INTRODUCTION

I had planned to write something else entirely, but over the past month, I have been seeing more fresh and intensely powerful hatred geared at this movie. You know, I really thought (or rather hoped) that after almost two years of outspoken disdain towards this film, people would give it a rest already; as the film is already a success and destined to have sequels. However, a writer on this site, whom I don’t have a name for due to his/her deleting their comment, brought to my attention that scorn towards this movie will not end until Batman V Superman and later Suicide Squad comes out, as Man of Steel currently accounts for the entirety of the DCCU. That being said, I am going to see if it is possible to, at least for a little while, bring some understanding to the picture before its garnered hatred is brought to an end.

But before I begin defending this movie, so I don’t seem blind or stupid in the eyes of many, I am going to go ahead and list the few issues I had with it.

1. Russell Crowe or no Russell Crowe, I didn’t like how Jor-El was such a good fighter when he was bred to be a scientist. A friend of mine pointed out that, in a sense, fighting is considered a science. I acknowledged that, but I really think Jor-El should have relied more on brain than brawn to win his battles.

2. Clark/Kal and Lois had NO chemistry or development of their relationship AT ALL and yet, the final act of the film featured a lip-lock. Despite the fact that I absolutely LOVE the idea of Lois knowing about Clark’s nature before he dons the suit, this was really disappointing to me.

3. In the tornado scene, a lot of people don’t realize this, but Clark was actually 17 years old as opposed to being in his mid-twenties like many, myself originally included, thought. That, I think, was an example of laziness. What they should have done was used CG and some audio adjustments to make Henry Cavill look and sound younger. That, I think, might have at least partially made the scene make more sense to the haters of the scene. Still, that was my only gripe with the scene and I will try to explain the nature of it for those who had the more obvious gripe with the scene.

4. Other than Zod, none of the other Kryptonians outwardly aged despite 33 years passing. Zod had grayed and even looked as if his skin was about to wrinkle. Faora, Tor-An, and all the others looked exactly as they did earlier in the film. To me, that is another sign of laziness.

Prior to this, I have spent a large amount of time analyzing different levels of revulsion for this movie and as it turns out, the MAJORITY, not the ENTIRETY, of these people are those who grew up with Superman. And that brings us to our first analysis of Man of Steel and Superman as a whole.

THE FANBASE

Superman has one of the largest (if not THE largest) fanbases in the world. So many people have fallen in love with him over the years and some would say that he helped to shape world beyond the comics and pop culture in general. Even people who don’t speak English know and love Superman enough to wear his S or, if they’re little kids, throw on a towel or a sheet as a makeshift cape and run around as if they are flying like him. Thing is, the majority of Superman’s fans are ones who read his comics and they are the ones with the greatest issues with the film. To the fans, I ask this: do you honestly believe that simply because you are a major fan of the world’s most iconic hero that your opinion matters on a cinematic level? I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but it doesn’t. Not in the least. When it comes to comics (of course), cartoon shows, animated movies, and video games, there’s no two ways about it. You hardcore fans are ABSOLUTELY the target audience. But live-action film? That is a horse of a different color. You love and understand the character, yes, but did it ever once occur to you guys that the people who do love but don’t understand the character (like you do, that is) are merely looking to see a movie that looks good? Interesting? If the filmmakers did things your way, the way of the fans, it would alienate movie-goers because they aren’t going to know what’s going on; quite unlike you. That being said, certain things highly desired by you loyal fans have to be sacrificed in order to appeal to others. Movies are vastly different from comics and even television and video games. They have far more specific and complex demands and applications. For you to understand Man of Steel, you need to understand how movies work. And you must learn to accept the fact that sacrifices and changes are a necessity.

THE CHARACTER

Undoubtedly, the primary issue with this movie is Superman seeming out of character. I strongly disagree on every level and I will explain why.

From ’38 to ’39, J. Siegel and J. Shuster, the creators of Superman, first wrote Superman as being so violent and aggressive that as he scared and assaulted criminals, he didn’t give a crap about whether or not they lived or died and was even less concerned about the damage his great power could do. By 1940, he was given his trademark humanitarian and idealistic personality in addition to his moral code. You know why that was done? Not just because of some comic code of conduct, but because people, at the time, were used to Midwestern wholesome moral ideals. This dubbed “boy scout” version of Superman served as the reflection of those times and was considered the world’s most popular hero because of this for many, many years. From the early 40s to the 80s, specifically. Indeed, for the most part, people (including the world as a whole) were very idealistic, joyous, and friendly back then. But once the 90s hit, several catalysts happened that jumpstarted a chain of events that would lead to people and the world as a whole to change their attitudes…forever.

From the 90s onwards, even in spite of things such as “The Death of Superman” storyline (and the massive attention it gained), “Lois and Clark: TNAOS”, “Superman: TAS”, and even the 21^st century pre-Superman show “Smallville”, Superman’s popularity began to crumble at his feet. Despite still having many loyal fans, he was starting to seem irrelevant compared to more edgy, gritty characters, which were stealing all the attention from him. Why? Because these characters were invented (or revamped) in the same vein as him: to be reflections of the times. Specifically, the times that were starting to become apparent. Ultimately, the seriousness and intensity of these times became eternally apparent due to one unforgettable modern event: 9/11.

From then on, many people became more mistrustful, cruel, selfish, and mentally unstable. We became more embroiled in things like war, disease, crime, hunger, and straight-up chaos. And yet, Superman never changed. He maintained his Boy Scout persona through it all. Problem is, a boy scout these days isn’t merely someone who does the right thing. It is now viewed as someone who is so devoted to a cause that they are willing to turn their backs on their principals and the people in their lives. As a result, many started to see Superman as nothing more than a joke of a hero and those that have been given permission to work with his character have gone out of their way to, occasionally, cast him as a stooge (or more recently, a mind-controlled or corrupted hero) to glorify other heroes. The “boy scout” version of Superman represents a time that no longer exists and because of this, he has lost a substantial amount of his dynasty of popularity. That is, until a little ray of hope happened in the form of a little thing called:

2013’s Man of Steel. What made Superman so popular was due to the fact that he was meant to be a reflection of the times that we live in. Man of Steel established a world where the worst things in life can and will happen at any point to any person. Know what that’s called? Reality. The 21^st century. The times we live in. Those disdainful of this film have reiterated again and again and again that the film is dark and gritty because of its tone. I myself have reiterated again and again that it is conversely serious and realistic. As I have said before, it is a reflection of the times we live in; which are VERY serious and VERY real. As I have said in another article, it is the kind of movie that makes the wise, bold decision of seeing the world as it is, as opposed to how we want it to be.

CRITICIZED CHARACTERS

Clark Kent/Kal-El is shown to be much more complex, uncertain, and humble than he has been typically portrayed. For those of you who criticized this version for being “a jerk who has no sense of morality and humanity given the fact that he has let so many people die”, try seeing things from his point of view. He grew up physically different from others and was told at the still-tender age of 13 that he is AN ALIEN. You really think that’s something to push to the back of your head? In addition, he was bullied because of his being different and while he could have done something about it, he chose not to because he knew it wasn’t right. Humanity is more than just doing what’s right and being nice. It also literally means “human”. As in, you have flaws and will make mistakes. Superman, though a powerful alien, grew up as one of us. So, good traits aside, he has some bad ones, too. He has flaws, he is going to make bad choices and mistakes, and he is going to act on emotion (like anger in the case of the trucker Ludlow and Zod when he threatened Martha) just like us humans. You can’t pick and choose what traits you want to have. Some things are just in your nature.

And do remember that while he has been put in a position to save lives through all stages of his own life, he has NEVER once been put in a position to save the entire planet. Despite his power and heroic accomplishments, he is still just a man who has done nothing more with his life than go to/finish school and go on a quest to discover who he is. He only recently learned how to fly before his people showed up and now, he’s supposed to know exactly what to do from the get-go? That flies right in the face of the realism established in the film. Fighting against other people with powers and stopping a machine from killing us all is quite a step up from pushing out buses and evacuating oil rigs. The only thing he is guilty of being in this scenario is INEXPERIENCED.

And if you think Superman should have done something like suggest to Zod to terraform another planet or if you think he was a bit harsh on his fellow Kryptonians, keep this in mind: Zod and the other Kryptonians have been 33 years without another home, so the last thing they would want to do is get back in their ship for five more minutes and go to another planet that supports life. As for Supes’ harshness, with a pained facial expression, he said to his mother Martha after winning his first fight in Smallville, “I don’t think they’re interested in sharing this world”. Also, when Zod told him that by destroying the scout ship with his heat vision, he’d destroy Krypton, he actually hesitated for a second and had another pained look on his face.

As for the complaint that we didn’t really see him develop as a character, well that’s why we have sequels and as an origin story, the whole point of this film, in that scenario, was to reintroduce/reinvent him and show how he got his powers, iconic costume, and responsibilities as Earth’s greatest protector. However, people have obviously missed the fact that Clark drinks Budweiser and likes football games as shown before Zod’s “YOU ARE NOT ALONE” broadcast.

Jonathan and Martha Kent, one of the most controversial parts of the movie given the fact that they are the ones who raised and bred Clark to be Superman, there is an explanation for their behavior, too. They maintain their morality, but as opposed to all previous incarnations, they are morally realistic. Martha is pretty much okay in the eyes of many, so I’m going to skip to Jonathan.

He wasn’t saying to Clark that he should’ve let those kids die, he just didn’t have an answer for him. He didn’t know what to say. Thing is, when you’re a parent, you can’t tell your child “I don’t know” when it comes to certain things. They expect a certain answer out of you. Of course Jonathan doesn’t want those kids to die, but he also doesn’t want his son to be exposed to the world before he is ready. In times like these, if someone like him truly existed, all hell would break loose and he would be hauled away, scrutinized, and rejected for the rest of his life. As a father, Jonathan can’t stomach that. As a moral citizen, he can’t stomach other people dying either. It’s a tough choice, but he HAS to make it. He was put in that position the moment he adopted Clark after finding him in his ship. He was put in the position to decide when his son was ready for the world and when it was ready for him, which wouldn’t happen until he became a man; which is typically when you are ready for the ramifications of all things therein. People expect Jonathan and Martha to be the PERFECT parents and the BEST of humanity since they raised someone like Superman. Again, such a thing flies in the face of reality. There is NO such thing as perfect parents or the best people. NO ONE has all the answers and EVERYONE has flaws. Why? Because they’re human. People also complain that Jonathan seemed more like a mentor than a father when speaking to Clark. Well, guys, it’s not like he’s been doing that his whole life. Just for either situations that have recently taken place or situations that Clark will more than likely run into in life. The post-bus/heritage-discovery scene, the struggle with the bullies, and even the tornado incident were meant to be life lessons. I’m pretty sure there are times where Jonathan was actually acting like a father. There are family photos in the film that depict this (Jonathan fishing with Clark and attending his science fair, celebrating Clark’s birthday at one point, etc.). This was a silly criticism, really.

THE STORY

Okay, here we go! The thing that received the greatest amount of hatred next to the reinvention of Superman himself: the story itself. Many with passionate disdain for this film have never failed to display their inability to recognize the obvious. This movie was NEVER intended to be an honest-to-goodness Superman film. If that were the case, we would have seen Superman struggling against Luthor or Metallo, making out with Lois while simultaneously working with her at the Planet, and of course, performing heroics in the form of stopping cruise liners from sinking and keeping bridges from collapsing. Also, the movie would have been called “Superman etc. etc”. Instead, we got the film “Man of Steel”, an ORIGIN STORY that places emphasis on the man who will BECOME Superman. For the sake of stressing the fact that this was in fact an origin film, certain things about Superman’s character were highlighted in a way that has never really been done before. They highlighted the fact that he is a lonely outcast as a result of being different and is, of course, an alien with initially no clue about who and what he is. Loneliness, ostracism, and lack of identity. That, along with his alien heritage, was the focus of this film. You can’t reintroduce/reinvent Superman for a modern audience without first understanding where he comes from and why he is the way he is. That’s the point of the film. It was always intended to be a first-contact story. And it’s what separates it from its predecessors. That’s what’s so great about it.

People claim to hate it due to it not sticking with the comics’ version, being illogical, and having many plotholes. Well, I think it’s high time to address that.

It stuck to the source material completely. A few elements were just thrown in there due to the simple fact that it is A MOVIE. He was born Kal-El on Krypton, sent away as a baby due to its destruction, ends up being found and raised by farmers in a small Kansas town, renamed Clark Kent, grows up with incredible powers, learns of his Kryptonian heritage, put in a position to show his face and use his powers in public in order to preserve life, and ultimately taking a job at the Daily Planet to be a reporter and get to crises without suspicion. Sounds JUST like Superman’s story if you ask me.

Many things that people consider to be illogical about this film are simply a result of their inability to recognize the fact that life in many ways IS NOT logical at all. And certain things are more important than others. One scene in particular is the tornado scene.

