While I do think the Christ allegory's were clumsy as hell, if Superman really existed it would certainly be a next coming of Christ like event, there would be extreme religious consequences for such a being existing.
I'm glad the movie was bold enough to even attempt that comparison, but it could have been done so much better.
if any of these comic book movies had balls they'd explore some of these religious overtones.
like that thor:god of thunder comic where he's literally answering prayers around the world. yet in the marvel films nobody seems phased that a literal walking embodiment of a norse god is on earth.
superman would have a cult of worshippers thinking him being a christ-like savior for sure, and also 'anti-immigration' people shitting on him all the time lol.
batman v superman's initial trailers seem like they are incorporating some of that. i hope they don't throw it to the way-side halfway for that doomsday crap. i really like how batman sees him as a threat to the world and the court stuff and all that...
After the recent Batman vs Superman trailer, I wanted to watch Man of Steel again and make a thread, but seen as someone else has done it and we have 100 MoS threads already, I'm just gonna post what I'd already written. Also I did warn you.
Yes, I know most of GAF hates Man of Steel. I’m gonna get both the disclaimer and the inevitable gif out of the way —
This isn’t a post to change your mind. If you’ve come here to shit on it then
Please don't. There are 100 other threads for that, feel free to revive one of those.
If you’ve never liked Superman, this is not a post to endear you to him. If you do like him but don’t like Man of Steel, this is not a post to endear you to it. I’m not hear to argue that “________ was great scene and you should all like it” or “_________ wasn’t as bad as you think it is and here’s why”. What this thread *is* about, is (hopefully objective) discussion of some of the narrative threads from Man of Steel, why I believe they are the way they are, and how I think they will be used for Batman vs Superman.
To start, there is a crucial premise that people need to grasp, prior to watching the film:
Man of Steel is not a movie about “Superman”. Accept this, and internalise it.
”Superman” does not exist yet — and doesn’t by the end of the film either. It is instead, a movie laying the foundation for the "Superman" we know to be built on top of, as well as a foundation for the rest of the upcoming DC films. Man of Steel is instead, a movie about Clark. A guy who doesn't understand why he's so different from everybody else. It’s as much of a look at his search for answers, for his place in the world, and what it is he should be doing as you can fit into 2 hours. All of this is as new to him as it is to the rest of his world.
Note that he is only ever referred to as Superman *once* during the entire film, and during that one scene, he’s not even in it.
I’m not really gonna touch the Krypton stuff as its kind of outside of the scope of the MoS/BvS links I am covering. There are 3-ish main areas I want to go over though:
Grittiness + Realism of DC movies (compared to Marvel) // Origin stories // General comments about the Superman mythos & why that type of Superman doesnt work in today’s climate.
“Superman is what I can do. Clark Kent is who I am” [Lois & Clark, the New Adventures of Superman, (Tempus Fugitive)]
Characterisation of Superman the man and “Superman” the myth play a large part in how divisive MoS is to people. To understand why, we’ll consider the old debate of who the real Kal-El is? Is Clark merely a disguise Superman uses to conceal himself? Or is Superman a product of Clark Kent? There isn’t really a right or wrong answer for this as varying iterations of the lore have handled him differently. While the original incarnation always considered Clark as the product and Superman the identity, the more recent ones have been focused on adding depth to Kal by exploring Clark. The quote above is something I've always remembered from Lois & Clark. I won’t say that MoS is based on that, but I do feel it aligns with whatever goals they had in building a contemporary take on Superman’s origins and motivation. Diving deeper into Clark has always left Superman a richer character for it, and tbh there is no way you could do a realistic portrayal of Superman without it.
A film about the origin of Superman, can’t just have him wake up in the morning and be the boy scout we know. “Truth, Justice and the American Way” just isn’t as palatable to today’s cynical & demanding audience as it once was. This is particularly true in a post-Nolan Dark Knight world. Back in the 40’s/50’s saying it was because he had good parents and a wholesome upbringing was enough, but in 2015 it’s just not. A lot of us have had a good upbringing, and very few of us are saints. This doesn’t mean that we can’t ever have him be the “boy scout” — It’s ok if he gets there later, but there has to be a journey. For MoS though, the journey doesn’t end mid-film with him being Supes just because he dons the cape. The entire film is still a part of Clark’s journey. And like some other narrative threads that I will mention later, it’s an arc that that will carry through over to BvS.
