Man of Steel

[Paul (ral)]

I don't have a problem with Superman killing Zod, though I wish it was less gruesome. The was no way out for Superman. Plus Zod was basically pleading for a warriors death during the finale...so in some way Superman granted him what could be viewed as his "Kryptonian" right to die.

I don't buy Snyder's lame "after the event" excuse for it though - that this is where Superman's no killing rule comes from.

Superman doesn't kill because he has strong morals. Morals he gained from the Kents. Unfortunately we never see that moral guidance in the movie. My morals/work ethic stem from my parents. While it is a lifetime of influence I could probably cite a few examples of things that my dad may have said or done that have shaped me as an individual...it's a pity the film didn't try to do more.

I'm not Superman, but I don't need to kill someone to know killing is wrong.

[The Joker]

Of course it's Zod's fault.  Nobody is saying it isn't.

The destruction being Superman's fault is an often used slight against the movie I've seen ALOT on the net. It wasn't necessarily aimed directly towards you, but it's just another often touted, or certainly implied notion that doesn't hold weight under scrutiny.


 

But he's the bad guy.  He's attempting to obliterate an entire species so it's what we'd expect from him.  Superman is the hero so unfortunately the onus does fall on him and take the fight elsewhere if he can.  I could understand if Zod was using the population of Metropolis as pawns and daring Superman to come in and save them, like when Zod, Ursa and Non toy with the bus passengers in 'Superman 2' but I didn't get the impression that this was happening on this occasion.

Anyone could easily rationalize that Superman was young, had never really been in a fight before meeting his brethren, and didn't yet have the full instincts of his comic book version, so loss of life was unavoidable. For most of the film, he was fighting a numerically superior foe with better training and better weapons plus most of his powers, and he still managed to save lives and keep the bad guys off balance enough to eventually win the day. Was he "Superman"? Yes, absolutely. Superman is 75 years old, and he's had a lot of interpretations over the years - this is just one of them, and better than some.

As for your point about Superman not taking the fight out of the city (Mark Waid hated this too, right?), it's not like we've never seen this in comics before. Not every fight happens outside of a populated area in the comics...I mean when buildings get demolished in an issue, am I suppose to believe that no one died? Hell I'm pretty sure Death of Superman had a higher if not equal amount of destruction(and assumed body count) as this movie. It's why we always say that it would suck to live in the DCU...every day there's pretty much a 50% chance that you're going to die 'cause of stuff like this.

And besides if I'm Zod and Superman tries to lead me away...I stay right where I am and start killing civilians. 'Cause, you know, it was made pretty clear I'm fully aware of his love for humanity by that point (to say the least).

I'll level with you.  I'm probably not as avid an expert on the comic-books as you but I always saw Superman as being an advocate of lee extreme means of justice, something which had gotten him and Batman into conflict on many occasions, and yet here under the aegis of Christopher Nolan we have a Superman who does kill and seemingly has minimal regard for collateral loss of lives.  Seeing as Superman is an alien, and a guest on our planet, his strong convictions about not wanting to harm human beings makes sense in contrast to Batman/Bruce Wayne who was damaged at an early age by the actions of a fellow human and thus learned to be wary and suspicious of most people, in contrast to Clark Kent who was raised by two loving adoptive parents, his first contacts from Earth.  Since Zod is a fellow Kryptonian, I have less issues with Superman taking his life at the end even though I had hoped that we'd at least start the franchise with a more optimistic and positive (i.e. non-killing) portrayal of Superman with room to move into possibly darker territory as the series progressed.

Superman is Superman. He's not Infallible-Man (as some might like to think). And I believe the events, and actions that transpired and took place in MOS will indeed have an effect on his character and code with future installments. In the latter stage of the film, Superman was one man trying to stop the terraforming ship, and then against a madman intent on killing Superman and killing random people to 'punish' Superman. Which makes it clear Zod knows Superman's weakness, and it's not kryptonite this time. Sure, something like a scene of Superman rescuing people in the aftermath would have been cool. But then I have absolutely no reason to believe that Superman doesn't do this, either. It's not like we see him fly away immediately after Zod dies. It's just a conclusion many are quick to jump to, in spite of all the prior actions Superman takes in the film where he clearly cares, and saves people whenever possible.


