Man of Steel - How to fix it?

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Since this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Cl5FzEIjY] and Nostalgia Critic's review of it came out pretty recently, I've been thinking back to Man of Steel. I liked the film, but many people didn't. It even seems quite a lot of people even hated it. What I would like to hear from this group is how they would have made the film to make it something they would have liked.

I'll shed some light on two points that were criticized and why they didn't bother me nearly as much as they did others.

1. The product placement

One complaint I've seen time and time again is the amount of product placement in a certain scene. Now that I've seen it multiple times, yeah, it is pretty stupid. But I failed to notice it at all because none the brands in the scene can even be found in the country I live in. For all it mattered to me, the signs could easily have said "Ogga wogga" and "Ooga Booga" instead of "Sears" or "Ihop".

2. The ruination of Superman

This might be a cultural thing. In the same way I'm not familiar with the brands mentioned above, neither am I familiar with the concept of Superman being some sort of patron deity of hope and justice. To me he's always just been the archetypal superhero, and not a very interesting one at that. I knew who he was, but I've never read those comics on any sort of basis. To me the more serious tone and darker story made the character more interesting. The fact that he blew s**t up with no regard to civilians didn't really bother me because that's how I saw how a punch-up between two gods on earth would go down. "Superman DOES NOT kill" didnät really matter to me when Zod was clearly intent on humanity's complete annihilation. Come to think of it, it has never mattered to me.

So as a part of the masses of sheep who just went to see a big action-packed blockbuster, I got exactly what I wanted. Guess I'm just dumb. But how would you have made it? What should Supes have done with Zod? How could he have dealt with him in a more "Superman" way?

TL;DR: If you didn't like Man of Steel, what things would you have changed to make it a good film in you opinion?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'm sure Superman's guilt over killing will be a major plot point in the next movie and the deterrent for killing Luthor if and when Luthor shows up. Anyway. I didn't mind the killing. I don't feel very strongly about how comic book characters should or shouldn't act. With so many people fondling the multi-layered continuity IPs, what's another take?

So! What I would do (in Man of Steel) would be give Lois an actual purpose for the scenes she's in, expand the Perry White character, cut down on 9/11 imagery, keep the original death of Pa Kent (fuck that tornado) and overall straighten out the narrative. The time skips felt unnecessary.

 

[Galletea]

I would want it to tell one story with a few well rounded characters instead of trying to tell three stories and cram everyone in. Lois needs a purpose, she is an unlikely love interest at the moment, all she does is turn up, be sassy and get in trouble. That might work for someone like Joss Whedon, but we can do better than that people. Perry needs fleshing out as a character, and we don't need half a film of shit being blown up or buildings being levelled. And no more tentacled robot monsters for no good reason.

 

[The Great JT]

Here's how I fix the necksnap scene:

Superman has Zod in the headlock. Zod's about to laser beam the family...Superman then flies off with Zod in tow and crashes him into his ship's Phantom Drive, causing it to overload and implode into the Phamtom Zone with Zod. Bam. No more Zod, Superman doesn't have to kill anyone...although I'm sure his actions still killed half of Metropolis...we get a happy ending.

 

[Olas]

Ummm....


I'm honestly drawing a blank here.


Actually, the only problem I had with the movie is the way it overcomplicated the Superman backstory. Remove the whole Superman being the only natural born Kryptonian thing, and his DNA being some sort of magic key or whatever. Replace that with some other Mcguffin and I'm good.

I'm fine with the Zod neck-snapping. In fact I actually liked it. Not in a sadistic way, I just think it's more interesting for Superman to have to do something morally questionable than for him to just find a clever way out to avoid the situation.

