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

[Stanlos]

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.

Not me. I stated that in the film the pendulum had swung too far in the direction of Individualism. The adverb "too much" is key to accurately interpreting what I was trying to convey. In a nutshell, Individualism in and of itself is not a negative; but too much of it, for me, is certainly a negative. And unfortunately that is what Zach and crew served.

[Stanlos]

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 don't know about that. We have seen talent in prose and in comics do a pretty good job with bringing Superman, Wonder Woman, and the JLA to life in a more grounded setting. John Byrne did an exceptional job (far better than his comics work) in WONDER WOMAN: GODS AND GODDESSES. Superman cameo'd there. However Supes and the League were written fairly well by Christopher Golden in JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA: EXTERMINATORS.

Those gave me a good deal of hope that it is possible. There had been a number of good starts in the comics, but Dan DiDio unfortunately shat on every one of those efforts for stunts and fast numbers.

[DABellWrites]

I don't know about that. We have seen talent in prose and in comics do a pretty good job with bringing Superman, Wonder Woman, and the JLA to life in a more grounded setting. John Byrne did an exceptional job (far better than his comics work) in WONDER WOMAN: GODS AND GODDESSES. Superman cameo'd there. However Supes and the League were written fairly well by Christopher Golden in JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA: EXTERMINATORS.

Those gave me a good deal of hope that it is possible. There had been a number of good starts in the comics, but Dan DiDio unfortunately shat on every one of those efforts for stunts and fast numbers.

Well, you can have these characters in a grounded setting, but I meant more as what the character can do and what they represent.

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.

Look at One Piece, biggest power fantasy manga in the world. The whole point of Luffy is to showcase the individual rising above and fighting a corrupt world. His belief in becoming the Pirate King is the idea he's the most freest man on the planet. Nobody can tell him what to do. Remembering Tom King's words on Superman being for the system reminds me why the character has lost a lot of appeal over the decades, and stuff like Superman remaining apolitical. While I don't need Superman in politics, or what Tom Taylor did to Jon. I do think Clark can do more good than whatever he's doing now. Yes, we can still have him fighting aliens, monsters, and whatnot, but I think Clark Kent can do more as a reporter. Political espionage anyone?

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.

Actually, it did. Watching Man of Steel, I was indifferent to it. Watching Batman vs Superman, I appreciated MoS more lighter tone. I watched the theatrical Justice League and appreciated that BvS was tonally consistent and at least had a vision behind it, even if I didn't care much for it. After watching the Zack Snyder's Justice League I was thankful for Joss Whedon for cutting so much excess fat from the movie. As for Snyder's ideas, when I heard read an interview about his ideas for Catwoman and other characters, it made me realize, the man never really had any interest in a shared universe outside whatever he had planned for re-imagining Geoff Johns's Justice League origins and his Superman story.

[Kuwagaton]

Fortunately for you its Carter Hall and not Katar Hol in the movie


Anyway, back on topic - the truck thing is something I also see the Siegal/Shuster Superman doing, but he'd do it differently. He'd probably show up in costume, give that molester a sound thrashing, and then smash up the truck and make it clear why he's doing it. Cavill's Clark took a subtler approach, but that makes sense - he's hiding his powers and doesn't even have the suit yet. Honestly, its not hard to imagine Golden Age Clark, maybe sometime in 1937 or early 1938 when he hasn't figured out the whole 'Superman' thing yet, seeing some jerk harass a waitress at a bar, and quietly trashing that guys truck when he left

It's unfortunate because Katar Hol can't even give an account for himself. The ball was with Hall and since I didn't see it I can't say it was dropped, but the two scenarios are either more Carter or whoever he is upon success, and no Hawkmen upon failure. Maybe the Wally fans are gonna feel this with me soon lol.

Good point about the overarching power fantasy idea with Superman.

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.

It's disheartening that as much as I wanna defend these movies, they totally took what people DIDN'T like and ran. That itself is why we're rebooting after 1.75 Superman films in total.

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.

I'm really glad. I'm unconditionally happy for people to come to the character even if I don't like the product (Up in the Sky was my "baby food" reference btw) vs distancing from him.

