Author Topic: Man of Steel - No Spoilers  (Read 7276 times)

Offline Dragonfire

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 6911
    • View Profile
    • Dragonfire88 Pbwiki
Re: Man of Steel - No Spoilers
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2013, 06:46:34 AM »
It did kind of seem to me like Jonathan wasn't as....hmm...supportive as he has been in other versions.  I get that he was worried about how people would react to what Clark could do, but it still seemed a bit...off to me.

Offline Blair

  • Heavy Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 722
  • Country: us
  • ¡umop apisdn w,I
    • View Profile
    • My DVD Collection
Re: Man of Steel - No Spoilers
« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2013, 04:33:06 AM »
It did kind of seem to me like Jonathan wasn't as....hmm...supportive as he has been in other versions.  I get that he was worried about how people would react to what Clark could do, but it still seemed a bit...off to me.

It is, of course, possible that they specifically wanted changes like that in the film (still haven't seen it) so that it's the same story, but different. After all, how many times can a reboot be made interesting when you always have to lead off by telling the exact. same. story. every. single. time?
I have a collection.
It can be found here.
No need to check it often.
I update it only twice a year!


Never go to bed mad. Sleep on the couch instead.

There are a few broken branches in every family tree.

Offline Dragonfire

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 6911
    • View Profile
    • Dragonfire88 Pbwiki
Re: Man of Steel - No Spoilers
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2013, 08:27:38 AM »
Right.  But I guess I think there should be a few things that aren't changed that much...maybe show them in slightly different ways, but not mess with the ultimate nature of the characters.  Things like that.

Offline DJ Doena

  • Administrator
  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 6719
  • Country: de
  • Battle Troll
    • View Profile
    • My Blog
Re: Man of Steel - No Spoilers
« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2013, 02:54:56 PM »
I still haven't watched the movie (still boycotting 3D, waiting for the Blu-ray) but I found this German blog post very interesting:

http://www.weirdfiction.de/article_database/man-of-steel-oder-st-superman-gegen-die-wissenschaft/

Here's a translation to the best of my abilities:

Quote
That Superman is in fact Jesus is practically known to everyone who’s analysed the character. And that’s not a problem in itself because he’s always been reduced to the best parts of godhood: He’s an all-powerful and infinitely gentle being which is benevolently watching over mankind. In the mediocre “Superman Returns” (which wasn’t as bad as it was made out to be – it focused on soap opera drama instead of the Übermensch aspect) there was one moment which characterized this perfectly: A gangster fired a bullet directly into his eye but Superman doesn’t even blink or loses the smirk on his face. Even though the guy tried to kill him, Superman doesn’t get mad and only smiles at him because he poses no threat to him. This scene shows him all-powerful yet benign.

“Man of Steel” fails at both and turns the nice tutelary deity into a fundamentalist god the likes of which has recently surfaced again during the gay marriage debate.

But before we get to the ideology first to the lack of opulence. That was something I really did not expect with Snyder! He pumped up the “Watchmen” to demigods even though they were originally designed as losers and it didn’t fit their profile at all. But now he suddenly fails to make the one original super being as big as he deserves it. From time to time there are scenes where he walks through fire or where he tests the boundaries which define his omnipotence. But these are rare because the first half is all about hiding his powers. When he finally gets into the costume the bad guys from the Phantom Zone have already arrived and they are his equals, thus he doesn’t stand out anymore.

Their spacecrafts, armours and tech further diverts from the powers the Kryptonians themselves possess. When that’s finally out of the way and the end boss fight with General Zod is happening we actually get a rumble of epic proportions – it just should have happened sooner.

That’s disappointing but at least not objectionable. But the ideological direction of the film leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

For starters Superman’s godlike status is pointed out more obvious than ever before. Multiple times he’s called the “son of El” and his Kryptonian surname is explained as meaning “hope”. I do not speak Kryptonian but I do know what “El” in the Semitic languages means and what subsequently the only hope is: God.

This hidden hint in the Superman myth is further underlined by having his deceased father Jor-El being omnipresent. It becomes over the top when he guides Lois Lane through the ship by being everywhere without moving himself.

When Superman doubts his destiny in a church then Jesus is right behind him in the Garden of Gethsemane. Just like Jesus he travels the world after his childhood and before his acceptance of his destiny and like Jesus he has to surrender to mankind if he wants to save them.

