Man of Steel 2 News and Speculation

[Aurakles]

I think Zod works well for an origin. It's important to show that it isn't the fact he's a Kryptonian that makes him good, Zod displays that perfectly.

I love Braniac, but I hate it when he's responsible for the destruction of Krypton like in Johns version or the DCAU (through inaction).
It's cheap drama that turns the conflict into simple revenge.

I think that in a origin movie there would be a greater temptation to do this, to try and tie everything up, the way they had the Joker be the one who killed the Waynes in 89.

 

[Powerman34]

Zod isn't more personal than DCAU Brainiac though.

I disagree. DCAU Brainiac elevated the character in the same way that DCAU Mister Freeze did.

Yeah I enjoy MOS as well, but I would've made some massive changes. That movie only works if you are 100% going to do a full on sequel without Batman or Wonder Woman. They were setting themselves up to basically do The Dark Knight for Superman with the sequel, but instead we got BvS.

I bet the villains of the sequel would've been Lex and Metallo. I wish it could've happened instead of rushing BVS.

Amen!

 

[STARMAN]

Now that WB supposedly closed the deal on the Flash directors, I'm hoping they turn their attention to MOS 2.

 

[Tg11]

MOS 2 it strictly has to be a standalone Superman film and if they still believe in this shared universe concept then they can make references here and there as far as the JL members or even if one of the JL members shows up in a cameo appearance it shouldn't take the focus off of Superman

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

MOS 2 it strictly has to be a standalone Superman film and if they still believe in this shared universe concept then they can make references here and there as far as the JL members or even if one of the JL members shows up in a cameo appearance it shouldn't take the focus off of Superman

I want it to be as Superman-centric as the sequel to Man of Steel would have been if they hadn't taken the DCEU route.

 

[Greenlite]

I want it to be a procedural drama

S01E01

Clark investigates a murder case, while using his abilities to analyze forensic evidence like a CSI, and Lois investigate a money laundry case involving Lex Corp, while Martha tries to save those 2's relationship threatened by the stress of their job(s), while Jenny finds out that Martha wants a grandkid.

=P

 

[DerekLake]

MOS 2 it strictly has to be a standalone Superman film and if they still believe in this shared universe concept then they can make references here and there as far as the JL members or even if one of the JL members shows up in a cameo appearance it shouldn't take the focus off of Superman

I agree that MOS 2 needs to be a Superman story, but I think Superman being paired up with another hero would give the character something more to work with, just as pairing Captain America and Black Widow really helped CA:Winter Soldier. Such a story could still focus on Superman while giving him someone else to bounce off.

I think Cyborg would be the most convenient JL member who also wouldn’t take away from the focus on Superman (like Batman or Wonder Woman might).

I don’t think Superman actually works in a universe by himself. I believe one of the major issues with Superman on film is that he’s been oddly forced into the divine savior role because he’s been the only superhero in his realistic, depowered world, when in the comics he’s more of the chief among many superheroes in a very fantastical, though grounded, universe. Even if his stories only include him, Superman has been developed over the years as existing in a larger superhero ecosystem. If future Superman films could reflect that, even if just in their approach to Superman’s superhero “burden”, then I think it would allow for more interesting, and better stories to be told with him.

But, I also think it’d be kinda cool to see Superman and Cyborg team up in a follow-up story to JL that’s based in Metropolis (including, of course, a story that gives Lois, the Daily Planet and Clark the reporter much more to do.)

 

[DerekLake]

I’m not sure the most appropriate place to take this MOS discussion so I’ll just reply here.

No, you don't get critique my response when none of what you just wrote was included in your original comment. You said nothing about wanting a "more active first act present-day plot." You just said "I actually believe MOS’s real problem was in just adapting Donner’s version of his background and making him an itinerant worker. Something more akin to Birthright, with Clark traveling the world as a journalist, might have been more interesting." With your use of "just" you reduced what MoS did to a repeat of Donner when the only similarity is the function of Jor-El as a catalyst; even there Jor-El doesn't train Kal as he did in Donner for years. Yet, even in Birthright, young Clark has access to tech that gets him interested in his Kryptonian heritage before he becomes Superman. All I said was that your comment confused me. That's not me getting defensive or attacking. It's me trying to understand what you're saying. So, thank you for the clarification, but no thank you for the attitude.

I stand corrected. Man of Steel is still my favorite comic book movie, despite its flaws, and despite TDK, in my opinion, still being the best comic book movie.

