All Things Superman: An Open Discussion (Spoilers) - - - - - - - - - - Part 90

[JangoNate]

Yep. I feel like the sequel will get more positive critical acclaim for its "lighter" approach, and will probably be a better constructed narrative in its own right.

Not that MOS is bad. I gave it an 8/10 on my first viewing, and plan on rewatching it soon.

Definitely. The flashbacks didn't bother me, but they worked because of it being an origin story and helping to add depth and history to Superman. For the next one I don't think they'd work since we've set up the Clark Kent/Superman dynamic and just need to see a traditional narrative where we see him grow from where he came together at the end of MOS.

 

[Lencho01]

Yeah, I didn't walk out of the theater thinking "Man, it'd be cool to fly and be invincible", I walked out thinking "Metropolis became a crater. Damn". The more I think about it, aspects of this this film seem like overreactions to many criticisms about the character.

Pretty sure it was. Especially from the marketing team. Seemed like a good majority of the TV spots were about the action.

Definitely didn't leave that theater thinking that. Better way for me to put it would be "It's not easy being Superman." By the time the credits were rolling I wished I had a Superman suit to put on and run around the house in.

Well, I don't think it'd be easy being any superhero. A lot of these superhero films give that impression whether they intend to or not.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Pretty sure it was. Especially from the marketing team. Seemed like a good majority of the TV spots were about the action.



Well, I don't think it'd be easy being any superhero. A lot of these superhero films give that impression whether they intend to or not.

Yeah. I find the slow-paced near actionless teaser and trailer to be deceptive.

I feel like they can really bring the human element in the sequel to the max, now that they've got the "superhero experience" out of the way.

I feel like if part 2 is amazing, people will like part 1 more. Of course, it could turn out the other way (Part 2 is great, but one is terrible or just okay).

 

[PacificBoy]

The final 5 minutes was more than enough evidence to prove to me that future films would be more in the vein of what someone would expect of a Superman film.

Liked it quite a bit, but it wasn't enough to salvage the rest of the movie for me. TDKR (to bring up the last DC movie as comparison) told its story better and had a more satisfying ending (though to be fair to MoS, TDKR is the culmination of three movies), but I was entertained more by MoS - if that makes sense.

 

[BlueLantern]

Everything post Zod's death felt rushed. A case of 'let's cram it all in so we don't end on a downer'. However, the previous two hours already established the film's tone.

 

[PacificBoy]

Yeah. I find the slow-paced near actionless teaser and trailer to be deceptive.

I feel like they can really bring the human element in the sequel to the max, now that they've got the "superhero experience" out of the way.

I feel like if part 2 is amazing, people will like part 1 more. Of course, it could turn out the other way (Part 2 is great, but one is terrible or just okay).

If only MoS told the story like trailer #3 did. I'm hoping to feel this way. An amazing sequel wouldn't necessarily make me like MoS more in retrospect, but it'd probably make me appreciate how MoS was set up more.

 

[PacificBoy]

Everything post Zod's death felt rushed. A case of 'let's cram it all in so we don't end on a downer'. However, the previous two hours already established the film's tone.

Yeah, it felt that way. The "welcome to the planet" scene was great, but it seemed tacked on to the existing narrative.

 

[Lencho01]

Yeah. I find the slow-paced near actionless teaser and trailer to be deceptive.

I feel like they can really bring the human element in the sequel to the max, now that they've got the "superhero experience" out of the way.

I feel like if part 2 is amazing, people will like part 1 more. Of course, it could turn out the other way (Part 2 is great, but one is terrible or just okay).

Props to whoever cut those trailers, though. And it doesn't hurt that Goyer took lines/ideas from Birthright and All-Star. Outside of the action, MOS turned out different from what I expected.

Eh, I thought that was one of the goals of this film. Feels like some of these ideas they kept talking about will be saved for the sequel. Odd choice to me. I think one review described MOS as a prequel and a sequel at the same time.

People shouldn't judge a film based on how a sequel turns out.

 

[PacificBoy]

Props to whoever cut those trailers, though.