Jonathan Kent not wanting Clark to use his powers // (…even at the cost of his own life) // “The world isn’t ready…” // “…Is Clark?”
Perry White: “Could you imagine how people on this planet would react, if they knew there was someone like this out there?”
Homo Sapiens have pretty much settled into the idea that on our world (and for as far out as we know) - we are the dominant life form/society. The existence of a theoretical Homo Superior lurking in our midst that could usurp us, or alien life that supersedes us, or anything that is not just better but *significantly better* could destabilise our world view. The fact that Clark embodies all three of those notions simultaneously would make a realistic interpretation of Superman an absolute societal shift of our place in the universe. MoS thus fundamentally asks two recurring questions: What place is there in the world for a guy like Clark? And when people like Clark exist, what would it mean for the rest of us? These are of course, rhetorical. They frame the film, and context for the rest of the DC over-world to be based on. Clark will have to find answers himself as part of his journey. While he struggles with the implications of the former, and the second half of the film accounts for the latter, — flashbacks show that Pa Kent presciently struggles with the implications for both as he tries to raise Clark. While many like to hang to the bus incident response to claim that this is a terrible iteration of Pa Kent, its important to remember that at that point Clark himself doesn’t know the truth yet and the reveal dialogue below is what follows immediately after it.
Pa Kent:“It’s another way of saying its not from this world Clark…. And neither are you. you’re the answer son. you’re the answer to ‘are we alone in the universe?’.” Clark:“I don’t wanna be.” Pa Kent:“And I don’t blame you son. It’d be a huge burden for anyone to bear. But you’re not just anyone Clark, and I have to believe that you were… that you were sent here for a reason. All these changes that you’re going through one day, one day you’re going to see them as a blessing. And when that day comes, you’re gonna have to make a choice. A choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not.” Clark:“Can't I just keep pretending I'm your son?” Pa Kent:“You are my son… But somewhere out there you have another father too, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark. And even if it takes you the rest of your life you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is.”
In fitting with the more realistic tone MoS adhere’s to, Jonathan Kent is a man who loves his alien son as his own, but is also extremely worried for him. He does his best to comfort Clark and help him through his troubled childhood. But he is also a man no guide book for an alien-super-powered-puberty. No answers on a silver plate he can whip out. With some in his town already throwing around terms like “divine providence” for a 13yr old boy, he’s aware of how significant Clark’s existence will be to people — and how much of a weight that will be on Clark himself. Jonathan’s position raises the idea that it’s not just that the world isn’t ready for what Clark is, but also that Clark himself may not be ready yet to carry the weight of that burden. But like any father, he chooses to believe in what his son will one day be capable of. Until then though, until Clark is mature enough to handle his reveal and its worldwide implications — the secret must be kept, and he is ultimately willing to die to keep it for Clark
tornado.gif
.
Clark:“I wanted to hit that kid, I wanted to hit him so bad.” Pa Kent:“I know you did. I mean part of me even wanted you to. But then what? Make you feel any better? You just have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be Clark, because whoever that man is —good character or bad— he’s… he’s gonna change the world.”
DBZ fights // Collateral Damage to Smallville & Metropolis // “Superman would never allow that kind of destruction” // Clark Snapping Zod’s Neck // “Superman Doesn’t Kill”
“Superman is the guy who saves everyone”, “Superman would never be a part of that kind of destruction”, “Superman inspires hope”, “Superman doesn’t kill”, “MoS Superman doesn’t feel like Superman to me”
Of course, as usual people never get to choose the time for these things, the time chooses them. Clark using the the colony ship triggers an automated distress signal that identifies his location, inadvertently leading Zod’s forces to Earth. This immediately brings up the negative implications of MoS’s second fundamental question; What does it mean for the rest of us when the gods come down from Olympus and do battle in the human realm? The results are where much of the above sentiments come into play. Its worth noting again then, that Man of Steel is not a movie about the “Superman” you know from lore. It is a rebooted origin story. A contemporary foundation for what we know as “Superman” to come to exist.
A large part of that foundation is going to be through loss.
