Man Of Steel Ten Years Later - What’s Your Thoughts On It?

[DochaDocha]

I'm curious if people's opinions of MoS changed after BvS and JL, as well as the release of Snyder's notes for what his master plans were for the DCEU.

I personally have a difficult time articulating why I dislike the major plot points for the DCEU but still really wanted to see Cavill come back.

[Stanlos]

I pretty much echo the opinion expressed by All Star Superman. Thus far it has not changed. The only thing that has changed is my knowledge of the circumstances behind the scenes that may have contributed to the vibe for the project.

I like to think that had Zack had some space between Watchmen and MOS he might have been in a headspace more conducive to a celebration of the aspirational Superman most of knew and loved. The only real positives about the film for me remain the general good lookingness of Henry Cavill, the fact that the lady from Pandorum was in it (though her background with stunts was not used as much as it could have been given the Screen Saver 2 fest that Snyder's crew prefers), and the initial vibe of Adams' Lois Lane displayed when she explained things to the guards at the ship site.

It is just not my vibe. It swung way too much toward individualism and it just felt like Superman proper never showed up.

[Stick Figure]

First time I actually enjoyed & became interested in Superman. I’d seen a few old comics & had saw some cartoons. I absolutely detest the Reeves movies & that MOS was so different really meant something. Superman felt flawed & more human. They made him feel like a regular person. People call it brooding but that’s everything just felt right to me. The action was phenomenal & it had the best on screen costume I’ve seen. My only complaint is there needed to be a sequel before BvS. Then that movie might’ve had more impact.

[Spencermalley935]

I've grown to really dislike it.

My personal distaste for how it portrays the characters aside, It's just a really mediocre movie in general. It's chock full of awful dialogue, unemotional robotic characters, absurd scenarios/reactions and excessive empty action. The script feels like a first draft, the tone is depressing, the color grading is atrocious, literally every scene is shot with held hand shaky cam and overall, it just really feels like it was made with the mindset of "Superman is too powerful, unrelatable and irrelevant, The only way to "fix him" is to give him the Batman treatment"

[HsssH]

I'm curious if people's opinions of MoS changed after BvS and JL, as well as the release of Snyder's notes for what his master plans were for the DCEU.

I personally have a difficult time articulating why I dislike the major plot points for the DCEU but still really wanted to see Cavill come back.

I never really understood why things that didn't happen would change how someone views the movies that actually happened.

As for BvS and JL? I'm not sure, it didn't change my opinion much.

[godisawesome]

I'm curious if people's opinions of MoS changed after BvS and JL, as well as the release of Snyder's notes for what his master plans were for the DCEU.

I personally have a difficult time articulating why I dislike the major plot points for the DCEU but still really wanted to see Cavill come back.

I found that I was dividing MOS from BvS and ZSJL after a while; I think David Goyer had an observable impact on MOS that was missing from Snyder’s other films both in terms of scale/bloat and in terms of where the story fell on the cynicism vs idealism scale.

MOS still strikes me as having at least *some* idealism and optimism mixed in with the grit and fear - there’s a lot more humans “worthy” of Clark’s help, and there’s a lot more heroism in the supporting cast in general, while the “they won’t accept you” fear that Pa Kent has in the film actually contrasts with how most of Smallville and the military ends up reacting with acceptance and support. It’s also just a much more “efficient” film than Snyder’s other efforts, with much better pacing, much less “fat,” and a lot more for the supporting cats to do in the central conflict.

Snyder’s other films somewhat infamously suffer from bloat and a more consistent cynicism and pessimism, and I think that Superman suffers the most from that as a character… which Batman’s franchise suffers the most as a mythos. I think Snyder sort of lost track of Superman except as a potential tragic anatgonist once he had access to Batman, while ironically he also neutered much of the backstory and potential for his Batman by deciding that Dick Grayson was the only and dead Robin.

[JBatmanFan05]

I've grown to really dislike it.

My personal distaste for how it portrays the characters aside, It's just a really mediocre movie in general. It's chock full of awful dialogue, unemotional robotic characters, absurd scenarios/reactions and excessive empty action. The script feels like a first draft, the tone is depressing, the color grading is atrocious, literally every scene is shot with held hand shaky cam and overall, it just really feels like it was made with the mindset of "Superman is too powerful, unrelatable and irrelevant, The only way to "fix him" is to give him the Batman treatment"

Yes, that's how I felt. Superman...just Batmanized. Superman seems to get either Marvelized or Batmanized, and I take issue with that. I love me some Batman, but that's why we have Batman. Superman is different.

[DochaDocha]

I never really understood why things that didn't happen would change how someone views the movies that actually happened.