Synder's movie trailers are always on the money. He isn't called the trailer god for nothing. Watchmen trailer still gives me goosebumps.

 

[Deserana]

Yeah that's the only issue I had with the dramatic aspect of Zod's death. Cavill sold the yell perfectly and him hugging Lois was lovely as was the Jonathan flashback after. But in the next scene he is smiling. I'm all for moving on but that emotional beat should have had some more breathing space.

It was literally Zod's death - "oh well, what are you gonna do now?". Planet, laughs and jokes, the end.

It was just like holy **** you killed someone 5 minutes ago (screen time not film time). I just think one montage showing the rebuilding of the city with Superman helping would have put all those issues to rest. It would have showed a lot of time passing therefore makes sense that Clark so quickly moved on and how everyone in the Planet and the structures behind it were fine.

As many issues as I had with Nolan's trilogy (which I still loved to death) the ending of each film was pitch perfect.

 

[MrMaooz]

I just a saw a new 4th of July tv spot that was very 'Murican.

 

[Herolee10]

Sometimes, it feels like some intentionally try to find ways to bash and criticize MOS just for the sake of it.

 

[-JKR-]

Yeah that's the only issue I had with the dramatic aspect of Zod's death. Cavill sold the yell perfectly and him hugging Lois was lovely as was the Jonathan flashback after. But in the next scene he is smiling. I'm all for moving on but that emotional beat should have had some more breathing space.

It was literally Zod's death - "oh well, what are you gonna do now?". Planet, laughs and jokes, the end.

It was just like holy **** you could someone 5 minutes ago (screen time not film time). I just think one montage showing the rebuilding of the city with Superman helping would have put all those issues to rest. It would have showed a lot of time passing therefore makes sense that Clark so quickly moved on and how everyone in the Planet and the structures behind it were fine.

Do you know how many things a simple smile can hide? Even when you're down (and I, like most of Earth's population, have been to very dark places), you can't walk through life with a sad grimace on your face.

 

[The Guard]

Maybe instead of wishing the movie was Birthright, Mark Waid should have paid attention, because Jax-Ur tells us.

Heh. This guy wiped the floor with a lot of Mark Waid’s complaints, and this line kind of sums it up. I won’t quibble opinion, but Waid wrote this big long rant that isn’t even factually accurate in a lot of respects.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Heh. This guy wiped the floor with a lot of Mark Waid’s complaints, and this line kind of sums it up. I won’t quibble opinion, but Waid wrote this big long rant that isn’t even factually accurate in a lot of respects.

What's this quote from?

 

[The Guard]

Perry/Steve/Jenny were poorly developed. Then, they're put in a blatant situation that supposedly showcases the human tragedy during this apocalyptic sitution. But as the faces of this, they're not well developed, so I don't give a ****. They have no place in any sub plot, they have no bearing on the fate of any of the main characters and are generally just there because two of them exist in the comic books. They're glorified name dropping.

The whole "I have to know them to care about their situation", yeah, I don't get that.

They’re not that well developed, no. That’s probably because they’re not the main characters of the film. Complaints like this kind of boggle my mind, because I’m hard pressed to think of a supporting cast that’s been that well developed, in any comic book superhero movie or ensemble movie, period.

Yes, Perry acts as the moral compass for Lois Lane, but let's be honest, she didn't need that. She was a good person anyway. He was just there to spout the 'what would the world do if there was such an alien amongst us?' question to the audience. But the awful truth is that such a question is impossible to answer. And worst still, the film itself doesn't answer it because it doesn't hold a proverbial mic to the world and ask that question. So why bother throwing the dialogue in? Because it's deep!

The only way we know if she’s a good person is if we see her discussing her options in a given scenario. And since she can't talk to herself, Perry provides a foil, and someone to bounce ideas off of. Perry’s acting as the moral compass for Lois Lane, but he’s also acting as the moral compass for the Daily Planet, and revealing aspects about this version of the character. The scenes with Perry are designed both to flesh out his character and the larger role of the Daily Planet, not just relate to his interactions with Lois.

