Man of Steel

[The Dark Knight]

You raise a good point.

And I'm ashamed to say that I'm only just now realizing that there might be a theme of regret/mourning present in seemingly all three films. In MOS, Zod experiences some regret at having killed Jor-El. That haunts him. His hatred for Superman doesn't somehow magically blight out his affection for Jor-El or his own regret for killing Jor-El. He even visibly expresses regret at erasing Jor-El's AI from the ship, "killing" Jor-El again in a sense.

In BVS, as per your quote, Superman expresses a desire to live up to Jonathan's idea and his regret at being unsuccessful so far. Jonathan's memory is what teaches Clark about the occasional disconnect between heroism and acceptance.

In ZSJL, I assume that Batman will be motivated by his own regret of Superman's death and the role he unwittingly played in bringing it about. Penance will come, I assume, from Superman's resurrection.

Still, in each case, this regret over a dead person's memory seems to be a catalyst driving a character forward. Sometimes, a character is able to make peace with the dead person's memory (Superman in BVS) while other times that's not possible (Zod in MOS) or, at best, it's uncertain (in ZSJL, I assume).

It's late and I might be formulating all of this badly. Sorry!

Zod says he's debating the merits of genocide with a ghost, which seems dismissive to me.

IMO, Zod has elements of regret, but he's a test tube creation in the way he thinks - which pushes him beyond psychopathy. People are responsible for their actions, but with Zod it's almost like he can only be what he is. Zod was bred for one specific reason and that's all he works towards. That type of focus is on the unnatural side, which seems fitting given it contrasts with the natural birth of Kal.

I imagine Zod's bigger regret would be Jor-El not seeing things his way, as he then saw his murder or incarceration as the only option. Zod is an ally if you see things his way, but if you don't, so be it. Having superpowers under a yellow sun doesn't change his ambitions, even though it would for anyone else. He cannot restore Krypton as it was, so the next best thing is Earth, and he doesn't think twice.

It's not a mistake that Clark and Bruce reflect about their parents before the clash in the rain, as those ghosts still dictate their future - but in different ways. Batfleck was reflecting upon the fact he's now older than his father ever was, which is a negative energy. Clark sought peace from a chaotic world, and through Jonathan's lesson he accepted his peace was Lois - just as Martha was Jonathan's.

The biggest lesson Batfleck seems to have about his parents is that they died - which is evidenced in the dialogue. This makes sense given his memories are that of a young child which would have faded with time. He has a flashback involving their crypt with blood dripping out, which further highlights their death is the number one part of their existence from Bruce's POV. They are never manifested in his dreams in comparison to Clark's experience.

Bruce's parents are not inside the tomb - only the bat remains.   

[thecolorsblend]

From Adventures Of Superman #477, which was part 04 of the Time And Time Again storyline. Superman uses his heat vision to burrow through a gigantic sheet of ice, whereupon he finds a spaceship.

Seems a bit familiar, doesn't it? Even the shape of the tunnel looks similar to what we saw in Man Of Steel. I'm not prepared to guarantee that this page inspired that sequence from Man Of Steel. But the similarities are interesting, yes?

EDIT- Since I'm here tho, rewatched Man Of Steel. I still adore the sequence where Clark tunnels through the ice using his heat vision and Lois follows him. I love the pacing of it, the atmosphere of mystery and suspense, the aesthetics, the music, all of it. The whole movie is good. But this scene has always stood out to me. Even in theaters, I remember being absolutely engrossed with the movie when this bit of business started. It's not rly that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. But we're all allowed to get a little fanboy once in a while.

[The Laughing Fish]

Upon hearing about Snyder's ideas for a standalone Superman sequel today and how he might've used Brainiac as the villain, I remembered reading fan theories speculating one of the World Engines in MOS had a Brainiac Easter egg.

[The Laughing Fish]

Interesting video analysing Jonathan Kent in MOS and addressing the criticism surrounding two key scenes.

[The Laughing Fish]

David Goyer revealed how utterly clueless the studio were when it came to making MOS.

Where the ending involves Superman utilizing the pod that he arrived in as a child in order to bring down General Zod's ship. The note we got from the studio said, 'You have to change that.' We asked why. They said, 'Because if Superman uses that pod and it's destroyed while saving the city, how is he ever going to get back home to Krypton?'

