With Man of Steel not being able to be watched in Australia but I've somehow watched it, this subsequent article is as much a response to all the numerous critiques about the movie as a proposal towards its future direction in the DCU franchise that we all want to see, with an approximately 1% chance of it realistically coming to life.
Firstly with all the reviews:
Let's say there are 4 main categories of reviewers - Superman enthusiasts who hated it, Superman fans who loved it, people who are neither DC purists nor hate everything that tried to give an honest opinion of constructive feedback, the hipsters that try to hate everything everyone truly loves.
Within that last category, the "critiques" who try to be all different include a small portion of ridiculous reviews whom hated Superman before even watching it, which I can tell because one of their whole justifications of the film's "failure" is the fact that "superman sucks" so basically, the whole idea of superman is bad, so no matter what really happened doesn't matter. And then there's the anti-Nolan and anti-Snyder writers that simply carry too much presumed prejudice to ever write a good review.
Furthermore in that first lot of people, I was marauding various comic related websites in the attempt to enhance my understanding of the film and enlighten myself with views to reflect upon m own judgement and I recently encountered a hysterical bout of Superman madness, with all kinds of enraged cries. "Not a Superman film", "Reeves would curbstomp Cavill", "completely non canon". Observing these, however, are truly heartbreaking for both me and those fans. I, myself, am disappointed for their idol being so mistreated in their eyes, which for me was quite magnificent. However, in some twisted reality in their minds, there is this image of a God Superman, they say "not a god, just the real Superman", but this is a Superman that doesn't "cry", "hold hands", "kill", "take revenge on a truck". Seriously though, just because this one has the functionality to show emotion on the other side of the spectrum does not indicate weakness. Not only does he not bottle up any negative feelings to eventually have some mental disorder in his latter stages of life, he expresses them now in his early growth stages, all the more suitable. In MOS, Supes inspires good. He inspires hope and, as noticed by other reviews, allows the military to do their own little parts in world saving. He certainly does "see good" in everyone. Isn't that pretty correct characteristically?
Then there's power complaints, "oh he was KO-ed by a truck", "hurt by metal", all these "feats" of negativity. Now, I've always found these so simple. I am 10 years older than my sister. Yes I could curbstomp her, I could kill her....but only if she decides to start eating galaxies or something because she's tuned into the Anti-Monitor or something. But she can still hurt me. It hurts, once again, and I'll show pain and emotion. But it doesn't affect me in the slightest. Reeves Superman demonstrated lower durability, lower speed, yet these are barely rebutted. No, all that are mentioned is his ability to bump the moon's orbit or turn back time or lift continents with falling Kryptonite debris. Strength does not mean just godly lack of emotion. Emotional morals does not mean no sadness or desire for justice for a pub drunk who is assaulting a woman. I think you get my point. If we had a film about perfection and perfection only, there would be no complication, Superman would out debate Zod and we would live happily ever after in half an hour of film. These complaints from "Superman purists" make me feel sad because they have become disillusioned by a more holistic version of Superman. They argue this "realism" is a reflection of a modern society full of "emos and pussys", but in fact, this really is an alien feeling alienated on our planet with superpowers. All this "its not Superman" business really is a slap in the face of the canon, just the way they think MOS is doing.
Now before this article gets dismissed as fanboy literature, let me say that whilst personally I enjoyed the film, I too saw many flaws in the storyline and the potential emotional depth in the plot progression. There were also questionable uses of canon comic material. I generally find all the reviews have merits of their own and should all get a reception with an open mind of reflection and thought.