Jonathan’s refusing to let Clark save him to protect his secret is a throwback to the bus situation. He is still too young (even though he doesn’t look it) to handle overall social rejection and he feels the only way to get him to understand is to make a sacrifice. The ultimate sacrifice. If you’ll recall, at the start of the flashback, Jonathan and Clark were arguing about the latter’s future. If you listen closely, you can infer that Clark once again did something with his powers that Jonathan was against and it caused Jonathan to question if whether or not he’ll be ready for the outside world any time soon; leading to his sacrifice. Then people say “Clark has super-speed! He could have saved him before the people watching under the bridge could even blink!” Exactly, where does it show him using super-speed prior to his being a man? It was never shown, stated, or even implied. His powers in this movie came about more different than typical. Most of the time, he develops strength and invulnerability first. But in this film, he got his vision/sense-based powers first prior to displaying strength and implying invulnerability. He couldn’t even fly until he was a man. That being said, criticism in this regard is flat out ridiculous.

Lastly, plotholes. I’ve analyzed many alleged plotholes in this film and found many criticisms flipping ludicrous and nothing more than a means to admonish the picture.

“If the Kryptonians are genetically bred, how does Jor-El and Lara know about sex? How could no one have known Lara was pregnant? How’d she recover so fast after giving birth?”

Well, they aren’t ignorant. They do record their history like we do. As scientists, history is important to them. As Jor-El’s hologram stated, he and his wife felt Krypton lost something precious. Likely through their work, they decide to break away from tradition and have a son. Lara obviously never left the El House and had her service drones Kelor and Kelex do things for her. Though they look like our women, Kryptonian women clearly have a physiology that allows them to heal much faster after giving birth.

“How come no one heard Clark destroying Ludlow’s truck?”

Now, this is a true plothole. I don’t know if he developed super-speed yet, but people should still have heard it. But I’m not going to lie. I never really cared for this because I thought it was pretty funny.

“Why was Superman’s suit waiting for him in the ancient Kryptonian scout ship when it has been in the ice for over 18,000 years?”

Clearly, it was part of the Jor-El program in the command key. The fact that people call bullcrap on that is actually a good thing. Kryptonian tech is MILLIONS of years ahead of our own. It’s so advanced, we cannot even begin to comprehend it. Unless it’s a weapon, which brings us to…

“Why was Lois brought on board Zod’s ship and why was she so good with energy guns?”

Obviously, since that Woodburn jerk outright stated that Lois knows Superman, the Kryptonians wanted to see if they could get information out of her if they can’t get it out of Superman, hence her saying “I didn’t want to tell them anything, but they did something to me. They looked inside my mind.” As for her being good with an alien gun, she likely surprised the Kryptonians as they just as likely underestimated her due to her being a Human.

“Why was Lois on the military craft when there are military personnel and a scientist, Dr. Hamilton, involved with the mission to save Metropolis?”

When she was freed by the Jor-El hologram, who explicitly stated that he was uploaded into Black Zero’s mainframe due to Supes’ command key being inserted by her, he told her how to stop the Kryptonians and send them back to the phantom zone. She had to tell Superman about this and guide Hamilton and the military on how to activate the phantom drive on Supes’ infant ship. She actually played a key part in this movie.

As for why Lois was thrown into the place with the command keyhole and why she didn’t get sucked into the phantom zone despite being in its range, I’ll admit that those are also true plotholes, but hey! All movies, no matter how good, have plotholes. Nothing manmade is perfect, you know.

“Why didn’t the Kryptonians terraform another planet? Why are they dependant on the codex? Why didn’t Superman come forth about the codex? If they terraform the planet and its environment, they’ll lose their powers, right? Why didn’t Superman suggest both species co-existing like his father Jor-El told him he could since he was meant to be the bridge between two worlds?”

In this order, they needed the codex to genetically engineer more Kryptonians or rather, the ones Zod deems worthy enough to live and be by his side. Unlike Jor-El and Lara, these Kryptonians are bound by their programming and to an extent (they did try to overthrow the council) Krypton’s law to follow with tradition. Otherwise, it would be what Zod calls, “Heresy!” Superman had no idea about the codex until Zod told him, so he had no idea where it was. The Kryptonians NEVER said they wanted powers. They really didn’t care for them. All they wanted was another home. Another Krypton. I reiterate what I said back at “Criticized Characters”. Superman told his mother after winning his first fight ever in Smallville, “I don’t think they’re interested in sharing this world”. This was later confirmed by Zod himself when he retorts to the Jor-El hologram’s claim that Humans and Kryptonians could co-exist, “So we can suffer through years of pain trying to adapt like your son has?” This culminates in Superman destroying the scout ship’s genetically bred fetuses after initial hesitation, but ultimately claiming, “Krypton had its chance!”

“Why didn’t Zod immediately incinerate that family at the train station before Superman killed him? Why did Superman kill him? At the end of the movie, who was young Clark pretending to be when he was running around with a towel as a cape on his back?”

Zod was using Superman to commit suicide. He lost everything. His planet. His people. His purpose. He decided that if he couldn’t kill the humans like he said he was going to do, he would die doing what he was always bred to do: fight. The most controversial scene in the movie, I’m not going to bring up what I said earlier about Superman being so aggressive in the past that he actually killed people and didn’t care, because in this movie, quite the contrary, he didn’t have a choice and he felt severe remorse for this action. People say he should have taken the fight elsewhere, but he actually did do that. He threw him in space, but Zod plowed right through Wayne’s Satellite and took the fight back to Metropolis in order to make good on his promise to kill us all. Others say he should have covered his eyes. Thing is, if the armored Faora and Nam-Ek can be hurt by heat vision during the Smallville fight, why wouldn’t the unarmored Superman? As for young Clark’s cape thing, according to Zack Snyder himself, it’s his instinctive nature as a Kryptonian, as they were a cape culture.

THE HUMOR

A lot of people’s complaints stem from the film’s apparent lack of laughs. Thing is, it did have some. It just wasn’t over-the-top. If it was, it would make the tone inconsistent. Here’s a list of funny scenes in the film.

1. Ludlow pushing Clark, failing to move him.

2. Clark destroying Ludlow’s truck.

3. Hardy’s not shaking Lois’ hand/Lois’ “measuring dicks” comment

4. Hardy’s “bucket-in-the-corner” answer to Lois’ “tinkling” question

5. Clark crashing through a glacial mountain while trying to fly

6. Father Leone’s reaction to Clark’s confession of being “Kal-El”

7. Superman in handcuffs/using X-ray vision during his interrogation scene/breaking out of the handcuffs

8. The “surveillance drone”/“I just think he’s kind of hot” scene

THE ACTION

Last but not least, the action. I was actually surprised to hear all the complaints about this. Many were hoping to see some serious action in a Superman flick, which has been severely lacking to say the least. Now, people claim that there is too much. How ironically hilarious. There’s just no pleasing people. Shoot, a handful of my friends who weren’t fans of Superman until Man of Steel came out actually claimed that there was NOT ENOUGH action. Many claim the destruction was completely unnecessary and Superman should have been in Metropolis saving people as opposed to trying to wreck the machine over the Indian Ocean. Well, let me tell you why that is not true.

If someone of Superman’s power truly existed and there were others like him, that destruction is an accurate portrayal of what would happen. And in any case, the World Engine was the cause of most of that destruction, NOT Superman; who by the way, would not have been able to save anyone during all of that. Why? Over the Indian Ocean, he was struggling to destroy that part of the World Engine due to the fact that the atmosphere it was generating was weakening him and making him sick. If he was in Metropolis trying to save people, the same thing would happen and he would end up dropping all of the people he grabs, as he would barely be able to keep himself in the air. And the destruction was necessary to convey just how much of a threat the Kryptonians are even without powers. To this end, I ask you this: if people weren’t getting killed in a tremendously horrifying way or in danger of getting killed in a tremendously horrifying way, what would be the point of Superman even being there to help? Or any superhero, actually? Think about it. If the danger wasn’t serious, there would be no need for an extraordinary being with extraordinary abilities.

People also claimed that Superman was responsible for most of the destruction in the movie. WRONG. There are only three instances where he actually directly caused destruction: When he attacked Zod and crashed through a silo and into the gas station in Smallville and when he wrecked the scout ship with his heat vision, which crashed into and completely destroyed an empty building in Metropolis; which takes us back to what I said earlier about his humanity and inexperience causing him to make mistakes. Still, that is nothing compared to the military mindlessly firing at Superman and the other Kryptonians in Smallville and Zod’s World Engine pancaking Metropolis in addition to the General’s constantly wrecking buildings and objects with his powers while fighting Superman.

A couple of minor nitpicks about the action concerns how the Kryptonians didn’t seem to be bleeding whenever they hit each other or how Superman, who has never thrown so much as a punch his whole life, was able to win against Kryptonian warriors, who, quite the opposite, have fought their whole lives. The Kryptonians’ hitting each other is like metal hitting metal. It can be damaged if hit hard enough, but at other times, it may not even scratch it. As for Superman’s victories despite being severely outclassed in skill and experience, exposure to Earth’s yellow sun and atmosphere for 33 years makes him stronger than Zod and other Kryptonians, who have only been exposed for half a day before they were bested. Zod took off his armor and while he was in Superman’s strength class, he still wasn’t quite on his level and lost because of this. Sometimes strength and ferocity is capable of overwhelming skill and finesse.

CONCLUSION

My intention WAS NOT to change anyone’s opinion of this film. I simply wanted them, especially diehard Superman fans, to understand that the majority of their nitpicks with the movie and the nature of the movie can be explained and that they are being very unfair and biased towards it. But, ultimately, it isn’t their fault. I have long discovered the true reason behind why they despised this movie. It’s BECAUSE they’re diehard Superman fans. They have such a basic, clear-cut, and passionate view of the character and have had it for so long, it is difficult for them to accept change or the fact that they likely set their expectations too high for this film. A little advice for the future: No matter who or what is involved in a movie, you should ALWAYS go into the theater with a practical state-of-mind to avoid the possibility of disappointment. Just because something looks enticing to you, doesn’t always mean it will turn out to be what you thought. As I have said before, Man of Steel’s Superman is a reflection of the times we now live in and I confidently believe that in time, he will reclaim his rightful place as king of all heroes in the hearts of just as many older fans as he has new ones. To the diehard fans, I end this article with one more thing of advice: do hold on to your long-standing image of the character, but do also follow the times; as they will continue to change with or without you and it is NEVER good to stay stuck in the past.

.

Huh, will read when I get a chance

I'm a superman fan and I love the film, that's all I'll say for now. A lot of the problems of MOS can be fixed in BvS which will make MOS even better.

I look forward to reading this.

Beata

I loved Man of Steel, and I'm sure BvS will address a lot of the events that took place in MOS. I agree with you about the tone of the movie being serious and realistic, I don't find the tone being dark and gritty. I think MOS is the best depiction on what you would get if Superman was a real person set in a real world with real emotions. If people want to watch the classic straight out of the comic book Superman then i'm sorry, but you won't see that in MOS. They even said they wanted to reinvent Superman, and in my personal opinion I loved their version. I believe after the destruction in metropolis in MOS we'll see a more restricted Superman, and he'll hold himself back and be more careful. I also believe after Superman killed Zod this will engrave the "no killing" into his character development and will be the first and last time he ever kills, and he'll try to always find another way. Like you said MOS was an origin story, and I believe after the events in MOS we'll start to see those events shape Clark Kent into the Superman we've always known and loved in the future films.

@kryptonian24:

I loved the movie. Hardly any complains from my part, and the ones I've are more on specific things I believe they could've done better, or at least explained better.

Now, I've read your text start to finish. And there's one assumption that you're making that isn't correct. Kryptonian civilization isn't millions of years old, if it was, then the events in the movie from the very start would made no sense whatsoever. It was at best a thousands of years old civilization. Remember that although they traveled to the stars they did so in the way WE would've to do it right now. Our tech only allows for lower than light speed travel, and the ship Kal/Clark found was the a ship sent to find new worlds thousands of years before the events of the movie. In fact if you read the comic that showed the prequel to the movie, you know that Kara (aka Supergirl) was one of the passengers from that ship, and the only one to survive the trip, after it was sabotaged by another member of the crew during the cryo sleep. So Kara (if she's still alive), has been on Earth for thousands of years. And if she's still "young" than that means Kal/Clark has a lot of time ahead of him to live.

But back to the civilization point, if they were like you said millions of years ahead of us, then they would've solved their energy/resources crisis that lead to the destruction of their planet. They would've even have mastered faster than light travel. Look at where we arrived in almost 100 years. We went from dreaming of traveling to the moon, to actually go there; our cell phones have processors millions of times more powerful than the first computer ever built, and it occupied quite a lot of space just to be able to do simple mathematics; we went from myth and fiction to actual fact in terms of medicine, physics, technology, history, and actual knowledge. In only 100 years we achieved so much, think if our kind survives another 100 years... It will be trully a different world than the one we live in now. So has scientific progress goes, the MoS movie places Krypton between tens to hundred of thousands of years ahead of us. No more than that. The Krypton from the Christopher Reeve movie, that Krypton was hundred of thousands of years ahead of us if not millions.

