MAN OF STEEL - 5 years later and the easy fixes.

[theonetruebatman]

Before we go anywhere else let me just start by saying please realize I am doing this mostly because I am a smartass. I know that a lot of these are obvious and have been beaten to death over the last 5 years. However, some people speak about this film as if it is just the worst thing to ever touch Superman and let's be honest here. They obviously never saw Superman 3 or 4. Even Schumacher meets his match with those dreadful installments. I am not saying that my way is the best way and really want to just have a good conversation about things. Perhaps I am missing something or there is a point you don't agree with. Let's discuss it!

I think a majority of fans when it comes to Snyder's DC Trilogy will be in agreement with me when I say MAN OF STEEL is the best installment of all 3. It is definitely so when it comes to Rotten Tomatoes and most critics. Tonight I had to write a persuasive speech for my Public Speaking college class (Yay film school!) and decided to throw MOS on in the background and since I have my persuasion hat on right now I figure why not write up this flick and give my view that this film is actually incredibly easy to fix in terms of making it a just "Okay-Good" film and instead making it the "GREATEST SUPERMAN FILM OF ALL-TIME" in a more unanimous light across critics and fans alike. I for one have always loved this film and I honestly feel it is incredibly faithful to what Superman is aesthetically. The Krypton stuff is great and overall all of the components needed to tell a good Superman story are here. The execution, just like in Batman V Superman is just lacking.

First let's talk about what people say needs fixing but ISN'T REALLY THE PROBLEM.

1. METROPOLIS BEING DESTROYED = NEEDED!

A lot of people say the problem with this movie was the wanton destruction. This in my opinion is an incredibly ridiculous straw man argument as we literally the summer before saw basically all of Gotham and a lot of New York destroyed in both THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and The Avengers and no one said a thing. Even Godzilla got a pass and that was even the subject of a How It Should Have Ended. The destruction of the city is not only something that would have gotten a pass IMO had the film just done what I am about to explain but it is also something that we as fans had been waiting for since 1978 in just wanting Superman to hit things and enemies. HARD. Also, I am going to say it here and probably several more times. This is a super man who isn't quite SUPERMAN yet. He will learn after this to try to be a bit more careful and cunning in his future altercations. I didn't think it needed a "Dark Knight Rises AUTOPILOT" amount of mentioning in BVS that things were empty or what not. Fans are weird though in what they seemingly need spelled out for them sometimes.

2. WOODEN DIALOGUE

Including this was something I was on the fence about. It's been a problem in all of the Snyder films and it really is unfortunately a fault of Snyder alone and it's really hard to understand how such little time was used in fixing that. Even Watchmen has dialogue that seems genuine and fits into the story. But it is clear that Snyder got caught up with his visuals much like Tim Burton was in Batman and way more so to a detriment in Batman Returns. I mean, I think Burton was more interested in filming penguins with eye sight aimed missiles strapped to their backs marching down the street than literally just about anything else in that entire flick. Anyway, back to Snyder and MOS though. The scene where he knocks the drone out of the sky and confronts the General was both well acted and well written. THAT WAS SUPERMAN THROUGH AND THROUGH. So good acting from Cavill and good writing from Snyder are possible.

3. SAVING MIN 2 OR 3 CIVILIANS IN SMALLVILLE AND SEEING HIS POWERS AS A GIFT FOR GOOD

If he had just taken the time to have Superman save a few more people from projectiles and raging Kryptonian soldiers in Smallville it would have easily won over more people right then and there. Whedon wasn't NOT onto something when he had Superman save people in Justice League. But it really felt like a stick it Snyder moment in writing that in. Really all of what he did for Superman in that film feels like a "No, THIS is how you do it, Zack" type of thing. However, instead all we got was one line of dialogue of Superman jogging down the street nonchalantly asking someone if they were okay when said person really wasn't anywhere near the action and then said to noone at all "Get inside, it's not safe" in his indoor voice so no one of any consequence could have possibly heard it. Seriously, if he would have just saved 2 or 3 people and then smiled after feeling great about them not only being okay but seeing that he can do good with his powers despite what Pa Kent had told him earlier. However, I am going to touch upon why this isn't COMPLETELY out of character, just mostly.