I’ve said before that I think the use of the flashback format was a big mistake for a number of reasons, but mostly because there’s not enough substance in the present-day plot to justify telling the story that way. I think a chronological telling (with perhaps a little fleshing out) would have helped many audiences to better understand Clark’s character arc from adolescence to adulthood. But if arranged in chronological format, most of what we get is a more concise, updated and perhaps less idyllic version of Donner’s take on Clark’s adolescent years, plus a very brief look at the very last leg of Clark’s itinerant lifestyle. That’s what I meant by the reference to Donner.

And by contrast, I was referring to Birthright because Birthright puts Clark from the start into an intro plot that addresses his search for purpose/identity, his fear of exposing his powers and reluctance to get involved, and his desire to help people and to defend those who can’t defend themselves. This sort of more active first-act plot would have justified the flashback format. But Clark walking through town remembering his entire childhood on the way to a bar doesn’t really do that. I’m not saying MOS should have had Birthright’s exact intro plot. I’m just saying that giving Clark something more meaningful and meatier to do (that still ties into MOS’s larger plot and Clark’s arc) would have better set him up to become Superman and a reporter.

While I agree it would have been nice if Clark was a journalist, the effect is still the same: he is someone who has traveled the world, met and grown from his interactions with regular people, and gained a reputation as a mysterious savior. MoS tells the story of how Clark finds himself as a journalist, as inspired by Lois and necessity, while Birthright doesn't go into depth about why journalism; he just does it.

The effect is mostly the same, but two/three scenes of Clark just north in Canada isn’t exactly the same as traveling the world. I got the sense from Birthright that in traveling the world Clark was looking to find some trace of his identity and also looking for places to help. With MOS, I thought Jonathan’s statement urging Clark to try to find out why he was sent to Earth would have led him to move around not just because of his pattern of avoiding exposure, but also because he’s searching for his origins.

The glimpse of Clark as reporter is not "tiny," and it was the most substantial use and development of his reporter persona ever in live action aside from Cain's in Lois & Clark. I can agree that having that incorporated into his origin would have enhanced it in MoS, but I don't agree that BvS underused it so much so that it is worthy of being called "a glimpse" when it was proportionate or superior in its presence compared to most Superman media and played an important role in the plot.

Yes, it was the most substantial use of his reporter persona (and the most respectful of it), but it was certainly small enough to cut from the theatrical cut without impacting the narrative. Lois’s role was even smaller (and also trimmed). We’ve gotten a Superman who wants to do good and help people. But we really did only get a relatively small look at a Clark who cares passionately about justice (this is one reason why I wish BvS had featured an actual resolution to the legitimate part of Clark and Bruce’s issues with each other’s alter egos). I think a better glimpse of that in MOS, and more of a focus on that in BvS, would have been great.

 

[misslane38]

I’m not sure the most appropriate place to take this MOS discussion so I’ll just reply here. [...]

I’ve said before that I think the use of the flashback format was a big mistake for a number of reasons, but mostly because there’s not enough substance in the present-day plot to justify telling the story that way. I think a chronological telling (with perhaps a little fleshing out) would have helped many audiences to better understand Clark’s character arc from adolescence to adulthood. But if arranged in chronological format, most of what we get is a more concise, updated and perhaps less idyllic version of Donner’s take on Clark’s adolescent years, plus a very brief look at the very last leg of Clark’s itinerant lifestyle. That’s what I meant by the reference to Donner.

I don't get you; you're all over the place. You praise Birthright -- an origin that uses flashbacks -- as basically the model origin that MoS should follow, but criticize MoS for using flashbacks. You also continue to imply that there is a connection between Donner and MoS, when there isn't. MoS is not an updated or less idyllic version of Donner's take. It shares far more similarities with Birthright than it does with Donner's origin, which itself is an origin that that is not unique. Finally, I don't think the problem with MoS is that people didn't understand Clark's character arc. They just didn't like it.

And by contrast, I was referring to Birthright because Birthright puts Clark from the start into an intro plot that addresses his search for purpose/identity, his fear of exposing his powers and reluctance to get involved, and his desire to help people and to defend those who can’t defend themselves. This sort of more active first-act plot would have justified the flashback format. But Clark walking through town remembering his entire childhood on the way to a bar doesn’t really do that. I’m not saying MOS should have had Birthright’s exact intro plot. I’m just saying that giving Clark something more meaningful and meatier to do (that still ties into MOS’s larger plot and Clark’s arc) would have better set him up to become Superman and a reporter.

The present-day plot is what makes the flashbacks so ideal, since the events of present day are echoes of those past events: the flashbacks show how experiences in the past inform his actions in the present. Clark, in the present day, is acting as a hero in secret while trying to learn more about his origins. Pretty much everything you describe as getting from Birthright, you get from MoS. He's saving people in secret while he's hunting for clues about his past and his identity.

