My Take on a Comic Book Movie - Man of Steel

My Take on a Comic Book Movie - Man of Steel

Not only did the new Superman movie wipe the slate clean for portrayals of the Last Son of Krypton, it gave us a refreshing outlook into the Kryptonian mythos through the tales of one of the greatest, if not the greatest comic book super hero of all times. SPOILERS? Ah never mind, many have watched it anyway.

Review Opinion
By bronzetiger01 - Jul 04, 2013 02:07 AM EST
Filed Under: Superman

Man of Steel (2013)

A lot of things have been said and done about the latest Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures take on the iconic superhero. We have all been on the watch since day one, when it was announced that the studio asked director Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception) to produce or “god-father” Man of Steel, up to the time Nolan selected Zach Snyder as director and started co-writing the story with screenwriter David Goyer.

The hype heightened with the announcement that Henry Cavill would portray the legendary superhero, and the inclusion of veteran Academy Award winners Kevin Costner and Russel Crowe in supporting roles.

Now that the film is out, it is a sad thing to note that critics and some fans have been hard on the movie. The hype leading to the screening was so high that the general view is that it would earn at least a billion dollars at the box office. Three weeks passed and the movie could only generate $400 million. What happened?



A lot of fans were disappointed with the kind of take Zach Snyder did on MOS, but it must be remembered that the general idea for the incarnation or reincarnation of this character is whether a super-powered alien living amongst us would be relevant and be accepted by society, by the people. Fans and moviegoers went to watch to be entertained; instead they got information. Yes they were loads of action but they argued about the pacing of the story and the use of flashbacks in most of the scenes. They even had the nerve to compare MOS with Marvel’s Iron Man 3 which they think is much more “entertaining” than the overly-serious Superman movie, despite the Mandarin Twist.

Was there really something wrong with the movie? Or are we simply expecting too much from it?

I watched the movie twice in the cinema and I can hardly hear any whisper during the screening. Audience were seemingly intent on watching, not the kind of audience I was expecting similar to the screening of, say Fast and Furious 6 (the scene of Vin Diesel catching Michelle Rodrigues up in the air drew applauses) whereas they are more somber with this. Their verdict: good film but not great.

It was in this perspective that I decided to write a review and decide to address only a certain number of points as the rest were already discussed before in previous reviews.

Theme

A movie would only be as great as the theme it represents, and Man of Steel certainly addressed its theme: relevance of a super-powered alien in today’s world. Nolan and Goyer wrote a story based on a realistic take on the hero without removing any of the fantastical elements that is characteristic of him.

You will really feel for Henry Cavill in the film. As Kal El and Clark Kent, he was split right at the center of it all, and you will feel alienated and at times frustrated. He is the Man of Steel but he cannot use his power to save the people he loves, less he be more alienated. In time he found out his true strength, his humanity. In the film, he needs to take a lot of hard step, a lot of difficult choices, and this was supported by scenes when General Zod asks him to help build a new Krypton, until their final confrontation. As Crowe’s Jor-El would put it, he (Kal) needs to learn how to be human first before he could understand everything and be the force for good that he is destined to be.

Clearly no other villain would enable Kal El (not called Superman yet in the film) to fulfill his destiny other than General Zod and Michael Shannon (Premium Rush) fits the bill to a T. He is not a merciless Zod, an awfully demeaning demi-god who only wants to conquer (kneel before Zod!, remember?) but he believes he is acting for a greater good, a higher cause. You can see the Nolan-esque similarity between this theme and with his Batman Begins. To best illustrate the concept of fear, Nolan used the villains Ra’s Al Ghul and Scarecrow. Zod’s presence on earth tries to further alienate Clark from his adopted world. Zod acted because he believed in his cause, similar to what Ra’s had done. This is perfect pitch for character development between the two main characters of the film..

Action

This is by far, the most-action packed DC comic book adaptation to date; fast-paced, sequential and powerfully moving. This is also one of the main concerns of the film. According to fans and critics, there were too many destructions, sequences simply befuddle people and the use of the CGI was incoherent. Some even tried to do a body count. Superman’s S stands for hope and yet he let a lot of people die.

