Can Batman Vs Superman answer Man Of Steel's critics?

Feature James Thompson 8 Jan 2014 - 06:15

Could Man Of Steel's more controversial elements be satisfyingly paid off in Batman Vs Superman? It's certainly possible, James writes...

NB: This article contains spoilers for Man Of Steel

I make no denials: Man Of Steel was my favourite superhero film of 2013. Aside from Marvel's movies, of which Thor: The Dark World and Iron Man 3 were favoured by many, Zack Snyder's epic reimagining/return/reboot (or however you may see fit to describe it) captivated me from beginning to end.

While Marvel's carefully laid out planned phases are undoubtedly a delight and a stroke of genius on their part, DC and Warner Bros moved to shock the opposition with a gloriously large-scale return for one of the most coveted superheroes in the history of comics.

Many argued against Man Of Steel's morals, namely in the dispatching of enemy Zod and the careless destruction of Metropolis and its inhabitants, but was this all, in fact, a clever plan for further films to follow?

Since its bow in cinemas, we have of course seen Ben Affleck confirmed as Batman, Gal Gadot cast in the role of Wonder Woman, and a story pitting Superman and Batman against one another setting the internet alight, suggesting that behind the scenes there may be some sort of long-term plan after all. 

Some might suggest that DC and Warner are simply riding on the back of Christopher Nolan's success with the Dark Knight trilogy, and that they're hoping to continue this by integrating the remaining members of the DC Universe's rich history. True, the Justice League movie is clearly the end game of sorts, but while on the surface it may seem a little disorganised, Warner obviously has its own agenda set out. 

Consider this: Man Of Steel was the first move in what could prove to be the next stage for DC Comics in the cinema. Told on a grand scale, and bringing to life once again one of its biggest names, Man Of Steel kickstarted Warner's mission to challenge the Marvel hit-making machine.

One of the major gripes audiences had with Man Of Steel was in Superman's apparent lack of concern for Metropolis' inhabitants, with the hero seemingly ignorant of the fact that during the fight between he, Zod and the other Kryptonians, carnage and death was occurring everywhere. And yet this very destruction could be the key that drives forward future DC films, beginning, of course, with Batman Vs Superman. 

Imagine if you will, that a battle-hardened Batman arrives on the scene and is witness to the rubble and large scale carnage within Metropolis. A hero whose morals cause him to disavow murder, the Dark Knight attempts to turn the government against Superman and consequently starts a war between them and the Kryptonian, who's looking to find a place for himself among human society. 

It's a perfect counter-balance which could surprise audiences, and really integrate a loathed and oft-questioned section of Man Of Steel into a continuing story by exploring its repercussions. This element could also aid the development of possible villain Lex Luthor. A long-teased character yet to make himself known, Luthor has always been a manipulative character in the DC Universe, and you could certainly imagine him using Superman's tarnished reputation to his advantage. 

Assuming Luthor does appear (Bryan Cranston and Joaquin Phoenix are on the list of actors reportedly set to play him), we could see a scintillating scenario play out in the sequel. Despite Superman forging some sort of an alliance with the military at the end of Man Of Steel, the arrival of Batman on the scene could well change that pretty quickly.

Although a vigilante, Batman could soon turn friend of the nation as he looks to right the wrongs of the Kryptonian. Not only this, but with Wayne Enterprises hopefully coming into play, director Zack Snyder could use a powerful weapon in combining the forces of Wayne Enterprises and LuthorCorp in a union to battle against the ‘enemy’ that is Superman. It would certainly set up an exciting story, finally pitting Batman and Superman against one another, all while the scheming Lex Luthor hatches plans to increase his personal wealth.

Where Wonder Woman comes into play is another challenging focus point, and it seems likely she may have something of a secondary part in the story for the time being. That being said, she's one character of the utmost importance, so hopefully Warner have an ace up their sleeves with the appointment of Gal Gadot and can really portray the heroine in style. 

There is also speculation that more heroes are set to make their bow, with the likes of The Flash and Green Lantern all rumoured to be included in some capacity. Overkill many will call it, and, while their appearances are inevitable at some stage, it seems the story will be edged towards Batman and Superman, with only slim pickings for the other individuals for now.

Snyder, David S Goyer and their team clearly have the plan of hinting at future characters in the film, something the DC television shows have proved superb at executing.

These predictions will hopefully come to pass in some form, and it's more than possible that the most controversial moments of Man Of Steel are used very much like the post credit sequences of Marvel's films, where they form the springboard for the story in the next.

So if Warner does tie the repercussions of the destructive events of the first film into Batman Vs Superman, and explores Superman's emotional reaction to his deadly encounter with Zod, the studio could turn what has been seen by some as a negative into an inspired positive, and prove once and for all that, when it comes to handling the DC Universe on film, the studio really is planning ahead.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

I think the movie will do quite ok, but not what we hope for from a very good movie.
I also think that Wonder Woman will be quite alienated. Not that what many Fans want really see from a real Wonder Woman.

The movie will make money, however, not in the league WB are expecting. This pic will be a do or die for the franchise.

The biggest gripes I had were a) how crap Krypton's design was, compared to Superman the Movie over 30 years earlier, and b) how boring all that OTT destruction was, particularly that extended finale. It was far more effective to see young Clark rescuing the school bus from the river. Less is more. A phrase film makers have long forgotten in favour of OTT CGI.

My Spider-Sense says they are going to "TRY" to reverse Marvels process. Introduce the League and then spin them off.. If it works.. a brilliant gamble.. If not.. potentially a lot money lost and lot of executives replaced..We will see..for all the backlash the casting is getting.. Batman vs Superman better be a great film or the JLU will be DOA!!

Agreed about the overlong finale. There are only so many ways you can watch two computer-generated characters throw each other into computer-generated buildings.

Sweet! I knew Bryan Cranston was in the running for Lex!

The subtle scenes in Man Of Steel were it's strengths, but they were all too brief. The climactic battle and some of the awful digital effects ruined it for me. Upon a second viewing, I was left feeling disappointed and I don't expect Zack Snyder will surprise me with anything he does with my beloved DC characters.

Quite an interesting article. I didn't like MoS when I saw it at the cinema, but I've seen it a few more times now, and it does have a lot going for it. Visually, it is stunning, and the fight scenes are probably the best superhero fights ever put on screen. People complain about the destruction of Smallville/Metropolis, but realistically, when you have two Superman level characters fighting, its pretty inevitable. As this article points out, although there were a few things left hanging, like the consequences of Superman killing, this IS an origin story, and things like that can be tidied up in the sequel.

Unfortunately, after watching it a few more times, the weaknesses are more obvious too. There isn't a single character in MoS with any warmth to them at all. They all feel like cardboard cutouts. Lois is completely pointless, and Superman's many parents aren't much better. I would love to hang out with Tony Stark or Thor, but there isn't a character in MoS that I want to spend time with.

Making a film called "Batman vs Superman" bad will take some doing, but I'm still not convinced that Warner's won't manage it. I don't mind Affleck as Batman at all. I think its bold, but it could work just fine. However, all the other rumours we keep hearing make it sound like Warner's are absolutely desperate to have a slice of Marvel's success, but are steadfastly refusing to learn any lessons from them

"...the Dark Knight attempts to turn the government against Superman and consequently starts a war between them and the Kryptonian, who's looking to find a place for himself among human society"
Yes, if Warners don't care s--t about the Batman's personality or history, whether you look at the comics or the films. Rubbish.