Has for the Kal/Clark character, he was exactly what one should expect from a man that knows very little about himself, except the fact that he was not human. He knew he was different, but how different was impossible for him to know. When I saw so called hardcore fans criticize him for causing to much destruction, when they saw in the movie that he only recently learned that he could fly, and that even Jor-El was surprised has to how powerful he had become. He had no military training or any sort of fighting training, and still he was able to stand his own against expert fighters like Faora, Non and Zod. Some call that a big plot hole, I call it, being alive. And to me that's what Jor was speaking off when he said "What if the child aspired to become something greater than society had intended for it to be." Jor-El was speaking of a truth that has a human being I found it ridiculous to see other human beings having trouble understanding what he had said. He was saying that altough kryptonians were genetically engineered, they still had free will, and dreams. And if given the chance/choice they could overcome their genetic pre-determined role that society had initially intended for them. Genes have a lot of saying in what we can and cannot do, but genes aren't everything. It was that line of thought that lead to the rise of the third reich and the nazis. That somehow through careful genetic breading we can make people better. But the truth is, that there will always be the element of choice, even if it's and imposed choice, pre-determined by outside elements, the truth remains. Even then choice will play its part.

And the pregnancy thing at the start of the movie, was exactly that. A choice made flesh. Both Jor and Lara were genetically engineered beings but still, they had hopes and dreams that went beyond what society expected from them, and to break the cycle, they made the choice of doing something that hadn't been done in a long time in kryptonian society. The same to me explains why Jor-El knew how to fight so well. If he had in him the will to become more than society intended for him, then why not start by putting his skills to the test and learn something that he was not engineered to be, a fighter. The only ridiculous part about the givin birth scene, was the pain Lara showed. They made the scene too human, and that was a stupid flaw at best. One should expect that such an advance race should have greater medical technology, that could suppress a woman's pain during the process.

I have to say that I was disappointed with Jonathan Kent. Sorry but it's my honest opinion. When looking back at the Superman The Movie, Jonathan Kent, we something that made all the difference. In MoS Jonathan worried to much about the future, and things that were outside his control, and instead of focusing on installing unto Clark a sense of right and wrong, he only made things worse by not being able to say to Clark "What you did, saving those kids. You took a big risk. Because if people find out what you can do, and ultimately what you are, people will always fear you first, instead of trying to understand you. But no matter what, I'm proud of you son. You knew the risks and still you did the right thing, and at the end of the day, that's what going to determine what type of man you'll become. Always follow your heart son, and remember all that your mother and I have taught you, and you'll always make us proud." That's what Jonathan should've said. Superman The Movie Jonathan, when he talked for the last time with Clark, he not only pointed out that Clark was showing off without any need for doing so, and when Clark said "Is a bird showing off when it flies" Jonathan said "Listen son. When you came to us, me and your mother were always afraid that someone was gonna come and take you away from us. And for a time it was important that you kept your abilities a secret. But a man grows older and thinks of things more wisely and I came to know this. You are here for a reason, son. I don't know what reason or who's reason, but I do know this, it's not make touchdowns." Can you see the difference from one Jonathan to the other. One was always fearing the worst and because he loved his son so much he felt conflicted about how to guide his son; the other one knew that he didn't have all the answers but in the end that didn't matter, because at the end of the day he knew what every parent knows. That you can only prepare your sons and daughters to certain point. It's impossible to prepare them for everything because most of the lessons that most be learned, at least the most important ones, those are out of their hands, and Jonathan knew that. That's why instead of bringing more doubts and fear into his son life, he decided to trust that he had done right by his son and prepared him the best he could. And to me that's what Jonathan Kent is all about. He's the rock upon which Clark later on builts his code of truth and justice.

And his death was simply stupid. Sorry, but that's how I feel about it, and I'm not gonna change my mind. Because no matter how I see it, his death served no purpose except to traumatize Clark. And again something that was easy to fix, they could've simply shown Jonathan trying to save someone, but at the same time, Clark with his super-senses noticed that a child had been left behind in the confusion and raced to save her/him and by doing so he got distracted to the fact that his own father was himself in need of help. And only when the tornado passed he went towards the bridge expecting to find both his parents there and Martha would tell him that Joanthan had gotten injured trying to save the other person and wasn't fast enough to escape the tornado. That to me would've made a lot of more sense and has a life lesson, it would've been much more enlightening. Seeing that it would show Clark that despite his power, he can't be everywhere at once, and that in the future he would've to make decisions that would mean life for some people and death for others. That he couldn't fix everything. That he himself had limits that he needed to ackowledge.

Has for Clark and Lois, that was one of the worst thought out plans ever made. There were so many hints has to who Superman really was, that one of the less believable things in the movie was that he was still able to keep his Clark Kent persona. And lets face it, the way Lois found out who he was, made little to no sense. No reporter no matter how good she is, can track down a person that by her own accounts was a ghost. A ghost does not leave tracks or anything concrete to point into any direction. So either Clark was very sloppy and did a terrible job at hiding his true identity or (and this is what I believe) the producers decided to go down that path, for whatever crazy plan they had on their heads. Their relationship should've never developed that far. It would've been way better if he remained a stranger to her, that she hadn't been able to track him down. They could've shown some signs of mutual attraction, but nothing more than that. The story would still have worked out the same, even without her knowing that he was Clark Kent. The military would still have gone after her, because of the report she'd given them about the events on the ship, and also because she was searching for the "man" she saw in the ship.

Has for why Zod, Faora, and all the other kryptonians didn't seemed to have aged in over thirty years, is anyone's guess. Could be a plot hole, or it could simply be a lack of communication between producers and the viewers, maybe they didn't saw the need to explain it, which of course was a big mistake. With a few simple phrases they could've sort that out, by having Kal question Zod has to how come after more than 30 years he looked pretty much the same, to which Zod could've given this simple answer "You know so little about your own people, Kal. Didn't Jor-El taught you anything?! We kryptonians are not like this primitive race. Our life spans are far greater." and with this, problem solved.

But all in all, I was satisfied with the movie, and hope to see some sequels coming soon.

So THAT'S WHAT THE HERESY MEANT!!! Thus proving my point: no one people hate it, it's the exact opposite of Silver Age Superman: it's Byrne Superman!! The codex is the birthing matrix!

Nice blog and awesome write up of what is a over persecuted film. Some of the pure Superman fans as they refer to themselves will simply dismiss this article as trash. I don't see why the hell they spend so much of their time condemning this film and those who like it. It's really childish and arrogant for them to think they know better. But I digress. Nice write up overall.

I liked mos

I did too. This is a great write-up.

R.I.P. mobile users. But seriously though even with it's faults I still consider MoS to be one of the best cinematic super hero films to date. Nice blog by the way.

Great points Kryptonian24... I posted this on Screenrant last year, I feel I should post it her as well:

I would like to defend Snyder on this thread. I dont know why people have so many gripes with this guy

1. Let us look at several issues:

   1.The jumpy narrative style, I for one see absolutely no problem with it.Many people try to say it’s the script writer’s fault but to be fair Snyder’s movies are known to be non linear, MOS, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch are all told in a non linear way, with flashbacks, concurrent timelines and what have you but this technique is wonderful precisely because it lets one say a lot more with less. If movie goers can’t stomach a Peter Jackson style 3hr movie then this is the best alternative. MOS was not ‘all over the place’ it was trying to give an origin story but condense all the facets of the story the situation surrounding Clark’s birth, his growth, his adult wonderings and even subtle hints of his sleuthing ability.The imminent threat to earth and his victory over the villains. There is no way a linear narrative would give us all that and anyone who suggests this is doing so knowing that it would be at the expense of other key parts of Clark’s story.It would be a very hollow story.I think people are still stuck with the Donner movies where he is a jack of all trades almost immediately.

   2.The shaky cam- personally to me this was not at all a problem, the camera shook in step with the action , the more peaceful scenes were very still, the action scenes could have a little shaking but that added to the realism of being in the moment, or one with the chaos

   3.Some of the blame from the words of wisdom of Pa Kent are laid at Zack’s feet, I think this is unfair but even if he had a hand in the way the story was written I can understand what he was going for. Many people are quick to assume with Superman’s powers there is carte blanche to become a hero and beacon to all, be that as it may, they are seeing the wrong perspective. What pa Kent was trying to tell Clark was two fold not all humanity would embrace him and more importantly when he hinted that maybe Clark should tone down the heroics (the bus incident and his own death) to make the point that ULTIMATELY Clark could not save everyone.That is obvious if he set up Clark to try and save as many as he could it would be an almost impossible challenge and it would set Clark up to fail because the death of people that he failed to save would be on Clark’s conscience and he would not handle the burden.

   4.The destruction in the film. I think again there was nothing too removed from the threat level Zod posed. What do movie fans expect when Zod’s plan is genocide? The odds were stacked against Superman anyway there were 9 Kryptonians in total from the Phantom Zone he was lucky he only had to face 3. The destruction is a realistic depiction of what would happen if two or more God like beings brawled in a city. It underscored the need to kill Zod as well which many fans again try to say was out of Character for Superman, but Zack personally wanted Zod’s end to be at Superman’s hands because he wanted to give an origin to Superman’s no kill code.The movie is an origin story and with all that was laid at Superman’s feet I think he coped well.

   5.The lighter ending. Here people have issues that it was too sudden or felt contrived after the devastation in Metropolis.However that is an assumption that that scene of Clark joining the Daily Planet is contiguous to the death of Zod , that is not explicitly stated or even implied.It could have happened a month after the events, to assume the Daily planet was also floored in the devastation is an assumption. It could have been a damaged building but it may not have been pulverized.

   Honestly I am yet to be given a sound argument putting MoS as some cinematic aberration.It is not perfect that I would admit but it deserves great credit as the best iteration of the character with a good balance of story, pathos, action and hope for future development of the iconic character.

Just be glad I haven't the time to take a read of this as I doubt it makes any major steps towards illuminating Snyder and Goyer's oh so enlightening idiocy on deconstructing and demonising one of the most inspirational and hopeful superheroes in the fictional medium.

Decent little article. I liked your mentioning of Supes throwing Zod into space. Throughout that final fight you can see how Clark starts to learn how to properly fight those at his power level. After he dodges the Luthor tanker and watches it explode he then takes Zod over Metropolis to minimize damage. Then when Zod flies back into the city and hits him oncemore, Clark uses his momentum to throw Zod into Space. I think a lot of people don't notice that or just ignore it because it shows him becoming more like Superman as people know him.

@lvenger:

If you did have the time of day (or when you do) and you begin reading it, I think you'll at least partially change your tune.

@kryptonian24: No I really won't. Man of Steel is one of the few films which I would actually call genuinely tortuous, antagonizingly painful and infuriatingly bad to the point that I want to Hulk out and smash and scream. It desecrated everything I hold dear about Superman, ruined his character and tainted his mythos to the point where MOS is part of the reason why I'm disappointed with current Superman. I've started reading it and I can emphatically guarantee you that you will not change my tune in the slightest. Man of Steel is one thing I have very strong opinions on and your piece utterly fails to change my mind about it. I've heard it all before and rebutted it too. You haven't clarified the misunderstood at all, you're only another supporter of a film that is part of Superman's damnation.

@lvenger:

Well, whether you like the film or not, many others do and no amount of disdain will change the fact that it was a hit. And according to many others, I have clarified many things. YOU on the other hand have not clarified in detail what it is that you hate so much about this movie. But your tirade seems to imply that you are yet another longtime diehard Superman fan who has grown so attached to the long-standing idea of the character that you can't accept change. You won't accept it. And that is your choice. You choose to dwell in the past and hold on to aspects of the character that does not fit for this generation. And that was another point of the film. To be made for a new generation. And please Lvenger, do NOT accuse me of being "another supporter of a film that is part of Superman's damnation". I could just as easily say that I have heard the very thing you have said previously from at least 30 people and their so-called "rebuttals" are clearly the result of their inability to recognize the necessity of shaking things up. And again, this was an origin story. You're not going to get the Superman you want from the get-go. It's been done. Besides, as I have said in the article, I WAS NOT trying to change your mind. You probably misunderstood me when I said to "change your tune". I was speaking of your insulting Zack Snyder and David Goyer with your "oh so enlightening idiocy on deconstructing and demonising one of the most inspirational and hopeful superheroes in the fictional medium" comment, Everything has to change at some point. Even Superman.

@kryptonian24: Nice write up. As the third highest commenter (but the funniest one) on the Superman boards, I approve

I was planning on doing my own review of the movie while at the same time debunk some of the misconceptions myself, but you did a good job. I went back to the movie thinking the score would drop but honestly I admire it more after re watching and this may truly be my favorite CBM. There are three things I'd like to touch on

1-There is an inconsistency in the movie. Pa Kent spends his entire time saying Clark is meant for greater things but their fight in the car is about how Clark doesn't wanna be a farmer.

