Does Man of Steel (2013) misunderstand Superman?

[Dboi2001]

They all have one thing in common: a fear of Clark being discovered and taken away.

With M o S, it's just how it's presented. Jonathan unsure whether Clark should have let some kids drown got a gasp of shock from the audience when I saw the movie in the theater and I don't mean a gasp of shock in a good way. And Martha saying he didn't owe the world anything which is technically true but far from using your unique gifts to help people. It comes across as if Clark goes out and helps people not because of his parents but in spite of them. In the theater, people were groaning and shaking their heads.

It can still work. Clearly, Superman can have parents that are not perfect and still develop his same ideals since he goes out and saves people regardless of what his father tells him. Lots of comic stories have played with things like "What if Superman landed in Russia?" or in Germany in the early 20th century. This is more just "What if he didn't have ideal foster parents?" Even that isn't fair because the only difference between his Kents and Donner's is that it's a vastly more realistic world and his father knows how people will react to him.

M o S is very much a Superman for our time with ridiculous ethnic bigotry masquerading as a concern for illegal immigration. A living atomic bomb is not going to be welcomed with open arms.

When Pa Kent said that to Clark it is a difficult decision. He obviously doesn't think the kids should've died but at the same he is focused on his son's safety. What is Martha suppose to tell Clark? Help people even if you just want to live a normal life? Funny how people only focus on the last part of it. Throughout MoS Jonathan tells Clark he is destined for great things but how he changes the world will be because of his choices. Martha was reinforcing this by telling Clark he can choose to be whatever he wants. A hero, an angel, a monument or none of it. Clark is the antithesis to Zod and Kryptonian society. On Krypton people are programmed before birth what they are going to be but Jor El realized this lead to Krypton becoming stagnant and unimaginative. Kal El represented choice. He could be anything he wanted to be. Zod could never because he was programmed to protect Krypton which is why he said his soul was taken after the last pods were destroyed. Jonathan and Martha were good parents to Clark but they put his safety first. Jonathan telling Clark to hide his powers was no different than in the Donner movie the only difference is there is a real moral dilemma without a simple answer.

I call the ending a jump from a disaster scene to Superman apparently being popular with no real exploration of how he got to that.

The thing is that nurture seems to have little to do with this version of Superman. He helps people because it's intrinsic to his nature to the point it almost wouldn't matter where and when he landed.

Superman wasn't shown to be popular at the end of MoS or throughout BvS. That is literally the opposite of the message of the movie. Unlike Zod Clark does not HAVE to be a hero. He is one because he chooses. Jonathan and Martha constantly tell Clark that if he is going to be a hero it will be his choice and nobody else should influence him. Which do you think is a more powerful message a person is a hero because his parents told him to be or he is a hero on his own accord?

A battle that destroyed a city and caused countless deaths followed by a brief scene with a satellite.

That isn't how MoS ended. It ended with Superman telling Swanick off, a conversation about how Jonathan always saw Clark becoming a hero and Clark talking about how he is working at the Daily Planet ending with Lois welcoming him "To the planet" and end off with Clark's big goofy grin not the final fight with Zod

[manwhohaseverything]

I believe this thread and debate is fruitless. Both against squad and for squad aren't really looking to understand anything.All i can say is that i am not arrogant enough to say "snyder doesn't get it". All i can say is it wasn't for me.

Superman is a charismatic individual with a larger than life personality of a champion . Even if man of steel did understand superman, bvs did no favors for the character's perception as a buzz kill. There is something deeply stoic about a guy smiling through all the pain.
" I mean, joy-buzzers, squirting flowers, lame! Where's the "A" material? Make a face, drop your pants, something!"
Just have some circus showmanship and altruistic chivalry. Make people smile and entertain them. The clark kent persona was literally modelled after a comedian.
As for superman, this is the general charisma and intensity i would want from the champion of the oppressed.The gladiator for truth and justice on behalf of the working class man.
" i fight for those who can't fight for themselves"

[Stanlos]

Snyder just didn't have the optimism the character is known for and portrayed the Kents in a way that is essentially antithetical to them as people. More than anything, the one lesson the Kents teach Clark is that good people get involved, no matter what. Snyder's Kents argue that Clark should look out for number one and only help if he feels like it because he owes nothing to nobody.

From right there, he misunderstood pretty much every character on screen. There's having to grow a character into who they're meant to be (which isn't accomplished because this already had a sequel in mind) and then there's just misunderstanding them. Clark gets involved and he doesn't question if he should help. That's why he's Superman. He has every reason not to help, but does and is a good person. Having him wrestle with "should I save their lives" isn't about growth anymore, it's just outright not the character.

Wow.

It is only now that I see just how far the pendulum of individualism swung in Zack's vision. AND how it poisons the other characters. Now I see why in his eyes Wonder Woman would say screw humanity and walk away and do nothing.

It only further enforces my opinion that Zack is a great visual resource but is not good as an architect for the DCEU. If they had gotten to a point where they were going into Elseworlds take, he would be great to explore a selfish, edgelord version of the characters. But I am not interested in a Booster Gold acting Superman, an uninterested, heartbroken WW, or a Punisher in Batman drag further saddled with envy issues.

[superduperman]

Yes. That was easy.

[manwhohaseverything]

Yes. That was easy.

Is there a version or adaptation of superman that doesn't misunderstand superman? What if i say th evil bald telepath is the true superman?
Edit-i forgot the evil laughter. Mwahaha!

[Steel Inquisitor]

When Pa Kent said that to Clark it is a difficult decision. He obviously doesn't think the kids should've died but at the same he is focused on his son's safety. What is Martha suppose to tell Clark? Help people even if you just want to live a normal life? Funny how people only focus on the last part of it. Throughout MoS Jonathan tells Clark he is destined for great things but how he changes the world will be because of his choices. Martha was reinforcing this by telling Clark he can choose to be whatever he wants. A hero, an angel, a monument or none of it. Clark is the antithesis to Zod and Kryptonian society. On Krypton people are programmed before birth what they are going to be but Jor El realized this lead to Krypton becoming stagnant and unimaginative. Kal El represented choice. He could be anything he wanted to be. Zod could never because he was programmed to protect Krypton which is why he said his soul was taken after the last pods were destroyed. Jonathan and Martha were good parents to Clark but they put his safety first. Jonathan telling Clark to hide his powers was no different than in the Donner movie the only difference is there is a real moral dilemma without a simple answer.

At no point do the Kents ever deliberately argue for Clakr to use his powers for good, at best it's couched in conceits - Martha's line about choosing almost comes off as mocking the idea that he should choose to help people. Every time Clark talks to Jonathan his foster father constantly tells him doing good things comes with a cost of death, and he can't even say Clark rescuing kids from drowning was the right thing to do. It's implied he's ashamed of saying that but he still does it. We never hear Clark's argument over why he chooses to be a hero over Jonathan's objections, he just shows up one day on an oil rig. Why? Who knows? It's like there are scenes missing from the movie and his reasons for doing that are glossed over in the sequels. His parents never teach him how to protect his identity while being a hero, either - their chooses are binary - saving people and becoming a lab rat or staying hidden. Clark isn't a complete opposite of Zod, if he were he'd care about not wanting to kill and care about the death he unintentionally creates fighting his enemies. Never comes up. That's not a story arc in any movie he's in. The only person who pushes Clark to be a hero was Jor-El, and this was redundant since he was being a hero before he put on the Superman outfit. Superman's body having Krypton's DNA in it to restart their race is never bought up again, either, and he's not their saviour he tells Zod they had their time and kills the Kryptonian pods like it was nothing. He has no real emotional attachment to being Kryptonian. The real world can be more cynical, if Clark were raised by Libertarians which is what was heavily implied by how Snyder wrote them. I'm not a fan of Libertarian Superman.

Superman wasn't shown to be popular at the end of MoS or throughout BvS. That is literally the opposite of the message of the movie. Unlike Zod Clark does not HAVE to be a hero. He is one because he chooses. Jonathan and Martha constantly tell Clark that if he is going to be a hero it will be his choice and nobody else should influence him. Which do you think is a more powerful message a person is a hero because his parents told him to be or he is a hero on his own accord?

The DCEU, and even Snyder couldn't decide how popular Superman was. He was popular as much as the story wanted to be at the time and why people felt about Superman wasn't delved much into at any point. The ones who did hate him had an agenda against him and were proven wrong, despite the fact Superman himself does a poor job defending himself in arguments. But he will threaten to laser you to death as if he was Homelander if he gets too angry.

That isn't how MoS ended. It ended with Superman telling Swanick off, a conversation about how Jonathan always saw Clark becoming a hero and Clark talking about how he is working at the Daily Planet ending with Lois welcoming him "To the planet" and end off with Clark's big goofy grin not the final fight with Zod

Dropping a satellite next to a general is not simply telling someone off, that's a display of power to intimidate the military to back off. Snyder never did explain how quickly it took Clark to become a reporter at the planet, how long was between MOS and B vs S? Six months? A year?

[Powerboy]

At no point do the Kents ever deliberately argue for Clakr to use his powers for good, at best it's couched in conceits - Martha's line about choosing almost comes off as mocking the idea that he should choose to help people. Every time Clark talks to Jonathan his foster father constantly tells him doing good things comes with a cost of death, and he can't even say Clark rescuing kids from drowning was the right thing to do. It's implied he's ashamed of saying that but he still does it. We never hear Clark's argument over why he chooses to be a hero over Jonathan's objections, he just shows up one day on an oil rig. Why? Who knows? It's like there are scenes missing from the movie and his reasons for doing that are glossed over in the sequels. His parents never teach him how to protect his identity while being a hero, either - their chooses are binary - saving people and becoming a lab rat or staying hidden. Clark isn't a complete opposite of Zod, if he were he'd care about not wanting to kill and care about the death he unintentionally creates fighting his enemies. Never comes up. That's not a story arc in any movie he's in. The only person who pushes Clark to be a hero was Jor-El, and this was redundant since he was being a hero before he put on the Superman outfit. Superman's body having Krypton's DNA in it to restart their race is never bought up again, either, and he's not their saviour he tells Zod they had their time and kills the Kryptonian pods like it was nothing. He has no real emotional attachment to being Kryptonian. The real world can be more cynical, if Clark were raised by Libertarians which is what was heavily implied by how Snyder wrote them. I'm not a fan of Libertarian Superman.



The DCEU, and even Snyder couldn't decide how popular Superman was. He was popular as much as the story wanted to be at the time and why people felt about Superman wasn't delved much into at any point. The ones who did hate him had an agenda against him and were proven wrong, despite the fact Superman himself does a poor job defending himself in arguments. But he will threaten to laser you to death as if he was Homelander if he gets too angry.





Dropping a satellite next to a general is not simply telling someone off, that's a display of power to intimidate the military to back off. Snyder never did explain how quickly it took Clark to become a reporter at the planet, how long was between MOS and B vs S? Six months? A year?

You defined the problems much better than I did. I'm particularly bothered by the highlighted parts, that there's parts missing that Snyder wasn't interested in dealing with and they are important in understanding how he became this person whose death plunges the world into despair because we don't see that in either movie. If he had all along been the character we saw in JL, it would be understandable. But we never see that guy in the first two.

Very little (I would not say no) concern for the deaths his fight is causing is another issue. He saves a couple of people then does something or other that shows no concern for the vulnerable people in the area.

[JAK]

A lot of good points in this thread. I'd also highly recommend the "Nando V Movies" rewrite of the film, consisting of several parts on YouTube:

Part 1 is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhGScxIvvpA

[Agent Z]

Wow.

It is only now that I see just how far the pendulum of individualism swung in Zack's vision. AND how it poisons the other characters. Now I see why in his eyes Wonder Woman would say screw humanity and walk away and do nothing.

It only further enforces my opinion that Zack is a great visual resource but is not good as an architect for the DCEU. If they had gotten to a point where they were going into Elseworlds take, he would be great to explore a selfish, edgelord version of the characters. But I am not interested in a Booster Gold acting Superman, an uninterested, heartbroken WW, or a Punisher in Batman drag further saddled with envy issues.

If Clark acted anything like Booster Gold, he wouldn't have hidden his powers and he'd be charging people for his services.

Neil Gaiman once said that when people say they hate something, they're usually right but when they try to explain why they hate it, they're usually wrong. This applies very well to much of the criticism about MoS and the DCEU. The word edgelord is as misused as Mary Sue in internet discourse.

[manwhohaseverything]

If Clark acted anything like Booster Gold, he wouldn't have hidden his powers and he'd be charging people for his services.

Making money for services is kind of like "the American way". I mean, it is the pursuit of happiness . Isn't it? Booster gold a wierd loser from the future and a champion for himself,fighting a never ending battle for truth, justice and the american way.i am just joking

[Dboi2001]

At no point do the Kents ever deliberately argue for Clakr to use his powers for good, at best it's couched in conceits - Martha's line about choosing almost comes off as mocking the idea that he should choose to help people. Every time Clark talks to Jonathan his foster father constantly tells him doing good things comes with a cost of death, and he can't even say Clark rescuing kids from drowning was the right thing to do. It's implied he's ashamed of saying that but he still does it. We never hear Clark's argument over why he chooses to be a hero over Jonathan's objections, he just shows up one day on an oil rig. Why? Who knows? It's like there are scenes missing from the movie and his reasons for doing that are glossed over in the sequels. His parents never teach him how to protect his identity while being a hero, either - their chooses are binary - saving people and becoming a lab rat or staying hidden. Clark isn't a complete opposite of Zod, if he were he'd care about not wanting to kill and care about the death he unintentionally creates fighting his enemies. Never comes up. That's not a story arc in any movie he's in. The only person who pushes Clark to be a hero was Jor-El, and this was redundant since he was being a hero before he put on the Superman outfit. Superman's body having Krypton's DNA in it to restart their race is never bought up again, either, and he's not their saviour he tells Zod they had their time and kills the Kryptonian pods like it was nothing. He has no real emotional attachment to being Kryptonian. The real world can be more cynical, if Clark were raised by Libertarians which is what was heavily implied by how Snyder wrote them. I'm not a fan of Libertarian Superman.

Well about the codex in the Snyder cut of JL Superman comes back to life because of the codex so blame Whedon on that

Next you are completely misinterpreting the Kents. Martha wasn’t mocking Superman helping people. Rewatch that scene. She tells him to be whatever he wants to. Be a hero or angel or don’t be. Jonathan’s ‘speech’ on the mountain was simply reminding Clark there is good in the world. That you can make mistakes but not to let them haunt you. He also did not say saving the children was wrong but using his powers was reckless. And Jonathan never said “never become a hero”. You’re overlook a major aspect of the scenes you mentioned. Clark was still a kid at the time. In fact all throughout the flashbacks we see Jonathan telling Clark he is destined for greatness and he needs to decide what kind of man he will be. Jonathan is simply looking out for his son and he even tells him when the time comes he will either need to stand in front of the human race or not. Hell even Clark tells Jonathan he doesn’t want to be important because he’s just a kid. But nowhere does Jonathan tell Clark to not be a hero and at the end Martha says he did always see Clark becoming a hero

Superman does show concern during the fights. When he fought the kryptonians in Smallville he told everyone to hide. He also tried moving the fight away from Smallville but it’d end up back in the middle because Faora and Nam Ek are better fights. And in the Metropolis fight not only is the city mostly evacuated but he even throws Zod into space but Zod takes it back to earth.

