but im going to defend man of steel. again. I heard someone say something interesting in defense of the movie so naturally im going to adopt it as my own and give zero credit. Someone described Man of Steel as being an alternate universe Superman. The movie assumes you already know who Superman is and how he operates, because you do, and takes a different approach to classic ideas and tropes because you're expected to know that this is different and not the real, default Superman. The problem is that it's a movie and will be treated as the Superman for years to come, and not a comic that is separate from an ongoing continuity and free to do whatever it wants. It's hardly an accessible film because people have certain ideas of what Superman is, but they might not realize that these ideas are largely influenced by the older movie franchise, and perhaps not the "source material" (I'm not comfortable saying that regarding comics but you get the point), and that Superman stories in the "source material" are at times a very different thing than what they might expect. Did you know that Superman comics are pretty hard science fiction stories? How much the sci fi is emphasized varies depending on the run, but at their core, Superman stories are science fiction stories and Man of Steel plays this element up more than any Superman movie or show before it, which could alienate some viewers. I also take issue with people saying it's a "dark" film. They're not wholly wrong, but I think they overlook how optimistic the film ultimately is and are either not understanding or are ignoring that this is a Superman who has yet to fully develop his mo. (And I would say Returns is darker in places anyway and is not even close to being as optimistic. Not that I dislike Returns.) I'm inclined to think that people who don't like this movie see a very different movie than people who do like it. I think the people who don't like it see it as an extension of the trend to make characters all dark and gritty and joyless, and perhaps there is some of that here, but that's not what I see at all. What I see is a classic sci-fi alien invasion movie that attempts to explore an iconic character in a way that's never been done on screen and give credence to why he is the way he is. I love it. You don't have to. also im only talking about ideas and certain story elements. im not talking about storytelling or filmmaking. i've been in a really big superman kick lately so that's why this thread exists. and it makes me sad seeing people trash this movie.
I think you can only explore a character in a new way after the old way is well and truly established, and Superman really isn't. As iconic as he is, I know a lot more people who can recite Batman's back story over Superman's, and I've met plenty of people who don't even know Superman is from another planet, never mind his more complicated lore. You need to establish a status quo before you subvert it, doing it the way it was done in Man of Steel leads to something more along the lines of "Wait, so is this just how Superman is in this iteration? Or wait, was it always like this?" and general confusion. Because there's no established tone for it to subvert
I was gonna say, no matter what, the film has just far too many issues on such a basic level for me to regard it as anything more than a great spectacle, but it mostly fails at making that spectacle unique to Superman. When it does it well, it's great though, like when he first dons the suit. Also, I just feel like this version of Superman doesn't really do much interesting in terms of differentiating itself from the classic story. Sure, there's the controversial finale, but...not much else worth talking about except to criticize (which goes back to, again, storytelling and film making.) And this is coming from someone who tried to defend the film at first. It only lasted so long before I couldn't deny all the stuff it does wrong.
I loved Man of Steel, and I don't think Kal el had another choice , but to kill Zod.. not to mention what you said earlier "he is still working to be superman", his moves are awful, Zod clearly fought better (since he is a soldier, and Clark never fought in his life), but Clark had reasons to be "better" thus "stronger" than Zod: 1) He is a "hybrid" from different casts of kryptonian, he has all the DNA from them on his cells. 2) He has lived on earth for long time so he had more time to control his powers/acquire energy from our sun, even though Zod learned quick enough because he is a fighter. --- The thing that felt "cheap", was that ALL the other evil kryptonians were teleported to the phantom zone but Zod, so this was clearly a gimmick so Superman was forced to kill him.. this could have been better written, but from superman's point of view he did what he need to be done.. not to mention that Superman had killed before, Batman is the one that "doesn't kill", Superman don't kill his foes because most of time he outranks them so much that he can afford to keep them alive.
All I remember watching was a Christopher Nolan movie which happened to contain superman in it. Still can't stop laughing at that tornado scene. XD
You know what's weird? I have many problems with Man of Steel but I have no problem with Superman killing Zod. Also,
I do not understand the criticism of Man of Steel as the most murderous. Now, Man of Cadmium or Man of Thallium, that would have murdered even more people.
