Favorite modern Superman movie

[Last Son of Krypton]

As for Brando's Jor, he definitely references Clark's need for a normal life, but doesn't he only say that after Kal reveals himself as Superman?

Youtube is your friend: https://youtu.be/55FQb6LjWkg?t=3m56s

"It is now time for you to rejoin your new world and to serve its collective humanity. Live as one of them, Kal-El"

[David Walton]

I don't have any problem with the Donner films not fleshing out Superman's motivations. Donner's Clark Kent is just an inherently decent guy who wants to do the right thing, even if it's perceived as corny and naïve in the post-Watergate era. And hey, some people really are just wired that way. Like being good comes naturally. I've known people like that. Most police officers and firefighters aren't motivated by some personal trauma involving crime or fire. They just want to help.

Not that there's anything wrong with people using traumatic events as an inspiration to make the world a better place. It's just that's not the place where Clark is coming from. Nor does he need crushing external opposition to feel isolated. On the contrary, Superman's alienation is much more deeply felt in the Donner films, where even the people who like him can't understand where he's coming from. Lois is fascinated by his old-fashioned values but she doesn't really 'get' them.

So it's funny, because the Donner films already kind of covered this idea that everyone's looking for a reason why Superman is who he is. It's easier for Lois to believe that a man can fly than that he'd do the right thing just because it's the right thing. And I guess we're so cynical these days we believe that the only way Superman would ever adopt a no-killing code is if he'd killed someone himself.

[David Walton]

Clark's reasons for being a journalist seem pretty straightforward. He can fight for truth and justice at the Daily Planet in ways that Superman can't.

[Jim Kelly]

When the Donner movie came out, there would not have been anyone in the audience, other than maybe some babies, who wouldn't know the Superman story. The first two thirds of the movie is like the greatest hits--but everyone knew this and just wanted to see how the movie would visualize it. The way the movie is cut, there's a great thrill that ran through the audience when bespectacled Clark Kent appears on screen for the first time--and the movie wouldn't have achieved the same effect if it had ploddingly explained how he got there.

MAN OF STEEL has a challenge, because some of the audience doesn't know Superman, while the rest of the audience thinks they know Superman. The movie has to explain who Superman is for those that don't know and it has to change the minds of those who think they know. It's trying to establish a new mythology or at least augment the mythology that already exists.

I found the switch to bespectacled Clark Kent at the end too abrupt. Maybe like the Donner movie, it has a surprise effect. However, I think they could have done a better job of establishing Clark's writing skills in the flashbacks. The way it is, it just looks like he's working as a reporter because he's a Lois Lane fanboy.

[DieHard200904]

Man of Steel out of the above. I have my share of issues with returns

[David Walton]

When the Donner movie came out, there would not have been anyone in the audience, other than maybe some babies, who wouldn't know the Superman story. The first two thirds of the movie is like the greatest hits--but everyone knew this and just wanted to see how the movie would visualize it. The way the movie is cut, there's a great thrill that ran through the audience when bespectacled Clark Kent appears on screen for the first time--and the movie wouldn't have achieved the same effect if it had ploddingly explained how he got there.

MAN OF STEEL has a challenge, because some of the audience doesn't know Superman, while the rest of the audience thinks they know Superman. The movie has to explain who Superman is for those that don't know and it has to change the minds of those who think they know. It's trying to establish a new mythology or at least augment the mythology that already exists.

I found the switch to bespectacled Clark Kent at the end too abrupt. Maybe like the Donner movie, it has a surprise effect. However, I think they could have done a better job of establishing Clark's writing skills in the flashbacks. The way it is, it just looks like he's working as a reporter because he's a Lois Lane fanboy.

Yeah, you basically end up with a film where the Superman/Clark Kent dichotomy isn't established. You have no idea what to really make of it. And still don't because Superman never got another solo film.

[DochaDocha]

When the Donner movie came out, there would not have been anyone in the audience, other than maybe some babies, who wouldn't know the Superman story. The first two thirds of the movie is like the greatest hits--but everyone knew this and just wanted to see how the movie would visualize it. The way the movie is cut, there's a great thrill that ran through the audience when bespectacled Clark Kent appears on screen for the first time--and the movie wouldn't have achieved the same effect if it had ploddingly explained how he got there.

MAN OF STEEL has a challenge, because some of the audience doesn't know Superman, while the rest of the audience thinks they know Superman. The movie has to explain who Superman is for those that don't know and it has to change the minds of those who think they know. It's trying to establish a new mythology or at least augment the mythology that already exists.

