Does Man of Steel (2013) misunderstand Superman?

[achilles]

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.

And if you want a further breakdown, look up. Since I can't say it better.

[SiegePerilous02]

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.

So would the Neil Gaiman quote apply to you when you criticize certain storylines or characters and not everyone agrees with your view points? By this logic, you'd usually be wrong when you do so.

There is hyperbole on all sides of the DCEU debates. But seeing as how Snyder's take was flatly rejected by both a lot of fans and met with apathy from the mainstream, outside of the niche but very vocal crowd online, to the point the studio was reacting* a lot of the criticisms from different corners lining up is probably happening for a reason.

*And making things worse in a lot of ways, but that's another issue.

[Agent Z]

So would the Neil Gaiman quote apply to you when you criticize certain storylines or characters and not everyone agrees with your view points?

To some who like those stories, maybe it would. But I at least try to base my dislike on what actually happens within those stories.

Yeah you'll find hyperbole on both sides of the debate but from where I'm standing, the side disliking these early movies is the one most likely to engage in it.

[SiegePerilous02]

To some who like those stories, maybe it would. But I at least try to base my dislike on what actually happens within those stories.

Yeah you'll find hyperbole on both sides of the debate but from where I'm standing, the side disliking these early movies is the one most likely to engage in it.

Yes and you usually do, I just more have an issue with using that quote in general.

IDK, they seem to be on even ground depending on which posters are involved in the discussion. I've been accused of being an MCU shill for coming around to criticisms of Snyder's output and becoming worn out on him, and I'm not even overly invested in the MCU films beyond a few and will call out how same-y a lot of them are. I think the opposing opinions that this is a great, deep developed version of classic Superman or a psycho whose little better than Ultraman or Homelander are both missing the mark. Like a lot of valid criticisms are usually met with "you just want kid stuff and don't like Snyder making your favorite characters sophisticated for adults" responses. How is that NOT hyperbole?

[Agent Z]

Yes and you usually do, I just more have an issue with using that quote in general.

IDK, they seem to be on even ground depending on which posters are involved in the discussion. I've been accused of being an MCU shill for coming around to criticisms of Snyder's output and becoming worn out on him, and I'm not even overly invested in the MCU films beyond a few and will call out how same-y a lot of them are. I think the opposing opinions that this is a great, deep developed version of classic Superman or a psycho whose little better than Ultraman or Homelander are both missing the mark. Like a lot of valid criticisms are usually met with "you just want kid stuff and don't like Snyder making your favorite characters sophisticated for adults" responses. How is that NOT hyperbole?

It certainly is. No argument there. But in my experience (can't speak to yours) it doesn't happen nearly as often as the side comparing Snyder's Superman to Homelander or Regime Superman or calling anyone who defends these films a morally bankrupt nihilist. To say nothing of what's often said about Snyder himself for the pettiest and most absurd reasons.

[Dboi2001]

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.

So what would you do if your 13 year old alien son exposed his powers to a bus full of kids? Go “Wow great job son i’m so proud of you keep using your powers”?

[SiegePerilous02]

It certainly is. No argument there. But in my experience (can't speak to yours) it doesn't happen nearly as often as the side comparing Snyder's Superman to Homelander or Regime Superman or calling anyone who defends these films a morally bankrupt nihilist. To say nothing of what's often said about Snyder himself for the pettiest and most absurd reasons.

I think it depends on what debates we're taking part in and who the participants are.

For every "morally bankrupt nihilist" argument, there is a "Morally naïve" argument in return, often even still aimed at the people who think (for example) that Clark killing Zod in the manner he did at that point he did wasn't wrong but maybe the narrative should have been shaped a different way.

Regardless, I think the whole Snyder thing could be used as a lesson on how not to behave, on both sides.

[Riv86672]

So what would you do if your 13 year old alien son exposed his powers to a bus full of kids? Go “Wow great job son i’m so proud of you keep using your powers”?

Yeah, I’d def. say i was proud of him for saving a bus full of kids.

[manwhohaseverything]

So what would you do if your 13 year old alien son exposed his powers to a bus full of kids? Go “Wow great job son i’m so proud of you keep using your powers”?

