I liked Man of Steel. Superman Returns, meh. Saw it on TV once and that was enough.
I never liked DC so i’m not invested in the character. Too Mary Sue as written anyway. At least MoS attempted to put him in the real world. Super powered beings fighting in a city are going to cause a lot of damage. Avengers set that standard. Going backwards will feel weird. And as a 100% straight male Henry Cavill is one of the few guys who ever made me think “Holy shit that guy is hot.” Not enough for me to ignore my love of Amy Adams but she is in the movie too so, bonus.
Man of Steel had a greater number of weighty scenes; some that were very good, some that were incredibly bad. Superman Returns was more consistent in its blandness and, let’s be fair, utter originality in that almost all of it was lifted from the Donner movies.
SR could have been significantly improved with some doctoring, made more cohesive and less unoriginal, but in any event I’m not enough of a fan of the Donner movies to be enchanted by revisiting them.
The problem is that Superman was conceived and mostly developed during a time that was decidedly and intrinsically ‘cornball’. From the midwestern upbringing to the damsel-in-distress to the truth-justice-and-the-American-way thing, it’s all got a good heart but in a modern sense it comes across as nothing more than a childish fairy tale. It simply cannot exist in today’s world.
So the question is how do you adapt it, and I think that MOS did it right, i.e. putting the emphasis on the fact that he’s literally an alien not amongst his own kind. When Tim Burton was planning his Superman reboot (almost 20 years ago**) this was the direction he was going. And for those who complain that Man of Steel wasn’t enough ‘fun’, well, when you put fun into a superhero movie you run the risk of getting a guy in an embarrassing monkey suit. You get cartoonish buffoonery. You get the second half of Superman II (or all of III and IV) or Spiderman 3, or worse, Schumacher’s B&R.
Granted you can also put in not enough fun, in which case you get Ang Lee’s The Hulk…
Superman Returns doesn’t assassinate the character of Clark Kent. It’s also not all gray and gross looking.
Yes, that thing at the end is stupid, but that’s better than Supes killing. In any other version of the character, that’s the start of his fascistic rule–until Supes from a different dimension or timeline comes back and defeats him.
Supes, like Batman, can’t kill without going crazy.
Then you might as well say new Star Trek is the best Star Trek. Superman can’t kill, because, once he does, he can’t justify not killing ever again. Once he violates his Smallville values, there’s nothing to hold him back.
The only salvation for DC is if the reason for Batman fighting Superman is that Superman is actually becoming fascistic, as he should. Have a seasoned Batman teach him that killing is the wrong choice and bring the villain back to the side of good.
Counterpoint: Captain America The First Avenger. Captain America was never my favorite hero but this movie just about did it for me and portrayed Cap as well or better than the comics have been able to do. Then they followed it up with Winter Soldier to further illustrate how a hero’s old fashioned cornballness can still be relevant and necessary in modern times. Sure Cap isn’t as big of a cornball, mom and apple pie character as Superman (and killin’ Nah-tzees doesn’t seem out of character for him seeing as how he’s a soldier fighting in a war*), but the two characters do run parallel to each other in that regard.
Superman doesn’t have to be a goody goody truth-justice-and-the-American-way amped up boy scout but I still think Man of Steel went too far the other direction. He shouldn’t need to brood and be sullen and destroy a whole city around him without regard to casualties. Why couldn’t he stop Zod without killing him? The Phantom Zone, depowering crystals, Kryptonite, or even putting him in a full nelson and flying off into space would all be viable solutions that could be utilized by a moderately competent writer with a better handle on Superman’s character. The scene was clumsy and took too long and did a poor job of establishing Superman’s character. But the whole movie did a poor job of establishing his character anyway.
*And yes I know Mark Gruenwald retconned him into not killing and agonizing over it when he had to but that’s been retconned back and it seems to fit to me. Cap shouldn’t revel in killing but he should do it if he has to. http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2014/03/22/the-abandoned-an-forsaked-so-did-captain-america-kill-people-during-world-war-ii-or-what/
I was going tos ay the same thing about Man of Steel. Dragged the wife to the movies, over her strong objection… she really wanted to see another movie (which movie, I don’t remembe at this moment). I forced her to see MoS. I apologized in the parking lot.