My thoughts? Clark Kent is meant to be like any one of us humans. In fact all movies, all characters are meant to be one of us. No-one is god, there is no "why didn't they/what they should've done". They made this decision and it was wrong. Get over it. Yes Supes should've moved the Smallville battle to just in the cornfields. Yes Zod should've just got adapted his Kryptonians to Earth without attempting to kill all Earth inhabitants when he realized humans (and Superman) didn't like his idea. Yes Superman didn't save falling and crushing people whilst he was pumped full of adrenalin (do Kryptonians secrete those hormones?) fighting Zod. Yes there are many things that could have happened but didn't happen, but everything that happened is controlled by the story writer and that was Nolan and Goyer. This isn't a scrawny comic book where Superman can fight in a split screen shot in the air where no-one can be seen for miles. It's in our world. And in our world, people will be around. (Gee even in Avengers, surely there were similar issues.) And yes, Superman did just kill Zod (again) because he was threatened with human genocide annihilation, so instead he responded with his own little genocide by killing the last other Kryptonian (much against his own desires). And lastly, why do Kryptonian's speak English? Kal-el's English I get, I would happily watch subtitles for the foreign language.
So basically, I would like to think this is a successful film as people are interested, interested in particular with the direction of "could this be a real fantasy in our world" which Nolan already invested heavily with Batman. Just because critics are seemingly panning it, it means little as the general public is whom WB is trying to please. Just look at Superman Returns, another cool Superman movie where Superman does kind of do what Superman is meant to do, but the reception is all that matters. Critic reception - alright, public reception at release - mediocre, public reception now - ah, cringe (I loved Spacey Luthor). So it's all about what we think, and it seems, I think, that the world loves it and WB knows it. Thus MOS2.
Man of Vision:
Where do we go from here? Now if we look at the two other biggest superhero franchises about at the moment, sort of, we have X-men and Avengers - we get the two approaches of solo-solo-solo=team versus team-branch to solo-solo-solo spinoff. Well, suggestions here and there saying DC can't just follow Marvel, but no, Justice League is not a "select type of people" that can just suddenly co-exist then branch off. These are independent vigilantes that need to find their feet before being gathered as a team of heroes. So, in my opinion, the Avengers approach, is very necessary.
To the truly hard part, how do we really approach the other members. This has probably been discussed so many times, I'll try avoid the clichés. Wonder Woman NEEEEEEDS to be done nice and quick and grounded. How do we portray mystical universes, alternate universes? Thor approach maybe? She is the spearhead of feminism and Man of Steel has already been lauded as one of the more nice and feminist movies with a strong Lois Lane and Faora performances. This is the one area Marvel has failed at. Unless you count X-men's Storm and Jean Grey. But they were part of a team. I want to see a solo female be a strong warrior use no sexual charm, but warrior mentality. Faora was amazing, I gotta repeat, she had such warrior spirit. That's where we start.
And then Batman. You know what? As hard as it is, it's either replace entire TDK ensemble cast , fracture the cast, or USE IT. How exactly do you differentiate a Nolan-commenced Man of Steel tie-in to a JL universe with a different Batman to the Nolan Batman. You have someone both directing and producing material of the same source, but two entities of universe? Let's look at the situation. That established TDK universe? It was such a terrific cast. Bale's voice? Deal with it, I've grown to just go with the flow, he will never be Kevin Conroy. He's been fake announced dead before - not even halfway into Batman Begins. He's retired before - TDK into TDKR. There is some other article in ComicBookMovie website that discusses the pros and cons and it outlines the situation nicely. Avengers was such a monetary and public success due to prior connection with each and every fan base established through 1 or 2 movies of each of the 3 spearhead characters. If you reboot BaleMan, you'll lose a nice segment of those interested. And then to deal with Gods and Aliens, Batman will have to be so experienced and that's what a twice retired Batman can be. Yes he'll need to be ultra stronger/powerful/fearless, not struggling to deal with Joker's dogs....well I'm thinking Man of Steel 2's end credit scene can have an epiphany. Batman can also utilise more cool Bat-equipment like in the cartoons, he has more cool stuff/gadgets. He's living with Selina Kyle right? She can trigger it. She can push him to an edge we've never seen before. She didn't even do anything that evil in TDKR. Seriously, she was a pseudo hero in it. And Catwoman in the canon I've seen truly tests Batman's morals as they love and steal and purrs and continues to have to be caught by the man who is truly incorruptible. Bring them back WB, I dare you. If you need Nolan to bring them back, DO IT. Someone write a script and entice them. Surely someone has the creative mettle to attract this cast back, it worked so well, you'll have to wait so long to bury this corpse. Look at the half-mess Spiderman is. Even Mr. Franco agrees that you can't prematurely reboot it. No bat reboot, No JL. Or with bats already perfected, BAM JL. Having painted such a near perfection Batman landscape, it would be an absolute waste to throw it all away. It's grounded but it's damn well not too realistic in many areas. Everything has flaws, you can grow around them. With these 3 "grounded and beautiful", JL can truly morph into something so beautiful Avengers will weep in one of Batman's belt pockets.