Ultimately, Its our mortal folley to not have conveniently available wastelands for super powered fights, and villains who are nice enough to oblige such a request.

[Edd Grayson]

To be honest, I would've liked it if Zod was put back in the phantom zone. But he was really too dangerous for Earth to be left alive IMO.

[zDBZ]

Done.

Let me get this out of the way up-front; on top of my local critic's lack of discretion and my aesthetic tastes (more on that later), I am absolutely in love with the original Donner film, and with his cut of Superman II. I am aware that the comics and character have evolved since then, and I hardly consider that take on Superman the only valid one, or the only good one. I can't honestly say that my affection for the old films (well, for its two romantic leads, its Kryptonians, and its score specifically) didn't colour my ultimate opinion on Man of Steel, but I was as open as I possibly could be, and I leave any comparisons out of this review. I also don't think I would compare the two takes so much in my head if Man of Steel didn't feel so much like a repeat.

A common charge thrown at Superman Returns by its critics is that it was too close to the original Donner film; Luthor is the villain again and he has a real estate scheme, Brando was brought back from the dead, etc. But Man of Steel feels much more like a retread to me – not just of Superman I and II (though it shares so many of their basic plot points), but of other recent interpretations of the character, such as the Timm/Dini animated series and "Smallville." Compounding the problem, certain aspects of these previous adaptations have since been incorporated into the comics. I liked Superman Returns, and have no problems with its close ties to the first two films. When no one involved in the production made any secret that that connection was intentional, it's hard for me to understand why that became such an issue for others.  But with Man of Steel, precisely because everyone involved with the picture was determined for this to be a fresh start, suffers much more from a sense of "been there, done that" IMO. Even worse, Man of Steel, if you were to look at it on paper, has far more potential than its predecessors; it creates more complicated motives, back stories, and feelings for the characters. But very little of that came across as intended in my eyes. In every area where Man of Steel shares plot or thematic material with a previous adaptation, I find the predecessor to be superior, often getting a richer stew out of simpler ingredients.

But, setting that aside and taking this film on its own merits – as I said, I found the film visually bleak, tonally heavy, with an uneven pace, severe editing issues, a tendency to tell rather than show when it came to anything emotional, a lack of real characterization for anyone outside our main hero and villain, too much crammed in to the ending, and some questionable choices made in that ending.

And yet...in some respects, I was pleasantly surprised.

My biggest concern going in, given what I had seen and read, was that Superman himself was going to end up a depressed, brooding figure devoid of the charm and confidence that the character typically exudes. Those fears were – partially –assuaged. I would not call Henry Cavill "perfect casting;" I cannot say I found his a stellar performance.  But he did give a very good one, and he did manage to capture that, for lack of a more appropriate term, Boy Scout quality that Clark has. The moment where he comforts Lois as he treats her wounds in the Fortress of Solitude (I know it isn't really the Fortress, but it's as good as and it's a cooler name than "the Genesis ship") in particular stood out in my mind. It was also neat to see Superman, in costume, testing his powers (though – and this is a nitpick, to be sure – wouldn't you think that he would have found out he could fly by age 33?) In short, my biggest fear became my greatest pleasant shock, although I do wish he had more confidence in his interactions with Lois and the military, and I had issues with the depiction of his childhood.

Quick detour- the flashback structure, where the flashbacks were done out of order, is technically more realistic to how memory works and (for the most part) worked, though I understand complaints I've read that having them occur sequentially could have been easier to read. At least one instance towards the beginning saw the gap in the flashbacks last only a few seconds; very awkward.