 

[Nimzabaat]

I really don't understand the criticisms about the movie. I mean when Superman murdered a helpless Zod in Superman 2, it was played for laughs. When his entire race was wiped out, it was basically a journal entry. Man of Steel gave those events some actual weight and I really liked that. I suppose to "fix" it I would have taken out Kevin Cos... okay he actually wasn't terrible this time. Huh. Okay all I needed was an explanation for how Zod and his crew gained all of Supermans powers in such a compressed amount of time. So I guess I would like a plot hole fixed.

 

[VoidOfOne]

I went with a bunch of friends to see the movie, and I really enjoyed the movie. Apparently, I was the only one. Personally, what I see as the biggest problems with Superman movies... is Superman.

The whole premise of Superman is that he is as close to a god as any mortal will meet, and him having to deal with that. The vast majority of threats he faces are either: non-threatening to him but to others, or kryptonite-related. And and here and there there's an enemy that he directly fights, and typically overpowers (at least to my recollection). The way he was built up, it's either very hard or too easy to develop a threat against him that makes the story really compelling, like with other superhero characters.

I would not change the killing of Zod at all, but that's just me. It shows just how green and raw this Superman is.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Funny thing was I really wanted to see this film and dragged with me a girl-who's-a-friend who wasn't that keen. At the end when I said I was disappointed, she said she enjoyed it. *shrug* Go figure.

Things I thought were wrong with the film:
- The fighting and city destroying dragged on, and on, and on like Ariston.
- All the military shit I thought I was watching a Michael Bay film.
- I think a lot of the cinematography was there purely for (3D) spectacle. I didn't particularly want to watch a collection of video game cutscenes, thank you very much.
- The gritty, desaturated look doesn't suit Superman at all.
- I didn't care much for Cavill's portrayal of the Man of Steel
- Why did it have to be another damned origin story? We've already seen how he landed on Earth, just get on with it and make a Superman film
- Why didn't it have the classic theme?

Things that didn't bother me at all:
- Killing Zod. I don't care about his character in the comics. I don't think it's in any way a big deal. I actually sometimes think it's a hindrance to be honest.
- Kevin Costner as JK. He was great, don't mistake me. Just that he only had the moody, brooding thing, that was it.
- The religious overtones. Stop talking about "saving them all" and "giving them hope" and all that shit. It serves no purpose. Get on with an actual story. Speaking of which...
- The story. I liked the focus on the Krypton stuff, but Smallville did it better than this film did. They could've lost the whole codex bit entirely for all the difference it would've made.

Things I liked:
- Zod and the whole destiny/free-will thing. I thought that was clever and that the actor played Zod brilliantly. Shame the producers didn't give him much to work with.
- Laurence Fishburn was great but not enough of him.
- I like that they got a couple of ancillary Superman characters into the film, like Hamilton.

I don't know how it could've been made better. But Superman II could've served as an example of how to do it right. Clark Kent should already be established as a clumsy reporter, his bumbling and secret identity are what make him interesting. Clark Kent is much more interesting than Superman. Watching him eye a phone booth, excuse himself as the Superman theme starts up, he takes off his glasses and opens the shirt...that's the stuff right there. More characterisation for the villains too, like how the mute guy couldn't work out the heat vision and carried the police siren with him. The arm wrestling scene. That's great stuff, not military jets and buildings crumbling for an hour.

They could also have made a lot more of him giving himself up for arrest. There was so much potential for that entire premise. Maybe he superspeeds out to save someone and back to his cell before anyone notices. Maybe he has to fight the urge to go to help because he's committed to the course of action and wants to win Earth's trust first. Maybe an inmate tries to shank him. Then, as the situation worsens and Earth realises they need a superhero, they unlock the cell. Man, just thinking about how cool that could've been makes me sad all over again.

I wonder how, or if there'll be a follow up.

 

[Annihilist]

I don't think Superman could ever be improved except by destroying it, but if I had to choose:

Characterisation would have to be the first thing. Superman is a one-dimensional caricature of a person, and he's not plausible or believable in any way. And how about a plot which has some kind of real world significance? Something we can relate to more and be invested in?

