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

[All Star Superman]

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?

This is one of the exceptions I mentioned. It's not the rule. The bulk of Superman's portrayal across media for the better part of 75 years is a character that doesn't kill because he believes in the sanctity of life and because he can avoid doing so. He's not the archetype to use to explore the idea of being forced to kill or to explore the morality of killing. He's the inspirational hero and he can't inspire if he's just as weak and flawed as those he's designed to inspire.

[Kuwagaton]

It was before red kryptonite as we know it.

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.

Different era, he lost the power at the end, no continuity emphasis back then, etc. There are many true things about how this comic was written that don't really change the fact that it was written. Doesn't sound all that fair if the idea is to argue about what isn't the right characterization in favor of there being no right characterization. Or that he's better than us. I can understand some of that point but that doesn't exclude him from being relatable, clearly. Pretty sure Mark Waid wrote the foreword for that archive.

[The Kid]

Honestly, I don't think killing is intrinsically an issue. Most Hollywood action heroes kill and audiences aren't going to look one way or the other. Batman killed a bunch in most of the movies and no one cared. Same with Superman back in Superman II theatrical version. Goes for Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, and the majority of recent MCU superstars. The debates over that are only among hardcore fans. Your average movie goer won't care

What I think will cause problems is how killing is depicted. Batman mowing people down ruthlessly sticks out compared to how Bruce ices people in the Nolan movies. Superman cracking someone's neck openly on screen with the camera focusing on it and then the whole scene emphasizing it is something that will always be controversial compared to if he had just thrown a car at his spaceship or something (an example).

That's really where care needs to be taken

[Johnny Thunders!]

It’s not red kryptonite but Superman is under the influence! Anyways, the killing doesn’t bother me now. I don’t think Superman kills in Superman 2 and in Man of Steel, Zod tells Superman, all I can do is defend Krypton. He doesn’t have free will like Clark. He lets Clark know if he wants Zod to stop, Zod can’t stop himself, Superman has to put him down. It’s like the Joker in Dark Knight but with Zod, the stakes were planetary. Michael Shannon’s Zod is as good or better than Thanos by Josh Brolin.

[HsssH]

Honestly, I don't think killing is intrinsically an issue. Most Hollywood action heroes kill and audiences aren't going to look one way or the other. Batman killed a bunch in most of the movies and no one cared. Same with Superman back in Superman II theatrical version. Goes for Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, and the majority of recent MCU superstars. The debates over that are only among hardcore fans. Your average movie goer won't care

What I think will cause problems is how killing is depicted. Batman mowing people down ruthlessly sticks out compared to how Bruce ices people in the Nolan movies. Superman cracking someone's neck openly on screen with the camera focusing on it and then the whole scene emphasizing it is something that will always be controversial compared to if he had just thrown a car at his spaceship or something (an example).

That's really where care needs to be taken

This is true, but I really hate this mindset that if we don't treat killing seriously then it is ok.

[Agent Z]

Honestly, I don't think killing is intrinsically an issue. Most Hollywood action heroes kill and audiences aren't going to look one way or the other. Batman killed a bunch in most of the movies and no one cared. Same with Superman back in Superman II theatrical version. Goes for Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, and the majority of recent MCU superstars. The debates over that are only among hardcore fans. Your average movie goer won't care

What I think will cause problems is how killing is depicted. Batman mowing people down ruthlessly sticks out compared to how Bruce ices people in the Nolan movies. Superman cracking someone's neck openly on screen with the camera focusing on it and then the whole scene emphasizing it is something that will always be controversial compared to if he had just thrown a car at his spaceship or something (an example).

That's really where care needs to be taken

People talk about the neck snap as if Snyder showed us an x-ray display of Zod's head being twisted around. It's over and done in a mere second, barely shown at all and Zod's body is out of focus after it happens. When people claim this movie traumatised them, I wonder if they are lying or just incredibly sheltered. This is nowhere near the darkest Superman has ever been.

And I doubt the people who complain about collateral damage in this movie like it was all Superman's fault would accept Clark deliberately throwing a car at Zod's spaceship.

[Kuwagaton]

Right, my post on Superman #125 was somewhat facetious, but I mean for something like that to "ruin" Superman I think it's pretty selective. In the moment and since then my thought was that they checked two boxes: 1. (Rookie) Superman made the choice at its most rational and 2. He had remorse.