Following the Smallville and Metropolis battles, many people are dead, countless $$$$$ worth of destruction have taken place, Clark is ‘alone’ again and he killed last person like him with his bare hands. He may have stopped Zod and ended the threat, but he didn’t win. And that’s the point. The victory is all too pyrrhic. It's a powerful moment and will now be as much a part of what makes this version of Clark go on to be “Superman” as being raised by the Kents, the red cape, and learning why he was sent here by Jor-El are.
There is no individual “Uncle Ben” / “Death of the Waynes” moment that makes him “Superman”. No single trigger that serves as his motivation. The events of the film *collectively* serve as his “with great power comes great responsibility” speech, with some of Batman vs Superman adding to it. Now when Superman refuses to kill, we will know why. When he goes out of his way to avoid collateral damage, we will know why. When he pushes himself to save every person he can, no matter how bad the situation is, we will know why. What motivates the heroic ethic, isn’t just moral rhetoric - its underpinned by loss, mistakes, the decisions he had to make, and a desire to never see anything like them happen again.
It’s this that will make him the Superman we know. More importantly, it makes the Superman we know more believable than the boy scout perfectionist we have previously been given. And more relatable; the hope he presents is metaphorical — you too can stumble, you can fall but can overcome your mistakes and one day join him in the sun. An ideal, lead by his own example.
While BvS will continue narrative arcs for Clark, I feel like it’s gonna be more about Bruce/Batman's (and in a similar way Lex's?) side of this than Superman’s. The obvious reason is that they need to firmly establish that this isn’t the same continuity as the Nolan films. But while MoS asks its questions, it covers them mainly from the perspective of those gods. In the same way that the questions ask both about Clark and about everyone else, BvS must cover the perspective of men. Batman has always been a solid contrast and foil to Superman. As another ‘hero’ and someone who wants to protect people, he will be representative of the human perspective — with his life battling corruption and crime in Gotham having shaped his view of human nature and people succumbing to power. I suspect that desert scene with everyone bowing to Superman is a nightmare etc. His perspective will likely also be reflected in Lex, only without the altruistic motivations. What Man of Steel has given us as a set up for BvS + Beyond (also supported by the trailers):
- Legit narrative reasons for why Superman is such a boy scout (not just upbringing, but he pushes himself because of guilt over MoS events)
- Legit narrative reasons for why Batman would be a foil to a Superman (can’t forgive him after seeing the events in Metropolis first hand and the threat someone like that poses should they change, also the threat of people *willingly* following him).
- Legit narrative reasons for why a Lex Luthor would dislike and distrust a Superman (see above)
- Legit reasons for why a human population would have mixed views on a Superman despite all the good he can do (which Lex can go on to exploit etc)
- Examples of threats so big that they would encourage previously independent heroes to form a super group
The film will then propose a force necessary to stand against threats unlike anything humanity has ever stood against, and which a single hero wouldn’t be able to deal with alone. This of course leads to the creation of a group of DC-Earth’s finest, the Justice League
(Coming to a movie theatre near you, June 2017?)
TLR - There is no Superman in Man of Steel. There is a reason it isn’t in the title. He may gain the outfit during the film, but he only becomes “Superman” of the mythos as a result of all the good/bad that happened in the film. MoS in an origin story, both for that, and a setup for the DC overworld’s climate. This means there probably won’t be a Man of Steel 2 because its narrative threads will be picked up *directly* in BvS. BvS will probably be heavily slanted towards Batman + Lex though because they need to show the human side of the equation as the fallout from MoS’ events. Also they need to let people know this isn’t TDK’s Batman.
A lot of parts of it are forward linked to help setup the DC movies so they can get in on that Marvel-Cinematic-Universe-Movie-Revenue™. So if you didn’t like a lot of things about Man of Steel, do yourself a favour and avoid BvS. The two will be very heavily related.
Please spare yourself the grief and spare GAF the threads.
Still one of the most beautifully shot superhero films out there. It was one of the first movies to be shot entirely with RED digital cameras. The cast was solid but the plot was terrible. Why they thought bringing back Lex Luthor's evil real estate plan from the first Chris Reeve Superman film was a good idea, I cannot figure out. Then there's the whole dead-beat dad thing.
