The Double Standards Against Superman

[herolee10]

I thought it wouldn't hurt to have a thread about this topic over here, but one of the things that I wanted to discuss about with everyone is regarding the "Double Standards" that people seem to have towards the character of Superman, especially as of late.

Personally, and I could be proven very wrong about this later on (which I'll gladly admit when done so), but I do strongly feel that the character has a huge stack of double standards set against him by audiences and fans, and this has been proven even more so with the release and reaction to "Man of Steel".

One of the gripes that I've seen a lot of people have and even make fun of is how Superman is no longer "Superman" due to the massive carnage that took place within Metropolis. Yet it feels like people constantly forget that most of the damage that took place within the city was due to Zod's Black Zero ship and that Superman was like on the other side of the world where he was trying to stop the World Machine, where it's destruction was the only way to stop Black Zero from destroying more buildings and killing more people.

Then there's the whole issue of how people bash Superman for having fought Zod the way he did in the city. Now granted, perhaps the fight could have gone better, surely people couldn't have forgotten that this type of battle and collateral damage takes place all the time within the comics.

Heck, if I had a nickel for every time I saw someone mentioning in the past on how they hoped that we'd get a fight with superman on the big screen like the ones that we've seen with him in the animated shows/films, I'd be pretty rich right now.

So why is it that Superman is getting bashed for doing something that has taken place several times within the comics and animated shows?

Not to mention, given the context that Clark had no prior experience in dealing with foes that had powers like him and wasn't really "superman" until the very end of the film, you'd think that people would be more understanding.

Furthermore, the whole death scene with Zod.... as much as we would like for Superman to find the other way, some times, there just isn't the other way. No matter what decision Superman made, he was going to lose something in the end and he chose the lesser of two evils. Personally, I applaud them for having the guts to put him in that realistic situation because to say that there's always another way is just B.S. imho.

It's not like Superman will go out and start killing off his villains, I mean just look at the reaction that he had from having done so to Zod in the first place.

Bale's Batman has killed as well, despite having three films dedicated towards him having a "no kill policy" during moments where it was do or die.

He pushed Harvey to his death in order to save Gordon's Son and he killed Talia and her driver in order to apprehend the bomb before it exploded in Gotham.

And I don't seem to recall anyone having issues with seeing Jor-el kill within MOS, which was a first I think as far as I know of in any takes featuring the character.

And don't get me started on how many times I saw someone say that they wanted Superman modernized for today's audience, only to cry foul and say that they should have kept him the same.

Seriously, as a Superman fan, it frustrates me to no end on how much flack the character gets at times for no reason.

I can understand if people had issues with MOS because it's not a perfect film and it could have been better. But seeing the character made fun of and bashed for things like this, it' s just freaking annoying and so hypocritical.

 

[mace1]

Here are some interesting views.

Superman 1978 = Magic/Fantasy. Superman 2013 = Science Fiction


By BOZO

i think part or most of the appeal of the first 2 superman films is they were more Fantasy/Magic than sci fi


-Krypton/FOS like the inside of a snowflake - ice castles, crystal technology etc

-Wizard of Oz style Jor El teaching Kal El in his ice fortress

-Peter pan fairy tale line

-magic powers, turning back the earth/time etc

(SR obviously went that route as well - but not as well. where as III and IV were more 'real world' not as much Magic Fantasy elements as I or II)

where as MOS it was more SF, e.g.:

-HR Giger design style Krypton, FOS is an 'Alien/Thing' style spaceship. space suits etc

-Krypton looking like a 1930s/50s style pulp cover

-AI Jor El activated by USB flash sticks

-Kryptonian pre visitation, possible hint they created mankind? (or at least heavily influenced it)

-WOTW/ID4 style battles/alien invasion

By scabab

Times change.

By CobTheSpiderMage

This is largely why I prefer MOS to S:TM. One of my friends complained about MOS being "too sci-fi", and I asked him what the hell he expected given it's a movie about an alien. In S:TM, Superman was viewed as a kind of fairy-tale figure/celebrity. People's reactions to him were ridiculous in that movie, not to mention the major impact that the presence of such a being would have on the world. Even the recent Marvel movies dealt with this issue in a smarter way, what with first contact (Thor's brief visit to Earth) changing everything, and the world governments realising just how insignificant we really are. In the Reeve movies, Superman might as well have been a kind of Santa Claus figure instead of a spaceman. MOS, on the other hand, definitely didn't shy away from the fact that Superman is an alien, something I appreciated. I got a kick out of when he was first referred to as "Superman" by that soldier.

