A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.
"You're talking about genocide!"
"Yes, and I'm discussing its merits with a ghost!"
I love that small exchange.
Re-watched it yesterday for the first time in like a year. I never disliked Man of Steel, but upon re-watch, it definitely seems better than I'd remembered. The first time around, I didn't really give Michael Shannon enough credit as General Zod. He was a great villain.
"You're talking about genocide!"
"Yes, and I'm discussing its merits with a ghost!"
I love that small exchange.
I got the Bluray last week and watched the film again, this time slowing down and rewinding many of the frenetic action scenes. I have an even greater appreciation for what MOS did, which was bring Kryptonian power levels and culture to film. I never felt that way about the earlier Superman films, but Snyder, Goyer, Cavill and crew did an outstanding job of translating the comics.
Back to this. I do think Jonathan really never overcame his reluctance to let Clark (and the world) face this critical juncture he foresaw upon Clark's revealing himself. In the whole scene before the tornado, he stated that he wanted Clark to still remain in the farm instead of going out into the world. Not the best way to get ready for how to best interact with society. He still wanted to put off all that as long as possible. Understandable, perhaps, but the more I think about it, the better I think it would have been for Clark in this scene to have been portrayed by the younger actor instead of Henry, as some members here have suggested. Sure, there are some advantages to how it was done, but I think the younger version of Clark would have better supported Jonathan's continuous concerns, and would have made it more tragic to lose his adopted father at that stage, while making the older version by Cavill more distanced of that controversial event, allowing for greater maturity.
Going for a more meta-textual cynical perspective, it would have improved the general perception of Henry as Superman, associating the death of his father with his visibly younger self. But things are easier in hindsight.Jonathan was at a difficult juncture with Clark at that moment. Clark was at the height of his teenage/young adult rebellion, and the age right before most kids get ready to go to college. Jonathan does respond to Clark's desire to have more of a purpose ("I'm tired of safe. I just wanna do something useful with my life.") by extolling the virtues of farming. However, he also admits the limits of his perspective in a way that doesn't impose them on Clark. He says, "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." In a way, that frames Jonathan's sacrifice as him giving Clark and the world the gift of time -- time to basically mature in the university of real life -- so Clark could grow beyond what the Kents may have been able to provide. I agree, though, that the younger actor would have helped get the message across a little better.
I think a lot of the difference has to do with the lead character exuding a warmth and compassion that the audience can connect with, and the movie creating situations where those emotions can be showcased.
It's almost a given that the main character is going to do some heroic things in a movie like this. It's easy to tune that out if it's not handled in a compelling way.
That's where the comparisons between Gadot's performance and Reeve's performance come from, imho, as they were both able to express that warmth, regardless of an objective tally of their heroic feats.
I'd say it comes down to, Superman may have saved people, but there wasn't the sense that he actually cared. At least in BvS, saving people was something he was just going through the motions of doing. It wasn't something he was passionate about, and there was very little appearance that he actually *liked* people, individually. It all had an overpowering feel of burden.
Whereas Diana very clearly cares about saving people, and the care comes before the action. She also very clearly likes *people*, and it shows in almost every interaction she has with others.
Just reading For Tomorrow for 5th/6th time and the way Superman is presented in that really reminds me of the one Snyder has given us. He even refers to Lois as 'his world' several times. He has a bit more of an edge like Cavill's Supes as well. It was one of my favourite Superman stories well before BvS came out but I did notice the similarities on my first viewing. I think Snyder took more from the comics than people give him credit for.
I think we can now that Goeff Johns is in charge of the DCEU. I honestly think Superman should be about his relationship between the world and Metropolis and should include more flashbacks of life growing up on the farm.
I don't disagree with any of that.
but with MOS and BvS, there was this lack of heart and warmth which WW had.
with DCEU Superman, there's just this sense of "detachment" and "aloofness" which doesn't suit the character, imo.
yes, Superman saves people and yes he did noble things and yes he did care for people. But the way Snyder portrayed him in the films just lacked that "something," that intangible whatever, that I felt from WW.
like the Tornado scene.
It should have been Clark out there rescuing a child left behind, not Pa Kent. Pa initially says he'll go, but Clark rushes right into the tornado because that's his natural instinct to save people. Clark is in middle of rescuing the child when he super hears/sees Pa Kent ( who's back with Martha under the bridge ) having a heart attack. Pa knows his son would come for him, but puts out his hand to stop Clark. Pa wants Clark to focus on saving the child - he sees the hero he always knew his son would become.
Clark is torn, but the tornado is right above him, so he dives down and shields the child with his body. When the tornado passes and the dust clears, Clark walks with, clothes tattered, but holding the child safe in his arms. Yeah, the town would know his secret, but by then I think they already knew. But it's a bittersweet victory because Clark was unable to save Pa.
If they had just shot that scene more like that, to show that "connection" between Clark and the people he saves, that would have gone a long way, imo.
There's plenty of Superman stories to pull from. Read Superman: Birthright. The scene where Clark figures out how to disguise his body vs. the 2 second montage we got at the end of MOS is a key difference in someone making a choice of sacrifice to make a disguise work and two supportive parents.