I did enjoy the scene where a grade-school Clark has an episode, struggling to control his powers. That one scene alone was enough to sell the growing pains that would come with such abilities. It would have been nice to see a teenaged Clark getting some enjoyment out of his powers, but that's a fairly minor point. I liked Ma Kent throughout the film. But I really had a hard time with this film's Jonathan Kent. Part of this problem is just an issue with some technical matter of writing; like the Dark Knight Trilogy, the amount of exposition and theme-stating dialogue in Man of Steel wore me down pretty quick, and Jonathan got a lot of it. But Jonathan's character really bothered me. It's one thing to advise your son with superpowers that it's best for him to keep them hidden until the right time: it's quite another to tell that same kid, since before he's old enough for his voice to crack, that he will alter all religion, philosophy, and perceptions of man's place in the universe, and that it was possibly OK to let a bus full of school children – his classmates – die. The amount of pressure he applies to this kid goes to the point where it should be causing some serious damage IMO. This amount of concern – I'd go so far as to say paranoia – also seems to be at odds with the sort of upbringing and morals that the Kents are supposed to instill in Superman.

I'm going to have to echo every complaint and issue I've seen raised over Jonathan Kent's death. As many have already noted before me, we've gone from "all these powers and I couldn't save him" to "all these powers and I didn't save him." On top of the moral issues, which have been sufficiently covered by other reviewers, the set-up for the death feels very arbitrary. Jonathan handing off that little kid to Clark didn't read as Jonathan trying to mask Clark's powers; it read as him trying to shepard everyone else to safety before he'd join them. And if Jonathan could make it over to the car to let the dog out at normal human speeds, so could Clark, and with the other cars obscuring peoples' vision and the general chaos caused by the tornado, there was no reason not to let Clark grab the dog. Thematically, the death doesn't seem to accomplish much beyond emphasising a theme that had already been stated in dialogue over and over; that Clark shouldn't reveal his powers until the right time. And by "the right time," Jonathan and Clark apparently didn't consider anything short of "evildoers with the same sorts of powers coming to Earth and threatening to destroy it, creating a climate of panic in which no one has any reason to believe that you're on the level since you haven't revealed yourself before now" to fit the bill.

I can't be too hard on that last point though, because I didn't feel the film really gave much of a sense of the world's reaction to Superman. For all the dialogue and all the weight put on that point, the only people who are really shown reacting to the reveal are Lois and the military.

Lois; I love Amy Adams, and she's an amazing actress, but I got very little sense of a personality from this Lois Lane. She and Henry Cavill have some chemistry, but I think the film would have been better served by saving their romantic turn for the sequel. Up until their first kiss, their relationship is one of mutual gratitude and some sort of affection; the sudden shift into romance felt very forced. I was also confused as to why Lois needed to be around in the second half of the story. Zod didn't need to take her along; they probed Superman's mind anyway, which had to have given them the location of his pod. The plot demanded someone else be around in Zod's ship to upload Jor-El and learn how to defeat the villains, but that person being Lois; I dunno. It was a lot like Jonathan's death; the set-up seemed very arbitrary. The same applies for Lois being on the plane that flies the pod into Zod's ship. When it turned out that she wasn't even the one who activates the Phantom drive, it became really hard to find any sort of justification for her to be there other than to let Superman save her – a note they had already played twice.

Zod – honestly, this was my biggest problem in casting. If Richard Lester undermined the menace of Zod through sight gags and eye rolls, Michael Shannon undermines, not only Zod's menace, but his believability as a commander through his performance. It's the first time I can remember thinking an actor was wooden and hammy at the same time. This story has Kryptonian destinies set at birth, and Zod's was that of the warrior, but I don't remember anything that said he had to become the supreme general tasked with security of Krypton. Shannon's Zod doesn't seem to have any of the charm or commanding presence such a post would demand; he comes off as a foot-soldier, a rather insecure and mentally unstable one. Granted, that did seem to be the point, but Shannon's performance creates a character who is so obviously off-balance that it's hard to believe that no one would have suspected that maybe – just maybe – this guy shouldn't be given the keys to the kingdom. For all the attempts in the dialogue to create moral ambiguity and nuance in our main villain, little to none of it was tangible as an organic, believeable feeling; "tell, don't show" at its most frustrating IMO. This Zod also doesn't seem to be the brightest tool in the shed: when I want to persuade the son of Jor-El to join me in planetary conquest while probing his mind, I tend not to show him images of his beloved childhood home aflame or oceans of human skulls.