In the Christopher Reeve movies, a lot seemed more like magic (yeah, I know, sufficiently advanced tech, blah, blah). Magic outfit changes, magic power-removing chambers, magic crystals, etc. The only thing in MOS that seemed more "magic" than technological based is that codex thingy. All in all, MOS was a much better thought out movie. I'm not sure if it's because times are different, or that people expect more from movies nowadays, but either way, I'm thankful for it.

To read more.


Superman 1978 = Magic/Fantasy. Superman...



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770828/board/flat/221785836?d=221799053&p=1#221799053

 

[blumatic]

I personally think that many fans have built up this character more than it needs too. Too high of pedestal.

People kind of worship Superman. And make him out to be some infallible saint. And what's funny is that the Donner films, adored by nearly all, does not make him to be a saint.

I never believed Superman as a messiah. I dont believe him to be better than us.

I see him as good guy with superpowers. Or as Christopher Reeve eloquently put "a friend".

I dont know if there is a double standard, but an over-romanticism of the hero, or too many interpretations.

I know Superman should be near perfect but I think when it comes to origin stories he should be flawed. And things should be difficult.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

There's a simple reason why there's a double standard for Superman: he's Superman.

He's the hero everyone including your favorite heroes look up to and inspire to be. He's the hero everyone turns to for advice. He's the hero that will always answer your call for help no matter who you are and what he's done. He's the hero everyone wants to be.

Everybody loves Superman so when Superman does something like kill a guy, people are in shock. People don't want to see Superman do that. Superman isn't suppose to do that. I don't have a problem with the killing but I think it was set up wrong.

Either way that's why.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Herolee10, you are a poster I'd call a friend, so I'm gonna take the time to answer all your issues as best I can.

Always thought we'd be virtual high fiving and hugging after MOS came out, but somehow we came out feeling very different ways about the finished product.

I'll do my best to explain why

I thought it wouldn't hurt to have a thread about this topic over here, but one of the things that I wanted to discuss about with everyone is regarding the "Double Standards" that people seem to have towards the character of Superman, especially as of late.

Personally, and I could be proven very wrong about this later on (which I'll gladly admit when done so), but I do strongly feel that the character has a huge stack of double standards set against him by audiences and fans, and this has been proven even more so with the release and reaction to "Man of Steel".

One of the gripes that I've seen a lot of people have and even make fun of is how Superman is no longer "Superman" due to the massive carnage that took place within Metropolis. Yet it feels like people constantly forget that most of the damage that took place within the city was due to Zod's Black Zero ship and that Superman was like on the other side of the world where he was trying to stop the World Machine, where it's destruction was the only way to stop Black Zero from destroying more buildings and killing more people.

There is one bit of destruction that I couldn't help but take issue with.

When Zod and Supes are in the Scout ship and he decides to bring it down by destroying it with his heat vision - he then proceeds to allow the ship to smash through several buildings on it's way down.

I mean, beyond the question of how many people might have been hurt/killed by debris or the ship itself on the way down, what a missed opportunity that was for an incredibly shot of Superman flying outside of the ship as it's falling apart and using an extreme amount of effort to stop it from crashing into buildings/people in the city, finally setting it down in some open space... Heck, if I remember rightly, there was even a shot of a river running through Metropolis that we see the Scout ship zoom past on it's way towards smashing into things.

It was just careless to me.

Then there's the whole issue of how people bash Superman for having fought Zod the way he did in the city. Now granted, perhaps the fight could have gone better, surely people couldn't have forgotten that this type of battle and collateral damage takes place all the time within the comics.

Personally I agree with you there. I have no issue with a certain amount of destruction during a super fight in the middle of a city. It really can't be done 'clean' so to speak, or it'd look ridiculous.

Heck, if I had a nickel for every time I saw someone mentioning in the past on how they hoped that we'd get a fight with superman on the big screen like the ones that we've seen with him in the animated shows/films, I'd be pretty rich right now.

So why is it that Superman is getting bashed for doing something that has taken place several times within the comics and animated shows?

The majority of what I've heard people complain about here isn't the destruction itself, it's that for whatever reason Snyder/Goyer chose not to include a single moment of Superman trying to stop people from getting hurt in the destruction.

Like in Spiderman 2, for example, when Doc Ock is chucking people from the train to slow Spidey down because he knows he cares enough to wanna catch them and not let them fall to their death.

Zod SAID all this stuff about making the humans suffer, but apparently there was not a human in sight for him to attack until they crashed through the train station... Which seems really odd, and again IMO is a missed opportunity for some good 'Superman' moments of him rescuing people in costume.