You're either intentional being stupid about what I said or missing the point. The point is after Zod dies, we cut to Clark throwing a drone at a General's feet with a smile on his face and then talking to his mother about the wonderful adventure he just had.

Actually that’s not what happens. That happens after Superman and Lois’s recovery sequence.

Maybe you just don’t understand that in this movie, like in other movies, scenes progress, and in the real world, people move on with their lives. Sometimes these people don’t dwell on disasters, just as this movie chose not to dwell on what happened to Metropolis, choosing instead to focus on the fact that now Earth has a savior.

And There’s nothing about a “wonderful adventure” when Superman talks to his mother. There’s an emotionally resonant moment about how he wishes his father could have seen what he has become…and her revealing that she believes Jonathan did, both literally and metaphorically.

Clark then gets a job at the Daily Planet. The Daily Planet where three folks were supposed to be in mortal danger but seem absolutely happy now. No looking into the aftermath and no consideration of even what's happened.

Maybe they’re happy because they survived and can now go on with their lives?

It puts it front and center for the spectacle and then throws it away.

No, it doesn’t throw it away. It, as you said, puts it front and center. It then, as all good movies do, moves on and doesn’t dwell on it. There are any number of reasons for that, and any number of options for the film to move forward from the disaster elements.

But here's the problem. Despite desiring this, the majority of the film felt contrived to a point that the situations did not develop organically.

How so?

Instead certain mandates and sequences were shoehorned in. Particularly regarding action.

In what sense?

Sure, he should save them, but it's just because he has to. He has no other choice. The entire film talks about choice but the truth is Clark is just put in situations where he has to do stuff. That's not a glowing endorsement for choice but a force fed implication of having a 'destiny'.

And yet, he does have a choice. And despite any guidance he receives, he ultimately makes his own choices. The film presents multiple ideas, those of having a possible destiny, and duty, and choice.

You spoke about me wanting this film to be written like the other Superman films. So? Superman Returns had a lot of things going for it and a lot of things going against it. But it definitely got the actual actions of Superman right. He protected the world and saved it to when needed. It was the other bits it got wrong. The other two got almost all of it right within the context of the times they were made in.

Except for when he had a child out of wedlock. I kid, I kid.

So...it’s not a good way to approach an individual work. Simply aping previous work. If this film is to have its own identity, then it needs to differentiate itself, both from previous Superman films and previous superhero films. And it did so.

But the irony is that every decision he makes is foreshadowed by someone or the other and made by someone or the other. Jonathan Kent tells him he has to make a decision one day to stand proud in front of the world but needs to hide till then. So he does exactly that. Worse still, he keeps doing it long after his father dies. Sixteen years to be precise.

That’s simply not true. He makes his own choices, and is actually a fairly proactive character, considering.

He “hides” for a reason, until he knows his potential and his purpose. Which is the whole point of the lesson Jonathan was trying to teach him in the first place.

Then he bumps into Jor-El. He tells him to go save people and be the guy who to lead them into the Sun. He puts on a suit and goes flying. But before he can or can't do that, trouble comes calling. So that mission's put on hold. But regardless, he's told that the time is right. He doesn't decide for himself. He just gets told. Then the priest tells him to take a leap of faith. So he does.

I don’t think that’s what Jor-El tells him in their first meeting at all. He hints at his hopes for Kal-El to have a larger potential, but he never actually tells Clark what to do beyond that he should test his limits, does he? Jor-El tells him he CAN save people during their second meeting.

Clark isn’t told that the time is right. He assesses the situation and decides that it may be time to act based on the circumstances. He then needs a little push regarding being able to trust humanity, given his background and psychological makeup from his previous experiences.

I'm not being funny, but for a hero who's strength is in an infallible moral code, compassion and in the sense of what's right, he has to be told an awful lot of what to do and not to do.

Which…is pretty much the case for every human being ever. We’re not born with innate infallible moral codes. We learn them, through the examples of others, through lessons learned via trial and error, etc.