It was something I didn't know would rub people the wrong way until I went online after. But the karma of Doomsday was a fine follow-up imo and in hindsight, it's funny considering that the Batman trilogy spent all of that time arguing the issue only to have Bane mowed down by Catwoman. Now with that one I stuck my head up and looked around the theater to see if anyone else just saw it too.

[HsssH]

When people claim this movie traumatised them, I wonder if they are lying or just incredibly sheltered.

New 52 and MoS are probably two "events" that made me realize that fandoms are full of insane people. Before that I just thought that oh, its just people being fans of certain entertainment properties, nothing wrong with that. But I have read so much made up bullshit over the years about these two things that it is hard to comprehend. Sometimes it even looks worse than real-life politics.

But hey, some people probably think that I'm also insane.

[greatmetropolitan]

I have a conflicted relationship with Man of Steel. I think it had a lot of positives and a lot of the right ingredients to have made a great Superman film, but they missed the mark.

First of all, I don't think this was a bad film - just a bad Superman film (for my value of Superman, it should be said). I think Snyder made exactly the film he wanted to make, and I'll always defend Snyder as a director over the vast majority of, say, MCU directors. Snyder has a vision and a style and you can tell it's a Snyder film just by looking at it. He may not be exactly to my taste, but he has a creative vision and I respect that.

I think the SFX for Superman himself and his powers were fantastic, I think this was the ideal take on Zod and I think having Lois figure out the secret ID right away gave her more credibility than she's ever had on screen. The last line of film was sensational and had a charm that we could have used more of.

Cavill was great. Genuinely great, and if he had a different script he'd be talked about in the same breath as Reeve.

Where I think they messed up, mainly is this. I think they made the opposite movie to the one we should have gotten. The main points of this film were:

- Clark's human father is paranoid and tells him to hide his gifts or he'll be feared/hunted. Clark's alien father tells him to push his limits and be a hero, basically. Jonathan is proved correct - the first thing the military do is put him in cuffs. Clark then has to listen to his alien side to be a hero.

- The military initially fear Clark, but then come to trust and work with him. This is metaphorically summed up nicely when Clark basically goes full soldier and kills his opponent on the battlefield, while the humans use his ship to send all the Kryptonians to the Phantom Zone.

I believe that these two points should have been reversed. Jor-El should have been warning his son to hide from the natives, while Jonathan encourages his better nature. Jonathan's urgings should have won out to make Clark the hero we know.

Also, I'd say the military should have seen the guy with the American accent dressed in red and blue and immediately tried to get him on side, only for Clark to reject being a solider and find a non-lethal solution to the Zod/Kryptonian problem - the ship and Phantom Zone plan the humans enacted.

I think all the elements were there, just in the wrong order, and unfortunately it meant a missed chance for Superman in pop culture.

[Agent Z]

I have a conflicted relationship with Man of Steel. I think it had a lot of positives and a lot of the right ingredients to have made a great Superman film, but they missed the mark.

First of all, I don't think this was a bad film - just a bad Superman film (for my value of Superman, it should be said). I think Snyder made exactly the film he wanted to make, and I'll always defend Snyder as a director over the vast majority of, say, MCU directors. Snyder has a vision and a style and you can tell it's a Snyder film just by looking at it. He may not be exactly to my taste, but he has a creative vision and I respect that.

I think the SFX for Superman himself and his powers were fantastic, I think this was the ideal take on Zod and I think having Lois figure out the secret ID right away gave her more credibility than she's ever had on screen. The last line of film was sensational and had a charm that we could have used more of.

Cavill was great. Genuinely great, and if he had a different script he'd be talked about in the same breath as Reeve.

Where I think they messed up, mainly is this. I think they made the opposite movie to the one we should have gotten. The main points of this film were:

- Clark's human father is paranoid and tells him to hide his gifts or he'll be feared/hunted. Clark's alien father tells him to push his limits and be a hero, basically. Jonathan is proved correct - the first thing the military do is put him in cuffs. Clark then has to listen to his alien side to be a hero.

- The military initially fear Clark, but then come to trust and work with him. This is metaphorically summed up nicely when Clark basically goes full soldier and kills his opponent on the battlefield, while the humans use his ship to send all the Kryptonians to the Phantom Zone.

