Zack Snyder: Man of Steel Carnage is "Mythological"

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Zack Snyder: Man of Steel Carnage is "Mythological"

man of steel screen

Man of Steel director Zack Snyder says he was trying to emulate "ancient mythology."

A prevailing view among many viewers coming out of Man of Steel was that the filmmakers botched the job. Whereas they were hoping for a Superman that was a joyful symbol of hope, director Zack Snyder and company delivered a film that arguably somber and undeniably violent. In the opinions of some, in fact, it was a bit too violent. Many questioned how Superman, a guy who generally excels at flawlessly saving the day, could even begin to be a part of the rampant destruction exhibited in the film's final conflict.

As Man of Steel nears its opening in Japan, Snyder made himself available to offer some insight into his intentions with the final battle. "I wanted the movie to have a mythological feeling," Snyder said. "In ancient mythology, mass deaths are used to symbolize disasters. In other countries like Greece and Japan, myths were recounted through the generations, partly to answer unanswerable questions about death and violence. In America, we don't have that legacy of ancient mythology. Superman ... is probably the closest we get. It's a way of recounting the myth."

Snyder isn't the first to express the idea that characters like Superman are the modern day equivalent of ancient mythology. That being the case, we're wondering if the mythology shtick is really the best way to explain the film's devotion to blowing things up. It's not like there aren't other feasible ideas like Clark still being inexperienced with his powers or the baddies just being too powerful to fight in an unrestrained manner. Those arguably sound a bit better than an explanation that basically amounts to "I wanted it mythic so people had to die."

Source: The Hollywood Reporter

Permalink

He does realize Pompeii wasn't a myth right? But I guess this is what we get after the ending to the original Superman movie.

I honestly dont see why all the rage, with such powers its obvious that there is a lot of shit that is going to get wrecked and the excuse that Superman could have convinced Zod to take the fight somewhere else doesnt really work since Zod wanted to kill people, not just fight and win against Superman.

I get it that it can be a bit annoying to see a story be shown differently (didnt like much the last Spiderman movie because of that with Peter Parker being such a different character from what he is usually depicted as even though as Spiderman the jokes did work well) but for such fan rage it really is unnecessary, just be midly disapointed and move on like my dad did (Superman fan) and like I did with Spiderman.

StewShearer:
As Man of Steel nears its opening in Japan, Snyder made himself available to offer some incite into his intentions with the final battle.

I think you meant "insight".

OT: I don't buy it. It sounds an awful lot like Snyder's just trying to cover his ass after making assumptions and fundamentally misunderstanding Superman as a character. The whole "but ancient myths had lots of people die!" thing feels way too much like a deflection, especially since most ancient myths didn't. There's actually comparatively few ancient myths with large death tolls of innocents. There's some, certainly, but it's far from the norm.

I think Snyder just wanted to blow shit up in order to make the movie more exciting. And it probably wasn't helped any by Nolan and Goyer. Neither of those two has ever shown any understanding of the concepts Superman embodies and they probably thought it would be a good idea.

josemlopes:
I honestly dont see why all the rage, with such powers its obvious that there is a lot of shit that is going to get wrecked and the excuse that Superman could have convinced Zod to take the fight somewhere else doesnt really work since Zod wanted to kill people, not just fight and win against Superman.

Have to agree with you. Though I want to mention as well that I saw it a second time in theatres after these sorts of complaints started becoming prominent, and on a second viewing, one of the funny things I noticed is that almost none of the collateral damage is caused by Superman throwing the villains through buildings and such. The majority, if not all, is directly the result of actions taken by the other Kryptonians. Only possible exception being the crashing of the ship Zod stole from him, but I can't remember now how many buildings it actually took out, if any.

When Superman has a higher human casualty body count in 1 movie than Vegeta in all of DBZ, you have an issue.

Vivi22:

josemlopes:
I honestly dont see why all the rage, with such powers its obvious that there is a lot of shit that is going to get wrecked and the excuse that Superman could have convinced Zod to take the fight somewhere else doesnt really work since Zod wanted to kill people, not just fight and win against Superman.