Look at One Piece, biggest power fantasy manga in the world. The whole point of Luffy is to showcase the individual rising above and fighting a corrupt world. His belief in becoming the Pirate King is the idea he's the most freest man on the planet. Nobody can tell him what to do. Remembering Tom King's words on Superman being for the system reminds me why the character has lost a lot of appeal over the decades, and stuff like Superman remaining apolitical. While I don't need Superman in politics, or what Tom Taylor did to Jon. I do think Clark can do more good than whatever he's doing now. Yes, we can still have him fighting aliens, monsters, and whatnot, but I think Clark Kent can do more as a reporter. Political espionage anyone?

Luffy is ironically not free at all because everything is chalked up to luck or destiny when he doesn't find himself sufficient. I think that's part of Oda's plot as it plays into so much, but then as sole writer there isn't really an excuse for stinker concepts like, "Kurozumi were meant to burn."

[Stanlos]

Well, you can have these characters in a grounded setting, but I meant more as what the character can do and what they represent.



Look at One Piece, biggest power fantasy manga in the world. The whole point of Luffy is to showcase the individual rising above and fighting a corrupt world. His belief in becoming the Pirate King is the idea he's the most freest man on the planet. Nobody can tell him what to do. Remembering Tom King's words on Superman being for the system reminds me why the character has lost a lot of appeal over the decades, and stuff like Superman remaining apolitical. While I don't need Superman in politics, or what Tom Taylor did to Jon. I do think Clark can do more good than whatever he's doing now. Yes, we can still have him fighting aliens, monsters, and whatnot, but I think Clark Kent can do more as a reporter. Political espionage anyone?

I think what they represent is easier to realize in the film than the What They Can Do. Superpowers of Supes tier are bound to be expensive even if the script writer is both imaginitive enough and smart enough to drum up viable challenges. Audiences will also be armchair quarterbacking the crap out of things.

[Doctor Know]

And people said Cavilman never smiled in MOS.

[Spencermalley935]

And people said Cavilman never smiled in MOS.

I'd have liked it if he did that with more people than just his love interest and mother but that's besides the point

The real issue with Cavills Superman isn't that he "didn't smile enough", It's his character development or rather his lack thereof. We don't really know anything about this guy in Man of Steel outside of "had a hard childhood" and "has a vague, innate drive to save people". What are his morals? what are his values? what are his interests outside of reluctantly saving people? What qualifications does he have to become a journalist?

For a supposedly new take, It really feels like its depending on the audience to fill in the blanks with their pre-conceived notions of who Superman is supposed to be based on earlier iterations of the character.

[HsssH]

His actions shows his morals, are you expecting him to do 5 minutes presentation about his morals?

[manwhohaseverything]

Luffy is ironically not free at all because everything is chalked up to luck or destiny when he doesn't find himself sufficient. I think that's part of Oda's plot as it plays into so much, but then as sole writer there isn't really an excuse for stinker concepts like, "Kurozumi were meant to burn."

I get what you are saying but it's not really luck when people choose it.there is a theme of destiny in one piece.But, it's not determinism like when you hear the word.the nika fruit chose luffy with his will for example.vice versa.(it doesn't negate determinism..it simply feels not that important in the story. we are talking at a level of human society..Not some cosmic level).

Inherited will, The destiny of the age, and The dreams of the people. As long as people continue to pursue the meaning of Freedom, these things will never cease to be!" - Gol D. Roger!

It's the inherited will of the people that creates the destiny of age.the same will which is created by the dreams of its people.ace should have been the king..yet he isn't.because he chose to die.because he had no desire.he wanted blaze a fire instead.

Luffy wants to be freest man.doesn't mean free from everything like consequences.because he still gets cut and can be beaten.

[KC]

Overall, I think it was a boring, joyless slog of a movie. And the few good action scenes it had did not make up for or change that. It also has the worst depiction of Pa Kent put to screen

[Kuwagaton]

His actions shows his morals, are you expecting him to do 5 minutes presentation about his morals?

I'm not sure how one deals with a lot of that stuff in a relevant way, but then again comics have a lot of popular stories these days where the writer basically talks at the audience.

I get what you are saying but it's not really luck when people choose it.there is a theme of destiny in one piece.But, it's not determinism like when you hear the word.the nika fruit chose luffy with his will for example.vice versa.(it doesn't negate determinism..it simply feels not that important in the story. we are talking at a level of human society..Not some cosmic level).

When your life path is a convoluted series of reinforcements for particular behaviors then it is shaped.

Man of Steel is a story about a man who tried so hard to not be alienated and he literally turned out to be an alien. People say he reluctantly saves the world but... doesn't he give everything to do the job in spite of not getting what he wants? Isn't the reinforcement for what he does largely a double edged sword, both in story and meta commentary?