It becomes problematic when a question is answered I’ve been asking for a long time: Why didn’t Jor-El flee from Krypton himself? Did the ultra-advanced civilization which is known in the whole DC universe really have no other spacecraft? Now we learn that he wanted Krypton to perish. They used terraforming (which is going to be the bad guy’s weapon at the end). Their children are genetically enhanced and are prepared for their later career before they are even born (see Huxley). This is an offense against nature which deserves to be punished – like with the bringer of Noah’s flood from the Old Testament the innocent individual doesn’t count.

Later in the battle the bad guys gloat with their genetic enhancement and explain that they are the result of evolution and thus not bound to morality like Superman is. That’s a pretty big load of crap (evolution is nature; genetics, culture and morals are a completely different topic). But in today’s situation it puts them with a certain faction. Science – to which the study of evolution belongs – is automatically put in contrast (and irreconcilable) with acting morally. Positive characters thus are enemies of enlightenment: The amicable editor won’t print any articles about the existence of aliens because he doesn’t want to upset people – even if he loses a sensational headline. Superman’s adoptive father considers his son’s secret as his topmost priority.

At least the last one is understandable in principle. But the moment when secrecy becomes more important than saving lives, Superman loses his second important characteristic: His humanism. He’s criticized for saving a busload full of children and Jonathan (completely unnecessarily) sacrifices himself in a storm to save a dog which his invulnerable son could have rescued without any problem. Once again the message is that a single individual is less important than a higher being and higher cause and that is exactly NOT the foundation of the Superman myth.

His education comes to an end when he finally learns target-oriented killing. Of course only in self-defence, to defend the innocent and of course he cries about this. But that’s the only way to get a happy end and is the logical conclusion of the previous lessons.

You could think it’s a small moment of subversion when Superman destroys an army drone which wants to discover his secret identity. But even that becomes void when he explains that he’s pure American due to his growing up in Kansas and when he passes his vote of confidence to a high-ranking officer.

So in the end we have an American Jesus who is supposed to guide mankind, who knows how little a single individual counts in the grand scheme of things, who’s not a cosmopolitan but who thinks in context of nations (“us” and “them”) and whose enemies represent science.

The movie is enjoyable at times, the action sequences and the scenery looks great. It’s certainly better than the third and fourth Reeves movie. But oh the ideology. Just like with “300” I can imagine that Snyder did not think of these side effects (because if he tries to think, the result is “Sucker Punch”) but he didn’t understand at all what makes Superman Superman.

(Dirk M. Jürgens)
Karsten

Abraham Lincoln once said The trouble with quotes from the internet is that you never know if they're genuine.

my Blog | my DVD Profiler Tools


Offline Kathy

  • Super Heavy Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3600
  • Country: us
    • View Profile
Re: Man of Steel - No Spoilers
« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2013, 03:44:13 PM »
I believe some people way over think things. A comic book character representing Jesus or God? Really?

Will this genre become a mandatory requirement at theological universities? I can see it now - what is your major? Superheroes!

I bought every comic book made when I was young and I have re-read them countless times over these many years. These are comic books - an enjoyable read with interesting characters - nothing more.

What is it about some characters that makes some people take an almost personal stake in what they do and how they are portrayed?

I go to the movies to enjoy the experience that is presented to me. I don't go into it needing the film to comply with any preconceived expectations. If you do then you're bound to be disappointed.










Offline Jimmy

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 6756
  • Country: ca
  • Yes this is me...
    • View Profile
Re: Man of Steel - No Spoilers
« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2013, 04:35:47 PM »
After all, how many times can a reboot be made interesting when you always have to lead off by telling the exact. same. story. every. single. time?
Maybe the solution for that is to make something new and not do remake or reboot...

Offline Achim

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 7179
  • Country: 00
    • View Profile
Re: Man of Steel - No Spoilers
« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2013, 07:37:30 AM »
I believe some people way over think things. A comic book character representing Jesus or God? Really?
Just like with movies, it is not about what is on the page (or screen), it's about the subtext. That subtext usually only becomes obvious to the viewers and is not necessarily originally intended by the author.

So, just like with movies, it may work as a pure piece of entertainment, but one can also project themes onto it.


Beyond that, the article made it clear to me I actually like the movie even less than I thought at first :-\