I believe that these two points should have been reversed. Jor-El should have been warning his son to hide from the natives, while Jonathan encourages his better nature. Jonathan's urgings should have won out to make Clark the hero we know.

Also, I'd say the military should have seen the guy with the American accent dressed in red and blue and immediately tried to get him on side, only for Clark to reject being a solider and find a non-lethal solution to the Zod/Kryptonian problem - the ship and Phantom Zone plan the humans enacted.

I think all the elements were there, just in the wrong order, and unfortunately it meant a missed chance for Superman in pop culture.

The military come to trust Clark because he saved Colonel Hardy's life, not because he killed Zod (something they didn't even witness).

[Vordan]

Right, my post on Superman #125 was somewhat facetious, but I mean for something like that to "ruin" Superman I think it's pretty selective. In the moment and since then my thought was that they checked two boxes: 1. (Rookie) Superman made the choice at its most rational and 2. He had remorse.

It was something I didn't know would rub people the wrong way until I went online after. But the karma of Doomsday was a fine follow-up imo and in hindsight, it's funny considering that the Batman trilogy spent all of that time arguing the issue only to have Bane mowed down by Catwoman. Now with that one I stuck my head up and looked around the theater to see if anyone else just saw it too.

I think that was just the straw that broke the camel’s neck (couldn’t resist). You had Pa Kent saying “maybe” Clark should leave people to die + Pa dying in the tornado + the collateral damage that made Supes look callous/incompetent and then to end it all with the neck snap caused a huge backlash. It was too much. Didn’t help that Clark himself was a bore.

People are going to argue about these films forever but in the end Snyder & Goyer weren’t the guys to win the modern audience over to Superman. They failed and we just have to hope Legacy is better.

[greatmetropolitan]

The military come to trust Clark because he saved Colonel Hardy's life, not because he killed Zod (something they didn't even witness).

I know, I didn't say they trusted him because he killed Zod. I said that his relationship with the military was essentially metaphorically represented by him being more Solider than Hero in his killing of Zod.

[manwhohaseverything]

I know, I didn't say they trusted him because he killed Zod. I said that his relationship with the military was essentially metaphorically represented by him being more Solider than Hero in his killing of Zod.

Pretty sure this is a misreading.military demands that you follow their order,fall in line and commands authority.Superman didn't do any of it...Civilians can get put under life threatening situations as well and has taken life.

[greatmetropolitan]

Pretty sure this is a misreading.military demands that you follow their order,fall in line and commands authority.Superman didn't do any of it...Civilians can get put under life threatening situations as well and has taken life.

Less a misreading and more dependent on your relationship/view of the military, I'd say.

Man of Steel is a kind of fulcrum of what superheroes became post-9/11. Everything got militaristic, super heroes as soldiers to make people feel better in a world where planes are flown into buildings and the idea of almost cinematic levels of destruction happening to your city became more realistic. Man of Steel traded heavily in that imagery with the destruction of Metropolis and it felt like ultimately the movie wanted a big strong man to come and punish the people who blew up some buildings.

Anyway, this is all subjective. Mileage may vary.

[manwhohaseverything]

Less a misreading and more dependent on your relationship/view of the military, I'd say.

Man of Steel is a kind of fulcrum of what superheroes became post-9/11. Everything got militaristic, super heroes as soldiers to make people feel better in a world where planes are flown into buildings and the idea of almost cinematic levels of destruction happening to your city became more realistic. Man of Steel traded heavily in that imagery with the destruction of Metropolis and it felt like ultimately the movie wanted a big strong man to come and punish the people who blew up some buildings.

Anyway, this is all subjective. Mileage may vary.

Be that as a may,the 9/11 imagery and all.It's also part of invincible as well.There the alien is a dastardly fellow.Here i pretty sure there is less xenophobia.The thing was from entirely an immigrant's view..a refugee's view.As for militarism superhero content, it's been there since second world war where these guys became pawns for propaganda.Not exactly connected to 9/11.I am pretty damn vocal superman's dumb savior gimmick as people here know..Clark ain't none of that in these movies.Sure,there is christ imageries in these movies..But,those confuse the heck out of me.
And finally clark is big strong man..But,him being able to fix everything in these movies not remotely the out come as the character is called incompetent.Time and again