That's another thing. If Johnathan could would have just said a few within his concern for Clark being discovered and taken away by the government about how he was special and these gifts could be a great thing for the world as long as he always uses them to better himself and those around him that's another countless fans that would have been won over by the film and it's something that is so easy. It doeasn't cost millions of dollars for an action piece or reshoots. It could even have been a nice little flashback whilst saving said people in Smallville. Let's say Clark didn't really understand anything Pa was saying at the time but then bam, right then and there he gets it 100%. You see, in my eyes he didn't really becoming Superman until the end of the flick.

4. TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE NOLAN WAY. (IE PHANTOM ZONE, NOT DEATH

And the final thing which I am sure everyone knows is LISTEN TO CHRISTOPHER NOLAN. The biggest mistake this movie made was killing Zod and that was something that Christopher Nolan not only told Snyder that he shouldn't do and Snyder didn't listen but it is also what from what I have read made Nolan stop being a consultant on the future films and become a producer in name only. This ending to this story is basically tradition. You wait for this to happen in every single Superman story involving Zod. Just like with the Joker you wait for him to go careening off a building or a cliff only to not have a body show up or Batman and Robin in the 66 show somehow getting out of whatever death trap they are in. I understand that Snyder thought he was being clever and just wanted to do something different. But if the only reason they killed Zod was so he could become a Doomsday larva in Batman V Superman it seriously WASN'T WORTH IT. I would have much rather have seen Bizarro be the reason why people didn't trust Superman in BVS as at least that would have made sense and then if you HAD to have Doomsday you either make Bizarro change into him as it is a disease that Kryptonian blood carries and you could justify it's craziness because he is half Luthor OR you just bring down the genuine article. Seriously.

That's all it would have taken to make this film go from "Okay" to "GREATEST SUPERMAN FILM EVER". These changes are largely easy. They don't involve anything more than the script just being better and when the Phantom Zone sucks the world engine back in Zod goes with it. So it's not an expensive reshoot or anything like that. So what do you guys think?

[Agent Z]

Superman killing Zod isn't a new thing and Nolan had Batman kill someone in every Bat film I'm not sure why he objected to it.

That said I do agree with the other points.

[Jokerz79]

Perception is everything and Snyder's Superman was seen as depressing and uncaring to be kind and it's sad because Henry Cavill definitely had the charm and charisma to prove otherwise if given the chance by Snyder.

You point to DKR and Avengers and their city destructions but in both those films the heroes took time out of the fight on multiple occasions to save people it wasn't only about defeating the bad guy in those 3rd acts but about actively protecting and saving lives too and also neither had the level of destruction of Metropolis.

Smallville is a major issue IMO because Superman got mad and even by accident he took the fight to Smallville add that to Metropolis and it made him to appear to be uncaring to collateral damage. Then in BvS he spends a majority of his saves looking as if being a hero is a burden.

As for Zod his death is an issue because while Snyder showed a Superman wanting to help and save lives he also never established this version of Superman had an issue with killing to do so. If he had built a story where Superman made it clear he wouldn't kill and had too then I feel more people would had accepted it again perception.

I believe there is an argument to be made MOS and BvS are hands down better films than Superman III and IV but that III and IV are better Superman films.

[GreatKungLao]

Superman killing Zod isn't a new thing and Nolan had Batman kill someone in every Bat film I'm not sure why he objected to it.

Because he is Batman. People are much more forgiving to his different iterations than of Superman. A lot of people loved Ben Aflleck as Batman and didn't mind his killing spree in BvS, because he is old and got tired of ****, but God forbid Superman to ever doubt himself and start making different moral decisions, because he is after all a God, isn't he? God can do no wrong.