Not to mention, given the context that Clark had no prior experience in dealing with foes that had powers like him and wasn't really "superman" until the very end of the film, you'd think that people would be more understanding.

I feel like he wasn't even Superman then. I won't feel like he's Superman until he talks about what he actually wants to DO as Superman.

Cause to me, it's more than just 'I'll help out if the world's about to get destroyed.

There should be a much bigger picture for him.

But that's definitely something that I hope, and think will come up in the sequel, especially with Batman involved and JL on the cards for the future.

Furthermore, the whole death scene with Zod.... as much as we would like for Superman to find the other way, some times, there just isn't the other way. No matter what decision Superman made, he was going to lose something in the end and he chose the lesser of two evils. Personally, I applaud them for having the guts to put him in that realistic situation because to say that there's always another way is just B.S. imho.

It's not like Superman will go out and start killing off his villains, I mean just look at the reaction that he had from having done so to Zod in the first place.

I understand what you're saying, and had it been handled a little better I'd agree with you (while still personally not liking it).

Let me explain.

On a personal level, I just wish Goyer had written an ending that didn't put Superman in that position. Because I don't want that from a Superman film. Any other film, and I'd praise it. But not Superman.

Most of the time (bar a few AU GN's I like) I love Superman because I like to be cheered up. Because sometimes I'm in a 'lie to me' mood. Because sometimes I want to believe for a second that there is such a thing as unshakeable good, and everything can turn out shiny - even though obviously in the real world that may not be true.

So when Superman snapped Zod's neck, it was like my happy place had just be shattered into a million pieces.

Now I know I know, he's done it before, blah blah.

Yeah, in Superman 2 some people fell down a hole, and in some comics I'd heard of and never read or gave any importance too he'd killed them too. And sure, in the great 'Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow' he killed (though there were immediate consequences he imposed on himself for that).

But none of them where such a violent moment that I wouldn't want a child to see it. None of them made me feel like an arrow had been shot through my heart.

And even beyond my personal feelings, I can't help but criticise the way it was done.

Even if you think them taking this super depressingly realistic take on what would happen if too Super beings fought to the death is a daring choice by the director - there are some glaring thoughtless mistakes IMO.

1) As mentioned above, this family is the first attempt Zod has made on a human... The decision would have felt a lot more 'last resort' if they were the last of several attempts (thwarted with great effort by Supes) to kill someone. Then you'd really truly have been going 'OMG, I know you don't want too, but just KILL HIM!'.
2) The fact that it WAS a family upsets me. I mean, those children witnessed that. Are they going to be traumatised by that? Are they going to be afraid of him?

And even if they decided to keep it as a family for that shock effect, wouldn't it have been a stronger message if the father had come up to Lois and the devestated Superman and thanked him?

Again, that just seemed like a missed opportunity.

Of course then you have the issue of the scenes immediately following that, which are so jarring in tone. It doesn't help the message of the scene (whatever they were intending it to be, other than 'oh how shocking, Superman just snapped a guys neck') from resonating.

All it would have taken is them not putting that silly joke scene straight after, and instead going to the scene in the graveyard and having Clark express his guilt and mixed feelings to his mother, and say he wonders if his Dad would be ashamed of him... And for Martha to reinforce what had been set up - That he had no choice, that he was strong and made an impossible decision.

Instead, they just don't mention it again.

And yet, we have been told that in the next film they plan to use the ending as his REASON to not kill ever again.

How does that work?

By setting it up as an impossible choice and absolutely the right thing to do, how could they ever logically make a sequel in which they go back on that and act as though there IS another choice, and Superman decides to always find it.

It's just such an epicly badly concieved notion, and it will contradict it self ridiculously.

Bale's Batman has killed as well, despite having three films dedicated towards him having a "no kill policy" during moments where it was do or die.

He pushed Harvey to his death in order to save Gordon's Son and he killed Talia and her driver in order to apprehend the bomb before it exploded in Gotham.

I think plenty of people take issue with that too, but I'd say the main reasons it's not so bad is:

A) People don't mind being slightly depressed by a Batman film. I mean, you want him to be heroic, but you expect a bit of darkness.

B) It wasn't framed as a 'good thing' to do. It was clearly grey.

And I don't seem to recall anyone having issues with seeing Jor-el kill within MOS, which was a first I think as far as I know of in any takes featuring the character.

Jor-el is not the hero/main character. So no, it didn't bother me.

And don't get me started on how many times I saw someone say that they wanted Superman modernized for today's audience, only to cry foul and say that they should have kept him the same.

Good god I wanted him modernized.

