Revisting MAN OF STEEL

Revisting MAN OF STEEL

Has Hulksta had a epiphany? Probably not.

Editorial Opinion
By Hulksta - Oct 12, 2015 02:10 PM EST
Filed Under: Man of Steel

The first time I watched Man of Steel I bought into the action sequences and the excellent CGI. As I left the theatre I felt dirty and somewhat violated. Like Zack Snyder and Henry Cavill tried to have their way with me and force their 'creative re-imagining' of Superman on me.

The main problem I have with this movie is how visuals are prioritized over a decent story. Hardcore defenders will try to say it's Zod's death, or the destruction; those are side-effects of a poorly written movie. Even as I was buying into the CGI, I found myself getting sick of all the explosions and destruction around Superman. Like, he is supposed to be the saviour and guardian of Earth right?

This movie is just dumb; and while there are movies that are terrible like The Room or Troll 2 they at least acknowledge their cheesiness. Man of Steel is a movie that's blatantly stupid and makes no sense and part of me thinks that WB knew this but was just laughing while they swam in their pool of champagne.

"It's a dumb action movie with Superman in it"
"They'll love it"

Part of me enjoyed the parts on Krypton, maybe because there's some creativity in the movie. Not much, it's sort of like when your delayed 6 year old nephew draws a flower, you're not really impressed, moreso surprised.

People will say "Superman needed to be gritty, he was too boring otherwise" but I think that ultra-realistic Superman is not only boring as a character, but also paints Superman as the antagonist. Superman is no longer a hero, but rather an anti-hero. The death and destruction caused by Superman feels weird, because Superman is not someone who would willingly let Zod and company attack Earth, he would surrender to them if it meant innocents would be spared. Instead, he lets a ton of humans get hurt/killed and doesn't do anything; and you wonder why the military is scared of him. If you were a regular citizen in Metropolis you wouldn't be thinking "Superman is saving the day" you'd be thinking, "Why aren't these alien assholes fighting in space?"

Part of what the film tries to do is show Ma and Pa Kent raising Clark, with all the troubles that come with raising a Kyptonian shit distruber. While I think the intention is to show the formative years of Clark in a good sense, it instead comes off as Pa Kent telling Clark to basically never save anybody and let people die. I get that he should keep himself a secret but that's just idiotic. Especially as we see Pa Kent get killed in the most preventable way possible.



Also, considering how little of chemistry Amy Adams has with Henry Cavill it's surprising that WB and Zack Snyder managed to make Lois one of the worst love interests in any CBM. Essentially, she's there whenever the plot needs her for exposition delivery. Need someone to explain Zod's master plan to? Lois is there. Need to find out how they can stop Zod? Lois is there. She's not a great journalist, she's a convenience for the writers.


Of course there's the final boss fight in Metropolis. The fight and the destruction caused would be ok if it showed consequences. Clark never really shows remorse for what happened. I would've loved the last shot to be Clark going in to the Daily Planet like they did but have Superman hanging out in orbit above Earth, contemplating his actions and showing growth for his character. Instead they show him being a prick to his allies and destroying their equipment. These are people he was 'protecting' but hey that's not important when you need to send a message.

I've always said Zack Snyder works well when he has a pre-written comic book story (i.e. Watchmen, 300) and my complaints with this movie are with the story. In a certain sense I think the film could've been decent if they skipped the origin (or showed flashbacks) and simply had Superman as is. Showing the 'origin' of Superman isn't neccesary, and because they forced this down our throats we had to see them take extreme liberties with the character in order to show a more dramatic path towards the hero we know and love.