Have to agree with you. Though I want to mention as well that I saw it a second time in theatres after these sorts of complaints started becoming prominent, and on a second viewing, one of the funny things I noticed is that almost none of the collateral damage is caused by Superman throwing the villains through buildings and such. The majority, if not all, is directly the result of actions taken by the other Kryptonians. Only possible exception being the crashing of the ship Zod stole from him, but I can't remember now how many buildings it actually took out, if any.

I agree with you both. I'm not really tied to any of the previous Superman lore, and I really enjoyed this film both times I saw it at the cinema. As for the final fight, you had a trained and seasoned warlord who didn't care about collateral, since they were all going to die anyway, versus a young and very inexperienced fighter just learning the full extend of his powers. I don't even have a problem with how the fight ended, because there wasn't any other way it could have.

Agayek:
It sounds an awful lot like Snyder's just trying to cover his ass after making assumptions and fundamentally misunderstanding Superman as a character.

Honestly, I think the biggest problem I have with most people's criticism of this film is that people hated Superman Returns because he doesn't really get to punch anyone. Now people complained about this movie because, to put it as simply as possible, it's not Superman Returns.

Does anyone actually blame him for not making the same mistakes the last movie made with its audience? I think the real problem here is that most people's biggest experience with Superman is from the Richard Donner films and Christopher Reeves being Superman. If people could just get over their hard on for those movies they might not have had as much of a problem with Man of Steel.

Is it just me or does every superman-like character have more personality and heroism than Supes right now? God Among us was filled with angst-rage Supes, and we can compare recent addition and goo-based superhero Zac from League. It's like how the best thing about Batman isn't Batman.

My bullish!t alarm just up and died from an aneurism while I read that quote from Snyder.

Ukomba:
When Superman has a higher human casualty body count in 1 movie than Vegeta in all of DBZ, you have an issue.

That's only because DBZ is a kid's cartoon so of course the characters won't be killing each other for real. See: 90s Spiderman cartoon or 80s Transformers for other examples of that.

Vivi22:
Honestly, I think the biggest problem I have with most people's criticism of this film is that people hated Superman Returns because he doesn't really get to punch anyone. Now people complained about this movie because, to put it as simply as possible, it's not Superman Returns.

Nah, Superman Returns had far bigger problems than Supes not being violent enough. Among other things, the movie absolutely couldn't make up its mind about its tone, or even what it was. Was it a reboot, a sequel, or a remake? It had elements of all three, preventing it from having its own real identity.

Man of Steel movie had some pretty serious issues, itself, but I don't think excessive violence was one of them. Rather, it had an issue with sloppy and careless violence, with Superman doing some pretty serious damage to things that aren't people, without regard to the indirect harm that will inflict on the nearby civilians. On top of that, the whole origin story aspect showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the Superman character (and of character development in general). He spent far too much of the film emotionally weak, and never completely got over it.

I understand what the goal was. Nolan/Goyer (I don't think Snyder was heavily involved with the writing) were aware that Superman is overpowered, and attempted to come up with a conflict would still be difficult for him without relying on overused tropes like kryptonite or "even more powerful villain from nowhere". But the solution they came up with was not a good one, and frankly not true to the character or to the general tone of the comics. A far better obstacle for Superman to overcome, in my opinion, would be using the threat of accidental property/people damage to interfere with his ability to make full use of his abilities. "I can't keep up because I'd have to destroy these buildings and might accidentally hurt someone". This was a frequent plot device in the '90s cartoon, and it worked far better than anything in this movie.

P.S. Thanks

P.P.S. Maybe someone could just make a live action movie based on the '90s cartoon. That'd probably be pretty good, now that I think of it. Even let Tim Daly reprise the role.

Vivi22:
Honestly, I think the biggest problem I have with most people's criticism of this film is that people hated Superman Returns because he doesn't really get to punch anyone. Now people complained about this movie because, to put it as simply as possible, it's not Superman Returns.

Does anyone actually blame him for not making the same mistakes the last movie made with its audience? I think the real problem here is that most people's biggest experience with Superman is from the Richard Donner films and Christopher Reeves being Superman. If people could just get over their hard on for those movies they might not have had as much of a problem with Man of Steel.