[manofsteel1979]

Agree to all of this. While I thought people over reacted to the point of childishness with all of the "Man of Muhrrdurr!" wailing, looking back his killing of Zod, even though it was justified given the situation, was a mistake that cast a pall over this version. Even after his full reversion to a more Donner like Superman in JL there are people who STILL bring that up and will forever refuse to give Cavill's Superman a chance.

Also I maintain the Pa Kent tornado death scene would have worked better if they had another younger actor play 17 year old Clark rather than trying to pass off pushing 30 HC as a teenager. By virtue of the fact the adult actor was in that scene, people just assumed that 17 year old Clark would have been able to save Jonathan without being seen. The thing is 17 year old Clark probably wasn't yet quite faster than a speeding bullet. For the audience when you have the same actor playing young Clark as adult fully powered Clark, that logical connection is hard to make or even occur to them. I know it was likely because they wanted Cavill to be able to act along with Coster, but it made that whole scene not work as well as it should have.

Also a brief montage scene of Superman helping save people from the rubble and aid in the rebuild of metropolis before the drone scene would have helped as well.

[Jokerz79]

Because he is Batman. People are much more forgiving to his different iterations than of Superman. A lot of people loved Ben Aflleck as Batman and didn't mind his killing spree in BvS, because he is old and got tired of ****, but God forbid Superman to ever doubt himself and start making different moral decisions, because he is after all a God, isn't he? God can do no wrong.

People liked Affleck as Batman but many had issue with Snyder's portrayal or the character.

[Jokerz79]

Agree to all of this. While I thought people over reacted to the point of childishness with all of the "Man of Muhrrdurr!" wailing, looking back his killing of Zod, even though it was justified given the situation, was a mistake that cast a pall over this version. Even after his full reversion to a more Donner like Superman in JL there are people who STILL bring that up and will forever refuse to give Cavill's Superman a chance.

Also I maintain the Pa Kent tornado death scene would have worked better if they had another younger actor play 17 year old Clark rather than trying to pass off pushing 30 HC as a teenager. By virtue of the fact the adult actor was in that scene, people just assumed that 17 year old Clark would have been able to save Jonathan without being seen. The thing is 17 year old Clark probably wasn't yet quite faster than a speeding bullet. For the audience when you have the same actor playing young Clark as adult fully powered Clark, that logical connection is hard to make or even occur to them. I know it was likely because they wanted Cavill to be able to act along with Coster, but it made that whole scene not work as well as it should have.

Also a brief montage scene of Superman helping save people and rebuild metropolis before the drone scene would have helped as well.

IMO Jonathan's death could never work as written it wasn't like Jonathan's death in Superman 78 which taught humility and idea there were things even he couldn't stop this death of Jonathan just reinforced the idea collateral damage is justified which was a major issue for MOS.

[Agent Z]

Perception is everything and Snyder's Superman was seen as depressing and uncaring to be kind and it's sad because Henry Cavill definitely had the charm and charisma to prove otherwise if given the chance by Snyder.

You point to DKR and Avengers and their city destructions but in both those films the heroes took time out of the fight on multiple occasions to save people it wasn't only about defeating the bad guy in those 3rd acts but about actively protecting and saving lives too and also neither had the level of destruction of Metropolis.

Smallville is a major issue IMO because Superman got mad and even by accident he took the fight to Smallville add that to Metropolis and it made him to appear to be uncaring to collateral damage. Then in BvS he spends a majority of his saves looking as if being a hero is a burden.

As for Zod his death is an issue because while Snyder showed a Superman wanting to help and save lives he also never established this version of Superman had an issue with killing to do so. If he had built a story where Superman made it clear he wouldn't kill and had too then I feel more people would had accepted it again perception.

I believe there is an argument to be made MOS and BvS are hands down better films than Superman III and IV but that III and IV are better Superman films.

We saw him save people during the Smallville fight and get blindsided by a Kryptonian for it. The Avengers were six people who could divide time between helping and fighting and there enemies were a lot less dangerous than the Kryptonians. The movies also largely ignore collateral damage except for when they want to make the heroes fight each other or have members leave.

