Superman Through the Ages! Forum

1. My favorite parts: When he was saving others, just being Superman (or, in the case of the bus rescue, Superboy). I remember being struck by the originality of his struggle to adapt to his brand-spanking-new x-ray vision--it worked great visually and just made so much sense for an already-feeling-alienated character. I really enjoyed Russell Crowe's performance as Jor-El's hologram, which, for me, seemed to underscore how welcome even the tiniest bit of levity was in this otherwise grim feature. Supes teaching himself to fly was fun, and should have been milked for further entertainment value. And I even thought Krypton was cool--it should have looked like a completely-foreign-yet-more-technologically-advanced place, and it did.

2. My least favorite parts: I tend to "zone out" during protracted fight scenes in movie theatres, so I zoned out quite a bit. When I first read the criticism of the film's lack of interest in having the Man of Steel's bothering to take the fight elsewhere (which Supes did do in the story this was originally based on, "Three Supermen from Krypton", from "Superman" #65 [July-August, 1950]), I decided to pop in a few episodes of the '90s Animated Series, and, yes, there it was again: lots of property damage (or worse) and not a whit of attention paid to avoiding or reducing it. What I'm trying to say is, the fight scenes were cartoon-like, which, combined with the CGI-ed cityscape, seems a little too reminiscent of 9/11. And the religious symbolism was lathered on a bit thick for a guy who kills somebody.

3. Why I'm looking forward to "Batman v. Superman" (You'll Believe a Man Can Sue!): "Man of Steel"'s upbeat ending gives me hope that they're past all of the grim stuff, and they're ready to deliver the upbeat Superman we all know and love.

I personally think that the movie was completely fantastic! Which isn't to say it's beyond critique. No, Man of Steel was far from being the Superman movie I would have made if I was boss of the world- but I still enjoyed it immensely!

What I liked: Most of the characters. Kal. Lois. Perry. Jonathan and Martha Kent may not have been traditional, but they were definitely believable. Faora. Zod was phenomenal. As easy as it would be to trash the wearying brutality of the fight scenes, I would argue that they were meant to be wearying and brutal, and misinterpreted as a result- so I like that aspect as well. I like how Kal works with the military without working for the military. I'll also defend Kal killing Zod, because my reading of that scene is that Zod is essentially committing suicide by cop. Kal does feel remorse, as he should, and does not overreact to his own justified actions by doing something drastic (see Exile, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow). The fact that in interviews Henry Cavill refers to the character as "Kal" and not "Clark" or "Superman" means something to me, something I like, though I can't quite put my finger on what. Makes it a bit more... what? Bronze Agey? Something like that.

What I disliked: Would have liked Kal to begin his career as Superman earlier, and get at least some experience under his belt being Superman before having to deal with Zod. Would have liked Lois to have more screen time in a way that felt less forced. Not sure how to accomplish that. I liked that Steve Lombard was in the movie. I disliked that Jimmy Olsen was not- and Jenny the intern is not an acceptable substitute. More time mourning Zod would have been nice. Superman trying to save civilians more would have been nice- could have just been some shots here or there of him trying to help people and Zod stopping him or something. They could have called him "Superman" more than once, that would have been nice. Some scenes of reconstructing Metropolis- I just have to assume that the final scenes take place after months of clean-up. As always: I despise the Christ Metaphor stuff. Superman is not Christ. Superman is Superman. The comparison is a disservice to both of them.

If I was boss of the world: I'd put Kal in the Superman game years earlier, so that by the time Zod gets to Earth he doesn't need to play "earning their trust" because he already has it. But honestly I don't think Superman even necessarily needs a bad guy- a generalized notion of corruption and the natural distrust he would garner by the nature of who he is and what he does is enough to sell me on a movie.

Opinion of Dawn of Justice so far: I'm worried. I'm no more than consciously optimistic about Eisenberg as Luthor, and I don't like the idea of Batman invading the Superman sequel in the first place. I don't like the gloomy stills released so far. I really don't like Henry Cavill's new haircut. I am immensely looking forward to Jason Momoa as Aquaman though. Cautiously optimistic!

Anyway, Man of Steel was really super good!

I thought, and probably read elsewhere, that the prolonged fight scene was a response to the complete lack of an exchange of punches that appeared in "Superman Returns".

So to someone that hasn't seen the movie, who likes the pre-Crisis Superman comics, TV show, and movies; but who can not stomach the idea of "Superman" as a "killer (http://superman.nu/portal/History/iron.php)" - is the film worth seeing?  There have been many Superman stories whose purpose was to make clear that death is never the only, nor the best, solution - death is only an illusion of a solution and never an option.

To me as a Pre-Crisis fan the movie was very disappointing and depressing. Superman killing in it was about the 4th thing on the list of issues I had with it, not that I was happy with that either.

As a fellow pre-crisis fan, I can't recommend it.  Somehow I kind of expected Superman to go lethal (it's almost a requirement from movie superheroes, but it works better on the Marvel crowd; Thor and Cap are warriors, and Stark's a weapons maker), but the bigger disappointment was Pa Kent, who teaches Clark all the wrong lessons before dying needlessly (though not altogether unwelcomely).

In fairness you can't say Superman is exactly bloodthirsty here; he's pretty choked up about killing Sod. (Yes I know the spelling is wrong but my tablet keeps changing it to "Sod" and frankly it fits so why fight it).  But through incompetence or indifference he's party to the destruction of half of Metropolis, which is obviously meant to be thrilling but is merely horrifying.  It's impossible to cheer for his "victory" at such a cost.  The inevitable conclusion is that we are better off without this guy on the planet (he's the reason the bad guys even came, and their horseplay killed thousands). If that's Battfleck's motive for fighting him in the next one, it's going to hard to root for big blue.

As a movie fan, I can't recommend it, either.  Some of the cinematography is good (though the SFX don't often work for me) but the plots a mess.  If you have Netflix or Amazon Prime, wait for it there.  And have something else to do while it's on. Like knitting, maybe.

I can honestly say I have zero interest in the sequel.  I think it's telling that they have to throw in Batman to get us back in the seats. And Superman gets second billing in his own sequel!

No, I couldn't recommend it as a pre-Crisis fan or a post-Crisis one either.

It's not the killing of Zod that bothers me. The complete indifference Superman displayed to the collatoral damage he and Zod caused to Metropolis and Smallville is what bothered me. That pained expression he had on his face after snapping Zod's neck is ludicrous when he and Zod have basically just recreated Kid Miracleman's rampage minus the gore because of the PG-13 rating. That isn't Superman.

Nor is Pa Kent telling a young Clark that he should have let people die instead of saving them.

This doesn't address the other flaws the movie has. Like Zod's, "I was genitically engineered to be a two-dimensional character."