Let's start by saying I am not a big fan of Superman. Just as there are Macs and there are PCs, I believe you are either a Superman or a Batman. And, I am definitely a Batman. But, first and foremost I love comic books and therefore have to have at least a working knowledge of Superman mythos. I have read Superman comics, seen every Superman movie, watched the old serials, the Lois and Clarke series, the first few seasons of Smallville, and the animated series. Yet despite or maybe because of this, I still simply cannot find any emotional connection to the Last Son of Krypton. And, aside from being unable to relate to him, I just find him kind of boring. Even his villains are boring. Usually Lex Luthor, General Zod, and Braniac are the only names that come to mind when I try and recall any of Superman's foes. That is the limit of memorable villains I associate with him. Whereas I could probably name 20 of Batman's off the top of my head easily and like all of them.
One of the complaints I hear a most about superhero movies is "It's not canon". People complain that this or that isn't how it happened in the comic book. Well, guess what?
1. There is no such thing as canon.
2. It isn't the comic book.
Marvel and DC have been guilty of revamping and rebooting their characters and universes for as long as they've been making comics. They change costumes, change origins, create alternate timelines, multi-verses, one-shot what-ifs?, etc. So, why is it so hard for some people to understand that the film versions are still further alternate versions of their comic book heroes? People who watch movies with me will say, but you always point out the differences. And, that's true. But, I'm not complaining, simply explaining differences, showing how the director adapted or worked around a plot point or effect.
There are also the people who haven't read a comic book in 40 years and say, "Hey! Christian Bale's Batman is so dark." or "Hey! Why is Superman in tights with his underwear on the outside?" This is a viewpoint I simply dismiss. If you can't be bothered to keep up with the characters then I can't be bothered to take your complaints seriously.
However, when you change the fundamental core, the very ideals and principles that make a character who they are for the last 70 odd years, then there is something wrong. The trend toward creating realistic versions of our superheroes is great. I love it. But, making characters realistic does not mean that Superman is no longer Superman. And, realistic does not necessarily mean "dark". THat works for Batman. Batman is dark. But, making a dark Superman means you have created an entirely different character and you throw the name "Superman" on it because Superman is the movie people want to see, not some character they never heard of and tickets will not sell.
"Human Relations"
It is hard not to compare "Man of Steel" to Superman II as they are very much the same movie. And, to me the most important difference between the two is Superman's behavior concerning human beings. In Superman II, Kal-El (Superman's Kryptonian name and the name I will usually refer to him as) does everythig he can to safeguard the lives of the peole of Metropolis from the "collaterol damage" of his fight with Zod and the Kryptonians. General Zod even points it out:
"I have discovered his weakness. He cares.
He actually cares for these Earth people."
Realizing this, Zod turns his assault on the people of Metropolis instead. At this point, Kal-El, rather than endanger innocent lives, flees to the arctic where no humans will be hurt from continued Kryptonian on Kryptonian violence.
But, in "Man of Steel", Kal-El seems to have no regard fo the citizens of Metropolis. He is willing to battle Zod to the death in downtown Metropolis, leveling most of the city in the process, employing tactics which actually endanger people.
Did it look amazing? Hell yes! It was an awesome brawl that finally captured the true scope of an epic clash between two god-like kryptonians on Earth. However, this brings me to one of my #1 rule in movie making:
"Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do that thing."
Accepting that at the core of his character is the idea that Kal-El would never intentionally harm a human being or allow harm to come to a human being, this epic battle should have been taken away from the city at some point. These two could have gone anywhere on Earth from mountains to forests, jungles to deserts, volcanoes to icy wastelands. And, in fact, the fight may have seemed even more amazing as it got very boring very quickly remaining in Metropolis, knocking building after building down.
Jonathan Kent vs. Bizzaro Joanthan Kent
I think the thing that disturbed me about this movie more than anything else and may be at the heart of all my other issues with the film, was Jonathan Kent played by Kevin Costner.
Superman has always been the son of two fathers. Biologically he is the son of Jor-El, inheriting all of the physical traits of a Kryptonian, and is thus, relatively speaking a God. However, he has no contact with his biological parents and is raised by humans, Martha and Jonathan Kent. Superman has proven to be one of the best fictional representations of the Nature vs. Nurture argument in pop culture to date.
Had baby Kal-El's ship landed somewhere other than Kansas and been found by Ma & Pa Kent, Superman as we know him would not exist. If he had landed on a military base in New Mexico, he could've been raised by government scientists and used as the ultimate weapon. Had he landed in Afghanastan and been raised by members of Al-Qaida, September 11th could have seen the destructio of he entire city of New York instead of just the World Trade Center. This is an idea that has been explored in the comics before, most notably recently in the story "Red Son" where Kal-El was raised in Russia rather than the United States.