This idea you need a set up for a killing makes no sense because we never see Clark killing anyone and the entire point is to put him in a position he's never even thought he would be in to begin with. Most people who end up killing someone for whatever reason don't normally think it even talk of such things.

And Snyder's decisions were based on Trying to remove the perception that Superman had no actual challenges. People only care about perception when it doesn't suit there own.

[Jokerz79]

We saw him save people during the Smallville fight and get blindsided by a Kryptonian for it. The Avengers were six people who could divide time between helping and fighting and there enemies were a lot less dangerous than the Kryptonians. The movies also largely ignore collateral damage except for when they want to make the heroes fight each other or have members leave.

This idea you need a set up for a killing makes no sense because we never see Clark killing anyone and the entire point is to put him in a position he's never even thought he would be in to begin with. Most people who end up killing someone for whatever reason don't normally think it even talk of such things.

And Snyder's decisions were based on Trying to remove the perception that Superman had no actual challenges. People only care about perception when it doesn't suit there own.

There are people who believe killing is justified in defense no matter the threat level so yes Snyder needed to show Clark was against killing as a method of defense for it to have impact when he did.

As for saving people the Avengers are a team but Batman isn't and was shown in many scenes saving lives during his final fights in the Nolan trilogy. Also again even when saving lives Snyder portrayed it as a burden. If Snyder wanted to show Superman having challenges show him getting his butt kicked and over coming it not the destruction of cities and towns and death of civilians. Because when he overcomes a beating people cheer when civilians die people ask why didn't he save them.

[Agent Z]

There are people who believe killing is justified in defense no matter the threat level so yes Snyder needed to show Clark was against killing as a method of defense for it to have impact when he did.

As for saving people the Avengers are a team but Batman isn't and was shown in many scenes saving lives during his final fights in the Nolan trilogy. Also again even when saving lives Snyder portrayed it as a burden. If Snyder wanted to show Superman having challenges show him getting his butt kicked and over coming it not the destruction of cities and towns and death of civilians. Because when he overcomes a beating people cheer when civilians die people ask why didn't he save them.

It's made crystal clear that Clark isn't a killer until that moment and we see him begging Zod to stop. Hell, he even tries negotiations above Zod's ship and when Zod reveals his plans to wipe out humanity we know where Clark stands on that. This isn't something that needs a whole lot of exposition. Most of the supposed plot holes in these movies are things that only need a few seconds of thought to be dismissed.

Nolan's Batman often isn't fighting and saving people at the same time and isn't dealing with the odds Superman is in MoS.

Also, watch thse fights again. Superman is clearly being challenged. Hell, there are people complaining that he has it too difficult in Snyder's movies.

[GreatKungLao]

I don't know about saving as a burden thing. When he saves people in burning oil rig, he looks like a guy who doesn't know the whole scale of his powers and is worried that he might not save everyone.

He looks happy enough when he says the girl in BvS

IMG_20180609_155512.jpg

The reason why he looks burdened later is most likely because from his point of view he is just doing the right thing, but he is worshipped like a God for doing what everyone can do and he most likely doesn't want that. He wants to "help them accomplish wonders".

[DochaDocha]

The third act action scene kind of dragged on too long. I got pretty bored after a while, so finding a way to trim all that down would've been helpful. It also didn't help that they tried to have a romantic scene after the city block got totaled, and right before the battle with Zod. I agree a lot of the argument is pretty stupid. Zod and co. were going to destroy all civilization, and Supes was trying to minimize that. That only a few blocks of Metropolis was destroyed as in itself a bit of a miracle.

I thought Jonathan's death was a pointless death. Yes, I agree that he had to die to serve the idea that it was so important for Superman to keep his ID secret, but that still doesn't work with me and I would hope no writer ever takes his or her cue from MoS Pa's death.

My biggest pet peeve with the movie, though, was that I was an extra for the movie and only barely show up in a BluRay extra, and you would only be able to identify me if they shot it using a high-speed camera and at something like 4320P.

