5 Ways ‘Batman V Superman’ Can Justify ‘Man of Steel’

Published 1 month ago by , Updated July 30th, 2014 at 10:45 am,

Man of Steel 2 Movie Batman Superman Dawn Justice League 5 Ways Batman V Superman Can Justify Man of Steel

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice will bring us the next chapter in director Zack Snyder’s burgeoning DC Movie Universe – and for better or worse (depending on who you are), the foundation for that universe is Henry Cavill’s Superman, as depicted in the film Man of Steel.

Fan debate still rages (and we do mean rages) over Snyder’s interpretation of the Superman character and lore  – with part of the blame and/or praise going to script contributors Chris Nolan and David S. Goyer. We have a divisive cinematic Superman on our hands right now, but rather than continue the circular debate about whether or not Man of Steel was a great Superman movie (or even just a good movie), it’s time to be more constructive and look ahead to the future in order to maybe identify ways that Snyder and CO. can utilize some of what fans didn’t like, in ways that can best enhance the story and character arcs of Batman V Superman.

Here are 5 ways that the Man of Steel version of Superman could be put to good use in Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice:

-

5. Lost Fathers

Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent in Man of Steel 5 Ways Batman V Superman Can Justify Man of Steel

It’s no secret that in comic book lore Superman and Batman (or rather, Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne) have both lost their fathers; however, in most tellings, Superman’s loss is much less tragic than the “Jonathan Kent vs The Tornado” sacrifice we saw in Man of Steel. How Pa Kent died (and why) is one of the more debated aspects of the Superman reboot (was it effective? Silly? Poorly shot?), but it is the story we have, so let’s make some damn good lemonade out of it.

Beyond the Batman / Superman superhero action that everybody is most excited about, Dawn of Justice needs to also address the men behind the mask, and what ultimately connects them as “men,” and not just superheroes. Thanks to Man of Steel, this film offers the rare opportunity to have Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne bond over the pain of patriarchal loss in a way we really haven’t seen before.

Gotham Death of Bruce Waynes Parents 5 Ways Batman V Superman Can Justify Man of Steel

Moreover, both this new version of Thomas Wayne and the MoS Jonathan Kent/Jor-El combo can be positioned as men who died for ideals (helping Gotham, protecting Clark and Earth). That would provide deep, rich common ground for their superhero sons to bond on – a foundation of deeply-rooted values and ideals that define an entire Justice League.

-

4. Illegal Alien

Man of Steel Superman Fan Art 5 Ways Batman V Superman Can Justify Man of Steel

One thing that Man of Steel treated much differently than previous Superman movies was the character’s status as an alien. Back when Superman was created in 1938, aliens were hardly party of the mainstream zeitgeist; however, in our sci-fi saturated modern society, the question of alien encounter is more “when” than “if.” In that context, Man of Steel had to treat the revelation of an extraterrestrial superpowered being from a more cynical modern perspective. But a world where Superman isn’t automatically established as a globally-accepted do-gooder deity could be interesting for Dawn of Justice.

In the famous graphic novel Kingdom Come, we saw a vision of the near future where concerns about out of control metahumans force Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor into an uneasy alliance in the name of defending humanity. That same idea could (and likely will) trickle down to Batman V Superman, if Superman’s handling of Zod has made him as feared and hated as he is loved.

Indeed “The Alien” nature of Superman could provide some great narrative thrust, if the story involves Batman’s views on “humanity,” and his ultimate pivot from the side of Lex to the side of Kal-El. (Side note: that would also be a pretty meta way to hopefully pull a lot of skeptical fans to the side of this new DC Universe.)

-

NEXT PAGE: The Top 3 Tips

« 1 2»

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: batman, batman vs superman, comic con 2014, justice league, superman

184 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. Is funny that people hated the fact that Affleck was cast as the Bat, all of sudden everybody likes him LOL …Teaser looks awesome

    • I thought Batman looked horrible in the trailer. Pause it on the frames where lightening strikes and you can actually see Batman’s face. It looks horrendous.

  2. For the record, Kofi Outlaw’s reference to Kingdom Come in his subsection, “Alien” is very misleading. As compelling as it would be to have a reference to the venerable Kingdom Come backing up one of your arguments, the devil is in the details… which Outlaw has gotten all wrong. There never was an “uneasy alliance” between Wayne and Luthor. Batman needed to know where Captain Marvel – who was being brainwashed by Luther – fit into the balance of power and so duped Luthor into letting him and his allies into the Mankind Liberation Front. As soon as he discovered Luthor’s bluff, Wayne seized control and locked the whole outfit up. At no time was he ever serious about an alliance with Luthor, because he is not a complete imbecile. He wanted to learn from him (he says as much) and once he was satisfied with the information he obtained, he removed Luthor from the equation entirely. It was a brilliant charade constructed by the world’s greatest detective, not some utterly desperate pooling of resources “in the name of defending humanity.” To Kofi Outlaw: I can’t see how such a bastardization of this particular plot point was accidental. Was it was deliberate or startlingly ignorant? I understand you want support for your various hypotheses, but I advise you to look elsewhere before creating tenuous connections that don’t stand scrutiny.

    • Glad Batman had you around to settle that. You totally called me out.

  3. The weak and terrible parts of MoS are not so easily washed. They would do better to ignore them and focus on the big two and the introductions of the others. That said, the problems in MoS do signify a weakness in the storytelling by the creators of that movie.

    • True, true.

  4. What I don’t get is,I thought Man Of Steel was a great movie,and the so called flaws I see nit picked to death are so silly,its unbelievable.These same flaws and nit picks are in every comic book movie to date,but seem to be under a more scrutinizing eye then other films in the genre it pertains to.I personally think Zack Snyder should stick to what he wants to do with Superman.I honestly believe the loudest nay sayers about Man Of Steel have a fan complex about the Marvel Cinematic Universe,and want it to be the talk of the town.What would be interesting to see is if the Loudest Man Of Steel Haters are just Marvel Cinematic Universe Fan Boys.Why does every comic book universe have to feel like Marvels,are we now borg.

    • I am with you Vicious Vic, I also taught that Man of steel was a very good movie, I would have given it a 3.5 stars out 5. I am totally on board with what Zack Snyder is trying to do as a director and as a fan. He has a vision and is going to execute it. Good for him. Fans will always complain no matter what, it is part of the business some will like the final product, some will not. As for me, I am definitely on board once again with Zack’s vision. What is funny is that, if you put a fan behind the camera, other fans will not like the final product so either way it will always be a lost cause for the directors and writers who will tackle comic book movies in general. My advice to those unhappy with Zack’s vision of Superman, just enjoy the ride and hope that years down the road some other directors will take on Superman the way you always wished a director would. Again JUST ENJOY THE RIDE because no matter how you want to nit pick man of steel, it was an enjoyable ride that laid the foundations for what is to come in the DC universe. Plus nothing is perfect, there will always be flaws in a movie, the most important thing is that the good things about a movie overshadow the imperfections. To finish, I am a HUGE DC COMICS FAN BOY (DIE HARD FAN) and I only swear by DC but I also enjoyed some of Marvel’s movies and am intrigued by Guardians of the Galaxy. My point with that is for MARVEL’S DIE HARD FANS outthere who love criticizing DC movies you can critic DC but be fair and objective about the good products that DC is or has been putting out there (remember Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy. My rant is over!!!

      • +1 to both of you. I too grew up a DC fan first and s marvel fan secondly. For the most part I enjoyed the movie from both companies altho I will say I like the style of DC more. I feel that because man of steel wasn’t similar in style to the recent marvel movies that it has unfairly been bashed. By no means was it perfect but I feel it did a lot more right than it did wrong.

        • I personally liked the first 30-45min and then it started to get worse. The last few minutes were decent and overall it was a good take on the character. Not a great movie but I think it`s worth owning. The only potentially awful thing for me about the upcoming film are the casting choices and in particular that guy who is set to play Lex (who will bring not only his face but that irritable talking he does in his films). I feel that there are many many people who could have been cast instead. Brian Cranston would have been ideal.

      • yes an Nolan destroy batman he do same to superman worst director there is get some body who can bring them back like chris reeves we don’t need the bad being good an the good becoming bad

    • Well said, I totally agree!!

    • Brilliant, well said.

    • Just as an FYI, not everyone that hated Man of Steel are just Marvel fan boys trying to diminish anything coming from DC. Superman is my favorite character (Batman being the second), and I really despised much of what Man of Steel had to say about the themes of heroism, self sacrifice and hope. When those are the explicit themes of the movie, criticizing those elements that undermine those messages being conveyed is not exactly what I would call “nit picking”.

  5. Superman threw his first punch the same day he saved the world,There will be destruction and death when saving the planet,especially when its the first day on the job,what did you expect a Disney Theme Park.

  6. Kofi, those are some really cool points that I hope BvS will tackle. I doubt all 5 of them will be woven into the script, but 2 or 3 will be very much appreciated.

    Thanks for the strong article.

    Cheers Outlaw Jaw, keep yapin’! lol :-)

    • Totally agree with you Karmick! Also it would be awesome if they could tackle those 2 or 3 points you are talking about in a 3 hour movie. If Peter Jackson did it with the hobbit and LOTR, you can do it Zack please! that would be so worth it!!! People would definitely see a 3 hour BvS movie!!!

      • +100!

        I certainly wouldn’t walk out of the theater, that’s for sure…lol

        :-)

  7. I just want a good story that shows how Superman and Batman bond and become friends and plenty of action. And good villains for them to fight.

  8. come on, he was like an eagle scout what are they gonna suggest he’s some malovelent sp? aline? seriously

  9. even walking out at the end of MoS I saw the foundations of
    “who is this alien among us?”
    – Superman always has good publicity; what happens when there is a seed of doubt Because there was a body count?
    – with the addition of Batman et al to the project; his being seen as suspicious on some level is the perfect excuse to have someone come to Metropolis to see who his and what his intent may be. who is to say how many Supers have been active and for how long? is the League established on some level or is Kal-El a Magnet that pulls them to one location to interact after operating in their personal space for however long

    “Lex Luthor; Savior of Metropolis”
    – What better way for Lex to cement himself as a Villain with Good Publicity” than to rebuild the physical damage to Metropolis
    “But, but Superman doesn’t Kill people”
    – and Having to make that hard choice on his first day of ‘super-heroing’ is why Killing isn’t just the ‘last thing he wants to do” the idea it’s even on the list is repulsive (just like ‘Robin’ throwing away the gun in TDKR)

    • So… It’s repulsive because it’s not the way you want him even that’s the way he is in the comics? Go back to arrow and twilight since you don’t even know the character.