He's the least decisive and mature person around. He has to get told everything. Do this. Do that. Don't do this. Don't do that. Bleh. He's not Superman. He's a manchild in a suit who then at the end of the film, gets a job.

And again, that’s just not true. He isn’t told everything. He’s told, as a child, that he needs to be responsible with what he can do. I dunno, to me this is like whining that a kid is told he should share with others as he grows up. They have to learn somewhere. Why is Clark any different?

At its best, it's a coming of age film with alien as the protagonist. At its worst, it's a clunking action adventure that ignores the sense of unbridled joy of seeing a man fly and focuses on the bleak nature of disaster striking a planet. A planet that only fell into dangers because of said alien. Good job.

I saw plenty of unbridled joy, especially when he learns to fly, and I didn’t find the movie that bleak overall. I found it serious, but not bleak. There’s nothing especially bleak about humanity as portrayed in this film. Rather, it’s more the Kryptonian leadership that is portrayed as such, via the council and Zod. In a way, Superman actually turns away from those ideals and embraces humanity’s potential instead.

And you're seriously saying it's Superman's fault the Earth was in danger?

However, something I didn't mention is the contradiction in the points made by people defending this movie. When people like myself I have bemoaned the lack of scenes showing Superman protecting the innocent during this war or the amount of collateral damage, it got thrown in our faces.

It’s not so much that its just thrown in your faces…it’s that you, and several others, seem to be missing the point in the first place by making comments like “Why didn’t we see him save people? Why doesn’t he care about the people of Metropolis?”.

A. We did, and he does.

B. Through his actions and fighting the Kryptonians, he is inherently saving people.

Look, I get it. I love SUPERMAN RETURNS because it does show Superman embracing his purpiose and saving people, and when people whined about how “He doesn’t punch anyone!” I threw up my hands.

It would have been cool to see him averting disaster a bit more (even though he did just that with the World Engine). But catching falling things was not the context of this story (even though we also saw him do that). It was a choice made by the filmmakers to show him in a pitched battle that there WAS no respite from, and I don’t think you can really call it a flaw so much as a missed opportunity, or more along the lines of a decision to focus on a different part of his story and character potential, that we haven't seen much of before, at least on modern film.

We got told that this was war and there was going to be collateral damage. Showing Superman feel pain over not being able to save individuals at the expense of him saving the world is stupid. It's about the big picture! So why should I care about three folk stuck in the rubble? Three folk who are supposed to be well developed within their own right, but aren't? Surely, they're just collateral damage? Oh that's right, because the filmmakers want me to. So they pull every trick out of the bag to try and make me feel. It's ridiculously contrived.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds?

Superman cares about people. Period. That's the whole point of that sequence. That those few lives mean so much to him.

You’re suggesting that these three people don’t matter because they haven’t personally been developed as characters? Really?

It’s not even about feeling for those three people. Like the rest of the film, it’s about feeling for SUPERMAN, your main character, and the position he’s in, and the choice he’s going to have to make as a result. Those three people are paramount in showing Superman’s resolve to protect the innocent.

Now given that I'm not alien to such tropes, I'll bite and understand what they're doing. But it doesn't work. By using such a blatant reference of the 9/11 attacks, they lose points.

Why must everything in a disaster film now be interpreted as a reference to 9/11? I didn’t see ANYTHING like what happened in MAN OF STEEL during 9/11 beyond some very basic similarities, which have been in action films long before 9/11 ever happened. The context and the nature of the incidents are completely different.

As far as “not feeling anything” because you know Superman will succeed…well, yeah. You’re an adult. If you’re an experienced filmgoer and an intelligent and rational person, then the days of actually worrying about the outcome of a hero or innocents in a film are probably over to a certain extent. You know the rules of the game by now, I would think.

 

[bluearth]

Sometimes, it feels like some intentionally try to find ways to bash and criticize MOS just for the sake of it.

When something is popular and alot of people like it, isnt that what they always do?

"The ending scene at Daily Planet felt rushed"

Oh boy, really? Now they're really digging

 

[The Guard]

What's this quote from?