People will say that critics of the film like myself 'don't understand the film' or am a Marvel fanboy. The truth is, there hasn't been a good Superman movie in a long time. Superman II did General Zod much better than a 2013 movie. This is because they understood the character and made the story genuinely interesting. Saying that this film is better than Superman Returns because there's more action is a terrible argument for this film. I laugh at how terribly off this film is, mainly because I know for the missed marks there's potential for a better film out there. We just haven't gotten there yet.
Jesse Eisenberg Is Embarrassed To Admit That BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE Hurt His Career
Related:

Jesse Eisenberg Is Embarrassed To Admit That BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE "Hurt" His Career
MAN OF STEEL & DEADPOOL AND WOLVERINE Star Henry Cavill Joins The Cast Of Live-Action VOLTRON Movie
Recommended For You:

MAN OF STEEL & DEADPOOL AND WOLVERINE Star Henry Cavill Joins The Cast Of Live-Action VOLTRON Movie

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
1 2
DerekLake
DerekLake - 10/12/2015, 4:41 PM
Here we go again...

Imma just put this link right here and you can check out every answer to every possible critique: http://www.manofsteelanswers.com/

If you don't even bother to hear thought out explanations of the film's scenes, then you shouldn't criticize the film. Most of your arguments don't actually make sense, and seem to blatantly ignore what happened in the film.

I will concede that the film would have most certainly been better without the Daily Planet staff. And while Lois certainly had an integral role in the film vis-a-vis Clark, she probably should have been omitted along with the Daily Planet. That might have allowed for a singular, chronological narrative focused squarely on Clark's journey from under-the-radar Good Samaritan to public savior.
MrMartyMarvel
MrMartyMarvel - 10/12/2015, 5:04 PM
@DerekLuke

The fact that that website exists says something sad about… somebody… I just don't know who it is.
EricBorder
EricBorder - 10/12/2015, 5:06 PM
I'm with @DerkLake this is such a lazy article, makes no sense, and doesn't reflect what actually happened in the film

MOS rocks
EricBorder
EricBorder - 10/12/2015, 5:08 PM
It's also another article that is bringing up Donner Superman, just like the majority of the critics did, instead of accepting what the movie was doing

I can't wait for the DCEU, and MOS has inspired me countless times, amazing movie
JamesMann
JamesMann - 10/12/2015, 5:10 PM
Hulksta still doesn't like Man of Steel.

Surprise?
DerekLake
DerekLake - 10/12/2015, 5:19 PM
@MrMartyMarvel It's actually run by a lawyer and professor (i.e., someone who likes to make sound analysis and argumentation based on evidence). But it's only as sad as the people who spend all of their time constantly criticizing a film nearly two and a half years after its release.
GhostDog
GhostDog - 10/12/2015, 5:23 PM
This film will NEVER have a completely positive identity. Immensely polarizing.





http://d2ws0xxnnorfdo.cloudfront.net/meme/449186
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 10/12/2015, 5:24 PM
I don't know man. This article....

My first argument is that you claim multiple times that the movie is "dumb, stupid, and doesn't make sense", yet you don't give any examples of things not making sense.

2nd, exactly when did Superman sit around and do nothing while innocent humans were being killed? Are you talking about the hurricane? Because if you think about it, it makes sense. Pa Kent had been teaching him his whole life to keep his secret and not help people. When this happened, it was a defining moment. He realized he could have saved his father. It was his first real opportunity to either make his own decision or listen to his father. He listened to his father and hated the outcome. Thats why he became Superman and decided to help people.

3rd, Why exactly should Superman feel remorse or responsible for all that destruction in his fight with Zod? You say you wished there was a scene of him contemplating his actions. What actions? Saving the world? People complain about the collateral damage way too much. Zod put the terraformer right in the middle of a city. Of course Superman had to go there to stop it.

Let me put it in a different perspective. In the Death of Superman comic, lets pretend Superman lived through that. Do you honestly think he would have felt responsible for all of the destruction done to Metropolis? No. He was fighting an enemy as powerful as him, just like in the movie. He had no choice but to fight in the city, and when you have two powerhouses like Superman fighting Doomsday or Zod, there will be collateral damage. Those enemies are too powerful for Supes to control and direct to a non-populated area. So no. The only actions of Superman at the end were saving the day.