2-While I can agree with Pa Kent's logic on why he sacrifices himself, I do think Clark should have done something regardless. This is probably my biggest problem with the movie.

3-You sort of covered the Zod heat vision thing. But I like to see it this way, in the movie Clark displayed two types of heat vision-

• Precision/surgical kind- This kind is meant to heat things up and comes out of the pupils. This one can be moved by looking.
• Full on Heat vision- This comes out of the eyes like a geyser. Meaning it comes out straight out of your eyes, even out of the white part. This type of heat vision cannot be moved unless you move your head.

Zod in the movie only displayed the one. Which Clark had to hold on so he couldn't move his neck. This is backed up by cartoons and comics as well.

But with the problems aside I really do love this movie. It set up so many great things and the road that Clark is going to become the Superman the world needs him to be and the one from the comics is a journey I will enjoy seeing.

@saint_wildcard:

Thank you so much! However, I actually covered the Pa Kent inconsistency. The argument they had in the car was meant to imply that Clark once again did something with his powers that his father didn't want him to and it caused him to question when he'll be ready to leave for the world. At the beginning, the first thing Clark said was "I'm tired of safe". And likely, when he added that he wanted to do something useful with his life and Jonathan spoke of farming, Pa probably misunderstood this as saying that farming is not good enough for him. That being said, Jonathan still probably held on to his belief that Clark could one day pursue greater things once he proves himself ready, but I think he probably also expected him to simultaneously help out with the farm for tradition's sake. Not really sure if this version of him knew if whether or not Clark would pursue reporting.

But I agree. As evidenced in my introduction, I was disappointed with several problems in the movie, but it wasn't enough to make me not love it and now, I think I'm going to go watch it again!

..Interesting....as a long in the tooth Superman fan I guess I fall into the category of "diehard", but I am not opposed to change. When I first saw MOS I thought it was awesome and even wrote a blog which is knocking around here, defending critics of it. However since watching it I since have changed my views somewhat. Here I must side somewhat with Lvenger, because there are certain core aspects of Superman that make the character what he has been since 1938 and should not be changed just due to the modern need to be trendy, cool and angsty.. namely, Superman's concern for the environment around him and his no kill policy. So for me, as much I really loved the CGI action scenes from the viewpoint of showcases Superman's immense power, Superman wouldn't crash and bash Zod through crowded city blocks like some psycho whilst people literally died in the fall out. In this film Superman only saves Lois Lane out of all the Metropolis dwellers. The relationship between Pa Kent and Clark seems strained. The Costner Kent doesn't really come across as that warm, which again for me ruined a key part of the Superman mythos. And no, Superman has never necessarily represented the times we live in, he was written to be a beacon of hope to late 1930s America and to represent all the best we try to be.

So whilst there are elements of MOS I do still like and I don't feel so angry about it as Lvenger and others, I think as a great Superman movie It missed the mark.

@bezza:

Well, you certainly are someone who has an opinion I can respect. But still, I don't think you understood some of the points I made. Certain things (not ALL things) about Superman needed to be changed for the modern world due to needs of the new generation. As you yourself admitted and as Lvenger strongly implied, you are a LONGTIME Superman fan. Meaning, you have always had that image of him as a beacon of hope and an upbeat character. That was your time. But what about people for this generation who look for certain aspects of a hero. They won't think the same way as you because they were born and bred in a different time that has different ways of looking at things.

As for Superman's fights with Zod, in Smallville he was angry at him for threatening his mother (the only thing he has left) and as I explained, he was still raised as one of us humans (despite not being one himself), so he has human emotions and will make mistakes. He isn't perfect. The no-kill thing (also something I and MANY others have explained) was meant to jumpstart it for the cinematic universe and force him to always try and find another way to win. Because this movie proved that in a realistic world, there ISN'T always a way out. Also, the movie marked the first time he's ever fought and had to truly be a hero, but because he lacks experience in doing these things, the outcomes are catastrophic (the answer to your concern for the environment). But Superman, as I have said above, is NOT responsible for most of the destruction of Metropolis, it was the World Engine. And I have actually seen how many buildings Superman punched Zod through. ZERO. Quite the contrary, Zod has thrown and punched HIM through countless buildings. The worse Superman did was graze Zod;'s face against a glass building, which, depending on how close the person is to the window, wouldn't hurt anybody. ANd I am assuming that when you say Superman only saved Lois in Metropolis, you mean on an intimate, in-his-arms level; as he saved not only Metropolis but the entire world. Jonathan and Clark's relationship wasn't really strained, but rather serious. If you were the parent of a powerful young alien who is constantly tested in certain situations (the bus, bullies, etc.), you would have to be serious about things pertaining to him. But I get what you're saying. You think there should have been some more father/son elements in the movie and I too agree.

I, however, have to disagree with you on Superman's representing the times though. I watched a legitimate documentary and did some research on Superman (apart from what I already know of course). As I have said earlier, Superman, in '38 and '39, was rough and aggressive, not above killing and careless about his power level causing trouble. In the 40s, however, he became the Superman you are more familiar with. Why? Because, people of those times were drawn to the idea of Midwestern wholesome moral ideals, which Superman was the embodiment of. And while it is true that he was made to be the best we can be, these days, not a lot of people carry that attitude anymore. Most people want to be what they want or just want to get by. That's just the world we live in.

With all due respect, Bezza, I believe it is you who missed the mark. As explained by the filmmakers (Zack Snyder specifically), this was NEVER intended to be a true, good-to-honest Superman movie. It wasn't. It wasn't about Superman. It was about the man who will BECOME Superman. It is a well-dissected origin story. It is meant to "thread the needle". Have certain things happen so that Clark could learn from them and BECOME SUPERMAN. The clue of it not being a true Superman movie is even in its title. "Man of Steel". Not "Superman, etc., etc." This was a sci-fi/first contact movie that wished to look at Clark's heritage and upbringing in a detailed manner. Essentially, this movie was meant to get the "alien" aspect of his character out of the way so that you could get the kind of Superman movie that has him saving people from burning buildings and giving long-winded inspirational speeches (on a realistic level).

@kryptonian24:

So, a few things.

RE your title. Nothing is misunderstood, people just have different opinions. If people disagree with you, it isn't ebcause theya re not understanding your reasoning, it's because they don't agree.

With that being said, I just wanted to note some things I disagree with.

1. Russel crow was destined to be a scientist and trained to be one, that absolutely doesn't mean he isn't free to take up other things in his own spare time. There is nothing to imply Kryptonians lack that freedom.

2. Agreed on the lack of chemistry.

3. I'll touch on this more, but this scene was dreadful. The point they wanted to make does not justify the horrible way in which they chose to do it.

4. Time doesn't pass the same in the phantom zone as it does here.

I disaree with your assertion that changes are necessary only for live action adapations to appeal to non comic book fans. All comic book fans were non comic book fans at some point. The animated movies and shows are easy for anyone to get right into, and so are many comics. The changes they madehad nothing to do with appeasing non comic book fans.

9/11 didn't change humanity. We didn't become more mistrustful, cruel, selfish, and mentally unstable. That aside, your assertion seems to be that times are so dark and gritty now that Superman as we comic fans knew him couldn't work. I say that's complete and utter jobbybock.

During the 80's, the 80's was considered dark, more so in some ways with the cold war. Ditto for the 90's. There isn't anything really special about a post-911 world as it relates to Superman. That aside, the whole reason Superman has maintained his popularity for so long is because he *doesn't* compromise his ideals. He is and remains a beacon of hope and an example for all that is right, no matter how bad things get.

This movie doesn't see the world as it is. It's a scifi-fantasy film with a serious cinmeatic style. That doesn't mean the movie is serious, just the style. Honestly, District 9 was much better at being a serious sci-fi filmt hat showed the world how it is.

You can't justifty movie Clark acting out of character by using the justification that some things are in his nature, i.e. a part of his character. The whole reason people are upset is because they are not and never have been a part of his character.

If they wanted to show Clark struggling with being accepted and tormented, they could have done it in other ways then by having him takiing out his repressed rage. Superman doesn't flare up like that and put innocents in danger. Other characters might, but not Superman.

That's my biggest problem with Clark, that you haven't really addressed short of saying we shoudl wait for the sequel. Even if the sequel builds on the first film, that doesn't excuse the first film as being good. In it's own right, it got the characterization of Clark absolutely, ubnforgivably, horrible wrong.

You wrote a long paragraph dealing with Pa Kent, but my response is very simple. Pa Kent should never, ever tell Clarke that maybe a busload of kids should *maybe* die to protect his secret. That is absoltuely screwed up.

It doesn't make it more realistic or more human. It's actually pretty freaking unrelaistic. I don't know too many parents who would teach their kids that they shouldn't save 20 people because their life might become inconvenient.

Clark is meant to get his moral compass from the Kents. The version of the Kent's we see are not fit to instill the moral values Superman is known for.

Now, RE your first paragraph int the story.

Clark was never a loner in the comics. He had his familyu , and he had friends. The movie made him into a loner, and basically gaves up Superman by way of Batman. Which is a complete and utter failure. Dark and gritty doesn't work for Superman unless it's some weird elseworlds situation.

So your justification for him letting his father die, is that he couldn't speed? That's plauisble, and in fact the best argument I have heard for it so far.

The main problem I have is that in the comics, Jonathan's heart attack showed that some things were outside of Superman's control, and as powerfull as he is some people can't be saved. MoS inversed that, giving Clark the power to save him (even if he couldn't speed), and having him refuse to do so. I don't see that as useful for character development, I see that as poor writing.

Something else I wonder about, is the people of Smallville are, in the comics, genrally good people. Would it really have been so bad for them to see Clark save his dad? Or even have him slip of to the side and jump, and have people suspect but not see him clearly....or even find out and tell him they will keep his secret. There were just so many more oppurtunities than that nonsense we got.

Clark destroying Ludlow's truck was funny. It also made me hate the scene despite myself, because it made Clark into a petty person with anger issues.

I'm going to skip a bit as I agree or dont care about the Lois points.

Superman should have stayed in Metropolis to disable the world engine there, since the one over the Indian ocean was not killing people. There planw as stupid, and if it was a realistic movie like you insist, nukes would have been deployed.

You say that Superman is stronger due to being exposed for 33 years, and I would like that if it were true, but there is nothing in the film to support that.

As for Zod's death...it was unneccesarya nd Clark shouldn't have done it when there were other methods. He could have gourged out Zod's eyes, or if he was really stronger due to being on earth for longer he should have been able to put him to sleep. There were definitly options.

I enjoyed reading your post despite disagreeing and look forward to your responses.

@muyjingo: I'm sure he can handle himself but I wanna touch on this one

You wrote a long paragraph dealing with Pa Kent, but my response is very simple. Pa Kent should never, ever tell Clarke that maybe a busload of kids should *maybe* die to protect his secret. That is absoltuely screwed up.

He's a child at this point. WOuldn't it be more messed up to let your son get found out and then taken to be experimented by the Government? Or heck, even running for the rest of your life sounds horrible. Comics never really touch upon it and Smallville (which was worse when it came to flaunting his power) gave a BS answer. It seems to me that Pa Kent loved his son more than most real people love their actual children

It's ridiculous to me that people keep excusing that dialog. He wouldn't be kidnapped and experimented on by the government. At the most they would have to go on the run, but even then, why would the parents of the children even believe them when they say a fellow child could lift up the bus?

I don't think Pa being willing to let 20 kids die so Clark can live a normal life (knowing that was never going to be a real option anyway) doesn't show that he loves his kid more. It shows that he is potentially sociopathic (I don't really think that, and think more than anything he didn't think about it too much before speaking).

The important point though, in the context of the film is that it isn't the type of moral example that Superman should have guiding him. Indeed, such moral examples were completely absent from the movie.

@muyjingo: What you need to realize is that Man of Steel is an independent adaptation of the Superman mythos, not a direct comic book adaptation. It is supposed to function as a Superman originstory, and it does a damn fine job of it. If you don't like this version, feel free to sit home when BvS comes out. In the final scenes, we can clearly see how inexperienced he is as a hero, since he didn't move the fight outside of Metropolis. As for the killing, well, Superman has killed Zod before.

It's not your comic book boy-scout on the big screen. That version of Superman is gone, and complaining about it won't bring him back. If you want to see your version of Superman on the big screen, feel free to make your own movie instead of criticizing someone else's.

@muyjingo:

1. I said I accepted that Jor-El may have found a way around his ability to outfight Kryptonian warriors, but I would have liked to see him use more brain than brawn in these situations.

2. I think EVERYONE agrees with this one.

3. This is just too complex to keep explaining, so I'll leave this be for now.

4. I'm assuming that you're assuming that the destruction of Krypton and the phantom zone projector took place some time after Zod and his cohorts getting locked away. But if I remember right, people don't age at all in the phantom zone. However, as Zod explained to Clark in flashback, he and his cohorts, after being freed, spent 33 years wandering space, going to old Kryptonian Colonial outposts and gathering whatever they could find that was useful (weapons, armor, the world engine), so they should have aged like Zod did.