  10. Act 1 Batman and superman kill each other.
    Act 2/3 strictly a Flash movie.

    There, fixed all the issues

  11. If the target is to establish Superman as a hero and saviour to the people, then the entire opening act should be focused on just him.

    Either through a montage or one or two big action sequences, show him saving people multiple times across the globe and in different ways. From volcanoes, tidal waves, earthquakes etc have Superman save people from the most catastrophic of events. Truly emphasise on his importance to the world in general.

    Establishing Clark Kent the reporter shouldn’t be too difficult. Only this time give Cavill an opportunity to inject an actual persona of the character. Make him a happy, carefree, quirky personality. Some actual chemistry with Lois Lane would be nice, but to be honest this movie has got way more other things to try and achieve in it’s running time.

    Of course we should be getting a 100% Superman-centric story but it is what it is.

  12. I had very mixed feelings about MOS as a whole, but, to me, it had the best superhero special effects of any Superhero movie to date. By a comfortable margin. I far prefer Marvel’s fare as overall movies, but Snyder’s superhero battles seem a full generation ahead, technically speaking and from a choreography standpoint. This is why I worry about them matching that awesome kineticism in the sequel – How can Supes battling mere mortals like Lex and bats hope to compare to dueling Kryptonians? The solution the comics gave us, for Bats at leasts, was Hulking robot armor… I wonder how well that solution would play in live action.

    • Lex will be wearing the Kalbuster armor, inspired by him reading Iron Man comics.

      I’m kinda curious how similar or different it’ll be compared to Stark’s Hulkbuster Armor?

      So little time, so many silly questions…!

      lol :-)

    • As far as I’m concerned, they’ve still only announced Lex Luthor as a villain. I do not count senators and bodyguards as villains. They may be villanous, but so was Earle in Batman Begins and nobody is counting him as a villain. When people speak of villains in the one, they speak of Scarecrow and Ra’s Al Ghul. The main ones.

      That means they could still have a secret villain that will pack a punch. Somebody like Doomsday, Metallo or Bizarro.

      I am also not sure if Batman and Superman will actually fight at any point, or if they will just disagree and get in each other’s way.

  13. Great article, Kofi. If all these themes are touched on in the movie, it’ll def be something! (Along with seeing Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman suited up side by side!) BOSS

  14. Let’s just hope we don’t see Aquaman on a winged creature like Jor-El in Man of Steel, similar to …Sucker Punch. Clark Kent only showed up for the last 10 seconds of Man of Steel. The government will undoubtedly be questioning Lois Lane right off the bat, to quote a pun.

  15. I personally like the tweak that they did toward Jonathan Kent’s death, as I see it, it becomes the catalyst for Supes to be a hero, because of that event that he was not able to save his father, he will want to save others more. Now I know to most fans of Superman, it is a big no-no to change what’s been written. But if you look at it in a different light, Zack Snyder’s tornado scene is a very good touch both in cinematic and story aspects of the film.

  16. Five Ways Batman V Superman can justify MOS:

    1) Ignore everything that happened in MOS

    2) Get rid of David Goyer

    3) Get rid of Zach Synder

    4) Sell the film rights to Marvel

    5) Ban WB from ever making another Superman film, until they learn better.

    • Not going to happen. Most people enjoyed MoS. Get over it ;)

    • Give it to marvel? It’s people like you that make this world frustrating…. They are good but a different beast. What needs to be banned are people like you whose opinions are ignorant, short sighted and frankly terrible. I’m pretty sure you’re on of those guys who’d boast that a marvel movie is great even if it was a terrible just because it’s marvel. FYI , barely half the marvel movies were better than average.

  17. If you didn’t know the back story of Superman, is it a good movie? I am old enough to have seen every itteration on screen including George Reeves. I like the Man of Steel version. The death of Pa Kent was a little odd as he usually just drops of a heart attack or stroke but they were trying to show him leading by example. Telling Clark what he did all those years is one thing, making the ultimate sacrifice to prove his point simply drove it home.
    Think about this, the most popular characters in the Marvel Universe are currently Iron Man, Captain America & Thor. The Hulk, Black Widow and Hawkeye round things out. Out of all these characters The Hulk was probably the best known and easiest story to tell. The rest were known but not the most popular. This allows for more artistic interpretation and much less screaming from the fans.
    All fans of the comics need to realize they aren’t out to satisfy just “you” with these movies. They are trying to reach the broadest audience possible. When you are forking over 200-300 million to make these films you have to be assured you will make that money back and catering to the comic book crowd(only)is not going to cut it.
    When I first saw the Raimi Spiderman movie I was absolutely disturbed by the fact they had webbing shooting out from Peter Parker himself. The Amazing Spiderman did correct this error but that lone gripe didn’t ruin the Raimi version, the sequels did a good job of that.
    Those so dedicated to the original source material never seem to account for the fact that the comics started in the sixties. The world has changed and these stories should be tweeked to reflect this. Also need to take into account the stories have been altered many times over by the publishers themselves.
    All the backlash about Man of Steel is so petty. I thought it was a very good movie because of the more honest view of what it would be like to grow up discovering you are honestly better than everyone else at anything you do. It wouldn’t be all smiles and rainbows, it would be devastating at time.
    We need to judge movies based on what it is and not what we expect.

    • I wasn’t that disturbed by the webbing. I think that was a very small detail. And I liked how they took the origin story almost page by page with the wrestling match and the robber getting away (not being stopped by Peter) and killing uncle Ben.

      I also liked Spider-Man 2 a lot. I only consider the third one weak. But it certainly couldn’t change how good the first two was.

    • I was with you right until the end. Not all of the criticism of Man of Steel is petty, and certainly not just because you think so. A LOT of the criticisms are justified. Like it or not, MoS has a lot of plot holes and character bastardization. What this article does is an excellent job of showing how those issues can be seen as the start of the character, his early days, the birth of Superman, that MoS simply shows the mistakes of a rookie and that later films will show a different Superman, one who has learned from his mistakes.

      Don’t dismiss the criticisms as petty, they’re not and it does a disservice to everybody, especially the movie and Zack Snyder in the event that the later films justify the events that cause these criticisms.

      • Well said. Many of us that voice (sometimes quite loudly) our disdain for Man of Steel are doing so in the hopes that some of what we are saying will sink in with the film makers so that going forward they do not compound the mistakes they have already made. There was so much Man of Steel had going right for it that it made it all the more painful for us to discover that ultimately the film makers did not have the same faith in the established character as we did. There are always ways to mitigate the unintended audience reactions (what I call “the other collateral damage”) of their story-telling and character development decisions. I just hope they have the guts to acknowledge their missteps and make adjustments going forward rather than just resorting to calling those of us pointing out legitimate issues “petty, nit-picking fan boys” and plowing ahead with their misguided take on these characters.

  18. Affleck can NEVER be Batman. And Batman is NOT a Superhero. To be a Superhero you must be SUPER, not a wealthy brat that never has to work and so can dedicate his life to martial arts and playing cops and robbers.

    • You seem to forget that while Batman was away from Gotham when he learned all of his skills and training he left behind his money. And saying Batman is not a superhero is simply you trying to erode the phenomenal success he has had over the years. Gauge people not by their capabilities, but by their actions. Batman is better than most superheroes for one reason. He makes due with a lot less. He had to earn all of his training. It wasn’t given to him because of a different star and more “nourishing air.” Batman is the only superhero who can stand against superman not withstanding supervillians.

  19. So I assume that you can be Batman Ash?! I do not particularly care for Ben Affleck but if George Clooney and especially Val Kilmer were able to be Batman, Ben can definitely be Batman, he is a much better actor that the former 2 I mentioned above. Can fans give that guy a chance, thank GOD most of Hollywood do not care what we thing, at least most of the time. Who do you consider worthy of your SUPERHERO standard? I am curious to know because to me a man that can beat Superman (DARK KNIGHT RETURNS) or protect the world of the most powerful villains is worthy of being called Super! Shout out to our Boys all over the world.

  20. One thing that I’m very curious to see how they do is the introduction of Wonder Woman. Superman had the alien thing to deal with, will WW bring magic/divine powers into the mix? Like the article said, an alien landing on Earth is something that weirdly we can see people understanding but someone with powers granted by the gods seems way more out there.
    Of course they could just give WW a whole new origin but I really hope they don’t.

  21. I hope that Superman has to face the consequences of his actions during MoS. For instance, he helped destroy not one, but two cities, and people saw him do it. I honestly hope they do go with the whole “people actually are afraid of him and what he could possibly do, they fear the fact that he’s an alien who’s basically a god and pretty much does what he wants.” On another note, I liked MoS and the New 52 take on Superman.

    • He didn’t help Zod.

  22. Despite being someone who largely loathed Man of Steel (honestly, the only thing I truly liked was Michael Shannon) and was greatly annoyed by some of the massive plotholes and character bastardizations that occurred, I find myself greatly in agreement with this article.

    First up, I think it’s well written, it doesn’t outright dismiss the criticisms, instead it treats them as not only justified, but correct (for the sake of making a greater point) then proceeds to show how those perceived problems could actually help long term, and I can’t help but agree with your assessment.

    For all of MoS faults, of which there are many, it would all be worth it if there was thematic and story continuity through DoJ and into JLA. It would be worth watching MoS again, in hindsight, knowing that his actions in it can be rightfully seen not as failures by the director and writer, but as failures of the character new to his role as later films will address the consequences of his failures and show how Superman learns, grows, becomes better at what he does. Making him look so callous and inhuman in the first film would work beautifully if it was a lesson for him and he become the more traditional Superman later.

    Even though you were called out for a minor misrepresentation of one particular story in your ‘Illegal Alien’ subsection, I actually think your greater point remains valid, despite being corrected. Rather than an uneasy alliance, they could easily show Batman using a young, naiive Luthor to learn about Superman, then cutting him off once he has done so. Rather than one business man cutting off another, it could be shown as one veteran hero teaming with a young genius who sees Superman as a threat due to the events of MoS, which Batman starts off agreeing with, then turning his back on Luthor later when he learns the truth about Superman and sees Luthor for the danger he is. The roughly the same plot from the comic book, but adapted to suit the film better.

    • Bastardization of superman? How so?

    • Oh and your suggestions for the movie sucks so keep it to your self.