A response article that was linked to pages and pages back that dealt with Mark Waid's criticisms of MAN OF STEEL.

I got here late.

 

[king666]

Sometimes, it feels like some intentionally try to find ways to bash and criticize MOS just for the sake of it.

Yeah, it's getting old.

 

[The Guard]

Why does he do the right thing? Because his Dad keeps giving him a speech about how he's going to save the world? Not being funny, but every father gives people a speech like that to encourage them. Sure, Jonathan Kent had an alien on his hands so he had to up the scale, but that's about it.

He does the right thing because it’s the right thing. This is one of those common sense things. It’s not, for instance, like BATMAN BEGINS ever shows why Bruce feels fighting evil and saving people is right. It’s just accepted that
it is, and he can, and once he realizes his focus on revenge was the wrong way to go, he does it.

The whys of his journey were not explained at all.

Sure they are. The psychological reasons behind his “search” for identity and purpose and the psychological reasons behind his hiding is presented quite clearly throughout the film.

In fact if there's one thing that I'll give Smallville credit for is that it really painted a full picture of how good a set of parents Jonathan and Martha Kent were. They were protective of him but you understood exactly what kind of people they are and why Clark was who he was.

Right, but SMALLVILLE also had what, three or four seasons to develop the Kents?

The Kents were portrayed as real people in MAN OF STEEL. Obviously good people, but more along the lines of helping Clark deal with his burdens. Jor-El was someone who wanted his son to be an inspirational figure. The two parentages were merged, and that’s where Superman comes from. It’s a different take, but a unique one at the same time.

What we don't see in this film, considering that conflict is played up, is what Jonathan Kent does to reassure Clark of his place in the world. He simply tells him to hide until the time is right.

He also more or less points out to him that he will need to figure out his purpose. Jonathan very clearly says “You’re going to change the world”. I don’t see how that, in some way, isn’t somewhat reassuring and hopeful. Although it's also a scary concept. There's a balance of emotions and ideas there.

It's not representative of a developed relationship between father and son or mentor and student. It's just speeches. Stuff you put in trailers and go 'that's awesome!'

Nor was anything with Glenn Ford’s Jonathan Kent really representative of a truly developed relationship between father and son. It was all speeches and melodrama. Historically in film, and even in most comics, the Kents have not been main characters, so this is an acceptable approach. That’s the role of a supporting character in a superhero film.

Look, I like the Donner film, but I can’t pretend that the relationship between Clark and Jonathan Kent there was a terribly deep one, or that Jonathan’s advice was all that brilliant. It was pretty simple and straightforward stuff, albeit occasionally pretty powerful. At least here, their relationship speaks to how Superman relates to the world itself, recognizes the gravitas of Clark's situation, and speaks with regard to his two different heritages.

It's not something you build a film on. A friend said the individual scenes in this film are good but don't build towards anything but big words and exposition about destiny, hope and then segway into stretches of action. It's hard not to see it that way.

Except that the scenes do build toward something. The idea of Superman, and the choices Clark makes. It’s all woven together quite cleverly, so that by the end of the film, it has all dovetailed nicely into a resolution of sorts, with thematic implications ongoing.

As for the bit about big words and exposition about destiny, you could say about countless films, including most really good ones. If you choose to “reduce” a film to its structure, that’s what you’ll be left with. Structure.

The Superman I've always known and loved wasn't told he had to be a hero. He chose to be one. Different incarnations of the origin have addressed what the world might think of him and he's stepped forward regardless, because he knows without poking or prodding what he has to do. Why? Because he was raised to be a good person. That's what the Kents are there for. They're not there to tell him to be or not to be a hero.

This isn't the Superman you've always known. It's a film adaption.

And it’s fairly obvious that this man was raised to be a good person as well, because he clearly is. No one told this incarnation to be a hero, either, far as I can tell. He chose to be, and received guidance from his friends and family.