I found the switch to bespectacled Clark Kent at the end too abrupt. Maybe like the Donner movie, it has a surprise effect. However, I think they could have done a better job of establishing Clark's writing skills in the flashbacks. The way it is, it just looks like he's working as a reporter because he's a Lois Lane fanboy.

Yeah. I remember thinking why would the Daily Planet hire this guy. What's his qualification again? He demonstrated no journalistic skill to this point, and his whole work history had been going from odd job to odd job, apparently getting up and leaving on a whim. I almost would've preferred if the end of the movie had him applying to J-school.

[stargazer01]

When the Donner movie came out, there would not have been anyone in the audience, other than maybe some babies, who wouldn't know the Superman story. The first two thirds of the movie is like the greatest hits--but everyone knew this and just wanted to see how the movie would visualize it. The way the movie is cut, there's a great thrill that ran through the audience when bespectacled Clark Kent appears on screen for the first time--and the movie wouldn't have achieved the same effect if it had ploddingly explained how he got there.

MAN OF STEEL has a challenge, because some of the audience doesn't know Superman, while the rest of the audience thinks they know Superman. The movie has to explain who Superman is for those that don't know and it has to change the minds of those who think they know. It's trying to establish a new mythology or at least augment the mythology that already exists.

I found the switch to bespectacled Clark Kent at the end too abrupt. Maybe like the Donner movie, it has a surprise effect. However, I think they could have done a better job of establishing Clark's writing skills in the flashbacks. The way it is, it just looks like he's working as a reporter because he's a Lois Lane fanboy.

I think Clark told his mom he had an idea about what to do next at the end of MOS. I think it was easy to assume he wanted to work as a reporter to be close to the news source and also to Lois. It was obvious they had fallen for each other during the events of MOS. I don't see the problem, he could do both things at the same time, save the world and be close to Lois. But I insist we needed a sequel to see that story develop properly. To see Clark become a good reporter and Superman gaining more trust from the world. And also to see the romance develop.

[stargazer01]

I don't have any problem with the Donner films not fleshing out Superman's motivations. Donner's Clark Kent is just an inherently decent guy who wants to do the right thing, even if it's perceived as corny and naïve in the post-Watergate era. And hey, some people really are just wired that way. Like being good comes naturally. I've known people like that. Most police officers and firefighters aren't motivated by some personal trauma involving crime or fire. They just want to help.

Not that there's anything wrong with people using traumatic events as an inspiration to make the world a better place. It's just that's not the place where Clark is coming from. Nor does he need crushing external opposition to feel isolated. On the contrary, Superman's alienation is much more deeply felt in the Donner films, where even the people who like him can't understand where he's coming from. Lois is fascinated by his old-fashioned values but she doesn't really 'get' them.

So it's funny, because the Donner films already kind of covered this idea that everyone's looking for a reason why Superman is who he is. It's easier for Lois to believe that a man can fly than that he'd do the right thing just because it's the right thing. And I guess we're so cynical these days we believe that the only way Superman would ever adopt a no-killing code is if he'd killed someone himself.

And this is exactly what I see with Clark/Superman in MOS. He is a good guy who just wants to help. He repeatedly showed it all his life, even when his dad told him how dangerous it could be if people learned about his powers. Clark still helped. He became a myth until Lois found him. And she soon realized that he was a really good man and fell in love with his sweet nature. And she has been one of his biggest supporters ever since. I really appreciate this new Superman/Lois dynamic. I wish we had seen it develop more in a sequel tho. :/

[stargazer01]

I don't think Jor tells Kal to become Superman in either movie, as unhappy as I am to pass up an opportunity for spearing Superman the Movie, nitpicky heretic that I am. In Superman's special edition, Kal goes to Metropolis and becomes a journalist as Clark first, and then reveals that he's Superman only when Lois is in danger. After he flies around doing a saving-people montage, he discusses it with Jor's ghost, who basically regards Kal's creation of "Superman" with fond resignation. Kal never meant to be Superman, he just kind of started saving people and then got carried away. Jor understood that and had in fact anticipated it, but Kal's bashful, almost ashamed reaction indicates that by no means did he instruct his son to undertake such a super-task, and if anything had entreated him to stay under cover of secrecy.

