Super Dark

[Sanunes]

When I saw the movie I did dislike it a lot and now that I have had time to sit and think about what really bothered me, a lot of my problems really focus around the final act of the movie. I might not like some of the choices in the first two or question how they make sense in scheme of things, but they don't really bother me.

Really its about the choices (or the film makers lack of showing us) what Superman is really doing during that final battle with Zod. Show us the buildings are empty with his heat vision or hearing, have him think of another way to deal with Zod, just something to show us that he really still deep down has that kind of thought process that the first parts of the movie try to show us being instilled in him I think would have gone a long way with me at least.

 

[marscentral]

I think a lot of Man of Steel's problems do come from over compensating for Superman Return's weaknesses. That's particularly true of the overly long, incredibly destructive fight at the end. Superman really did need to kick some bottom in this film, the last film didn't really have anyone he could trade punches with, which makes his last proper cinematic fight The Quest for Peace.

I think we did get glimpses of a more traditional, lighter Superman from Cavill once he dons the suit. It's just lost in the destruction.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I think the problem is actually the Donner films, which have ingrained this idea into the general public's minds that Superman is some perfect, all powerful, completely noble boy scout, when that's something that was starting to wane quite a bit at the time and was all but completely abandoned a little less than a decade later. Supes hasn't been like that for a long time, about 2 and a half decades in fact, around the time of Crisis on Infinite Earths, and that includes the animated series. Sure, Supes hasn't gone full on dark like Batman (people also tend to forget that Batman and a lot of other DC superheroes were pretty much the same way for most of their existence up until that point too) but he hasn't been much more morally upstanding than the average person for a while, and he has been occasionally willing to kill when there's no other option, though he does everything possible to avoid it, like he did in MOS. I also think there is a LOT of nostalgia filters thrown in, since if the Donner films had been released today instead of in 1978 they would be critically panned by both professional reviewers and audience alike, even with modern special effects and production values, something that the lukewarm reception Superman Returns got proves, since it was emulating those films. If you don't believe me, go and find and read some of the 1930-80 Superman comics and tell me that the "truth, justice, and the American way!" and absolute invincibility of Superman back then wasn't incredibly corny and mindnumbingly boring.

All of the complains I've seen about MOS have all basically boiled down to "it's not like the Donner films" when it doesn't have to be and really in this day and age it wouldn't work if it was. I also notice that I don't see people whining about the fact that Batman went from a campy, happy-go-lucky boyscout to a dark, brooding, avenger of the night, quite the opposite, he's praised for it, and he's not the only one. However, somehow Superman being anything but the most perfect being on the face of the Earth is somehow a problem.

 

[LadyRhian]

It's a flawed movie to be sure with at least one glaring plot hole that I can't rightly ignore. (Why do Zod and his men develop Superpowers?)

Same reason Superman has them- Earth's yellow sun, which apparently supercharges Kryptonian muscles. Under a Red Sun, Superman would only have the strength of an ordinary human. I wonder if he'd be more powerful under a white or a blue sun, but as far as I know the powers that be never explored that.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

You know, as someone who isn't all that fond of Superman, I got exactly what I wanted out of the movie--the Man of Steel being made principally of iron. Scene where someone punches Supes and you can practically hear their fist break? Check. People getting hit by objects that are not traditionally being swung like baseball bats (like a train engine)? Check. Superman headbutting a giant gravity laser? Okay, that wasn't on the list, but it was freaking hilarious.

What I didn't expect, and ended up liking the movie more as a result, was the idea of Superman not being able to use his powers because of how the world would react, and bam, it was there. The idea that his father, an extremely moral man, would suggest to him that yes, it might have been better if he'd let the school bus full of kids drown was incredible to see. Parallel this to Spiderman's recent ingraining of "With great power comes great responsibility", where the answer would have been yes no matter what, here stands Supes with the complex dilemma that just because he can save them all, doesn't mean there won't be enormous repercussions for the act, and that perhaps he shouldn't.

Of course, all of this reached its zenith at the scene with his father and the tornado. Here's Superman about to lose his father, not to a supervillain, but to something he can easily rescue him from, and yet, for the safety of those around him and himself, let alone for the world at large, he doesn't. He listens to his father, and it costs him one of the most important things in his life. That kind of sacrifice was something I wasn't expecting, but there it was. A difficult choice that defined the rest of his life.

Could have done with the instantaneous ass-grab immediately after he broke Zod's neck, though. Here we have this primal rage after a choice you could see he never wanted to make again, this great moment of impotence for the man most capable...and then, not six seconds later, Lois gives him a hug and boom. Superman is cradling her ass. Really could have done without that.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

It's a flawed movie to be sure with at least one glaring plot hole that I can't rightly ignore. (Why do Zod and his men develop Superpowers?)

Same reason Superman has them- Earth's yellow sun, which apparently supercharges Kryptonian muscles. Under a Red Sun, Superman would only have the strength of an ordinary human. I wonder if he'd be more powerful under a white or a blue sun, but as far as I know the powers that be never explored that.

That's usually been the explanation in the various incarnations of the character, and if they had left it at that I'd have been perfectly fine. The problem is that Man Of Steel went to great lengths to explain that Clark gets superpowers from our Sun because he grew up on this planet and his Kryptonian physiology developed over the 20+ years absorbing the radiation.

Zod and company had only been on Earth for a few hours at best.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Snip

The Donner films didn't end the "Big Blue Boyscout" thing of Superman, Crisis on Infinite Earths did. After the retooling of the DC universe, Superman became significantly less powerful, significantly more flawed, and significantly more morally ambigious, though considering how ridiculously overpowered and painfully "token good guy" he was before then that's not saying he wasn't still a powerful and morally upright hero.

I have seen all those series, and in them Superman isn't anywhere close to the "Big Blue Boyscout" he is portrayed as in the Donner films or the way he's viewed by the public. In fact, they sometimes go out of their way to point out that Superman ISN'T perfect. The Donner films popularized the boyscout idea, something that was on the way out at the time and created a public perception that that's how he's always supposed to be, whether it was actually any good or not. Usually when how a character is portrayed becomes popular like this creates a great image that benefits all portrayals of the character, but the Donner films have done nothing more than drag down all portrayals of Superman since by putting in this immovable characterization of Superman into the public consciousness that nobody wants to be deviated even slightly from, even if it would make him to do so.

Ask yourself this, would Batman still be so popular if he stuck to his campy image? Would Mark Hamili have made such an iconic Joker if the character was still constrained to that harmless corny clown he used to be? I HIGHLY doubt it.

 

[Impossibilium]

One of my biggest problems I have with the movie (though there are many others), is the death of Pa Kent. Looking back in analysis, it ends up defining this version of Superman's worldview (and dour disposition) throughout the film. Letting your father die - when you know you can save him - just to protect your secret identity, that's some pretty dark shit right there. Again, it fits with the character as he's portrayed in this movie, but it's not necessary. It just gives him something in common with Spider-man and Batman, making this portrayal really unoriginal.

The thing is, in every Superman story I've read, Pa Kent is alive and well. I'm not that well-versed in Superman lore, so I'm sure there are some storylines that have him dead, too, but it's not common. I think it's only in this version because again, it makes the character darker, and that's what Snyder/Nolan/Goyer were going for. Plus, it was in the Donner movie. Which was the biggest problem with Superman Returns, being Singer trying to stick slavishly to what Donner did before him.

 

[Gatx]

This article actually made me realize something - the last two fight scenes were pretty cool (best live action anime fights ever) but I would've preferred a movie that had more of that meditative flashback stuff, especially if they could've reached some kind of more tangible point.

Hell, I even got the idea from another one of Bob's thoughts on the subject that the idea of "Superman" could've been a result of compromising between the ideals of his two dads - hide your powers + save everyone = superhero with secret identity, which even kind of works, but they movie never goes in that direction either.

 

[zinho73]

The problem is characterization. Superman is not about guilt - it is about hope. The character of superman is kind of pointless if he starts to look like batman or spiderman or captain america.

The Donner film captures that because he does not show what a man with superpowers would do. He shows us what only superman would do (like rescuing the kitten). Anyone would kill Zod in that circumstance - but what superman would do?

The problem of the film is not that superman kills - is that the ending is so shallow that fails to answer that question properly.

It would be extremely cool to see superman trying to save people during the fight. As someone was saying before: making sure that the building was empty and things like that. Also, there is a lot of disconnection with the destruction and the kissing and jokes.

Superman can kill, can suffer and can go through dark times - if the writers do not lose sight of what make the character ticks.

 

[immortalfrieza]

fine fine, sure, every hero needs to be weak, every hero needs to be super-flawed, and every hero needs to be morally ambiguous now

I mean, it worked for batman right?

They kinda do, since it's boring for heroes to be so powerful that nobody can realistically expected to be challenging them, and they must be flawed and morally ambiguous because it's identifiable. People don't like it when anyone is portrayed as perfect, both in fiction or real life, because they know that such a thing is impossible.

See, thats the thing though, you complain that the Donner films have ruined Superman by creating an image that needs to be maintained against the (subjectively worse) comics, but haven't the Nolan movies done the same thing to batman? You said it yourself "but the Donner Nolan films have done nothing more than drag down all portrayals of Superman Batman since by putting in this immovable characterization of superman Batman into the public consciousness that nobody wants to be deviated even slightly from,"

Also, the Mark Hamill Joker was pretty damn campy compared to Ledger.

The differences between the "Dark Avenger" image that Batman's built up the last 2 decades and the "Big Blue Boyscout" image that Superman is stuck with is this:

1. Batman has actually been like that for a long time now, unlike Superman who has been stuck with an image he doesn't really have anymore.

2. The public apparently gives Bats leeway when it comes to this, he's free to change back to his old campy self as throwbacks or whatever, just look at the Brave and The Bold cartoon, while with Superman the general public will accept nothing other than "Big Blue Boyscout" when he goes on the big screen.

3. It's to Batman's benefit. Quite frankly, it has been awhile since the campy "truth, justice, and the American way" crap has been something people have wanted out of their superheroes. In fact, Superman is really the ONLY superhero anymore that can get away with being like that in this day and age. Even fun personified heroes like the Flash have their own set of problems they have to deal with, while Superman in the comics and the DCAU is much the same. Does that make them "dark"? No, but they aren't so limited to their campy old selves anymore.

 

[Impossibilium]

One of my biggest problems I have with the movie (though there are many others), is the death of Pa Kent. Looking back in analysis, it ends up defining this version of Superman's worldview (and dour disposition) throughout the film. Letting your father die - when you know you can save him - just to protect your secret identity, that's some pretty dark shit right there. Again, it fits with the character as he's portrayed in this movie, but it's not necessary. It just gives him something in common with Spider-man and Batman, making this portrayal really unoriginal.

The thing is, in every Superman story I've read, Pa Kent is alive and well. I'm not that well-versed in Superman lore, so I'm sure there are some storylines that have him dead, too, but it's not common. I think it's only in this version because again, it makes the character darker, and that's what Snyder/Nolan/Goyer were going for. Plus, it was in the Donner movie. Which was the biggest problem with Superman Returns, being Singer trying to stick slavishly to what Donner did before him.

I had a problem with the death of Pa Kent as well. It seems that they did that just to follow off the Donner tradition and it's not just Man of Steel that did it. Smallville, All-Star Superman, Superman: Doomsday and post-2006 pre-New 52 Superman all killed Pa Kent. It bothers me as a man that his father is just so disposable, especially when the previous thirty years of Superman comics proved that Superman's parents and particularly his father can play an active and productive role in his life. In this version particularly, the death of Pa Kent was so stupid and so unnecessary. It seemed they only wrote it in because modern day Jonathan Kent would have been one more extra character they'd have to worry about writing poorly. Not that they did a particularly good job with the flashbacks. Kevin Costner was well cast but Pa Kent was basically there to die stupidly and to console Clark whenever he angsted about having powers and being 'different'.