I give Singer credit for trying to make a superhero movie where the hero never throws a single punch, but it just didn't work.
After the recent Batman vs Superman trailer, I wanted to watch Man of Steel again and make a thread, but seen as someone else has done it and we have 100 MoS threads already, I'm just gonna post what I'd already written. Also I did warn you.
Nearly all arguments fall on deaf ears on the internet. People don't talk online with the open possibility of changing their mind. Someone could write a well reasoned essay on why MoS is a poorly constructed movie and it wouldn't make you think any differently about it, just as I don't feel the retroactive framing of MoS as a part I of II fixes some of its more egregious faults even if it works for others.
It's a sad truth that adults hate changing their opinions once they're formed. I remember noting it as a kid and it still depresses me to this day, but that's another topic entirely.
Nearly all arguments fall on deaf ears on the internet. People don't talk online with the open possibility of changing their mind. Someone could write a well reasoned essay on why MoS is a poorly constructed movie and it wouldn't make you think any differently about it, just as I don't feel the retroactive framing of MoS as a part I of II fixes some of its more egregious faults even if it works for others.
It's a sad truth that adults hate changing their opinions once they're formed. I remember noting it as a kid and it still depresses me to this day, but that's another topic entirely.
Pretty much. Its why I state early on that i have no intention of changing anyone's mind on the film. I just wanted to discuss what it means after watching the BvS trailers. Much of what I'd written was stuff i'd picked up on the first time I watched MoS when it was released though. They aren't new insights I gained just because of the trailers. the trailers just made me feel like writing a thing so i did it.
I'm curious if you really don't believe DC planned MoS as a "part one" intentionally though - knowing how bad they want their own equivalent to Marvel's linked movie universe, is it really that much of a stretch to believe that this was always their aim?
Would an MoS reboot have been funded when it was without a plan to make way for more DC films to come?
Pretty much. Its why I state early on that i have no intention of changing anyone's mind on the film. I just wanted to discuss what it means after watching the BvS trailers. Much of what I'd written was stuff i'd picked up on the first time I watched MoS when it was released though. They aren't new insights I gained just because of the trailers. the trailers just made me feel like writing a thing so i did it.
I'm curious if you really don't believe DC planned MoS as a "part one" intentionally though - knowing how bad they want their own equivalent to Marvel's linked movie universe, is it really that much of a stretch to believe that this was always their aim?
Would an MoS reboot have been funded when it was without a plan to make way for more DC films to come?
I'm a little iffy on the details but I think WB/DC was in danger of losing at least major aspects of the Superman character along with his supporting cast to the S & S heirs. One of the things they had to do was get a new Superman movie out the door before the end of 2013. The heirs argued they were mishandling the property because Superman Returns was the first live action Superman film in 30 years. There was more to it obviously but it somewhat explains the rushed nature of Man of Steel. Though it doesn't take away from any of your points. Marvel at this point had already seen massive success with the MCU so it's very likely MoS was made with the intent of starting a shared universe.
Man of Steel is the only Superman related thing that I like. I've seen quite a few animated movies and tried to read a few of his comics but I disliked all of them (unless Batman's in it).
I really loved Cavill and the score is sensational. Didn't mind the city going to shit either. I mean come on, he's inexperienced and outnumbered. /shrug
This scene always gives me chills:
However, turn up the saturation on your TV if you watch it.
Hopefully he has more material in Batman v Superman. He was really good in Man from U.N.C.L.E. which I just watched a couple of days ago.
And to answer your question, no he was under the impression Zod was not to be trusted according to Jor-El (though he never said this outright, it was merely implied). I don't think that's enough to really say that Clark wouldn't be torn on killing the last of his race off however.
Thanks for clarifying. That's what I had remembered. I mean, there is an inherent tragedy in a non violent person having to kill someone, but I think the extra level of tragedy would have been better more overtly observed.
Thanks for clarifying. That's what I had remembered. I mean, there is an inherent tragedy in a non violent person having to kill someone, but I think the extra level of tragedy would have been better more overtly observed.
There is a difference between the intellectual understanding going "oh hey, Clark had to do that . . . interesting.", and that theme being present in the text. The film doesn't do a good job conveying that Clark cared about these Kryptonians beyond him not wanting to kill anyone.