I agree that the end product is the end product regardless of the whys behind. On the other hand, I think creator intent can have some impact. At the very least, it might change the way you interpret a scene or the movie itself. I can't think of any great examples off the top of my head, though. Even the DCEU itself is hard to suss out because I think there was a lot of studio interference post-MOS and some of the Snyder's strange ideas may have been a direct result of said intereference instead of what he originally planned out.

Maybe a better way of putting it is you start looking at a movie that you liked as being accidentally good instead of good by design, and we just lucked out that there was no green light to continue the story.

[Primal Slayer]

I'm curious if people's opinions of MoS changed after BvS and JL, as well as the release of Snyder's notes for what his master plans were for the DCEU.

I personally have a difficult time articulating why I dislike the major plot points for the DCEU but still really wanted to see Cavill come back.

His future plans didn't have an impact in how i viewed the film. They were stupid ideas and just made me want a SM movie w/out Snyder even more.

BvS/JL probably made me appreciate MoS a tad more just due to the simplicity of it compared to the other films. Henry really got screwed over.

[bat39]

I pretty much echo the opinion expressed by All Star Superman. Thus far it has not changed. The only thing that has changed is my knowledge of the circumstances behind the scenes that may have contributed to the vibe for the project.

I like to think that had Zack had some space between Watchmen and MOS he might have been in a headspace more conducive to a celebration of the aspirational Superman most of knew and loved. The only real positives about the film for me remain the general good lookingness of Henry Cavill, the fact that the lady from Pandorum was in it (though her background with stunts was not used as much as it could have been given the Screen Saver 2 fest that Snyder's crew prefers), and the initial vibe of Adams' Lois Lane displayed when she explained things to the guards at the ship site.

It is just not my vibe. It swung way too much toward individualism and it just felt like Superman proper never showed up.

Who said individualism can't be aspirational? It certainly is to large chunks of the world, particularly those living in societies/states that do not value individual rights and freedoms.

One of the things that I feel Superman has fallen behind in terms of popularity, especially compared to the likes of Batman, is that for all his powers the character doesn't seem particularly aspirational. He often comes across as this martyr archetype, 'cursed' to dedicate his existence to saving humanity over and over again without ever effecting lasting change, and forever sacrificing his happiness for the sake of the world. He's the most powerful man in the world, but he's bound by morality and doing the 'right thing', and he gets bossed around by authority figures. Contrast this with Batman, a billionaire playboy and philanthropist by day, and a ruthless vigilante with cool toys by night, who beats the crap out of his enemies and brutally imposes his brand of justice on Gotham - taking no cr#p from anyone.

Cavill's Superman is probably one of the few incarnations of the character I could imagine myself wanting to be.

I found that I was dividing MOS from BvS and ZSJL after a while; I think David Goyer had an observable impact on MOS that was missing from Snyder’s other films both in terms of scale/bloat and in terms of where the story fell on the cynicism vs idealism scale.

MOS still strikes me as having at least *some* idealism and optimism mixed in with the grit and fear - there’s a lot more humans “worthy” of Clark’s help, and there’s a lot more heroism in the supporting cast in general, while the “they won’t accept you” fear that Pa Kent has in the film actually contrasts with how most of Smallville and the military ends up reacting with acceptance and support. It’s also just a much more “efficient” film than Snyder’s other efforts, with much better pacing, much less “fat,” and a lot more for the supporting cats to do in the central conflict.

Snyder’s other films somewhat infamously suffer from bloat and a more consistent cynicism and pessimism, and I think that Superman suffers the most from that as a character… which Batman’s franchise suffers the most as a mythos. I think Snyder sort of lost track of Superman except as a potential tragic anatgonist once he had access to Batman, while ironically he also neutered much of the backstory and potential for his Batman by deciding that Dick Grayson was the only and dead Robin.

One thing that helps separate MOS from the other Snyder films (and the rest of the DCEU in general) is that it was produced before there was any firm plan in place to even build a cinematic universe of it. At the time, the only agenda was to give Superman the 'Nolan' treatment. It's only once the film was moderately successful that DC/WB decided to use it as the launchpad for the DCEU. They'd previously intended the GL film to be that, but that film didn't work out. And Nolan refused to let his trilogy be the start of a cinematic universe.

[Spencermalley935]

Totally agree here. Especially the last bit, which is really unfortunate. As much as I'm looking forward to Superman Legacy, I'm also worried that we'll get some variation of a Donner-esq 'feel good' Superman movie (and certainly, Gunn's statements so far don't entirely contradict that notion). And really, if you think about it, so much of the post-Snyder DCEU has been about running away from the tone of MOS (and BvS), starting with the Whedon cut of JL, then Aquaman, the Shazam films, WW'84 (which took things to an extreme in the other direction) and even Black Adam. Some of it has been good, some of it has been mediocre or bad, but none of it has had the impact of this film IMO. And I'm worried that DC/WB thinks that the right direction to go in for their universe is a blend of MCU-lite and a throwback to Reeve/Donner (or Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman).