Again if one is following the theme of the story, then the action done is relevant. Superman’s strength’s is his humanity, and one ability he learned is to focus, another is that he had choice. Indeed he would have chosen to save a lot of lives if he can, but he took a much better and in my opinion, more realistic approach to it, by attacking Zod and his ships. He knew he couldn’t save everyone in Metropolis or in Smallville, given how powerful his nemesis were. So he had to choose to destroy their ships instead and possibly save a larger part of the population. He has to make difficult decisions, like all of us. There were simply too many of them but he is Superman and he overcame them all.

Inspite of this, he still feels alienated. The General doesn’t like him, which is why he sends a $12 million drone that Kal destroys anyway. He doesn’t know if the people of Earth would trust him. All he knows is that it was his choice to help them.

The action further indicates that Superman is not that invincible, and that he makes mistakes. It is a very humanly characteristic.

Measure of Success

While a lot feel that this MOS has successfully re-established the character as one of the top comic book heroes, a lot feel that this film is a critical failure if only their basis is the comparison of the box office results.

Is this really a measure of success of a comic book movie? I do not really succumb to this idea.

Sure, it did not rake in a billion dollars, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t successful. If at all, the film is a breakthrough for the studio, successfully rebooting the character they have portrayed on the screen 35 years ago and it numerous castings. Henry Cavill is now the definitive Superman and his film signifies the start of the much awaited hero ensemble “Justice League”. Still, if one wants to compare box office figures, one must compare the figures the film acquired with that of other super hero reboots (Amazing Spiderman, Batman Begins, The Incredible Hulk) and not with films that have an already established audience. And if it didn’t fare well, would that matter now, now that the DC Cinematic Universe has started. Fair enough?

The excitement for possibilities remain high from the film. Expectations are going to be higher and talks of a World’s Finest film is hot. Yet if there is one thing proven in the film, is that the measure of success of a franchise is in being SOLID in its theme and that everything else should follow. And without a doubt, the Man of Steel is a force that ROCKS!
SUPERMAN Director James Gunn Confirms Frank Grillo's Role: This Isn't Just A Good Guy
Related:

SUPERMAN Director James Gunn Confirms Frank Grillo's Role: "This Isn't Just A Good Guy"

SUPERMAN Star David Corenswet Details His Intense Weight Gain To Become The DCU's New Man Of Steel
Recommended For You:

SUPERMAN Star David Corenswet Details His Intense Weight Gain To Become The DCU's New Man Of Steel

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

darkraven
darkraven - 7/4/2013, 4:07 AM
Loved your article and I couldn't agree with you more. MOS was fresh and I guess not what people were expecting, maybe thats the price you pay for trying something new and original. It wasn't predictable and simple, it was complex and layered, which I loved.
bronzetiger01
bronzetiger01 - 7/4/2013, 6:28 AM
Thanks for the comment.

One amusing anecdote. While having a second screening, I couldn't help but notice how intent the viewers are when watching the scenes. They loved the action and they even interpreted the "love the suit" reply by Ma Kent (Diane Lane) as amusing that everyone in the audience laughed. Audience are moved, and they understand how the story flows. Audience can connect now and can put the pieces of the story together. I wish reviews would be based on some kind of exit polls or questionnaire
darkraven
darkraven - 7/4/2013, 7:24 AM
Great point, you would think studios would be doing everything they can to sell their product.
JorL5150
JorL5150 - 7/4/2013, 5:24 PM
QUOTE:
Three weeks passed and the movie could only generate $400 million. What happened?
UNQUOTE


------------------------------------------------

it made 520 million in 17 days.
3 weeks is 21 days. so it made 120 million MORE than that statement in LESS THAN your 3 weeks.

fail.
lucio7lopez
lucio7lopez - 7/4/2013, 7:14 PM
@JorL5150
it made 520 million in 17 days.
3 weeks is 21 days. so it made 120 million MORE than that statement in LESS THAN your 3 weeks.

fail.



You're absolutely right, Mr JorL
KingEmperor
KingEmperor - 7/5/2013, 12:29 AM
I think I see a pattern, though.

Comparing it to its sequels, Batman Begins didn't make a lot of money, either, seeing as we haven't completely removed the bad taste of Batman & Robin from our mouths. Then the Joker came around, which generated interest in TDK.