The Codex didn't seem to be much more than an excuse for the Kryptonians to come a-calling, and once it's revealed that it's inside Superman, there's never any situation that pays that information off. Couldn't they just decide Earth was a suitable terraform candidate and move in? As for how their conquest goes; I thought Smallville, Metropolis, and the not-quite Fortress of Solitude getting destroyed all in one movie was too much, especially for a first entry in a new serie. The shift in action from Smallville to Metropolis is rather abrupt IMO. I also found the editing in the action sequences terrible; I had a very hard time following anything that happened. And I agree with all complaints about Superman's property damage; telling people "get inside" doesn't do much good when you and the U.S. military end up destroying the whole town anyway (and shouldn't the army have at least some qualms about launching an airstrike on a town not yet evacuated?) In the finale, the fight moves from the already-destroyed part of Metropolis to the thriving part that is clearly not evacuated, as we can see all the cars lining the streets. I realize Zod drove the fight there, but Superman does nothing to resist this and does nothing to take the fight away from the populated area. I don't need Superman to fly around fixing and saving every last building and kitten, but shouldn't he at least be a little bothered by it?

The ending: I read Goyer and Snyder's explanation and defense of it, and in theory, I accept their decision. However, in execution, I had four big problems:
1. I'm sorry, but those people in the museum  were the equivalent of the woman who thought throwing herself over her baby carriage was better than pushing it out of the way of the radio tower in Superman II. If the idea was that the rubble of that pillar had them trapped, then the blocking and the shooting both dropped the ball, because it looked like all they had to do was run forward and to their left to get away from Zod, who was inexplicably holding the heat ray steady on the wall.
2. Superman had Zod in a headlock, and he can fly; just lift Zod out of the museum.
3. If Superman can snap Zod's neck –a bit odd when they both can smash each other through buildings without a scratch – he can also break his arms, legs, and back. Leaving Zod a cripple in  prison is extreme, but it's another choice besides killing him.
4. The arc Snyder and Goyer described – that killing Zod and ending his race was enough to drive Superman to never kill again – gets no set-up or pay-off. The moral issue that is stated (and re-stated....and re-stated) prior to this is – should Clark expose himself to the world? How to use those powers, the rules and limitations  Clark/Kal-El should set for himself, never comes up, nor does any sort of thought on the subject of killing people. And the scream of frustration did not feel like enough to sell the point Snyder and Goyer wanted. Of all the points in the film that could have used some speechifying, that was a big one. That the loss of all things Kryptonian would be that much of a blow to Superman is a bit hard to swallow anyway when he has no qualms about taking out the Genesis ship – the ship that, as far as he knows at that point, is the only means of connecting with his father. There was a comic where Superman – speaking to Mr. Mxyzptlk, of all people – declares why he doesn't kill, as plain as Batman's declaration of his One Rule. That this got no mention in the film outside of statements by its makers is rather troubling, and I'm surprised by the defense that it's gotten.

And while I don't have a problem with Snyder and Goyer's  reasoning on this scene, I read an interview with Mark Waid where he follows up on his issues with Man of Steel. He made a good case for not only not having this sort of scene to begin with, but not trying to play Superman as "one of us."

As I've said, I felt the pacing was uneven. For example, the Kryptonian sequence gets off to a very abrupt start, then drags on past its welcome. Tonally, the film doesn't quite echo the sentiments that the dialogue tries to convey. I didn't get a sense of "hope" so much as "extremely cautious first steps towards guarded optimism." The one time I laughed, it was at an inappropriate time; something Zod said while being sentenced made me crack up, thanks to Shannon's delivery.

There were also two points about the Kryptonian technology that threw me. I won't call them plot holes, because I had a hard time catching all the lines in the scenes where these issues came up, so if there's an explanation, tell me. The two points are:
1. If those suits of armour are blocking out the effects of Earth's sun, how are the supervillains able to get super strength and speed?
2. When  Lois uploads Jor-El to Zod's ship – he's able to change the atmosphere, open doors, and activate escape pods. I don't remember any moment where any of Zod's crew wipe Jor-El from the ship, and the ability to do so isn't established until Zod pulls out his crystal and commands the Genesis ship to get rid of Jor-El. If Jor-El wasn't erased, couldn't he have stopped the terraforming device?