The effect is mostly the same, but two/three scenes of Clark just north in Canada isn’t exactly the same as traveling the world. I got the sense from Birthright that in traveling the world Clark was looking to find some trace of his identity and also looking for places to help. With MOS, I thought Jonathan’s statement urging Clark to try to find out why he was sent to Earth would have led him to move around not just because of his pattern of avoiding exposure, but also because he’s searching for his origins.

In Birthright, Clark says he's been places, but we only just see him in Africa. He isn't searching for his Kryptonian identity in that travel; he's shown to be learning pieces of that from the Kryptonian tablet he carries around to try to unlock its secrets. He even gets some from it, which is more than MoS Clark has. Mostly, Birthright Clark is just looking for his "tribe" or where he fits in in the world. In MoS, Clark does travel to find out about his alien origins as well as how to help in a way that reflects Jonathan's thoughts on the matter:

Jonathan (when Clark is 14): But somewhere out there you have another father too, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark. And even if it takes you the rest of your life, you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is.

Clark (at 17): I'm tired of safe. I just wanna do something useful with my life.
Jonathan: So farming, feeding people. That's not useful?
Clark: I didn't say that.
Jonathan: Our family's been farming for five generations.
Clark: Your family, not mine. I don't even know why I'm listening to you. You're not my dad. You're just some guy who found me in a field.
Martha: Clark.
Jonathan: It's all right, Martha. He's right. Clark has a point. We're not your parents. But we've been doing the best we can. And we've been making this up as we go along, so maybe...Maybe our best isn't good enough anymore.

You can tell Clark is on this search when he eavesdrops on the soldiers at the bar who spill that there is something at Ellesmere that the military is investigating. They say, "Somebody found something strange on Ellesmere. Aircom's making runs out there all week. [...] It's crazy. The Americans are there too, lots of them. [...] They're calling it an anomalous object." Because Clark doesn't have some tablet from Krypton, he has to follow news of the weird and unexplained. While doing so, he helps people. Overall, he seems to be doing pretty much exactly what you say you want. It's so close, in fact, that your critique seems unfounded.

Yes, it was the most substantial use of his reporter persona (and the most respectful of it), but it was certainly small enough to cut from the theatrical cut without impacting the narrative. Lois’s role was even smaller (and also trimmed).

Lois's reporting arc was not smaller than Clark's, and since we're discussing characterization rather than narrative, it's not wise to use cuts to minimize Clark's characterization as a reporter. By cutting those scenes, his characterization was impacted, even if the plot wasn't excessively so. In them, we get to see how he follows his leads and interacts with subjects. We see more of his passion as well.

We’ve gotten a Superman who wants to do good and help people. But we really did only get a relatively small look at a Clark who cares passionately about justice (this is one reason why I wish BvS had featured an actual resolution to the legitimate part of Clark and Bruce’s issues with each other’s alter egos). I think a better glimpse of that in MOS, and more of a focus on that in BvS, would have been great.

In a packed movie, those few scenes of Clark taking a stand for justice in the face of Perry's cynicism and Bruce's defenses and in his interactions with those affected by those injustices, say a lot. From them, we do come away understanding that Clark believes in the power of the press to make a difference and believes that the civil liberties and pain of the poor are worth defending. He isn't indifferent or meek in those scenes either; he is assertive and passionate.

I continue to be confused about your take on the issues that Clark and Bruce have with their heroic personas. Clark's issue was that Bruce was abusing his power in the present. Bruce's issue was that Clark could abuse his power in the future. Both of their perspectives were artificially inflamed by Luthor's lies and machinations. So, one part of the resolution was realizing that they were misled, which happened, and the other part was for both of them to have faith in each other, which also happened.

 

[DerekLake]

I don't get you; you're all over the place. You praise Birthright -- an origin that uses flashbacks -- as basically the model origin that MoS should follow, but criticize MoS for using flashbacks. You also continue to imply that there is a connection between Donner and MoS, when there isn't. MoS is not an updated or less idyllic version of Donner's take. It shares far more similarities with Birthright than it does with Donner's origin, which itself is an origin that that is not unique. Finally, I don't think the problem with MoS is that people didn't understand Clark's character arc. They just didn't like it.

Sorry. With the actual scenes MOS had, I think they should have gone for a chronological telling. I don’t think it made sense to intercut 30 min of flashbacks with 7-10 min of present day. However, I think it would have been even better if they had gone for a more substantial first act present day plot with flashbacks, as in Birthright. I hope that’s a little clearer now.