Far, far less money into special effects and cinematics, and more effort into plot and character development. Cut all the boring fight scenes to approximately a quarter of their current length. Replace "Zod" with a human villain with human goals, perhaps political in nature. Then perhaps it could earn 5/10 stars from me.

Honestly, though, I don't know what we hope to achieve. Man of Steel was a dreadful, dreadful film - it was the first film in a long, long time I wanted to walk out of. Lets leave it to die rather than try and make a good Superman film.

 

[MrBaskerville]

I would fix it by making the action scenes less boring, they are too over the top, imo. The first one is borderline ridiculous and there really isn't much development to be found, just an awful lot of crashing into buildings. I wish there could have been more structure and more tension in those scenes to make them less sleep inducing. I didn't really mind the rest of the movie, nothing special but not insultingly bad.

 

[shintakie10]

They could also have made a lot more of him giving himself up for arrest. There was so much potential for that entire premise. Maybe he superspeeds out to save someone and back to his cell before anyone notices. Maybe he has to fight the urge to go to help because he's committed to the course of action and wants to win Earth's trust first. Maybe an inmate tries to shank him. Then, as the situation worsens and Earth realises they need a superhero, they unlock the cell. Man, just thinking about how cool that could've been makes me sad all over again.

All I can think of is that scene from Hancock where he voluntarily goes to prison. Accidentally launches a ball outside the walls, jumps out to grab it, jumps back in because he's in jail.

 

[KazeAizen]

Funny thing was I really wanted to see this film and dragged with me a girl-who's-a-friend who wasn't that keen. At the end when I said I was disappointed, she said she enjoyed it. *shrug* Go figure.

Things I thought were wrong with the film:
- Why did it have to be another damned origin story? We've already seen how he landed on Earth, just get on with it and make a Superman film
- Why didn't it have the classic theme?

These two things I'll address because I thought it was obvious.
It had to be another origin story because Superman hasn't been in film since 2006 and that version was more or less and sequel to Superman 1 and 2. Also because of that it had to show that it indeed was a separate story from the one originally told. I think you used the words "another" because we just had Batman and a crap ton of Marvel movies that have all been origin stories and you just got sick of that part of the story.

It didn't have the classic theme again for pretty much the same reason. It didn't want to be tied to the original Richard Donner films. That theme also didn't fit with the overall tone the movie had.

Honestly I hate the the OP brought this topic up. For one the Cinema sins thing is sarcasm and not meant to be taken seriously and this topic has just been beat the crap to death. People need to get over it.

 

[Vausch]

Colour.

Seriously, Superman is a symbol of hope. I don't want to see those horribly desaturated and greyed out colours when I think of him. Batman was better coloured!

Speaking of: Stop making other superheroes into Batman. Superman isn't mopy and he doesn't let things like death of parents define who he is. Pa Kent didn't die in a tornado and Clark wouldn't be so stupid as to just let him die even if it was against his wishes. The thing that helped Clark come to terms that while he has incredible power he isn't a god is when Pa Kent died of a heart attack and he wasn't able to help him. That helped define who he is but it didn't make him a brooding dip.

Zod: Why did you show Superman that pile of skulls in a holographic projection that suggests you're going to kill everybody on the planet he cares about and calls home? Moron.

Zod will clearly follow Superman anywhere to get the information he needs. Why did he then fight in the city when he could just as easily have gone to a barren area to battle? Sure, the collateral damage effects might not have been as good but I never complained when DBZ did it.

 

[superdelux]

- The big world murderer thing should have been placed in a rural area and not in the middle of a city, so we don't have to see horrific imagery of thousands dieing a horrible death.

- Superman should have tried to keep the fighting away from populated areas not actively brought the fighting to them.

- Superman should have become Superman because he wanted to be not because of years of pressure from his earth dad and his space dad.

- Superman should have been Superman period.