But, in "Man of Steel" I believe we see that same idea explored in a more subtle fashion. What would happen if instead of being discovered by Depression-era, optimistic, ideal middle American couple, Kal-El was raised by a modern version of the American farmer, a man who was raised in the 60s and 70s, lived through Watergate and all the scandals that followed, who is scared and bitter ? Well then you get the Superman portrayed in "Man of Steel".
The classic message of Jonathan Kent has been, "You are here to help people."
The message of Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent is, " You need to protect yourself." The most astonishing and slightly upsetting moment of the movie was not the free-for-all destruction of a city, but when Jonathan Kent admonishes a young Clark for saving a school bus full of children from drowning. When Clark asks whether he should have let them all die, Jonathan says yes. This is the real reason Kal-El has no problem destroying a city full of innocent people. This is the reason this Superman is so dark. This is why this Superman is not Superman. Superman will grow up to be what he was taught to be and in the following clip it is clear that this Jonathan Kent isn't really teaching Clark to be anything.
Jonathan Kent is supposed to Kal-El's moral compass, the man from whom he learns his compassion, his fairness, his belief in "Truth, Justice, and the American Way." So, maybe this film is more of a commentary on the American way than anything else??
Jonathan Kent is supposed to Kal-El's moral compass, the man from whom he learns his compassion, his fairness, his belief in "Truth, Justice, and the American Way." So, maybe this film is more of a commentary on the American way than anything else??
Why do we care?
There is a reason that General Zod did not arrive to earth until the second of the original Superman films. It was necessary to establish Superman first. By time Zod and his cronies show up in the second film, the world is rooting for Superman. The citizens of Metropolis even dare to attempt to attack Zod when they think Superman has been killed. Why would they do this? Becasue they know who he is? They know he has saved the world from destruction at least once and from a myriad of other shown and implied disasters. Superman is a public figure who has earned the respect and adoration of the world at large due to his selfless nature.
In "Man of Steel", Clark has been skulking around the world anonymously doing good deeds due to this "Protect yourself at all cost" philosophy that has been driven into him by his cynical adopted father. When Zod arrives and demands Kal-El be turned over to the Kryptonians, why should anybody care. The world has no emotional investment in this guy. For all we know Kal-El is the villain. The only person aside from his mother who knows who he is is investigative reporter Lois Lane, who has no problem running around, shattering his anonymity by constantly calling him Clark. By the end of the film Superman has saved the world, sort-of. It actually took a lot of people to get the job done and in the process did so much damage that I do not see how the people of the Earth would be full of gratitude and adoration.
I think I can visualize how this happened. Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan are sitting around saying "We don't want to do another origin story. Everyone know Superman's origin." That's true. We as viewers all know the story. The problem is, the people who populate that world do not. And then they wind up changing enough things about Superman that they needed to go back and show the changes in the origin so that their changes made sense.
"S" stands for what???
When Kal-El finds the Kryptonina vessel which is buried in the ice somewhere above the arctic circle, he encounters a hologram of his father, Jor-El (played by Russel Crowe, who as my friend Jack put it, seemed to be playing Russel Crowe). First of all, this ship had been on Earth had been on Earth for thousands of years before Kal-El was even born. So, why is there a hologram of his father on board waiting for him? And, for those who didn't catch it, when Kal-El is exploring he finds that the crew have been dead for all that time in malfunctioning stasis beds. All except one. There is one bed open with no one in it. Wonder where that Kryptonian got off to.
Now hologram Russel Crowe is just similar to hologram Marlon Brando from the original Superman films. Kal-El can interact with him, ask him questions, etc. But whereas Marlon BRando had only a few prerecorded answers, Russel Crowe is the complete downloaded intelligence and personality of Jor-El. Basically a still living Jor-El in shimmery light form running around telling people what to do and giving some expository information about Krypton.
First we learn that on Krypton, genetic engineering has broken society down into what we would call castes or clans based on their professions. Second, we learn that children are grown and harvested after being engineered to fill a role in one of these castes. We learn that Kal-El was not grown. He was the first child to be born naturally in a long time (this might explain why he is not very smart or at least not as smart as either of his parents). And, finally we learn that the "S" on his chest stands for "hope".
"WHAT???"
Every Kryptonian has their caste name emblazoned on their chest. The "S" on his chest stands for "El", his family/caste name. If it has a meaning, it would be scientist or geophysicist.It stands for hope. Just shut up.
It is also explained why Kryptonians are more powerful on Earth.... and it's very scientific.... actually it isn't at all. It's really stupid. The reason given is that the Earth's sun is younger than the sun of Krypton and thus gives off "young radiation" as opposed to "old radiation".
WHAT??????