The actual substance of Clark’s upbringing is very much a more complex, contemporary version of the upbringing Donner gave Clark (come on, even much of Jonathan Kent’s dialogue is taken from the 1978 film!). Again, my focus was on the first act, the act that is supposed to get the audience invested in the story.

Half of the arguments against the tornado scene are because people didn’t understand that Clark was a 17 year old kid. Yes, the other part is that they didn’t like the message that Clark would let someone die for a greater cause, but it certainly didn’t help seeing him hold off a collapsing oil rig at age 30 before seeing him against at age 17.

The present-day plot is what makes the flashbacks so ideal, since the events of present day are echoes of those past events: the flashbacks show how experiences in the past inform his actions in the present. Clark, in the present day, is acting as a hero in secret while trying to learn more about his origins. Pretty much everything you describe as getting from Birthright, you get from MoS. He's saving people in secret while he's hunting for clues about his past and his identity.

I don’t see how the flashbacks tie into the present day, except for the shared school bus. The others are Clark underwater and Clark in a church. They don’t really connect. I don’t think that was the best way to connect the present to the past.

In Birthright, Clark says he's been places, but we only just see him in Africa. He isn't searching for his Kryptonian identity in that travel; he's shown to be learning pieces of that from the Kryptonian tablet he carries around to try to unlock its secrets. He even gets some from it, which is more than MoS Clark has. Mostly, Birthright Clark is just looking for his "tribe" or where he fits in in the world. In MoS, Clark does travel to find out about his alien origins as well as how to help in a way that reflects Jonathan's thoughts on the matter:

Jonathan (when Clark is 14): But somewhere out there you have another father too, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark. And even if it takes you the rest of your life, you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is.

Clark (at 17): I'm tired of safe. I just wanna do something useful with my life.
Jonathan: So farming, feeding people. That's not useful?
Clark: I didn't say that.
Jonathan: Our family's been farming for five generations.
Clark: Your family, not mine. I don't even know why I'm listening to you. You're not my dad. You're just some guy who found me in a field.
Martha: Clark.
Jonathan: It's all right, Martha. He's right. Clark has a point. We're not your parents. But we've been doing the best we can. And we've been making this up as we go along, so maybe...Maybe our best isn't good enough anymore.

You can tell Clark is on this search when he eavesdrops on the soldiers at the bar who spill that there is something at Ellesmere that the military is investigating. They say, "Somebody found something strange on Ellesmere. Aircom's making runs out there all week. [...] It's crazy. The Americans are there too, lots of them. [...] They're calling it an anomalous object." Because Clark doesn't have some tablet from Krypton, he has to follow news of the weird and unexplained. While doing so, he helps people. Overall, he seems to be doing pretty much exactly what you say you want. It's so close, in fact, that your critique seems unfounded.

I was only critiquing the filmmakers for using flashbacks to tell the backstory they chose. That was the mistake. But, I think a more active first act, like Birthright’s Africa subplot, could have worked well with flashbacks. I’m not talking about the specific use of a kryptonian tablet while in Africa. I didn’t care for the tablet so much as the fact that Birthright has Clark being a bit more active in trying to help people in a specific situation, while also trying to keep his identity a secret, rather than a largely wordless oil rig rescue, a silent stroll through town and a botched attempt to defend a coworker from sexual harassment.

I get what the scenes were doing but I liked the way Birthright did that better, and I think juxtaposing a more active plot with flashbacks to his childhood would have made for an even better MOS.

As you might be able to tell, I’m not a big fan of how silent Zack’s Clark/Superman tended to be, or how superficial his interactions with people were.

Lois's reporting arc was not smaller than Clark's, and since we're discussing characterization rather than narrative, it's not wise to use cuts to minimize Clark's characterization as a reporter. By cutting those scenes, his characterization was impacted, even if the plot wasn't excessively so. In them, we get to see how he follows his leads and interacts with subjects. We see more of his passion as well.

In a packed movie, those few scenes of Clark taking a stand for justice in the face of Perry's cynicism and Bruce's defenses and in his interactions with those affected by those injustices, say a lot. From them, we do come away understanding that Clark believes in the power of the press to make a difference and believes that the civil liberties and pain of the poor are worth defending. He isn't indifferent or meek in those scenes either; he is assertive and passionate.

I wanted a bit more of Clark (and Lois) doing this, and I wanted this to be a bigger driving point of the story. Instead of reading articles online at night, I would have liked maybe one more interaction with someone in Gotham (for example), or perhaps Clark actually going to the areas he said Batman frequents to see first hand the cops enabling of what Batman does or what some of these “good people” near the ports and in tenement housing though of Batman (beyond the two people he first meets).. I recognize what the scenes say about him and wanted more of it — and I’d like to see more of it in a MOS 2.

