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

[John Venus]

A creative misfire that created an internet dumpster fire and we are still stuck breathing in the latter's fumes.

[JBatmanFan05]

If anyone wanted to see a big consensus Superman movie that took us away from the Donner-esque 'feel good' Superman movie (as Bat39 put it), and perhaps offered us an appealing alternative (that's still very Superman, though more pre-Donner Superman somehow I presume), then I think Snyder's MOS failed big time in that regard, failed to make that case persuasively (IMHO). It's a polarizing divisive film, where some (like me) feel ardent that it's not Superman much or at all.

[bat39]

This is precisely why "Man of Steel" isn't a Superman movie. Snyder and Goyer even admit that they didn't want to make a Superman movie in post-release interviews; they wanted to make "their version" of Superman, a deconstruction. Nolan has admitted he knows little to nothing about comics and Snyder has only read Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns. Goyer, though, knew enough about Superman to fully deconstruct him: if the Kents aren't the Kents, there can be no Superman. Hell, even the movie itself is ashamed of the name. The "Man of Steel" is an angst-ridden, cowardly, murdering dullard. Goyer and Snyder wanted him to be relatable, despite the fact that we aren't supposed to relate to Superman in the same way we relate to a Wally West or a Peter Parker. Superman is an inspirational/aspirational hero, he is better than us. That's why he's not just "Man," he's "SUPERMAN." Of course, we can relate to certain aspects of Superman since he's more human than "god" or "alien," but he's not supposed to have our flaws and failings. He doesn't "learn" that killing is wrong by killing, unless his father is fear-mongering coward who was weary of having to raise a son he feared instead of a son he could inspire.

This movie is utter trash and remains the single most destructive blow to the iconic perception of Superman in his 85 years. A faithful film could do a lot of good to restore that idea, but I doubt Gunn's movie will be it. He's just a deconstructionist of a different kind.

Fair enough. I think on some level, a lot of discussions of MOS become less about the content of the film itself, and more about a fundamental ideological divide over the character. Maybe an ideological divide that goes beyond the character. Does Superman (or indeed all of our 'heroes', fictional or real-life) need to be a perfect selfless flawless being far above us? Or should he just be a more capable, elevated and empowered version of us?

Personally, I believe that the character Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster created was the latter. But over time, the former has also become an interpretation of the character. There's no denying that.

If anyone wanted to see a big consensus Superman movie that took us away from the Donner-esque 'feel good' Superman movie (as Bat39 put it), and perhaps offered us an appealing alternative (that's still very Superman, though more pre-Donner Superman somehow I presume), then I think Snyder's MOS failed big time in that regard, failed to make that case persuasively (IMHO). It's a polarizing divisive film, where some (like me) feel ardent that it's not Superman much or at all.

No what I was talking about was the paradigm we find ourselves in after MOS wherein, as Kuwagaton said, DC/WB are in a place where they pretty much have to 'defy' MOS and deliver what's perceived to be the opposite of it to 'win back the crowd'.

At the end of the day, Superman movies are a commercial product. If the vast majority of the public demands a feel-good Superman movie, or Donner nostalgia in some form, then that's what it makes sense for WB to deliver. But then that approach isn't exactly setting the world on fire either (as the example of Superman Returns has shown) and will simply contribute to the perception of Superman being a 'boring' or 'outdated' character.

[JBatmanFan05]

I think on some level, a lot of discussions of MOS become less about the content of the film itself, and more about a fundamental ideological divide over the character. Maybe an ideological divide that goes beyond the character. Does Superman (or indeed all of our 'heroes', fictional or real-life) need to be a perfect selfless flawless being far above us? Or should he just be a more capable, elevated and empowered version of us?

Personally, I believe that the character Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster created was the latter. But over time, the former has also become an interpretation of the character. There's no denying that.

I agree that a lot about MOS reviews/opinions/discussion reflect a fundamental ideological divide over Superman. And I wish Zach Snyder and WB would have realized that would happen. They misread the room.