As far as the aesthetics go, some might dismiss these matters as nitpicking; I wouldn't, but I will concede that it is (mostly) a case of personal preference. The aesthetics of this film are almost completely opposite to my own tastes and instincts, particularly when it concerns a character like Superman. Be it the degree of desaturation in the image, the amount and type of handheld work in the cinematography, the style of editing, the design of anything Kryptonian, or the sort of musical score employed, Man of Steel is just not my cup of tea, and the trailers and previews I had seen were enough to tell me that going in. Again, for the most part this issue is a matter of personal taste rather than actual quality, although I do think the editing is a real problem in the film. I also think that the music is rather ineffective. I haven't made much of a secret of the fact that I'm not a Zimmer fan, but I can at least recognize, recall, and hum a fair number of his themes from the Dark Knight Trilogy. I can't recall a single theme from this film. Literally the only piece of music I remember is one note played by the horns in the trailer, and I remember that only because I was struck by how small the horn section of a major motion picture score sounded.

Now, this is a pretty negative review. On a numerical scale, I'd give this film 5 out of 10. Editing aside, I found the film technically well put-together. Despite my total lack of interest in seeing the origin story – again – I did enjoy certain aspects of it, and I enjoyed Russell Crowe as Jor-El. As I've already said, I liked the portrayal of Superman himself. This was far from a terrible film. But as a whole, the aspects that struck me most were those that rubbed me the wrong way.

[thecolorsblend]

You've offered an intelligent, scholarly review so I would like to offer a hopefully as intelligent and scholarly reply.

A common charge thrown at Superman Returns by its critics is that it was too close to the original Donner film; Luthor is the villain again and he has a real estate scheme, Brando was brought back from the dead, etc.

I can't speak for anybody else but my main problem with Singerman is not so much how dependent it is upon Donner. If anything, it's that it doesn't depend on Donner enough. I thought Singerman was an intentional repudiation of what the character had long stood for and which Donner made some effort to depict. I thought it was so horrifying that I refuse to use the character's name in reference to that movie. From my point of view, Singer made a film starring completely original characters and slapped familiar names on them.

But Man of Steel feels much more like a retread to me – not just of Superman I and II (though it shares so many of their basic plot points), but of other recent interpretations of the character, such as the Timm/Dini animated series and "Smallville."

I think a lot of the "retread" argument can be answered rather easily with a simple statement of undeniable fact.

Wide audiences have not seen a new version of Superman since 1978.

Ten seasons of Smallville, four seasons of Lois & Clark, two seasons of STAS, four seasons of JLU and everything else don't amount to a hill of beans. More people saw MOS in the first two weeks than likely ever watched all those other things combined. As far as Joe Sixpack is concerned, those other things may as well not even exist. As familiar as some aspects of MOS may be to seasoned fans, a huge majority of it was a revelation to wide audiences. Snyder had to truly reboot the character and introduce him under the philosophy that this is the moviegoing public's first exposure to Superman.

This same issue cuts through a lot of other common gripes about MOS but we'll sift through things as we going along.

Compounding the problem, certain aspects of these previous adaptations have since been incorporated into the comics. I liked Superman Returns, and have no problems with its close ties to the first two films. When no one involved in the production made any secret that that connection was intentional, it's hard for me to understand why that became such an issue for others.

Hopefully I've addressed that (at least for my participation) above.

It was also neat to see Superman, in costume, testing his powers (though – and this is a nitpick, to be sure – wouldn't you think that he would have found out he could fly by age 33?)

He's been told his entire life that he has to hide and keep his abilities on the d/l. On that basis, my quibble is how fast he seemed to master the full extent of his abilities as quickly as he did. Film must deal with things in short hand, I realize. And I also realize this is a quibble rather than a deal-breaker. Even so, I feel like I have to argue your point from the other complete other direction.