[Jokerz79]

I mentioned in another thread about this in the film section that this is my least liked solo Superman film the ones I like even less are BvS and Justice League. Yes, I can get through Quest for Peace before anything Snyder touched at least it had Christopher Reeve and at its core kept Superman true to the character I knew.

I honestly can only get through the Krypton scenes because they're cool from a Sci-Fi angle although it does bother me in this version poor Lara dies alone instead of with her husband. Truth is I always end quitting the film before it ends usually not long probably 20 minutes after Deadliest Catch the DC edition.

The Jonathan Kent death scene I've seen the explanations to why it's "good" how Jonathan's afraid how the world would react to Clark it's still stupid IMO.

My big issue is Zod's Death. It's not killing Zod that bothered me it was how it was done.

1: They never established that this version of Clark has an issue with taking a life. Saving lives and refusing to take one isn't the same thing. So, him taking a life doesn't have the same payoff as the filmmakers wanted.

2: Speaking of "saving" lives Clark's complete disregard for Collateral Damage. He got mad about the Kryptonians going after his mom and took the fight the heart of Smallville vs having it miles outside of town. I get it he's young and emotional and I could overlook it if he hadn't then had his ending battle with Zod in Metropolis destroying the city and never seeming to care about the people inside the city. Until a family is presented in front of him as being in direct danger now, he must kill Zod not when they were knocking over buildings full of people. Superman II's "Battle" in Metropolis might be small, anticlimactic, and hokey by today's standards but I'll take that where Zod realizes Superman's "Weakness" is his caring for people vs Snyder's Destruction Porn.

3: Then at the end he smashed a drone and tells the military he won't be spied on.

Jonthan thought the world would fear his son well it turned out they had every right to, and it only got worse with BvS.

Snyder's Superman has always felt more like a Hyperion movie than a Superman film to me.

[Doctor Know]

I'd have liked it if he did that with more people than just his love interest and mother but that's besides the point

The real issue with Cavills Superman isn't that he "didn't smile enough", It's his character development or rather his lack thereof. We don't really know anything about this guy in Man of Steel outside of "had a hard childhood" and "has a vague, innate drive to save people". What are his morals? what are his values? what are his interests outside of reluctantly saving people? What qualifications does he have to become a journalist?

For a supposedly new take, It really feels like its depending on the audience to fill in the blanks with their pre-conceived notions of who Superman is supposed to be based on earlier iterations of the character.

I think that was Snyder’s point. That Lois and Martha were the two most important things in his life and making them proud was something he always tried to do. If Snyder replaced Martha with Jimmy, would it really change anything?






"Super Space Man. Human Race Man. Gonna thank you because you care".

Cavilman did a lot of heroics in his 3 movies. Hell the very first thing we see him do is save those people on the oil rig. Would Cavilman need to have his own version of “I Spent The Night With Superman” interview with Lois, like in 1978? I can’t think of any other hero who has to spell out their intentions and justify their actions. Not the government sanctioned Avengers, not the vigilante X-Men, not the sovereign rulers Aquaman and T’Challa, and certainly not Batman or Spider-Man. They all just go where they are needed.

[Kuwagaton]

1: They never established that this version of Clark has an issue with taking a life.

I was just asking how they could convey some errant details in a deft and meaningful way. This isn't a small detail but how is it possible to assume otherwise? It seems hard to believe that this is something they really had to establish and out of curiosity, in your opinion how does someone show that in a way that seems necessary beyond the school bus, the PTSD over not saving his dad, the refusal to hurt anyone in any other action as Superman, and generally just being portrayed as a decent minded person? Because taking a life is to the contrary of a typical assumption, you'd more often have to prove that someone is okay with taking a life than the other way around.

[manwhohaseverything]

When your life path is a convoluted series of reinforcements for particular behaviors then it is shaped.

Man of Steel is a story about a man who tried so hard to not be alienated and he literally turned out to be an alien. People say he reluctantly saves the world but... doesn't he give everything to do the job in spite of not getting what he wants? Isn't the reinforcement for what he does largely a double edged sword, both in story and meta commentary?

Honestly,Already answered these in story in the baratie arc..choices have consequences which in turn fuel action.There is a causality.But, it's on you to mould.

People do things that's self destructive all the time.Yes,it was.But, it's instinct.he can't help it.Just so you know people that do what they want can end up not getting things they worked for.Luffy and ace's death,luffy after crew gets kuma blasted.