But I think you also paint a bit of a false dichotomy, a false choice. I think Superman can be both better than us (in a lot of ways) and not be as relatable as Peter Parker, not be a Marvel character, but also "just be a more capable, elevated and empowered version of us." I believe Superman can better than us a bit without being "perfect selfless flawless." That's what I think Siegel and Shuster created and one or the other created Superman material for a long time in one medium (strips, comics) or another (and endorsed and promoted various Superman media).

Of course many of us seem to disagree on the extent or elasticity of these terms/traits.

[HsssH]

I think that every hero is a bit better than us, thats why they are the hero.

[All Star Superman]

We have to look at the bulk of a character's portrayal when they've been around for decades and are global modern myth. For the majority of the 75 years of Superman's life up to 2013, he was an inspirational and aspirational hero. He wasn't a cathartic anti-hero (Punisher or Miller's wrong reading of Batman), an everyman who shares our problems plus super-problems (Spider-Man, Flash) nor was he ever a "god" with whom we couldn't relate at all. He was raised by the best examples of humanity to put himself last and everyone else, even his enemies on occasion, before himself. He's been re-contextualized by post-modernists as a "super cop" who was originally a "social crusader who also killed when necessary," but neither of those are the persistent portrayals.

Clark Kent doesn't have to be "perfect" in the sense of lacking humanity. His life in Smallville and his relationships are similar to what we experience. However, he's a fantasy character, the first superhero, and as a result, he's supposed to be better than us. He doesn't steal or trash other people's property to get revenge, he doesn't let anyone who he can save get hurt or die, and he doesn't kill. There have been stories in which he did kill, but these were the exceptions, not the rule. The early Siegel/Shuster version, Superman II, and Byrne's Superman are exceptions. In the case of the latter two, they did not accurately portray the Superman that was fully-formed in the zeitgeist, the Superman of all the other radio, TV, film, and comic book versions that preceded them.

WB has two critical errors in judgment that seem to survive even new owners: devotion to "filmmaker vision" and a deep misunderstanding and outright dislike of the character of Superman. Many execs (and filmmakers like Nolan, Snyder, and Goyer) can't relate to a pure hero, so they have to deconstruct him and then rebuild him into their version. WB allowed because they have no vision for Superman themselves and put the filmmaker's ideas first.

This problem goes all the way back to the 70s. WB didn't have the rights to Superman films, and if the Salkinds hadn't come around, who knows when or if they'd have made a new Superman project? Thankfully, Donner wanted to adapt Superman faithfully. The same held true for Batman a decade later. No plans on WB's part until Uslan finally convinces them (after a decade of trying) to make a faithful Batman film. That became a smash hit, leading WB to let filmmakers do whatever they want with Batman. Once that failed with Schumacher, they had no plan, so they did nothing until Nolan came around seven years later. His take was ultimately wrong for a fantasy character, but that didn't matter; it was a plan! Same for Superman in 2005; Singer's take was ultimately flawed for relaunching Superman as a franchise, but that didn't matter...they didn't have a plan!

When that failed, they waited until Goyer went to Nolan with a plan! "Let's do to Superman what we shouldn't have done to Batman!" As a result, all the fantasy, spirit, joy, adventure, inspiration, and fun of superhero storytelling was gutted and replaced with cynicism, darkness, and death. Man of Steel isn't better than us or even like us, he's worse! Directionless, joyless, self-obsessed, selfish, petty, careless, and ultimately, a man who feels weighed down by the "burden" of his abilities and has little to no respect for life until a last-minute contrivance forces him to.

I think most people who understand and love Superman will agree: this isn't rocket science. Get a writer/director that knows and loves Superman, let them focus on telling a Superman story instead of "their take on Superman," and leave them alone. Think about Brad Bird's work and tell me he hasn't proven himself as a superhero and Superman fan and that he doesn't have the ability to do what Donner did with the character in '78. If WB did Superman right, they'd have a movie that would outperform the biggest MCU films and probably be on par with other huge performers like Avatar. Instead, we're going to get more of the same: "We don't have a vision, but hey, this guy did some big money movies at Marvel, let's get him to run the thing and let's even let him do Superman! It's a plan, after all!"

