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

[All Star Superman]

I like to explain Batman's "character" arc as ...

1st movie. I have no idea what I'm trying to do. I'll listen to anybody. Just somebody tell me how to be Batman!
2nd movie. Being Batman is really tough. I just don't want to do it anymore.
3rd movie. I quit being Batman. On top of that, I'll quit being Bruce Wayne to and I'll go romance a thief and murderer.

I have no clue what Nolan was trying to do.


They fell down into some fog. There wasn't even a "they can't possibly have survived that" moment. They just fell.

This is a brilliant summary of the Nolanman trilogy. Goyer and Nolan were so slavishly devoted to "realism" in a series of superhero movies that they robbed Bruce Wayne of his singular drive and devotion. The idea that a boy would dedicate his life to "war on all crime" is ridiculous to them, yet that's the core of Batman's character. Grant Morrison said in an interview with Kevin Smith years ago that Bruce Wayne's reaction to the loss of his parents seems "unrealistic" and even silly to an adult, but perfectly reasonable and achievable to a child. It's not a childish concept, but instead, a childlike concept. This is why Bruce Wayne is so unique. Most people would either become self-destructive or destructive to others in light of tragedy, but he used his trauma constructively. Frank Miller and other later takes fail to see that Bruce Wayne is not "insane," but, as Morrison also said, "super sane."

As for Superman II, that's all we see happen to the PZ criminals. They fall into fog, which somehow is the same as dying to people that desperately need their superheroes to kill. I'm not sure what it says about people that defend Superman killing from the perspective of "I can't relate to a hero if he doesn't kill!," but I know it's not good.

[DochaDocha]

This is a brilliant summary of the Nolanman trilogy. Goyer and Nolan were so slavishly devoted to "realism" in a series of superhero movies that they robbed Bruce Wayne of his singular drive and devotion. The idea that a boy would dedicate his life to "war on all crime" is ridiculous to them, yet that's the core of Batman's character. Grant Morrison said in an interview with Kevin Smith years ago that Bruce Wayne's reaction to the loss of his parents seems "unrealistic" and even silly to an adult, but perfectly reasonable and achievable to a child. It's not a childish concept, but instead, a childlike concept. This is why Bruce Wayne is so unique. Most people would either become self-destructive or destructive to others in light of tragedy, but he used his trauma constructively. Frank Miller and other later takes fail to see that Bruce Wayne is not "insane," but, as Morrison also said, "super sane."

As for Superman II, that's all we see happen to the PZ criminals. They fall into fog, which somehow is the same as dying to people that desperately need their superheroes to kill. I'm not sure what it says about people that defend Superman killing from the perspective of "I can't relate to a hero if he doesn't kill!," but I know it's not good.

I'm a big fan of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight (The Dark Knight Rises is stupid fun, but very stupid at times), and I disagree completely that Goyer and Nolan robbed Bruce of his drive and devotion. They kept it as a central tenet (no Nolan pun intended) of his character. And I think the focus on realism opened the Batman story to a lot of moviegoers who otherwise wouldn't give a second a comic book superhero movie a second look. Batman was a movie franchise in a bit of disarray post-Schumacher, and the extra grit lent the movie some credibility to action and thriller movie fans. Also, the realistic focus made the second movie the critical success it was and earned Heath Ledger a posthumous Oscar (though I think there's a lot of politics involved in that award) and created a blueprint for Joaquin Phoenix's Joker which also was a critical and commercial success. I do think the first two films do have some weaknesses. I don't want to diminish the opinions of the dissenters here, but there should be some acknowledgement that these films resonated really well with audiences to go along with any criticisms fans have, particularly comic book readers'.

As a personal aside, one of my pet peeves is when people hype up Batman as this character who can do all this amazing stuff while "just being a man," and then cite all these highly unrealistic feats. It's like people don't like that he's "just a man," they just like that label. IMO, the Nolan movies get the credit they deserve for reeling in audiences with their down-to-earth approach. The movies do fail in some realism tests but they're largely in line with Hollywood action fare.

[Spencermalley935]

I like to explain Batman's "character" arc as ...

1st movie. I have no idea what I'm trying to do. I'll listen to anybody. Just somebody tell me how to be Batman!
2nd movie. Being Batman is really tough. I just don't want to do it anymore.
3rd movie. I quit being Batman. On top of that, I'll quit being Bruce Wayne to and I'll go romance a thief and murderer.

I have no clue what Nolan was trying to do.


They fell down into some fog. There wasn't even a "they can't possibly have survived that" moment. They just fell.