Strangely, Brando's Jor-El instead seems more fixated on Clark Kent, entreating Kal to keep his secret identity. Additionally, I cannot for the life of me figure out why Clark started working a normal job and living a normal life in the first place. We can see why Clark chooses to become Superman, but not why Superman chooses to become Clark Kent again. I have to assume that returning to the Clark Kent role was Jor's idea, which is I suppose a version of Jor telling him to be Superman.

By contrast, in Man of Steel we first have a Clark who basically, already behaves as Superman when danger arises, but who otherwise constantly lives in hiding, not even using his real name as Clark Kent. While Jor tells Clark lots of important information, his own reason for conceiving Kal in the first place was the absence of "the element of choice" from Krypton's society. Obviously he's not going to go through all that effort just to tell Kal how to live his life! While Clark chooses to reveal himself to the world as Superman in a crisis and not in a vacuum, that's not at all different from Superman the Movie with the helicopter crash. People are in danger and he takes the time to focus on helping them. Crucially, unlike the Donner'verse Clark who spent over a decade studying in the Fortress prior to his accidental and then initially regretted public debut, the Snyder'verse Clark has constantly been making the choice between remaining unobtrusive and helping people in need, after which he must disappear, for a decade and a half. For him, "Superman" is just a way to help people without having to disappear afterward - which perhaps most importantly of all finally allows "Clark Kent" to put down roots and live as a normal man.

Both films present concrete, clear motivations for Clark becoming Superman, and each based on the same basic principle: when people are in danger, do what you can to help.



Yeah, absolutely. Jor was awesome and Lois was absolutely stellar!

I don't think I have seen this Special Edition of STM. All I remember is that he met Jor-El in the FOS and Jor Told him of his alien heritage. And then he was flying out of the FOS as Superman. I also remember Clark and Jor talking about how his first day as a superhero was. I haven't seen STM in a while. I should watch it soon and pay more attention. I love the movie, tho. For me Superman The Movie and MOS are equally good in their own way for their time. I should rewatch all the Superman films and do some big analysis haha. It seems we are not having another one in a while. I'm looking forward to the animated 'Death of Superman' btw!

[Starter Set]

Can't believe i just voted for Superman Returns.

Says a lot about how awful Superman movies have been.

[Adekis]

"It is now time for you to rejoin your new world and to serve its collective humanity. Live as one of them, Kal-El"

First of all, what I'm hearing is, he became Clark because Jor told him to be Clark, which is just as weird if not way weirder compared to Jor telling him to be Superman.

Secondly, if that's all Jor was going to tell Kal at the end of his twelve freaking years in isolation, then why bother with the twelve years of isolation? Clark could just as easily go live in the closet as a normal human without all that tutelage. Heck, Kal could even continue the tutelage as a form of night classes while living as Clark - but he doesn't. He first undergoes twelve years of study, and then opts, at Jor's urging, to just... be a normal guy. I feel like something's missing.

No, you know what, there's another element here, even beyond Jor's questionable motivation for the lengthy tutelage. There's no reason why Clark has to be mild-mannered in order to "rejoin [his] new world and to serve its collective humanity," right? Why does Kal slouch? Why does he wear glasses? Why does he pitch his voice higher than it really is, or act so much more apprehensive around people than he really is? Why does he pretend to be clumsy?

All of these traits make sense in light of the future need for a secret identity, but not when you consider that Superman wasn't part of the plan. It would make more sense for Kal to be more like a good version of Kid "John Bates" Marvelman, right? Just act like Kal but go by Clark. It's not an accurate statement, but you get my meaning. Chris Reeve's Kal-El is charming, obviously intelligent, and personable. As a non-mild-mannered Clark Kent, he'd become influential, and slowly work to change the world to fit his vision - except instead of being a deranged psycho with ill-defined plans like Kid Marvelman, this hypothetical "executive" Clark Kent would "serve the collective humanity", like Tony Stark without the jerk qualities. Instead he takes a much more subdued approach to public service, denying his confidence, his charm, even his height, all for basically no reason at all, if he wasn't disguising that he's Superman.

Now I can understand not making such a drastic difference. Jor seems pretty concerned with keeping Kal's ego in check, and Kal is very humble, so it's possible that they both wouldn't want to risk accidentally Kal accidentally coming to see himself as humanity's god-emperor. Even if he's got his heart set on being a reporter though (and his motivation for becoming one is never explained), there's still no reason to "put on" the bumbling bespectacled nerd act, that I can tell.

