All this movie had to do was have Clark refuse to accept the jaded, cynical world around him as it is and have him instead lead by example to make it as it should be. In the Pa Kent death scene he should have told Lois that when he watched his father die because of his refusal to accept help due to fear, that he also realized in that same moment that living in fear was not the answer. He should have said, "As long as I have the power to make a difference, then I will use my power to make the world a better place. I will never stand idlely by out of fear again." But nope.
Sadly, not realistic. That would never happen. Snyder's focus was on realism. Snyder doesn't believe in people being that good and to be honest, neither do I.
you can call it realism but it's also pretty cynical of a view of humanity, that could work though given that superman is meant to be the example of the ideal person/hero and have him reject such a negative outlook and strive to get people to be better. perhaps not to classic superman levels but at least better then what was presented. Superman has nothing to fear from humanity in a realistic setting, so it doesn't make sense for him to hide and not use his powers to help people, hell he has a secret identity so he can live as a human when not being Superman.
Exactly. The wisecrack video speaks of Socrates's friend who said "a perfect upright man would be scourged, racked, and bound. He would have his eyes burned out and after suffering every evil he would be impaled." Well I would like to see the world try to destroy a man whose nickname is, "Man of Steel". One of the beauties of Superman is that his power gives him the ability to be incredibly bold in the face of impossible levels of evil. In this jaded, selfish, cynical society, a Superman would hit it like an atomic bomb. In a world where Multi-Billionaires like Lex Luthor can use money and influence to ruin the lives of millions of people around the world. A Superman suddenly showing up would make a "fools hope" suddenly a possibility. A Superman can't be bought, bribed or bullied. A Superman can literally stop a war single handedly. He could turn back a hurricane with his breath. He could walk boldly before any King on Earth and tell them to their face, "No" and that leader couldn't really do a thing about it. Humanity would fear him until he showed them his courage. They would hate him until he showed them his selflessness. Man of Steel and BvS should have been 2 movies that made you fall in love with Superman but failed to accomplish this one task. There have been too many examples of Superman done right for these repeated failure to have taken place. This movie should have essentially been the story of what happened in the early life of Clark Kent to make him decide to make the conscience choice to stand up before the world against an invasion and be forever known as the Superman.
deomartinez77 Umm. He doesn't say those words, but that's precisely what he does. Clark chose to use his a abilities to help others when he was still in grade school and his mother saved him, but he had to keep his abilities a secret to protect his family and friends as well as the town of Smallville. However, when protecting Smallville meant his father had to sacrifice himself, Clark refused to put himself in that position again. He refused to be in a position where he would need to keep his secret safe at the expense of someone else. So he left home and used his abilities to help people under multiple aliases, leaving before anyone could ask questions. It defined his entire life. When the world was in danger and Lois was imprisoned he risked everything by showing his face as Superman to save them. He never ever stopped using his abilities to help others, until he feared that doing so was causing more harm than good, but even then he had the courage to return.
deomartinez77 He doesn't say those words, but that's precisely what he does. Clark chose to use his a abilities to help others when he was still in grade school and his mother saved him, but he had to keep his abilities a secret to protect his family and friends as well as the town of Smallville. However, when protecting Smallville meant his father had to sacrifice himself, Clark refused to put himself in that position again. He refused to be in a position where he would need to keep his secret safe at the expense of someone else. So he left home and used his abilities to help people under multiple aliases, leaving before anyone could ask questions. It defined his entire life. He never stopped helping people, even if it meant he could never have a family or friends and, when the world was in danger, he ultimately chose to show his face to the world as Superman even with all he risked, to save it. This misinterpretation of Superman as a self-absorbed emo sociopath is wrong. He is every bit the selfless hero, who is willing to help whoever needs him, that he is in the comics.
The problem I have with Man of Steel was Johnathan Kent's death wasn't as meaningful as his death in Christopher Reeve's movie because he died from a heart attack and with all his powers he wasn't able to save him, rendering young Clarke helpless for the very first time.
Tom Hoole you keep twisting it making it seem like Clark didn't want to save him when in fact he did. Especially in this same video he plays that scene where Clark said his dad believed the world wasn't ready for someone like him.
Tom Hoole In the original Superman movie Johnathan Kent's death was the driving force for Clarke seek out where he came from and about his powers and for self reflection, to be able to save people, after the death of his father and his guilt of not being able to save him. It's also the reason he broke the law's of nature by turning back time so he could save Loise Lane.
Tom Hoole well that's you. If I was in that same position and had all the strength that superman had and my dad was in danger like that I would want to save him just like Clark wanted to but if his wishes were for me not to save him I would respect that. His dad was in fact right that the world wasn't ready for him. The middle part of that he had to deal with the government turning him over to his people. Being afraid of him when in smallville while also getting attacked by the military even when he was helping and saving them.
Tom Hoole I just think the Original films Johnathan Kent's death had more of a impact on Clark's development because with all his powers him was still helpless to save his dad, showing even Superman has his limitations excluding Kriptonite.
Zack had probably seen it as a challenge to make Superman dark and gritty but in the end he created a movie that people only liked for the cool fight scenes.
"Imagine if Luke had spent over an hour contemplating the pros and cons of using the Force - you'd grow to hate the guy." Ummm... You guys aren't going to like The Last Jedi.
Sean McCallum Luke is no longer the main character in that movie: many years have passed and most of the major players in the classic trilogy have concluded their crucial arcs. Most of the roles they once inherited have been transferred to the newer generations. Rey now plays that role that Campbell has established in his works: her function as a protagonist (who is still fresh and excited with the prospect of making a journey of her own, which is a crucially important element which allows audiences to be relatable to her traits) and the audience's POV. I have no problem with Luke's drastic change (35 years is a very, VERY LONG time and people naturally change depending on circumstances at certain point in their lifespan), his perspective on the Force now feels cynical and worn out (much like our own in the real world) and here now serves as a supporting role, doing his best to (reluctantly) pass all his knowledge to her, as Obiwan has done the same to the young lad in A New Hope, similar to Anakin Skywalker as he initially held the role of a protagonist in the prequels and ended up taking another role in the subsequent trilogy, this time as a main villain though. It's a good way to set up a solid main character, unlike Man of Steel's Superman, whose conflicted and contradicting personalities prevent audiences from trying to make a connection, emotionally and mentally, with him. I think the biggest problem with Zack Snyder's interpretation is that he sets all of these motions way too early in Superman's arc, deciding to make him unlikeable and unrelatable for some 'realistic' reasons. These negative traits, whilst compelling if done right, could have been introduced later in later stories, NOT IN THE FIRST MOVIE! Overall, his arc has potential to strive for greatness but completely marred early on by the story's strange turns, the writer and director's lack of passion and/or understanding towards DC lore, obsession with fancy visuals and explosions as well as bizarre editing (these problems are further amplified in BvS); so poorly constructed that many audiences rightfully reject both him and Justice League at the end (at this case, thank WB for creating bad continuity, regardless of how bad the first two movies are).
I dont have a problem with how dark they were going with but how Superman never really seemed affected by the collateral damage and the destruction around him. They had no problems showing how realistic an alien invasion would look like and how many people would die, but you have no idea how it makes Superman feel. Its hard to root for a "hero" who jokes and makes out with a girl on top of the rubble, where hundreds have literally been flap jacked to death.
Superman: *Screams in terror and agony after having to kill Zod to save Earth and notably a family. Has to be consoled by Lois for a time.* OrdinaryCitizen: But how does he feel?
@@joshpearson2928 And then that scene is followed up by that cringeworthy scene of Supes destroying the drone. Almost like he turns into a completely different character in that scene. I think Man of Steel is an alright movie, but man, it wastes its good ideas.
Maybe hes not meant to be. That's the point? Raised by humans but still an alien. How do you or I or anyone know what an alien human should feel? Sure as hell not 100% human feelings. I loved this movie. It was done well and showcased what happens when a superhero faces off against a far superior supervillain. Everyone whines about the destruction and how superman should've just flown up with the bad guy and saved more lives etc etc. The villain kept it grounded because he knew supes weakness - humans. There's such subtlety and beauty in this movie that many people miss because they want Superman to be what they want him to be.
*Moral of the Story: Don't 180 a franchise unless you know 100% what you're doing.* Don't give Mickey Mouse a handgun. Don't give the Watchmen a pink, magic wand. Don't give _My Little Pony_ a _Saw_ episode. Don't give _Saw_ a _My Little Pony_ movie entry.
Neo Machine or at LEAST wait until the second or third movie to make these changes. First establish the character in and with all the qualities everyone knows them for and as and do it well
Neo Machine That they did; look up the infamous "Cupcakes" fan video of Pinkie Pie disemboweling Rainbow Dash to the tune of Andrew WK's "Ready To Die".
The funny thing is they made the same "Righteous USA symbol confronting the modern corrupt world" theme with Captain America and did it way better. The first Captain America doesn't even attempt to hide the fact that the character was created as USA propaganda during WWII and strictly portrays USA as the ultimate good guys. Winter Solider has Cap witness how SHIELD, the entity he relates to the most as "the good guys" was corrupted from the inside for years and turned into Neo Nazis. In Civil War the UN labels Cap as an international criminal and he pretty much turns against all goverments worldwide.
You would think both the first two films (or at least the second) would be, for different reasons, different extremes, pretty disliked and the third film a lot more so. Although the third film does show a conflict without taking a side.
Watchmen is still his best, most complete film. 300 was alright, and kicked a lot of ass when it came out. Sucker Puch is weightless and everything else since then is profoundly flawed. Maybe he had to prove himself with Watchmen, and just got too much freedom afterwards.
Gleidston Filipe I think Anthony was also referring to the fact that many characters in Watchmen are references do DC characters but look at them in a rather cynical way. With their backstories explained, those cynical outlooks make sense, but they do not fit the original characters. And it's this cynicism that Snyder seems to have carried over into the DC movies, where it just doesn't belong, certainly not with Superman.
Rockyblack smith Totally, man. Snyner can do nihilism duper well, but he's proven to be the wrong guy to bring hope, and I dare say, healthy joy to the screen. Deconstruction can't be the norm, but you know what? I'm kind of glad we've had these movies now, because I don't think we're getting murderous Superman and trigger happy Batman ever again in live action. If anything I'm sorry they weren't even darker and crazier. They were just 13yo edgy, not even close to deep.
What do you guys mean by nihilism in Watchman? It's dark but how is it nihilistic? The characters believe in something, in fact I think there's 3 different beliefs clashing against each other in that movie. Do you guys mean that it isn't idealistic? Or that it's atypical for a super hero movie? I can agree with that, but the word nihilism means not believing in anything, and I don't think that's the case for watchmen. The Joker is nihilistic tho, Batman isn't...
@@JV-cz6fz yea he pulled it off, and they did it without sacrificing the the characters portrayal from the comic book. Man of Steel sacrifices superman from the comics in order to have a new superman..one that is horribly not super
@@xxMAGnaniMOxx This Superman is the purist to the comics and history ever in a movie...MOS is also a love letter to Superman's creators. Even involving Man of Tomorrow elements .
My biggest problem is when people use the “it makes him more human” defense, they don’t realize that in order for that be the case it has to payoff in end and it never did for this version of Superman, he’s still the same person at the beginning of the film as he is in the end he never becomes the hero they needed, like in Spider-Man 2 Peter was continuously beaten into the ground and making mistakes Because *he’s* *only* *human* and it felt so natural because in the end he came out on top, all the mistakes and suffering paid off
The problem to me is the movie doesn't juxtapose using his powers with not using his powers. It creates a false dichotomy between complete passivity and going full Superman. So many times he could stand up for himself without force or, at the very least, dialing back his force to human-level. But the script won't let him do that.
Superman does pull back his powers to human level in BvS. When Supes walks into the courthouse he gently opens the door and walks towards the criticisms of people who are quick to judge
After watching it tonight I realised the biggest flaw is the ridicolously confusing scene to scene editing. Superman doesn’t feel well established, the movie feels like it expects you to know the superman mythos while it still works like an origin story but then again not really. It’s just a really confusing movie, where character relationships aren’t well developed.
I saw a video saying how Snyder favors moments vs scenes. Mos has many moments where the watcher is supposed to think, "oh my god, it's superman, this is so monumental and pivotal", versus actually giving us character building scenes that make us care about the characters.
Ross Coe yeah but the film is added with flashback without patterns when Clark saw something that’s related to that flashback, it really lacks the focus, that’s the problem
I thought I was the only one to think exact those words! The best first 10 minutes in the history of bad movies!! +Chimpalicious Jones III has it spot on.