Actually, it does. You are right. Everyone was a non comics fan at one point, but the thing is, a lot of people who know or heard of characters like Superman do not have a FRACTION of the understanding and passion for the character as the fans do and that's why they won't get certain things that the fans will. Movies have different demands and writers have different styles and ways of telling things.

No, it didn't. It was, however, a sign. That threats like that are real and they do have an impact on people. Superman maintained his traditional image of a boy scout who lived in a world where things seemed sunny and delightful. That isn't how people think these days. It's a cruel world. It's a different world. I'm sure you've caught wind of the news or experienced certain bad things in life yourself. And I don't think Man of Steel was dark and gritty, but serious and realistic. And his attitude of always wanting to help others is something I believe shouldn't go away, but have you taken a look around? People have been speaking badly and treating him like a joke for years. "Superman is lame! Superman is a mary-sue! Superman is an invincible douche-bag!" As a fan, I'm sure you've noticed that many of his stories these days are reduced to his being turned evil or being severely weakened so that low-lives could beat him (even though they can't). There are some good ones, but regardless, many people do not respect him like they should.

Those times may have been somewhat dark, but Superman was still at the pinnacle of popularity then, as the times were still as least somewhat bright. As for your comment about nothing special about Superman fitting into a post 9-11 world, that is a matter of opinion I guess. I think it's a good idea. In a world like this, for a general audience, it'd be a good idea to see how he'd fit.

When I said it takes the world as it is, I meant that it showed just how serious and lethal things could be if someone like Superman and his misguided people existed right here in the 21st century. Back then, Superman has faced threats like in Man of Steel, yes. But they never really came off as menacing and frightening like in MOS. That was the point. To show that these things are real and there is no joke about it. And at the end of the day, there won't be any cheering. There would be sighs of relief after a great deal of widespread trauma.

He was raised as one of us humans. Some of us have a tendency to take our anger out on, if not on someone, something. He has emotions like us. This is what I call realistic. Yes, in the comics, he was raised to be the best of us. But on a realistic scale, if he is going to be raised by humans, he gets the good traits and the bad. Not just the good. It doesn't work like that.

This, I guess, is you speaking as a fan. Talking it out is human nature, yes. But who is he going to talk to? He can't exactly be completely honest with a psychiatrist. With a psychiatrist, you need to tell them EVERYTHING wrong with you so that they can properly help you. And think about all of the emotions he has gone through in life. He never could stand up for himself and had to just deal with being harassed. And his childhood isn't the only time it's happened. It's through his whole life. And it shows his lack of acceptance and being tormented via being bullied and ridiculed; his reactions to these things also being apparent. That is a lot of anger and emotion. As someone who has been struggling with acceptance and bullied during childhood and even somewhat beyond, I understood it perfectly. And wouldn't you be mad if someone threatened your mother? If she was the ONLY thing you have left in the world? Anyone would be pissed about that. Also, do remember that Zod said to a depowered Superman, rather coldly, that he killed his birth father and despite it always haunting him, that he'd do it again if he had to.

The whole point of the movie was to get his origin out of the way. Show him being born on Krypton, growing up in Smallville, discovering his heritage, and ultimately throwing on the suit and saving us from trouble. I get you probably expected to see something like Clark being at the Daily Planet, a flashback with him in college maybe, and going through some tough life choices and trials. But the thing is, his background is just too rich to not take up a large amount of space. And it wasn't just an origin story, it was also a reinvention of his character for a new generation. I know, you wanted an honest-to-goodness Superman movie, but that is not what this was. It was a reintroduction of him starting from his roots, not during the progression of his career. Yes, in the comics he was like that from the start. But you can't always translate something like that into film. It is a process to tell the character's development and have them evolve throughout a franchise. That is how film works. It has limitations and a runtime. Comics do not.

Like I said, that was his way of saying "I don't know". But as a parent, he couldn't say that to his 13-year-old son. When they're that young, they expect a certain answer out of you and while it may be difficult, you need to convey one; otherwise they'll be even more confused and discouraged. And with all due respect, do you not understand just how serious someone like him being on this planet is? Especially in a world where clearly, at least on a public level, superhumans do not exist. As such a vibe is given off in MOS.

Not many (or rather any) parents raise the child destined to become Superman. And not having all of the answers and being flawed in your ability to convey a truly comforting answer to your moral child's decision to use his tremendous gift to save others on a public scale is human and for these times, quite realistic. In the comics, Jonathan and Martha would have expressed pride no matter what. But in real life, stuff like this would be unquestionably serious. Especially when in the movie, Pete Ross' mom said that the bus incident wasn't the first time Clark proved himself different from others.

If he wasn't moral, he would have let Pete drown, killed that bully for dragging him out of the truck, and squished Ludlow's neck like taffy. Your idea of moral values is to be friendly and kind to everyone and deal with harassment with patience and humility in addition to forgiveness. I agree to some extent, but try to remember he has had to go his whole life without physically standing up to people who do him wrong. You think that doesn't weigh on a man raised as one of us?

The point of Man of Steel was to make Superman grounded and relatable, as said by the filmmakers long before the film came out. The comics version of Superman, as you have said yourself, had family and friends. He had pretty much an ideal life. A utopian one some might argue. And I think that was one of the issues many people had with him. Everything was all sunshine and rainbows in his side of the world. In a world like the one we currently have, he would be an outcast (though, Lana and eventually Pete do apparently befriend him in the movie) despite still having a loving family. But if I recall correctly, even in the comics, while he wasn't a loner, but he was lonely. He was the only surviving member of his kind (in some versions of his story) and no one, not even his closest friends and parents, could truly understand him. That was translated well in MOS.

Thanks. I had to get that one out there.

The heart attack thing has been done and it would seem too similar to the Reeve Superman movie if it was recycled. I get what you (and a dozen other people) are saying about some things being even out of Superman's control, but the message here was priorities. Yes, he could have saved his father, but at the cost of his being exposed before he was ready. He is still a kid (even though he doesn't look it), so he won't be able to handle the pressure of overall rejection. I guess, in some way, it was Pa's way of saying that he needs to be more mindful of how he saves others. As I have said earlier, Pete's mom has conveyed that the bus situation isn't the first time he's shown himself as being superhuman.

True. In Smallville, at least in the comics, the residents are typically generally good people. But not everyone is that way. I'm sure a great many people keep Clark's secret throughout the years (like Pete and Lana), but word would often spread that he is different from others especially when some people have actually seen him in action. As for saving his dad sans the speed, chances are, even if he was seen, we wouldn't get a "your secret's safe" situation. It'd be more like a "final straw" situation, as he would ultimately seal his fate by showing his true nature in front of countless people. I think you underestimate the reactions most people would have to someone as extraordinarily different as he is. It's not really nonsense.

Wouldn't you be miffed if someone poured beer all over your face when you tried to be peaceful about things? Yes, Superman is moral, but he is NOT a pushover pansy. He's not going to let someone walk all over him. Who would? And he does have anger issues to an extent. What with being bullied and ostracized his whole life and all.

Yeah, Lois is a mouthful! LOL!

I thought that too at first. But do you know how far away the Indian Ocean is from that Air force base? They never would have made it. And again, Superman might have had even more difficulty if he went for the one in Metropolis given the fact that the other Kryptonians would have saw and stopped him. He would've been weakened by the atmosphere, but they wouldn't because they've lived in it their whole lives. And since they needed the codex from his cells, they would have killed him the instant they brought him onboard. Nukes are typically a last resort for containment purposes just in case the military fails altogether.

Be honest, do you think he would have stood a chance if the other Kryptonians were on his level? He would have been killed in an instant. Even in the comics, in some versions, Superman is depicted as being stronger than other Kryptonians because he has been in the sun longer. Not everything in a film needs explaining. Some things are just common sense.

Unnecessary? Other options? Dude, no prison could hold Zod. The phantom zone has been used. Superman tried to get Zod away from people by throwing him in space, but it didn't work. Putting him to sleep wouldn't work either. That involves cutting off air supply and solar-powered Kryptonians, as shown in the movie, don't need air. Clark was able to breathe while in water (if he couldn't, we would have seen his cheeks gorge and bubbles appear) and he clearly had no issue being in space. Gouge his eyes? Superman may have been stronger, but Zod and the others were still in his league. If you are stronger than someone, but that someone is in your league, he could still challenge you, but you'd have an upper hand. Like I said above, Superman's heat vision could hurt the armored Faora and Nam-Ek. You think Zod's, who while is not on his level but is definitely in his league, heat vision won't hurt him when he is unarmored? I said he was stronger, not MUCH stronger. Even in the comics where he is depicted as stronger he struggles a little.

I'm glad you enjoyed it despite your own views and I myself enjoyed the challenge your presented me with these very views. Now, my friend, let's see YOUR responses.

However it is the basis for the DC universe to come, was successful and will show millions of the generation today the Superman they may only know, and some of those kids will become comic writers and Superman may soon be written close to that...

Agree with most of your points.

@kryptonian24:

"..it is you who missed the mark"...hmm. Why do you say that, because I disagree with you? Its all about opinions, you have yours, I have mine. What I would say is that my "miss the mark" comment is backed up both by luke warm critical reviews of the film at the time in all the film reporting media and only modest BO takings. MOS had lower BO receipts than either Cap America Winter Soldier or Guardians of the Galaxy, the latter of which were a bunch of unknown characters to most people.

Maybe instead of trying to discredit everyone on here who has responded to you negatively, you should just accept that each of us has different tastes and IMO, this was not a good portrayal of Superman. Glad you liked it.

@bezza:

Like I said, I respect your opinion. I am simply saying that many criticisms of the movie can be explained and have been explained on multiple occasions. You are right about opinions, but most of the ones I have observed are the result of people being fed the wrong info and getting wrong impressions. Many believed Man of Steel's Superman will be the one they're getting from now on, but in actuality, it's just a portrayal of his first time out as an inexperienced hero. BVS will be closer to the one you know and love so much.

Well, critics aren't really a concern for most filmmakers. Movie-goers are. The Winter Soldier (one of my favorite movies btw) is a sequel to a movie, so that isn't really a fair comparison. Also, it was spring-boarded by The Avengers, the highest-grossing comic book movie of all time, which contributed to its success, once again conveying the notion that it isn't a fair comparison. GOTG has also been backed by the fact that Marvel is on an absolute hot-streak with their movies and I have to admit, GOTG did look pretty freaking cool! And in a way, it was the first MCU film to take place primarily in space and people LOVE space-oriented films (cough "star wars" cough)!

I accept and respect the opinions of others, I just want them to understand why people like me enjoyed Man of Steel despite it's flaws. I accept and respect that you despised Man of Steel due to your clear-cut views and strong passion for the traditional portrayal of Superman.

@kryptonian24:

Dude, you need to re-read my post, I never said I "despised" MOS. I said "there are elements of MOS I do still like"..... I think you have me mixed up with Lvenger, now there's a man who despises MOS! I liked it when I saw it at the cinema, but on re-watching a couple of times, it think its too flawed a portrayal of Superman and has too many other flaws to be a "great" Superman movie. I would still obviously rate It higher than Superman 4 and probably Superman 3 and possibly Superman Returns too, although I think Superman Returns got Superman right, it just had too many other flaws. Actually MOS and Superman Returns I like about equal overall.

I also was supportive of Snyder trying to modernise Superman to make it more accessible to a modern audience. I just think if you tamper with core elements of Superman's character, you are in danger of spoiling what makes him special....

Loved your post. Agreed with damn near all of it. That said, you're not going to win hearts here. People love or hate things depeneding on their point of view (hence all the division surrounding Superman fans regarding this movie).

Unless someone is willing to CHANGE their point of view (which will almost never happen), these discussions will just run in circles, and more often than not, start to turn into a nasty online slugfest.

I pretty much agree with everything you said. I loved MOS.

Russell Crowe didn't beat everyone up....auto failure of a movie

So. I read most of it, I do agree with most of the points. I myself enjoy this movie. I will tell you what I thought was wrong with the movie. The first trailer that we got. The musical score was sad. It was Gladiator where Maximums died and then Elizabeth the Golden Age. Epic soundtracks to be sure but it had belong to other movies. Now what should have happened was the trailer "Fate of Your Planet" should had came out first. That in my opinion would have set the tone of the movie and let people know what it was about.

Now, what I did find tiring through the movie was the fact that suddenly the S on Superman chest means "Hope" on Krypton. It should have NEVER meant anything. Superman in the audience mind have not yet EARN that right. The fact that it stands for House "EL" is fine by to say it means "Hope"? That's just pandering and add that stupid destiny in the movie. No body like the whole destiny angle in this day and age. Instead. The "S" should have come to symbolized hope as Superman proves himself. Then there is the fact that Jor-El telling Kal that he could teach humanity to be better. We are the movie audiences and surprise, surprises. Humans, don't like people looking down on us. That whole dialogue was unnecessary. He should have told Kal to try and fit in and that humans would not understand because by nature we are BIGOTS.