As for killing Zod. I suppose everyone would have rather Superman let Zod fry that innocent family with his heat vision rather than kill him? Also, lets not forget that in the comics Superman also killed Zod. In a much more planned out and sadistic way, mind you.

I'm not saying MoS was a perfect movie by any means, I just don't understand the popular arguments against it.
Knightrider
Knightrider - 10/12/2015, 5:44 PM
I think you are missing the point of Pa Kent's death and motivation.

Granted, I felt the Hurricane wasn't the best way to illustrate the point, but Pa Kent didn't want saving, it wasn't about the fact that his son could save him, it was he would rather die to protect his son... Hell, Clark flat out tells you this in the film with his speech about what his father believed.

Also, the amount of people who refer to the "Maybe" line does my head in as they say Pa Kent wanted his son to let people die... listen to the way he states that line, he says it with such torment, he doesn't even believe it, but he wants to protect his son. It is probably so misunderstood that he hates himself for saying it, plus it is also a moment of realisation that his son is growing and will be making these choices for himself and he is trying to get across the dangers of his actions.

People who say that Pa Kent's maybe is him simply saying let people die perhaps need rethink this is about a father torn between protecting his son and accepting his son has a bigger destiny than he does.

As I said MoS makes a lot of missteps, but this isn't one of them
GhostDog
GhostDog - 10/12/2015, 5:55 PM
Pa Kent and Clark are standing in the exact same spot. The dog has been left in the car, like, 20 feet away. Pa Kevin Costner decides HE'S the one who should go rescue the dog, not his super-strong, super-fast son. Of course, the old man has a real hard time getting the dog out, and is left in a position where he's pretty much boned and definitely gonna get sucked up by the tornado. Clark moves to rescue him, but Pa Kev puts up his hand, as to say "No way, better to let me die than to risk showing off your powers." Then he dies.

First off, Clark should have been sent to get the dog. Duh. It's not like Clark had to use his top-level super-speed. Just running at slightly-faster than most people would have drawn no attention at all and would have guaranteed he'd get to the dog faster and more safely. Second, he could have easily rescued his dad without anyone noticing by running at top speed and moving Pa Kent to a safer location. He woulda just been a blur!

The importance of the Kents to the Superman story, in fact the whole reason they're in there, is that they teach Clark to be Superman.This Jonathan doesn't want Clark to learn to use his powers. He wants Clark to suppress them, pretend he doesn't have them, and act as if the only responsibility that comes with great power is to yourself with your main concern being to never, ever let anyone know you're different.

From all we can tell, these Kents think that the worst thing that can happen to Clark is people becoming aware that he's not one of them. So their idea is to raise him as not one of them in the most obvious and offensive way possible? Teach him to keep to himself? Not let him play with other kids? Impress upon him he shouldn't ever make a move to help his neighbors even if they're drowning?

But it doesn't make sense that while you're still struggling to teach your kid how to control himself you're also teaching him that other people are not to be trusted, that if they knew his secrets they'd turn on him, that they are his potential enemies.


What makes more sense, what makes the only real sense, is to teach him he's only to use his powers for good, to teach him his main responsibility is to look out for others, to take care of them, to want to help them. To teach him to have a conscience.

My only real gripe with the film
DerekLake
DerekLake - 10/12/2015, 6:30 PM
@ComicsBornAndBred Clark was 17 YEARS OLD. It doesn't matter that he was stronger and faster (how strong and how fast NO ONE knows). What matters is that to everyone around, including Clark's dad, Pa Kent would have been sending his teenaged son into harm's way rather than himself. And no matter how you dice it, that is cowardice. Jonathan proved that he was the man of the house. More importantly, as the website @OmegaDaGr0dd mocks explains, not only did Jonathan NOT know whether Clark could actually survive a tornado, but he also might have figured that it was better that Clark protect the people under the bridge (from flying debris for example) rather than trying to save the dog.