But Jonathan's character really bothered me. It's one thing to advise your son with superpowers that it's best for him to keep them hidden until the right time: it's quite another to tell that same kid, since before he's old enough for his voice to crack, that he will alter all religion, philosophy, and perceptions of man's place in the universe, and that it was possibly OK to let a bus full of school children – his classmates – die. The amount of pressure he applies to this kid goes to the point where it should be causing some serious damage IMO. This amount of concern – I'd go so far as to say paranoia – also seems to be at odds with the sort of upbringing and morals that the Kents are supposed to instill in Superman.

My answer to that is that this is a new take on a relatively familiar (to fans anyway) character. Jonathan is a confused man stuck in a seemingly impossible situation and he doesn't have all the answers. He's just trying to do the best he can with the resources available to him.

Maybe it's because I'm such a big Smallville fan but this seemed to me like SV's Jonathan taken somewhat to the next level. In SV, Clark's natural instinct was to use his powers to help people. Jonathan would've preferred Clark do whatever's necessary to keep a low profile. The uneasy compromise they eventually reached in SV is that Clark would use abilities on anonymous basis.

The main difference with MOS is that Jonathan suggests (not demands; not insists) that Clark's privacy should be his utmost concern... and then he explains why.

Let's face it. If a superpowered alien came to Earth, all the factors Jonathan mentioned would be affected. But the driving issue of MOS is that it took Clark 33 years, a brush with his true origins, the "extinction" of what remained of his race and a lot of Christian imagery to learn that Jonathan Kent was wrong.

Jonathan was a good man, he had nothing but the best intentions for his son and, love him or hate him, he was willing to die for what he believed... but he was ultimately wrong and Clark was ultimately right.

Speaking of...

I'm going to have to echo every complaint and issue I've seen raised over Jonathan Kent's death. As many have already noted before me, we've gone from "all these powers and I couldn't save him" to "all these powers and I didn't save him."

Not to argue the point or change the subject but that idiotic "all these powers" line has always bothered me. We just saw Clark outrun a freakin train and Brad's car. STM's teenage Clark had a very good idea of at least some of his powers.

And you mean to tell me he couldn't have at least TRIED to zoom Jonathan to the hospital? Maybe Jonathan was dead when he hit the ground but nothing in the film is clear on that either way. Bottom line? I've never bought that Clark couldn't have saved Jonathan in STM.

But to answer your point, Jonathan specifically told Clark to stand down. Whether anybody likes it or not, Jonathan chose to sacrifice himself rather than even risk the possibility of revealing Clark's secret. The people who quibble over Jonathan's death also quibble over his "willingness" to let others die. Whatever, but the thing that bothers me is that few or none of them bother to close the loop and recognize that Jonathan was walking it as he talked it. Love or hate the guy, he lived and died by his principles. Wouldn't it have been hypocritically self-serving for him to say "maybe" in one scene and then demand Clark rescue him just a while later?

On top of the moral issues, which have been sufficiently covered by other reviewers, the set-up for the death feels very arbitrary.

I can't argue the mechanics of the scene. I look at the bigger picture of it. If people are bothered by the essential setup of it, hey, I can't argue with them. It's not particularly well done but, as I say, there is a point being made there so I let it slide.

This story has Kryptonian destinies set at birth, and Zod's was that of the warrior, but I don't remember anything that said he had to become the supreme general tasked with security of Krypton.

My reading of it (again, film relies on shorthand) is that Zod was seizing power as part of his genetic programming to preserve and defend Kryptonian society and he didn't see The Big Hat Council making decisions that resulted in the general good of the people. You said earlier the Krypton stuff dragged too long. Frankly, I thought this part of the film was almost anemic. Shorthand, yes, I understand, but these are core character motivations we're going through here. I understand Snyder was under narrative pressure to bring Superman into play as quickly as possible but clarification on some of the conflicts relating to Zod, Krypton, The Big Hat Council and other stuff would've resulted in greater pathos both in the short term and the long term. I understand the reasoning behind zipping through the stuff; I just don't think it served the long term interests of the film.

The Codex didn't seem to be much more than an excuse for the Kryptonians to come a-calling, and once it's revealed that it's inside Superman, there's never any situation that pays that information off. Couldn't they just decide Earth was a suitable terraform candidate and move in?