Man of Steel has made it very unlikely that I'll go see a sequel regardless of what additional characters they haphazardly throw in to drum up interest. It was just so dull, lifeless and stupid. What's the point of destroying a military drone then telling them you grew up in Kansas? What kind of military won't be able to work out that he's Clark Kent then? I don't hold out any hope of fleshed out characters based on Man of Steel and how overwhelmingly bland almost everyone was (for example reiterating that Lois is a Pultizer Prize winning reporter as though that makes up for giving her any kind of personality). I'm basically with the guy who pointed out that Zack Snyder is the 90's Image comics director of comic book fare.

See oddly, while a classic, I have never really loved the sterile Krypton of Donner's movies, it makes the society look kinda lifeless albeit it does capture an alien feel effectively. I have preferred some of the more colourful and futuristic versions seen in the comics and MoS.

This is starting to sound like they are going to take the game 'Injustice: Gods Among Us' and adapt it into a film. Is this a bad thing? well yes and no, no because that story has already been done so let it be.......and yes because it is a great story nonetheless.

The thing I am worried about is that, it seems like they are trying to catchup to what MARVEL has achieved with the Avengers etc, rather than take their time and make sure it is done right.

I remain open minded on this one, but I am concerned that this will not deliver...

I didn't enjoy it. The ending felt as peril free as the Neo vs Smith fight in Matrix Revolutions. I saw two immovable objects punching each other really hard with no end in sight.

Billy Zane for Lex Luthor in MOS 2!

The character development in MOS was appalling to be honest - each and every actor that they hired could have done brilliant work if they had been given something to work with. The film isn't without merit, some scenes work really well but when they are surrounded by what is, in my opinion, first draft scripting then it all becomes really bland.

And my only gripe about him killing Zod was that it seemed to me that there were a number of other options available to stop a villain who was using his superpower of NOT blinking and slowly turning his head. Superman being forced to kill an enemy is something that holds a lot of dramatic promise but was so badly done it lost that.


The product placement of a giant 'SEARS' sign ruined it more me....maybe next time pick a store more successful or relevant to our lives like Woolworths or OTASCO.

I totally agree with you about character development. It seems a real weakness of Zach Snyder's. He is really strong in other areas, but terrible when it comes to empathetic characters.

My biggest problem was the way they set up the Superman killing Zod scene, which seemed contrived (the whole "zod moves his eyes slowly from left to right bit"). I'm hoping that this was set up to be deliberately controversial, so it could be tackled in the sequel. It was an origin story after all, so maybe Superman hasn't worked out his ethical position yet.

This writer obviously never read the Dark Knight Miller series.....Batman with the government is a ludicrous conceit....although Batman noticing that Superman is a jerk after all that destruction makes sense.

"Zack Snyder is the 90's Image comics director of comic book fare"
That is very accurate, Superman is probably out buying belt pouches as we speak

Wrong...that was the best part of the entire movie. You probably prefer Singer's emo Superman not throwing one punch in the entire film. Superheroes are action heroes and that sequence at the end of MoS was superb.

Very true about the boring characters...that was mainly the problem with the crappy script but you have to put some of the blame on Zach Snyder.

And Affleck as Batman wasn't "bold". It was a safe, cowardly choice , especial with so many better options out there.

For me, the best parts of Man Of Steel were easily the scenes where he's trying to make sense of his powers and who he is - both as a child and an adult.

The scenes where he is freaked out by his x-ray vision; rescues the drowning kids and refrains from hitting the bully (twice) were all fantastic.

The end was, to me, mostly huge explosions and special effects which I've seen done before elsewhere.

Superman had to kill him. It's not like then maniacally laughed his head off. He was visibly upset. Sad even.
The Rock for Cyborg

I liked it. However it is only one film so far, and a polarizing one. Here's what I'm looking forward to, in order of excitement.

Fox (xmen)
Fox (fantastic four)

WB was below Sony to me. No longer. Apocalypse is my favorite big bad though so xmen is second until further notice. I know fox will unite their franchises but thus far they haven't done it, haven't seen so much as a trailer for It, not suggesting there is one but you know what I mean. that union may elevate FF; it may lower xmen. We'll see

I dont think it was the best part but it was needed. We have been waiting to see Superman Vs Zod really go at for years!

The battle in Superman II was of course great, but now we can see him flying at speed and really show what would happen if two super beings went at it!

The best action scene for me all involved Faora-Ul kicking the c**p out of everyone. The scene where she beats up about 7 soldiers at once, she moves almost stop/start as that is what it would look like if someone with super-speed would fight! Was a very impressive scene.

Not saying it wasn't enjoyable (or that it wasn't the best part of the movie to begin with). Just went on too long.

Exactly. Batman getting involved because this big blue idiot wantonly destroyed half of Metropolis and needs to be stopped... yes. Maybe the Amazons thinking they need to get involved too.. yes. But go read Byrne's "Man of Steel" post-Crisis reset miniseries: Batman figures out who Superman is before they ever meet. But a Bruce Wayne-Lex Luthor meeting on screen would be awesome. (Meanwhile, the fan-made BvS logo that everyone thinks is real has more legs than anything WB will ever release at this point.)

I preferred Man Of Steel to The Avengers. I for one, can't wait to see the new Batman.

Best Superman yet, still don't know why people are upset that some buildings got damaged.

Hopefully the next film builds on the events of the first as that is what made the Nolan Batman films good - actions had consequences.

Seriously . How does Batman win a fight against Superman ? What does he have on his utility belt that can hurt him ? I just don't see how the Universes can merge. They should be kept apart.

Here's the thing about Superman: he doesn't work in the 21st century in his current form. He was created at a time where America was a golden country that could do no wrong, an All-American hero that would defend the world using truth, justice and the American way. Whether this was how America was or wasn't is irrelevant: this is how America was presented to the world in the media.

Nowadays, people are more jaded. The West is embroiled in a war nobody wanted in the Middle East; America has been caught spying on the entire world and is unapologetic for doing so (yes, we all do it to each other, but I'm only focusing on America for this point); politicians like Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin have given the country an international reputation for ignorance; the treatment of Chelsea Manning and the prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay is appalling but nobody is doing anything about it; and so on.

Now imagine they had done Man of Steel with the Golden Age Superman, a man of justice and truth and all-American man who doesn't exist any more. Maybe it's just me talking as a Brit, but if I had gone to the cinema and seen that I would have either been extremely angry or fallen about laughing. It's just not believable any more. The reason Captain America works in the cinematic universe is because he was introduced in the correct timeframe, and then pushed into being the fish-out-of-water. We know that he's a relic from the past and that's why his niave belief in the values I mentioned are tolerated; he knows no other way. I'm hoping The Winter Soldier will be more about this, because it looks to be from the trailer.

tl;dr I did like Man of Steel so again, perhaps I'm biased. I can certainly understand why Superman fans didn't like it. But to my mind, the Golden Era Superman just doesn't work any more - the movie might work in the American market, but I imagine it would bomb in the international one.

Plus they already did the "Earth turns against Superman" bit in Man of Steel when Zod threatens to blow us all up, would just be repeating what's gone before. =/

The problem with this approach is you turn Superman into the bad guy. Sure, Luthor may scheme in the background but... it's kinda hard to ignore that the big blue emo hunk did kinda destroy half of Metropolis when he could easily have moved the fight away. There's no, for lack of a better word, path to redemption in this scenario.