There is a difference between the intellectual understanding going "oh hey, Clark had to do that . . . interesting.", and that theme being present in the text. The film doesn't do a good job conveying that Clark cared about these Kryptonians beyond him not wanting to kill anyone.
In a better script you'd have a scene of Superman considering the ramifications of killing off his own race. Maybe you could have it compared to the destruction of native peoples, or maybe make Smallville a dying rural town, showing the sadness of a place in decline. Both his ancestral and adoptive home are dying.
Instead we only assume he's upset implied because of that.
If the script was better Wed have a meatier subject to discuss, but there are often too many unreleased parts of the plot.
After the recent Batman vs Superman trailer, I wanted to watch Man of Steel again and make a thread, but seen as someone else has done it and we have 100 MoS threads already, I'm just gonna post what I'd already written. Also I did warn you.
It was a Donner Superman movie. A lot of people are against Man of Steel because he's a completely (but still Superman to his core, get over it folks) different take and not Donner's take which most people think of as the defining Superman.
This isn't a valid criticism of MOS to be honest, it's a origin story, it's not trying to be Donner's Superman, so to knock it because of that seems like a really lazy argument.
Hopefully he has more material in Batman v Superman. He was really good in Man from U.N.C.L.E. which I just watched a couple of days ago.
And to answer your question, no he was under the impression Zod was not to be trusted according to Jor-El (though he never said this outright, it was merely implied). I don't think that's enough to really say that Clark wouldn't be torn on killing the last of his race off however.
In a better script you'd have a scene of Superman considering the ramifications of killing off his own race. Maybe you could have it compared to the destruction of native peoples, or maybe make Smallville a dying rural town, showing the sadness of a place in decline. Both his ancestral and adoptive home are dying.
Instead we only assume he's upset implied because of that.
If the script was better Wed have a meatier subject to discuss, but there are often too many unreleased parts of the plot.
Was watching it, since some of my cousins had it on. It was the pretty stupid space shuttle rescue scene. Why would the reporters be inside the plane attached to the space shuttle?!
But you know what, it still felt more LIKE to Superman. Superman isn't him punching bad guys over and over to me, it's him having those "Superman saves the day" moments.
Was watching it, since some of my cousins had it on. It was the pretty stupid space shuttle rescue scene. Why would the reporters be inside the plane attached to the space shuttle?!
But you know what, it still felt more LIKE to Superman. Superman isn't him punching bad guys over and over to me, it's him having those "Superman saves the day" moments.
I'm curious if you really don't believe DC planned MoS as a "part one" intentionally though - knowing how bad they want their own equivalent to Marvel's linked movie universe, is it really that much of a stretch to believe that this was always their aim?
Oh no, of course I believe WB had the intention of establishing their own cinematic universe. I just don't agree that MoS is structured at all like the first part of a two part story. BvS may do a lot to address the events of MoS but that doesn't change how MoS fails to reflect on the consequences of its own ending.
as for saving people, Clark did alot of that too in MoS. The oil rig scene, the schoolbus + the bully, Lois, the jet pilot, the soldier falling off the helicopter, his mother, Colonel hardy,...the entire world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8EydFeuPK8
keeps saving people in BvS as well it seems (space shuttle, house/building on fire, flood)
I almost want to see this movie now because gaf hates it so much. There's no way that it can be a good movie since gaf hates it so much, but is it really so bad? Methinks not.
It was a Donner Superman movie. A lot of people are against Man of Steel because he's a completely (but still Superman to his core, get over it folks) different take and not Donner's take which most people think of as the defining Superman.
This isn't a valid criticism of MOS to be honest, it's a origin story, it's not trying to be Donner's Superman, so to knock it because of that seems like a really lazy argument.
Really really hope that's the case. He was charming as hell in UNCLE.
I almost want to see this movie now because gaf hates it so much. There's no way that it can be a good movie since gaf hates it so much, but is it really so bad? Methinks not.
Only half of GAF hates it. If everyone thought it was crap here it wouldn't be the single most talked about superhero film on this forum. Discussions about this movie are relentless.
Technically it's the same small group of people that argue about MoS over and over. Every once in a while a couple new people will jump in. I have no idea why I continue to look at these threads. I guess I just get irritated at all misinformation surrounding it. It has enough actual problems without people spreading bullshit that didn't happen.