I don't have a lot of complaints about the movie, though. It was an update to a well-known origin story, and tried to be a bit different. I'm quite okay with that.

[Adekis]

I don't know about saving as a burden thing. When he saves people in burning oil rig, he looks like a guy who doesn't know the whole scale of his powers and is worried that he might not save everyone.

He looks happy enough when he says the girl in BvS

The reason why he looks burdened later is most likely because from his point of view he is just doing the right thing, but he is worshipped like a God for doing what everyone can do and he most likely doesn't want that. He wants to "help them accomplish wonders".

Yeah exactly. He doesn't see saving people as a burden, he's burdened by unintended consequences of his actions (like being seen as a god) and fear of being unable to live up to people's expectations! He definitely sees his powers as a force for helping people and saving lives from before the beginning too, it's just that until he puts on the cape there's always an element of sacrifice. Every life he saves, ever super-feat, he must immediately disappear. It's a point of contention between him and Jonathan, because Jon doesn't want that life of constant hiding for him, and he chooses it anyway as a price for saving lives and helping people. Both Jon's behavior and Clark's are rooted in both the comics and in other Superman media for certain. I do agree that Clark probably should've been played by Dylan Sprayberry in the scene where Jon dies, but beyond that I don't really agree with any of the suggested changes.

Zod in particular was well handled, far, far better handled in fact than any of the criminals Bruce kills in Nolan's films. Snyder never claims that killing is something Clark won't do under extreme circumstances, where Nolan explicitly says Bruce does not kill, and then has him do it several times. I'm not particularly bothered by him killing Doomsday either, nor would I have been in any way bothered had he killed Steppenwolf, though I will say I think probably Wonder Woman would have done it in the original plan.

I will agree that I hope Clark doesn't kill anyone in a future Superman movie for a while though. In particular, I would like to see Metallo get redeemed rather than slain, but none of that is because I think killing someone in defense of innocent lives is wrong though, or something Superman shouldn't do (as opposed to killing in revenge, punishment, or in Superman's case even self-defense, all of which I'd rather not see him do, and none of which has he done). I just think it's even more important to show that Superman doesn't have to kill to achieve his goal ninety-nine out of a hundred times, if even that.

[manofsteel1979]

IMO Jonathan's death could never work as written it wasn't like Jonathan's death in Superman 78 which taught humility and idea there were things even he couldn't stop this death of Jonathan just reinforced the idea collateral damage is justified which was a major issue for MOS.

I'm sorry but it's a big stretch to say that the point of Jonathan's death scene was to say collateral damage was ok. It was a bit off in its execution, but not its conception. The point there was that Jonathan knew there was no way Clark could rescue him without outing himself and ruining any chance he would have some semblance of a normal life. He would have either spent the rest of his life running from the government or the same government or someone like Luthor or even Luthor himself using him to experiment on. Its also possible Martha and Jonathan would have faced prison time or some other type of detention for harboring an alien being, ruining all of their lives.

Keep in mind Clark is supposed to be about 17 years old, maybe 18 at the most. He's still a teenager in that scene, and he's not anywhere as fast or as strong as he later is shown as. Jonathan was willing to sacrifice his life for his world ( his wife and son) which then motivates Clark in using his powers albeit in secret to keep helping people and finally as an adult, to take the final step to become Superman. It's actually not bad in concept and is just as impactful as the heart attack, but in a different way.


Again where it falls apart is in execution, which is having 28 year old Henry Cavill playing 17 year old Clark Kent. He's clearly not a teen and the casual audience sees an adult Superman not saving his dad when he could have. If you pay attention to when Jonathan died( the date is on the tombstone) you realize Clark was supposed to be a teen then, but if you didn't notice that detail you could be mistaken in thinking Jonathan died more recently...and it just makes Clark look bad.

[Flash Gordon]

Jonathan Kent's death shows Clark that he isn't God, but it doesn't have to mean anything beyond that. People die, and even when you're the Ubermensch you're going to lose people you love. That's the point. The way it happened in MoS was fine, just different.