This excuse that the world wouldn't trust him and that's why he didn't step forward is fine but the true value of that conundrum is showcasing that reaction. This film didn't do it. He normally disappears after saving people and only comes to the fore when remnants of his homeworld come calling and even then there's no reaction to said disastrous events. Life just goes on like nothing happened. Hell, outside of the military, the Daily Planet and Martha Kent, the film puts no time into looking at the reactions of people. You see Woodburn talking of the alien needing to hand himself over, but that's prior to him saving anyone publicly so the opinion is subject to change almost by default.

I think that’s by design. The public probably doesn’t know quite what to make of Superman, and so that's how it was portrayed in their limited exposure to him.

The filmmakers chose to look at Superman’s arrival through the lens of the military's interactions with him, to keep the focus there, and to assess the first and most obvious concern humanity would have about Superman, that of him being a physical threat to them, or a threat to national security.

I wanted to see what the world would perceive of an outsider. I wanted to see what the world think of Superman once they were bitten by any thoughts of him being a threatening presence on their planet. Whether that's due to their distrust of him or their suspicion of him being the shape of things to come. I wanted to see how the world would react to all things Superman considering the cynical society that could be portrayed. But guess what? I have to wait till the sequel before those questions are answered. Great.

Hey, I get it, but I’m willing to wait until the sequel to see those things VS having them all mashed into this origin film, or rushed through in Raimi SPIDER-MAN style montage or something. They’re still setting up the idea of the world’s reaction to Superman, via Jonathan’s introduction of the concept to Clark, Clark’s concerns over it, and Lois and Perry’s shared concerns. We saw how the military reacted, because that's where the story went. There are hints at more political overtones VS a military approach in the sequel.

It’s also conceivable the rest of the world still doesn’t quite know what to make of him at this point…how could they? He never sat down for an interview. I don’t think you end a film on that particular note anyway, with the world having its mind made up one way or other about the guy, though there was some hint of those in power being reluctant to trust him during his encounter with Swanwick.

do actually think it's very telling that alot of people were disappointed with this film. Not just the fans but the GA and critics who really were expecting something great based on the trailers. I think it shows how respected Superman actually is, people expect the best. People would be absolutely singing the praises for this film if it was a Thor debut film. Look at how average that Thor movie in 2011 was, and yet it was a huge critical and
crowd success. MOS is better than it, right?

And yet plenty of people seem to have liked it. I think it’s only really that telling in that it showcases that people don’t sometimes seem to know what the hell they want, and have somewhat arbitrary and shifting expectations to begin with.

 

[The Guard]

That's what I didn't get. Why is he crying over killing Zod? Zod was an a-hole. He didn't represent the best of Krypton or his heritage. Crying over the thousands of people lying in the streets and rubble would have been better.

I’m pretty sure that he is not just crying over killing Zod.

He’s crying over all of it, all that's happened. The loss of his heritage. The fact that his lost people did this instead of coexisting with humanity, and the neccessity of sending them back to the Phantom Zone. The loss of life, and the immense destruction.

The fact that he, though he’s spent his life saving people, had to go through all that violence, and had to take a life.

It's not overt, but it can easily be interpreted as such, especially when Lois is comforting him. It’s a very ambiguous moment, and a really harsh, raw and beautiful one. And there's some very nice subtlety to it, as melodramatic as it begins. It's a great, balanced superhero moment, and very unique and powerful, one of the best I've seen on film.

 

[Deserana]

Do you know how many things a simple smile can hide? Even when you're down (and I, like most of Earth's population, have been to very dark places), you can't walk through life with a sad grimace on your face.

You misunderstood me. It wasn't the fact that Clark got over it that bothered me it was just the way it was paced in the film. Obviously I want him to get over it or at least make it seem like he does but thats not my point.

I just had issue that it was Zod's death then literally 2 minutes its the end of the film that ends on a playful note.

Zod's death I liked.
The Planet stuff I loved.

The scenes literally back to back did however not work for me. Just one scene/montage bridging that gap would have solved all issues with this for. It is not a movie ruining problem but during both my viewings it just didn't fit right for me.

I would have preffered Zod's death - A montage showing Metropolis along with Superman rebuilding together over time - The Martha grave scene - The planet.