  23. If BvS deals with MoS’s story & character, it will be as an issue of Point of View rather than stating Superman’s guilt of this or that.

    It will play into how Lex Luthor plays & twists the truth to advance his agenda. For him, facts are an opportunity to write his own story, one that suits his purposes.
    In a sense, Luthor’s POV mirrors MoS haters’ POV. That works perfectly. Hence, one by one, Batman discovers the real truth about the events ppl are using to defame & hate on Kal-El, & realizes Superman is the real deal.

    That’s simple yet mostly accurate. And I don’t have time for a longer, more reasoned post.

  24. I wish people would stop posting what they think should be done with superman and batman…. Seriously most of these ideas are terrible.

    • I wish people would stop going out and reading things they seem to already know THEY don’t like, just so they can then dump all over people who obviously enjoy writing and reading about it.

      But hey, at the end of the day, none of us gets everything we want.

  25. I love superman and Batman. Why does the CGI looks so bad! It almost looks cartoonish! Marvel seems to do a better job especially Capt. America 2 Winter soldier

    I like the man of steel like everyone else it could’ve been better much better. Once again I’m not impressed with the CGI it looks two-dimensional and fake.

    Captain America 2 Winter soldiers CGI was awesome. Why can’t Snyder take some lessons from Marvel concerning CGI?

  26. MoS was not a good movie. It wasn’t bad but it wasn’t good either. The version of Superman that I saw was not Superman from the comics.

    The reason that Christopher Reeves is so loved is because his performance in bodied the character.

    When you left the theater after watching Superman The Movie you loved Superman. His goodness just shine through that entire movie. When I walked out of MoS I did not love Superman.

    I remember in Superman 2 when Superman is fighting Zod and his buddies in Metropolis. He realizes that he can’t fight them there because to many people would get hurt so he smartly lures them to the Fortress of Solitude. In MoS Superman tossed Zod into buildings without any concerned for the people in them. He didn’t once attempt to take Zod away from the city to limit the loss of life.

    Also in Superman 2 I remember when Zod went to the Daily Planet to get Lois. When all of a sudden you heard the Superman Theme Music playing, and the newspaper started blowing, and everyone looked up in the sky, and there was Superman with his powers back ready to do work….”General would you care to step outside”.

    That scene made everyone in the audience cheer back when I saw it, and put a big smile on my face. Nothing about MoS made me smile. Nothing about it was memorable after he actually became Superman. The best parts were the Kevin Costner scenes.

    I think what I am trying to say is MoS was not a fun movie. It took a bright character, that has always been good, and noble, and turned him into some boring, dark, emo kid.

    I didn’t love Superman in this movie, I didn’t leave excited for a new installment, and I certainly didn’t think the movie was that good.

    With that said I am excited to see the SvB movie. Maybe it can wash the stink away.

    Super hero movies need to have cool moments…. like The Hulk wrecking Loki, or Neo going to rescue Morpheus from the Agents… cool dialogue like “You want to send a bolt of lightning into a copper conductor…and I thought you all lived in a school”.

    There was NONE of that in MoS.

    • One of the things that struck me about the audience reaction at the screening I attended (which was actually the early screening and was full of people really excited about seeing the film) was that as the credits began to roll, a few individuals started clapping, but that died out quickly when they realized they were alone in doing so. Most of us just sort of sat there. The disappointment was almost tangible in that room. It was like everyone had the wind knocked out of them. That is just not the way anyone should feel coming out of a Superman movie.

    • Superman 2 was not an Origin story… And Zod threw Supes through buildings, not the other way around. What most don’t realize is that Man of Steel was Supes first day on the job. He got his suit and threw his first punch ever… Everyone complaining wanted him to act like an experienced hero. Sorry, he doesn’t have it yet. But he will.

  27. I was not exactly a fan of Man of Steel. That being said, I don’t want them to try rebooting the character for yet a third time because that would most certainly kill off public interest. As much as I hated the depiction of the character in that movie, there are ways the follow up movie can restore audience’s faith in the character.

    I love Superman. He is my favorite character in comics or any other medium. However, I understand the criticism that having him be a big blue boy scout all of the time makes it hard to relate to him because he never seems to be truly tempted to do wrong. In the comics, there are basically two ways that writers convey to the reader that Supes is actually subjected to temptations on a constant basis, but chooses to take the better path.

    The first is red kryptonite which robs him of any inhibitions, resulting in him doing some not-so-nice things. The second are “what if” or “alternate universe” stories that show what happens when Superman makes a bad choice which snowballs into very undesirable outcomes. To me, Man of Steel could very well be interpreted as using the the latter of those story devices. What if the sequel takes that further by showing a Superman that is sucked further down that rabbit hole? What if the public turned on him just as Jonathan Kent feared? What if Superman concluded that the only way to protect the backwards thinking, illogical and self-destructive people of earth were to take over? That would give Batman someone worth fighting in the movie rather than presenting the whole “we initially misunderstand each other, but now we are friends” scenario that everyone is expecting. What if this Superman turns out to be a true villain?

    So how would you follow up this movie with Justice League? Simple. Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman are set in an alternate universe. In that universe, Wonder Woman decides to stay in her home country concluding that the world of men truly is too vile to care about. Martian Manhunter sees the bad reaction the public has to Superman as an alien and decides to remain hidden. Flash was never in the lab accident that gave him his powers. Batman was killed at the hands of Superman (which is how the conflict between them in the sequel should conclude). So how do you introduce Justice League after that? This new supreme overlord version of Superman discovers a pathway to the alternate universe where a traditional version of himself and the rest of the Justice League exists. You want a heavy hitting villain and an emotional showdown for the JL movie? How about the evil version of Superman whose origin story was covertly told during the first two films?

    I argue that doing that story line would 1) prevent the need for a reboot, 2) give the upcoming movies an unexpected story with emotional weight behind it, 3) give a reason for those of us soured by Man of Steel a reason to re-evaluate our reaction 4) allow for commentary/debate about the events of Man of Steel within the story and 5) allow for an undiminished version of the character (which is more in keeping which what Superman should be) to take over going forward.

    • I like a Superman that isn’t born perfect. A Superman that actually has to learn and grow and evolve to become a hero. It makes him more authentic. You said it: if he is a big blue boy scout all the time, it is harder to relate to him.

      And I don’t think that red kryptonite or what-if stories solve that. Because then he is still a big blue boy scout all the time unless something comes and changes him. That isn’t relatable. He needs to be like people to be relatable. He needs to choose the right path when it’s a hard choice to make. Not by just being turned back to normal blue boy scout mode.

      I am surprised that you see this version of Superman as a supreme overlord. He didn’t seem that way to me. He seemed like a man trying to find his way in the world. And he was becoming the hero. He was saving people. He was doing good.

      I don’t think your idea will happen because there is no need for a reboot between now and the Justice League movie. And the ones soured Man of Steel are the minority.

      But maybe they’ll use alternate universes sometime in the future and this version of Superman will meet an evil version. You never know. But this version is the good version. He may not be a blue boy scout version. But he is the hero. The good guy.

      • I don’t think he is currently the supreme overlord I am talking about. I do, however, believe that the combination of his bad decisions and the way the public would likely react to him could very logically push him in that direction. Just think of how people treated Muslims in the wake of 9-11. For a large number of people, they became guilty by association. A full decade after the attacks, they were essentially barred from building a community center/mosque two blocks away from ground zero. I don’t think the reaction to Kryptonians would be any different given the events of Man of Steel. What if this apparently flawed version of Superman does not react in a saint-like way to the hatred flung at him? There is a good chance his locked-away, villainous nature could emerge.

        Usually, people who defend Man of Steel make the point that having Clark be inherently good as a character trade is boring and untreatable. In other words, he has to be developed into Superman rather than just being him. But that is where Man of Steel’s true weakness lies. There is almost nothing showing why he would develop into a good person, much less a heroic one. There are a bunch of little speeches from Jonathan and Jor-El about Clark choosing what kind of man he wants to be and how he is destined to become humanity’s savior. However, Jonathan also bawls out Clark for saving children and then reinforces that mentality by sacrificing himself. So, any motivation towards becoming Superman is actually diminished. Why does he save the kids on the bus? Why does he not punch out his childhood bully? Why does he turn himself over to Zod? For that matter, why would he ever feel bad about killing Zod? Answer: He is inherently good – which makes Man of Steel boring, right?

        The truth is that for as much as the film makers claim differently, Man of Steel relies whole-heartedly on audience’s preconceived notions of the goody-goody character in order to make the jump between an outcast taught to fear humanity and the supposed symbol of hope their movie claim him to be. Could they effectively correct this with Batman v. Superman? Absolutely. But it is far from a slam dunk.

        If the follow up film gets the highly mixed reaction that Man of Steel received, don’t be surprised if the minority (as you call us) grows exponentially. I have the feeling that many current supporters of Man of Steel will jump ship if some serious course corrections are not made in the character’s development.

        • Yes, people can behave like that. But he isn’t just a kryptonian. He is the kryptonian that saved the world from the others. He turned against his own people in that battle. He chose a side and that side was humanity.

          Also, with a secret identity he is able to do what muslims can’t do. And that is to walk among people without being a target of hate. He’ll witness that not everybody is against him and that humanity is about more than hating those who are different.

          Not to mention Lois and his mother (and the memory of his father) who are all good influences.

          Almost nothing showing why he would develop into a good person? Well, how did you develop into a good person? How do any of us? From good upbringing. It’s not something you can put into a few key experiences that can be shown in a movie. It’s a sum of your entire childhood. You learn from everything around you. Superman was brought up by good people. That’s a good start.

          And if you’re looking for a thing that could give him a sense of heorism, how about his father’s sacrifice in the storm? Sure, it’s a cliché but children actually do learn from the example of their parents.

          Yes, there are moments where Jonathan talks against him using his powers but it is also understood that he want to protect him. At that time he is still a kid and not ready to use his powers wisely. Jonathan doesn’t want people to find out about him yet.

          Yes, he is good and heroic and feels bad about killing Zod. But it’s not in a big blue boy scout way. They’re not making it easy for him. He isn’t automatically handling everything the right way.

          I love the old Christopher Reeve movies. But they never really addressed how or why he became Superman. He went looking for his roots after his father’s death, made the Fortress with the crystal, his real father told him he’d teach him and then we skipped years ahead in time and he left the Fortress as Superman and was fully prepared to do all sorts of super stuff without ever making mistakes or having doubts.