Next was the disjointed way the flashback was presented. It was too heavy handed. It should have been strung along all together in the beginning so that we can get a sense of his child hood or just not have been there at all. Maybe keep it for the next movie. It needed to be less dramatic and more... natural. It felt stiff when they just show it and takes away from the movie flow in my opinion.

Now, I address the fandom, they wanted to see a Christoper Reeves and Return type of SUperman. You know, the guy who was sure of himself, had a pretty good child hood, dated the hot Lana Lang of his town. Etc etc. Makes those jokes. And most of all they wanted to see a movie where he just go around helping people and saving people. Because to them that is what Superman is all about.

However, like the OP mentioned, this is a more realistic Superman and thanks to CGI and movie magic now a days. We can explore the full scale disaster of what happen when two people of Superman caliber duked it out. This isn't your Saturday morning cartoon where all of the buildings are miraculously emptied and no one get hurts. No, let's put the greatest character we know in a real world setting and have him duke it out with a bunch of Krytonians. Scary ain't it?

Fan 1: But But Superman didn't try to save people!

Sure... he could have save a five Civilians and in that same time frame, Zod and his boys are leveling cities all over the world. But you know what? Good Job superman on saving those fives! All it cost was five million lives!

The main complaint about SUperman have always been, he can do anything! Well... what happen when he's checked? Now that he face obvious problems in protecting people, we blame HIM for not being able to protect people.... oh the irony.

Man of Steel was not Marvel Camp or 80's camp. They put someone of Superman power in the real world and face it. If we know someone like that in the real world, we'd be scared shitless too because who is going to keep HIM in check?

I enjoyed reading this and I, too, enjoyed the film.

@kryptonian24: That was a really good write up. I like to think of myself as a diehard Superman fan, however as you mentioned I understand the necessity of change. In order for Superman to continue being loved for generation he needs to adapt to the times.

I thoroughly enjoyed Man of Steel. Did it have faults? Of course it did, but its hard to find any film that doesn't. I thought the film did a good job of establishing this version of Superman and his world. I'm very much looking forward to BvS to see how they deal with the fallout from Man of Steel.

I don't think we are going to change each others minds, so this will be my last response. Nice discussion though.

1. I said I accepted that Jor-El may have found a way around his ability to outfight Kryptonian warriors, but I would have liked to see him use more brain than brawn in these situations.

He used his brain fine. A lot of displays of quick thinking. Did you want him just having an amazing plan so he could just escape and not have to fight at all?

3. This is just too complex to keep explaining, so I'll leave this be for now.

You've yet to explain anything, but I'd like to hear your opinion when you feel you have time.

4. I'm assuming that you're assuming that the destruction of Krypton and the phantom zone projector took place some time after Zod and his cohorts getting locked away. But if I remember right, people don't age at all in the phantom zone. However, as Zod explained to Clark in flashback, he and his cohorts, after being freed, spent 33 years wandering space, going to old Kryptonian Colonial outposts and gathering whatever they could find that was useful (weapons, armor, the world engine), so they should have aged like Zod did.

I don't remember the movie like that, but if they were indeed traveling in space for 33 years then yeah they should have aged. Then again, they might age very differently from us, so who cares? This doesn't affect anything, so I don't see it as relevant.

Actually, it does. You are right. Everyone was a non comics fan at one point, but the thing is, a lot of people who know or heard of characters like Superman do not have a FRACTION of the understanding and passion for the character as the fans do and that's why they won't get certain things that the fans will. Movies have different demands and writers have different styles and ways of telling things.

No, it doesn't. It just doesn't man. In the last 20 years, we've seen multiple film adaptations of comic properties. How closely they adhere to the source material has never been a factor in if the film suceeds or if the film is good. The only thing that is a factor is that the film is good. I've worked in film, I assure you I understand the quirks of the medium.

FYI, you should probably quote the text that you're replying to. It's n ice ettiquite, and makes it easier to follow the conversation. I have to go back and read my earlier reply to you to see what you are trying to say.

No, it didn't. It was, however, a sign. That threats like that are real and they do have an impact on people. Superman maintained his traditional image of a boy scout who lived in a world where things seemed sunny and delightful. That isn't how people think these days. It's a cruel world. It's a different world. I'm sure you've caught wind of the news or experienced certain bad things in life yourself.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but I suspect you are too young to authoritatively say how much the world changed. How old are you, if you don't mind my asking? Were you an adult or teen prior to 9/11?

Also, I will point out Superman successfully maintained his boyscout image until 2011, 10 years after 9/11.

The world has always had dark periods, like you know the war? What about the cold war, when people were fearing nuclear annihilation? Why didn't Superman lose his boyscout image then?

I'll tell you why. Because the defeats the point of Superman. Superman is meant to be an icon of hope in the face of adversity.

And I don't think Man of Steel was dark and gritty, but serious and realistic.

Nah. It was just filmed in the style of a drama. It wasn't any more realistic than DareDevil or GhostRider.

And his attitude of always wanting to help others is something I believe shouldn't go away, but have you taken a look around? People have been speaking badly and treating him like a joke for years. "Superman is lame! Superman is a mary-sue! Superman is an invincible douche-bag!" As a fan, I'm sure you've noticed that many of his stories these days are reduced to his being turned evil or being severely weakened so that low-lives could beat him (even though they can't). There are some good ones, but regardless, many people do not respect him like they should.

The only complaint I ever heard against non superman fans was that he was too powerful. That's it. I've never heard people really badmouth him like you describe.

Those times may have been somewhat dark, but Superman was still at the pinnacle of popularity then, as the times were still as least somewhat bright.

Really? When we are facing nuclear war, the world is somewhat bright, but in 2015 the isn't a spark of brightness? How do you justify that?

As for your comment about nothing special about Superman fitting into a post 9-11 world, that is a matter of opinion I guess. I think it's a good idea. In a world like this, for a general audience, it'd be a good idea to see how he'd fit.

The Pre52 Superman worked just fine in a 9/11 world for 10 years.

When I said it takes the world as it is, I meant that it showed just how serious and lethal things could be if someone like Superman and his misguided people existed right here in the 21st century. Back then, Superman has faced threats like in Man of Steel, yes. But they never really came off as menacing and frightening like in MOS. That was the point. To show that these things are real and there is no joke about it. And at the end of the day, there won't be any cheering. There would be sighs of relief after a great deal of widespread trauma.

I agree MoS did a fantastic job, better than any other of showing what a real fight between super powered beings in a city with no regard for human life would be like. I disagree there would be no cheering.

He was raised as one of us humans. Some of us have a tendency to take our anger out on, if not on someone, something. He has emotions like us. This is what I call realistic. Yes, in the comics, he was raised to be the best of us. But on a realistic scale, if he is going to be raised by humans, he gets the good traits and the bad. Not just the good. It doesn't work like that.

You can't generalizes humans as having anger issues. They made his personality like that. Previous incarnations were just as human, and didn't have anger issues. Those icnarnations had something called self-control, something I would expect a Super Man to have.

Also, it has nothing to do with being raised by humans. We share the sames sets of emotions...being raised by humans didn't shape that.

This, I guess, is you speaking as a fan.

Well sure. Everything you have written is you speaking as a fan also.

Talking it out is human nature, yes. But who is he going to talk to? He can't exactly be completely honest with a psychiatrist. With a psychiatrist, you need to tell them EVERYTHING wrong with you so that they can properly help you.

No, you don't. You have to let them know enough to help you. If Tony Soprano can see a shrink, then no reason Clark Kent can't.

And think about all of the emotions he has gone through in life. He never could stand up for himself and had to just deal with being harassed. And his childhood isn't the only time it's happened. It's through his whole life. And it shows his lack of acceptance and being tormented via being bullied and ridiculed; his reactions to these things also being apparent. That is a lot of anger and emotion. As someone who has been struggling with acceptance and bullied during childhood and even somewhat beyond, I understood it perfectly. And wouldn't you be mad if someone threatened your mother? If she was the ONLY thing you have left in the world? Anyone would be pissed about that. Also, do remember that Zod said to a depowered Superman, rather coldly, that he killed his birth father and despite it always haunting him, that he'd do it again if he had to.

That's a huge assumption on your part, that he was constantly bullied and that's why he has anger issues. We saw instances of bullying. We also saw that he had friends.

The whole point of the movie was to get his origin out of the way. Show him being born on Krypton, growing up in Smallville, discovering his heritage, and ultimately throwing on the suit and saving us from trouble.

That's stating the obvious...

Everyone knows that. We just disagree on how it was done.

I get you probably expected to see something like Clark being at the Daily Planet, a flashback with him in college maybe, and going through some tough life choices and trials.

Stop with the assumptions....

But the thing is, his background is just too rich to not take up a large amount of space. And it wasn't just an origin story, it was also a reinvention of his character for a new generation. I know, you wanted an honest-to-goodness Superman movie, but that is not what this was. It was a reintroduction of him starting from his roots, not during the progression of his career. Yes, in the comics he was like that from the start. But you can't always translate something like that into film. It is a process to tell the character's development and have them evolve throughout a franchise. That is how film works. It has limitations and a runtime. Comics do not.

I know how film works. I also know that alot of what you say here is nonsense. We absolutely could have had a movie that was a reimainging of the character for a new audience, just as the New52 and Earth One incarnations were. Not much of the movie would have had to be changed to make it truly amazing. Really, just have Clark be less brooding and ..nicer.Have him be an inspiration...have him show how much he cares about life. With a few tweaks, the movie could be just as "serious and dramatic", and could have retained the core of the character.

Look at this suit for example....any reason we couldn't have gotten a suit with this shade of blue, which is a hot lot more inspiring and hopefull than the navy we got?

Like I said, that was his way of saying "I don't know". But as a parent, he couldn't say that to his 13-year-old son. When they're that young, they expect a certain answer out of you and while it may be difficult, you need to convey one; otherwise they'll be even more confused and discouraged. And with all due respect, do you not understand just how serious someone like him being on this planet is? Especially in a world where clearly, at least on a public level, superhumans do not exist. As such a vibe is given off in MOS.

You continue to justify this, but haven't actually responded to the points I made.

Not many (or rather any) parents raise the child destined to become Superman. And not having all of the answers and being flawed in your ability to convey a truly comforting answer to your moral child's decision to use his tremendous gift to save others on a public scale is human and for these times, quite realistic. In the comics, Jonathan and Martha would have expressed pride no matter what. But in real life, stuff like this would be unquestionably serious. Especially when in the movie, Pete Ross' mom said that the bus incident wasn't the first time Clark proved himself different from others.

The mistake you are making is in assuming if Superman was real, it would be just like in the movie, and that it is a somehow more realistic, more valid take on the concept. It isn't, it's just different. Superman could still be compassionate and hopeful, and that wouldn't make the movie any less realistic.

If he wasn't moral, he would have let Pete drown, killed that bully for dragging him out of the truck, and squished Ludlow's neck like taffy. Your idea of moral values is to be friendly and kind to everyone and deal with harassment with patience and humility in addition to forgiveness.

Where did you get that from? What did I say that possibly lead you to think that?

The point of Man of Steel was to make Superman grounded and relatable, as said by the filmmakers long before the film came out.

And so you keep saying. The fact they the filmmakers felt the only way to do this was by muting the character, castrating his most iconic characteristics speaks to their lack of talent.

The comics version of Superman, as you have said yourself, had family and friends.

The MoS Superman also has family and friends.

He had pretty much an ideal life. A utopian one some might argue. And I think that was one of the issues many people had with him.

Really?

Everything was all sunshine and rainbows in his side of the world. In a world like the one we currently have, he would be an outcast (though, Lana and eventually Pete do apparently befriend him in the movie) despite still having a loving family. But if I recall correctly, even in the comics, while he wasn't a loner, but he was lonely. He was the only surviving member of his kind (in some versions of his story) and no one, not even his closest friends and parents, could truly understand him. That was translated well in MOS.

Again man. This world isn't what you think it is, and it isn't magically darker and grittier. Your whole premise is flawed in this regard.

The heart attack thing has been done and it would seem too similar to the Reeve Superman movie if it was recycled. I get what you (and a dozen other people) are saying about some things being even out of Superman's control, but the message here was priorities. Yes, he could have saved his father, but at the cost of his being exposed before he was ready.

So the guy with super speed really couldn't get away for a second to save his father? That scene was just so badly written. I get that you like it, and we can just agree to disagree I guess.

And I disagree that the film would be too similar. That's like saying Batman Begins was too similar to the Burton Batman because it had him lose both is parents. Not quiet, but almost.

He is still a kid (even though he doesn't look it), so he won't be able to handle the pressure of overall rejection. I guess, in some way, it was Pa's way of saying that he needs to be more mindful of how he saves others. As I have said earlier, Pete's mom has conveyed that the bus situation isn't the first time he's shown himself as being superhuman.