There was just this long pause and we said, 'Krypton blew up. You saw 30 minutes of it!'

https://comicbook.com/dc/amp/news/man-of-steel-writer-reveals-baffling-studio-note/

Warner is a lost cause. If they're not sabotaging their own productions due to malicious motives, they don't even seem to have the ability to follow a story. It's a farce, and it's these sort of issues that ruin any enthusiasm I might've had for any new film coming out.

[The Laughing Fish]

Eternals director Chloe Zhao spoke to a French media outlet and revealed MOS was an inspiration for the latest MCU movie.

If that's not all, the movie namedrops Superman and compares him to one of the Eternals characters, Ikaris.

Superman is mentioned in the Eternals. Who is he in the MCU? Does he just exist in pop culture or is he a real character?
Chloe Zhao: He's whatever you want him to be (laughs). In this sequence, he seems to exist in pop culture. But we never know.

We take away that Ikaris could have been the inspiration for the creation of Superman in the comic books.
Chloe Zhao: You say it, not me! Superman is the Übermensch, the ultimate man, the superman, a concept that exists in all cultures. Of all modern interpretations of Superman, this is Zack Snyder's with Man Of Steel, which inspired me the most because he approached this myth in an authentic and very real way. I remember thinking it was Superman by Terrence Malick when I saw the trailer. This film left a strong impression on me. But Ikaris is of course our own take on Superman.

Source: https://cinema.jeuxactu.com/news-cinema-les-eternels-superman-chez-marvel-la-realisatrice-chloe-zhao-s-explique-34878.htm

While an MCU director cites MOS as artistic and an inspiration, we have the f***ery going on at Warner and always talk about catching up to Marvel. How ironic.

[The Laughing Fish]

Here is another look at Henry Cavill wearing Christopher Reeve's Superman costume.



I thought it was Photoshopped at first, but it's from this collection, so it seems legit.

https://propstoreauction.com/m/lot-details/index/catalog/299/lot/80965/

[The Laughing Fish]

George Miller was once quoted explaining why he thought Superman is such a hard character to adapt on film.

I think it's been said many times before: he's potentially a very boring character because he has no faults. So you really have to find his demons really to get an internal conflict going. You've really got to do that. Whether that's by an external agency or something deep inside himself. You need that conflicted character

That's what made the Greek gods so great. I mean they were jealous, vengeful, hubristic. They had all these things going for them. I think that's why Batman's such an interesting character because he's human, so he's just like us. He's relatable, rather than someone who's just perfect.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210121215929/https://www.ign.com/articles/2015/10/07/what-george-miller-would-do-with-superman

Greg Silverman, the former chief of WB, tweeted this in response to those old quotes.

Superman is not boring. He was conceived by immigrants desperate to fit in. He's insecure like they were, desperate to be good enough to fit in, to be worthy of love. He's torn between two worlds, two fathers. I think Zack [Snyder] and Henry [Cavill] ​(&&&) captured all of this beautifully in MOS.

https://twitter.com/gregsilverman/status/1474392470083489798

Guess who replaced Silverman as the head of WB? Toby Emmerich.

No wonder why Superman on film and WB as a whole has gone to sh*t.

[thecolorsblend]

Miller's line of thinking is sort of flawed.

In a sense, I would compare Superman to Paddington in the Paddington Bear movies. In those movies, Paddington doesn't change a whole lot. Rather, he influences others. Essentially, he motivates the people he meets to be their best selves.

That's Superman. I'm not saying you can't tell great stories where Superman faces some kind of inner turmoil. Obviously, you can. I consider Superman III to be a great Superman story and Superman has to literally face his own dark side in that film. It might be fan wankery on my part, but I see Superman in Superman III resolving the frustration and grief from the first two movies. He suffered losses in those movies and I think he came to terms with it in Superman III.

Meanwhile, in STM, you're hard-pressed to find Superman experiencing some kind of inner conflict. At every step of the way, he knows he is, what he has to do and broadly he knows how to do it. Nobody seems to despise STM even tho Superman has a basically arc-free story in that film.

I mean, I get where Miller is coming from in a sense. Superman has a perfect soul and he has absolute power. You need to have your thinking cap on to write a good Superman story. Whereas (with all due respect) a good Batman story practically writes itself. Batman is infinitely easier to write than Superman. But this idea that Superman is a boring character or that he has to overcome some type of personal struggle just plain isn't true.

[The Joker]

A pretty good video going over all the behind the scenes stuff pertaining to Superman in the DCEU post-MOS.