As to the reasons why Jonathan taught Clark to hide his strength, he explains in the film that such an action would not only threaten Clark himself, but it would also upend human society in potentially catastrophic ways. It would also place an impossible burden upon a mere teenager. If you pay attention to Jonathan's words, he clearly doesn't intend for Clark to hide his powers forever. He repeatedly tells Clark that he will have to decide carefully how to use his powers, because he will undoubtedly change the world. In other words, Jonathan wants Clark to wait until he is mature enough to use his powers wisely. The last thing he wants is for a shortsighted good action to cause longterm damage. The most important thing Jonathan teaches Clark is to weigh the global consequences of his actions.
DerekLake
DerekLake - 10/12/2015, 6:44 PM
@ComicsBornAndBred You are also assuming that Clark was both fast enough and strong enough at the time to both resist the extremely strong winds of the tornado and avoid being seen. But the film not once demonstrates that Clark can move like the Flash: At his fastest, during the Smallville fight, he can still be clearly distinguished, and the first time we see his strength, he can barely hold up a collapsing oil rig. How fast and strong do you think he was at age 17, or age 13 before that? Most importantly, neither Jonathan nor Martha knew how strong or fast he was, and it wouldn't have been ethical to try to test those limits, so they behaved as any normal, responsible parent would have done.

If you stop bringing in assumptions about Clark's strength and knowledge, and take the film on face value, its must less problematic. It doesn't mean you will enjoy it more, but it will mean that you understand the ethical dilemmas presented in the film.
GhostDog
GhostDog - 10/12/2015, 7:26 PM
@DerekLake Its hard to take it at face value when the film contradicts its own ideologies and themes. The film's ending undermines every bit of rancid dialogue about how Superman’s going to Show Us The Way and how It Stands For Hope. It doesn’t. It’s just dudes punching each other until one of them punches harder, the end.

What makes it even crazier is that Snyder spends the preceding two hours hammering the idea that Superman is Space Jesus. The allegorical metaphors are so excessive, yet they are contradicted by the film's ending.

He only becomes Superman because the hologram ghost of Jor-El tells him to, he kills Zod because Zod tells him to, he even lets Pa Kent die because that’s what Pa Kent told him to do. That last one is another big point of contention, and while the idea behind it is rooted in Clark trusting his father enough to do what he says even when it means he’s making a huge sacrifice, there’s also the fact that nothing about that scene needed to happen. Even if it’s based on worrying about his son, it’s Jonathan Kent giving into fear instead of allowing Clark to use his powers to help people. There are a lot of ways to play Jonathan Kent’s death (including avoiding it), but having Clark stand around watching it happen when he could easily prevent it because daddy said so, because Superman allows the people around him to give into fear, is nuts.

This goes against everything Superman stands for. Its a superman ruled by fear and other peoples decisions. I see where you're coming from and i respect your opinions, but I cant get past the blatant contradictions and suspect storytelling
CombatWombat
CombatWombat - 10/12/2015, 7:39 PM
Oh shit.
Hulksta
Hulksta - 10/12/2015, 7:43 PM
@DerekLake if a website has to explain a film's plot holes for you then it's likely that the film is, ya know, lazy and stupid.
Batnut92
Batnut92 - 10/12/2015, 8:10 PM
Honestly Hulksta, I don't see the point of you typing this article. I mean if you didn't like MOS 2 and a half years ago, having watching it so many times than why come back to it now? Not that I disagree with you, I wasn't fond of it myself

Hell my own big issue stemmed from just how little Clark actually gave a damn about the destruction he helped cause, from wrecking his hometown after tackling Zod into it[leaving his mother behind to get kidnapped by 4 other kryptonians,] to all the downright unnecessary destruction in metropolis. It held little consequence, and did nothing to advance his character. Yeah he got to scream in anguish after what he justifiably had to do to Zod but than the movie just brushes it all aside for the sake of a hot joke in a jarringly tone-deaf scene. I didn't need to see him succeed at saving everyone, he couldn't have but the movie could've at least shown him trying to keep people out of harm's way beyond the occasional bystander, show that he learns from his mistakes and moves past it to become a better hero.
DerekLake
DerekLake - 10/12/2015, 8:35 PM
@Hulksta not for me, for you. It's not hard for me to follow what happens in the film and to understand the decisions that are made within it.