Good points. I think the, for a kid's comic-book, the idea that the Kents were these noble souls who told Clark that it was his duty/destiny to use his powers to help people right from childhood kinda works - in a fairy tale/moral parable kind of way. And then of course, Byrne 'updated' it a bit by throwing in some 80's Reagan-era American patriotism ("You're an American citizen. And that means you have responsibilities.") Honestly though, I'm not the greatest fan of the idea that Clark is Superman because the Kents told him to be a hero...any more than I'm a fan of the idea that a hologram of Jor-El told him to be a hero. MOS does have a bit of the Jor-El hologram guiding Clark bit, but ultimately, the movie makes it clear that Clark is someone who innately wants to help people, and after circumstances lead him to expose himself to the world, he decides to continue doing so publically as 'Superman', albeit on his own terms - answering to no one. Jonathan Kent admired his son's innate goodness but was more concerned about how the world could hurt him. Jor-El had an aspiration for his son to inspire humanity, without having any specific expectations for how that would be achieved. Ultimately, its Clark who used his powers secretly to help people for years, and who then uses them publically to save earth and humanity, and then to continue doing so. And I think that's perfect!

I don't think the Kents need to be paragons of virtue. I think its enough for them to be nice, decent people who got themselves into a tough situation raising an extraordinary child the best they could, and being concerned about what would happen if the world found out what that child could do.

Personally speaking, I'd love for the next Superman movie to embrace the optimism and humanity that have always been at the core of the character, as well as the escapism and wonder inherent as well. Man of Steel felt like a misguided attempt to try and copy the tone and feel of the Nolan Batman movies with no one actually stopping to consider whether or not that was actually a good fit for the character (it really wasn't)

I've never seen the Kents as having "told Clark that he needs to be a hero", just that they they raised him with traditional, old-fashioned mid-western values that instilled a strong sense of morality and a desire to do right by people because it's the right thing to do. Clark isn't a hero because he has some vaguely defined "innate desire", It's because he was just raised right by two excellent examples of the human race. Raising Clark with old-fashioned values doesn't make the Kents "paragons of virtue" anymore than making them paranoid lunatics trying to discourage their adopted the son from doing the right thing makes them "realistic". It's perfectly fine for them to be concerned about how the world would react to him and encourage him to be cautious but they'd never discourage him from doing right by people or tell him they're are more important things than saving peoples lives. The MOS Kents feel like they were written with the idea that "old-fashioned, salt of the earth people with small-town values" just don't exist anymore. It honestly feels like they're an impediment to him becoming Superman when they're supposed to be part of the reason. Clark is portrayed as being a reluctant hero in Man of Steel, He doesn't save people because he genuinely believes in it as the right thing to, He just does the bare minimum so he won't feel guilty about not doing anything. He doesn't even properly reveal himself to the world by his own choice. He exposes himself to the US military because a madman has threatened to destroy the world if he doesn't.

Telling Clark that letting a bus full of children die might have been the right call, forcing his son to let him die in a Tornado because he's so paranoid that he can't even fathom the possibility that Clark could have rescued him without using his powers, This is not a "nice, decent man caught in a tough situation", that's a guy who clearly had a few screws knocked loose.

[DABellWrites]

Utter deconstructionist garbage. It did possibly irreparable damage to the zeitgeist's understanding of Superman even thought it's not a Superman movie. No Kents, no Superman. It's a nightmare that I have lived with for a decade and hope it's one I can wake up from one day.

No it didn't. You cannot find Snyder's Superman anywhere outside of his movies. It's just people like you who are obsessed with hating a movie that's largely irrelevant in contemporary CBM.

---

David Goyer, Christopher Nolan, and Zack Snyder tried to plop Superman into the real world. They tried to address the idea of what would happen if Superman really existed. Well, guess what? The film did great at the box office and was the sixth best-selling film of 2013. However, the reception is still polarizing. Almost ten years later. Why? More on that later.

***

Circling back to the movie. As I stated, when Nolan/Goyer/Snyder tried to explore the idea of Superman being set in our world, an interesting idea, they missed a fundamental aspect of Superman. He possibly cannot exist in our reality. He must exist in his own reality, play by his own rules to work. Richard Donner understood this back in 1978. The beginning of his film starts with a boy reading Action Comics in 1938 (granted the comic itself isn't very accurate). The tagline of the movie is: "you'll believe a man can fly". There is also Donner's philosophy of verisimilitude. Which basically meant, he want you to believe his movies can exist in real life. See the difference? One is letting the watcher believe, the other wants you to see our reality and Superman existing in it. One is escapism. The other wants you to question our ugly world. Superman is a escapism, that's why he cannot exist in our world.

