Cutting out the "Superman" part of the title may indicate the strong approach to story that the filmmakers are taking. The title
Man of Steel alone implies the type of course that the movie will follow. This could mean the plot shows how Superman earns the moniker “Man of Steel” both in a metaphorical and physical sense i.e. it refers to both Superman’s moral mettle and powers. Therefore the “Man of Steel” title might point towards the angle the film is taking on the character and how he copes with and overcomes his “human” emotions.
The inclusion of Zod as the villain may also have some implications, especially because Superman’s and Zod’s moral fibres are somewhat differing in many aspects and that Zod is capable of matching Superman physically and pushing him to his limits. Zod, or any of Superman’s super villains, would serve to exploit Superman’s weaknesses and challenge the man morally and physically. One such weakness is, ironically, Superman’s humanity. Ultimately, we know that Superman will save the day and defeat the super villain, which makes it even more important that Superman has to battle his emotions. Therefore, using “Man of Steel” actually has favourable connotations for the movie’s narrative because it will not just be about a nearly god-like being with phenomenal powers. It also means that Superman is fallible. Imbuing the movie with the Superman’s emotions helps make him more relatable with the audience in terms of his humanity. Using “Man of Steel” as a title and omitting the “Superman” from the title makes Superman more relevant and relatable because it humanizes him despite his incredible powers. In other words, his emotions make him as human as any other person and the nickname “Man of Steel” therefore has strong resonance when Superman does overcome his human emotions.
This allows for the narrative of the movie to set up a strong story arc for the character, but more importantly it could also notion that this film will operate on many layers. Whilst superficially Superman possesses great powers, he is a far more faceted character than to be simply denominated by his abilities alone. Zack Snyder has already said that this movie will be more physical than previous incarnations and now the “Man of Steel” naming might be the appropriate way to balance both action and drama. Sensible drama and emotional conundrums are highly indispensible instruments. Gorging this movie with violence only is likely to cause it to become a one-dimensional effigy and critical failure.
Superman Returns had drama but very little action. It would be incongruous for Snyder’s reboot to overturn this problem by going to the other end of the spectrum i.e. overwhelming the movie with needless violence whilst renouncing the drama.
A Superman movie must make use of stupendous action and fight scenes, but it must do so without compromising the story and character development. Stan Lee was quite brilliant in establishing many comic book characters as being more than one-dimensional i.e. they had some kind of emotional quandary in addition to super powers. Like Lee, Alan Moore is remarkable for creating characters that are multifaceted emotional individuals. Superman is a character with layers and he deserves a quality movie that functions on many levels. Embellishing the Superman movie with glorified violence only limits the potential for the movie to convey a morally pragmatic message and overlooks who Superman is and what he stands for.
It is pertinent as to how audiences can expect to see the character portrayed. He does have amazing abilities beyond that of a mere human. However part of him is also human, thereby making giving this god-like super being a relevant and relatable resonance. Therefore
Man of Steel is a fitting title because it has several pertaining connonations for the character and the film.