@ComicsBornAndBred I certainly don't think the film is perfect by any means, but I do think much of the deeper level criticism (beyond "It's boring and bland") is rooted in assumptions based on previous interpretations and a fundamental misunderstanding of the world the movie is trying to create. The film does not assume that Clark could "easily" prevent Jonathan's death. It doesn't even assume that Jonathan was necessarily right. After all, Clark does continue to help people, so much so that Lois is able to follow a trail back to Smallville. What it does present is that Clark trusted his father, who readily admitted that he was "making it up".

You might take issue with Snyder/Goyer's real-world approach, and that is a fair criticism, but within that approach, the actions of Jonathan and Martha make perfect sense, especially for a farmer whose only perception of aliens comes from sensational tales of little grey men experimented on by the government. And despite all of that, he still teaches Clark the most fundamental lessons Jonathan needs to teach his son: to control his emotions, to resist the urge to retaliate, and that doing good comes in all forms, including the simple, ordinary goal of feeding people. At the same time, he repeatedly teaches Clark that he will have to decide how he uses his powers, once he becomes a man. That is not a decision he can make or be forced to make as a child.

Finally, I think you are quite wrong about Clark becoming Superman because Jor-El told him to. Clark puts on the suit and embraces his abilities because Jor-El tells him to. Clark let his father die because Jonathan told him to. But he did not start helping and saving people because Jonathan or Jor-El told him to. He was doing that long before the bus incident and long after his father's death. Jonathan and Jor-El certainly helped Clark to see the broader influence that he could have, based on years of experience Clark did not have. But they did not give him the idea to help people. At the most, Jor-El told Clark how he could help people, but that makes sense because only Jor-El fully understood both the reason why he sent Clark to Earth and the planet's effect on his body. Clark's character was his own.

Maybe the film did not convey these things as well as it should have done. I think it might have been clearer with simple, linear storytelling and a much better screenwriter, and that is certainly a major fault in script and directing. But it is not as morally complicated as you think, and certainly doesn't make Man of Steel a horrible film.
DeusExSponge
DeusExSponge - 10/12/2015, 9:48 PM
I can see why Man of Steel is a polarizing movie, but really I think it and Iron Man 3 get way too much crap thrown at them. Both are decent-good movie!
kinghulk
kinghulk - 10/13/2015, 2:44 AM
i had 2 main problems with this film jonathan kents death, you guys can defend it as much as you want but i hated that scene. i also did not like lois lane in this film she just pops up anywhere for the sake of plot and her and clark had no chemistry then suddenly they are making out in the middle of a half destroyed city. besides those 2/3 i enjoyed the film, snyder is a great visual film maker and i have no doubt BvS will be better with terrio now writing.
Kyos
Kyos - 10/13/2015, 4:40 AM
I have to agree with all the criticism people presented in the comments about the tornado scene. It's one of my least favourite scenes in any CBM of the last years. It just doesn't work for me on any level. :(


@DerekLake

And despite all of that, he still teaches Clark the most fundamental lessons Jonathan needs to teach his son: to control his emotions, to resist the urge to retaliate, and that doing good comes in all forms, including the simple, ordinary goal of feeding people.

But the adult Clark we see is barely in control of his emotions. He totally retaliates as soons as some random asshole tries to push him. He's in control only just enough to not hurt the man himself.