These two quotes come from a piece I was working on about Clark. I firmly believe Superman needs an aspect of power fantasy to operate properly. Pro wrestling is the best example of this. Stone Cold Steve Austin became the biggest draw in pro wrestling because he was doing something we all want to do, kicking our boss's ass and taking no shit from no one. John Cena and Hulk Hogan (in pro wrestling, not real life) were the perfect role models. The Hulkster with say your prayers and eat your vitamins. Cena had slogans printed all over his merch. We need power fantasies to be honest, real life can get really terrible.

As for the movie, I have zero feelings about the Man of Steel. I watched it once and didn't finish despite stopping at when Superman was about to snap Zod's neck. It was an okay movie that needed some drafts. Like I stated in my quotes, Superman cannot be brought into the real world, he just can't operate that way. In my opinion, the real issue with the Snyder films is how it broke the Superman fandom (I hate using that word) even after ten years, you still have people proclaiming "Snyder ruined Superman" when nobody has done anything with Snyder's Superman. There hasn't been a single Superman in any media pulling from Snyder. For the most part, Superman is still the same overly nice guy, often outsmarted by Batman, symbol of hope.

[charliehustle415]

I think some fans would say the DCEU got off on a bad start because of MoS. My take is the DCEU's first major misstep was BvS and it really went all downhill from there.

I totally agree, MoS as a stand alone Superman film was great because if given the chance and made into a trilogy we could've had the optimistic Kal we all dreamed of.

But the powers that be said Superman fans can't have anything unless it includes Batman and that was when I knew DCEU was DOA.

How are you gonna have DKR in the second film, IN THE SECOND FILM!

I still adore MoS and rewatch at least once a year, I especially love the direct quotes lifted from Morrison's All Star

[Badou]

Didn't like MoS and still don't. I think it was a poor take on Superman. Snyder or WB didn't have the foresight to understand that having the opening movie to your cinematic universe be so divisive was a massive mistake. For your opening movie you need to build up as much goodwill as possible, but the first movie out of the gate it felt like the fandom was immediately split in half and have been fighting with each other for a decade. Now I don't think the DCEU was immediately ruined because of MoS. I felt like they could easily course correct with the next movie, but then BvS happened and it felt like Snyder doubled down on all the things that split the fandom in the first place with MoS. Kills of Jimmy Olsen immediately, ruins the first on screen meeting between Batman and Superman, has the movie be overly dark and depressing, Robin is already dead, and even kills off Superman at the end. I couldn't believe what I watched.

[bat39]

No it didn't. You cannot find Snyder's Superman anywhere outside of his movies. It's just people like you who are obsessed with hating a movie that's largely irrelevant in contemporary CBM.

---

***



These two quotes come from a piece I was working on about Clark. I firmly believe Superman needs an aspect of power fantasy to operate properly. Pro wrestling is the best example of this. Stone Cold Steve Austin became the biggest draw in pro wrestling because he was doing something we all want to do, kicking our boss's ass and taking no shit from no one. John Cena and Hulk Hogan (in pro wrestling, not real life) were the perfect role models. The Hulkster with say your prayers and eat your vitamins. Cena had slogans printed all over his merch. We need power fantasies to be honest, real life can get really terrible.

As for the movie, I have zero feelings about the Man of Steel. I watched it once and didn't finish despite stopping at when Superman was about to snap Zod's neck. It was an okay movie that needed some drafts. Like I stated in my quotes, Superman cannot be brought into the real world, he just can't operate that way. In my opinion, the real issue with the Snyder films is how it broke the Superman fandom (I hate using that word) even after ten years, you still have people proclaiming "Snyder ruined Superman" when nobody has done anything with Snyder's Superman. There hasn't been a single Superman in any media pulling from Snyder. For the most part, Superman is still the same overly nice guy, often outsmarted by Batman, symbol of hope.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the power fantasy bit. That's really at the heart of the Siegal/Shuster Superman. He has the power to beat the cr#p out of a wife-beater, or to force mine-owners who ill-treat their employees to change their ways, or to destroy derelict slums with his bare hands and force government action on housing.

That aspect gets lost with most mainstream takes on the character today, where he's just this vague and generic 'symbol of hope' who spouts morals and is obedient to authority and basically the best role model for kids. That in turn feeds in to the perception that he's a 'boring' character.

MOS brought back the power fantasy to some extent, like when Clark smashes up that truck outside the bar, or when he destroys that military spy satellite and tells General Lennox that he won't take sh#t from anyone (not those exact words, but close enough ).

Batman's popularity to a large extent is because he embodies this power fantasy perfectly, despite not actually having powers.