The Man of Steel problem

[jccohen]

I want to discuss my largest issue with Man of Steel. I want to reiterate, it doesn't make Man of Steel a bad movie, I just want to get this out there. Its probably the same problem everyone else is having, who has a problem with the film. Its also massively spoileriffic, so I'm gonna use the spoiler tag.

[Man of Steel spoilers - really. Really really. Also, strangely, for Kingdom Come.]Okay. I'm sure as soon as I say "

Comments

[jccohen]

Oh, one thing I meant to add about the minor quibbles - almost all of them could have been solved with about 2 lines of dialog. Not the Hamilton one, but others. For example, if they had just said the hyperdrive wouldn't get to another planet any more (coming to earth had strained it to much), that would explain why they were making their stand on Earth.

[willdevine]

I'm not quite sure you've characterized Superman correctly. Superman doesn't kill indiscriminately, to be certain, but he is definitely willing to do so as a last resort, which is pretty much what happened with Zod in Man of Steel. In fact, the notion that Superman is bothered by being forced to kill Zod helps to emphasize his humanity more heavily.

The following link explains it a bit better: http://furiousfanboys.com/2013/06/man-of-steel-myth-superman-and-killing-spoilers/

Additionally, I think effectively stating that a hero doesn't kill is something of a value judgment on your part. It's not right or wrong, it's what you believe, but it's not what everyone else believes necessarily.

[jccohen]

Its an assumption based on comic books. Back when Guy Garner was being Warrior, when he and Kyle teamed up, it was Guy who made the kill because Kyle couldn't. When they discussed it, Guy said something to the effect of "You couldn't kill, and I could. Face it, some of us were made to be heroes. And some of us were made to be warriors." Putting aside the pun in there, that's probably the sentence that cemented it for me. Its reinforced in Kingdom Come, as I mentioned. I'll openly admit that there are other interpretations of the hero/warrior dynamic

[glithander]

That didn't bother me as much. I was much more... troubled... but the portrayal of Jonathan Kent. Especially the whole 'gotta let people die to keep your secret' bit.

That seemed more than a bit out of character. Also, originally the power to Kent's death was that - despite his power - Clark was unable to do anything to stop a heart attack. That isn't the case - in this new version, Clark would have been perfectly able to go out there, save his dad, and I don't think a lot of people would have noticed in the confusion of the Tornado. But he didn't because he was supposed to 'keep his secret'? I can't see Superman deciding to go that far to keep a secret.

Just seems to run counter to what I would have expected.

As you said, though, didn't ruin the film for me. I did really enjoy it - just troubled by the decision of the writers to go that direction.

[jccohen]

I found it a fascinating take on Jonathan, mostly because even he wasn't sure. He didn't say "yes, let the kids die" he said "I don't know. Maybe." He was scared of what people would do if they found out.

Given that, the tornado thing made sense, at least on his part. I agree that I'm not sure Clark would have held back.

Also, it was weird that both Kal's mother and Clark's adoptive father are all "Death is coming, I'm okay with it".

[acappellasinger]

The more I think about the things that didn't work for me in the movie, the more holes and bothersome elements I notice. And that's less from a "history of Superman character and continuity" perspective and more from an "internal consistency and movie logic" perspective. I don't know enough about the history or continuity to judge that stuff. I have to take what's presented on screen as it is, and that's where things start to fall apart under the kind of lenses and filters I use when watching movies of any sort. I've decided that I'm going to stop thinking about any of it and go with "it was entertaining," and "it was a good Superman movie" when people ask me what I thought about it, much as I did with "Thor."

[jccohen]

There are definitely a bunch of internal consistences, especially with the timeline of certain events.

Yes, its probably best to just take it for what it is.