Adult Clark is an emotional mess, who has mostly embraced his father's pessimistic views of how humanity would react to him revealing himself (that's why he never does it). And yes, he still does help people when he's around trouble. You can't completely un-Superman even this Clark.
Kyos
Kyos - 10/13/2015, 4:48 AM
Okay, maybe I should listen to the podcasts (of a combined length of about 3 1/2 hours) talking about the tornado scene on the site dedicated solely to explaining MoS...

(°__°)'

Starfox
Starfox - 10/13/2015, 5:07 AM
Even though Man of Steel wasn't written very well and misrepresented Superman to an extent I still enjoyed a lot of parts of the film. I think Zack Snyder is one of the true visionaries in the industry and for that we can be assured that the DCEU won't be anything near watered down. I think the fact that people are still discussing/critiquing this film after all this time shows it did mean something to a lot of people. I loved Cavill as Superman and I can remember the trailers giving me a sense of hype I don't normally get. I'm glad its still being talked about because there's no doubt in my mind Batman v Superman and Justice League will be Amazing!
nibs
nibs - 10/13/2015, 5:43 AM
The dad didn't want to reveal that aliens are on earth and that his son is one. I don't understand why that seems to be so hard for people to grasp.
McGee
McGee - 10/13/2015, 6:32 AM
I challenge anyone to read my review of Man of Steel and tell me that they still like it!!!!

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/McGee/news/?a=84216
Forthas
Forthas - 10/13/2015, 7:00 AM
It is a complete myth that the early Christopher Reeve films were some kind of masterpiece...maybe for children. The movie is so riddled with plot holes and some of the motives of Superman are suspect. For example his hesitation to save a populated Hackensack, New Jersey before an un-populated area in the dessert. When you take both Superman 1 and 2 together then it is even worse. He does not follow his father's advice in the first one and then his mother in the second one making the irresponsible choice to become human thus all of those people that he could save are now at great risk. The movies barely show his parents as a guiding moral force in his life and the red underwear still looks ridiculous. Not to mention the completely invented superpowers that Superman has never had including teleporting and a cellophane net he pulls from his chest. I will grant you (and this is the only redeeming factor of those movies) Reeve shows more concern for people than Cavill, and he has better chemistry with "Lois" but outside of that MOS is a superior film.
DerekLake
DerekLake - 10/13/2015, 7:26 AM
@Kyos The Smallville scene was problematic because Superman gets angry and directly caused destruction (it's the only time that he himself is responsible). More importantly, he doesn't show any regret about taking the fight to the center of town. The biggest problem here is that at this point in the film, Zod and crew WERE concerned only about retrieving the codex from Superman, so here he could have taken the fight elsewhere, but he didn't. This is fair, even though in the course of events it was the military that caused the most damage.

As to the bar scene, the destroyed truck is an homage to one of the early Action Comics issues. I'm not sure what the context is in the issue, but that was the reason it was included. It might have been better not to include, but it does come from the comics.

He is not an emotional mess at all. In fact he shows tremendous restraint at every point in the film except when taking Zod into Smallville. It's interesting how Superman is held to such a higher standard than every other character, some times impossibly so. I think what this film does best is to show that while Superman might be physically perfect, he is just as human as us when it comes to his emotions and ethical choices. Inherently, he is no more knowledgeable or wiser than we are, which means he has to depend on others' advice and learn from others' wisdom and his own experiences, just as we all have to do. He isn't Space Jesus, which is why the repeated references were too much. The difference is in that he has to hold himself to a higher standard, because his actions have greater consequence than our own. He has to restrain himself physically and emotionally. This does not mean that he doesn't feel angry or vindictive, nor that he never gives in to his emotions. The bar scene is one example where he does. But people getting all fussed up about the destroyed truck should take a breath. No one died.
Effusion
Effusion - 10/13/2015, 7:34 AM
this movie kick ass man
1 2
Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder