In Defense of Man of Steel

[Dr.]

Anybody seen this?
Comic Book vs. Film: Man of Steel vs. Superman Unchained
https://litreactor.com/columns/comic-book-vs-film-man-of-steel-vs-superman-unchained

I had not read this critique of MOS (from 2013) before; but I’d say it’s very poorly argued. The author’s main thesis, apparently, is that the audience is already familiar with the mythos. Therefore: the opening, 30-minutes Krypton sequence is weak (“…hard to care about the destruction of Krypton because the stakes are so low”); the existential threat to Earth is old hat; there’s no suspense when Superman eventually triumphs - because, of course, everyone knows that Superman will triumph. E.g.:

“Since Earth cannot be destroyed… (because then where will we set a sequel?) and since Superman cannot die (because then who will star in the sequel?), why should we care? …The stakes seem to be... will Superman allow Zod to kill Earth and remake Krypton on Earth? Will Superman save his new home and people at the risk of condemning his old one…? Well, duh. I mean, again, he's Superman.”

Now in a manner of speaking, these complaints are legitimate. But they’re not at all specific to MOS - they apply to almost every Superman story (and every superhero story) ever told. Yes, typically, a villain wants to rule or destroy the world. Yes, typically, Superman prevails and thwarts these dastardly plans. And yes, Superman’s origin is famous and gets retold every generation. But so what? What’s the better way? Rewrite the origin so that it’s completely novel and unrecognizable? Make the “villain” a nice guy? Have Superman lose? In her zeal to rebuke MOS, the article’s author spends much of her time criticizing the fundamentals of the genre (in general) and the Superman mythos (in particular).

Btw, MOS’s opening sequence isn’t 30 minutes long; it runs 18 minutes (to the point when Krypton explodes). Coincidentally, the 18-minute mark is when Krypton explodes in Superman: The Movie (it’s the 23-minute mark if you include the credits). So just how long (or short) should a Krypton sequence be in any Superman origin story (whether comic book, TV or movie)? And in which version of the origin are the characters and “stakes” satisfactorily established?

 

[Bizarro!]

I had not read this critique of MOS (from 2013) before; but I’d say it’s very poorly argued. The author’s main thesis, apparently, is that the audience is already familiar with the mythos. Therefore: the opening, 30-minutes Krypton sequence is weak (“…hard to care about the destruction of Krypton because the stakes are so low”); the existential threat to Earth is old hat; there’s no suspense when Superman eventually triumphs - because, of course, everyone knows that Superman will triumph. E.g.:

“Since Earth cannot be destroyed… (because then where will we set a sequel?) and since Superman cannot die (because then who will star in the sequel?), why should we care? …The stakes seem to be... will Superman allow Zod to kill Earth and remake Krypton on Earth? Will Superman save his new home and people at the risk of condemning his old one…? Well, duh. I mean, again, he's Superman.”

As someone who actually liked MOS, i don't this is poorly argued at all. The stakes did feel very low and everything was just way too predictable, which is a problem with most of the origin stories. Action, acting, characters and visuals were great, but the story was just not engaging enough. To me it kind of sucks to watch a movie knowing pretty much everything that will happen.

 

[Dr.]

As someone who actually liked MOS, i don't [think] this is poorly argued at all. The stakes did feel very low and everything was just way too predictable, which is a problem with most of the origin stories. Action, acting, characters and visuals were great, but the story was just not engaging enough. To me it kind of sucks to watch a movie knowing pretty much everything that will happen.

I disagree. I think the author’s criticisms were so broad that she tossed the baby out with the bathwater (hence, “poorly argued”). Indeed, one could substitute references to MOS/Superman for Batman, Iron Man, Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc., and arrive at pretty much identical complaints. If the author had a more insightful point to make, she really needed to explain why the “predictable” paradigm of MOS (hero defeats villain) is materially different than every other "predicatable" action hero/superhero movie out there (some of which - presumably - meet with her approval).