Which actually leads me to a big problem I have with Man of Steel. By bringing Zod out first isn't it going to be a bit tricky to set up Luthor as a credible villain? They run a real risk of him seeming a major step backwards in SvB. As I've said before I really want this to turn out well but just don't hold out much hope at the moment. Never have I wanted to be more wrong about a movie...

it wasn't the crapness of the design that put me off the Krptonians. It was how incredibly dumb they were. This is a space faring race who sat there while there planet exploded and no-one thought of leaving?

I know that they were supposed to have been in denial about the destruction of Krypton, but they managed to summon up those dildo-ships for Zod in about thirty seconds. Jor-el managed to knock together an interstellar pod for Supes in the Kryptonian equivalent of his garage, so it wasn't like they were short of space tech

I think making him the "bad guy" in the public's eye in the film would be a great, bold move.

Then you have the redemption arc, as he realises how dangerous he is and learns to control his power more.

Read The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller. Then you'll get your answer :)

Also, remember Superman has a very specific weakness and Batman is The World's Greatest Detective - if anyone has the resources and intelligence to figure it out, it's him.

the vast majority of people, me included, felt MOS was a big mess--and I love Superman, and would have been very open to a well done re-imaging. The problems here are too many to mention--the script was a mess, the directing ugly and choppy, and without meaningful flow or character development--at some point, we have a discussion about something that was very poorly done, and discuss why people do and dont like it because of the "concept" (in this case reimaging Supes)--but really, a good story is a good story, and good directing is good directing, and characters we care about (as conveyed by the actors) matter, and this film had none of the above, despite the advantage of starting with one of the most iconic stories of the 20th century, and a history of fans loving a character for over 70 years. All this was wasted, and worse, it prevents another more capable director and team from creating the new generation of stories of Superman, which SHOULD be GREAT. it was all just a big mess--and so long as Snyder is involved, it is hard to see that changing.DARN!!!!!!!

I thought the first 50% of the movie was great.

The second half felt like Michael Bay style destruction-porn. Every punch resulted in buildings toppling. It was so over-the-top constantly that it actually became boring.

And that's purely from a viewer's standpoint, not taking into account 'innocents' in the buildings, etc.

Affleck, on the other hand......that would be great to see, him as Director of MOS II

Problem I have with that thinking is MoS goes to the extreme and gives us a Superman that's actually (whisper this quietly) kinda Batman with powers and no moral code. Would a Golden Era Christopher Reeve style Superman work? Probably not. A bit too corny, a bit too old fashioned.

But that's no reason to strip all the good stuff away! Give him the exact same upbringing as MoS but with Pa Kent not doing the ridiculous 'you must hide away despite being so important and destined to change the world' thing. Clark maybe saves his dad from the tornado without being seen (simple for him) but the strain of the event brings on a heart attack and Pa dies in Clark's arms in that underpass. You now have the same modern take wandering the world looking for understanding but with a solid moral code to work with and a proper tragedy that teaches him one final lesson - that there's some things he can't do.

Once Zod shows up you can have the same fights but with Superman actively working to protect innocents. Wait, sorry, one change (now that I think about) would be at the Kent homestead Superman flattens Zod for hurting his mother then one of Zod's minions smashes Superman into the middle of town. That way you avoid him endangering the whole population for no damn reason and still get the gratuitous product placement, everyone wins! It even *fixes* the question of why Superman keeps the fight with Zod in Metropolis as Zod can threaten civilians if Superman tries to lure him off anywhere. Hell, it even makes the end of the movie make WAY more sense as the scene with the flash-fried family would be a very personal microcosm of their whole confrontation to that point rather than being pulled out of nowhere. Then you can go into a sequel just like DoG outline only now Superman is a sympathetic character rather than a bit of a jerk. IMO of course.

Honestly, the more I think about this film the more I'm convinced that it's the treatment of Pa Kent that so badly hurts everything that follows. All they had to do was let him echo one of Jor-El's lines, namely: "They'll hurt him" "How?" and keep the moral lessons he teaches Clark and things hang together so much better.

zack snyder is an incompetent film maker and these movies will nothing more than hollow c.g.i. f**k fests whilst he remains at the helm

I realise I do not know you, but you are a grown man on a site called Den of Geeks.

With that in mind, I put all my money on you watching the sequel whether you liked Man of Steel or not.

True, even though I liked the film I did not understand Pa Kent's character at all. Perhaps he should have been more "you're meant to change things but try and keep it quiet, okay?", with Clark then debating about his personal safety vs. the safety of the world.

This film will make a tonne of money regardless of it being any good or not.

It's the first ever film to feature the two biggest comic book characters of all time.

If history has taught us anything, franchise success does not rely on artistic quality.

You only have to remember the fact that they are currently filming Transformers 4.

Looked like something straight out of a video game - all too obviously CGI

Heroes are always, always, always presented with an impossible choice. Kill villain (and thus descend to their level) or allow villain to keep killing being just one possible variation. Heroes always, always, always find the third alternative. The test of the writer is how good/believable/non-deus-ex-machina they make this third alternative.

Just my 2 cents, but having Superman (a hero who more than any other, will always find the 'right' way to win) snap some dudes neck having been unable to defeat him by punching alone, is breathtakingly arrogant on the part of the writers. You want to make a hero for the modern times who kills as a default approach? Make a new hero. Only...he won't be a hero.

And while I'm here - Superman's emotional response to killing Zod? I guess it might have made sense if he went down the 'you're from my home planet? Wow - I'll do everything I can to help you - you're the link to my past' route earlier in the film. But...nope. Was he emotional when he was beating the piss out of him, when presumably any blow could have broken his neck? 'Kin disaster of a film, man.

I loved the whole 'the worlds not ready' idea, but I also think it was an odd situation to let him die.

I mean, even if you didn't have superpowers you would go and try and save your dad. That was my issue with that scene. He had so much time to go and help, it's not like he had to use super speed or anything. He just stood and watched the WHOLE thing.

If I had been one of the people behind Clark I would have had a go at him! "Why are you just standing there! Go help your dad you selfish punk!" haha.

I think that's why I liked that bit. Looked like a special move from Street Fighter II Turbo or something!

People complain about the amount of destruction in MoS (which I agree was too much) but it's not like its the first time it happened, just look at Star Trek Into Darkness when the ship crashed into the city at the end probably killing thousands; or even The Avengers, Godzilla (1998), Independence Day, all have massive building destruction with a huge death toll.

I've got no issue with a kitchen sink approach, as long as the movie is driven by an interesting dynamic between Superman and Batman, probably a rivalry that will give way to an alliance (though it sure would be nice to see something more complex). Bringing in other characters is a way of introducing/teasing them. In a perfect world, they'd get their own films, but I'm not sure WB is going to have the patience for that (which is a pity). In the end, it comes down to writing/directing. I'm not sure it'll work out, but it barely matters - I mean, who am I kidding? I'll go to the movie.

While not really disputing what you say, the innocent version of Superman worked in 1978 which was a few years after Vietnam and wasn't a particularly golden age for the United States as far as the rest of the world was concerned, not just because of Vietnam.

I suspect if film makers skilled enough had wanted the Golden age hero to work in 2013, they certainly could have. The parts of the film that I responded most too were the elements that echoed that approach and I say that as a doddering Scottish misanthrope.

they didn't have time did you watch the movie, all the other outpost were abandoned after artificial baby things, you cany evacuate the entire planet within a couple hours.