          This time they didn’t jump ahead. They wanted to tell a story of how the hero becomes the hero. But I think the movie ended with a lot of hope. He knew his roots and his place. He knew what he wanted to do and how to do it. He got the job as a reporter so he could be right where it’s at. And he’s got Lois.

          I call you a minorty because the movie is well-rated by moviegoers. It’s got 76% at Rotten Tomatoes and 7,3 out of 10 at IMDb. Most people liked it. So I don’t see many supporters in need of course corrections. Because they liked what they got.

  28. The problem with taking IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes scores is that it does not always give the full picture (particularly if someone chooses to ignore the score for critics or does not bother to read the actual reviews). The Incredible Hulk had an audience score of 72% on Rotten Tomatoes and 6.9 on IMDb. That was in 2008. While the character appeared in The Avengers, there have still been no public announcements for a future solo film.

    If you think the two are unrelated, then I would ask why Superman is not getting the stand-alone trilogy that Man of Steel was originally designed to kick off? At least a part of the answer is that while Warner Brothers made money on Man of Steel, the underwhelming and often decisive response audiences had for the retooled character gave them reason to wonder if that version of the character could really support such a trilogy without some serious aid.

    The other deceiving aspect of such scoring metrics is that people know that the score may affect the profitability of the movie. In the case of Man of Steel, a poor box office could very well have sunk not only the possibility of future Superman movies, but also for any character in the DC universe. As a result, people (particularly DC fans) had every motivation to exaggerate their reactions to the movie or flat out lie (just look at some of the comments ripping critics with “rotten” scores that were posted even before the movie opened). In most cases, people were not actually making a commentary on Man of Steel, but rather a comparison to Superman Returns (which has a 61% Rotten Tomatoes score and 6.1 on IMDb). Basically that basically means that the overall reaction to the film was a slight improvement to the previous one.

    In certain aspects, I agree with that assessment. However, where Superman Return’s issues were with its tired plot and underwhelming villain, Man of Steel’s issue is with the integrity of the title character. Where Superman Returns replayed the Lex Luthor with Kryptonite thing (yet again), Man of Steel had a Clark that was willing to stand by and watch his father die a horrible death in order to protect a secret that Lois Lane had figured out (after only 45 seconds of screen time) in the scene that immediately preceding that little punch to the guts. Where the major problems with Superman Returns would have been easily remedied by future films, the problems with Man of Steel may not even get addressed much less resolved – particularly now that large chucks of the follow up film will be devoted to Batman, Wonder Woman, Cyborg and possibly others.

    • “particularly if someone chooses to ignore the score for critics or does not bother to read the actual reviews”

      Well, critics and reviews does not always give the full picture either. It often happens that critics hate a movie that the moviegoers love or vice versa.

      Critics do often tend to be more critical than moviegoers because critics watch movies with the intend of breaking them apart to analyze the craftsmanship. Moviegoers just watch movies to enjoy them and their response isn’t as quantifiable. They may easily overlook something that was done badly because it’s overshadowed by something else they really love or vice versa. So their opinions doesn’t always follow the critics because they’re rarely basing it on the same issues.

      But I will give you that of course the studio would have wanted the critics and reviews to be more positive also. And don’t get me wrong. I am certainly not saying that Man of Steel is as good as Batman Begins. I’m just saying that moviegoers did like it. A movie that most people hated doesn’t get that score no matter how many fans that try to boost it.

      “underwhelming and often decisive response”

      I sounds like you’re mixing the response from the critics with the response from the moviegoers. I see your efforts but I don’t think you can get around the fact that moviegoers has rated it well.

      I am sure some fans may have tried to boost it. But I still think there are too many common moviegoers for those fans to make a difference on the rating in the long run. And as you point out, it could just as well be the fans that are most critical of the movie. Because the common moviegoers might easily be more open to this version of Superman because they don’t already have their mind locked into a particular image of him.

      So I believe the ratings are what they are and that most moviegoers actually think man of Steel was a good movie. Not a great movie like Batman Begins. But a good movie.

      “Superman Returns”

      A fun fact about Superman Returns is that the critics liked that one better than Man of Steel. It’s at 76% with the critics. I guess the critics didn’t think the plot was tired and the villain was underwhleming?

      Well, it only shows that it’s all about opinions. There is no right and wrong answers. Some will like a movie. Some will dislike a movie.

      You may be right that some ratings reflect a comparison. But they still count. If a moviegoer liked this Superman better than the last one, that’s still a positive result. We can’t assume that he’d really prefer a third version. We can’t rule out that he wouldn’t want more of this version, the version that he liked better.

      “a secret that Lois Lane had figured out”

      Hm? maybe I have to see it again, but as I recall it, she sneaked into the spaceship after Clark. And then he saved her from the security system of the ship. How could she not figure it out when it went down like that?

      “watch his father die a horrible death in order to protect a secret”

      Like I said. Jonathan didn’t want people to find out about him yet. There is a difference between people finding out when he is still a kid and people finding out when he is an adult and prepared to reveal himself.

      “the problems with Man of Steel may not even get addressed much less resolved”

      We just have to agree to disagree. You think there is much to resolve. I don’t.

      “devoted to Batman, Wonder Woman, Cyborg”

      Batman, sure. He’s a title character. But we can’t actually assume that much time will be devoted to the other two (or more). I think they’ll be used far less than the most critical are assuming.

      • Sorry, I meant “divisive” and not “decisive”. I swear there was a time that I could spell and type. Spell check has not exactly helped.

        One of the huge weaknesses I feel Man of Steel had was actually the inconsistent definition audiences were left with for what exactly Clark’s “secrete” really was. When we are first introduced to the concept it is because Pete Ross’s mother is freaking out about Clark performing a pseudo miracle. Jonathan later explains that Clark’s very existence would cause people to question everything they believe in, from religion to science. So, the “secrete” then appears to be Clark being the definitive answer to “are we alone in the universe” and keeping that secrete keeps people blissfully ignorant. The other take is that the secrete is that Clark is an alien and not revealing that keeps both him and his family safe from being exploited or worse (the classic reason for a “secrete identity”).

        If he did it to save humanity’s supposedly fragile psyche, then he really does not have much faith in people (and is not exaclty someone people would look to as a source of hope). If Clark let Jonathan die to protect himself, then it was completely selfish act. So which secrete was Clark protecting by letting his father die? I would conclude that the first reason is the winner (if you can call it that) and is what motivated him in that inaction.

        Here is my reasoning…if Clark let Jonathan die to protect his secrete identity, then, in Snyder’s world, he was stupid to think no one would figure it out anyway and/or is indifferent to the sacrifice of his father (he all but dares people to figure it out). David Goyer once explained that he believed audiences would question Lois’s intelligence if she did not figure out that Superman and Clark were the same person. Apparently Goyer was not as concerned about what audiences thought of the intelligence of the hundreds of Daily Planet employees, Lex Luthor, or, for that matter, the US Military.

        Seriously, Superman destroys a multi-million dollar drone because he does not want the government following him around and then exclaims “I grew up in Kansas”. This is in addition to telling the US Army General earlier that “I have been here for 33 years”. You would think that General would ask someone, “what was the name of that little town in Kansas where the Kryptonians attacked for no apparent reason?” The answer: Smallville. Assuming not everyone in the government is a complete moron; they would be one high school year book photo away from tracking Clark down at his new job at The Daily Planet.

        • It’s Jonathan’s reasons you are quoting, not Clark’s. So it’s Jonathan who didn’t trust the fragile psyche of humanity. And I think you are expecting to much of the person Clark was at the time. The movie is trying to show us that it isn’t just the powers that makes him the hero. There is a person behind the hero who didn’t just wake one morning and was ready, but had to find out who he is and what his purpose was.

          Perhaps they could have done it better. But I don’t think they’ve exactly left us with a total mystery either ;)

          “question Lois’ intelligence if she did not figure out that Superman and Clark were the same person”

          I think the difference between Lois and the rest is that she’s getting really close to both of them. So that’s why he mentions her and not everybody else.

          I agree that it’s a ridiculous disguise. But it’s not the movie’s fault. Blame 70 years of comic books. They’ve never come up with a different disguise for him. They have to go with it as ridiculous as it may be in these times of face recognition software.

          Maybe they’ll offer some sort of explanation in the next one. Like the government knows exactly who he is, but they’ve also classified his information because they’ll need him and can’t afford everybody else to find out and blackmail him.

          And not that many other people would have actually seen both Superman and Clark Kent up close. We don’t know that he’ll be posing for a lot for pictures yet, accepting keys to cities and what not like Christopher Reeve did. He might swoosh in and out most times and just leave a blur on cameras (yes, I’ve seen Smallville too).

          • What did make him hero? He spent most of his time being reactionary or being told what to do? When he did something heroic, probably the best scene in the film, Jon Kent shuts him down.

            The disguise only works if you do what Reeve did, and make it an actual disguise. Clark Kent and Superman are different in action, tone, demeanor, etc. Other than that it’s just Superman in plain clothes, which anyone should sort out.

            • It doesn’t matter that Jonathan shut him down. His reasons was clear. But it wasn’t his only lesson to Clark. He ultimately gave his life to help somebody else.

              Clark already had the desire to do good. He did many times when he was traveling the world after Jonathan’s death. He was being heroic. He just wasn’t being Superman yet. That’s a big step and he still didn’t know it was a step he would need to take.

              Sure it was Zod that called him out and asked him to give himself up. But nobody could have handed him over if he wasn’t willing to make that sacrifice himself. And when things went down, he ultimately decided what to do and where to stand.

              I don’t agree that the disguise only works if he changes his whole persona. People aren’t gonna recognize a guy with glasses as Superman if they’ve never had a good look at Superman.

              Even in real life actual people are mistaking for example Mark Wahlberg and Matt Damon and that’s despite the vast amounts of footage that exists of the two.

              And Superman’s face would not necessarily be as recognizable as an actor’s face. Because he’s not a guy that puts himself in front of a camera all the time like that.

              If somebody really wants to figure out who he is, they can. No doubt about that. And a different persona wouldn’t help wither because they’d just go through databases with images and compare a picture of Superman to photos from driver’s licenses, passports, press cards and other forms of photo identification.

              But to be recognized on the street here, there and everywhere, that would require that everybody is really familiar with his face. And that wouldn’t necessarily be true.

              • Again, what was Jon Kent’s lesson to Clark? Help people? Stay hidden? Clark’s most natural being wants to help people. Jon shuts that down. Worst of all, the only time it actually comes into play is with Jon Kent. Clark helps everyone else except Jon. It’s the only time in the film he puts his secret above helping people, which is just contradictory in terms of messaging. Jon goes to help people, but Clark, who is the most capable has to stay pat because Jon is afraid of what may happen if his son is revealed. That’s compounded with the fact that when Clark does reveal himself, it’s taken pretty well. Very well, actually. No one had to die in that scene, as Clark could have easily saved Jon with no one the wiser. PIS.

                As for the different persona, it doesn’t matter if the common person doesn’t see Superman’s face, but Clark works at a NEWSPAPER with REPORTERS. Unless Lois is just on a different level altogether, Clark will be sussed out pretty quickly, and don’t think there isn’t someone on the Planet who wouldn’t want to make their bones by outing Superman.

                Clark already had the desire to do good. He did many times when he was traveling the world after Jonathan’s death. He was being heroic. He just wasn’t being Superman yet. That’s a big step and he still didn’t know it was a step he would need to take.

                Sure it was Zod that called him out and asked him to give himself up. But nobody could have handed him over if he wasn’t willing to make that sacrifice himself. And when things went down, he ultimately decided what to do and where to stand.

                I don’t agree that the disguise only works if he changes his whole persona. People aren’t gonna recognize a guy with glasses as Superman if they’ve never had a good look at Superman.

                Even in real life actual people are mistaking for example Mark Wahlberg and Matt Damon and that’s despite the vast amounts of footage that exists of the two.

                And Superman’s face would not necessarily be as recognizable as an actor’s face. Because he’s not a guy that puts himself in front of a camera all the time like that.

                If somebody really wants to figure out who he is, they can. No doubt about that. And a different persona wouldn’t help wither because they’d just go through databases with images and compare a picture of Superman to photos from driver’s licenses, passports, press cards and other forms of photo identification.

                But to be recognized on the street here, there and everywhere, that would require that everybody is really familiar with his face. And that wouldn’t necessarily be true.

                • “Again, what was Jon Kent’s lesson to Clark? Help people? Stay hidden?”

                  Jonathan explained why he wanted Clark to keep his powers a secret. Clark respected his request. But he also learned from Jonathan’s example. And he actually tries to do both for a long time. Help people and stay hidden.

                  “when Clark does reveal himself, it’s taken pretty well”

                  That’s hindsight. Jonathan couldn’t know.

                  “but Clark works at a NEWSPAPER with REPORTERS”

                  Yup, and if those reporters have pictures, then the game is over. Not even a changed persona will fool them. But if they don’t have pictures and they’ve never seen Superman up close, they wouldn’t recognize Clark as being Superman.

                  Lois didn’t just figure him out because she was clever. She sneaked after him into a kryptonian spaceship. That’s like catching him in the act.

                  • “Jonathan explained why he wanted Clark to keep his powers a secret. Clark respected his request. But he also learned from Jonathan’s example. And he actually tries to do both for a long time. Help people and stay hidden.”

                    Clark doesn’t do that. He never stays hidden. Not on the bus, not with the oil rig, not with Lois, The only time he stay hidden, he doesn’t help ANYONE. He lets Jon die, and wrecks a semi-truck. Clark is as mixed-up as Jon’s message of “Maybe.”

                    “That’s hindsight. Jonathan couldn’t know.”

                    Jon lacked foresight. He had tunnel vision and could only see one outcome for Clark, which was the most selfish and self-serving one.

                    “Yup, and if those reporters have pictures, then the game is over. Not even a changed persona will fool them. But if they don’t have pictures and they’ve never seen Superman up close, they wouldn’t recognize Clark as being Superman.

                    Lois didn’t just figure him out because she was clever. She sneaked after him into a kryptonian spaceship. That’s like catching him in the act.”

                    Lois Lane had no picture, and neither did any of the people that she spoke with tracing Clark back to Smallville, where Pete Ross outed him. All of those people knew his face; the one he was supposed to hiding. Reporters would be savvy enough to see that Superman has something going on with Lois Lane, so just keep an eye on her.

                    MOS had a lot of problems, and they aren’t easily answered, but Goyer and Synder went for badass Superman, with no logical progression or foresight. They’re aping Jon Kent, which is ironic in itself.

                    • “Clark doesn’t do that. He never stays hidden. Not on the bus, not with the oil rig, not with Lois”

                      The bus happened before Jonathan’s speech. It was the bus that made Jonathan give that speech.

                      Yes, people see him on the oil rig, but he leaves after that. Nobody knew who he was. He leaves after saving Lois too.

                      “Clark is as mixed-up as Jonathan’s message of Maybe”

                      Yes! And it’s okay for characters to be unsure and messed up. Stories are not always about flawless people that know all and do everything right all the time.

                      It’s a messy mixed-up world.

                      “Jonathan lacked foresight. He had tunnel vision and could only see one outcome for Clark, which was the most selfish and self-serving one”

                      Incorrect. Jonathan believed that Clark was sent to earth for a reason and that one day he would see his powers as a gift and decide to stand proud in front of the human race. That’s what he tells Clark when he shows him the spaceship.

                      It is becoming obvious that you wanted a much more simple movie where Superman just puts on the suit and flies off to be Superman. Well they made that one back in 1978.

                      This wants to do something different. It wants to show characters that are flawless too and actually struggle to find the answers. Nothing comes easy.

                      If all you got from it is that they’re trying to do a badass Superman, that’s really sad.

                    • “The bus happened before Jonathan’s speech. It was the bus that made Jonathan give that speech.

                      Yes, people see him on the oil rig, but he leaves after that. Nobody knew who he was. He leaves after saving Lois too.”

                      What does it matter when Jon gave the speech? He still didn’t hide or seek to hide his face at all. That’s how Lois was able to find him. She had a clear look at his face, and so did the others that lead her to him, ending with Pete Ross. There’s no way around it, speech or no speech.

                      “Yes! And it’s okay for characters to be unsure and messed up. Stories are not always about flawless people that know all and do everything right all the time.

                      It’s a messy mixed-up world.”

                      Unsure? OK. Messed up? No. Not for heroes. Not when people’s lives are at stake. You don’t have to be flawless know that what the right thing to do is, particularly when it’s obvious. When your mother is attacked by powerful Kryptonians, do you zoom in and take her to safety, or do you attack the Kryptonian leader (Zod) and zoom off with him, leaving your mother with the other villains? It’s not a hard decision, neither do you have to be flawless to execute it. It does help to not be messed up by your father, though. We sure did get a badass moment with Superman punching Zod, telling him to leave his mother alone, though. The same woman he left alone with the other Kryptonians. Thankfully they followed him, right?

                      “Incorrect. Jonathan believed that Clark was sent to earth for a reason and that one day he would see his powers as a gift and decide to stand proud in front of the human race. That’s what he tells Clark when he shows him the spaceship”.

                      Incorrect, yourself. You omit one key detail, “A choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race, or not.” Even in this moment where Jon is trying to reassure Clark, it’s still a mess. Stand proud or not. The ironic thing is that Jon denies Clark the ability to make that choice when he won’t let Clark save him. It’s Clark’s choice, right? Instead Jon influences it, rather than let Clark make it on his own, and why? Because Jon wasn’t ready. Clark was ready as a boy, and rather than support and aid his son, he undercuts him.

                      As for your assumption on what I wanted to see a simple movie, whatever that means. In no movie does Superman just put on the suit and fly off. Not in 1978 and not in 2013. If you like MOS, that’s all well and good, but it wasn’t what you’d like to make it out to be.

                      Clark doesn’t struggle to find any answers. He’s directionless until pointed in one direction, then the next. He’s on a fishing boat until the oil rig blows. Then he’s a thief. Then he’s a waiter. Then he quits. Then he’s part of an expedition. Then Jor-El shows him a Superman suit and he gets in it and flies off after a bunch of silly jumping, as if jumping aids in defying gravity indefinitely. I guess you were right, there is a film where Superman just puts on the suit and flies off. MOS can definitely claim that distinction.

                    • “What does it matter when Jonathan gave the speech?”

                      It actually matters a lot.

                      First, because you listed the bus as an example of Clark not doing as Jonathan told him. The time he told him becomes pretty important. We’re talking about cause and effect. You can’t put the effect before the cause. You have to understand that the movie has a chronological storyline with events following other events.

                      Second, because it was the reaction from Pete Ross’ mother that made Jonathan give that speech.

                      ” No. Not for heroes”

                      Yes. Also for heroes. Even heroes must crawl before they can walk. Smart decisions comes with age, experience and wisdom. It’s easy sit here with hindsight and know what a hero should have done. It’s something completely different to stand in the situation.

                      “Even in this moment where Jonathan is trying to reassure Clark, it’s still a mess”

                      Again, life is messy. You are expecting flawless characters that do and say the right thing. Instead you are getting confused and unsure characters that do the best they can. And you hate it. But it’s actually very much like real life.

                      “Jonathan denies Clark the ability to make that choice when he won’t let Clark save him”

                      Or Jonathan thinks that it isn’t the right time to make that choice.

                      “Clark was ready as a boy”

                      No, he wasn’t. After being told he’s from another world, he asks if he can’t just keep pretending to be Jonathan’s son. Just because he saves some kids on a bus doesn’t mean he is ready to reveal himself to the world. You can’t simplify it like that.

                      “In no movie does Superman just put on the suit and fly off”

                      I know his father teaches him for 12 years in the fortress because the movie tells you, but if you want to nitpick, that’s a real easy way out. After the 12 years, he flies off and is Superman.

                      “it wasn’t what you’d like to make it out to be”

                      Sure it was. To me it was. That’s how it is with movies. People have different opinions. A movie can be one thing to one person and another thing to another person.

                      “He’s directionless”

                      Yup, that’s actually a big point in the movie. He is out of this world. He doesn’t know his place. He doesn’t know his roots. He is directionless. Very much so.

                      Of course it makes a big difference to find the ship. How could it not? It’s the missing piece. It tells him everything he needs to know about himself. It makes it easier for him to go forward.

                      Jor-El shows him a path. Just like in Superman from 1978. The two movies do have a lot of details from the mythology in common also. If you want to criticize that he follows that path, you might as well criticize both movies.

                      But Man of Steel also deals a lot more with the part of being an alien on earth and becoming Superman. You could say it tells the story of the years that the older movie skipped.

                      I don’t think we’re going to agree on much. Nice talking to you.

                    • “It actually matters a lot.