I think MOS2 will end up the same, assuming Lex Luthor is the next villain, and played by a great actor.
ThunderKat
ThunderKat - 7/5/2013, 1:32 PM
I liked the conclusion you posited in its comparison to "The Incredible Hulk" and "Batman Begins."

I disagree regarding Zod. He was still wanting to destroy in order to recreate his people. This is clearly an unethical and murderous way to have your people survive. He knew when the two ships started converting our elements and minerals into Kryptonian versions that Earth's people will die.

In the end, Superman killing is much worse and much further off character than anything Nolan did with Batman. That was icing on the Superman cake that I don't want to sample.
dbatman
dbatman - 7/8/2013, 1:19 AM
I'm getting tired of this. The problem is not that he chose to fight Zod's men instead of saving people; the problem is he is very very careless. He speared Zod into a power plant then into a gas station that also brought the fight to a small town. Where he blew up a train. He blew up a giant space ship in the middle of the city and even have the audacity to kiss someone while 9/11 is having an orgasm. He didn't lift the ship first or anything, nope he bashed through it then blew it up. Then he fought Zod without even trying to discourage it. He also punched him through buildings. Then after this epic battle that destroyed $billion of property damage and dead people he helped killed, he has the balls to destroy a $12million satellite that was watching over his actions. Obviously he cannot be trusted. Inspiration and hope my ass; more like Harbinger of death and destruction.
CCR
CCR - 7/8/2013, 5:28 PM
Great review, too bad there's people like dbatman^ who take their movies WAAAAAY too seriously. The amount of destruction and collateral damage was what WOULD HAVE happened, probably a LOT worse, if Superman and Zod were real. But they're not. It's a frickin movie. Get off your high horses, Jeezus.
dbatman
dbatman - 7/8/2013, 9:28 PM
@CCR are kidding me. It's a movie review. We comment on how much we take a movie seriously. He's even talking about themes. And he's even analyzing why the action is not a problem the way I'm justifying why it is. Yes, it would probably be worse in real life but that is why I would like a Superman who would say "Hey Zod, lets not fight anymore. We won't solve anything". Or someone who would not bash into a gas station. It would be a shame to ruin the corn in those roomy cornfield isn't it. You know a Superman that is careful, or not stupid. Do you like Superman to be stupid? I don't think so. You're the one who's getting angry at me for disagreeing, then you'll say Im taking things to seriously? Quit a contradiction there, buddy.
bronzetiger01
bronzetiger01 - 7/9/2013, 12:19 AM
@dbatman, thanks for the comment

Just a question: If you were Superman, would you have done differently, considering all the circumstances, the chance to revive your world, being alienated from the world that adapted you, where trust is a complex idea?

For the first time, we have a Superman movie that deals with the humanity of the superhero. This guy has to make choices, like all of us. He chose to confront Zod, because he felt the alternative (saving the people) would not stop Zod from his plans. It was a choice he had to make, and if that doesn't make him more human than alien, we're probably not in the same plateau. This is what it means for a film to take a realistic approach in a fantastical world. He has conflicts too, like all of us. But to withstand them all, that what makes him a superhero.
As in Batman Begins: It's not who you are underneath, but what you do, that defines you.

So, would you have done the things you have said if you were Superman?

Cheers!
bronzetiger01
bronzetiger01 - 7/9/2013, 12:21 AM
@CCR, thanks for the comment.

dbatman
dbatman - 7/9/2013, 2:47 AM
@bronzetiger01 Yes I probably would destroy the satellite. But I wouldn't be all high and mighty about it like Superman. Nor would I expect the general to trust me, nor would I condescend him for not doing so, not after what happened in metropolis. My complaint is not that he made a choice to fight Zod instead of Saving people, thats the better choice. My problem is his strategy on doing so is destroy everything in path. He doesnt divert the fight elsewhere, he helped in the destruction. Remember in Superman II when you see his struggle and he tries everything to save people while fighting, then he concluded that the fight will not end so he just left. Thats inner conflict. THere's no inner conflict in his one on one with Zod. The fight is all he cares about. He punches him repeatedly through buildings. He doesn't reason or anything he just continues. The only time there's inner conflict is when it's convinient for the plot, like when he suddenly cared about a family after not caring a while ago about people while fighting with ZOd.