I see your points, but I'm not really sold on the idea that because we live in a more jaded and cynical time, Superman therefore automatically doesn't work. In fact, I think in many ways the essential character of Superman - someone who always strives to do the right thing, who embodies supposedly 'lost' values, and who inspires others to do the same - is more important now than ever.

Yes, the jingoistic aspect of the character is problematic, and could pretty easily be done away with. I'm not that up on current comics continuity, but hasn't one version of Superman basically given up his US citizenship in protest, or something? And the phrase "truth, justice and the American way" hasn't been used for years. The character can still represent truth, justice and freedom without automatically being a "USA! USA!"-style patriot. It's not like the virtues of truth, justice and freedom are extinct, it's just that they seem to be drowning in a sea of greed, division and corruption. All the more reason to harness them as powerful weapons, stand up for the oppressed and remind people that there's another way of doing things. As a citizen of the world, instead of just an American, Superman really could represent something powerful.

I liked Man of Steel a lot, but I ultimately felt that the Nolan-isation of the character was a hindrance. I'm all for exploring some slightly greyer moral areas with Superman, but he can still stand for something. Something better. One of the essential aspects of the character is that he's the ultimate outsider, but still embodies the core principles that, at our best moments, make humanity great. I think there was scope for an inspiring take on the character, that captured his essential optimism, but also explored the value of such optimism in a fairly pessimistic world. In many ways, I think taking the dark and gritty route was the easy option. It would have been much braver to try to present a truly good character battling insurmountable odds, and attempting to stay pure.

Sorry, this is probably a TL;DR situation! I just think you made interesting points and felt compelled to offer my take :)

then if he helped he would of had to use his powers dummy, which everybody would see, I swear do ppl like you even watch the movie or just complain from other ppl who saw it.

why do ppl keep saying half the city you need to watch again, about 10% only got destroyed

Why does there always have to be one person to start slagging someone off on here. Can we not just have our own opinions and have a nice discussion. What is the point in calling me a dummy.

You ask if I saw the movie. What a ridiculous thing to suggest. I should be asking you the same thing.

His dad only 'vanished' once the twister was RIGHT on top of him. Which showed that even an old man could withstand this tornado until the very last second. So surely any human being with some courage could have run out and saved him.

We're here to debate and discuss. Not slag people off. We're all for the same reasons, our love of films. What do you get out of having goes at people?

I'd absolutely be up for a more cheerful Superman - heck, the approach ought really to have been a more Thor-like situation, with a serious story and lighter aspects thrown in to make a good blend of light-hearted drama. And I have to admit, I've not been following the comics much either - DC pretty much lost my interest after their most recent reboot - so I didn't know that Superman had done that.

"One of the essential aspects of the character is that he's the ultimate outsider, but still embodies the core principles that, at our best moments, make humanity great. I think there was scope for an inspiring take on the character, that captured his essential optimism, but also explored the value of such optimism in a fairly pessimistic world."

That would be a good way to go. They might even try to take Superman that way in MoS 2 (having had him kill, personally, with his own two hands might have made him examine just who he wants to be and decide one way or the other). I have to admit I did find this Clark a little too grumpy even if I did like him - perhaps if he had been closer to Reeve's interpretation of the character, with the dark stuff happening around him, it might have made the movie a bit more relatable to comic fans.

I dunno. Perhaps it's just my nationality showing, but the constant barrage of all-American heroes saving the world is wearing a little thin for me (and perhaps I'm overlaying this argument onto Superman when I shouldn't be). It's why I liked Pacific Rim. Okay, it was the American hero who saved the world at the end of it, but he was accompanied by a Chinese woman, his commanding officer was British (as was one of the scientists), and the guy he was competing with was Australian.

True, but America was also trying to pave over Vietnam in any way possible, trying to make it so that it never happened. Star Wars came out in 1977 and was an extremely optimistic "us vs. the universe" piece with what was essentially an all-American boy scout at the helm in the character of Luke Skywalker.

I do feel that if Batman Begins hadn't been a thing and Man of Steel was still greenlit, it would be a very different film. I do wish that cinema would pull its head out of its depressed, murky butt and actually do something cheerful for a change...but then when it does, the result is GI Joe 2 wherein the American soldiers can stamp into any country they want and blow stuff up and kill people with little to no recompense, all the while grinning like it's the best thing ever.

I still think Thor and Thor: The Dark World are good examples of films that can combine comedy and drama pretty well, at no detriment to the story or characters.

You're entitled to your opinion, as is jamesthemod. We're having a discussion. Feel free to contribute, but don't insult them just because they feel differently to you.

Yet Superman kills Zod in the Donner films by throwing him down an endless abyss with no powers and executes him in the comic books with kryptonite... but no one bitches about that huh? Go figure..just a bunch of Snyder haters. This movie is still my favorite super hero movie of 2013.

I have to agree that it went on too long, I preferred seeing H2H combined with the brute force because that makes it more interesting.

I don't know if you're joking but I've never heard of either of those

There's an awful lot of "maybe this will happen in the next movie" in this article, most of which is used to try and rationalise/justify some of the less popular aspects of MOS. It's like saying "OK, Elektra was a really bad movie, but if they make a sequel that does X and Y, you'll actually realise the first one was awesome!"

At the end of the day, the mass destruction, Superman killing Zod, those were bad aspects of the movie. But what made MOS a bad movie in itself was how dull, flat and lifeless it all was. And nothing that happens in subsequent movies is going to change that.

Movie? I thought we were talking about the novelization.

We couldn't evacuate a Planet Earth full stop (sorry, should that be comma?), but if we had space tech that could literally come out of the floor in a moments notice, we would make a pretty good go of it. We wouldn't just sit there and wait for death. There wasn't a single Kryptonian who thought to use it. Not one single one.

A lot of the buildings were evacuated though, when Superman flies out of the building Zod cuts in half with heat vision he flies into a bunch of cars, and you can see people were trying to get out of the city but they couldn't. Zack Snyder did say that only about 3,000 people died in Metropolis and that all of that happened for a reason. I see why people count this as a con for the movie when they find it boring but if these titans were really fighting there wouldn't be Avengers ultra-unrealistic lack of destruction which took me out of it.

I want him attached to Batman solo's or Justice League, Zack Snyder should only be directing Man of Steel movies, they should let him helm the franchise he created to maintain a certain tone unlike what happened with Bryan Singer and X-Men, yet somehow people blame him for X3 and XO: Wolverine...

Thor would definitely be a good template to follow! Unfortunately, it
seems that DC and Warner Bros are cherry-picking only their favourite
bit of Marvel's strategy - i.e. make boatloads of money with a team-up
picture - and ignoring everything else.

Definitely with you on all-American hero fatigue! In post 9/11 entertainment it seems that there are two main strands - overly-disillusioned types living in a perpetual depressing grey area, or overly-jingoistic types trying to reassert some lost idea of American heroic greatness. Both strands are exhausting!

The idea of Superman embodying our greatest values because he happened to crash to Earth at a certain time and in a certain mythologised area of America has always been problematic, it's not like Kansas was (or is) lacking in good ol' fashioned values like racism, homophobia, sexism and general small-mindedness (not that those are uniquely American, of course!). But the idea of him embodying these values because his parents were good people who showed him the best of humanity is still a powerful one. Which makes it more of a shame that Jonathan Kent was such a compromised character in Man of Steel.

There's a lot of potential in the idea of using what some have
seen as Superman's very un-Superman actions in Man of Steel to learn and grow
and become the truly pure-hearted character he's meant to be. I just
hope they don't balls it up!