The real reason is obviously that he needs to be a mild-mannered reporter in glasses because that's how Superman is in the comics, but in the context of the movie it doesn't make sense to me. In Man of Steel, Clark is already Superman publically, so he needs to find a way to disguise Clark. In Lois & Clark there is no mild-mannered disguise, Clark's just a beleaguered, exasperated and sarcastic man who puts on a tough-guy act as Superman. In Adventures of Superman, reporter Clark and Superman are both clearly part of the plan before he ever leaves the farm, and the same applies to STAS. In Donner's first movie, he seems to become a reporter because that's the next stage in the plot. Jor's entreatment to live as a normal man acts as a piece of masking tape connecting the two set-pieces together.

So it's funny, because the Donner films already kind of covered this idea that everyone's looking for a reason why Superman is who he is. It's easier for Lois to believe that a man can fly than that he'd do the right thing just because it's the right thing. And I guess we're so cynical these days we believe that the only way Superman would ever adopt a no-killing code is if he'd killed someone himself.

I basically agree with the premise that Superman just helps because he can, but I'd add that that's pretty clearly his motivation in Man of Steel as well. Where there's danger, where there's injustice, he'll step out of the shoes of his assumed identity (at one point he's called "Joe", I assume he never goes by his real name "Clark") to help out, and then having blown his cover, he vanishes like a ghost. It's an existence entirely comprised of self-sacrifice, entirely consistent with the from-the-heart, ask-for-no-reward goodness of Reeve's Superman.

As for the no-kill rule, I absolutely reject the notion that he needs to kill someone in order to learn not to kill, as that's a stupid idea and it was stupid when Byrne first played with it. That said, the later post-Crisis Superman and early pre-Flashpoint Superman is very consistent with the situational ethics in Snyder's Man of Steel. He effectively kills both Doomsday and Henshaw, he kills Imperiex, he kills a second, unrelated General Zod to Byrne's, etc. Throughout the nineties, Superman graduates from the pre-Crisis "No Kill Rule" to the more complex "avoid killing when possible; as Superman, it should almost never be necessary."

Attempts to embrace the "No Kill Rule" frequently wind up with awful bet-hedging like "well it's not like this feeling, thinking being was really alive", as well as the occasional horrifying moments where Superman goes out of his way to set up a death without actually pulling the trigger, or where he does kill someone and then abdicates his responsibility to Earth in the aftermath out of guilt. Given all that, I think that "Superman doesn't relish killing, he hates it, but to protect the people he will do it," is a much better perspective, and that, not the idea that he learned killing is bad by killing. Man of Steel rejects, rather than establishes, the No Kill Rule, as it should.

Also, I really like your description of how Superman is an outsider because of his goodness, but I'm not sure how many real-life people who just want to help are seen with as much admiring bemusement as the Reeve Superman is.

When the Donner movie came out, there would not have been anyone in the audience, other than maybe some babies, who wouldn't know the Superman story. The first two thirds of the movie is like the greatest hits--but everyone knew this and just wanted to see how the movie would visualize it. The way the movie is cut, there's a great thrill that ran through the audience when bespectacled Clark Kent appears on screen for the first time--and the movie wouldn't have achieved the same effect if it had ploddingly explained how he got there.

Yeah, ultimately all the decisions in Superman the Movie are aesthetic concerns rather than an attempt to design a truly consistent character and world - but I still like playing the game of trying to see how that world ticks!

I found the switch to bespectacled Clark Kent at the end too abrupt. Maybe like the Donner movie, it has a surprise effect. However, I think they could have done a better job of establishing Clark's writing skills in the flashbacks. The way it is, it just looks like he's working as a reporter because he's a Lois Lane fanboy.

It's pretty clear they're going with the "hear about disasters as they happen" motive for being a journalist, but there's no doubt that Lois is part of it. One of the few changes I'd make to Man of Steel on a script level would be to insert a Lois & Clark or Birthright style acknowledgement that he's already interested in journalism, but then again, the movie has so much on its plate already, and I'd be concerned that a history of racking up credits at various journalism schools might interfere with the backstory of constant marginalization and never being able to put down roots. Then again, fifteen years between his eighteenth birthday Earth and Zod's arrival definitely gives him enough time to get that degree either way, so I'm probably worrying over nothing.

I don't think I have seen this Special Edition of STM. All I remember is that he met Jor-El in the FOS and Jor Told him of his alien heritage. And then he was flying out of the FOS as Superman. I also remember Clark and Jor talking about how his first day as a superhero was. I haven't seen STM in a while. I should watch it soon and pay more attention. I love the movie, tho. For me Superman The Movie and MOS are equally good in their own way for their time. I should rewatch all the Superman films and do some big analysis haha. It seems we are not having another one in a while. I'm looking forward to the animated 'Death of Superman' btw!