                      First, because you listed the bus as an example of Clark not doing as Jonathan told him. The time he told him becomes pretty important. We’re talking about cause and effect. You can’t put the effect before the cause. You have to understand that the movie has a chronological storyline with events following other events.

                      Second, because it was the reaction from Pete Ross’ mother that made Jonathan give that speech.”

                      The speech Jon Ken was only adhered to with Jon Kent. After the speech, Clark still saves people, and does nothing to hide himself. That’s a fact. It’s how Lois tracks him down i.e. people had a visual of him to go by.

                      “Yes. Also for heroes. Even heroes must crawl before they can walk. Smart decisions comes with age, experience and wisdom. It’s easy sit here with hindsight and know what a hero should have done. It’s something completely different to stand in the situation.”

                      Heroes don’t crawl as heroes. They are forged before taking on the title. Even then, there are countless of examples of heroes being thrust into the situation, and getting the job done without the mess that was MOS. They went for pseudo-realism, foolishly not realizing that in reality, anything can happen.

                      “Again, life is messy. You are expecting flawless characters that do and say the right thing. Instead you are getting confused and unsure characters that do the best they can. And you hate it. But it’s actually very much like real life.”

                      I sincerely doubt that such an absolute statement: “Life is messy”, is one to qualify life. Again, it’s pseudo-realism, and it doesn’t work for every character. Particularly Superman.

                      “No, he wasn’t. After being told he’s from another world, he asks if he can’t just keep pretending to be Jonathan’s son. Just because he saves some kids on a bus doesn’t mean he is ready to reveal himself to the world. You can’t simplify it like that.”

                      He wasn’t ready to save people? He didn’t save the lads on the bus with him and go back for Pete Ross, who was being a jerk to him just before? It was a fine example of heroism, and Jon Kent snuffed it out with his fear-laden speech. Remember, the speech comes after Clark does the right thing, not before. Clark was ready. Jon was not.

                      “I know his father teaches him for 12 years in the fortress because the movie tells you, but if you want to nitpick, that’s a real easy way out. After the 12 years, he flies off and is Superman.”

                      As opposed to the 12 seconds he spends with AI Jor-El, then puts the suit on goes off flying? No reason given, he just puts in and goes off. If you liked one more than the other, that’s fine, but that shouldn’t keep you from seeing the flaw in your analogy.

                      “Sure it was. To me it was. That’s how it is with movies. People have different opinions. A movie can be one thing to one person and another thing to another person.”

                      Only of we were debating opinion, solely, which is a fool’s errand. We are giving instances within the film of what happened, not so much how we felt about it. Clark doesn’t try to hide who he is when he helps people. That’s a fact. The only time Clark doesn’t save someone is when Jon tells him not to. That’s a fact. Clark receives an outfit from Jor-El, then goes off to learn to fly. That’s a fact. We can have different opinions, but not different facts.

                      “Yup, that’s actually a big point in the movie. He is out of this world. He doesn’t know his place. He doesn’t know his roots. He is directionless. Very much so.

                      Of course it makes a big difference to find the ship. How could it not? It’s the missing piece. It tells him everything he needs to know about himself. It makes it easier for him to go forward.

                      Jor-El shows him a path. Just like in Superman from 1978. The two movies do have a lot of details from the mythology in common also. If you want to criticize that he follows that path, you might as well criticize both movies.

                      But Man of Steel also deals a lot more with the part of being an alien on earth and becoming Superman. You could say it tells the story of the years that the older movie skipped.

                      I don’t think we’re going to agree on much. Nice talking to you.”

                      Well, this much we agree on, but he’s directionless because of his father, not being an alien. Jon doesn two things: He tells Clark that he has to make a choice, then he denies Clark the choice he was going to make. Clark was going to save Jon, and Jon wouldn’t have it. He spends the next 16 years doing little of anything, and w can only guess what he would have done had he never met Jor-El. The whole alien on Earth notion is what they said, but it was more there position they placed Clark in of being alienated, and that starts with Jon Kent.

                      I didn’t like MOS. It was poorly written and executed. They (Synder and Goyer) applied a formula for Superman that works for an antihero, and the the hero that all others come from. Still, that doesn’t mean I can’t admit what was good about the film:

                      Henry Cavill was a good choice to play the part.

                      Krypton was rendered in a manner that made it tangible.

                      Zod’s end monologue was pitch perfect.

                      The bus scene was excellent.

                      The fight in the Indian Ocean was triumphant.

                      Colonel Hardy reminded viewers of what true heroism is.

                      Superman’s interaction with the USM was well-done.

                      Jor-El was an excellent action-man.

                      It’s no problem to give credit where it’s due. However, I find it hard for those who liked the film to admit to it’s failings even when they are so blatantly obvious. When a film divides its audience as this one has done, I would posit that it’s not a good film. It’s not a film that some people didn’t understand or “get”, it’s a film that was wasn’t structured well enough to bring its audience fully along, hence the backlash and critical reception it received.

                    • “After the speech, Clark still saves people, and does nothing to hide himself”

                      As Lois says, he can’t stop helping people.

                      Jonathan doesn’t have all answers. Clark asks him if he shouldn’t have saved the kids on the bus. His father’s best answer is maybe. Not yes or no.

                      You want it to be black and white. Yes or no. No grey areas. Because that is the way you are trying to treat it. Jonathan tells him to keep the powers secret, so you expect Clark to never use his powers no matter what. When he doesn’t do that, you then turn it 180 and expect him to use his powers all the time no matter what. You want 0% or 100%

                      But real life isn’t like that. Real people can hesitate or react without thinking or change their mind or go against speeches and so on and on. It’s never black and white. That’s what I mean when I say that life is messy. It’s mostly grey. It’s never as simple as you want it to be. People are flawed. They make mistakes.

                      I know this isn’t real life, it’s fiction, but fiction can mimic real life and they have chosen an approach that makes Superman more like a real person. As flawed as that also makes him.

                      “They are forged before taking on the title.”

                      And you are seeing the forging of Superman. Who actually doesn’t take the title of Superman in the movie.

                      “He wasn’t ready to save people?”

                      He wasn’t ready to be known to the world as an alien.

                      There are two sides. You focus solely on one side. The film is trying to show you, that it might not be as simple as having powers and saving people. Clask is also only a young boy at that time. Jonathan is not snuffing his heroism. He is talking about the other side of that. How people can fear and reject him. It’s like you have a blind spot and just don’t see that side of it.

                      “As opposed to the 12 seconds he spends with AI Jor-El, then puts the suit on goes off flying?”

                      Clark in MoS didn’t need 12 years with Jor-El because he was already becoming a hero. He was already using his powers to do good. He was already on that path.

                      I don’t like one more than the other. They are different movies and I like them for different reasons. But if we focus on the transformation itself, the old movie didn’t go much into that.

                      “We can have different opinions, but not different facts.”

                      We don’t have different facts. We’re not disagreeing on any facts in the movie. We’ve not discussed wheather or not Jonathan gave a speech for example, or his excact words. We’ve discussed his reasons for doing so.

                      I assume we’re also not discussing the fact of Pete Ross’ mother’s reaction to Clark’s heroic act. But you don’t seem to consider that to be an important part of the story. And I do. And that’s how opinions of the same movie can become different.

                      “not being an alien”

                      Another good example of why we can have different opinions of the same movie. You don’t think this aspect matters. I think it does.

                      “we can only guess what he would have done had he never met Jor-El”

                      As with both Superman movies. The Clark in 1978 had only used his powers to kick a football and outrun a train. He was even further from becoming a hero than this Clark.

                      “and that starts with Jonathan Kent”

                      I disagree. It starts before that. There is also the scene where he is even younger and his x-ray vision kicks in at school. He runs and hides in the closet and the whole class is whispering about how weird he is. So he is experiencing that alienation years before Jonathan’s speech.

                      “it’s failings even when they are so blatantly obvious”

                      I think we are discussing things in the storyline that can be interpreted.

                      And if you flip it over, I find it hard for those who dislike the movie to admit that it simply their own opinion and not an indisputable truth.

                      “When a film divides its audience as this one has done”

                      Has it? The ratings don’t suggest a divided audience.

                    • “As Lois says, he can’t stop helping people.

                      Jonathan doesn’t have all answers. Clark asks him if he shouldn’t have saved the kids on the bus. His father’s best answer is maybe. Not yes or no.

                      You want it to be black and white. Yes or no. No grey areas. Because that is the way you are trying to treat it. Jonathan tells him to keep the powers secret, so you expect Clark to never use his powers no matter what. When he doesn’t do that, you then turn it 180 and expect him to use his powers all the time no matter what. You want 0% or 100%

                      But real life isn’t like that. Real people can hesitate or react without thinking or change their mind or go against speeches and so on and on. It’s never black and white. That’s what I mean when I say that life is messy. It’s mostly grey. It’s never as simple as you want it to be. People are flawed. They make mistakes.

                      I know this isn’t real life, it’s fiction, but fiction can mimic real life and they have chosen an approach that makes Superman more like a real person. As flawed as that also makes him.”

                      When asked if he should have let the other kids die, Jon answered “Maybe.” Now, you can try to justify that as much as you want, but that doesn’t track well at all. The fact that you believe that life is messy, people are flawed, is no different that you accusing me of wanting 0 or 100 percent. You’re dealing in absolutes and that doesn’t track with people, who defy absolutes. A flawed Superman may appeal to you, perhaps he’s even more real to you, which decries a perception you seem to have about the character, but the flaws, the mistakes he makes have planetary consequences. Superman needs to get it right. he embodies and personifies the best ideals that humanity has to offer, unless you think that hope is flawed as well. As to him not being able to stop helping people, how does that reconcile with the fact that the one person he didn’t help was his father, who selfishly forced him not to? Clark was never going to stop helping people, why does Jon need to
                      impose this ridiculous stricture on him? It’s such a flaw in the story, and a needless one.

                      “And you are seeing the forging of Superman. Who actually doesn’t take the title of Superman in the movie.”

                      No, we saw no forging at all. We didn’t see Superman either. We saw a man fly around in his outfit and wreck-shop. Hopefully he shows up in the next film.

                      “He wasn’t ready to be known to the world as an alien.

                      There are two sides. You focus solely on one side. The film is trying to show you, that it might not be as simple as having powers and saving people. Clask is also only a young boy at that time. Jonathan is not snuffing his heroism. He is talking about the other side of that. How people can fear and reject him. It’s like you have a blind spot and just don’t see that side of it.”