I have no problem with it being set in a modern world. The DP was great, and there where a few (not many) real world ideals in there - namely 'People would be afraid of aliens'... So deep :sarcasm:

But I don't think they included ENOUGH of the real world. They didn't show much of a reaction. They didn't show any of the problems in the world that make Superman wanna help bring about change. They didn't put it in a tangible context for me, because the plot was mainly based around fantastical concepts outside of earth problems.

BB had a city polluted by corrupt politicians and people who turned a blind eye to crime because they were afraid.

TDK showed the results of a city under attack from a psychopathic terrorist, and pushed to the brink of what they might do to survive.

TDKR showed a city of people opressed by the rich, and how they would revolt given the freedom to share the wealth.

Those ideas are all easy for the GA to connect to, because they are connected to current events in the real world that we all feel passionately about.

And the inclusion of those ideas in Superhero film is what really elevated that trilogy to what critics consider 'intelligent'.

I guess when I heard MOS was from the same team, I expected something along the same lines. And I was so excited to see Superman in our modern world, and how his inclusion in it and our current world problems would play out.

That did not happen.

So sure, you can say it was modernised in a sense. But not in the way I dared hope/imagine it would.

Seriously, as a Superman fan, it frustrates me to no end on how much flack the character gets at times for no reason.

I can understand if people had issues with MOS because it's not a perfect film and it could have been better. But seeing the character made fun of and bashed for things like this, it' s just freaking annoying and so hypocritical.

It bugs me too. And it makes me even sadder that MOS wasn't good enough to stop all the mocking we've endured for years because people haven't seen the character I have.

But it wasn't good enough to do that. People laugh at it, because they think it was a bad film.

And just like Green Lantern, some people think the film was lame because the character is lame.

Well there we go, that was the most full description I've given of how I feel about the film since I saw it!

And I haven't even touched on how I felt about JK, his death, the writing in general, Zod, Clois, Lois, or the editing and camera choices!

 

[Binker]

Actually, I disagree on there being people thinking Superman still sucks after MOS. The people I've met thought the film was sick, and Superman was cool. Some even asked if there were any stories I could recommend.

So yeah, I don't know what kind of people you met who thought differently than those I've met (or known).

 

[blumatic]

hopefuldreamer

You dissapointment on how "superman" turned out in the end. And how it affected you in terms of shattering you vision of Superman and the thought that there may be an unshakable good is why I fine MOS very interesting.

As you explained with the Batman films talking about issues that the real world suffers from, I could not see a Superman story dealing with those same issues.

What is see from Kal in the movies ahead is a chance for redemption. How you feel, hopefuldreamer, is how the people and the children of Metropolis feel. Kal is a monster. But in watching the movie and seeing his past we all know that he isnt. I think this is where the true story of Superman begins. What actions does he take to redeem himself.

Could there have been some scenes where he saved some kids. Sure. But I dont think those who hated the killing would have liked the movie better. In movies last impressions count and the last action in that suit he took a life.

Are you not at all intrigued how he answers for his actions and his carelessness. Im very interested in seeing the growth of Superman as opposed to seeing him as a finished product by movie #1.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Actually, I disagree on there being people thinking Superman still sucks after MOS. The people I've met thought the film was sick, and Superman was cool. Some even asked if there were any stories I could recommend.

So yeah, I don't know what kind of people you met who thought differently than those I've met (or known).

You can't disagree with my factual statement that I know people who have laughed at Superman because they didn't like MOS.

Your experiances may have been different, but they don't make mine false.

hopefuldreamer

You dissapointment on how "superman" turned out in the end. And how it affected you in terms of shattering you vision of Superman and the thought that there may be an unshakable good is why I fine MOS very interesting.

As you explained with the Batman films talking about issues that the real world suffers from, I could not see a Superman story dealing with those same issues.

What is see from Kal in the movies ahead is a chance for redemption. How you feel, hopefuldreamer, is how the people and the children of Metropolis feel. Kal is a monster. But in watching the movie and seeing his past we all know that he isnt. I think this is where the true story of Superman begins. What actions does he take to redeem himself.

Could there have been some scenes where he saved some kids. Sure. But I dont think those who hated the killing would have liked the movie better. In movies last impressions count and the last action in that suit he took a life.

Are you not at all intrigued how he answers for his actions and his carelessness. Im very interested in seeing the growth of Superman as opposed to seeing him as a finished product by movie #1.

As I explained, I don't see how they can address his actions in MOS as careless or wrong in any way, without negating the supposed impossibility of the outcome, and without going back on the 'Your dad would be so proud of you' stuff that came straight after.

They've dug themselves into a hole.

 

[blumatic]

As I explained, I don't see how they can address his actions in MOS as careless or wrong in any way, without negating the supposed impossibility of the outcome, and without going back on the 'Your dad would be so proud of you' stuff that came straight after.

They've dug themselves into a hole.

But his dad and his mom could be proud of Clark. They're his parents. As big of a mess he left. He stepped up and saved the world. Lois knows, the family he saved from Zod saw that, his parents saw that. Kal will have is proponents.

The next thing for Kal is to build trust to those who hate him. Do acts of good deeds.

You say they dug themselves a hole. I think they built themselves a mountain to climb. They set him back many steps. Now he has to move forward and build his legacy.

Do you believe that this is the "final form" of Superman?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

As I already stated, I don't think the film left us with anything close to a fully formed Superman.

But I don't feel like it ended with some indication there is a mountain to climb or any indication that redemption was neccesary.

I feel it ended with his actions celebrated.

By the world (the 'he saved us' line), by the military (by the scene that immediately followed in which Superman and the military seemed to have come to an agreement they were on the same side and could trust each other), and of course by his loved ones.

Where are you seeing this indication that somehow he has left a 'mess'?

It seems like people are only picking that up from the statements of Goyer and Snyder that exist outside of the actual events of the movie.

And since the casual movie goer will not have read those statements, they will be left with the same impression I am - that there was no negative reception to his actions. That it was absolutely the right thing to do, and the world agreed with him.

 

[blumatic]

As I already stated, I don't think the film left us with anything close to a fully formed Superman.

But I don't feel like it ended with some indication there is a mountain to climb or any indication that redemption was neccesary.

I feel it ended with his actions celebrated.

By the world (the 'he saved us' line), by the military (by the scene that immediately followed in which Superman and the military seemed to have come to an agreement they were on the same side and could trust each other), and of course by his loved ones.

Where are you seeing this indication that somehow he has left a 'mess'?

It seems like people are only picking that up from the statements of Goyer and Snyder that exist outside of the actual events of the movie.

And since the casual movie goer will not have read those statements, they will be left with the same impression I am - that there was no negative reception to his actions. That it was absolutely the right thing to do, and the world agreed with him.

The was no celebration for his actions. There is a small amount people that felt he did the right thing.

The military and Jenny actually saw him do good. So they believe him to be such. But there was no celebration. He didn't fly off into victory.

And it's obvious he left a message.

The conversation he had with the general at the end indicates there is distrust on both sides.

And the first image of the sequel shows a newspaper showing that there was a day of destruction. The movie left on a positive musical note but the story was left unfinished.

I didnt need a Goyer statement to tell me that he left a mess. I think a lot of people see that without help.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

We could flip flop back and forth all night, but tbh I don't know what more to say other than I don't agree.

 

[smallville fan]

I thought it wouldn't hurt to have a thread about this topic over here, but one of the things that I wanted to discuss about with everyone is regarding the "Double Standards" that people seem to have towards the character of Superman, especially as of late.

Personally, and I could be proven very wrong about this later on (which I'll gladly admit when done so), but I do strongly feel that the character has a huge stack of double standards set against him by audiences and fans, and this has been proven even more so with the release and reaction to "Man of Steel".

One of the gripes that I've seen a lot of people have and even make fun of is how Superman is no longer "Superman" due to the massive carnage that took place within Metropolis. Yet it feels like people constantly forget that most of the damage that took place within the city was due to Zod's Black Zero ship and that Superman was like on the other side of the world where he was trying to stop the World Machine, where it's destruction was the only way to stop Black Zero from destroying more buildings and killing more people.

Then there's the whole issue of how people bash Superman for having fought Zod the way he did in the city. Now granted, perhaps the fight could have gone better, surely people couldn't have forgotten that this type of battle and collateral damage takes place all the time within the comics.

Heck, if I had a nickel for every time I saw someone mentioning in the past on how they hoped that we'd get a fight with superman on the big screen like the ones that we've seen with him in the animated shows/films, I'd be pretty rich right now.

So why is it that Superman is getting bashed for doing something that has taken place several times within the comics and animated shows?

Not to mention, given the context that Clark had no prior experience in dealing with foes that had powers like him and wasn't really "superman" until the very end of the film, you'd think that people would be more understanding.

Furthermore, the whole death scene with Zod.... as much as we would like for Superman to find the other way, some times, there just isn't the other way. No matter what decision Superman made, he was going to lose something in the end and he chose the lesser of two evils. Personally, I applaud them for having the guts to put him in that realistic situation because to say that there's always another way is just B.S. imho.