It's just a delight to see someone who likes the Donner film as much as the Snyder film honestly; fans almost always have really strongly held opinions on them and I just think it's awesome that you think they're equally good! In fact it's been too long since I've seen the special edition myself- I've watched the theatrical cut far more often.

I'm soooo hyped for Death of Superman, even though I'm a little bit "death'd out" already, haha!

[stargazer01]

It's just a delight to see someone who likes the Donner film as much as the Snyder film honestly; fans almost always have really strongly held opinions on them and I just think it's awesome that you think they're equally good! In fact it's been too long since I've seen the special edition myself- I've watched the theatrical cut far more often.

I'm soooo hyped for Death of Superman, even though I'm a little bit "death'd out" already, haha!

Thank you, I guess I'm just more tolerant and open-minded than most when it comes to Superman. I like different takes and stories, but when I feel like something is not right I say it too. I like to see the character explored in different ways, but I also think that there are limits that should not be crossed. I don't think Superman can be corruptible, for instance. It's something you feel in your heart.

[dishpan]

It's just a delight to see someone who likes the Donner film as much as the Snyder film honestly; fans almost always have really strongly held opinions on them and I just think it's awesome that you think they're equally good!

I've really enjoyed your posts and am sharing excerpts with some friends offline. I love both versions of Superman being discussed here like you, for different reasons, so I appreciate what you have to say about them.

[Last Son of Krypton]

First of all, what I'm hearing is, he became Clark because Jor told him to be Clark, which is just as weird if not way weirder compared to Jor telling him to be Superman.

Secondly, if that's all Jor was going to tell Kal at the end of his twelve freaking years in isolation, then why bother with the twelve years of isolation? Clark could just as easily go live in the closet as a normal human without all that tutelage. Heck, Kal could even continue the tutelage as a form of night classes while living as Clark - but he doesn't. He first undergoes twelve years of study, and then opts, at Jor's urging, to just... be a normal guy. I feel like something's missing.

No, you know what, there's another element here, even beyond Jor's questionable motivation for the lengthy tutelage. There's no reason why Clark has to be mild-mannered in order to "rejoin [his] new world and to serve its collective humanity," right? Why does Kal slouch? Why does he wear glasses? Why does he pitch his voice higher than it really is, or act so much more apprehensive around people than he really is? Why does he pretend to be clumsy?

All of these traits make sense in light of the future need for a secret identity, but not when you consider that Superman wasn't part of the plan. It would make more sense for Kal to be more like a good version of Kid "John Bates" Marvelman, right? Just act like Kal but go by Clark. It's not an accurate statement, but you get my meaning. Chris Reeve's Kal-El is charming, obviously intelligent, and personable. As a non-mild-mannered Clark Kent, he'd become influential, and slowly work to change the world to fit his vision - except instead of being a deranged psycho with ill-defined plans like Kid Marvelman, this hypothetical "executive" Clark Kent would "serve the collective humanity", like Tony Stark without the jerk qualities. Instead he takes a much more subdued approach to public service, denying his confidence, his charm, even his height, all for basically no reason at all, if he wasn't disguising that he's Superman.

Now I can understand not making such a drastic difference. Jor seems pretty concerned with keeping Kal's ego in check, and Kal is very humble, so it's possible that they both wouldn't want to risk accidentally Kal accidentally coming to see himself as humanity's god-emperor. Even if he's got his heart set on being a reporter though (and his motivation for becoming one is never explained), there's still no reason to "put on" the bumbling bespectacled nerd act, that I can tell.

The real reason is obviously that he needs to be a mild-mannered reporter in glasses because that's how Superman is in the comics, but in the context of the movie it doesn't make sense to me. In Man of Steel, Clark is already Superman publically, so he needs to find a way to disguise Clark. In Lois & Clark there is no mild-mannered disguise, Clark's just a beleaguered, exasperated and sarcastic man who puts on a tough-guy act as Superman. In Adventures of Superman, reporter Clark and Superman are both clearly part of the plan before he ever leaves the farm, and the same applies to STAS. In Donner's first movie, he seems to become a reporter because that's the next stage in the plot. Jor's entreatment to live as a normal man acts as a piece of masking tape connecting the two set-pieces together.

Anyone would become a clumsy nerd after 12 years of isolation talking to a computer.