As you say, BvS was already a packed film. But, in my opinion, I would have liked the stuff above to have been more prominent in the story, rather than Finch and Congress. And, I think the Knightmare scene and flash/Aquaman/Cyborg emails should have been exclusive to an extended edition. Just my own opinion.

I continue to be confused about your take on the issues that Clark and Bruce have with their heroic personas. Clark's issue was that Bruce was abusing his power in the present. Bruce's issue was that Clark could abuse his power in the future. Both of their perspectives were artificially inflamed by Luthor's lies and machinations. So, one part of the resolution was realizing that they were misled, which happened, and the other part was for both of them to have faith in each other, which also happened.

So, my take is based on what Bruce and Clark say to Alfred and Perry, and what they say to each other. Bruce hates Superman because he brought an alien war to Metropolis that killed thousands (including his own employees) and he may wipe out the human race in the future. Clark opposes Batman because he’s a vigilante who is trampling on civil liberties and causing good people to live in fear. Sure, there’s a certain level of manipulation going on, but Bruce hated what Superman “did” before Lex got involved, and Clark opposes what Batman is doing before he learns about the deaths in prison.

That’s the legitimate part of their conflict that I’m talking about — Superman uses his powers to intervene in human affairs, Batman’s whole shtick is terrorizing criminals, and both heroes take the law into their own hands. I thought it was an interesting basis for their conflict, and a possible means of them coming to understand each other and what they do and why. That didn’t exactly get resolved so much as dismissed. Even if they recognize that Lex was manipulating them and pushing them to the extreme, there’s still Clark’s issue with the way Batman operates (and we’re given nothing to explain why he changes his mind about that).

 

[Tg11]

Whoever suggested the team up idea for a Superman sequel actually is a great idea and it has worked wonders for certain MCU characters. For example teaming up Cap with Falcon and Black Widow worked for him on Cap: Winter Soldier and teaming up Iron Man with War Machine and Black Widow worked for him on Iron Man 2. However, for DCEU teaming Superman up with Cyborg for his sequel would actually make sense. Added bonus for Supergirl to also team up with them in the sequel as well because with her debuting in this film it actually would be great.

 

[DerekLake]

Whoever suggested the team up idea for a Superman sequel actually is a great idea and it has worked wonders for certain MCU characters. For example teaming up Cap with Falcon and Black Widow worked for him on Cap: Winter Soldier and teaming up Iron Man with War Machine and Black Widow worked for him on Iron Man 2. However, for DCEU teaming Superman up with Cyborg for his sequel would actually make sense. Added bonus for Supergirl to also team up with them in the sequel as well because with her debuting in this film it actually would be great.

Yeah, I think Winter Soldier showed that they can do it without overshadowing the main character or neglecting the team-up character. Both can get meaningful development. I think it’s also something that will help develop Superman. He’s never really shared the screen with another superhero as a superhero before (without that hero sucking up the attention). I think it’d be good to see Superman both relying on another hero and partnering with them. I’ve never really liked the New 52’s early “I prefer to work alone” Superman.

I do think Cyborg would be a natural fit, since he’s already in Metropolis (in the scout ship even), he’s going through what Clark has been through (questioning whether he’s a freak, dealing with the loneliness and isolation), and he possesses abilities that are different enough to be interesting. And, if a Cyborg film is on the back burner, a Superman film could better boost his popularity (since he wouldn’t be competing for screen time with several other heroes).

I definitely think Supergirl should show up soon, but I’m still partial to her showing up in a film involving Brainiac.

 

[Tg11]

Yeah, I think Winter Soldier showed that they can do it without overshadowing the main character or neglecting the team-up character. Both can get meaningful development. I think it’s also something that will help develop Superman. He’s never really shared the screen with another superhero as a superhero before (without that hero sucking up the attention). I think it’d be good to see Superman both relying on another hero and partnering with them. I’ve never really liked the New 52’s early “I prefer to work alone” Superman.

I do think Cyborg would be a natural fit, since he’s already in Metropolis (in the scout ship even), he’s going through what Clark has been through (questioning whether he’s a freak, dealing with the loneliness and isolation), and he possesses abilities that are different enough to be interesting. And, if a Cyborg film is on the back burner, a Superman film could better boost his popularity (since he wouldn’t be competing for screen time with several other heroes).

I definitely think Supergirl should show up soon, but I’m still partial to her showing up in a film involving Brainiac.

Cyborg should show up in a Superman film and he wouldn't overshadow Superman either

 

[Gamma Goliath]

Superman and cyborg vs brainiac and intergang

 

[misslane38]

Sorry. With the actual scenes MOS had, I think they should have gone for a chronological telling. I don’t think it made sense to intercut 30 min of flashbacks with 7-10 min of present day. However, I think it would have been even better if they had gone for a more substantial first act present day plot with flashbacks, as in Birthright. I hope that’s a little clearer now.

The only flashbacks I recall are primary school age Clark overwhelmed with his powers (2 minutes), 14 year old Clark saving his classmates (2 minutes), 14 year old Clark talking to Jonathan about the consequences and implications of that (4 minutes), 17 year old Clark losing Jonathan in the tornado (3 minutes), and 14 year old Clark dealing with Whitney (taken from the Smallville TV series) and other bullies outside a repair shop (2 minutes). They equal a total of 13 minutes. If one adds the final scene of young Clark playing in the field (30 seconds), the total is roughly 14 minutes, which is about half the time you claimed it was. Are you including the Krypton sequence, which is 20 minutes long? Isn't having that first technically chronological, and isn't it the same opening in Birthright? Also, if we exclude the Krypton sequence from this analysis and just look at adult versus child Clark time, then we're only looking at any screentime between the end of the Krypton sequence (~00:20 into the movie) and that last flashback's start (~1:07 into the movie). Within that 47 minutes (48 minutes if you count the 1 minute conversation Clark has with Father Leone -- a character whose role is taken from Superman For All Seasons and name from For Tomorrow), there are the previously calculated 13 minutes of flashbacks, which means that the time spent in the present day was 33-34 minutes and not 7-10 minutes like you claimed. Even if you took out scenes that just involve Lois (investigating Clark's identity=1 minute, talking to Perry both times=2 minutes, talking to Woodburn=1 minute, and the apartment and arrest scenes=1 minute), then you're still looking at about 30 minutes of present day plot to 13-14 minutes of flashbacks, again minus the Krypton sequence, which doesn't align with your 7-10 minute claim.

Moreover, the "sense" of intercutting those flashbacks was that each of them related to the specific emotion or motivation Clark was dealing with in the present day; they were informing us of the relevant events that shaped Clark's identity and path as an adult. They weren't random, and they helped to illuminate and elaborate both Clark's overall character and the present day plot. I just don't think that the differences are as stark as you've made them out to be, and I don't feel like the effects are objectively as detrimental as you've made them out to be either. Subjectively, you are free to be so enamored with Birthright that deviations cause you frustration, but I'm not sure that means that what Goyer/Snyder did was in error.

The actual substance of Clark’s upbringing is very much a more complex, contemporary version of the upbringing Donner gave Clark (come on, even much of Jonathan Kent’s dialogue is taken from the 1978 film!). Again, my focus was on the first act, the act that is supposed to get the audience invested in the story.

You're missing my point. The elements of Donner's were present in the mythology before Donner's own film. For example, the 1948 Superman film with Kirk Alyn and Noel Neill included an origin that includes many of the same elements. The substance of Clark's upbringing in Man of Steel has elements of several origin stories of which Donner is only one source of inspiration (mostly the Jor-El "Fortress" elements), Birthright, Smallville, Superman for All Seasons, and more all contribute to the Man of Steel origin for Superman. In other words, to me, your analysis lacks an awareness of the complexity and nuance of the Superman origin story in all of its incarnations. It's reductive.

Half of the arguments against the tornado scene are because people didn’t understand that Clark was a 17 year old kid. Yes, the other part is that they didn’t like the message that Clark would let someone die for a greater cause, but it certainly didn’t help seeing him hold off a collapsing oil rig at age 30 before seeing him against at age 17.

I get what you're saying, but from my experience the most frequent and vehement anger about that sequence was Clark letting Jonathan die and Jonathan's attitude that inspired Clark to make that choice. Plus, your complaint about the age is something that is more of an issue with casting than structure, considering if they had just had Dylan Sprayberry (14 year old Clark) play only slightly older (17) or gotten another actor to play that age, then any impact of those optics would have been mitigated.

I don’t see how the flashbacks tie into the present day, except for the shared school bus. The others are Clark underwater and Clark in a church. They don’t really connect. I don’t think that was the best way to connect the present to the past.

Okay, let me explain, then. In present day, Clark is overwhelmed by the experience he just had saving the people from the oil rig, and the last shot before the flashback is a mother whale with its baby. We then flash to young Clark developing his powers and learning how to deal with them because of his mother. This scene also establishes the ways in which Clark's powers have made him isolated from others (e.g. "What's wrong with him?...He's such a freak...Crybaby...His parents won't even let him play with other kids..."), which explains why he seems like a loner in the present day. The next one happens after adult Clark sees the school bus, which flashes back to the long sequence of Clark saving his classmates and getting the lecture from Jonathan, including seeing the key to his ship that we soon see him carry and use at the military investigation site. More importantly, these scenes elaborate further on why Clark does things in secret, show him dealing with bullies (Pete as a teen, Ludlow at the bar as an adult), and set up the next present day scene in which Clark overhears the soldiers talking about the new discovery in Ellesmere; Clark will use that tip to get the answers to his alien origin. The flashback to the tornado scene is next, and that's connected logically to the climax of Clark's nearing exposure as a result of Lois's investigation.

The final flashback happens right before Clark talks to Father Leone in the church, and it's the one featuring Whitney bullying Clark outside of the car mechanic's shop (Sullivan's -- an homage to Chloe Sullivan from Smallville). Whitney's bullying parallels what Clark is currently dealing with, which is Zod and the rest of the world goading him to action. Father Leone goes on to advise Clark that if he takes a leap of faith, the trust part will come later. In the preceding flashback, Clark recalled that risking exposure to save Pete was a leap of faith that led to trust later as seen in Pete helping Clark up after being bullied. Remembering that, and remembering Jonathan's advice at the time ("I know you [wanted to hit the bully]. Part of me even wanted you to, but then what? Make you feel any better? You just have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be, Clark. Because whoever that man is, good character or bad, he's gonna change the world"), Clark chooses to turn himself over to humanity.

Taken together, each of the flashbacks threads together with the present in meaningful ways. They operate a lot like parables and in some ways remind me of films like A Little Princess, Pan's Labyrinth, and The Breadwinner in which the story periodically switches to a parallel narrative that serves as a metaphor or allegory relevant to the main story. These types of interludes serve a storytelling function that is different than the kind of chronological format you get in the Donner film or in Jenkins' Wonder Woman. Both forms of storytelling work, but the reason why it's done and done well in Man of Steel is that the flashbacks relate directly to the events in the present, linking a specific past experience or lesson with a present day application to show why the character does what he does. Even metatextually we can see how this works, since telling the story of what happened in the tornado helps Lois understand Clark better and helps her to make her decision about how to proceed with her own story, which itself is a patching together of who this man is from stories from his past.

I was only critiquing the filmmakers for using flashbacks to tell the backstory they chose. That was the mistake. But, I think a more active first act, like Birthright’s Africa subplot, could have worked well with flashbacks. I’m not talking about the specific use of a kryptonian tablet while in Africa. I didn’t care for the tablet so much as the fact that Birthright has Clark being a bit more active in trying to help people in a specific situation, while also trying to keep his identity a secret, rather than a largely wordless oil rig rescue, a silent stroll through town and a botched attempt to defend a coworker from sexual harassment.

I don't see how one is more active than the other. In both cases, Clark is choosing to save lives even though it might risk exposing his secret. Also, the attempt to help the waitress wasn't botched. The guy stopped and left.

As you might be able to tell, I’m not a big fan of how silent Zack’s Clark/Superman tended to be, or how superficial his interactions with people were.

Fine, but that's a different critique that has nothing to do with structural issues like flashbacks. Plus, the superficial nature of his early interactions while intinerant is characterization. Lois even describes him that way in her piece: he's a ghost. Others might not get to know him well, but meanwhile we get to see the flashbacks and therefore get to know why he interacts with people in superficial ways. It also builds the foundation for why his relationship with Lois is different and so important.

I wanted a bit more of Clark (and Lois) doing this, and I wanted this to be a bigger driving point of the story. Instead of reading articles online at night, I would have liked maybe one more interaction with someone in Gotham (for example), or perhaps Clark actually going to the areas he said Batman frequents to see first hand the cops enabling of what Batman does or what some of these “good people” near the ports and in tenement housing though of Batman (beyond the two people he first meets).. I recognize what the scenes say about him and wanted more of it — and I’d like to see more of it in a MOS 2.

Again, this seems like nitpicking of the highest order, and not even fair considering what does exist in the movie. Clark doesn't just look at articles online. He does go to Gotham and talks to people Batman has affected on two separate occasions. You're also assuming that the cops are enabling Batman, when the movie suggests no such thing. We see Clark articulating his journalistic principles and acting on them, which is developing his character's journalistic side and in a way that's more substantive than pretty much most Superman media. I get that you would have wanted more, because it's something you like and so it would have been satisfying on your part, but the movie isn't objectively flawed because it didn't indulge you.