What the hell is "young radiation"? It makes no sense. One of my biggest gripes with movies this summer is the ridiculousness of the pseudo-science they haul out to explain away things. It is not that I don't believe things cannot be explained this way, but this summer it seems like no one is even trying to make sense. They could have made up a type of radiation like they do on Star Trek. The Sun of krypton emits Theraton radiation unlike the Earth's sun which emits gamma radiation...and gamma radiation causes Kryptonians cells to vibrate at higher giving us the ability to create heat from our eyes. Whatever. Anything would have been better than young and old. Forget the simple idea that a planet with greater mass and gravity would very naturally cause someone visiting a planet with less mass and gravity to be stronger and harder to hurt. You know actual science. Film makers need to take their scripts to any undergrad science student who likes sci-fi before ever filming to make sure their science is plausible or will at least hold up against our bullshit detectors
But then it gets really confusing. Because is it radiation or is it the air on Earth? Well suddenly the writers realize they need a reason to employ the giant special effect machine that will terraform the Earth to be habitable by Kryptonians. So, now they need to wear respirators. Forget the fact that terraforming a planet does not change the "type" of radiation the planet's sun is emitting.
This brings me to my next big complaint about movies of late and my rule #2:
"Be consistent."
An audience is willing to suspend their disbelief. That is why we pay to to go the movies. But, we are not stupid. If you are going to set up a rule about the world the movie takes place in then you must follow that rule for the whole movie. Otherwise your movie doesn't make sense and we get pissed off.
"Non-unity of design"
Being consistent not only is applicable to science and plot but also design. Civilization has a general unity of design when it comes to everything we create. Cars have generally looked the same in every part of the world since they were first invented. Smartphones all have the same look. Watches, backpacks, shoes, houses, supermarkets all have a basic design that makes them recognizable anywhere to anybody. Certain countries have ethnic/historic design elements that have been incorporated in their creations which identify them immediatly as being from this place or that place. In film, unity of design in crucial. When featuring other civilizations whether they be terrestrial or alien a consistency of design is integral not only to creating visual cues for the audience but for informing them of aspects of these cultures. The elves in Peter Jackson's LOrd of the Rings trilogy had a very consistent exotic design from their homes to their clothing, to their silverware. THe Empire in Star Wars has a very consistent design.
But "Man of Steel", is a modge podge of conflicting and confusing visuals which creates a disconnect between the viewer and the society they are being presented with. I call this "FX trending". Whenever new visual effects arise in Hollywood we are bomabarded by it in every film for 2-3 years. I first noticed it with "morphing technology" in the 90s, the shapeshifting liquid effect that debuted in James Cameron's "The Abyss" and became famous in "Terminator 2" seen in the following clip.
"Man of Steel"'s depiction of Kryptonian technology incorporated several of the current "FX trends". First there is Kal-El's Superman outfit. Kal-El is gifted with one of these new synthetic, skintight rubber superhero body suits first seen in Spider-Man. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself. However, no one else is wearing anything like it. The rest of Krypton is wearing ornate, almost organic looking armor. Now, why are they wearing armor? It makes sense that General Zod is. He is in the military. But why is Jor-El, a scientist, and everyone else wearing elaborate bulky armor around the house and the city? It makes no sense. If everyone was wearing skintight rubber body suits it would make sens and in turn would make sense why Superman wears the outfit he does.
This brings us to rule #3:
"Your design choices have to make sense"
THis is sort of an extension of rule #1, but I feel it is slightly more nuanced.
Meanwhile back on Krypton, we see another "FX trend", the pressure pin technology which is also being featured in Avengers and The Wolverine. Then there is the segmented vessel technology that has been in Avengers and Transformers creating ships that fly around like centipedes. Once again, does it make sense? Do you have to include it? No on both counts. There is also the choice of including flying alien livestock which is somehow capable of outrunning highly advance military spacecraft. Was this needed? Did it make sense? No on both counts.
Before he went crazy, George Lucas once said that special effects are used to further the plot of a film not overshadow it (take a good long look in the mirror George). This sentiment is my philosophy to this day. I have nothing against special effects. I love them. I want to see more and more and more, but only if they make sense and further the story.
So, in closing, I was shocked at how far Zack Snyder was able to diverge from who Superman is. I did not have high hopes for this film to begin with, but was even more disappointed than I expected to be afterwards. Is Superman simply not translatable to the modern day? Have we as a nation slipped so far from the principles that made Superman who he was that he has lost meaning. Or, is it simply another failed attempt to make a connection to this character who is so cannot be related to? I don't know.
All I know is that despite critical reviews box office success has prompted the go-ahead for the next DC comic film, a team-up between this Superman and a Batman (who will not be Christian Bale). I am hoping they go the path that has been done in the comics before where Batman sees how inherently dangerous Kal-eL is and manages to take him down a few pegs.
But, here is my fear.
