Finally saw Man of Steel tonight

[Random Axe]

Yeah, I skipped it in the theaters. Kinda strange for a diehard Superman fan, but I think I was slightly afraid to see it. I was afraid I'd hate it and it would just ruin my outlook on future DC films. I'd read and heard so much about it, both good and bad and decided to avoid it for a while.

I didn't hate it, I just don't love it.

It was a good Superman film, but not the one I would have made. It was utterly without joy, fun or humor. It did it's job setting up the foundation of the DC Universe, but also brought to the masses a misrepresentation of the character IMO. Clark showed none of the Kansas farmboy, boy scout attributes that have defined him for seven plus decades. Cavill played him pretty flat and uninteresting, but the dialogue wasn't there to do much with. I do like how Snyder didn't go chronologically and was able to set up the origins with flashbacks, so that's a plus.

I think he missed the entire point of Superman with this film. He spent 2.5 hours showing how the world would be afraid and distrustful of Superman and actually making Clark second guess his every move. His moral compass has always pointed north. Making him brood about his powers and his place in the world takes the iconic, heroic element away from the character. What should have been a part of the film was the planet's acceptance of a hero. Sure, there would initially be shock value to such a being on Earth, but there would be a large portion of the human population who would be inspired by his presence. Instead of the do-gooder we grew up with, he flies around screaming and punching.

Is there a single person on this board that didn't have a major goosebump moment when Chris Reeve flew up and grabbed the helecopter with the theme music? I still get it to this day. Even the airplane scene from Returns was a moment in cinematic badassery. This movie was void of all of that and yet I enjoyed it. You can't tell by this post, but it was a well executed movie that has worlds of potential with the Batman factor coming up. BTW, I had no problem with the Zod thing at the end. That decision will haunt him forever and guide his future as he seeks to make his place in the world.

Overall I liked it for what it was, kinda disappointed for what it wasn't.

[Earth 2 Chris]

My viewing of Thor: The Dark World brought Man of Steel's ultimate flaw sharply into focus, and you touched on it. That lack of joy. Goyer and Nolan can't seem to present a hero who isn't at least somewhat dour.

I think people underestimate Smallville's influence on the film. Jonathan Kent's obsession with hiding Clark really comes from there, although it's cranked up to 11. Cavill's Clark seems less reluctant than Welling's, but there is still that fear of his father's fears coming true.

I still enjoyed the movie very much, but I do think a few scenes of levity would have really put it over the top.

Chris

[Hedji]

It was utterly without joy, fun or humor.

THIS.

You can't just apply the Batman tone template to Superman. And yet, they did, because for some reason, it sells. Filmmaker a are so obsessed with making things EPIC, they forgot that an actual audience of human beings end to sit and enjoy this.

Please bring the charm back to Superman.

[MIB41]

I do think when the two heroes meet up, there will be less contrast than what we've seen in comics and animated features. The morality profile is not so different here. Superman did not seem to have much issue with people dying in this origin tale. And I still shake my head at Clark's decision to let a tornado take Jonathan's life to protect his "secret". That is so a*s-backwards from the lesson he's suppose to learn had Jonathan been allowed to die from a heart attack. He would have understood that even WITH his powers he couldn't have saved him. In this version, he let him get killed. Just bizarre. I think in the sequel, thematically the rub between Batman and Superman will play more to the idea of trust than their individual moral code.

[enyawd72]

I thought the handling of Superman in this film was perfect. It's 2013, not 1978. The world we live in today is a very different one. Jonathan Kent's fears were absolutely justified. We live in an age of fear and distrust. We spy on our allies as well as our enemies. The election of the first black president was supposed to inspire, but was met with cries of "He's a foreigner! He's a Muslim! He's a socialist!" There is no way humanity would readily accept or trust a godlike alien from another world. I don't view Clark as letting his father die. His father gave up his life to protect Clark. The dimension of guilt is one Superman has needed for a long time. No, he can't save someone from a heart attack, but what of all the people he can save? Even Superman can't be everywhere at once. At some point he has to choose who he saves and who he lets die. This would weigh heavily on a person.
And I disagree about the lack of joy in the film. One example was the scene of him learning to fly. He was truly enjoying his powers, something we really never saw in the old films, and it felt natural, not staged to be a "feel good" scene like some of those in the original 1978 film.