That montage would IMO have given the space for that emotional beat to breathe. Then when it got to the Martha scene we know roughly how much time has passed and that Metropolis rebuilt with Superman's help (rather than having to presume it, this is different from spoonfeeding!) and makes it easier for me to accept that Clark is now over the act of killing Zod.

For me the satellite scene and 'MURICA quips didn't work for me after what just happened in the film. It went straight from him screaming because of the horrific experience he just had straight to a lighthearted scene.

It would be like if in TDK Rachel just got blown up and in the next scene Bruce is absolutely fine, no he'd be a bit traumatized over what just happened and TDK showed that rather than just moving on.

Or it would be like Pepper dying in Iron Man 3 and Tony cracks a joke... oh wait...

Like I said this DOES NOT ruin the film for me. Nor is my issue is that it is rushed! They are 2 very good scenes! They just do not work back to back for me.

 

[The Guard]

That's kind of writing and screenwriting 101. Follow up intense drama with something a bit lighter. Immediately, to give the audience a chance to breathe again. I don't know that I always agree with that approach, but it's considered an acceptable structural tool.

Modern films, especially superhero films, tend to suffer from shorter, quicker denouments. I actually thought MAN OF STEEL did a good job wrapping things up and setting up the sequel. I wouldn't call it rushed, and I wouldn't necessarily say it's even incomplete given what the film set up, but it leaves you wanting just a bit more.

 

[The Guard]

It seems to me the biggest issue people have with MOS, aside from the seemingly rushed pacing, editing and sense of time, is this notion that Superman is better than us! He is all good, never makes mistakes and will always be there.

The truth is that we WANT him to be better and expect him to do the right thing.

We put this burden on him. He did not ask for it. We have unrealistic expectations for our heros, whether super and human. We demand a "higher standard" than we expect from ourselves which is why it is disappointing when they do not live up to that image. (Hancock)

Superman is held up as the IDEAL to strive towards just as Jesus was an example of how to live with others, a light to try and follow.

Superman is not God and is just another being with faults, especially evident from this depiction of Krypton. This is not an especially enlightened civilization. Advanced, yes, but not devoid of emotion. They are not morally superior or above failing. Yes, they are doing better than we are, fewer criminals and wars maybe, but the feelings are still there.

We WANT Superman to be better than us just like we want our leaders to be better than us. We expect it and are shattered when they fail us...but that is why we fall and why there is Hope. To learn and strive to do better.

Yes. Yes. Yes.
Well said.
And I hope and imagine that we will see this angle explored in future films.

It seems to me the biggest issue people have with MOS, aside from the seemingly rushed pacing, editing and sense of time, is this notion that Superman is better than us! He is all good, never makes mistakes and will always be there.

The truth is that we WANT him to be better and expect him to do the right thing.

We put this burden on him. He did not ask for it. We have unrealistic expectations for our heros, whether super and human. We demand a "higher standard" than we expect from ourselves which is why it is disappointing when they do not live up to that image. (Hancock)

Superman is held up as the IDEAL to strive towards just as Jesus was an example of how to live with others, a light to try and follow.

Superman is not God and is just another being with faults, especially evident from this depiction of Krypton. This is not an especially enlightened civilization. Advanced, yes, but not devoid of emotion. They are not morally superior or above failing. Yes, they are doing better than we are, fewer criminals and wars maybe, but the feelings are still there.

We WANT Superman to be better than us just like we want our leaders to be better than us. We expect it and are shattered when they fail us...but that is why we fall and why there is Hope. To learn and strive to do better.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Well said.

And I hope and imagine that we will see this angle explored in future films.

 

[Joefixit]

I just saw Man of Steel and couldn't help but notice how much like Transformers Dark of the Moon it was... I mean from brining or forming their destroyed planet here on earth to the alien invasion angle to the goody two shoes hero dispatching of the evil villain at the end.. Honestly it was eerily similar to Dark of the Moon.. Even the tintacle thing that both Prime and Superman fought.. Superman borrowed heavily from Dark of the Moon.. Both good movies though...