I could go on forever honestly, I thought the film was okay at first but on second viewing the flaws became glaringly obvious. Honestly I wish they
could have done something like Arkham Origins, where the hero has been at his job for a few years and is still working out the kinks, then he suddenly has comes into conflict with his would be nemesis.

 

[KazeAizen]

I don't think Superman could ever be improved except by destroying it.

Destroying the whole Superman franchise and character? Why?

 

[Annihilist]

I don't think Superman could ever be improved except by destroying it.

Destroying the whole Superman franchise and character? Why?

I don't think anything good could actually come out of a Superman adaptation. The character and concept just doesn't warrant it. The only way it could be good would be if it was no longer recognisable as Superman.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Zod: Why did you show Superman that pile of skulls in a holographic projection that suggests you're going to kill everybody on the planet he cares about and calls home? Moron.

Demoralizing the enemy can be a pretty effective strategy actually. Just a shame Superman is impervious to fucking everything.

OT: A lot of the criticism i've heard directed at this movie is that it's not "Superman" enough which i suppose is arguably true, and it further reinforces the idea someone planted in my head before watching it that it was a Superman movie made to reel in the people who didn't like Superman to begin with. Though obviously that means there's got to be some pretty drastic changes to his character which is probably what sparked some people's backlash.

Personally i nearly cheered in the theater when he killed Zod towards the end because to me it meant that Superman finally felt vulnerable enough to snap that rule in half, and that word "vulnerable" isn't exactly in common use when talking about Superman. Fair enough he was new to this whole superhero business and establishing rules might be reserved for later, but it's still interesting that his first big enemy faced his demise that way. Might make for some interesting character building later; another thing i've always thought Superman lacked.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

A few things.

#1. Dial back on the flashbacks.
Every major scene in MOS is punctuated by a flashback letting us know what happened in Clark's life that makes him do what he does in the present. at best it's a pacing nightmare and at worst it feels like the director doesn't trust his story or his audience.

#2. Get your facts straight.
This isn't an issue of comics to film translation. I'm not a stickler for direct point to point adaptation. But if you establish a rule in your movie you damn well better stick to it.

MOS goes out of it's way to wave aside the "yellow sun=powers" bit and explains that Krypton is harsh and awful but Earth is nice and calm. So a Kryptonian growing up and developing on Earth would develop Superpowers.
Good...fine.

So why do Zod and his crew get super powers after just a few hours on earth? This isn't a nitpick it's a big plot point that the movie addresses several times and doesn't bother explaining.

#3. Consequences.

I don' t care that Superman killed Zod. I don't care that a lot of Metropolis citizens likely died during the fight. I get that those casualties are meant to be his defining tragedy. (His Tom and Martha Wayne or his Uncle Ben.) But the movie doesn't really address it. It just skips ahead a few months and everyone is just peaches and cream about what is arguably the biggest tragedy to hit the USA in years.

#4. No time for love Mr. Kent.
I get that the Lois and Clark romance is a key point of the Superman mythos. But damm did it feel out of place.
"Hey most of Metropolis is destroyed...time for snugglebunnies."

 

[KazeAizen]

I don't think Superman could ever be improved except by destroying it.

Destroying the whole Superman franchise and character? Why?

I don't think anything good could actually come out of a Superman adaptation. The character and concept just doesn't warrant it. The only way it could be good would be if it was no longer recognisable as Superman.

Wow what bit you in the butt? It doesn't warrant and adaptation and it can be good and recognizable as Superman. I don't see what your playing at.

 

[Annihilist]

I don't think Superman could ever be improved except by destroying it.

Destroying the whole Superman franchise and character? Why?

I don't think anything good could actually come out of a Superman adaptation. The character and concept just doesn't warrant it. The only way it could be good would be if it was no longer recognisable as Superman.

Wow what bit you in the butt? It doesn't warrant and adaptation and it can be good and recognizable as Superman. I don't see what your playing at.

I have no idea what you just said, sorry.