[MIB41]

I thought the handling of Superman in this film was perfect. It's 2013, not 1978. The world we live in today is a very different one. Jonathan Kent's fears were absolutely justified. We live in an age of fear and distrust. We spy on our allies as well as our enemies. The election of the first black president was supposed to inspire, but was met with cries of "He's a foreigner! He's a Muslim! He's a socialist!" There is no way humanity would readily accept or trust a godlike alien from another world. I don't view Clark as letting his father die. His father gave up his life to protect Clark. The dimension of guilt is one Superman has needed for a long time. No, he can't save someone from a heart attack, but what of all the people he can save? Even Superman can't be everywhere at once. At some point he has to choose who he saves and who he lets die. This would weigh heavily on a person.
And I disagree about the lack of joy in the film. One example was the scene of him learning to fly. He was truly enjoying his powers, something we really never saw in the old films, and it felt natural, not staged to be a "feel good" scene like some of those in the original 1978 film.

I have to disagree a little here. You're comparing the two as if the '78 was lost on some "dated" ideology of yesterday. And that anyone who likes it should be labeled as a person stuck in that period. That's pretty unfair and too generalized. I think your confusing the ideas of the day with the overall treatment and feel Donner was trying to achieve. The '78 version goes to great lengths to suggest your reading a comic book. The opening sequence even takes you into a vintage comic book as it transitions into the movie. Donner was not trying to sell Superman in the Nolan universe. He's selling the spirit of the comic book all the way. So thematically the movie tries to hit on all the themes that people most associated with the character in comics. He wasn't doing a character study of people in 1978. He was showing the comic book come to life. What this new movie tries to do is redress that concept and look at it more from a Nolan-esque perspective. A what-if consideration. Where the reboot gets into trouble is reconciling Clark's construction of a moral code as it's developed from various moments in his life. You say it best yourself. Superman can NOT save everyone. That's exactly right. But why would he chose NOT to save his earth bound dad? At that point Clark wasn't even in agreement with Jonathan about those ideas of concealment. So there's just no way his instincts, which he has acted upon since he was a kid, would suddenly be overridden by an idea he's completely conflicted by. People do not operate like that. Your instincts kick in during a crisis. Clark taking direction from his dad to allow him to die (over a DOG) to save face from an audience that should be running for their lives makes no sense. So it feels very forced, all in an effort to build this sense of guilt. Honestly it plays more like Batman than the traditions of Superman. And that's why people naturally feel a little detached to this version presented. It's not a bad film. But perhaps the ideas your talking about are exactly why many do not feel any connection to this version. Superman should be a little more timeless than just a snap shot of current day philosophy. Because people will always change, but values stay the same. If society continues to get more violent, hopefully Superman can rise above that, instead of representing it.

[Godzilla]

My wife bought the DVD and I still can't bring myself to watch it for all the reasons that you guys state.

[Hedji]

Quite honestly, I'm still astounded that in Summer 2013, Hollywood dug into the well, pulled out the #2 and #3 all time movie villains of Khan and General Zod, fed us inferior knockoffs, and told us to like it. Yecch.

2013 is very different than 1978, but even in 1978, Donner made a point of highlighting Superman's extreme 1940s style optimism in the face of the cynical modern world. (Remember Lois' balcony interview as she laughed at his "Truth, Justice, and the American Way"?) And yet, Reeve's Superman still had compelling conflicts about his place in the mortal world. It just worked better than having him dour and brooding.

[enyawd72]

I have to disagree a little here. You're comparing the two as if the '78 was lost on some "dated" ideology of yesterday. And that anyone who likes it should be labeled as a person stuck in that period. That's pretty unfair and too generalized. I think your confusing the ideas of the day with the overall treatment and feel Donner was trying to achieve. The '78 version goes to great lengths to suggest your reading a comic book. The opening sequence even takes you into a vintage comic book as it transitions into the movie. Donner was not trying to sell Superman in the Nolan universe. He's selling the spirit of the comic book all the way. So thematically the movie tries to hit on all the themes that people most associated with the character in comics. He wasn't doing a character study of people in 1978. He was showing the comic book come to life. What this new movie tries to do is redress that concept and look at it more from a Nolan-esque perspective. A what-if consideration. Where the reboot gets into trouble is reconciling Clark's construction of a moral code as it's developed from various moments in his life. You say it best yourself. Superman can NOT save everyone. That's exactly right. But why would he chose NOT to save his earth bound dad? At that point Clark wasn't even in agreement with Jonathan about those ideas of concealment. So there's just no way his instincts, which he has acted upon since he was a kid, would suddenly be overridden by an idea he's completely conflicted by. People do not operate like that. Your instincts kick in during a crisis. Clark taking direction from his dad to allow him to die (over a DOG) to save face from an audience that should be running for their lives makes no sense. So it feels very forced, all in an effort to build this sense of guilt. Honestly it plays more like Batman than the traditions of Superman. And that's why people naturally feel a little detached to this version presented. It's not a bad film. But perhaps the ideas your talking about are exactly why many do not feel any connection to this version. Superman should be a little more timeless than just a snap shot of current day philosophy. Because people will always change, but values stay the same. If society continues to get more violent, hopefully Superman can rise above that, instead of representing it.