It's not like Superman will go out and start killing off his villains, I mean just look at the reaction that he had from having done so to Zod in the first place.

Bale's Batman has killed as well, despite having three films dedicated towards him having a "no kill policy" during moments where it was do or die.

He pushed Harvey to his death in order to save Gordon's Son and he killed Talia and her driver in order to apprehend the bomb before it exploded in Gotham.

And I don't seem to recall anyone having issues with seeing Jor-el kill within MOS, which was a first I think as far as I know of in any takes featuring the character.

And don't get me started on how many times I saw someone say that they wanted Superman modernized for today's audience, only to cry foul and say that they should have kept him the same.

Seriously, as a Superman fan, it frustrates me to no end on how much flack the character gets at times for no reason.

I can understand if people had issues with MOS because it's not a perfect film and it could have been better. But seeing the character made fun of and bashed for things like this, it' s just freaking annoying and so hypocritical.

Absolutely, agree with every point.

hopefuldreamer

You dissapointment on how "superman" turned out in the end. And how it affected you in terms of shattering you vision of Superman and the thought that there may be an unshakable good is why I fine MOS very interesting.

As you explained with the Batman films talking about issues that the real world suffers from, I could not see a Superman story dealing with those same issues.

What is see from Kal in the movies ahead is a chance for redemption. How you feel, hopefuldreamer, is how the people and the children of Metropolis feel. Kal is a monster. But in watching the movie and seeing his past we all know that he isnt. I think this is where the true story of Superman begins. What actions does he take to redeem himself.

Could there have been some scenes where he saved some kids. Sure. But I dont think those who hated the killing would have liked the movie better. In movies last impressions count and the last action in that suit he took a life.

Are you not at all intrigued how he answers for his actions and his carelessness. Im very interested in seeing the growth of Superman as opposed to seeing him as a finished product by movie #1.

I've been saying to hopefuldreamer that the movie's a first act of a much larger story and you can't really judge it right now until the next film where consequences are explored and we see how all that big action that happened in MOS serves as a launching point and plot device as well as Superman's explosive arrival. It seems he/she just wants to jump on the hate bandwagon because everyone else is and wants to watch a Marvel Studios movie or a rehash of Avengers in DC. DC wants to do their own cinematic universe in their own unique method and should not be hated on just because it's nothing like Marvel's.

 

[blumatic]

I'm just confused as to where the celebration came from. I saw no fanfare at the end. I saw a tragic end for Superman.

I don't know what hopefuldreamer saw as celebrating Kal-El 's carelessness.

What I understand in hopefuldreamer disappointment is that it is similar to Mark Waids disappointment. Waid understood what they did but he just didn't like it and won't accept it and also hates he has to wait for the final form of Superman.

 

[Batmannerism]

Dude ! It is a great truth of our universe that you can't please everyone.

Personally, I loved MOS, and I was a huge fan of the Chris Reeve SM films, saw them as a kid (in the cinema, yes, I'm ancient !) and loved them to bits.

I went into MOS expecting to hate it, I was one of those people who was really worked up about superman killing, but......surprise surprise I loved it (well the movie, not the killing as such) when I viewed the film as a whole, the death of Zod made perfect sense.

As to the ending, I find it really weird that people don't see it as hopeful. When Lois says
"Welcome to the planet" she's speaking ironically (although that might be Alanis MOrisette Irony, as opposed to true irony), that he's finally joined the human race and found his place in the world.

Anyway, I think that people have to adapt with the times. I think the source of the double-standard is that people haven't let go of Superman films of the past.

Cav-El is a terrific Superman, for our time, the 21st Century, which is quite a dark and troubled time. I was really attached to Reeve as Superman, and still am, but if I let that stop me from enjoying the new interpretation, then I'm just clinging to the past. It is possible to enjoy what's gone before and still accept the new.

As for the carnage, hey if you want superman to be more realistic people, then if he and another Kryptonian throw-down in downtown, then down-town is going to get ****ed up !
The carnage was completely appropriate, I think Supes might have gotten a bit more beat up before he killed Zod, but other than that it was great.
Let's remember, super-hero films are a sub-set of the action genre, if you don't have action in an action film you have....Superman Returns !

No matter what anyone says, MOS was great.....and if you can't accept it was great, then it was at least a million times better than Superman returns ! Even Patrick Stewart hated that one, and that says a lot.

In summary, double-standards bad ! MOS great ! and as always, Superman prevails !

I'd say QED here, but I haven't been very logical. Sorry, if I post again I'll get a bit more logical. Anyway, Peace out !