[Maestro 216]

Exactly DC could be on top right now if Justice League Mortal came out. DC is constantly being a lesser Marvel when it could and should be better.

[Kuwagaton]

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).

Yeah. I'm really not knocking this movie as an example but... Aquaman. It's surprising how good some of his runs were because his biggest testament now is this Marvel-lite sort of vehicle for an incidental hunk, and for all of the liberty and reconstruction it went with this basic, inoffensive story. I think there's a formula you can use to net a decent sized audience but as someone who likes really interesting movies and happens to be a big Superman fan, I personally, sincerely don't want that. I don't want forced banter, a story wrapped with a bow, etc. I'm fine with a Superman movie ending at a table with apple pie, but that has to be in respect to the rest of the story that was told.

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.

Right, they made a decision on the spot to raise a personification of Pandora's box. Aside from that they were just regular people, no training or knowledge etc.

And maybe the impression I can give on other topics is that I deny Byrne's love of Murica. I think it can be exaggerated, but it's good to not forget the character's roots and relevant to MoS in that people just give Steve a pass they maybe don't give Clark. America and her politics aren't the same.

If anyone wanted to see a big consensus Superman movie that took us away from the Donner-esque 'feel good' Superman movie (as Bat39 put it), and perhaps offered us an appealing alternative (that's still very Superman, though more pre-Donner Superman somehow I presume), then I think Snyder's MOS failed big time in that regard, failed to make that case persuasively (IMHO). It's a polarizing divisive film, where some (like me) feel ardent that it's not Superman much or at all.

It was decently successful in money and here we are ten years later talking about it. How many superhero movies from 2003-2023 are under the bridge?

[Ascended]

My opinion hasn't changed. I liked it then, I like it now.

[Agent Z]

Exactly DC could be on top right now if Justice League Mortal came out. DC is constantly being a lesser Marvel when it could and should be better.

Yeah, I'm sure the movie where Batman snaps Max Lord's neck would have won over people who hated Superman killing Zod.

[Agent Z]

Clark Kent doesn't have to be "perfect" in the sense of lacking humanity. His life in Smallville and his relationships are similar to what we experience. However, he's a fantasy character, the first superhero, and as a result, he's supposed to be better than us. He doesn't steal or trash other people's property to get revenge, he doesn't let anyone who he can save get hurt or die, and he doesn't kill. There have been stories in which he did kill, but these were the exceptions, not the rule. The early Siegel/Shuster version, Superman II, and Byrne's Superman are exceptions.

Funny how these "exceptions" are the original version of the character as envisioned by his creators, the cinematic version that almost everyone keeps trying to emulate (and woe betide anyone who dares do otherwise) and the one that reimagined Superman for modern comic audiences.

I won't even get into how the only time Superman fans care about him killing is when the villain is human or looks human.

[Kuwagaton]

I mean there's a weird disconnect when you see the idea of the "real" Superman as one bit dissected from the lore. Man of Steel had this big chunk of the audience just put off because Superman "would never." But it's like who is better than us, this guy?

[manwhohaseverything]

I think that every hero is a bit better than us, thats why they are the hero.

No i think every hero is just a person who made a better choice at the moment of truth..Nothing more or less.A hero is you and me.

[Jon Clark]

I mean there's a weird disconnect when you see the idea of the "real" Superman as one bit dissected from the lore. Man of Steel had this big chunk of the audience just put off because Superman "would never." But it's like who is better than us, this guy?

That is a one off story. It was at best a 10 minute read and would be forgotten when you read the next story,. And that next story could have been in the same issue, a .month later in the next issue or sooner in another Superfamily title.

It wasn't the main presentation meant to introduce you to Superman.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I think there was red kryptonite involved, and honestly , i might be looking at things too deep, but that comic is a critique of the human condition, seriously. It’s the one with the rainbow fingers cover!