The mass destruction actually put me in the movie, by that I mean I felt that Superman had to end this guy because there was no prison that could hold him, and he would only continue to get stronger. He wanted to kill people so the fight wouldn't have been taken anywhere. I have to admit it did get drawn out but the destruction itself was necessary to be addressed in the sequel. Superman killing Zod was also necessary for the future of Superman's career, Do you think he just starts out with that golden rule? There has to be a reason why he wouldn't kill a villain and now I believe he will have some psychological issues later on. I feel that those were the necessary aspects of the movie and that they had to be done to make sense of what the character will become and go through later on in his career. I thought it was a very good movie, and it wasn't dull I felt inspired at different points throughout the movie for example when he overcame the World Engine and they flashed reeve's face almost symbolizing that in that moment he was becoming "Superman". EVERYTHING that happens in the future movies will stem from this and I'm confident that they will be awesome. Sometimes when I read complaints it sounds like people don't want to like this movie.

Zack Snyder isn't all to blame here we still have David Goyer to worry about, he writes the characters, and dialogue which was choppy and boring (I would've liked to see more talking during the fights). I don't think Zack is the problem I think it's David Goyer

I thought that Krypton looked awesome in Man of Steel and created a different world, I liked that it didn't just seem like a slightly different version of earth. They did that crap to themselves by digging too deep and exhausting their resources, they didn't have anywhere to go. Jor-El was a scientist so it's not bizarre that he would be able to create a ship using the phantom drive technology to get his son with everybody's DNA inside of him off to another planet. They put Zod in the phantom zone because it's worse than death, tormenting, mind numbing, and torture. The only reason they escaped was because the explosion happened to knock them free the govt. didn't necessarily know that was going to happen so they probably assumed he would be in there forever.
Actaully- They did give him a sentence so maybe they thought they had more time to live and we don't know how much time passed in all of this... I mean did Lara have Kal and then be dressed up and skinny again in that sentencing room all withing a couple of hours?

Becca, the exact same zeitgeist was in play when the original Superman film was released in '78--and it is even addressed in the film. Watergate was still fresh in people's minds and the 60's counterculture had been incorporated into mainstream existence. Most of the cinematic "heroes" of the time were renegades and anti-heroes; and yet Supes comes along in primary colors, a spit-curl, and underoos and Lois laughs in his face--until she sees what he can do. The whole "he doesn't fit in our era" argument is a copout. Keep everything around him real and modern without compromising the character and people will buy it.

If two super-beings are having a fight in a city there should be damage, destruction and even death.

When I first saw Matrix 3 I remember thinking the Neo/Smith fight would be a great template for a Superman/Zod fight. This film supplied that for me so I was more than happy.

i only blame Snyder because I felt exactly the same way about Watchmen. Visually amazing, but no depth at all. Somehow he seemed to have sucked all the life out of the script. 300 was the same.

Goyer also wrote Batman and Blade, and they didn't seem so lifeless.

Good point, but you're kind of making mine.

So, 2013 Superman is faced with the exact same problem as old-school Superman. Fight on with Zod, and risk a perpetually devastating stalemate, or find another way out.

Old-school Superman runs away from Metropolis to the fortress of solitude, sacrificing his reputation in the process. Zod thinks he's won, and goes to finish the fight. Once the bad guys arrive, Superman tricks them into losing their powers by tricking Lex luthor into betraying him, and by using a power-stripping machine set up earlier (which was integral to the plot - rendering superman briefly powerless to prove his love for Lois, and allowing Zod to get a foothold in his world domination plan). Superman wins because he found another way.

2013 Superman breaks Zods neck.

You see what I mean? There's just nothing going on at that point in the film more interesting than two people punching each other. No emotional subtext, no complexity. The issue isn't him killing Zod, it's him being a boring dumbass. I'm not anti Snyder, I'm anti Goyer. The same guy who had Batman lose to Bane at the outset by only being able to try and beat him up, only to have him return at the end and beat Bane by BEATING HIM UP IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. Lame, lame, lame.

Why yes, I have seen the film. A couple of times actually, the second time desperately hoping my initial impressions were wrong and trying my hardest to hand wave any potential problems away. Thanks for asking though!

As for this specific issue there's one big issue with the 'but people would have seen!' line. The dog lives. So there's enough time after Pa gets hurt for the dog to be rescued and for Pa to get out of the car, hobble a couple of steps, realise he can't make it then stand by the car waiting for the tornado to take him. Clark could *easily* have made it to Pa without doing anything superhuman and started back. All he's really got to do is find something they can duck behind (so they're out of sight) just before the tornado hits, dig a big hole into which he puts Pa, wedge a car as 'shelter' then use his own body and strength to protect his dad. Ta-da, instant plausible excuse as to the 'miracle' that they survived. One in a million shot but everyone knows they happen all the time.

That's just one example by the way, there's at least a dozen ways that Clark could have saved him, the easiest being Clark disobeying Pa and going to get the dog himself as it's the obvious thing to do which those watching would have been expecting. And here's another question... Clark has ALREADY been seen rescuing people by the kids on the bus who identify him to Louis. What difference does a few more make to him if it saves the life of his father? If it was a one-off with his entire secret identify at stake fair enough but they've already blown that particular plot point earlier which renders Pa's sacrifice moot in the grand scheme of things.

You're right, there should be.

But each blow felt like it was followed by a ponderous, slow, focused shot of a building toppling. It just began to feel drawn out and repetitive.

Why should he care about the City and a bit of destruction, after all he was fighting an alien invasion. And he had no affiliation with the people of Metropolis. You fanboys need to go outside once in a while.

Oh no...!

By reading your very valid point, it's just made it stupidly clear that Clark has already showed off his powers in much more elaborate ways as you say!

At the time when saved those oil workers from the rig, he still believed the World was not ready right...? Yet dozens of people saw him walking about ON FIRE, jumping an impossible gap, and then holding up a massive oil rig on his own.

SO why didn't he save his damn dad!

I love Man of Steel so much, but that was the ONE thing that I did not like about it.

Sooooo.... you're saying a prolonged, unexciting, visually-boring, creatively bankrupt steaming pile of CGI was actually DC's master plan to get people hooked for the next movie? That's like saying getting punched in the face is a good thing because it makes you forget your wife left you.

Hey, I *WANT* Superman vs Batman to be great. (I want all comic movies to be great.) But the *TERRIBLE* third act of MOS ruined a great set up. Sooo disappointing. Pretending that third act was planned makes no sense. How about ending MOS with a great third act instead? THAT would have laid the groundwork for a series of DC blockbuster movies. Don't bother trying to polish a turd.

Superman doesn't kill people by snapping their necks. If you want to make a film with a hero that snaps necks don't make a Superman film. If you want to make a realistic film that portrays a post 9/11 world don't make a comic book movie about a man who can fly. Even Batman - a lunatic that dresses up as a bat and gets young boys to dress up as Robin and fight crime doesn't kill people.
And even if the new film does address the sickening levels of destruction (Superman seemed quite happy to smash up Smallville with Zod's face when he went near his Mom) does it really hint at some big plan? Only if the story/script for the new film was already written. More likely it will just show that there was a lot of negative feedback and they've seen it and want to do something about it.

Do you see Zod die in the Donner films? No. So you don't know he did die. If the pit has no bottom Superman might fly down and rescue him later. Or maybe there's a soft landing under all that dry ice smoke.

I don't care what the naysayers say - I like heroes that make the tough decisions to put genocidal lunatics down!

Which is my point they do not exist anymore they went out of business and no one remembers them much like SEARS will be soon....