Actually, kents(some versions) encourage their adolescent boy to be a vigilante, jump into unholy danger that could kill him and do good. Some might call it irresponsible/bad parenting and some heroic/altruistic .take that however you will


Me? i hate that clark doesn't know what good really means. He is nowhere near knowledgeable enough to know what is morality. I mean, even grown adults seem to grapple with that. This is superman in modern world. A guy who is molded entirely by his two sets of parents. Not his own journey as a person.if the kid was sneaking out (wrong thing to do. Which the character needs to realise) and learning on his own what is right and wrong. I would like it. But, as it stands now. I don't.
Here is jon sneaking off and realising his mistake.

This is morality from a protagonist. Above is just blind nostalgia about silverage and not done in a good way. Jon is silverage superman done right for modern audiences.

[Gaius]

Everyone seems to have their own take on Superman, So I guess I'd say it's more Snyder has a take that doesn't really sync up with others. Or at least general audiences given the mixed reaction to the film.

For me I guess I'd say, it seems more concerned with trying to be "not your daddy's Superman". Which I guess after Superman Returns was probably needed but it goes about it in muddled ways.

[Dboi2001]

Actually, kents(some versions) encourage their adolescent boy to be a vigilante, jump into unholy danger that could kill him and do good. Some might call it irresponsible/bad parenting and some heroic/altruistic .take that however you will

There is a pretty significant difference between Clark dressing in a costume and keeping his identity a secret and Clark using his powers in his regular clothes. In MoS all Jonathan tells Clark is he is destined for great things but he has to be mature enough to handle that responsibility. There is always a place for Superboy stories in comics but in the setting of MoS it doesn't fit. And again going off this it contradicts the message of MoS that Clark is a hero by his own will rather than his parents

[manwhohaseverything]

And again going off this it contradicts the message of MoS that Clark is a hero by his own will rather than his parents

People think choice is overrated. Hence, morality is obligation for many. Honestly, haven't you watched spiderman?
"with great powet comes great responsibility". Which has become "with great power comes great obligation"

Superheroes don't generally believe in negative duties.If you see a guy drowning you must save him. There is no choice in the matter. Even if you didn't push the guy, therefore aren't obligated but still can save him if you so choose to. Superheroes are all about postive duties.

[Dboi2001]

Everyone seems to have their own take on Superman, So I guess I'd say it's more Snyder has a take that doesn't really sync up with others. Or at least general audiences given the mixed reaction to the film.

For me I guess I'd say, it seems more concerned with trying to be "not your daddy's Superman". Which I guess after Superman Returns was probably needed but it goes about it in muddled ways.

sure people can have their own take but they usually derive from the same point but Snyder is no different. MoS breaks Superman down to his core and makes us think about things we take for granted about Superman. The fact he has no call to action like other heroes. Batman's is his parents murder, Wonder Woman's is to bring peace to men, Spider-Man is Uncle Ben's death, the X-Men is prejudice etc. Superman acts because it is the right thing to do. But underneath the darkness and brooding he is still Superman. Many people here are saying Superman is a reluctant hero or that the Kents tell him not to save people but that isn't true at all. The main theme of MoS is choice and the theme in BvS is consequence with the villains of both movies symbolizing that

[Steel Inquisitor]

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

Ok.

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

Martha's tone wasn't supportive, it was unnecessarily theatrical until the last part about not doing anything. There are ways how parents support their kids into being what they want, neither Kent does so with the hero option. It's lab rat or hide, there is no third option. Helping him hide his gifts while being a hero never comes up, unlike with other Kent's. The Smallville kent's are not only supporting they constantly inform Clark on how he should hide his powers and help him do so when they're able to. Not with Snyder's films. At no point does Jonathan ever say he should be a hero or that saving those kids was right. He gives him a "maybe." Which is rough for a confused kid looking for guidance. The fact Clark is a kid during that is even more galling, they give him no helpful advice. All Martha does is help control his powers but nothing about using them to save people secretly or that being a hero is good. They can protect Clark without how they acted, which was frighten him into not sharing his abilities on pain of implied death and experimentation. It's all negative, no positives.In the strange scene Clark has with his father in B vs S, Jonathan's choice for a speech is comparing him being a super-hero to letting things die on the farm, conflating doing good deeds with equivalent exchange with death. Rescue x person here, y will die. It's bizarre. But the kent never help him be "great," the theme is stay hidden risk nothing. His father dies because of this. We never see flashbacks of Clark figuring out how he be a hero, he just is one day. His parents aren't a part in how he learnt to keep a low profile, he just does whatever. They don't give him advice on that.

