they are depicted as heroes in this film -- which I think is a pretty important reflection of what Superman went through here.

He was put in a very realistic situation where he had to make the choice to either end Zod now or let Zod go on destroying the city and the world, and it speaks heavily to choices that real people in the real world have to make every single day. And I, for one, am thankful for those people who have the strength of character to make decisions like that. And so, watching this movie a second time, not being ambushed by the image of Superman killing a man with his bare hands, I really began to appreciate what this movie was about. It was about putting Superman in a nearly impossible situation and testing his character to find out what choice he would make between his own innocence or whatever and the fate of humankind. And what did he do? He did the responsible thing. And seeing him put through that actually makes me admire him in a brand new way.

This movie was not the Superman movie I was hoping for either, I do wish it had given me a more hopeful Superman-ish feeling and I feel like there were quite a few things that should've happened character-wise that got sidelined by the excessive action and destruction. I can't stand that Superman was made to look irresponsible because Zack Snyder just loves to see things get blown up, and I never EVER expected to see Superman snap a dude's neck in a movie. And I still wonder if that was a good move for an origin story, BUT I will say that I respect the decision and thought it was handled well. It made me see Superman a whole new way. And I like that because I wasn't expecting to.

@outside_85 said:

The point of the movie was to update the Superman movies to the modern age and not simply continue a tradition.

I agree with the notion that Clark's and Lois' journey felt rushed, as did the whole military involvement.

The thing about collateral damage when people like Superman start throwing down with someone on equal power, I thought, was justified, because getting someone like Zod out of a given area should be damn hard even for one who has the same power. And even if it's managed (as it was) he will just come straight back again. It was the same thing with Doomsday, despite how much Superman and everyone else tried; hundreds ended up dead (story is very likely the same whenever a city or a large portion of one is wiped out). Added, as mentioned, Clark is at this point in time totally green in large scale situations.

As for the killing of Zod, well Zod said he would never stop because of what Clark had done and had sworn he'd kill the entire planet if he could. Then you have the trouble of the movie universe having no way to contain him, they sent that option off with Zod's cronies. And finally you had that final scene where Clark was put in an impossible situation, he couldn't block Zod's heat vision indefinitely with a hand or and arm because it would burn through it eventually and moving him bore the risk of loosing his grip or turning the beams on someone else. It was a moment where killing Zod was the only option he had, and the reaction he gave after it was evident enough that Clark couldn't think of anything else.

The preoccupation in movies about killing bad guys I think has to do with most of them being planned for much shorter life spans and not to be an unending story like comics, so they can allow for more final (and realistic) solutions to criminals that would have been put down in the real world. Imagine if the Nolan Joker showed up again in a movie, unlike comics, the mafia groups will have learned from the last encounter and promptly kill him if he showed up on their doorsteps. Also it is perhaps a tiny bit silly to think villains always end up going to jail, regardless of how many lives they've taken or how much damage they've caused. (Not to mention it's not exactly new; the Joker, Two-Face and the Penguin all ended up dead in the earlier Batman movies.)

@foxxfireart said:

A movie about Superman, doing super things, and having spectacularly super fights wasn't a Superman movie? Huh? Perhaps if Superman was more like this movie, the comics might do better.

Much of the city was well in the process of being destroyed. Do you imagine people are just going to be hanging out and waiting as the city is slowly crushed? The movie even shows people running in the masses out of buildings. They're going to run away from the thing trying to kill them.

There should always be another solution. And the filmmakers could have come up with another angle/ending.

In life, there isn't always another solution. You have to make a split second choice. Any hesitation could end in people dying. Anything else is Monday morning quarterbacking. Making judgement calls on a choice he had to make in a second. The thing that gets boring about mainstream comics is that they go to such length to try and prevent the protagonist from ever having to make a hard or moral choice. There's always some way out that has no consequence.

I love that they had Clark make the moral choice of killing to save the innocent. It's not as if it was an easy choice to make. He was pushed to the wall, and he made the right choice. These sort of decisions are made by people in the police and military all the time. Why should Superman get a pass on having to even make a choice? Zod was an eminent threat. He wasn't just going to walk away with his tail between his legs. It was a kill or let innocent people be killed situation. Any cop or soldier would make the same choice.

Movies often need the villain to die at the end. Comics keep villains alive to an absolutely ridiculous degree. In a real world setting, the Joker would have been executed long ago. Being crazy doesn't absolve guilt. Movies are contained events that need finality. It needs to end. Comics are serialized that need a constant threat.

I also felt that Zod was not just excellently cast. His character was more than a two dimensional villain. He honestly felt he was in the right in trying to help his people. He was a product of the folly of Kryptonian selective birth. He was born and raised to life, think, and feel as a general. It was the only way he knew.

My only real complaint about the movie is that I'm afraid they went too big with the first threat. I don't quite know who they could possible top or even equal what happened here. Superman saved the entire planet from a people who equaled him in strength. Zod and his faction are an easy threat to explain to the audience. These Nolan based films try to ground the characters, and I'm afraid much of the rest of his villains are too fantastical. Also, you can't keep obliterating the city ever movie.

B!tch please if you want to know the worst movie ever made I suggest you look at The Phantom Menace or Batman & Robin.

Posted by ClarkKent12

I look at it as an elseworlds story; I mean everyone has a different image of who Superman really is in their mind, however vast or slight the differences, so getting everyone to agree on it is unrealistic... I like what they did in MOS, they brought Supes into the 21st century and made some changes to the mythos here and there.

It's time for an update IMO.

Posted by Starbrander

Rookie Superman had a hard first round.

Expect a different Superman, with more control and focus next time around.

Posted by leonkarlen123

If you saw it on Cinema you don't really care.. It beats almost every Superhero movies besides Xmen or Spiderman 3

Posted by Saint_Wildcard

Why was this bumped?

Online
Posted by W3BST3R

@saint_wildcard: lmao I came here to ask and figure out the same exact thing.

Posted by Rainja

Honesyly, I disagree with this post. This was a good movie.And if superman is going to be victim to such ridicule so can the avengers. They were equally as wreckless and who cares. I wanted to see action and it was delivered. 5/5 from me