By the end of Man of Steel, Earth would 100% be better off if Superman had never arrived. And that's a depressing vibe for a Superman film.

Yeah those panels above went down so well they rebooted the entire DC universe after it, erasing all of it from history.

These panels were done way before Flashpoint.

Regardless, the point is the same: the universe and these characters were rebooted. Also not one of those panels shows Supes making a tough decision (even if Batman shooting the DC's version of the devil can be considered 'tough')

And how many times have both Marvel & DC Comics rebooted their properties? It doesn't really matter these are fictional characters that have been portrayed multiple different ways. I say just go with the flow.

Fair enough. Everyone is different. I mean it made a lot of money and brought Superman back to the fore. For me, it was a decent Sci-fi film but not a good Superman film.

Y'all MOS haters spent time to put your inputs to this article... unbelievable! I betcha you'd be the first in line to ride Zack's d 1ck when the sequel comes out :P

He also wrote Ghost Rider 2, and Blade Trinity.

I thought he only worked on story and was co-writing with Jonathan Nolan on the actual script for Batman.

I hate MOS. I love MOS. I don't know.

Woolworths is old school!!!!

That's why introducting Batman could work so well. He is the darker, more pessimistic hero that would be the modern antithesis of the golden age Superman.

He used his powers, but then had to change his identity. He learned to use his powers for good and remained humble about them because of his dad's lessons.
The dad did not want him to save him because the last lesson was that he could not save everyone. Even though he has these powers he needs to know when to use them and when to not.
If the dad just let him run around using his powers, not only would he be considered a "freak" from a very young age (when he was not yet ready to handle it mentally and emotionally), he would also be cocky and feel superior (making him more like Zod). His dad's lessons and sacrifice made him Superman and not like Zod (who viewed humans as inferior and disposable). Which is why he killed Zod instead of joining him to rule the Earth.

What was Superman supposed to do? Punch Zod then fly around catching falling bricks? What the movie showed is what I think would happen if this took place in reality. Both characters were practically immortal and more powerful than anything on the planet. I'm sure Superman was not happy about what was happening to the buildings and people, but if he didn't defend himself and fight Zod then the WHOLE planet would be rubble, not just 1 city.
Killing Zod was the positive moral choice. He killed one man to save millions. And it was made very obvious that he had a hard time making this choice and the movie left no doubt that Supes would have preferred to have avoided all the destruction.
The life in the movie was Superman coming to grips with his powers, his father making the ultimate sacrifice to set his son on the right path to being a humble and good hero instead of an arrogant, stone-cold killer like Zod. On top of that add some fun action that left us wondering who would live and die and you get a film that is anything but flat.

"Definitely with you on all-American hero fatigue! In post 9/11 entertainment it seems that there are two main strands - overly-disillusioned types living in a perpetual depressing grey area, or overly-jingoistic types trying to reassert some lost idea of American heroic greatness. Both strands are exhausting!"

I've never seen anyone so succinctly sum up everything wrong with Hollywood cinema post-9/11. Bravo!

Let's just hope that MoS 2 delivers everything the more optimistic fans want in light of the backlash MoS received. We can hope, right?

Superman not caring about "the city and a bit of destruction" is kinda the point. If Superman doesn't care what's the point of him?

The comparison with other movies is unfair. Superman is an ideal. In the comics, other heroes look up to him. In MOS, Superman flies Zod into a gas station in Smallville which then explodes. He could just as easily have flown him into an empty field. It's a small difference but has a huge effect on the tone. Independence Day and Godzilla are disaster movies. The Avengers has a few scenes with the heroes trying to save people.

I was thinking about this last night after I had watched it, surely the repercussions of Superman and the World machines will affect the universe, such as for Aquaman, he could see it as a threat from the surface dwellers or the Amazons see it as a threat to their own world and must send a ambassador aka Wonder Woman to clean it up.

I don't get people's grip with the whole killing and destruction thing, Superman has killed Zod in the comics and having two super beings fly around would of course cause a mass of destruction just as a earthquake or a bombing would.

And besides I don't think a golden age Superman (which all people want for some nostalgic reasons) wouldn't work today, he would come off too cheesy and never relevant, he had to change like all comic book characters, they need to be reinvented.

It's not a binary choice. Does he have to be Golden Age Supes or neck snappy Supes? Somewhere in the middle is surely better.

Unfortunately that was part of the source material from comics, you can't just change that, there was a rumour prior to the films release about krypton surviving and it was greeted with negative reactions. So we just have to live with it I guess

Woolworths? This movie wasn't set in south africa Hahahah

Yup, I'm pretty sure it is you talking as a brit haaha

I understand your point, I really do but one important thing to point out is that the 2013 Zod isn't stupid like the one in the Donner films.. I mean no offence but that guy had no purpose and if Superman would have left in this movie, Zod would have just killed everyone in metropolis instead of following him...he did say " I will kill very one of them"...anyways I did not mind the neck break and still liked the film...although we do seem to agree on one thing...I like Zack Snyder...i don't really like Goyer :P

IF you watch the extras on the DVD, youd find out how obviously wrong you are--I was shocked at how many scenes that I assumed were pure CGI werent, but rather lots of quick cuts between live action wire and stunt work and CGI

No offence seriously but that's some pretty stupid logic...without powers Zod is mortal..the simple cold would have killed him in minutes.

I HATED that scene. It's sad, but truthfully, Clark was just wanting to honor his dad's (crazy/suicidal) wishes. It'd be a lot better (and more satisfying) if he just yelled to his father "You're not my dad!" (echoing an earlier scene) and saved him anyway.

"Don't reveal your powers..until you are ready for it. You think you're ready. Well, you're wrong because I'm your daddy and know more of your thoughts than yourself. At least, that's what the screenwriter said."-Pa Kent.

This is exactly what I want the sequel to be. Thank you

What cold? The cold that isn't killing Superman before he gets his powers back, Lois and Lex? Anyway the logic of it wasn't my point. I was just trying to stress there is a difference in the level of violence between Superman 2's Zod defeat and MOS. One fits the character of Superman, one doesn't.

But for GOODNESS sakes. Get a good or GREAT director to do the Justice League movie. Cuarón, Del Toro, and Ben Affleck should at least be considered. For a lighter movie, I think Brad Bird would be awesome. A Goyer-written, Zack Snyder directed Justice League will probably be more problematic than MOS already WAS due to the amount of characters. Zack should either be micromanaged by a Bruce Timm calibre producer who cares for the characters or booted, Goyer should be left to give ideas to better writers, and Nolan should have little, if any, influence on a world with magic/scifi and superpowers.

WB should make having a GREAT justice league movie be their number one priority in the future, and should gradually introduce elements into their solo movies. (there should be one or two movies after Superman/Batman sneaking elements into their stories to build it up, and then they should think of solo franchises afterward.)

Snyder's a loose canon ( but does have an exceptional talent for replicating the imagery of comics, and getting strong leading men.), Goyer's stuck in that early 2000 Bryan Singer/Chris Nolan mentality of stripping the color and stylization away from comics, as well as having clunky dialog and questionable characterization to boot.

As far as Nolan, he'd rather be making new movies outside of the superhero genre.

There were six avengers. Six. Superman can't be at both places at once. Cap and Hawkeye (I think) were trying to contain the battle while Hulk was carelessly smashing through buildings, but in an isolated manner.