Then if people already know he is special, what is the point in pretending he isn't to let his father die? That makes even less sense.

True. In Smallville, at least in the comics, the residents are typically generally good people. But not everyone is that way. I'm sure a great many people keep Clark's secret throughout the years (like Pete and Lana), but word would often spread that he is different from others especially when some people have actually seen him in action. As for saving his dad sans the speed, chances are, even if he was seen, we wouldn't get a "your secret's safe" situation. It'd be more like a "final straw" situation, as he would ultimately seal his fate by showing his true nature in front of countless people. I think you underestimate the reactions most people would have to someone as extraordinarily different as he is. It's not really nonsense.

It is pretty much nonsense. People might have fear, but they could just as much not care and see him as human. There are people of all different types. It wouldn't be unrealistic if the people of Smallville happened to just be good people, and have the rest of the world see him as a threat. This is all just speculation around the narrow confines you've put on what is considered realistic.

Wouldn't you be miffed if someone poured beer all over your face when you tried to be peaceful about things? Yes, Superman is moral, but he is NOT a pushover pansy. He's not going to let someone walk all over him. Who would? And he does have anger issues to an extent. What with being bullied and ostracized his whole life and all.

Soooo, the only way for him not to be a pushover pansy was to overreact and destroy the guys means of income?

I thought that too at first. But do you know how far away the Indian Ocean is from that Air force base? They never would have made it.

The US has bases all around the world. Not an issue.

And again, Superman might have had even more difficulty if he went for the one in Metropolis given the fact that the other Kryptonians would have saw and stopped him.He would've been weakened by the atmosphere, but they wouldn't because they've lived in it their whole lives. And since they needed the codex from his cells, they would have killed him the instant they brought him onboard. Nukes are typically a last resort for containment purposes just in case the military fails altogether.

They didn't manage to stop the humans, I think Clark would have been fine.

Be honest, do you think he would have stood a chance if the other Kryptonians were on his level? He would have been killed in an instant. Even in the comics, in some versions, Superman is depicted as being stronger than other Kryptonians because he has been in the sun longer. Not everything in a film needs explaining. Some things are just common sense.

And some things are just wishful thinking.

Unnecessary? Other options? Dude, no prison could hold Zod. The phantom zone has been used. Superman tried to get Zod away from people by throwing him in space, but it didn't work. Putting him to sleep wouldn't work either. That involves cutting off air supply and solar-powered Kryptonians, as shown in the movie, don't need air.

Woah woah woah. First of all, we don't know that they don't need air, we only know they can survive in space. Clark very obviously breathes.

Are you really saying there is absolute no way they could have stopped Zod? Does that mean they should just kill any villain who is that powerful then?

Gouge his eyes? Superman may have been stronger, but Zod and the others were still in his league. If you are stronger than someone, but that someone is in your league, he could still challenge you, but you'd have an upper hand.

It doesn't matter how much stronger someone is than you, their eyes always stay just as soft.

Do you have any reason to think Superman wasn't strong enough to do something to Zod's eyes, or at least absorb the heat vision to stop the immediate threat?

Like I said above, Superman's heat vision could hurt the armored Faora and Nam-Ek. You think Zod's, who while is not on his level but is definitely in his league, heat vision won't hurt him when he is unarmored? I said he was stronger, not MUCH stronger. Even in the comics where he is depicted as stronger he struggles a little.

Sure, it might hurt him. Or it might blind Zod and save the family without him having to kill.

I'm glad you enjoyed it despite your own views and I myself enjoyed the challenge your presented me with these very views. Now, my friend, let's see YOUR responses.

There ya go.

@kryptonian24: great job. i disagree with the part of jorel though. he probably had some warrior training, too. it's not like they had time to go into all of that. however, i love your other points. most of the things people complain about in mos are dumb to me. superman couldn't take the fight to a less populated area because zod wouldn't let him. it's not like he could actually just ask zod to take the fight to a less populated area. zod only fought superman because he had to. he was trying to terraform the earth. if superman would have flown away then that would have given zod the chance to finish his job. the choice was either to fight in a populated city and risk maybe hundreds of deaths or do nothing and every human dies. superman had no choice but to kill zod at the end, too. the choice was to kill zod or let the family die.

one thing i liked about this movie is that they fleshed out zod. in this movie zod tried to overthrow the government to save it. heck, jorel actually should have joined him. he might have saved his planet.

@christianrapper:

That's unlikely. One can't replace a totalitarian government for another, and expect things to change. Specially given how Zod wanted to change things. Zod by his own words wanted to become the sole ruler of Krypton, and that my friend is not better than what he said he was trying to weed out.

If Zod had attacked the Council under the idea that after the Council was taken out, he would join forces with Krypton greatest minds and plan an evacuation of the entire planet. Then by all means Jor-El should've sided with him. But that's not what happened. One dictator is no better than a bounch of them.

And also the Council greatest mistake was not taking Jor-El early warnings more seriously. Like most bodies of government, they thought that they knew better, and the entire race and planet payed the price.

About the crybabies that still whine about the movie, I only say to them one thing "Keep your sh*ts to yourselves." because honestly all the bitching is becoming tiresome.

Those who didn't liked the movie, they should just say it and then keep quiet. And not, at every turn, come blasting in all directions, saying nonsense from start to finish.

Sometimes I think there are people so fed up with this world that they take any excuses to not live in it. And when they see the real world reflected back in a movie, they start making all kind of fuss. Like it's gonna change anything.

I liked MoS and I'm waiting for the sequels. Sure there was a lot of stuff I didn't liked in the movie, but it wasn't so much because of what happened, but more to do, with my vision of a better made movie.

But what I don't like I either keep to myself or I say it once. No need to bang my head on the wall to prove my point. Specially because my point is just that. My point! People like it, ok. People don't like it, get over it.

lol....sure...."the real world".

It's a forum for discussion. Those who don't want to read it, don't have to.

I love what you wrote here. And as others have been saying I really like Man of Steel, too.

@muyjingo:

I've got SO much respect for you, dude. You are a very formidable debater, indeed. Just a few things, though:

"Again man. This world isn't what you think it is, and it isn't magically darker and grittier."

But, it is obvious that you and I have experienced the world in different forms, which is why I have a pragmatic and somewhat skeptical view of it. For the most part, I have experienced the world in its darker, more cruel form.

The subject of 9/11 was just my way of saying that many things in life are very serious and real and if Superman was going to exist here, our reactions would be similar to that.

"Also, I will point out Superman successfully maintained his boyscout image until 2011, 10 years after 9/11."

I am aware, but the point I was making was that he was losing his popularity to other characters. He's still considered the top of the pyramid when it comes to superheroes, but he hasn't really been treated as such in recent memory.

"You can't generalizes humans as having anger issues. They made his personality like that. Previous incarnations were just as human, and didn't have anger issues. Those icnarnations had something called self-control, something I would expect a Super Man to have. Also, it has nothing to do with being raised by humans. We share the sames sets of emotions...being raised by humans didn't shape that."

By generalize, I wonder if you mean I was speaking of humans in general. I was not. My quote said SOME were like this. Not all. And after everything he's been through in life, who could blame him for being angry? As for your expecting him to have self-control as a Superman, I think one of the points of the movie was that he isn't truly Superman YET. Suit or no Suit. My point about his being raised by humans contributing to his emotions is meant to be a comparison to his somewhat less emotionally motivated Kryptonian people. They've shown emotion in the film, too, of course. Many times. But they obviously don't do it as much as we do. Clark was a product of his environment like everyone else. He will convey a certain emotion in the same instant any normal person would. He just had to be a bit more careful.

"That's a huge assumption on your part, that he was constantly bullied and that's why he has anger issues. We saw instances of bullying. We also saw that he had friends."

It wasn't just a matter of being bullied. It was also that he was separated from others. For the most part, he was lonely, not angry. But I imagine him being angry about the fact that there were things he wanted to do and do with other people and the fact that he couldn't because of just how literally different he is, it made him angry, because it was like he is meant only to sit on the sidelines until he is a man. Bullying and not being able to do anything about it is enough to make anyone angry, btw. I know from experience. Even Reeve's Superman was bullied. That version of him, as a teenager, admitted to his dad that his bully for that film "Brad" makes him so mad that he wants to tear him apart (not literally of course). Young Clark in Man of Steel simply said he wanted to hit his bully Ken and with good reason. I mean. Who likes getting dragged out of a truck and pushed to the ground?

"You continue to justify this, but haven't actually responded to the points I made."

What I was trying to say is, Jonathan wasn't upset about Clark saving the kids. It was the fact that he WAS SEEN doing it. It probably came off as such, letting the kids die, but that wasn't what he meant. If he really had that "let people die" attitude, would he have helped people nearing the tornado or even let the family dog die? People aren't going to take too kindly to "a freak" in real life. Jonathan was torn between being a father and a moral citizen. You could see in his eyes and all over his face that before his "maybe" comment, he had an extremely pained and conflicted look on his face. There isn't an answer for everything.

"The only complaint I ever heard against non superman fans was that he was too powerful. That's it. I've never heard people really badmouth him like you describe.."

LOL. You should hang around some of the people I know! And check out a few pre-Man of Steel Superman commentary blogs!

"The MoS Superman also has family and friends."

As for the family part, I meant that they carried a more passive, overall positive attitude in the comics as opposed to the film. As for his friends, I'm assuming you are speaking of Lana and Pete, like how I said earlier in my post? Because I don't remember any other child being friends with him or even liking him.

"So the guy with super speed really couldn't get away for a second to save his father? That scene was just so badly written. I get that you like it, and we can just agree to disagree I guess"

Again, at no point was the notion ever conveyed that he had speed yet. He couldn't even fly until he was 33. But I agree that we can agree to disagree.

"Then if people already know he is special, what is the point in pretending he isn't to let his father die? That makes even less sense"

Not everyone knows. Many have SEEN him in action. Others have only heard. People would constantly ridicule him, even more so than they already do.

"It is pretty much nonsense. People might have fear, but they could just as much not care and see him as human. There are people of all different types. It wouldn't be unrealistic if the people of Smallville happened to just be good people, and have the rest of the world see him as a threat. This is all just speculation around the narrow confines you've put on what is considered realistic."

Proof of your first three sentences is the fact that Lana and Pete seem to be his only friends. Pete even helped Clark up and got his bag for him (off-screen). He was seen in the back when Ken and Whitney were bullying Clark. I'd like to think he walked into that building to get Jonathan, but we all know that didn't happen. And I never said the people of Smallville couldn't just be good people. I said ALL of them. No matter where you are, no matter how kind a certain amount of people are, in real life, there is always a percentage of people who are not going to be so noble. And the rest of the world, as you have said, likely does see him as at threat. But we both know it won't be for long.

"Soooo, the only way for him not to be a pushover pansy was to overreact and destroy the guys means of income?"

Well, he's not perfect. And he already has a lot of anger bottled up. And it's not like he could do something to him directly without killing him (unless it's similar to that trucker scene from the Reeve movie). Still, I'm not going to lie. Because it was funny to me, I may be a tad prejudiced in THIS regard!

"The US has bases all around the world. Not an issue."

True. But then the focus wouldn't really be on Lois, Hamilton, and Hardy for that regard and they have the necessary tool to get rid of the kryptonians (sans Superman, of course). While they have men in that part of the world taking care of the world engine on that end, what about Superman and the others in metropolis, indeed? Superman would have to redo the plan and have the military keep there distance while he tries and fails to stop the Metropolis World Engine due to the weakening atmosphere.

"They didn't manage to stop the humans, I think Clark would have been fine."

Maybe. But he still would have been weakened by the atmosphere. And also, Lois and the others had the tool necessary to get rid of the kryptonians. It wouldn't have worked with the world engine in the Indian Ocean because the one in Metropolis serves as a ship as well. The holographic Jor-El explained to Lois that he designed that very ship and it had a phantom drive just like Superman's baby ship. The World engine at the Indian Ocean was just that. A World Engine.

"Woah woah woah. First of all, we don't know that they don't need air, we only know they can survive in space. Clark very obviously breathes."

Remember when he was in water during his first flashback? If he needed to breathe, we would have seen his cheeks gorged as he holds his breath. But they weren't. Not even slightly.

"Are you really saying there is absolute no way they could have stopped Zod? Does that mean they should just kill any villain who is that powerful then?"

I am DEFINITELY saying that there was no way to stop Zod right now outside of killing him. The Phantom Zone was currently not optional due to it already being used. Kryptonite wasn't existent. And just like Superman, no Earth prison could hold Zod. There was just no getting around it. There isn't always a way out or another way. Even Superman has to make tough choices every now and then, especially when he's a COMPLETE rookie like he is in here. It's a wonder how he even won despite his slight power advantage. No, they shouldn't. I imagine that by next movie, Superman is able to use the phantom zone again depending on what villain he fights next aside from Luthor. If not, there should be a prison for powerful villains who aren't at Superman's level.