So, my take is based on what Bruce and Clark say to Alfred and Perry, and what they say to each other. Bruce hates Superman because he brought an alien war to Metropolis that killed thousands (including his own employees) and he may wipe out the human race in the future. Clark opposes Batman because he’s a vigilante who is trampling on civil liberties and causing good people to live in fear. Sure, there’s a certain level of manipulation going on, but Bruce hated what Superman “did” before Lex got involved, and Clark opposes what Batman is doing before he learns about the deaths in prison.

Bruce didn't hate what Superman did, because he acknowledges that it was a passive action on Superman's part ("He brought the war to us."). He wasn't the war; he brought the war. He even frames it as a 1% chance after describing Superman as not the "enemy" at the present moment. Clark's concerns about Batman were exacerbated by what seemed like escalation on Batman's part. For both Clark and for Bruce, recognizing that some of their concern was inflamed by manipulation and choosing to have faith in each other were the best and only ways to get a more accurate picture of reality and really deal with whatever potential they had to stray into darkness.

That’s the legitimate part of their conflict that I’m talking about — Superman uses his powers to intervene in human affairs, Batman’s whole shtick is terrorizing criminals, and both heroes take the law into their own hands. I thought it was an interesting basis for their conflict, and a possible means of them coming to understand each other and what they do and why. That didn’t exactly get resolved so much as dismissed. Even if they recognize that Lex was manipulating them and pushing them to the extreme, there’s still Clark’s issue with the way Batman operates (and we’re given nothing to explain why he changes his mind about that).

I'm confused by your framing. Your first few statements here point out similarities between Batman and Superman, not differences, which would seem to be the opposite of a good basis for conflict because, like you said, it's something they can understand about each other. Both of them are vigilantes in some sense, because they don't receive oversight. Their main concern is crossing the line from benevolent interventions to actually hurting people without remorse or check. Furthermore, the way Batman operates in this movie is atypical. Clark sees that Batman was able to step back from the brink when he stopped himself from killing him and rewarded his trust by saving Martha. Clark, in his few actions before he died from which point the lack of resolution falls on JL's shoulders, shows that he was choosing to believe in Batman's ability to reform. Before he even goes to engage him, he tells Lois that he wants to try and get him to help; he opens by apologizing to Bruce. Ultimately, the movie posits that good is a conversation, which implies that good is not something that is resolved in the way I think you're getting at.

 

[unholyrevenger]

make it a 90 minute high light reel of internet puppy videos and you'll achieve the emotion complexity of what people want from a Superman Movie

 

[herolee10]

[YT]sOwixcPRUYk[/YT]

Watching this really makes me wish even more that we would be getting a new Superman movie (with Henry and Amy returning of course) within the very near future.

 

[mclay18]

JA Bayona tweeted a positive reaction to Ready Player One either yesterday or the other day. It may be completely unrelated, but perhaps WB is courting him for a big title?

I think if JW:FK is another billion-dollar hit (likely), Bayona will have top pick of projects to choose from. WB did it with James Wan, who choose Aquaman.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

He probably just liked the movie lol. His tweet being anything superman related is a serious reach lol

 

[mclay18]

It just seemed weird to me.

You're probably right.

 

[Tg11]

Introduction of Supergirl in the sequel and cameos from Victor Stone/Cyborg and Martian Manhunter would make this a Superman sequel worth seeing

 

[Astro13Zombie]

Introduction of Supergirl in the sequel and cameos from Victor Stone/Cyborg and Martian Manhunter would make this a Superman sequel worth seeing

That’s exactly what this movie doesn’t need

All the focus needs to be on Superman

 

[Gamma Goliath]

A superman movie featuring Martian manhunter would be great. Like if he had been on earth for decades in the most top secret of facilities and was rescued by superman. The relationship between the public and superman could be a big point when it comes to relating to Martian manhunter. The public naturally would fear him, even though he could hide and shift to look like anyone. It would be a great story about identity. Superman would find out that world governments knew about extraterrestrial activity long before zods invasion.

 

[marcvader]

So what's the release date for this again?

 

[Tg11]

A superman movie featuring Martian manhunter would be great. Like if he had been on earth for decades in the most top secret of facilities. The relationship between the public and superman could be a big point when it comes to relating to Martian manhunter. The public naturally would fear him, even though he could hide and shift to look like anyone. It would be a great story about identity.

Yeah that's what I was going for but then with Supergirl as another Kryptonian the public could fear her because they wouldn't know if she's on the side of good or evil because with fear equals hatred