Easily moved the fight away? I'm sorry, I feel like the old movies kind have tainted views of Superman to the point of irrationality. Superman was trying to punch Zod through the sky. It was only when Zod crashed into the Wayne satellite that he was stunned enough for Superman to manhandle.

How do Captain America, Thor, and Iron man ALL survive a three way fight with no major injuries? The Avengers have different realism levels. Let's keep THEM apart, too :D

Superman has raced The Flash so doesn't need to be in both places at once; he can get there quick enough. Secondly it's not so much the damage as his lack of trying to minimise it. By the end of MOS why should anyone look up to Superman? All he did was smash stuff. It even ends with him smashing a satellite as a joke. Smash, smash, smash.

And he freezes in the arctic. Good going, :D

If Superman doesn't work why make a blockbuster about him? Why do people want to go and see the films if he doesn't work? Why has he endured 75 years if he dates so easily? Not many people liked Superman Returns but it made more than most of the X-Men films.

I honestly couldn't disagree more. All of your negatives were things I loved. Visuals were great, I found it VERY exciting (especially the third act you hate) and the CGI is some of the best I've seen in a super hero movie. Speaking of that stop over exaggerating the CGI in this film. You talk about it like the entire film is animated. A LOT of it actually used live action if you watch behind the scene videos.

Yeah, fair point. I'm struggling to think of a way they could keep that in but it not seem dumb

South Africa? Heh. Do you realize that Woolworth's originated in New York?

They forgot the fun, that was the problem with Man of Steel. I was watching two superheros in an endless CGI fight knocking down thousands of buildings and i was bored.

Batman can get away with a more serious grownup tone, but Superman is a far more impausible character. The superman film was overlong, pretentous, and silly, but not in a good way. Give me Superman the movie everytime.

We still have Woolworths in Australia.

It _was_ bold in the sense that he was ridiculed that last time he dressed up as a superhero...

If you have less time, check out the Justice League: Doom animated movie also.

This movie can be and should be the biggest movie of a time, hopefully they don't screw it up


Over a billion

I'm pretty sure this is how most people feel but I love it

I know right!!!!! That isn't even that much destruction compared to how big the city is.

That's not half

They said the second movie was already done as in story not script, they've done some planning. Would you have preferred Superman lobotomize him with heat vision? In the movie universe it hasn't been confirmed that Robin/Nightwing or any of the others even exist, and not that much of the city was destroyed re-watch the movie they kept showing different parts of the same area. Superman was pissed because they messed with his mother and lost all sensibility. Superman had to kill Zod that way because obviously punching him and sliding him on the side of a building weren't working so people always say he wouldn't do that yet they never give a real alternative.

I think that is something that every superhero faces... would the villain have come to earth if I didn't live here?

Batman didn't defeat Bane... Catwoman blew him away with the Batpod

It's exactly what happened in the Nolan Batman films. Check out the 'escalation' speech at the end of Batman Begins.

My problem with MoS is how soulless it was. The cast is full of talented actors who've done great work in the past yet in MoS they had no discernible personality other than spouting exposition, including Superman himself. I have no reason to care for any of these characters, and now I'm supposed to believe they'll be able to properly develop him, Batman, WW & Lex?

No, the cold icy depth of the endless chasm. Nevertheless he still kills him. And back to my point, stop basing Superman off the Donner films. In the comics he EXECUTES him with kryptonite. The neck break really isn't that much of a stretch.

Because he's the Goddamn Batman!

'Iron Man 3' also tried to do something about and commented on American-style jingoism. Tony Stark is caught in the heat of the moment and goes all-American globalist anti-terrorist rage and gets punished for it. Meanwhile the real home-grown villains are using the stereotypical image of the evil outsider (the Mandarin) to hide their own deeds.

It was all pretty good commentary on the current state of things and still managed to be a fun romp, and still got flak for it by American audiences and the more stereotypical comic-fanboy-purists. Perhaps its financial success and that of 'Thor: The Dark World' and 'Pacific Rim' (which I also liked for the above reasons you mentioned) will help create the precedents needed for better storytelling in future.

Perhaps it's a generational thing or maybe it's a film that appeals to those who are more interested in video games (not saying anything against those of you out there) than those of us who prefer films. The problem I had with the action in MoS was that it just felt like looking at a pinball machine game. I also don't like the synthentic reality look of CGI either.

Hi J-Beef i understand your point. But i think that Superman in 1978 is a different beast to Superman in 2013. They are also competing against Marvel. No-body seemed to mind the destuction in those movies. Yes Superman shouldn't kill people, but he killed Zod in Donners superman by pushing them into a chasm. So is it any different because he broke his neck rather than pushing him into the chasm?

Hi Jon. I understand your point and agree to some extent. but for me there is a difference between snapping a neck and falling in a hole and disappearing from shot. Just the level of violence really. But hey, I enjoyed the movie-it just didn't feel like a Superman I recognised as huge comic book fan.

OK but that is one comic, by one writer in a 75 year publication history that most people didn't like at the time. Is it a huge stretch to believe a comic book villain survived that fall? Not really, comic book fans have had to put up with more outlandish stuff than that. But hey it's all just opinion at the end of the day. Either you're OK with a Superman that is happy to snap necks or you're not. In a way I'm just happy to see Superman getting so much attention and discussion.

But that's Batman. And the "would Gotham be better with or without Batman?" is a common theme in the comics. I mean he's just a vigilante at the end of the day. Superman is the opposite-he's pretty much a god. In the comics Lex thinks Superman is too helpful for humanity and is holding back their advances. Not is MOS. He's just a wrecking ball.

Cheers! :) And yeah, we can definitely hope... to be honest, even if it's a humongous clusterf**k, at least it'll be an entertaining one!

Zod was, at that point, totally fixated on Superman and had learnt to fly. He wasn't actively trying to target citizens or do anything other than turn Supe's nose from an outie to an innie. All Clark has to do is fly away! Zod gives chase and they touch down in, for arguments sake, the middle of the Sahara!

I'm also going to say this... I know this is a really minor change to be getting hung up on. But that's my problem with MoS, there's a few minor choices made by the director / writer / producers that have drastic consequences to the overall narrative. I'm not normally one for plot holes and can wave away most problems but MoS's issues have such a fundamental and drastic impact on the title character it becomes almost impossible to do that.

I see your point in a way. But people keep saying he didn't have a choice. MOS wasn't a documentary. Superman had no other choice because the writers decided he had no other choice. They could have written a film with literally ANY other outcome if they wanted. But the writers chose the neck snap. Not Superman.

It was just jarring and made me think 'Who the f*ck under 60 shops at SEARS?' If you are going to do a product placement at least be clever...they could have had an Apple store and everyone inside filming the fight with their iphones etc...

and I am old enough to remember Woolworths but not old enough to shop at SEARS....which is still old!

Yeah I'll watch it eventually, I just won't go to see it at the cinema or hand over any hard earned cash for it. I'll wait until someone I know has it on Blu-Ray.

He was already labelled a freak after he lifted that school bus out of the river.

I know the point they were making, but it didnt work.

Thats why Jonathan Kent SHOULD have died from a heart attack. Because that is one thing Superman can do nothing about. A simple thing like that.

Well, I guess he could fly around the earth at super speed and reverse time?

Yeah I'll see it eventually. I'm just not going out to see it or handing over any cash. I'll wait until someone I know buys it on Blu-Ray. As a fan of the characters (although Superman is by no means one of my favourites) the only thing I can do to support them is boycott sub-par work the same way I drop comics that lose their way.

