Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Superman Related Thought-provoking review of "Man of Steel" (SPOILERS)

Scott Mendelsohn wrote this in an article about the worst films of 2013:

Plus, they had Superman actually KILL someone. This is not the Superman we know and love.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

I would say it's a little unjust to lay Zod's destruction of Metropolis and Smallville solely at Clark's feet. It wasn't *his* fault (more Jor-El's) that Zod wanted to kill him. Although the numerous civilian deaths (which having watched this again recently, really DO seem numerous) could have been avoided if he had been smart enough to take Zod out of the city, so those can be laid there. True, Superman did save the world (or humankind) from Zod et al., but Reeve's Superman (or Cain's for that matter) would never have allowed it at that high a cost. They would have found another angle at which to approach this problem.

I do believe that Superman will have an uphill battle to win the hearts and trust of Earth after such an introduction, especially since it was the people of his own HOME planet which almost destroyed their's. It's possible that humans (outside of the rare few still alive who know CK=SM) will appreciate his help, but most will probably fear him in a 'vengeful god' sort of way. In this way, Cavil's Superman will not be 'beloved' as Reeve's was. And he certainly won't be given the Key to the City as Cain's Superman was, unless he gets his act together and actively works on the rebuilding of Metropolis... physically works on reconstructing the buildings, that is.

We can almost (mostly because *I* want to) put the blame on Routh's Superman (but not the actor himself) because he was the first to *really* abandon Earth (and gain the ire of Earth, and especially Lois Lane) after Reeve's Superman promised never to do so again at the end of SM-II. At least, in regards to Earth. (I'll just step away from the steaming pile of doo-doo the memory wipe was for Lois. Thank you very much.) Reeve's Superman did *technically* abandon Earth for Lois, but only for a short span... less than a week, I believe, so we can't count that... or if we do, can't really compare it to Routh's SM abandoning Earth for 5 years.

As to this reviewer's idea that Lois was a mere 'love interest', I have to disagree. Lois hunted down Clark from rumor and urban myths to actually find the real man. Nope, Adam's Lois certainly was given the stubbornness and brains required of a Lois. She also (by speaking with Jor-El) did come up with the plan to defeat *most* of the Kryptonians. True, it helped that Lois knew ahead of her investigation that she was searching for a real person whom she had met.

As to that kiss in the ruble of Metropolis, it is LOIS who initiates it, not Clark. True, he doesn't pull away either. It's my opinion that he doesn't notice the true destruction his fight had on the city until *after* the kiss concluded. That would have been the optimal point to add in a line along the lines of "My God! What have I done?" And then mention something about trying his best never to allow a human death on his watch again. Then, while the killing of Zod would still not be justified, it certainly would be tempered with Clark promising to do better from then on out.

I do find it quite ironic that the reviewer decides to stick with ARROW instead of Superman, when -- having watched S1 -- Arrow has no problem with killing off henchmen right and left, where traditionally Superman avoids killing people, even baddies. True, Arrow hasn't killed 100,000 henchmen yet, but give him time... at his current rate of at least 20+ per episode, he'll be there soon enough.

I just got my copy of MoS from Amazon this week, and having watched again since then (the first of many viewings in the near future :p ), I must say I'm at a draw.

I have a hard time understanding all the people who hate on movies. In spite of the fact that I'm a college student in the film/animation field where we basically tear apart every movie we see... I just can't hate a film. I can critique it to death, sure, but no matter what I still find watching a movie to be (for the most part) a fun experience. That's why I'll still be lined up every opening day of Star Wars, no matter how terrible the movies end up being, and why there's never been a Superman movie I didn't really enjoy. I can separate them. I recognize that some were better done than others (why I love Lois and Clark so much), but it doesn't take away from the value of the film.

I had to say that because... drool-worthy and did a fine job; Diane Lane played an excellent Martha; and Antje Traue stole the show as Faora. I wouldn't agree that it was the most disappointing film of the year, but if I think about it, it just was kind of stagnant. I loved it, but it didn't do enough for me. I wanted more out of it. I was hoping at least a sequel would get more out of it, but that remains to be seen (I'm very concerned that adding half the JL is going to ruin everything I had hoped for). I saw *A LOT* of movies this year, and while Superman is my favorite superhero/character in general, I can name a lot of films that I thought were better this year. This is the one I bought-- because I love Superman. But Ironman 3, Star Trek 2, Catching Fire (LOVED btw), Despicable Me 2, Frozen, Great Gatsby, Saving Mr. Banks.... there were so many movies that I loved that I didn't have any doubts about loving. I can see why some people, especially the rest of the non-Superman-loving world, might be extremely disappointed by it. But hey, I even loved SR. I still love MoS. Now that I think about it, though, maybe I just love the Super-men...

Nah. I like me some Clark.

I thought the reviewer said he'd rather watch Arrow to emphasize how grievous the problems are with Man of Steel. The movie is so bad that he'd rather watch something else that itself has massive problems. (I figure that I'm projecting my own feelings on the matter, though.) Of course Ollie's body count is deplorable, as is his insistence that he has some sort of moral high ground over people like Helena, but a major difference I see is in the scope of their hypocrisy. Ollie thinks he's saving the city despite being a mass-murderer, which is pretty horrible, but Superman is setting himself up as a moral authority for the entire world when all the evidence shows that the entire planet would have been better off without him.