What a thoroughly awful take on the trilogy.

1. It's a story of how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman and since there's never been one where he's "self taught", he's gonna need a teacher.

2. Bruce wanting to stop being Batman has nothing to do with it being "too hard". He's actually trying to elicit a lasting change in Gotham. He doesn't want to spend the rest of his life harassing street punks while the city continues to rot, he wants to get his city to a place where it won't need him to be Batman anymore and he saw Harvey Dent as the culmination of his work.

3. To be fair, his reaction to finding out who Catwoman was in Batman Retutns was "Hey let's move in together even though you helped the Penguin frame me gof murder for literally no other reason than out of spite" and he was willing to just let Andrea go in the Mask of the Phantasm even though she was an unrepentant murderer.

Bruce didn't "quit" at the end of the trilogy, he succeeded. He saved Gotham from being destroyed while also turning Batman into a symbol of hope for the people and something bigger than just one man.

As for Nolan was "trying to do", It's pretty obvious he was trying to make the best movies he could while not pandering to spoiled fans.

[DABellWrites]

First of all, it's not "my" iconic version. It's the version that was most portrayed in comics and related media for the bulk of the 75 years up to Man of Steel. That character has unities that must be present for the character to be faithfully adapted: the Kents must be loving, encouraging, and noble parents who raise Clark to be a person who, to counter NotMartha's comment in BvS, "does owe the world" something. Clark Kent is raised to believe that his powers should be used to help others, especially those who are defenseless. If this is replaced with fear-monger and indifference to letting people die, you don't have Superman. Secondly, Superman doesn't allow collateral damage from his battles to kill thousands of people. It doesn't matter if he was Superman for a minute or a year, Clark Kent is responsible and cares for all life. Finally, he doesn't kill, despite the exceptions to that idea that are outnumbered countless times in comics, film, and television up to 2013. Those exceptions (Superman II, Superman #22) are often used as a defense of Superman killing, but they are invalid as such. They are errors made by people (Lester, Goyer, and Snyder) who neither know or care about Superman.

Finally, nothing in the definition of "adaptation" supports your usage. An adaptation should make the source material fit a new medium, but that does not mean it should deconstruct and gut said source material in the process. It's fine if you like Snyderman, but that character has never been and will never be Superman.

Every time I read comments about Superman wouldn't cause collateral damage, I roll my eyes at such a childish complaint and obstinate gatekeeping. First, Superman was up against three powerful Kryptonians who were better at fighting than him, but had zero disregard for all life on Earth. They wanted to terraform the planet to bring back Krypton. If you think they would've stopped to let Superman rescue some bystanders, you're wrong. While Superman was trying to rescue people, they could've been killing hundreds more. If you think the Superman would've thought I shouldn't cause any collateral damage because I'm responsible and care for all life? Come on now. That's not the point of MoS. There's been plenty of collateral damage in the comics. Should there been an aftermath scene with Clark taking in the destruction he caused saving the planet? Yes. Now I mentioned this before, but the battle against Zod and other Krpytonians would've been a great way to introduce Wonder Woman, J'onn, the Flash, and Green Lantern, and other heavyweights. They would've been saving people while Superman is trying to stop his people. Sadly, the shared universe came later.

His one interview with Lois in the first Donner movie told us more about his character, what he stands for, how he views people and how he'd like to be viewed than three movies worth of scenes overseen by Snyder. Hell in Smallville, we actually get to see him be happy instead of constantly miserable, we get to see his adoptive father encourage him with the idea that he's meant for greater things than scoring touchdowns and we get to see Clark actually get to cope with his fathers death and come to terms with the idea that no matter how powerful he is there are things he can't change (as opposed to MOS where Jonathan died a completely needless death for no real reason other than to instill his son with a lack of faith in humanity)

I really don't see how MOS is any way an improvement over what you've described the Donner movie as. In that movie, We see Clark feeling miserable and alienated with no actual friends, His annoyingly paranoid father tells him that he needs to prioritize keeping his secret at all costs (even letting people die), than he spends most of his adult life bumming around the world as an aimless, wandering hobo with no actual goal in mind, doing odd jobs, saving people out of circumstance so he won't feel guilty about not doing anything, randomly overhears two soldiers talking about something they found in the ice that just happens to be the one thing that he can insert the key into, has a "hamlets ghost dad pow-wow" with an AI hologram of his dead dad who basically gives him the suit and lays out his life's purpose in exactly the same way the first Donner film did but instead of just going out as Superman right away, He goes right back to "wandering hobo" mode until Zod gives him literally no choice but to reveal himself to the world (except he reveals himself to the US military and we never get a sense of what the general public feels about him)

Clark's an incredibly passive protagonist in Man of Steel. If Zod hadn't arrived, He probably would have just put the suit away and never think to go back to it. If he hadn't overheard those soldiers randomly, He probably would have spent the rest of his life as an aimless drifter.