COunter question:If You're Superman, re would you blow up spaceship in a middle of a city? Or would you lift it high up first so no one would get hurt?

Question2: If You're Superman, would you crush into a power plant then into a gas station causing it to explode, that will also lead enemy back-up into the small town? Or would you choose the endless cornfield?

I want you to think hard that all your life you try so hard not to hurt everybody with your uncontrollable strength. That doing uderwise, will lead to accidental death and also will earn people's fears and destrust.
bronzetiger01
bronzetiger01 - 7/9/2013, 7:41 AM
@dbatman

good points. now let me answer them as best as i can

Have you considered the fact that this was Superman's first appearance vis-a-vis fight? Have you not watched and listened to the scene in which he was trying to restrain himself from jumping on the guy who teases him? Did you not watch the tornado scene? These are instances where Clark could have done a lot, save the people, fight back, and more. Now why would he restrain himself?

"My father believed that if the world found out who I really was, they would be afraid."

Clark was not ready to reveal his presence yet. He was yet to test his strengths, including his character. The Zod attack was his baptism of fire, literally and figuratively.

So in this regard, would you already consider him a good strategist, a good tactician like Zod? Of course not yet. Why would he attack Zod instead of saving people? He was acting on his instincts, that he would have to earn the respect and trust of the people before he can save them. If you were the pilot that was falling down and then somebody catches you in mid air, that fast, would you not get frightened yourself?

It is but natural to go with your instincts for a neophyte like Clark, very humanly, for that was how he was raised. And I would disagree that Clark has no inner conflict, do I need to emphasize on it? The film basically introduces the conflicts of a super powered alien, internal and external.

Clark is no strategist, so sending the fight elsewhere was not an option for him. The battle was in Metropolis and in Kansas, it was on-going and it was relentless; remember that there was already a threat issued; therfore that is where he has to be. Have you read Superman #75? Was there a strategy he employed in battling Doomsday? Doomsday was killing people. Superman has to stop him, at all cost. Wasn't this the same thing Zod was employing?

Your comments are based on the fantastical Superman. You won't get in a realistic approach. The film makers made the world Superman inhabits as relatable as possible, even if he belongs to the fantastical.

As to your counterquestions: I would also do the same thing like Superman. You get hurt, you hurt them back, no matter what happens. Remember that he came to surrender to them peacefully, and yet that was not their concern in the end. He disagreed, so he fought back. (Spaceship of Zod scene). Clark's mother was hurt, the house destroyed, why would I not fight for my loved ones if I was Clark?

You have to look at the film in the way it was meant to be for us viewers: how would we accept an alien, and how would the alien react in an environment as real as it can be? You think like a military, and I am not surprised why you did not appreciate the film.

It is YOU who has to think hard on your comments. Watch the film again. You are missing several points here.

Cheers!

dbatman
dbatman - 7/9/2013, 10:03 AM
He doesn't have to be a strategist to know people are going to die when he punch through a building. If the point of the movie is that his not experienced enough that he lost track of his surroundings then they should have showed his pain after the battle or even during. Are you telling me this superman thinks only with his fist, even as only a very ordinary human person, wouldnt you be careful. Your characterizing a superman that is so out of control that once angry, the enemy is all he see and nothing else in his surroundings.Years of practice of restraining himself then your saying the moment he unlished he lost all his lesson? Why would I cheer for a guy like that even if it would make sense? I'll save my mom , yeah but I'm sure gonna be really be guilty for the small town that I trashed after. Which the movie didnt show. In fact if that was the intention of the movie, they should have show CLark mourning the destructions he caused. But nope, everything is a happy ending after. THe point of the movie is that he is a beacon of light for what humanity should strive for, but the movie didn't prove that. And that's why I think this is a failure. He has internal conflict, but when the chips are down, when he is under the microscope, he just loose. It would be realistic for him to reason with Zod, not the other way around. If he was trying to prevent destruction he should have been more careful.
bronzetiger01
bronzetiger01 - 7/9/2013, 6:50 PM
@dbatman

you are misreading or in this case, miswatching the film.

