godisawesome
Sidekick
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 4,054
- Reaction score
- 851
- Points
- 103
One of the more common complaints about MOS is that the script and story are sub-par, anti-Superman, and downright choked in hokey dialogue. More than a few have even focused on the script as their main complaint for the film, tying it into disappointing performances by skilled actors, pacing issues, and other complaints. This makes sense, since when you break it down, the script is the single most important part of the final product in most films, controlling most character interaction and plot developments.
Please note the following defense of Man Of Steel's script is part comedic rant, part angry rant, and 100% subjective on the part of the writer, but that I do stand by the majority of my arguments. Also, I'm going to argue story-elements first, so it's the ideas of the scenes and story that I'm talking about first.
First off, let me say that I honestly think MOS Superman, and the post-Crisis Superman that clearly inspired a lot of it is a superior character to the Silver-Age one most people associate Superman with, and at least as iconic as Christopher Reeves. MOS has a relatable, very human, very emotive, and sincerely altruistic SuperMAN, a true Midwesterner clearly raised very well by loving parents who has some honest problems with deception and chicanery. He's not happy all the time, but he's clearly learned how to take joy in life regardless of his surroundings. He's fallible and lonely but friendly and diligent, as witnessed by the friendships he manages to forge with the waitress and Lois in a very short time and by his very nature towards his army interrogators, even though they don't trust him.
To me, all that makes this Clark a better, more well rounded character than Reeves' version. This is helped by him having a movie long character arc. He's a scared kid who's obviously overwhelmed and scared of his differences, then a somewhat moody but understanding teenager, then a lost but helpful adult haunted by his father's death and the mystery of his origins. He then finds his ship and his people and is ecstatic over the pride of his heritage, happy to find at least one person he can trust with the truth, but his hopeful reverie is stopped by the return of his heritages darker side. He then embraces his role as humanity's champion and Krypton's future, is traumatized by the battle with everything corrupt about Krypton, and enters normal life hopeful again and willing to truck on.
He's growing throughout the whole story. The Silver Age was all but completely static, and the Donner films effectively stopped growing in his first movie after Jor-El's tutoring.
And the rest of the cast comes off as better and more compelling characters, even if they've lost screen time to Clark's journey. Lois isn't a dumb@$$! She's actually a skilled reporter and investigator who still has the standards to protect someone who deserves it. She's competent! Hallelujah! The Kents aren't perfect! Pa was too protective and Ma feels a little inadequate compared to Clark's true parents but they still raised him into Superman! And Zod's basically a secondary protagonist with his own degenerative story arc! We can actually understand why he is what he is but know that he still made the choices that doomed him! Holy heck, he's actually compelling!
And the two worlds involved actually seemed believable! There's a reason why Krypton failed and blew up, and it's not just because a bunch of pajama-clad idiots were stupid! There's some serious cultural problems and restrictions that set them up for a fall, thus justifying Jor-El's decisions and Clark's loneliness! And Earth is absolutely shocked by other life-forms! And Sci-Fi kicks major butt compared to hand-waving Silver age shenanigans! And Superman should be Sci-Fi, he's been Sci-Fi since Flash Gordon set the standard!
And Superman has struggled with his willingness to kill since the Post-Crisis universe existed, and it makes perfect sense. If a villain has enough power you can actually argue that he probably should be killed, your victory is in doubt, and he's manipulative enough to sadistically play on your compassion and might still escape to kill more people, what would you do? Yes, Clark made the easy choice, but it was difficult for him in the heat of the moment, he's young, nd the majority of the world and probably even most saints would say his decision was justified, but he still acknowledges that he messed up!
Okay, now, I can argue execution was better in terms of most dialogue and scene portrayal in the originals, even if I don't hold that for my own opinion, but I'll argue till judgment day the story elements were better in Man Of Steel than in the Reeves movies.