None of that shows us anything about who Superman is though. Matter of fact, we saw Clark go from being scared of what's happening to him as a child to actually wanting to help others with them. The scene with Jonathan, poorly executed as it is, adds to Clark's journey that now wasn't the time for him to have exposed what he can do.

I didn't feel Bruce Wayne was directionless. His journeys weren't haphazard but rather purposeful. He established a moral code (see his stances on stealing and killing) but tried to understand moral grey areas. And, of course, he learned how to fight. Also, I felt that upon his return to Gotham, he didn't come up with ideas of how to be a crime fighter off the top of his head, but likely gave great thought into how he wanted to execute his master plan. That he could access his father's high tech armory was convenient and lucky, but he knew he wanted to leverage it as part of his grand scheme. All in all, we the viewers knew what Bruce was doing for seven years: learning how to become Batman, even if he didn't know the particulars. A lot of the process was reactive, but much was also proactive.

On the other hand, what was Superman up to (and I don't think you could even call him "Clark Kent" at this time because he didn't use that identity)? What was his endgame? Did he have a set purpose? These are kind of unclear other than that when it came time to help people, he would. But why did he choose gigs like being a crabber or a bus boy? Bruce's journey felt intentional. Clark's seemed somewhat arbitrary in the choices he made other than that it was time to move on for whatever reason and he wouldn't turn his back on someone in need.

EDIT: After further consideration, I realized Superman did have a purpose. It was to help people while laying low, being as boring as possible so people wouldn't find him interesting enough to get to know him or his secret. And once he did something that might've made people suspicious of him, he bounced. But it still seems a lot less thought out than what Bruce Wayne was doing in Batman Begins.

Superman traveling around America/world saving people is something he would be doing if he wasn't a reporter. It can be strongly inferred from Action Comics #1 and the first episode of the newspaper strip, that's what he did for a while. In fact, it's a much better idea than spending years pointlessly learning from his hologram dad.

[manwhohaseverything]

First of all, it's not "my" iconic version. It's the version that was most portrayed in comics and related media for the bulk of the 75 years up to Man of Steel. That character has unities that must be present for the character to be faithfully adapted: the Kents must be loving, encouraging, and noble parents who raise Clark to be a person who, to counter NotMartha's comment in BvS, "does owe the world" something. Clark Kent is raised to believe that his powers should be used to help others, especially those who are defenseless. If this is replaced with fear-monger and indifference to letting people die, you don't have Superman. Secondly, Superman doesn't allow collateral damage from his battles to kill thousands of people. It doesn't matter if he was Superman for a minute or a year, Clark Kent is responsible and cares for all life. Finally, he doesn't kill, despite the exceptions to that idea that are outnumbered countless times in comics, film, and television up to 2013. Those exceptions (Superman II, Superman #22) are often used as a defense of Superman killing, but they are invalid as such. They are errors made by people (Lester, Goyer, and Snyder) who neither know or care about Superman.

Finally, nothing in the definition of "adaptation" supports your usage. An adaptation should make the source material fit a new medium, but that does not mean it should deconstruct and gut said source material in the process. It's fine if you like Snyderman, but that character has never been and will never be Superman.

IMG_20230623_080750.jpg

I don't care for jibberish.that has nothing to do with what i said so first para i am gonna ignore...

75years claims are pitiful as if the radio show superman being remade wouldn't cause an outrage..there was no kents there.no farms.Superman that people have in their collective mind at best is 30 or 40 year old character at best.

Like your stamp of approval is needed your highness..you think too be highly of yourself.An adaptation can lose or 1 to 1 or it can be deconstruction.or reconstruction.So yes,That is an adaptation of superman.so deal with it.Superman can be giant octupus with 500 hands..why?cause i want him to be.

[Spencermalley935]

None of that shows us anything about who Superman is though

. Matter of fact, we saw Clark go from being scared of what's happening to him as a child to actually wanting to help others with them. The scene with Jonathan, poorly executed as it is, adds to Clark's journey that now wasn't the time for him to have exposed what he can do.