                      No, there is one side, the side you all ready used above, that you now ignore for whatever reasons you have. Clark was ready to help people. I never questioned the alien aspects, not that they ever happen. No one ever reacts to him being an alien. Not one person. What I stated is that Clark was ready to help people. He was never going to stop, as you quote above. We were never shown the difficulty in him being an alien and helping people. You’ve used Ross’ mom as an example, but she sees Clark as a miracle, not a threat. It’s unwanted attention, but it isn’t negative.

                      “Clark in MoS didn’t need 12 years with Jor-El because he was already becoming a hero. He was already using his powers to do good. He was already on that path.

                      I don’t like one more than the other. They are different movies and I like them for different reasons. But if we focus on the transformation itself, the old movie didn’t go much into that.”

                      It’s no different in STM. Clark does good from his first moments on Earth. We get more of a transformation in STM, though.

                      “As with both Superman movies. The Clark in 1978 had only used his powers to kick a football and outrun a train. He was even further from becoming a hero than this Clark.”

                      I recommend you watch the film again. That is completely inaccurate.

                      “I disagree. It starts before that. There is also the scene where he is even younger and his x-ray vision kicks in at school. He runs and hides in the closet and the whole class is whispering about how weird he is. So he is experiencing that alienation years before Jonathan’s speech.”

                      I would agree, if Martha Kent hadn’t been there to console him, guide him, and reassure him. Something Jon just couldn’t do.

                      “I think we are discussing things in the storyline that can be interpreted.

                      And if you flip it over, I find it hard for those who dislike the movie to admit that it simply their own opinion and not an indisputable truth.”

                      How do you interpret that Clark saved everyone just Jon Kent? That Jon’s fears were unfounded? I’m not trying to interpret the actions, put continuously point out the poor writing of Jon Kent, which contributed to Clark’s directionless situation. Again, for Clak to save everyone but Jon, when he could have done so easily, and then for their not to a scene in the film that explores Jon’s fears is ludicrous. When the people of Earth are confronted with the knowledge of alien life, aside from staring at TV screens, the next day is business as usual. For Clark to have allowed his father to die, and NOTHING of Jon’s concerns to be touched on is remarkably cheap. They wanted to make Clark a traumatised anti-hero clone (which is my opinion of course), and it didn’t work.

                      “Has it? The ratings don’t suggest a divided audience.”

                      Then have another look at them, and not just the ones for the States, as MOS was released worldwide.

                    • “Now, you can try to justify that as much as you want, but that doesn’t track well at all”

                      I am actually not saying that the answer tracks well. I am saying that it’s okay for a character in a story to give an answer that doesn’t track well.

                      “you accusing me of wanting 0 or 100 percent”

                      That’s the impression I get. You don’t want the flaws. You don’t want the doubt. You want characters that just knows what to do and say.

                      “but the flaws, the mistakes he makes have planetary consequences. Superman needs to get it right. He embodies and personifies the best ideals that humanity has to offer”

                      Ideals are what we strive for. And our strive is riddled with our mistakes. But the mistakes don’t define us. We learn from them and get better and eventually we get more and more right.

                      You are basically asking to skip the strive and get to the part where he’s learned all and is getting everything right. You’re not accepting that the movie depicts the strive. The mistakes and the lessons learned. It’s a process.

                      “As to him not being able to stop helping people, how does that reconcile with the fact that the one person he didn’t help was his father, who selfishly forced him not to?”

                      It’s process. Every action, every mistake made and every lesson learned will affect the next.

                      When he decides to save the kids on the bus, he still hasn’t experienced how people around him will react. At that time he doesn’t even know he is from another world and that Jonathan and Martha isn’t his real parents.

                      When he stays back at Jonathan’s request he can’t know that Jonathan will be gone 1 second later. He hesitates and then it’s too late. But it’s a pricy lesson.

                      When he saves people in the years after that, he can’t stop because he knows that pain. If he didn’t have that experience, then he might not have felt as obligated to help the people at the oil rig. Because that didn’t happen around him like with the kids in the bus. It would have been easier to ignore.

                      But each time he has used his powers, he also leaves because he knows how people will react and he isn’t ready to become that kind of public hero.

                      “No, we saw no forging at all”

                      I saw forging. He wasn’t Superman yet. He was becoming Superman.

                      “No one ever reacts to him being an alien. Not one person.”

                      You are forgetting all the other kids whispering about him when he hides in the closet.

                      “Clark was ready to help people.”

                      Yes, but not to be known to the world as an alien. He hugs his dad and asks if he can’t just keep pretending to be his son. He may be ready for one part of having powers but not the other part.

                      “I would agree, if Martha Kent hadn’t been there to console him, guide him, and reassure him”

                      She can only do so much. You have to imagine his next day and next day and next day in school. His whole childhood. It doesn’t just go away because she comes to school and consoles him. And kids can be brutal. So you can’t say that the alienation only comes from Jonathan’s speech.

                      “How do you interpret that Clark saved everyone just Jon Kent?”

                      I wrote something about the process above.

                      “That Jon’s fears were unfounded?”

                      That’s hindsight again. Jonathan couldn’t know. You can’t expect character’s in a story to make decisions based on what you know after watching the whole story unfold.

                      “Then have another look at them”

                      I have looked at IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Where did you look?

                      Btw. I am not from USA.

                    • “I am actually not saying that the answer tracks well. I am saying that it’s okay for a character in a story to give an answer that doesn’t track well.”

                      It’s OK for you, that’s what you mean, right?

                      “That’s the impression I get. You don’t want the flaws. You don’t want the doubt. You want characters that just knows what to do and say.”

                      More accusations, which conveniently support your position without any need for thought on your part. Regardless of what I want or do not want, that shouldn’t be the basis for discussion. You like flawed heroes. I think it’s an oxymoron. No need to rehash it.

                      “Ideals are what we strive for. And our strive is riddled with our mistakes. But the mistakes don’t define us. We learn from them and get better and eventually we get more and more right.”

                      We do? We don’t make mistakes and continue to do so, and never improve? We don’t compound our errors and become worse with time? You’ve idealized what you want to see, and romanticized an experience that is different for everyone.

                      “You are basically asking to skip the strive and get to the part where he’s learned all and is getting everything right. You’re not accepting that the movie depicts the strive. The mistakes and the lessons learned. It’s a process.”

                      There was no process. Just brooding, angst, and Parkeresque moments. The X-Men have less angst than MOS. You enjoy the film, so you’re putting in things that didn’t happen at all. Clark doesn’t strive, he wanders. He broods. He reacts. You agreed that he’s directionless, but somehow in the state, he was striving for something? He was working on a ship one minute, then as a waiter the next. He just happens to overhear military men talk about an area, and he’s off again. He was actively seeking nothing. Did he help people? Sure. Just as he stole and wrecked a semi-truck. Striving involves reaching for a goal. You can’t do that without direction.

                      “It’s process. Every action, every mistake made and every lesson learned will affect the next.

                      When he decides to save the kids on the bus, he still hasn’t experienced how people around him will react. At that time he doesn’t even know he is from another world and that Jonathan and Martha isn’t his real parents.

                      When he stays back at Jonathan’s request he can’t know that Jonathan will be gone 1 second later. He hesitates and then it’s too late. But it’s a pricy lesson.

                      When he saves people in the years after that, he can’t stop because he knows that pain. If he didn’t have that experience, then he might not have felt as obligated to help the people at the oil rig. Because that didn’t happen around him like with the kids in the bus. It would have been easier to ignore.

                      But each time he has used his powers, he also leaves because he knows how people will react and he isn’t ready to become that kind of public hero.”

                      Clark was ready to be a public hero when he saved the lads on the bus. They could have easily written the scene so that Clarked saved the bus, and Pete, and slipped away, later returning with a story. Mind you, Pete’s Mom states that this isn’t the first time, either. Jon says “we’ve talked about this”, meaning Clark isn’t doing this for the first time. He wants to be active and help. Clark is ready, but Jon tells him people won’t be ready for him. Man, what a bad script! LOL!

                      As for Clark hesitating to save Jon, he didn’t hesitate. Jon told him no, and Clark obeyed. Even a second of hesitation wouldn’t have been enough to keep him from saving Jon. You’re romanticizing the film, making it deeper to suit your position, and ignoring the facts of what happened. Clark states to Lois that “I let my father die . . . .” There was no hesitation.

                      Clark doesn’t know how people are going to react, because he keeps leaving. When he does stay around, the reaction is pretty good, even though he wrecks half of Main Street. ;)

                      Lastly, for someone who isn’t ready to be a public hero, he does every rescue PUBLICLY. He doesn’t try to hide his face, use his speed, none of it. First chance he gets at an outfit, he’s off into the wild blue.

                      “I saw forging. He wasn’t Superman yet. He was becoming Superman.”

                      That’s not enough. It doesn’t track that you saw it on your own, but that the film gives us clear indelible examples. I can disagree with the example, but would concede that it’s there. However, there is no forging. We know that Clark wants to help people, and we don’t know why. He puts on an outfit and goes off flying. Why? Jor-El didn’t tell him to. Much of the film existed on the name recognition and mythological knowledge the audience has of Superman. Just a wee bit of thought, and the gaping holes are staring at you.

                      “You are forgetting all the other kids whispering about him when he hides in the closet.”

                      No, you’re forgetting that the lads didn’t know he was an alien, and neither did Clark. He wouldn’t know for several years until, as you state above, after the bus accident. The kids were whispering because to them, Clark freaked out and ran away for no reason. Any lad, alien or not, is going to get a dose if he does that . . .especially when the nutty Teacher brings them into the hall after him. Dumb scene, really dumb. So again, the alienation starts with Jon Kent. Not the kids, no one else but Jon.

                      “That’s hindsight again. Jonathan couldn’t know. You can’t expect character’s in a story to make decisions based on what you know after watching the whole story unfold.”

                      No, you’re giving Jon a pass and ignoring what unfounded means. What was the basis for Jon’s fear? Fear itself? Where in the film is Jon’s fear justified? By Pete’s Mom who see Clark as a miracle? Hardly. The key thing that you refuse to acknowledge is that Jon told Clark that he, Clark, would have to make a choice. On the day Jon died, Clark was ready to make that choice. Jon stopped him. He took that choice away. Clark was ready to go public to save his father’s life, a noble act if there is one, and Jon said no. It’s such a contradiction that only Goyer could write such malarkey.

                      “I have looked at IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Where did you look?

                      Btw. I am not from USA.”