Having never watched a Superman movie other than Man of Steel in my life, I can confidently say that that's not my issue with MoS. In addition, any umbrage I feel toward the fighting isn't so much because of the fighting itself as it is because of the secondary effects of my real issue.

Which is that Man of Steel doesn't actually have Superman in it; it has a fairly normal guy with absurd powers. The movie is a deconstruction of what being a superhero means and a cynical perspective on what it means to be different. In and of itself, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not Superman.

At the end of the day, Superman can be summarized by two characteristics: 1) Optimism and 2) "A Good Man". Neither of those qualities had much presence in Man of Steel, in the fighting or out, and it really detracts from the movie as a whole.

Honestly, most of the blame can probably be laid at the feet of Goyer and Nolan in my opinion, because Snyder's past work at least gives the sense that he understands and makes use of those ideas. Nolan's heavy-handed "emotions are teh devil" approach to storytelling and Goyer's inability to write characters that aren't various shades of angry at the world (or so it appears at least) meant the movie was crippled from the getgo. I had just hoped Snyder would have had enough pull to override them more than he apparently did.

Well this confirms what I've been thinking watching the movie "director hasn't got a clue".
I'll give them the top CG award tho in this, those guys really did a fantastic job, everybody else appeared to aim at local cable TV show quality, hell if they just aped Smallville shit would turn out better.

If Zach Snyder wanted to make a movie about mythology, he could have made another 300. As such, it would seem as though his idea of Superman did not coincide with the majority, and for that reason I do hope he remembers to think of his audience for Man of Steel 2.

Same way the dark knight rises did not have batman in it, nolan and crew are good at giving nods while they piss all over the characters they are supposed to be making movies about.

tdk was mostly the joker, tdkr was mostly bane, or emo bruce.

comic batman had a pathological need to fight crime, nolans batman fights crime for all of about a year or two at most, gets his knee blown out. Then sits on his ass for years.

i think we can get over that nolan is the end all be all, he may be good begins and tdk were good to great films, but he really does not grasp or really care about the characters he is using.

I hope aflack gets a go at directing if not writing the scripts soon, if rumors are to be believed. he is a guy that is into comics, gets the characters and has chops when it comes to writing and directing. i would be far more excited if nolan just called it quits and went on to do w/e and give our new batman a shot at making these characters come to life on the big screen.

That is frankly... idiotic. Don't get me wrong. I don't find the level of carnage present in Man of Steel to be a problem with the movie. I think confusing the fully developed Superman character with the not perfect, insecure, Superboy character is stupid. He couldn't save everyone because it was literally the first time he even found out his Powers went as far as they did. Also, Superman's history is littered with events that cost many lives. It is part of the reason that he is who he is, because each one of those deaths he takes personally because he has the expectation of being able to save everyone. He faces threats only he is capable of overcoming, lots of people died when he fought Doomsday, both heroes and normal people. That is just one of many violent clashes that he has had. I think this is a stupid excuse to call the movie inaccurate or wrong in some way.

I also think the justification he is going for detracts from the movie itself. It's really annoying that he basically says he wanted it to be like a Greek Mythological level event (aka. 300 with an unstoppable superman as Leonides).

Vivi22:

Agayek:
It sounds an awful lot like Snyder's just trying to cover his ass after making assumptions and fundamentally misunderstanding Superman as a character.

Honestly, I think the biggest problem I have with most people's criticism of this film is that people hated Superman Returns because he doesn't really get to punch anyone. Now people complained about this movie because, to put it as simply as possible, it's not Superman Returns.

Does anyone actually blame him for not making the same mistakes the last movie made with its audience? I think the real problem here is that most people's biggest experience with Superman is from the Richard Donner films and Christopher Reeves being Superman. If people could just get over their hard on for those movies they might not have had as much of a problem with Man of Steel.

I agree. All the complaints everyone has are basically covered in Superman Returns. Now they get something new, which is what everyone said they wanted, and the movie "sucks". Too many special effects? I'm sure they would have loved a man on a wire like the Christopher Reeves films.