Zod's programming was to preserve Kryptonian society. Kal-El serving as the codex would permit the return not just of Kryptonian society but of proper Kryptonians. He needs the codex to do that. Why choose Earth? Why not, they're already there. Earth is as good as anything else. Now, this is me reading between the lines. The fact is that I don't think anything in the film is so explicit. I therefore acknowledge that a line or two of dialogue might have clarified some of Zod's tactical decisions vis a vis the codex, terraforming the Earth and so on.

I realize Zod drove the fight there, but Superman does nothing to resist this and does nothing to take the fight away from the populated area. I don't need Superman to fly around fixing and saving every last building and kitten, but shouldn't he at least be a little bothered by it?

How do you know he wasn't? Also, it's easy for me to overlook the property damage because as much as anything Snyder is keeping up with the Joneses. Lots of other films feature a similar amount of devastation. Well, it's not like that kind of thing is foreign to Superman comics. Wide audiences haven't seen it, to be sure, but it's not new territory for Superman and as far as an action quotient is concerned, audiences expect high stakes like that. Scenes of Cavill fretting over potential casualties or, worse, abandoning the fight to save one or two people while Zod and co. continue curb-stomping Metropolis wouldn't help matters.

The other thing though is that this Superman isn't necessarily here to just be a guardian angel. As much as anything, Jor-El wants Superman to equip mankind. Prepare them, enable them, guide them, teach them... and ultimately trust them to do their part. Evacuations, rescues, fire-fighting and so forth are all things humans are perfectly capable of doing themselves. But only Superman can face off with Zod. He's forced to triage the situation and decided that his best efforts should be directed toward shutting Zod down.

Now, is that how Superman "should" be depicted? Personal taste. But there is a marketing method (let's blow a bunch of stuff up, it'll look great in the trailers and puts butts in the seats!) and a story method (Superman is there to gently lead mankind into the sun) to it. On those grounds, it's easy for me to see what Goyer and Snyder were up to.

1. I'm sorry, but those people in the museum  were the equivalent of the woman who thought throwing herself over her baby carriage was better than pushing it out of the way of the radio tower in Superman II. If the idea was that the rubble of that pillar had them trapped, then the blocking and the shooting both dropped the ball, because it looked like all they had to do was run forward and to their left to get away from Zod, who was inexplicably holding the heat ray steady on the wall.

As above, I can't argue the mechanics of it. The principle underlying the scene is that Zod has positioned himself to be a scourge to humanity. Only Superman can deal with it and how can he deal with a seemingly unstoppable, unreasonable foe?

And, as I suspect the sequel will deal with, what are the consequences of using extreme measures to do so?

If you find the setup unconvincing, hey, I got nuthin. But the principle of it... the way I see it, Superman shouldn't kill. But if he does, these are the circumstances where he would do so.

What Superman would never EVER do is crush a mortal being's hand, toss him across the room and let him plummet to his death because that character died because there is no DVD you can buy that shows the character surviving integrated into the movie which means Reeve's Superman killed Zod and to this day I seem to be almost a voice in the wilderness when it comes to having philosophical problems with that. He especially wouldn't do that when he'd already in effect won.

Frankly, I find the MOS Superman's actions a helluva lot more justifiable than I do the S2 Superman's.

1. If those suits of armour are blocking out the effects of Earth's sun, how are the supervillains able to get super strength and speed?

Those are the effects of Earth's lesser gravity. For shorthand, Donner established that Superman's powers came from Earth's sun and that's become absolute canon. In MOS, Snyder and Goyer reinstated the two-fold nature of Superman's powers. Earth's sun gives him certain abilities while things like speed, strength and others are due to Earth's lesser gravity relative to Krypton. On that basis, the Kryptonians wouldn't need Earth's atmosphere in order to utilize certain abilities.

2. When  Lois uploads Jor-El to Zod's ship – he's able to change the atmosphere, open doors, and activate escape pods. I don't remember any moment where any of Zod's crew wipe Jor-El from the ship, and the ability to do so isn't established until Zod pulls out his crystal and commands the Genesis ship to get rid of Jor-El. If Jor-El wasn't erased, couldn't he have stopped the terraforming device?