Since when did he have years of practice? He was restraining himself, was that practice for you? It was Zod who basically dragged him into battle.

Again if you were in Clark's shoes, and given that much power, I am sure you would do far worse. This commentaries alone wouldn't restrain you from doing what you want to do, how much more if you do have superpowers.

And since has Clark been under the microscope? Who is observing him, the people? the military? when all they want is prevent the threat posed by Zod? Clark did surrender, he did what he thought was right, to reason out with Zod in his ship. But it was not meant to be. C'mon don't tell me you didn't watch this scene.

Again, watch the film. You are blinded by your own beliefs. It is possible you are not accustomed to the story telling, but the pieces are in place. You haven't looked well, or rather you were looking the wrong way. It is called scotoma, the mind sees what it chooses to see.

Cheers!
dbatman
dbatman - 7/9/2013, 9:11 PM
I watched those scenes. Wasn't enough in the end. Because when it comes in saving people he just sucks. Do you honestly believe if Jonathan is alive at those moments in metropolis he would be proud? He could have been in one of those buildings and Clark wouldn't notice. Years of telling Clark not to hurt someone and that's where it leads up to when he finally showed himself? When Jor-EL sent him to earth do you thinking? He is under the microscope by the audience. Because of Jonathan's messages, by Jor-Els expectations.

How bout this. DO you really think that this is the intention of the screenwriter? For Superman's origin story, his rite of passage for gaining experience of being Superman, is that at one point in his early history, he accidentally killed a bunch of people in a fist fight? Hundreds probably thousands?

YES or NO?
bronzetiger01
bronzetiger01 - 7/10/2013, 2:02 AM
i cant believe you're asking me these questions. you simply cannot take a movie as it is.

you still don't get it, do you?
so serious with a movie

whatever the plot the screenwriters and the director do with the film, it is still a movie. Moviegoers such as yourself will never be satisfied, but that's the way it is supposed to be, leave the rest of the details to your imaginings.

Please stop looking at the hole of the doughnut. You won't see anything. Cheers!
dbatman
dbatman - 7/10/2013, 2:25 AM
Arent you the guy who was talking about the movie's themes? The same guy who justified everything he can about the movie's action and destruction? Now suddenly it's just a movie? You made a whole thesis about this thing being justified within the movie. then suddenly its a just a movie.

THis isn't a minor flaw. Its a big flaw in the movie. Its not the hole in the donut. It's half the donut cut out. It's the movie failing to live up to its message that is hammered down to begin with.
bronzetiger01
bronzetiger01 - 7/10/2013, 4:42 AM
now it's my fault? simply because i made a review?
yes i talked about themes because that is what i saw and i want to share what i had in mind. reviewing a film or comic or any book is taken as a review, as is the movie or book or comic a movie or book or comic.

it's actually you who sensationalize things about this movie. you know it had flaws, minor or otherwise, what movie doesn't have? you are looking for perfection in the movie, you will get disappointed. you don't see past the imperfections of the character, the story, the theme, the whole movie, whereas that was the idea behind the reboot, that the Man of Steel is not a perfect being, he too had flaws just like you and me.

Tell you what, why don't you make your own review and put there your own take on how to set the movie right? In that way, you can show to the whole comic book fans why you see this movie as such?
dbatman
dbatman - 7/10/2013, 5:37 AM
fine heres my review. http://www.comicbookmovie.com/superman_movies/superman_the_man_of_steel/news/?a=82457

Im not complaining about the minor flaws. Im talking about the big ones the giant big ones. A human and flawed superman is one thing. But a Superman that kills a thousand people by accident is another. I'm not gonna like the popularly flawed Spider-man if he killed a dozen people by accident when his saving people. Realistic or not Im not gonna like it. No one's gonna like it. Gonna be a funny parody though. If the intention of the movie is for us to root for the guy who is an outsider all his life, then it fails becoz he killed people carelessly.