I would also like to point out that lots of people died in the the original Superman film, but he reversed time (because Superman is the equivalent of God, which doesn't make him relatable at all). This, I feel, is the primary problem with peoples expectations for this movie. They deny the characters one flaw which is that he cannot be everywhere and save everyone.

Moth_Monk:

Ukomba:
When Superman has a higher human casualty body count in 1 movie than Vegeta in all of DBZ, you have an issue.

That's only because DBZ is a kid's cartoon so of course the characters won't be killing each other for real. See: 90s Spiderman cartoon or 80s Transformers for other examples of that.

Ah yes, DBZ, where no one ever dies...

Have you seen DBZ? Every main character has been killed at least once The entire Planet Earth was destroyed twice. When they first arrived on Earth Napa Nuked an entire city. The wishes make it easier to let characters rack up huge body counts and do absurd amounts of collateral damage because they can be wished back.

josemlopes:
I honestly dont see why all the rage, with such powers its obvious that there is a lot of shit that is going to get wrecked and the excuse that Superman could have convinced Zod to take the fight somewhere else doesnt really work since Zod wanted to kill people, not just fight and win against Superman.

I get it that it can be a bit annoying to see a story be shown differently (didnt like much the last Spiderman movie because of that with Peter Parker being such a different character from what he is usually depicted as even though as Spiderman the jokes did work well) but for such fan rage it really is unnecessary, just be midly disapointed and move on like my dad did (Superman fan) and like I did with Spiderman.

Its was because the violence was careless and sloppy, which isn't Superman's modus operandi. I'm not even a Superman fan but I have to say that the near levelling of Metropolis by the end of Man of Steel was very out of character for Superman. Superman is the greatest boy scout in superhero history only to be rivalled by Captain America, so for him to contribute to a fight that could have (and lets be honest, probably did) killed a lot of people with collateral damage was very much against every other time barring the fight with Doomsday that Superman has fought within a city.

Superman does his best to keep humans out of danger when he fights. That's the one thing that all Superman media besides the Man of Steel kept, no matter how bad a lot of the previous movies were.

I'm not raging like a lot of people are of course, but if the sloppy violence is why some people are raging, then they're more right than most on the issue of why Man of Steel wasn't a good Superman movie. Zack Snyder's love affair with massive careless destruction was a bad fit with the Superman mythos. The massive violence made sense in The Avengers because of the events that were going on. In Man of Steel had the final confrontation simply taken places in the skies of Metropolis with maybe a couple of buildings being damaged, it would've left a better taste in people's mouths.

So am I the only one here who thinks that Man of Steel was actually pretty good? I do like the film for taking a bit of a more somber approach. I understand people who didn't like it but the majority of people who've seen it apart from me quite like it.

Zack, I understand that certain mythology, Norse mythology in particular, is rather bleak. But don't use this as an excuse for fucking up Man of Steel and trying to cover your mistakes. The only reason WB hired you is that you, like Nolan and Goyer, were their comic book go-to-guys and they were too clueless/gutless to hire someone else that actually understood the character and the source material. It would be refreshing to hear a director come out and say "I had no idea what I was doing with this project but the big wigs already paid me, so I kept my mouth shut and tried to bull shit my way through it."

Stalydan:
So am I the only one here who thinks that Man of Steel was actually pretty good? I do like the film for taking a bit of a more somber approach. I understand people who didn't like it but the majority of people who've seen it apart from me quite like it.

No, you're not alone. I would go so far as to say that Man of Steel is my favorite Superman movie. I mean the Christopher Reeve ones are classics and I grew up watching them, but they're also kind of weird. The time travel thing was always strange and out of place. And when did Superman get the power to erase peoples minds by kissing them? I like those movies, but they are a bit odd.

I'm not quite sure why everyone is opposed to violence in a Superman movie. It's not really accurate to call it sloppy violence either. Superman really did very little damage. The problem was the group of other supermen that wanted to destroy the human race. Superman saved as many people as he could when he wasn't busy getting pounded on by actual warriors. I thought this film was a breath of fresh air. It's about time we got to see Superman actually be super and not just thwart Lex Luthor's dastardly real estate schemes.

To each their own. Personally, I can't wait until the next.

Ukomba:
When Superman has a higher human casualty body count in 1 movie than Vegeta in all of DBZ, you have an issue.

May I remember you that Vegeta destroyed planet Arlia in episode 11, followed by quite a few death by crashing in East city (which Nappa then proceeded to wipe out), then there is the Namekian village and finally his rampage in Majin form. Add to that all the minion and guy with actual name. And all his kill are intentional except for the crash and the trucker his attack come to kill, after 18 deflected it.

considering Superman is capable of mass destruction without even trying, it's logical he's going to cause collateral damage. However, he also doesn't cause collateral loss of life. All the damage just gives a sense of scale of just how powerful he is and what level he's on compared to everyone else in the world.

I didn't get outraged at the violence in MoS, I was too bored by the failed editing to notice. Every single fight scene drags on way too long. You can easily cut an hour of fight scene out of the movie and it would still get its message across.

All that movie did was show how much trouble he'd save everyone if he just snapped necks left and right. Lex will be a joke since any misery he'd cause would be stopped by a quick neck-snap.

In fact, modern Superman could save the court system time and money by snapping necks! Three guys run into a bank "Ok, put the money in the bag and no one will get hur--" SNAP CRACKLE POP

He'd be snapping more necks than SCP-173! Ohh, better yet; fuck batman, make it Superman VS SCP-682

I think the word you're looking for Zack is 'stupid'.

Seriously, that movie was just...weird, and the whole city fight scene was pure stupid.

It's a shame he wasn't trying to emulate, you know, Superman!?

Of course everyone knows you can't make a modern movie based on old comic characters while being true to the comic's style and characters.
Just ask Marvel how badly that has been working out for them.

This is Zack Snyder. In other words everything he said can be translated as, "Well. I thought it would look cool." Seriously, he's a visual director, not a story teller. He just doesn't get *characters*; it doesn't feel like he's able to understand any complex element of them outside of how good he can make them look on camera.

Don't get me wrong, he's not Michael Bay awful when it comes to "sexy ladies, shiney explosions" run amok, but when it comes to getting to the heart of a character like Superman and how he should always be seen in a story about hope, he doesn't comprehend it. What he sees is a God that will allow him to wreak destruction on a Biblical (or mythological) level and have justification for it.

For the record I didn't think Man of Steel was a bad film. Clark being kind of lost in the wake of not understanding himself and losing many important things that gave him direction was understandable. But lacking was the moment of him realizing who he needs to be and rising as the aforementioned symbol of hope who would never allow what happens to Metropolis to actually happen.

Instead we got a depiction of Superman that is counter to everything we know and believe the Hero to be for the sake of making him seem "real". It's another example of Warner Bros. entrusting someone with a "pedigree" who really doesn't understand the icon their working with or what they mean to fans. Look at the Ben Affleck debacle. 'Nuff said.

Seriously, the haters of this movie basically all say the same thing in different ways. Superman wasn't an unrelatable god-man. I'm not kidding, they have this issue with the city fight causing so much devastation and they can only justify it by saying he could have "X". No, he couldn't. Just stop. This movie actually made Superman work for a win, he couldn't just throw his S at someone or fly around the world to reverse time. This Superman can't just win cause he's Superman and that's all that matters, reducing any villain or plot to meaningless wastes of time. Superman can't stand for hope and he can't be relatable if he can't be beat, and can always save everyone, every time. If you want Super-God and not Superman, go read the trash DC usually puts in his own comics where he bench presses the hearts of dwarf stars and gives Darkseid nuggies because he's a waste of overpowered space. This was a realistic take on a character who has rarely seen realism of any form. Snyder did get the core of the character right, fanboys just couldn't handle Superman having a single flaw, just less the same amount as anyone else.