What I assumed based on Zod's ability to delete the Jor-El AI in that other ship is that anybody can do it on any ship the AI has been installed onto... and that's what happened off-screen.

As I said, you wrote something very intelligent and scholarly so no matter how hyperbolic I got up there, I do hope you understand I'm not arguing or looking for trouble or any other drama. I tried to use a bit of humor to make the point... or concede the point when you clearly have the upper hand. I'm bending over backwards to say this because I want to maintain and contribute to the maturity you just injected into this thread.

[thecolorsblend]

By the by, not sure how much of this thread you've dug through but what I've tried to be clear about is that I'm a HUGE Superman fan (if that wasn't obvious) but that doesn't mean that MOS is the Superman film I've dreamed about my whole life. When it comes to comics, my preference is the Silver/Bronze Age Superman where he was written as a Myth rather than basically a human with superpowers as he was during the Byrne Age. I love the Byrne Age and nobody can deny how much MOS relies on Post-Crisis stuff for a lot of inspiration but just because I enjoy that era doesn't mean that's my favorite or that's what I would've wanted in a film.

I say all of this to emphasize that I'm not blindly overlooking what I acknowledge to be faults with MOS simply because I'm in love with the presentation of it. Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact. If I made a Superman film, it would look virtually nothing like MOS or even have all that much in common with it.

[Silver Nemesis]

Those are good points you raise, zDBZ. And good responses from you, colors. A very interesting read.

A few observations of my own:

•   The film is released during the anniversary (50th/75th) year of the main character's comic book debut
•   The hero's origin story is revised so that the main villain is responsible for killing his father
•   The hero's armoured costume features sculptured musculature and ditches the comic book trunks for the first time
•   The hero's back story is revealed through flashbacks
•   The main love interest is an investigative journalist who spies on the hero and follows him around with a camera, gradually piecing together his past and learning his true identity
•   The villain uses a pirate television broadcast to call out the hero. The authorities are powerless to resolve the situation on their own and don't know who to trust
•   In contrast to the hero's no kill policy in the comics, he is shown to kill the main villain at the end of the movie

Sounds a lot like a certain other DC film we're all familiar with.

[zDBZ]

As I said, you wrote something very intelligent and scholarly so no matter how hyperbolic I got up there, I do hope you understand I'm not arguing or looking for trouble or any other drama. I tried to use a bit of humor to make the point... or concede the point when you clearly have the upper hand. I'm bending over backwards to say this because I want to maintain and contribute to the maturity you just injected into this thread.

Well, that was a perfectly mature and intellectual response

So far as the property destruction and the death of Zod are concerned - I wouldn't dispute either Superman's purpose or that Superman might find himself in circumstances where he had no choice but to kill. As you say, there's not much to argue when my problems are mostly with technical matters (writing, blocking, etc.) When it comes to Superman's involvement in flattening Smallville and Metropolis, I think all that would have been needed to allay most peoples' complaints (or at least mine) was a few seconds worth of shots after the fighting of Superman surveying the damage and looking guilty about it.

I'd forgotten about how gravity factored in to their powers - thanks for the reminder.

With Zod's fate in Superman II - my understanding (could be wrong, just what I've read) is that the scene establishing that the villains had survived was cut from the American release, which is what you can get on DVD, but was included in international and television releases.

[thecolorsblend]

With Zod's fate in Superman II - my understanding (could be wrong, just what I've read) is that the scene establishing that the villains had survived was cut from the American release, which is what you can get on DVD, but was included in international and television releases.

My attitude has been "if it's not in the movie, it didn't happen". The movie released to theaters didn't include that scene. The majority of TV broadcasts didn't include that scene. The DVD's which include that scene do not include that scene in the context of the film. Even Richard Donner's horrid cut of the film didn't include that scene.

Ergo, that scene didn't happen. Superman killed Zod in Superman II.

[BatmAngelus]

While I'm not a fan of Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel either, I will say the moment was better executed (get it?  get it?!) than in either cut of Superman II.

Also, maybe next time, Superman should turn to AI Jor-El sooner...