Superman Returns, I didn’t feel was that bad when I left the theater. Its main flaw is that it was forgetable. I never saw him as a Deadbeat Dad… he was a Dad ignorant of his responsibility by design of Lois Lane. How can I be responsible for something I don’t know exists? So, that aspect never bothered me.
Captain America in the MCU is getting everything right about the way Superman should be portrayed. Superman, like CA, is a good person who happens to be the most powerful person in the world. He does the right thing because it’s the right thing and is a symbol for the rest of us to be better ourselves.
I’ve been a major fan of Superman for over half a century. I saw each of these movies once, and can’t imagine wanting to see either one of them a second time.
Though I voted them both equally bad, I have a qualifier. SR was mostly just dull. MoS would have been decent if billed as a sci-fi disaster movie, or if it had introduced an original superhero, but it wasn’t a Superman movie. Superman is more than just a name, costume, and powers. Superman is an icon, and this film had no understanding of what that icon represents. Or maybe it did, and decided that subverting the icon was more desirable than celebrating it.
That fight didn’t ‘destroy the whole city’ in MOS. The destruction was limited to a few blocks. I’m never sure if people are being hyperbolic about that or if that’s legitimately what they took away from watching it.
Metropolis, generally speaking, is fine. He walks into a perfectly functional Daily Planet just days/weeks later.
I think Zack Snyder was trying to evoke the Bruce Timm cartoons with the fight in Metropolis. It’s one of the most glaring examples of something that works in cartoons that definitely does not work in live action.
More than once both in Smallville and Metropolis, the fight moves out of the city/town and Superman actually pulls it back to the populated area. That felt so wrong to me.
The problem with MoS isn’t that Superman kills Zod. The problem is that Zod is the first real villain Superman fights in the reboot.
In the comics, you had decades to establish that Superman doesn’t kill, ever. When Zod shows up, he’s such a massive threat, and so impossible to contain, that Superman is forced to violate one of his core principles and take a life. With all that back story, with hundreds and hundreds of stories about him finding a way to stop villains without killing them, the fact that this guy pushed him into a corner where taking a life was the only way out, is hugely significant.
In MoS, you don’t have that back story. You don’t have this strongly established character trait of not killing people, you don’t have all these stories where he was able to stop villains without killing them, no matter how desperate the situation. By going with Zod right out of the gate, they made Superman killing someone very nearly his first resort, instead of a last, desperate alternative to letting Zod rule the world. Zod should have been saved for the second movie. Give Supes one film where he stands by his values successfully. Then it actually means something when he’s forced into a position where he has to kill to save the world.
This might have helped. I still think that the writers, who have complete control of how the story unfolds, should have written it to avoid a situation where Superman has to kill Zod. It is lazy, sloppy, and simply bad writing, same as Jonathan Kent’s death. I can deal with a 21st century paranoid JK, but not a dumb, suicidal one.
I disagree with the first part: the thing that makes Zod interesting as a character in the first place is his ability to put Superman in a position where he has no choice but to violate his own moral code in order to protect the Earth. I agree that the way it was actually handled in the film was really badly done, and not just for the pacing reasons I mentioned earlier.
And I’m 100% with you on how they butchered Jonathan Kent’s character.
Anyone ever read Elliot S! Maggin’s Superman novel, Miracle Monday? It’s over 30 years old, but in case anyone wants to dig it up, I’ll summarize the ending in a spoiler box:
A demonic entity possesses a young woman and wreaks havoc in Metropolis. It’s a ploy to corrupt Superman’s soul by forcing him to deliberately kill an innocent, but Superman vows to follow the being and prevent or undo any damage it does, for as long as it takes, rather than harm the woman it possessed.
At the end of MoS, the Superman I know would have clamped his arm over Zod’s eyes, enduring the unbearable agony of the heat beams until one or the other of them gave in or (literally) burned out. That would have been a heroic ending. No, more than that. It would have been a *super-*heroic ending.