"Sure, it might hurt him. Or it might blind Zod and save the family without him having to kill."

He blinds Zod and saves the family in spite of the pain, but then what? Where is he going to go from there? Again. No prison can hold Zod. No kryptonite exists. No operational phantom zone. They wrote Superman in a pretty deep situation.

MuyJingo, I have absolutely enjoyed this debate. Finally, someone mature enough to carry a reasonable conversation with. I could learn so much from you and I am willing to accept pointers just like the quote thing you told me. Good advice. Your rebuttals indicate that you most certainly are older and wiser than I am and to quell your curiosity, I am in my early twenties. Despite that, I have been forced to grow up a little early and admit that my parents were right about certain things involving the outside world due to a little something called "life experience". Still. I respect and accept your opinion of the film as you have accepted mine.

And as a side note, if you are wondering why I constantly say "realistic" or "the real world" when referencing this movie, I was comparing it to the Superman comics that many of people's complaints for certain issues seem to stem from. True, in the comics, Superman has ALWAYS found another way, but the situations of life can be very surprising and unpleasant.

Hope to hear more from you soon!

Well thanks man, same to you. It's been enjoyable chatting with you so far. And I would remind anyone who is annoyed at this discussion, that there is no requirement for them to read it.

I did say that I'm not going to keep debating this issue though, since...I don't think either of us are going to get anything further out of it.

There are a few key things you said I want to address though. Also, thank you for quoting.

But, it is obvious that you and I have experienced the world in different forms, which is why I have a pragmatic and somewhat skeptical view of it. For the most part, I have experienced the world in its darker, more cruel form.

Throughout this whole debate, you've been making misguided assumptions. I'm not meaning any offense when I say this, but it is true.

Exactly why is it obvious we have experienced the world in different forms? Are you assuming that because I disagree with you, I lived a happier life or some nonsense? If you want to be good at debating, you can't resort to these types of fallacious arguments.

Being in your early 20s, you must have been very young when 9/11 happened, 7 or so. Do you really think you had the awareness between the ages of 7 and 12 to notice the world, and understand it will enough to contrast it with the world as it was when you were 15? I certainly didn't.

I am aware, but the point I was making was that he was losing his popularity to other characters. He's still considered the top of the pyramid when it comes to superheroes, but he hasn't really been treated as such in recent memory.

I would maintain he was losing popularity due to a bad movie and poorly written comics (grounded?), not because his character had ceased to be relevant.

Again, at no point was the notion ever conveyed that he had speed yet. He couldn't even fly until he was 33. But I agree that we can agree to disagree.

I kind of doubt he didn't have speed.., but since it was shown explicitly I can accept that explanation. I still think it was a poorly written scene.

Well, he's not perfect. And he already has a lot of anger bottled up. And it's not like he could do something to him directly without killing him (unless it's similar to that trucker scene from the Reeve movie). Still, I'm not going to lie. Because it was funny to me, I may be a tad prejudiced in THIS regard!

I agree it was funny, but I don't think the minor laugh was worth the cost. Superman isn't petty, and I don't think see any advantage from a character development standpoint by making him act like a teenager at age 33.

Remember when he was in water during his first flashback? If he needed to breathe, we would have seen his cheeks gorged as he holds his breath. But they weren't. Not even slightly.

I disagree on this. He definitely needs to breathe.

I am DEFINITELY saying that there was no way to stop Zod right now outside of killing him.

Well, I find that premature. Reason being, we don't know what is and isn't possible in the universe. We do know that Kryptonian atmosphere had an effect on Superman, and may have had an effect on Zod after adapting to Earth's atmosphere.

Unfortunately, we will just have to agree to disagree since we can both only speculate.

"Sure, it might hurt him. Or it might blind Zod and save the family without him having to kill."

MuyJingo, I have absolutely enjoyed this debate. Finally, someone mature enough to carry a reasonable conversation with. I could learn so much from you and I am willing to accept pointers just like the quote thing you told me. Good advice.

Thank you sir. I deeply appreciate that. Exchanging viewpoints as we have can be entertaining and deepen understanding. I have gotten something out of this debate, and I am glad that you have also. Unfortunately, it is rare to find people capable of, or perhaps willing to engage on a good debate here in the fine. All too often people try to "win", resorting to attacking and insulting, jumping on any little mistake...it's like a schoolyard at lunch most of the time. Indeed, the last good debate I had was over a year ago, concerning how Batman compares to Captain America physically.

I also find it sad that people need to come on here just to attack me for engaging in a debate with you, because my views don't mirror theirs.

Your rebuttals indicate that you most certainly are older and wiser than I am and to quell your curiosity, I am in my early twenties. Despite that, I have been forced to grow up a little early and admit that my parents were right about certain things involving the outside world due to a little something called "life experience". Still. I respect and accept your opinion of the film as you have accepted mine.

Well, again thank you for the compliments. I just want to point out that I assure you, I've seen how dark the world can be. I don't want to go into details and don't feel the need to do so, but I assure you, I know how ugly, sad, unfair, frightening, fraught with despair and challenging life can be. And still, I don't see this world as any darker or more grim as it was in the 80s during the cold war. If you were to ask people who were in their 20s when that was going on if they thought the world was darker then compared to now, I suspect they would reply in the affirmative.

I'm in my late 20s, just old enough to see how much the world changed from 9/11. While there have been a lot of negative changes, the world isn't a a darker place. In a global sense 9/11 was a blip on the radar. It got the US riled up, there was some wars, some lies, some illegal acctions and an incompetent president...but most of that was local to the US. I think being on the brink of a nuclear world war was a far darker time. Hell, even world war 2 before that was darker. Still, Superman endures.

My point, and one that I am happy to continue to discuss instead of the merits of MoS, is that there have been many 'dark periods' in Superman's history, many darker than 9/11, and he endured. I don't think 9/11 is special in that context, and certainly not significant enough to be the catalyst for the Batman themed Superman in MoS.

And as a side note, if you are wondering why I constantly say "realistic" or "the real world" when referencing this movie, I was comparing it to the Superman comics that many of people's complaints for certain issues seem to stem from. True, in the comics, Superman has ALWAYS found another way, but the situations of life can be very surprising and unpleasant.

Ah. I agree they couldn't lift from the comics directly and make it realistic, but I do think they could be more faithful to the source material without compromising realism.

Looking forward to your replies :)

@muyjingo:

Hey, sir! Sorry, I took so long. I've had a lot going on lately and I was just watching something that I will speak to you about in a bit (assuming you don't already know about it). So, where were we?

"I would maintain he was losing popularity due to a bad movie and poorly written comics (grounded?), not because his character had ceased to be relevant.

I agree that he had a few bad films (and even worse stories). But I grew up around a lot of superhero fans and all of them agreed that Superman was just starting not to become interesting to them anymore due to the fact that he seemed completely fictional. That he had no relatable qualities at all. They said that in his stories, he always found a way to win outside of killing (sans Doomsday). He was always so passive and flawless (meaning, nothing seemed to bother him and he never really suffered from any turmoil outside of his father dying and Chris Kent being taken from him and Lois). I guess many people these days prefer heroes that they can believe exist and go through some of the same things we do.

"I agree it was funny, but I don't think the minor laugh was worth the cost. Superman isn't petty, and I don't think see any advantage from a character development standpoint by making him act like a teenager at age 33."

I was hoping to not bring this up, but this scene was actually a reference to the earliest Superman back in 38' and 39'. As a fan, and a reasonable one, I'm sure you are aware of the fact that that version of him was a lot more careless and aggressive. He willingly killed and had no regard for the ramifications of his power, but that isn't my point per se. There is a comic panel from those times that depicts a fully-grown Clark dancing with and trying to stand up for Lois against a rude patron at a bar/pub, who does something rude to him (without harming him of course). Shortly thereafter, as Superman, he trashes the guy's ride. Long before the movie came out, the producers were pretty clear when they said they weren't basing their Superman on any comic depiction in particular. Basically, they wanted their version to be everything short of TDKR version and all of his evil Elseworld versions.

"I disagree on this. He definitely needs to breathe."

You know, I think, at least for this movie, you might be right. I read at one point that while Superman needs to breath, he seems completely fine underwater and in space despite, in some of these stories, spending a lot of time in such places. Perhaps he holds his breath and because he IS Superman, he can definitely hold it longer than we can.

"Well, I find that premature. Reason being, we don't know what is and isn't possible in the universe. We do know that Kryptonian atmosphere had an effect on Superman, and may have had an effect on Zod after adapting to Earth's atmosphere."

That is true, But such things were not conveyed in the film. Superman was put in a tight spot. The atmosphere would have had an effect on Zod, yes. But he was used to Kryptonian atmosphere first. He wouldn't suffer the way Superman did. Of course, now that Superman has experienced the atmosphere in MOS, it may not hurt him anymore in the future, but it will weaken him; thus, giving us the proper version of red-sun radiation.

Yes, it's true. For every dark corner in life, there is ALWAYS light. I've got to remember that. And yes, Superman has endured because he IS that light. At least, he is to us. And you are right. There are many ages that were darker than 9/11.

"Ah. I agree they couldn't lift from the comics directly and make it realistic, but I do think they could be more faithful to the source material without compromising realism."

Another great rebuttal. However, Superman is a character that has been around since our grandparents (or in my case, great grandparents). An unexpected and controversial "shake-things-up" strategy (Man of Steel) was going to happen eventually. Also, there are so many different canon versions of him, that it is just too difficult to choose while simultaneously adding some movie elements. That must be why they went with the wise decision of not adapting a specific version of Superman, but rather merely...Superman. His cast. His villains. His basic story. His compassion and morality. And even his retconned tendency to sometimes give into petty desires. Pretty much just him and his environment.

MuyJingo, you sir, are most definitely a talented writer and debater and I have had the upmost thrill conversing with you. To be honest, this is the most fun I've ever had with debating with someone! And that's saying something given how many debates I've been in pretty much since I've discovered the internet as a kid! Now, the thing I wanted to tell you about that I said I have been watching and are only currently assuming that you haven't seen yourself. It's called "Manofsteelanswers". It is a website that covers, in both articles and youtube clips, a majority of the most common criticisms of Man of Steel. The comic panel I mentioned that was similar to the scene of Clark destroying Ludlow's truck is one of them. What's also one of them is the tornado scene you despise. What's also one of them is this 13-minute clip that depicts Zack Snyder and his almost fanboyish admiration for Superman, which includes explanations for the choices he made for his version of Superman in Man of Steel (and even its upcoming sequel). If you have the time (because it is ALOT of work), I suppose someone of your maturity, intelligence, and reason might be interested. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to change your mind. I just thought you might want to check out another version of ones rebuttals in defense of the film.

i just caught the ending of mos yesterday. in the last scene zod was aiming his heat vision towards the family. he was about to kill them when clark snapped his neck. it seemed that his eye beams were only about a foot or less from the family. my problem with that scene is that the family should have been killed anyway. zod was actively using his heat vision. it looked like he snapped zod's neck in the direction of the family. shouldn't the family still have been killed? i guess we can say that clark didn't twist zod's neck that far. it looked to me though that the family still should have been killed.

He was always so passive and flawless (meaning, nothing seemed to bother him and he never really suffered from any turmoil outside of his father dying and Chris Kent being taken from him and Lois).

The highlighted part is one of the major problems I have with many portrayals of the character.

One of the main issues is the current cultural belief that "good" = "passive". Superman being a "pure good" character basically means, to some people, that he never does anything because being active or aggressive in any capacity makes you "bad". If I had a nickel for every time Superman sat back and just passively took some sort of verbal abuse or condescension from others, I'd be able to buy DC Comics. And not just Superman, either. Remember the infamous Sally Floyd rant toward Captain America, where she told him he didn't "get" America anymore because wasn't up on the popular trends? A competent "good" guy would have tore that ridiculous argument to pieces. But no, Cap had to sit there and take it because being a good guy means that you have to be conflicted to the point of inaction. For yet another example, look at EVERY character in Amazons Attack. How much more evidence did you need to know that talking to Hippolyta wasn't going to work?

One of the things that struck me about the Nova series (post-Annihilation) was that Richard Ryder wasn't a "passive" do-gooder. Richard followed his heart and did the best he could even if it wasn't the most pure and least violent solution. Even if a situation wasn't black and white, he would fight on the lighter shade grey without hesitation. Superman, in my opinion, needs more of that. Yes, I understand that he's more "scholarly" than Nova is, but in my opinion, that only means he should be doing MORE. One of the best scenes in All-Star Superman to me was when Clark is talking to Lois, and she's just reaming into him and passive-aggressively mocking him the whole time. But during the conversation, Clark bumps into an old man and stops him from betting run over by a car. To me, that was the quintessential essence of Clark; he's perfectly willing to let you posture to him and talk about how inadequate and pompous he is. And while you were doing that, he probably saved the world three or four times.