MOS doesn't show us anything about who Superman is. The flashbacks don't actually tell us anything about Clark as a character beyond "it's hard being an alien" and we never get any actual development as to how he gets from that to "wanting to help people with what he can do". Were not even told why he likes to help people (he certainly didn't get that from either of his birth parents)

The movie never actually explains "when the time was supposed to be" for when Clark was supposed to reveal himself and it's a moot point anyway considering Clark could have rescued his dad with minimal risk of outing himself

[HsssH]

Someone having some empathy and wanting to help people just because he can is very simple idea. But no, Clark is a **** human being and has to be taught that helping people is good.

[Kuwagaton]

Right... why in the world do we need an explanation for that, even if he grew up with parents who were legit evil like Scott Free or something?

What a thoroughly awful take on the trilogy.

It was probably something of a joke. But your response is the sort of defense I wish more people were willing to give to Superman.

Also, the original origin really had him self taught.

As a personal aside, one of my pet peeves is when people hype up Batman as this character who can do all this amazing stuff while "just being a man," and then cite all these highly unrealistic feats. It's like people don't like that he's "just a man," they just like that label. IMO, the Nolan movies get the credit they deserve for reeling in audiences with their down-to-earth approach. The movies do fail in some realism tests but they're largely in line with Hollywood action fare.

I actually had to re-read Batman Earth One at different times because I was initially convinced that Johns was joking about the character. But y'know, that's just being human. It might be easy for some to forget that even though Superman isn't human, we're definitely supposed to relate to him. That's the entire point of a main character in fantasy. We probably get the happiest and the most frustrated by things we understand.

Every time I read comments about Superman wouldn't cause collateral damage, I roll my eyes at such a childish complaint and obstinate gatekeeping. First, Superman was up against three powerful Kryptonians who were better at fighting than him, but had zero disregard for all life on Earth. They wanted to terraform the planet to bring back Krypton. If you think they would've stopped to let Superman rescue some bystanders, you're wrong. While Superman was trying to rescue people, they could've been killing hundreds more. If you think the Superman would've thought I shouldn't cause any collateral damage because I'm responsible and care for all life? Come on now. That's not the point of MoS. There's been plenty of collateral damage in the comics. Should there been an aftermath scene with Clark taking in the destruction he caused saving the planet? Yes. Now I mentioned this before, but the battle against Zod and other Krpytonians would've been a great way to introduce Wonder Woman, J'onn, the Flash, and Green Lantern, and other heavyweights. They would've been saving people while Superman is trying to stop his people. Sadly, the shared universe came later.

Thank you.

[HsssH]

It is not like good Superman comics don't have collateral damage. And they usually feature experienced Superman.

Right... why in the world do we need an explanation for that, even if he grew up with parents who were legit evil like Scott Free or something?

I seriously think that such ideas that Superman has to be taught to act good or that we need a 5 minutes powerpoint presentation explaining his views is one of the reasons why the character has been declining in relevance for few decades now.

[Spencermalley935]

Someone having some empathy and wanting to help people just because he can is very simple idea. But no, Clark is a **** human being and has to be taught that helping people is good.

In a movie where his adoptive father tried to actively discourage him from helping people (telling him that letting a bus full of children die was maybe the right call, telling his son not to save him even though he could've done it without using his powers), We need more of an explanation as to why he does it than "he has empathy" or "just does it because he can".

[HsssH]

I guess Scott Free is just a better human being than Clark.

[bat39]

Every time I read comments about Superman wouldn't cause collateral damage, I roll my eyes at such a childish complaint and obstinate gatekeeping. First, Superman was up against three powerful Kryptonians who were better at fighting than him, but had zero disregard for all life on Earth. They wanted to terraform the planet to bring back Krypton. If you think they would've stopped to let Superman rescue some bystanders, you're wrong. While Superman was trying to rescue people, they could've been killing hundreds more. If you think the Superman would've thought I shouldn't cause any collateral damage because I'm responsible and care for all life? Come on now. That's not the point of MoS. There's been plenty of collateral damage in the comics. Should there been an aftermath scene with Clark taking in the destruction he caused saving the planet? Yes. Now I mentioned this before, but the battle against Zod and other Krpytonians would've been a great way to introduce Wonder Woman, J'onn, the Flash, and Green Lantern, and other heavyweights. They would've been saving people while Superman is trying to stop his people. Sadly, the shared universe came later.



None of that shows us anything about who Superman is though. Matter of fact, we saw Clark go from being scared of what's happening to him as a child to actually wanting to help others with them. The scene with Jonathan, poorly executed as it is, adds to Clark's journey that now wasn't the time for him to have exposed what he can do.