Who said anything about fault? I'm saying dont accuse me of being serious about a movie if its your job as a reviewer is to take the movie seriously and analyze its flaws. You're asking why half the people hate this movie? then here I'am telling you why. Batman Begins has minor flaws, doesnt mean I hate it. Superman the movie has big flaws, but still a masterpiece. This movie big big giant flaws. flaws that are contradiction to the movies message.
bronzetiger01
bronzetiger01 - 7/11/2013, 3:28 AM
nope, i don't consider reviewing films as a job. I don't get paid for it.

good that you have your own review then. so now you can solicit similar sentiments

you expect too much, of course you will get disappointed, and keeping looking at flaws to serve best your interests...good luck then
dbatman
dbatman - 7/11/2013, 4:50 AM
Being it your job is not the point and you know it. I mean is if you are a reviewer of course your serious about the movie. If your talking about the themes and analyzing and defending the movie, obviously your serious. Otherwise your review have no credibility.

No matter how you look at it, if the movie's over all message is about superman having restraint, and being a savior of mankind, then superman killing hundreds of people isn't a minor flaw. The movie jammed a big moral down our throat then it unsubtly not deliver on the message. Te flaw of the movie is directly in our face, man.
bronzetiger01
bronzetiger01 - 7/13/2013, 5:55 PM
Again you don't see the point of this review

You say you have your own review, so stick to it then, and don't try to even persuade me to do the same for your review.

Moral? You sure you know what you are saying?

Like I said, the movie is not that perfect. You are expecting perfection and you will never have it. The movie is done, get over with it. You have scotoma (your mind sees what you only choose to see), so get over with it.

Let us hope the sequel will come out better and I know it will bring us again to the edge of our seats. (Oh, I know you are already preparing your bias against it, so I would advice not to watch it, it won't satisfy you no matter what they do.)
dbatman
dbatman - 7/14/2013, 3:33 AM
DOn't tell me I have Scotoma I can say the same to you.

You mean the moral of restraint? How it hammered it in to the audience? Yes it is hammered in. Perfection isn't an option I was expecting. But a good movie is and this isn't.

The message of the story is about having restraint. The whole third act is about using no restraint at all. This movie is a total 180 degrees in its message.
koytoys
koytoys - 7/15/2013, 5:52 AM
Gotta side with dbatman here.

Before i share my side, I'm gonna say that I'm only 26 years old, so MOS us supposed to be my Superman movie.
I'm also a Superman fan and have read some of his new comics and I have to say I've liked them.

I'm also open to new interpretation and ideas. I'm not one of those who liked the idea of killing Zod and doesn't care about taking away the red underway.

But I'm a movie fan first and I can say I didn't like MOS.

It lacked heart, and emotion.

We've lost who Superman is at his core. No matter how noble or kind he is superficially, it's inside him that matters. Make him dark and gritty (but I prefer not too), make a different personality, but what's important is his character remains the same. Here,he's was kinda an asshole. He's actions have no consequences whatsoever. And he seems proud of it. Yes he grieved about killing Zod (which I have no problem with), but what did he feel after? Nothing. He kissed Lois.

So were Jonathan Kent and Jor-El. They were assholes too, especially Jonathan who was supposed to be Clark's moral compass, his guidance, but all he wanted here was to keep his son's secret. He was supposed to be Clark's hero. He was supposed to be the man that Clark aspires to be. That's where his humanity lies.

It also has an unconvincing love story. The kiss just came out of nowhere. It felt like an obligation because she's Lois and he's Superman and their supposed to be in love.

And yeah Superman was kinda dumb. He doesn't have to be a strategist to know he's hurting people. It's his instinct to protect people and he's instinct to keep them safe.

What I can say though is MOS made Superman relevant, which is a good accomplishment but as a film, it just fails on a lot of levels.

It has great ideas, but only a few were executed right.

And again character is important, that's what the 1978 film did right, "Character." I'm not looking for "Gee, miss" or "Golly" or "Shucks". Again it's not his superficial actions. He showed who he was and why he was like that in Superman 1978. That's what sorely missed in MOS.
koytoys
koytoys - 7/15/2013, 6:07 AM
And please, c'mon! You're debating and reviewing about the film and then tell him he's taking it seriously.

These filmmakers take these things seriously. It's their passion to make these films. They know it's impossible to make a perfect film, but their still going to make it as perfect as possible.
View Recorder