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

A double standard; Superman is put down by people because he can "do anything," but Batman's awesome because he can do everything.

 

[the last son]

Honestly in todays ultra violent world people aren't looking for hope in ways of god like beings. They enjoy flawed characters who have human problems. I personally enjoy Superman, but can see how someone can find him boring. It's hard to touch Superman which makes him hard to relate to. I mean if he wanted he could turn on humans and be a ruler, which is why people may not like his character or trust him.

 

[herolee10]

@ Hopefuldreamer

Aw shucks, I definitely appreciate you taking the time to respond to my super long post.

I can definitely understand where you're coming from regarding the film. The truth of the matter is, there isn't that many "Happy" or even "Positive" moments within the film for Superman or the story for that matter.

Many people die, with a lot of them being those close or associated with Superman. And the character is always thrown under a bus when it comes to problems and obstacles after having made his way out of a previous one

I do hope that the next film finds a better balance in being able to tell a happier story for Superman while not sacrificing the drama for cheap laughs.

You know what's funny, regarding the visual impact of kids seeing Superman snap Zod's neck... the weird thing is that we've seen someone as "good" as Captain America who threw a man into the blade of an fighter plane and another man to his death from the hellcarrier, but I never recalled hearing any parents saying that it came off as too dark for them.

Honestly, I think the fact that Superman being Superman can work against him because like others have said, he's been so revered for so long in one way or another that it's just hard seeing him in positions where he seems fallible and where he doesn't have an answer for everything.

I do hope that the next film also further establishes him as the hero that the world will come to love and admire like Jor-el mentioned.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I just wanted to add that I think a lot of the double standard for Supes comes from there being such a divide in the fandom anyway in how people want him portrayed. The pre/post crisis debate.

So you'll get a bunch of fans screaming for one change, and then when that change happens, the other fans who didn't want that change will be bad mouthing it...

But we all knew the movie wasn't going to make everyone happy.

I've been saying to hopefuldreamer that the movie's a first act of a much larger story and you can't really judge it right now until the next film where consequences are explored and we see how all that big action that happened in MOS serves as a launching point and plot device as well as Superman's explosive arrival. It seems he/she just wants to jump on the hate bandwagon because everyone else is and wants to watch a Marvel Studios movie or a rehash of Avengers in DC. DC wants to do their own cinematic universe in their own unique method and should not be hated on just because it's nothing like Marvel's.

Anyone who knows me and knows that I didn't particularly care for the Avengers can clearly see how stupid your post is.

Whatever bee in your bonnet you've got for me, get over it.

The care and time I took to explain my thoughts honestly and openly in the way I just did deserves more than some *****e with an ignorant attitude not even bothering to read the content and just attempting to bash me.

As to the ending, I find it really weird that people don't see it as hopeful. When Lois says "Welcome to the planet" she's speaking ironically (although that might be Alanis MOrisette Irony, as opposed to true irony), that he's finally joined the human race and found his place in the world.

Definitely. I get my impression of how they left it from 4 things.

1) A slow and poignant moment where Perry and Lombard and Jenny are looking around and Jenny says 'He saved us', as though in awe of the wonderful feat that Superman just achieved.

2) The scene immediately following the neck snap, in which Superman and General Swanwick come to an agreement about trusting each other, in which Superman denounces himself as 'as american as they come', and the cadet expresses what I assume would be a popular opinion of any female human having seen Superman in action - he's hot.

3) A touching scene with his mother in which she talks about how his father always knew he'd turn out to be a great hero.

4) The scene following that in which Clark is happy and smiling and excited about a bright future in Metropolis while being shown around the Daily Planet, and as you said, welcomed into the fold.

Now seriously people. Seriously... what scene are you getting this sense that there is a big mess he has to come back from?

The only places that can come from is a) your imagination based on what you consider logical reaction and b) what Snyder/Goyer have said.

But that shouldn't be the case.

The film shouldn't point one way at the end, and then leave us to try and reason between the gaps and try and find a way to make it fit because of what the director and writer have stated might happen next.

If they wanted to show that a sequel was going to be about people not approving of what he did, or the fear it created, or even him deciding killing isn't a thing he ever wants to do again... they should have set some of that up at the end...

What they did was set up the opposite IMO, and now they have to go back on themselves.

@ Hopefuldreamer

Aw shucks, I definitely appreciate you taking the time to respond to my super long post.

I can definitely understand where you're coming from regarding the film. The truth of the matter is, there isn't that many "Happy" or even "Positive" moments within the film for Superman or the story for that matter.