Superman traveling around America/world saving people is something he would be doing if he wasn't a reporter. It can be strongly inferred from Action Comics #1 and the first episode of the newspaper strip, that's what he did for a while. In fact, it's a much better idea than spending years pointlessly learning from his hologram dad.

Agreed...especially on the last bit.

In a movie where his adoptive father tried to actively discourage him from helping people (telling him that letting a bus full of children die was maybe the right call, telling his son not to save him even though he could've done it without using his powers), We need more of an explanation as to why he does it than "he has empathy" or "just does it because he can".

What's there to explain? The scene with the bus in Smallville followed by Jonathan and Clark's conversation makes it clear that Clark innately feels the need to help people with his powers. Jonathan didn't even tell Clark that wanting to help people was wrong...he just cautioned him that it was too dangerous because he risked exposing his existence to the world. Clark continued to help people with his powers secretely on his travels, and then when he was forced to reveal his existence to the world to deal with Zod, he did so openly by saving the world and then becoming a superhero.

I mean, to the extent that it's necessary for there to be some kind of explanation for why Clark wants to help people, MOS does a better job explaining it (even if it's not so in your face) than the Donner film did, where he basically becomes a superhero because Jor-El spent 12 years programming him to become one.

[DochaDocha]

Superman traveling around America/world saving people is something he would be doing if he wasn't a reporter. It can be strongly inferred from Action Comics #1 and the first episode of the newspaper strip, that's what he did for a while. In fact, it's a much better idea than spending years pointlessly learning from his hologram dad.

Fair point, but I wouldn't call it pointless. He was learning about himself, his heritage, the laws of the universe, etc. Maybe 12 years as the movie implied was a bit much, though.

I don't have an issue with the wandering issue, either. The wandering was actually an aspect I liked about the movie. I'm one of those guys who complain a lot about the Lois & Clark-style calling his parents whenever he encountered a dilemma. I do, however, question if it was good that he was such a loner he refused to/couldn't create real human bonds, or didn't have a clear endgame for his wandering. To the latter point, maybe it was indicated in the movie but the explanation is some unmemorable I forgot about it.

[kcekada]

Have yet to see the entire movie, and probably never will unless forced to watch it.

[Spencermalley935]

Agreed...especially on the last bit.



What's there to explain? The scene with the bus in Smallville followed by Jonathan and Clark's conversation makes it clear that Clark innately feels the need to help people with his powers. Jonathan didn't even tell Clark that wanting to help people was wrong...he just cautioned him that it was too dangerous because he risked exposing his existence to the world. Clark continued to help people with his powers secretely on his travels, and then when he was forced to reveal his existence to the world to deal with Zod, he did so openly by saving the world and then becoming a superhero.

I mean, to the extent that it's necessary for there to be some kind of explanation for why Clark wants to help people, MOS does a better job explaining it (even if it's not so in your face) than the Donner film did, where he basically becomes a superhero because Jor-El spent 12 years programming him to become one.

A Superman who wants to help people because of some vaguely defined "innate desire" just isn't very interesting though. I much prefer the notion that because his adoptive parents raised him with old-fashioned values, It helped him develop a strong moral core and a desire to use his powers to help simply because it's the right thing to do. Again, I'm not against Jonathan Kent advising Clark to be cautious, I'm not against him being weary of how the world would react to Clark's powers. What I am against is his adoptive father (usually the source of his strong moral core) advising his son there are more important things than doing right by people. He'd never tell his son that letting a bus full of children die was maybe the right call and he'd never force his own Son to let him die a completely needless death when he could've saved him without using his powers.

Clark saving people needs to be something hes doing because he genuinely believes in it as the right thing to do. In Man of Steel, It's treated as though a burden for him, It's something he's doing reluctantly and he probably would have spent the rest of his life hiding from the world if Zod hadn't forced him to reveal himself. Hell, He never even properly reveals himself to the world, just the United States Military. His "choice" to reveal himself isn't even a choice because his only other alternative is "let Zod destroy the world". What else is he gonna do? It's his world too

Jor-El just dowloaded information into Clark's brain, he didn't "program" him to be anything. Everything he does as Superman is by his own choice in the Donner movie, he didn't need the threat of the world being destroyed to reveal himself, and in the end, He chooses to heed his adopted fathers advice over Jor-El's. The original Donner movie may not be perfect but it still gave me the notion that it's version of Superman chooses to help because its the right thing to do, not because he has some vague "innate desire".