As for Green Lantern, Aquaman, Flash, Martian Manhunter, I'm yet to think of nice grounded ways to bring them in. To ground everything in DC, surely you need to fully explain why they exist before just flinging them into the world. X-men worked because one word explained it all - "genetic mutation". Evolution. Ok that was 2 or 3 words. But not when they're all different. And this is outlandish but I would love to see WB bring in Ryan Reynolds as Flash. But that's just super awkward, so that's as likely as this article becoming headline stuff.
Now who would spearhead such a monumental creative developmental work? Once again look at Marvel, different directors, writers for each of them. I also like the idea of having an overlooking guideline figure like Joss Whedon, but he really doesn't have that much power over what happens. Don't lock yourself onto one director/producer. Open up your options, everyone knows the tone of the franchise to write for it. Snyder is great, Nolan is cool, lock in more directors away from Marvel. I've heard people say I'm sick of writing by Goyer, don't you remember Blade Trinity, Ghost Rider 2...hahahaha, yes those were horrible. Well, why don't they share it out, like MOS was written by both Goyer and Nolan. He can write, sure, maybe not screenplay. Music...well Zimmer is good, but don't be afraid to venture to Jo Blankenburg or something. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Nolan do every movie for WB, but that's not feasible nor is it sensible, and will get boring. So spread the workload.
Learn from everyone's mistakes. Including your own. Don't flatten your iconic things. Iron Man 3's backlash over Mandarin could have a few yet to be seen consequences in the future that we're yet to experience because of the restrained anger from their dedicated fans.
So villains...Luthor, Brainiac, Kryptonite, Darkseid are the main things being brought up. I think Luthor is not a one movie villain. If Heath Ledger didn't pass away, the Joker might have had a lengthier role in tormenting Batman. I feel Luthor should niggle through MOS2... which his humanity can also help bring in Bruce Wayne more successfully. Brainiac could be a JL level thread, but my main idea is that Luthor should not be "defeated" easily, he's a man of business, he'll be a complication time and time again. I don't know Superman lore well enough to think of a nice villain suitable for first sequel, but it has to be great, peaking like TDK rather than Iron Man 2. Once again, don't recommit Marvel's mistake and sacrifice your sequel as a long trailer for JL, because the public won't tolerate it again, especially as DC is viewed by many as an inferior comic world (I love DC more than Marvel, it's just what I feel outside consensus is).
And lastly the title of the sequel...Man of Steel 2? I hope I'm not alone here, but I don't like numbered sequels. It sounds silly and unoriginal. As hard as the extra innovation/creativity is, what Nolan named the Batman movies was that little bit extra that made them outstanding. Perhaps a Captain America: The Winter Soldier or Thor: The Dark World colon approach could work. Or maybe just a nice phrase like TDK series, I don't know, but no matter what, avoid the numbers.
Ultimately, take your time Warner Bros. Take your time, make this sensational. Coming after Marvel is not necessarily a bad thing. Get it good, get it right. Nothing wrong with manhandling Avengers 2 singlehandedly with Superman Reborn (MOS sequel). Look how well TDKR faired. Not bad at all, for one character. Being after Marvel, could mean being the last memorable legacy of superhero epicness before the superhero fanaticism dies down a little later. But pick the right risks to take, perfect your leap of faith. We're all waiting.
So these are my opinions, let me know what you all think :) PS. This is my first article, productive criticism is absolutely welcomed.