He thinks that he's inherently better than humans and that it's his responsibility to "guide us into the light" or whatever because he's Kryptonian and has super powers. Then he causes mass destruction and mass casualties. His fight demonstrates that he doesn't care at all what happens to bystanders. He's willing to deliberately throw his opponent through an occupied building, doing enough damage to level it. Almost every decision that Kal-El makes runs counter to the long-established character. Even Golden Age Superman, who had no qualms with murdering henchmen by throwing them out a tenth-story window or shooting mad scientists with their own ray-guns, was not so callous as to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The hubris is staggering.

On the other hand, maybe the reviewer just picked Arrow because it's the only DC TV show on right now. (It is, isn't it?)

I really can't agree with you at all here. Just because a movie is a movie doesn't make it an enjoyable experience.

I can see that as a film student there would be something interesting and fun about analyzing a movie, even a very bad one, but do you really enjoy every movie that you watch?

I (usually) watch movies for escapism. If I'm not enjoying myself when I watch it, then it's not worth it. (There are exceptions for certain types of movies, like if I'm learning something or seeing someone else's perspective on things, but that's not the type of movie we're discussing.)

That right there is one of my problems with MoS. I really like Clark. There wasn't nearly enough of him in the movie.

And it suffers from the same problem as the end of Smallville: Glasses don't work for a disguise if people recognize Clark Kent without them!

I think that's very interesting. I never thought about it before. Even right now, trying to think of movies I don't like... I mean, sure, I can recognize that there are stupid movies, poorly made movies, movies that I'd like to think I could have done better.... But all in all, I don't think I've hated any of them. I might not want to watch them again, but I don't regret seeing them. I guess I don't really go to movies for the escapism as much as I do for the movies themselves. Even if it's a bad movie, I can usually find something in it to at least laugh at/about. But hey, there's even some good movies that I don't want to see again. Like Avatar-- beautiful movie, but once is enough.

(Okay, wait. There are only two quasi-exceptions to this rule: "Fast and Furious", and the new "The Wolverine" movie. I fell asleep during both, though not necessarily for a lack of interest. And if I went back and rewatched them because I've only seen them once, I'm sure I could get into it.)

EXACTLY! My main issue with MoS is the lack of Clark. And outside these boards, I can't exactly get people to understand what I mean.

As I've gotten older, my movie watching time has diminished. Therefore, I will turn off movies which will not hook me within the first 15-20 minutes, because it's just a waste of my time. MI3 (or was it 4?) and some Vincent Denofero movie where he thought he was some time traveler from the future (which had an interesting premise but was so poorly executed I almost fell asleep from boredom) are two recent examples of this. Those are two half hours of my life I will never get back. I, too, never fall asleep during movies and cannot remember the last movie I watched where I fell asleep (not counting children's movies I've seen 50+ times with the kids). Two movies I wished I had never paid money to see in the theatre: League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (so sad how poorly done this film was) and that John Travolta stinker Battlefield Earth . I liked Avatar, and have watched it several times on DVD. The plot actually didn't bother me as much as it did many other people.

Mouse, have you ever watched the Warren Beatty / Dustin Hoffman movie Ishtar ? In Hollywood, it's usually named as the worst film ever made. I, apparently, was the only person who found it funny. (I actually saw that one in the theater, while I was in high school.) I find watching movies before hearing what other people think or reading reviews beneficial because then I come out with my opinions and not someone else's superimposed upon me. I hated Beettlejuice when I saw it in the theatres as a teenager (I had found it boring), but then when I watched it 10 years later, thought it hilarious.

I, too, would have liked more Clark, and Clark/Lois interaction in MoS, and hope now that he's working at the Daily Planet, we'll see more of that. I could've done with Clark figuring out how to defeat Zod without Daddy Dearest's help. Personally, I am sick of Clark/Superman's origin story *always* (with two fantastic exceptions LnC and AoS with George Reeves) as a result of Jor-El interference. True, Clark was helping out people before discovering his origins / spaceship, but not actively until Jor-El suggested it. That's what I love about LnC is that Clark figured out his potential on his own without his dead birth father telling him it was his destiny or some other shlock like that. It makes it feel more that Clark is doing it to carry on the El family name, than because it is truly what HE wants to do. This is why OUR Clark is more heroic than the Supermen shown in the movies.

I think the author may differentiate "Man of Steel" and "Arrow" by the fact that "Man of Steel" had a high body count of civilians, while "Arrow" has a high body count of criminals. In other words, it may not be the body count that bothers him, but that Superman didn't prevent the deaths of all those innocent people. Personally, I think that both "Man of Steel" and "Arrow" have their flaws, but I enjoy both of them very much in spite of that.

Something I've noticed with film reviewers is that some of them seem to be so intent on the details of a film that they miss the big picture (and all the fun).

I will say I haven't listened to professional reviewers since Roger Ebert said that 'Batman and Robin' was a good movie (yuck). I usually read about an upcoming movie and decide to see it based on whether or not it looks interesting (plus I'll almost always see things with certain actors or about certain subjects--20th century history, for example). If I listened to the professional reviewers, I'd have missed out on such enjoyable films as 'Les Miserables' (the musical).

On the topic of 'Man of Steel': I liked it. I didn't go for multiple viewings, but I still liked it. I wasn't shocked when Superman killed Zod, either (I've read some of the old comics where Superman is, indeed, willing to kill if necessary). I did think the death of Jonathan Kent was lame, though--rescuing a dog from a tornado? Seriously? (Also, I read that an under an overpass is a lousy place to take shelter from a tornado. Can anyone confirm if that is true? I live in a region where tornadoes are very rare and almost never terribly destructive when they do occur.)