If that's the way my post read, that's not what I intended. I get the ideaology of the original film, and that it was trying to emulate the feel of a comic. What I meant was I feel MOS presented a very realistic take on the character and how he would be perceived today. Imagine if an all-powerful being just showed up tomorrow who could fly. A being who announced he was from another world. It would rock the very foundations of our civilization. It would cause people worldwide to question everything...their religion, their belief in human superiority, etc. World governments would surely react out of fear for national security. There would be lots of panic, chaos, and distrust. Is he here to conquer us? Is he the only one? What if there are more of them?
Having Superman flying around waving at crowds and rescuing kittens from trees worked fine in 1978 because it was a more innocent time. I just don't feel that type of treatment works today, but that doesn't mean it didn't work then, or that it was wrong in any way.

[MIB41]

If that's the way my post read, that's not what I intended. I get the ideaology of the original film, and that it was trying to emulate the feel of a comic. What I meant was I feel MOS presented a very realistic take on the character and how he would be perceived today. Imagine if an all-powerful being just showed up tomorrow who could fly. A being who announced he was from another world. It would rock the very foundations of our civilization. It would cause people worldwide to question everything...their religion, their belief in human superiority, etc. World governments would surely react out of fear for national security. There would be lots of panic, chaos, and distrust. Is he here to conquer us? Is he the only one? What if there are more of them?
Having Superman flying around waving at crowds and rescuing kittens from trees worked fine in 1978 because it was a more innocent time. I just don't feel that type of treatment works today, but that doesn't mean it didn't work then, or that it was wrong in any way.

I think we're on the same page except for your reference to 1978. After being embroiled in Watergate, Vietnam, and high unemployment with long lines at the pump, I can assure you that reaction you describe for today would be even worse back then. Those were hard years for our country and our belief and trust in anything was at an all time low. Great for kids, but socially very tough on middle America. Having attended both films during their theatrical release, I think the reaction to Superman back then was more in line with how people embraced Spiderman in 2002. Society needed something to feel positive about. The innocence in that hero is part of what keeps it timeless. Superman was not embroiled in the politics of society. He was looking through a broader prism so he could see the simpler needs. He was tuned in on a more fundamental level. So yes, he could see a cat needing help out of a tree. He greeted people when they waved. And when Lois asked him, "Who are you?" He said, " A friend." Donner didn't try to take the material to a social level to debate with Geraldo. He was making a comic book highlighting the values and principles that made the hero likable. Those were his motivations. And none of that had a thing to do with society in 1978. Quite the contrary, we all WISH it did back then. And honestly this country is in dire need of something like that again. This country is falling back on horrible times. In many ways you could say it feels like '78 again. High unemployment; gas prices insanely high; enormous distrust in government from all parties; and other countries wanting to destroy us. Yeah I think a positive Superman who could pull us back and make us recognize the most important aspects of living would be a timely movie today. So I think when people feel disappointed, it's not because they needed Superman to come from 1978, so much as they wanted a message that could make them feel good about humanity and perhaps restore a little faith in the belief we can get it all worked out.

[boynightwing]

I've resigned to never watch this movie again. Sadly, because they added Batman to the next one I will end up going to see it. Hopefully I will like it better than the first go. To quote Ralph Garman, the S stands for Hobo, not hope.

[ctc]

>The innocence in that hero is part of what keeps it timeless.

I think back in '78 you also had the idea that comics were strictly entertainment for kids, and a lot of THAT idea worked it's way into the film. The new one is geared more towards a general, PG audience; hence why they had to add the extra considerations and consequences.

Don C.

[Random Axe]

I think this sums up a lot of gaping holes in logic.

[vintage spideyfan]

I think this sums up a lot of gaping holes in logic.

The Aquaman bit was great! LOL

[mego73]

In 1978 or 2013, we really need more optimist entertainment done well. We don't need a morose makeover of formally optimistic entertainment. (Star Trek, Superman).