I don't want them to make the film with the critics in mind. I want them to make the film for me, because I loved the first film. I thought the criticisms were silly. Zod's machine killed most people before the battle. Superman needed to go to the other machine to stop it as it would take too long for a plane to go, Superman can't be in two places at once, the comics show mass destruction during super powered fights all the time, and in regards to killing Zod, Superman doesn't kill humans, I have no problem with him killing a genetic psychopath with the powers of a God.

You have no problem with it. The public in the MOS universe might feel slightly uncomfortable with a guy who can snap someone "with the powers of a god's" neck. In the MOS universe they haven't really seen the good side of Superman. All they've seen is a lot of smashing and then him killing the last member of his species.

Yep, I hear ya. But again, who defeats him ain't as important as how.

Batman, the greatest detective in the world, the guy who always, always has a backup plan, who always outsmarts every villain he's ever faced, is defeated by Bane because he underestimated him. Fair enough. So Bane breaks his back, and bungs him in a prison...somewhere, I dunno. Somehow Batman heals himself, and somehow gets back to Gotham (we'll let that one go), and when he finally gets face to face with Bane again, what does he do? What's his big plan? He punches him in the face again. Only this time for some reason Bane's mask breaks a bit (somehow, this didn't happen when Bane allowed Batman him to punch him full on in the face multiple times in the sewer).

Then, Catwoman saves Batman's sorry ass when Talia rocks up. Lame, lame, lame.

Apparently, it's now a feature of DC movies that their heroes be as dumb and boring as possible.

You're being over dramatic and in the end it's your own fault that you didn't like the movie, Superman isn't "happy" to snap necks, quit exaggerating. Nonetheless I am happy Superman is back in the spotlight as well.

MOS had THE WORST script all year and probably the worst movie too.. A dreadful dreadful movie. Just horrible. .Motivations all over the shop, pop up Lois....just excrementally bad.

Okay lets deal with this: NO ONE behaves like real people. He's done ZERO to to justify anyone thinking he's anything other than a harbinger of doom....Yet they think its hilarious when he smashes their satellite and laughs in their faces and the girls think he SOOO HOT LOL. Even the controversial killing was rendered stupid by shoehorning in a random family under threat from Zods lay-zors,, WHO ARE SUDDENLY REALLY IMPORTANT DESPITE TEH LAST HALF HOUR OF DESTRUCTION and seemed to suffer the inability to run forwards.out of that corner. I guess they are related to Charlize Theron in prometheus.

I simply cannot state how stupidly vile I found MOS. I'm not even a supes fanboi at all, but I know a bad film, and I know when they get supes super-wrong. It still hurts to think about it.

the best superhero movie of the year for people who don't like A)superheroes, and B) Movies. Obviously

I did like the movie (as a sci-fi blockbuster). There's a lot to enjoy. Cast for the most part does well with what they're given. I just think it could and should have been better and hate some of the changes they made to the Superman mythos.

movie logic!

Movie didnt show any aftermath! The Daily Planet was rebuilt just like that?

Ok!! Man of Steel I didnt like it.Not because the Zod neck. The effects are good but the major issue are the seriously who let his father dying but hey clark do. I think here they try to do the spiderman p. Parker guilt. He s a old teens Argue with his dad in a car and let him die. Plus Lois Lane got cut and he laser her trought the jumper, and coat. And leave her in Ice -20 or more and she s waking up like a princess. Too many things was wrong in this movie. I hope for them Superman vs Batman will have a better script. Davis Goyer are not so good where s involved fiction and no of C. Nolan. WB DC are really struggling and I hope we can see more better movies from them.

the new 52 WW doesnt have a problem with killing also.

Supes loses his powers in the 2nd movie, asks B-man to mentor him, breaks his back being human and gets stuck for 2/3 of the movie in some jail/pit until he falls down where the sunlight can seep thru. He regains his powers with a new appreciation of frailty and makes a renewed vow not to kill.

wonder why the people didnt just get out of the way of that fight.

Dont understand the complaints abt this movie. You have a guy who's practically god and you want to see him do what? Romance a reporter, change in a phonebooth or act like an affable moron? Let's move forward guys. At least the movie gets the DBZ level action right. As if no civilians get killed as collateral damage on/off panel in the comics. Its better than the recent THOR movie!

lobotomy would have been interesting, especially if someone got hold of Zod's body going forward.

So to move forward you want Superman to be less like.....Superman?

he he more like a burgeoning bromance between Supes and Batfleck like ST:into darkness. Thats seems to be the in thing these days...

they should have killed Kevin C earlier...

I suspect that family is quite glad they didn't get incinerated. Stopping an alien invasion isn't a good thing? So you're saying because you don't see him rescue a cat, the whole of the world will ignore the big picture? While I don't think you're wrong that there will be people who don't trust him in the next film, there will be people who do see him as a hero. And besides, the comics have shown the world not trusting Superman too.

They shouldn't have 'killed' Kevin C at all. Jonathan Kent dies of natural causes in the comic. With all his power Superman can't save him. In MOS Superman lets him die saving a dog to keep his powers hidden slightly longer. Except everyone on that school bus seemed to know he had super powers. And Lois worked out who he was pretty quick. And the men on the oil rig got a good look at him. And he told the military he was from Kansas. But apart from that Kevin Costner's death was really justified. I don't anyone who would watch their father die knowing they could save them. But for Superman to do it (the Superman who Jor-El thinks we'll all look up to). Crazy.

I've looked at Superman II again. No way do Zod and his pals die in that scene. It's too light hearted, the music, the expressions etc. Surely Lois isn't murdering that woman by punching her into the hole. I think they just fall down a wee bit and are then arrested later.

Lol no-one has even mentioned the fact that Lois' is a stone cold killer as well. Maybe theyre was a water slide like in the Goonies and they ended up with one eyed willies treasure? I live in hope.

Hahaha. Oh I really wish that were true. I'll never watch that scene in the same way again.

The way I looked at it, the Council of Elders seemed to be the governing body of Krypton and seemed to look upon leaving the planet as a totally absurd notion. They would not have recommended nor sanctioned a global evacuation because their thinking was a sterile one. In their minds, leaving the planet would be unthinkable, almost a dirty task that they would not abide by. Just think of how the Council female member said to Jor 'El - "Are you suggesting we evacuate the planet?" There was such an incredulous look on her face as though the suggestion was a filthy sacrilege. Jor 'El was obviously more open-minded, but I'd like to believe he wasn't the only one on the planet that thought that way.

But without the Council backing the notion of evacuation, the large majority of Kryptonians would have just put their trust in them and remained put. How many people actually do evacuate a city that's under threat of a hurricane or some sort when the local government says so? They just board up their houses and hunker down to bear it out. Look at the New Orleans Katrina disaster -- now think about what you said.

1. American ideals (essentially, individual rights--life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness) are distinct from the behaviors/views held by specific American individual people. His "naive belief" in these values should be replaced with which other values?
2. All the unpopular military & espionage policies are shameful in their self-sacrificial nature not in their aggression. They do little to actually end the threats permanently. They are pathetic half-measures born of a low self-esteem. The low self-esteem is the result of what I think you're implicitly arguing for--abandoning the "naive belief" in the moral superiority of individual rights. It's also the result of this current mix of utopianism and moral equivalence. Americans of the 1940s would not buy the fashionable idea that "we're imperfect, so we're no damn good." FDR and Truman would not understand the New Testament style of what passes for self-defense today.

I hated the whole military police state violence overkill.

Sponsored Links