Yeah, I felt the movie spent a whole lot of time focusing on Jor-El, who was good for backstory in the Superman mythos, but didn't influence who Clark is as a person. Yet this movie glosses over the his upbringing in Smallville in flashbacks, while spending the first half-hour of the film on Krypton. Gives Superman a very emotionless feel, when his wholesome down-home Kansas roots were what was really supposed to define the character. His adoptive parents gave Superman his moral compass; this movie they're just minor side-characters put in to hit certain story-beats so the character is still recognizable as the Superman everybody knows from the comics and previous movies, when this character is anything but. This character, they could've left out the Kents altogether and arrived at the same place, which I think is the wrong direction to go in.

That being said . . . I think the boy-scout campiness of the Donner films was wrong as well. Kinda did for Superman what the sixties Batman did for that character, which was define that character for a generation (or two), leaving little room for variation after that. Which is why Batman movies have been so dark, trying to get away from that image, and why this one is so dark, too. The balancing act that they were trying to do in this one - referencing the Donner films, while trying to ape the Nolan Bat-films - was something they failed at miserably. I think there's a better way to balance the light/dark elements of Superman (the Timm/Dini version probably the best example, as it usually is with DC characters).

 

[Trishbot]

I just miss heroes being HEROES and having a fun time reading fun and funny comic books. I don't know why many comic movies, DC movies in particular, are almost ashamed that their roots are in campy, colorful morality tales that delighted the young and young at heart.

Take it away, Squirrel Girl!

 

[Impossibilium]

While we're on the subject of Jor-El, I thought that his death at the hands of Zod was completely pointless. Firstly Jor-El was going to die anyway, secondly all the murder really does is give Superman an excuse to further angst at Zod in a 'You killed my father!' kind of way,an angst that he never shows because they're all written as such flat characters. It's kind of like when the Joker killed Bruce Wayne's parents in Tim Burton's Batman, it added absolutely nothing to the story at all.

I'm in the same boat as Bob really. The more I think about the movie, the more I realise how much I hated it, and I never liked it to begin with. There's no sense of character at all, Superman is basically 'Good guy with powers' and that's all his back-story seems to support, we get absolutely no sense of him as a person. I remember watching it and thinking that they borrowed very heavily from Superman: The Animated Series and John Byrne's Superman work, but had absolutely no idea what made them intelligent and interesting explorations/re-inventions of the character.

What's worse is that the people who made the movie were already sucking each other off before the thing even came out. Now they're sucking each other off even more and Warner Bros. is already talking sequel ('More bullshit') and a possible Justice League film. All on the 'strength' of this crappy movie.

Completely agree with you about Burton's Batman, and another example of how Man of Steel is just copying what came before it, while taking it completely out of context. When I came out of the theatre, my first thought was that they should have actually copied the first episodes of Superman: TAS, but now I realize that they did. They just changed it from Braniac to Zod, and in the process made it make no sense. The TAS episodes had Braniac destroy Krypton, but since Zod would have no reason to destroy his own planet, they made it the Kryptonians themselves do the deed - again adding another unnecessary layer of darkness.

I had this feeling even before I saw the movie: Zod should not be the first villian for Superman to face. This movie's plot proved that. Like someone else brought up, there's no reason for the people of Earth to trust Superman in this scenario. As far as they'd be concerned, Kal brought on all this destruction of the planet himself, or just as good as. If the Zod fight had happened in a later movie, at least Superman would have built up the people's trust in him as a hero, fighting outside threats, rather than what basically equalled a full-scale Krytonian invasion before Earth even knew Kryptonians (or any other alien race for that matter) existed. Having to face something like Braniac would have made a lot more sense - he killed my planet, now he's trying to kill yours, so I'll stop him, and I'm the hero, no questions asked. Zod would then be in the sequel to start raising those questions, which Lex Luthor would answer in the third film by getting extra funding to create something like Mettallo or Parasite to help protect against further Kryptonian threats. Now, they're probably going to do that in the second movie, before Superman has even proven himself a hero. Right now he's just some alien that punched another alien, levelling a whole town and city in the process. Still copying the Spider-man shtick of guy trying to do right while everyone thinks he's just as much the problem.

This Superman is just a copy-paste of other superhero's origin stories, which is sad considering he was one of first.