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.

That's all he does, though. He's never given arc about it or speak to people about his opinions on that in depth. The movies never go into how he feels about people dying or being responsible for deaths. Even Zod's. In the Director's Cut of B vs S when a witness brings up about how Superman causes all he does is look sad watching tv, he never has a counter argument. We don't get into how he came to his opinions.

Metropolis isn't mostly evacuated, it teas hours to do with a big city like that - which is why the tone and evoking 9/11 has a bigger impact in a film about Superman. Every building they go through has people in it. Except most of the fight takes place in Metropolis, and it's not like making people safe or saving property (which might fall on unlucky bystanders) is a top priority for him. B vs S overcomes that by getting Superman to fly Doomsday into space, which is the smartest action he ever did in Snyder's movies, and the movie winking at the camera that the area in Gotham they're fighting in is "empty." Superman himself never talks about it in strategy with anyone, no DCEU heroes do.

Telling everyone to hide is not all he can do, it's the least he can do. He's Godzilla, he makes a mistake they get squashed like a bug.

[Dboi2001]

Martha's tone wasn't supportive, it was unnecessarily theatrical until the last part about not doing anything. There are ways how parents support their kids into being what they want, neither Kent does so with the hero option. It's lab rat or hide, there is no third option. Helping him hide his gifts while being a hero never comes up, unlike with other Kent's. The Smallville kent's are not only supporting they constantly inform Clark on how he should hide his powers and help him do so when they're able to. Not with Snyder's films. At no point does Jonathan ever say he should be a hero or that saving those kids was right. He gives him a "maybe." Which is rough for a confused kid looking for guidance. The fact Clark is a kid during that is even more galling, they give him no helpful advice. All Martha does is help control his powers but nothing about using them to save people secretly or that being a hero is good. They can protect Clark without how they acted, which was frighten him into not sharing his abilities on pain of implied death and experimentation. It's all negative, no positives.In the strange scene Clark has with his father in B vs S, Jonathan's choice for a speech is comparing him being a super-hero to letting things die on the farm, conflating doing good deeds with equivalent exchange with death. Rescue x person here, y will die. It's bizarre. But the kent never help him be "great," the theme is stay hidden risk nothing. His father dies because of this. We never see flashbacks of Clark figuring out how he be a hero, he just is one day. His parents aren't a part in how he learnt to keep a low profile, he just does whatever. They don't give him advice on that.

I don't know what you mean. Martha was simply telling Clark he chooses what happens in his life. And Jonathan does tell Clark constantly he will change the world and is destined for greatness. Martha even told Superman at the end that John did see Clark becoming a hero. And I'd say it is good that we don't see the Kent pushing Clark to be a hero. Clark should be a hero simply because it is the right thing to do. If you have his parents encouraging him to save people it defeats the message of the movie. And all John's speech in BvS was that some good intentions have bad consequences but that doesn't mean things aren't worth saving. And they are why Clark keeps a low profile. John constantly told him until he finds out what his reason for being here is he needs to hide his powers. That is what lead Clark to become a "ghost".

That's all he does, though. He's never given arc about it or speak to people about his opinions on that in depth. The movies never go into how he feels about people dying or being responsible for deaths. Even Zod's. In the Director's Cut of B vs S when a witness brings up about how Superman causes all he does is look sad watching tv, he never has a counter argument. We don't get into how he came to his opinions.

Metropolis isn't mostly evacuated, it teas hours to do with a big city like that - which is why the tone and evoking 9/11 has a bigger impact in a film about Superman. Every building they go through has people in it. Except most of the fight takes place in Metropolis, and it's not like making people safe or saving property (which might fall on unlucky bystanders) is a top priority for him. B vs S overcomes that by getting Superman to fly Doomsday into space, which is the smartest action he ever did in Snyder's movies, and the movie winking at the camera that the area in Gotham they're fighting in is "empty." Superman himself never talks about it in strategy with anyone, no DCEU heroes do.

Telling everyone to hide is not all he can do, it's the least he can do. He's Godzilla, he makes a mistake they get squashed like a bug.

And what was Superman suppose to do exactly? Most of where Zod and Superman fought was desemated by the world engine. There was nobody around that area anymore