                      You’re not from the States, but you’re looking at American based sites for International data? OK. ;) All cheek aside, try the international dailies for various countries. It helps to read the language, though.

                    • I wrote a long answer that didn’t show up.

                      I don’t want to start over. We just disagree. Accept it.

                      About the ratings, IMDb has international users and data too. About 3/4 of the voters are non-US users. So the audience is not divided. Not in the way you mean. Most people liked the movie.

                    • “I wrote a long answer that didn’t show up.

                      I don’t want to start over. We just disagree. Accept it.”

                      Why are you asking/telling me to accept that we disagree? The fact that we’re debating makes it pretty clear.

                      “About the ratings, IMDb has international users and data too. About 3/4 of the voters are non-US users. So the audience is not divided. Not in the way you mean. Most people liked the movie.”

                      Yes, the audience was divided. IMBd is a site where you vote, and you can vote more than once. You can do the research, of just believe what you want.

                    • “Yes, the audience was divided”

                      That’s your claim. I think it’s up to you to back it up. I always try to document my own claims myself.

                      “IMDb is a site where you vote, and you can vote more than once. You can do the research, of just believe what you want.”

                      This is what the FAQ on IMDb says about voting:

                      “Who can vote on movies?
                      IMDb Registered users can cast a vote (from 1 to 10) on every title in the database. Users can vote as many times as they want but every vote will overwrite the previous one so it’s one vote per title per user.”

                      So those 409.102 votes are from individual users. Only 1 vote per user is counted.

                      I don’t know what dailies you have ready, but until you provide some documentation, I’ll trust this vote. And as I said, almost 3/4 of those are non-US users.

                    • “This is what the FAQ on IMDb says about voting:

                      “Who can vote on movies?
                      IMDb Registered users can cast a vote (from 1 to 10) on every title in the database. Users can vote as many times as they want but every vote will overwrite the previous one so it’s one vote per title per user.”

                      So those 409.102 votes are from individual users. Only 1 vote per user is counted.

                      I don’t know what dailies you have ready, but until you provide some documentation, I’ll trust this vote. And as I said, almost 3/4 of those are non-US users.”

                      You don’t have to be a registered user. If you want to place all of your faith in one website, simply because it meets your opinions, go for it.

                      Good talking with you.

                    • “You don’t have to be a registered user.”

                      Yes, you do.

                      First, that’s excactly what their FAQ says.

                      Second, I just went there, I logged out and when I try to vote it tells me to register or login.

                      “If you want to place all of your faith in one website, simply because it meets your opinions, go for it.”

                      You’re doing the same thing. You talk about some dailies that meets your opinions but you can’t specify them.

                      Btw. faith? I am not sure what you mean by that. I just responded to your claim that the audience was divided with a source that suggested otherwise.

                      You may not like that source because it doesn’t meet your opinions, but it is what it is.

                      Nice talking to you too.

                    • “Yes, you do.

                      First, that’s excactly what their FAQ says.

                      Second, I just went there, I logged out and when I try to vote it tells me to register or login.”

                      You do not have to be a registered user. You can have a Facebook account, an Amazon account, a Google account and still vote. So long as your email address is different for your accounts, you can vote for each account. I logged in with one, voted, then logged in with another to see if I could vote again. Easy as pie. So much for the FAQ.

                      “You’re doing the same thing. You talk about some dailies that meets your opinions but you can’t specify them”

                      Hardly. Check the dailies that were released for MOS in various countries. Not all information is through a website. And it’s not my opinion. The overall audience was divided. Moreso if you look at the comments about the time of MOS’ DVD release.

                      “You may not like that source because it doesn’t meet your opinions, but it is what it is.”

                      It’s a site where you can vote more than once for the same film. That’s what it is.

                      Nice talking to you too.

                    • “You do not have to be a registered user.”

                      If you use Facebook, Google etc. you’re creating an IMDb account in the proecess. So you’re still becoming a registered user to vote.

                      But okay, you can create multiple accounts. Are you suggesting that the 400.000 votes are coming from a few people with multiple accounts?

                      “Hardly. Check the dailies that were released for MOS in various countries.”

                      Am I to believe that you went out and checked a lot of dailies in various countries when MoS was released, yet you can’t even mention one of them – or where I might be able to verify your claim?

                      “Moreso if you look at the comments”

                      So we should trust comments but not votes? How are comments any different? It could be a few people with mutiple accounts ;)

                      Look, I am not saying that everybody loves MoS. I am sure a lot of people feel like you. It just doesn’t seem to be 50/50.

                    • “If you use Facebook, Google etc. you’re creating an IMDb account in the proecess. So you’re still becoming a registered user to vote.

                      But okay, you can create multiple accounts. Are you suggesting that the 400.000 votes are coming from a few people with multiple accounts?”

                      I point out a flaw in the vote system, and now I’m supposed to qualify how many people took advantage of the flaw? You gave IMDB as an example and I pointed out that it’s not necessarily the best one. That should be the end of it, unless you honestly believe that no one took advantage of the flaw.

                      “Am I to believe that you went out and checked a lot of dailies in various countries when MoS was released, yet you can’t even mention one of them – or where I might be able to verify your claim?”

                      Why should you disbelieve me, because it suits you to do so? If I gave a list of 20 or so dailies, you’re telling you’re going to hot-step to the library and check it out? Fine. Check the Irish dailies: Anglo Celt, Mayo News, Echo etc. and get back to me. It helps to be able to read the Gaelic.

                      “So we should trust comments but not votes? How are comments any different? It could be a few people with mutiple accounts ;)”

                      Point taken, which acknowledges what I said above, unless you’re just saying this to suit your needs.

                      “Look, I am not saying that everybody loves MoS. I am sure a lot of people feel like you. It just doesn’t seem to be 50/50.”

                      Probably closer to 55/45 (for/against), which still isn’t a good breakdown. I know that people enjoyed the film, but their enjoyment doesn’t constitute the overwhelming majority that they would like it to be.

                      Now, since this is firmly off topic, I’ve to be off.

                    • “I’m supposed to qualify how many people took advantage of the flaw?”

                      My point is simply this: We’re not taking about a few hundreds of votes. We’re talking about 400.000 votes. You’d need a huge amount of people making a huge amount of multiple accounts to make any impact on the result.

                      Yes, there are plenty of crazy fans. But they’re just not that many compared to the common moviegoers.

                      And you’d still have all the people that feel like you voting it down too. Unless there’s just not that many of you after all ;)

                      So I don’t just dismiss it. I consider if I want to trust it as an indication of how the audience feels or not. And in this case, with these numbers, I do.

                      You don’t. That’s okay.

                      “If I gave a list of 20 or so dailies, you’re telling you’re going to hot-step to the library and check it out?”

                      Perhaps not, but I’d at least google them. And is it really that much to ask?

                      If I had said over and over again that I believed the majority of the audience liked it, but I hadn’t told you excactly where or how I’d gotten that impression, I am sure you would have disbelieved me.

                      It’s nothing personal to disbelieve a person in a debate. People may have bad sources (as you think I do) or bad memories ;)

                      So I think it’s perfectly natural to ask for documentation in such cases.

                      “It helps to be able to read the Gaelic”

                      I’m not sure what the point of this is. English is my second language. I could point you towards sources from my local country and make a point of you not knowing my language, but what good would that do us?

                      Anyway, we seem to never be able to conclude this, so I’ll be off too ;)

          • So is your conclusion that Clark was protecting himself when he chose to let Jonathan die? I guess the natural argument for that would be that Clark was raised, from a young age, to fear people because of Jonathan’s ill-conceived teachings. Right? Of course, that does not exactly sound like someone developing into Superman – someone who has a huge amount of faith in humanity. It also ignores the fact that by that point in his life, Clark had apparently learned to dismiss Johnathan’s opinions – as shown by the argument only minutes before Clark let his father die.

            What I am pointing out with the whole secrete identity thing is that by not believing in long-standing concepts regarding the character, or even attempting to give them a “modern” twist (such as Kryptonian tech infused into his glasses), Goyer and Synder declared the whole thing to be silly and essentially abandoned it. The unintended consequences (or collateral damage) of doing this worked to undermine the other aspects of their film. Zod showing up spilled the beans on the “you are not alone” secrete and Lois tracking down Clark so easily shows the “Clark is an alien” secrete as idiotic. As it just so happens, both of these secrete were revealed to the audience just prior to the tornado scene. As a result, when the audience sees Clark stand there and let his father die, they don’t relate better to him or even feel sympathy. Instead, all they get is the overwhelming feeling Clark is a self-serving jerk or an incredibly potent symbol of despair. In other words, no one we should aspire to become.

            Now compare the reaction audiences had to the “Clark selfishly sacrifices his father” scene to the “Clark sacrifices himself for humanity” developments. I would argue that Zod had no reason to threaten Earth to hand over Clark. This is because Clark apparently spent most of his adult life seeking out any information about where he came from. So, did Clark really hand himself over to protect humanity? I would argue he would have sought out any opportunity to meet living Kryptonians – despite what Jor-El’s hologram would have warned. Nothing about the moment is poignant because it feels like he is just doing what he likely would have done anyway.

            • “So is your conclusion that Clark was protecting himself when he chose to let Jonathan die?”

              I see it as Jonathan protecting Clark. Jonathan believed that Clark (and the world) wasn’t ready.

              “Jonathan’s ill-conceived teachings”

              Clark does not only know and understand the world through Jonathan’s teachings. Clark has his own experiences of people’s reaftions too.

              “Clark had apparently learned to dismiss Johnathan’s opinions”

              It’s never that black and white. Think about the time you grew up yourself.

              “Zod showing up spilled the beans”

              It definately made it easier for Clark to go public and it allowed him to save the day. Some might still fear him because he’s alien. But he’s chosen a side and hopefully they’ll see that too.

              Imagine if muslims had stopped 9/11. The debate about islam would probably have been a lot different and less polarized.

              “overwhelming feeling Clark is a self-serving jerk”

              I disagree.

  29. Go to 0:21 in the YouTube clip to see the rarely-shown Superman “Da Fuq Just Happened?” face. The guy is used to boxing city-destroying brutes, but he just got Judo tossed by a 220 lb human… the face is just priceless.

    • If BvS follows that format, it will be a letdown. How exactly do you Judo-flip a man who can defy gravity, and moves at super-speed, which means he has to have superior reaction time as well? It was Timm and Company providing a Batgasm for those who can’t resist PIS.

Be Social, Follow Us!!