Tanthius:
Seriously, the haters of this movie basically all say the same thing in different ways. Superman wasn't an unrelatable god-man. I'm not kidding, they have this issue with the city fight causing so much devastation and they can only justify it by saying he could have "X". No, he couldn't. Just stop. This movie actually made Superman work for a win, he couldn't just throw his S at someone or fly around the world to reverse time. This Superman can't just win cause he's Superman and that's all that matters, reducing any villain or plot to meaningless wastes of time. Superman can't stand for hope and he can't be relatable if he can't be beat, and can always save everyone, every time. If you want Super-God and not Superman, go read the trash DC usually puts in his own comics where he bench presses the hearts of dwarf stars and gives Darkseid nuggies because he's a waste of overpowered space. This was a realistic take on a character who has rarely seen realism of any form. Snyder did get the core of the character right, fanboys just couldn't handle Superman having a single flaw, just less the same amount as anyone else.

Right. Because Marvel needed to destroy all of New York while the Avengers battled an *army* of Alien Invaders with High Tech weapons and Leviathan beasts. You know, The Avengers. The Team of superpowered beings who have a *God* and an indestructible Hulk in their roster. I mean, they couldn't do anything to keep New York from being destroyed, right? And there wasn't anything real about that film, no? Senseless destruction does not equate "real", nor does depicting a *Superhero* who isn't anything like his most revered depictions.

ellers07:

Stalydan:
So am I the only one here who thinks that Man of Steel was actually pretty good? I do like the film for taking a bit of a more somber approach. I understand people who didn't like it but the majority of people who've seen it apart from me quite like it.

No, you're not alone. I would go so far as to say that Man of Steel is my favorite Superman movie. I mean the Christopher Reeve ones are classics and I grew up watching them, but they're also kind of weird. The time travel thing was always strange and out of place. And when did Superman get the power to erase peoples minds by kissing them? I like those movies, but they are a bit odd.

I'm not quite sure why everyone is opposed to violence in a Superman movie. It's not really accurate to call it sloppy violence either. Superman really did very little damage. The problem was the group of other supermen that wanted to destroy the human race. Superman saved as many people as he could when he wasn't busy getting pounded on by actual warriors. I thought this film was a breath of fresh air. It's about time we got to see Superman actually be super and not just thwart Lex Luthor's dastardly real estate schemes.

To each their own. Personally, I can't wait until the next.

Same here, after all, when he's faced with more then one person with similar amount of power, shits bound to get messed up. Plus he will learn from it, in theory, he should be better at collateral damage control in the next one. The bit I find funny, is how people act like he's never wrecked a city before during a battle with a big bad.

In just one move, he punches the guy through about 5-6 buildings by my count then levels a city block with slamming him down and that's just one part of a fight.

Man of Steel has its issues, but I still really liked it. Pacing could have been a bit better and having a few more happy moments would have been nice too, to make it a bit more of an uplifting film. Hopefully we will see them improve upon the less dark aspects of Supermans life from here on out.

The other complaints I did see a fair mount was

roguewriter:
Right. Because Marvel needed to destroy all of New York while the Avengers battled an *army* of Alien Invaders with High Tech weapons and Leviathan beasts. You know, The Avengers. The Team of superpowered beings who have a *God* and an indestructible Hulk in their roster. I mean, they couldn't do anything to keep New York from being destroyed, right? And there wasn't anything real about that film, no? Senseless destruction does not equate "real", nor does depicting a *Superhero* who isn't anything like his most revered depictions.

I think Tanthius meant a more realistic version, not completely realistic. I would have said a "more serious take" on him as far as the films go, not something I am saying, but would have said in that position. I do agree with you point though, I loved the Avengers, the off switch for the bad guys was disappointing though. I like both films, but yes I do see the flaws in Man of Steel, I'm not blind to them and I'm hoping the next one is better.

Covarr:
A far better obstacle for Superman to overcome, in my opinion, would be using the threat of accidental property/people damage to interfere with his ability to make full use of his abilities. "I can't keep up because I'd have to destroy these buildings and might accidentally hurt someone".

He only just became superman though, perhaps that's the sort of lessons he will have learned for the next film/s. He's had to learn a big lesson and there will be people angry at him for what happened in the first one as well, they have the potential to use the problems with the first film to make the next one better.

It wasn't mythological, it was a betrayal. Superman should not kill. In fact, I think it was Superman himself who once said, "No one has the right to kill. Not Mxysptlk, not Superman, ESPECIALLY not Superman." Whatever happened to that guy anyway? That was a guy that I want to be like, not this guy who has to question his every action and wonder if using your insane godlike powers to save lives and help people is the right thing to do.

Seriously love 'Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?'. Alan Moore deserves all the praise he gets.

Ukomba:

Have you seen DBZ? Every main character has been killed at least once The entire Planet Earth was destroyed twice. When they first arrived on Earth Napa Nuked an entire city. The wishes make it easier to let characters rack up huge body counts and do absurd amounts of collateral damage because they can be wished back.

Not to mention, it's Japanese in origin. Even in kid's cartoons, they kill people. Some are downright violent.

I grew up on shit like Voltron, where they had to hide the deaths of the Japanese counterparts. I mean, seriously. Cartoons over here may be different, but jeez.

AzrealMaximillion:

Its was because the violence was careless and sloppy, which isn't Superman's modus operandi.

I always wanted to see a story where Superman had to learn to be a good person. Modern tellings of Superman have him being a boy scout practically since birth. I hear the new Action Comics did this for an issue or two, but from the trailers, I was hoping maybe we'd get that.

If that were the case, I could accept him being sloppy. but the inconsistency of tone and the lack of any unifying thread?

No, this isn't it.

Just saying.

Jasper van Heycop:
I didn't get outraged at the violence in MoS, I was too bored by the failed editing to notice. Every single fight scene drags on way too long. You can easily cut an hour of fight scene out of the movie and it would still get its message across.

Which is funny, because the promotional material acted like you'd die if there wasn't a new scene every split second.

DoctorM:
It's a shame he wasn't trying to emulate, you know, Superman!?

Which, of course, is already based in mythology, so....

roguewriter:
This is Zack Snyder. In other words everything he said can be translated as, "Well. I thought it would look cool."

Soulless spectacle, indeed.

I almost thought of not bothering to even comment on this, since this horse has been already flogged to death, raised as a zombie, and then flogged into tiny rotting wriggly pieces. But I really don't get why people wanted to see Superman in a movie that's an origin story just be happy-go-lucky and perfect from the get-go. It was the first time he'd had to use his powers on such a scale as he did, of course he couldn't save everyone. And it's not like he had a choice to do otherwise: Zod was very clearly bent on the destruction on Earth, and seemed to be getting more and more dangerous over the course of the movie.

And speaking of the excessive destruction caused in the movie: there's an opportunity for future material there. Despite him seeming happy at the end of MoS, maybe he hasn't yet realized the amount of damage he inadvertedly caused. Maybe he does in the sequel, and starts to doubt himself. Stop being Superman? Leave Earth? Something else? There's lots of interesting places to go there.

I liked Man of Steel a lot. It actually made Superman interesting to me, and I'm excited about the sequel. Sue me.

Aiddon:
considering Superman is capable of mass destruction without even trying, it's logical he's going to cause collateral damage. However, he also doesn't cause collateral loss of life. All the damage just gives a sense of scale of just how powerful he is and what level he's on compared to everyone else in the world.

Agreed.

The Great JT:
It wasn't mythological, it was a betrayal. Superman should not kill. In fact, I think it was Superman himself who once said, "No one has the right to kill. Not Mxysptlk, not Superman, ESPECIALLY not Superman." Whatever happened to that guy anyway? That was a guy that I want to be like, not this guy who has to question his every action and wonder if using your insane godlike powers to save lives and help people is the right thing to do.

Seriously love 'Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?'. Alan Moore deserves all the praise he gets.

Okay. In the movie literally the lives of the entire human race can be saved by killing one person, and Supes is the only one who can do so. But noooo, "Superman does not kill". What the hell is he going to do? Take Zod out to dinner and kindly convince him to leave? A Superman who does not kill in a movie with such high stakes as MoS is about as convincing as the Adam West Batman series as a serious interpretation of the character.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here