[Riv86672]

I see a lot of people say that Zack S nyder misunderstood Superman in Man of Steel but I disagree and certainly understands superheroes better than most film makers. To be MoS was a “reconstruction” of Superman and superheroes

For as much of a point as was made about Superman’s S Shield meaning Hope, it wasn’t a very hopeful reimagining of the character imo. It started w. Pa Kent and his hide your powers at all costs/ppl will fear you/the Govt will take you away indoctrination of a young Clark. That’s not who Pa Kent is/was/has ever been.
The guys in the movie literally chose to die in front of his wife and kid rather than let ppl witness an act of super heroism.
Ma and Pa Kent instilled rock solid principles in Clark, a sense of humanity, and yes, hopefulness. They taught him that a person can be bad, but that ppl are good, and encouraged him to use his powers to help, while being careful as he did so.

The other characters in the movie from the oppressive Kryptonians to the distrustful Military to the cynical Lois Lane, didn’t have anyone to bounce off of. Superman should have been the guy meeting all that negativity w. positivity. Standing resolutely against the invaders, politely telling the Military he’s there to help, and making Lois second guess her been there done that glass half empty way of looking at things.

[Agent Z]

For as much of a point as was made about Superman’s S Shield meaning Hope, it wasn’t a very hopeful reimagining of the character imo. It started w. Pa Kent and his hide your powers at all costs/ppl will fear you/the Govt will take you away indoctrination of a young Clark. That’s not who Pa Kent is/was/has ever been.
The guys in the movie literally chose to die in front of his wife and kid rather than let ppl witness an act of super heroism.
Ma and Pa Kent instilled rock solid principles in Clark, a sense of humanity, and yes, hopefulness. They taught him that a person can be bad, but that ppl are good, and encouraged him to use his powers to help, while being careful as he did so.

The other characters in the movie from the oppressive Kryptonians to the distrustful Military to the cynical Lois Lane, didn’t have anyone to bounce off of. Superman should have been the guy meeting all that negativity w. positivity. Standing resolutely against the invaders, politely telling the Military he’s there to help, and making Lois second guess her been there done that glass half empty way of looking at things.

The military were distrustful at first before coming around. And how was Lois cynical?

As for Jonathan, he's not that different from other versions of the character including Smallville and Lois and Clark who acted similarly. His advice just boiled down to think before you leap.

The Kryptonians are villains so "meeting them with positivity" wouldn't accomplish anything.

[Riv86672]

The military were distrustful at first before coming around. And how was Lois cynical?

As for Jonathan, he's not that different from other versions of the character including Smallville and Lois and Clark who acted similarly. His advice just boiled down to think before you leap.

The Kryptonians are villains so "meeting them with positivity" wouldn't accomplish anything.

Agree to disagree.
Doesn’t seem like you understood what i wrote (as i said nothing about meeting the Kryptonians w. positivity), and I’m not going break it down again into a wall of text. Suffice it to say i don’t think Snyder really gets Superman. He does great action scenes, though.

[achilles]

They were no more nor less human than the Smallville take or several others.

I'd argue quite a bit less. I like Costner, I like Pa Kent; this one was weird and inhuman, and his choices were all...not just wrong, but alien, as though Snyder has no idea how real people act. As far as I'm concerned, Snyder at best is either a second unit director or a senior effect supervisor, but he doesn't have what it takes to be a successful director. But in answer to the OP question, yeah, Snyder doesn't have the first clue either that his vision of Superman doesn't match up with what most people think, or that there are in fact other views at all; though I think he's gotten an education since. So yeah, he does "misunderstand" Superman from that point of view.