I liked Man of Steel. It was cool. A lot of special effects, and it made him seem more like an "alien" than the other movies, with a human quality to him. Also the bad guy was a lot cooler than some of the other ones.
as for saving people, Clark did alot of that too in MoS. The oil rig scene, the schoolbus + the bully, Lois, the jet pilot, the soldier falling off the helicopter, his mother, Colonel hardy,...the entire world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8EydFeuPK8
keeps saving people in BvS as well it seems (space shuttle, house/building on fire, flood)
I'm talking about the decision to save the dog in the first place. Pa Kent is an old man and got to the dog safely, the dog got back safely. If Clark rescued the dog, he'd have been able to get to the dog safely and get back safely because he was a fit young kid, not because he had superhuman speed. Not to mention the Pa Kent's reasoning for risking his life to save the dog is vague and must be assumed with no clear direction about what to assume.
Also, why would killing Zod be emotional? The first thing Zod does is terrorize the whole planet and then go after Clark's mom. Then he wants to terraform the planet, killing everyone. Clark has no reason to like Zod or be conflicted about his death beyond the abstract idea of killing one of home-planet's people. If we saw that Clark and Zod actually had things in common beyond genetics, sure it could have been meaningful.
Really, all we get from it is that Clark didn't want to kill somebody (who would?) and then he had to kill somebody. All the extra layers that the movie tries to suggest to the viewer aren't present in Clark and they're hardly clear in the movie.
I think Dragonball handled it much better in this aspect. Goku's bro came to Earth, attacked the people, and kidnapped his son. They have the same blood, but I don't think that's enough for him to feel anything or make him hold back, seeing how he spend almost all his time on Earth without his brother anyway.
Superman wasted too much time wondering and brooding around like an idiot.
I almost want to see this movie now because gaf hates it so much. There's no way that it can be a good movie since gaf hates it so much, but is it really so bad? Methinks not.
Because if you think it is, you are going to be amazed when that LITERALLY happens in this movie. I'm not kidding. There is a sequence about fucking the planet until it submits by increasing its gravity, despite only becoming denser and not gaining any mass.
It's so dense, it's like po- tentially not understanding how physics work.
The post you quoted of me and your response seem to have nothing to do with each other. I'm legit confused.
For the record, I unapologetically think MoS is the most entertaining Superman film to date.
Edit:
Only half of GAF hates it. If everyone thought it was crap here it wouldn't be the single most talked about superhero film on this forum. Discussions about this movie are relentless.
One of the greatest superhero movie created because reasons I don't feel like going into that others surely will. Anyone who disagrees to such an extent as calling it a bad movie is objectively incorrect.
I almost want to see this movie now because gaf hates it so much. There's no way that it can be a good movie since gaf hates it so much, but is it really so bad? Methinks not.
lol, "gaf" hates on a lot of good movies, and praises shitty ones all the time. I'd say don't use that metric and go in without any preconception because it's the best you could do
This movie was so. Boring. The characters weren't engaging, no one had an actual natural conversation and instead just sleepily espoused the tepid dialogue, the fight scenes were like watching gravel fly into your eyes, and it had some rather ridiculous plot elements such as Russel Crowe's ghost AI being basically as if he was there.
I don't think its that GAF doesn't like anything, but I do feel there is a penchant for pedantry. You'll often see movies/games/music/books etc torn down into individual points for people to throw back and forth and those same arguments repeated again and again. Its not specific to films though. TBH I don't think its even specific to GAF, you just see a lot of it here because GAF values more detailed debate and discourages general shitposting etc.
R - There is no Superman in Man of Steel. There is a reason it isn’t in the title. He may gain the outfit during the film, but he only becomes “Superman” of the mythos as a result of all the good/bad that happened in the film. MoS in an origin story, both for that, and a setup for the DC overworld’s climate. This means there probably won’t be a Man of Steel 2 because its narrative threads will be picked up *directly* in BvS. BvS will probably be heavily slanted towards Batman + Lex though because they need to show the human side of the equation as the fallout from MoS’ events. Also they need to let people know this isn’t TDK’s Batman.
.jpg/500px-Big_Gete_Star_(Return_of_Cooler).jpg)