Many people die, with a lot of them being those close or associated with Superman. And the character is always thrown under a bus when it comes to problems and obstacles after having made his way out of a previous one

I do hope that the next film finds a better balance in being able to tell a happier story for Superman while not sacrificing the drama for cheap laughs.

You know what's funny, regarding the visual impact of kids seeing Superman snap Zod's neck... the weird thing is that we've seen someone as "good" as Captain America who threw a man into the blade of an fighter plane and another man to his death from the hellcarrier, but I never recalled hearing any parents saying that it came off as too dark for them.

Honestly, I think the fact that Superman being Superman can work against him because like others have said, he's been so revered for so long in one way or another that it's just hard seeing him in positions where he seems fallible and where he doesn't have an answer for everything.

I do hope that the next film also further establishes him as the hero that the world will come to love and admire like Jor-el mentioned.

But it's not as though I am a stubborn fan of pre crisis era Supes like Kurosawa was.

I want a human personality. I want Clark the man, Superman the Superhero part of him.

And that involves a certain amount of being falliable and not having an answer for everything.

There's just this really fine line between making the hero relatable and pulling them so far down to our level that they don't feel as inspiring anymore.

As for the neck snap, I know people will laugh at me for saying it, but I just find the action of a neck snap so much more brutal and violent than fall from a hellicarrier or being thrown into something.

It's just so hands on. Brutal, close up violence, and this loud crack that echoes through a silent building.

It's much more shocking to me.

Praise it if you will. It makes me cry every single time.

 

[herolee10]

But it's not as though I am a stubborn fan of pre crisis era Supes like Kurosawa was.

I want a human personality. I want Clark the man, Superman the Superhero part of him.

And that involves a certain amount of being falliable and not having an answer for everything.

There's just this really fine line between making the hero relatable and pulling them so far down to our level that they don't feel as inspiring anymore.

As for the neck snap, I know people will laugh at me for saying it, but I just find the action of a neck snap so much more brutal and violent than fall from a hellicarrier or being thrown into something.

It's just so hands on. Brutal, close up violence, and this loud crack that echoes through a silent building.

It's much more shocking to me.

Praise it if you will. It makes me cry every single time.

I went and saw "Man of Steel" in theaters 5 times, and each time I went and saw that moment, my heart started racing because I knew what was going to happen each time I viewed the film. And every time the scene played out, there was a huge gasp, followed by eerie silence within the theater room that I was in. If I didn't know it any better, I'd say that a lot of people (the ones that didn't spoil themselves of the ending) felt as though a loud and violent explosion just erupted.

I swear, no matter what anyone else says, Superman is without a doubt the HARDEST character to do on the big screen. There's just no simple way of doing it.haha, especially within today's world.

Honestly, I think the film also caught a lot of people off guard with how brutal it was in general, with how people were killed within the destruction of Metropolis and how powerful the fight was between superman and Zod, etc. I mean, I can't think of any film that saw this large of a body count done so in a such a eerie way for a comic book superhero film.

Though I wonder why no one ever really brings up being disturbed by when CR's Superman literally choked his evil counterpart to death. Honestly, it's that's moment, along with that whole junkyard scene, that really gave me the creeps back when I used to watch it as a kid. It was just so brutal and intimate at the same time. They didn't need super huge special effects to make it brutal; it just felt very real. And yeah, considering that even though it was his evil counterpart, it was still a living sentient being and the fact that Superman killed him by choking him, well I thought that more people would have been bothered by that.

 

[Steve Holt]

i can accept all of it i think except for the fact he didn't save/try to save Dr Hamilton as well

 

[herolee10]

i can accept all of it i think except for the fact he didn't save/try to save Dr Hamilton as well

How could he though? Dr. Hamilton was already dead by the time Superman emerged from the rubble in the ground.

 

[The Batman]

There's a simple reason why there's a double standard for Superman: he's Superman.

This.

For me personally, its partially about feeling that MOS, instead of standing out from the herd like Superman, IMO, should do, pretty much seems like your typical modern day CBM. The trend setter is now following the trends.

 

[Krumm]

This.

For me personally, its partially about feeling that MOS, instead of standing out from the herd like Superman, IMO, should do, pretty much seems like your typical modern day CBM. The trend setter is now following the trends.

I'd agree with this mostly in terms of the dark serious tone that was all over this summer's blockbusters -- thanks TDK.

But I think that it's handling of the villains demise (Zod's death, obviously) is something that yet to really be done in comic book film. The emotional impact that it had on the character and subsequent effect it will have on the character's POV (hopefully to come in sequels) is a new experience to me.

 

[The Batman]

Zod's death is one of the few scenes in the film that was executed well, IMO.