And don't even get me started on Returns. That movies story elements were so messed up it didn't matter that Singer directed it well, or that he had good actors. The story itself was less than any modern Superman I've read with a protagonist far more handicapped by plot decisions than Mn Of Steel.
Please note the following defense of Man Of Steel's script is part comedic rant, part angry rant, and 100% subjective on the part of the writer, but that I do stand by the majority of my arguments. Also, I'm going to argue story-elements first, so it's the ideas of the scenes and story that I'm talking about first.
First off, let me say that I honestly think MOS Superman, and the post-Crisis Superman that clearly inspired a lot of it is a superior character to the Silver-Age one most people associate Superman with, and at least as iconic as Christopher Reeves. MOS has a relatable, very human, very emotive, and sincerely altruistic SuperMAN, a true Midwesterner clearly raised very well by loving parents who has some honest problems with deception and chicanery. He's not happy all the time, but he's clearly learned how to take joy in life regardless of his surroundings. He's fallible and lonely but friendly and diligent, as witnessed by the friendships he manages to forge with the waitress and Lois in a very short time and by his very nature towards his army interrogators, even though they don't trust him.
To me, all that makes this Clark a better, more well rounded character than Reeves' version. This is helped by him having a movie long character arc. He's a scared kid who's obviously overwhelmed and scared of his differences, then a somewhat moody but understanding teenager, then a lost but helpful adult haunted by his father's death and the mystery of his origins. He then finds his ship and his people and is ecstatic over the pride of his heritage, happy to find at least one person he can trust with the truth, but his hopeful reverie is stopped by the return of his heritages darker side. He then embraces his role as humanity's champion and Krypton's future, is traumatized by the battle with everything corrupt about Krypton, and enters normal life hopeful again and willing to truck on.
He's growing throughout the whole story. The Silver Age was all but completely static, and the Donner films effectively stopped growing in his first movie after Jor-El's tutoring.
And the rest of the cast comes off as better and more compelling characters, even if they've lost screen time to Clark's journey. Lois isn't a dumb@$$! She's actually a skilled reporter and investigator who still has the standards to protect someone who deserves it. She's competent! Hallelujah! The Kents aren't perfect! Pa was too protective and Ma feels a little inadequate compared to Clark's true parents but they still raised him into Superman! And Zod's basically a secondary protagonist with his own degenerative story arc! We can actually understand why he is what he is but know that he still made the choices that doomed him! Holy heck, he's actually compelling!
And the two worlds involved actually seemed believable! There's a reason why Krypton failed and blew up, and it's not just because a bunch of pajama-clad idiots were stupid! There's some serious cultural problems and restrictions that set them up for a fall, thus justifying Jor-El's decisions and Clark's loneliness! And Earth is absolutely shocked by other life-forms! And Sci-Fi kicks major butt compared to hand-waving Silver age shenanigans! And Superman should be Sci-Fi, he's been Sci-Fi since Flash Gordon set the standard!
And Superman has struggled with his willingness to kill since the Post-Crisis universe existed, and it makes perfect sense. If a villain has enough power you can actually argue that he probably should be killed, your victory is in doubt, and he's manipulative enough to sadistically play on your compassion and might still escape to kill more people, what would you do? Yes, Clark made the easy choice, but it was difficult for him in the heat of the moment, he's young, nd the majority of the world and probably even most saints would say his decision was justified, but he still acknowledges that he messed up!
Okay, now, I can argue execution was better in terms of most dialogue and scene portrayal in the originals, even if I don't hold that for my own opinion, but I'll argue till judgment day the story elements were better in Man Of Steel than in the Reeves movies.
And don't even get me started on Returns. That movies story elements were so messed up it didn't matter that Singer directed it well, or that he had good actors. The story itself was less than any modern Superman I've read with a protagonist far more handicapped by plot decisions than Mn Of Steel.
People in books and movies fall in love/lust over a whole lot less than what happened between Lois and Clark in MOS! 