Great thought Planetbustard.. and how about adding the computer generation of Brando from the donner era 1 and 2 fliks' unused footage as Kal's grandad, Jor-El l, jor-El's dad.. Awsome.. Dude, I think you're onto a major universe spin-off here
Ya know, Richard Donner's SUPERMAN was made during a very cynical time too (the end of the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Pentagon Papers) and it went for the hopeful optimism that the Man of Steel represents. I think that movie did just fine...
Rudie Obias The world around Superman is pessimistic as all hell. Which makes Reeve's Superman charming because he brings a little light to that dark world.
Yes but the difference is? The tone of the film. The world setting. Reeve's world wasn't as cynical as compared to MoS and lets say DCEU. Also, Cavill's superman may have not been jolly, or hopeful, or optimistic, but he wasn't dour either. He was just stuck in a place where he couldn't move properly and was figuring out what to do.
and is whoafully unrealistic. It's an 80s movie that doesn't hold up. Yeah, I know it contains a character like superman in it so it's not real already. But Donner's superman feels like it's missing the skepticims of the world who do and don't trust superman. Reeve's superman goes in to the cave of solitude for 2 minutes. they play a montage and he comes out as perfect superman. They crowds of citizens chear him on like generic non playable characters in a videogame because the script demands that they do. Sure, Reeve's superman world is lala land. In a more realistic world, he'd struggle like cavil's superman.
WARNING: I'm a writer thus this comment is likely to be long and deep. All it took was one line of dialogue from Superman: 'I'm here to fight for truth and justice in the American way.' 'You're going to end up fighting every elected official in this country,' Lois responded. That is the voice of the adult audience in 1978, as it would be the voice of most adults today, presented in order to say, 'Yes we know what you're thinking.' It also came just before the sequence where Lois and Superman fly. 'You mean I could fly?' she asked cynically. 'This is utterly fantastic,' she said before turning back to walk into her apartment. 'Wait a minute,' cried Superman, 'where are you going?' 'Are you serious?' 'Sure.' Next he overcomes her cynicism about the idea of flying and, since her cynicism over his line about 'truth and justice' was just before that, the implication is that he wins that argument too. That is how they did it then, with clever writing and directing. Their understanding of how to manipulate the feelings and attitudes of most viewers, so they can fully engage in the story, was greater in 1978 Hollywood than it is today. Today it's barely even attempted and, when it is attempted, it's usually done badly. Exhibit one: Man Of Steel. Now I get that some young people don't rate Richard Donner's Superman particularly (despite the fact that it is undeniably the most accurate portrayal of the character on film ever), but the younger you are the more socially conscious you are and, in this day and age, your wants are dictated by the trends of social media (I am so glad the Internet didn't exist when I was growing up, it allowed me to continue thinking independent of my culture). For the record, fourth1000, films don't have to be realistic they have to be 'credible'. One does not go to the cinema to see realism, unless that's the angle the film is playing. A realistic superhero film would be The Dark Knight, however Bruce Wayne doesn't have any superpowers, so that is fitting. Superman does, so it's not fitting. No-one's saying that you can't like Man Of Steel, people often have different tastes, but to slam such a groundbreaking film (a film without which there would conceivably be no superhero movies today), is a terrible disrespect to the legacy of Superman in my opinion. I realise people use Superman to argue how bad Man Of Steel is, but it is an appropriate comparison. I understand your need to justify your own thinking, since it is different from so many others, by arguing against critics of the film you like, perhaps attracting those who would agree with you. I understand it, because everyone seems to do that, but I also think it's a stupid symptom of the Internet age. You don't have to justify your feelings to yourself, you're allowed to be different, and your self-esteem should not be attached to how many people agree with you. Just my humble opinion.
Now take that and add the war on drugs, Ronald Reagan, two Iraq wars, 9/11, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, the Snowden leaks and Obama's drone assassinations. If Americans are still optimistic after all that they must be pumping powerful drugs into your water supply.
This is a hiliarious statement considering the fact that the producers of Superman and Lois said they took some inspiration from Man of Steel. The iron-knee...
I really think the problem is that 1) they found the wrong people to write the script. 2) our nerd culture has a unusual hatred against Superman and the only "creative" Superman they want is an evil Superman.
I keep saying you guys are THOROUGH. You hit the nail right on the head. I wished producers and movie makers would come to people and channels like you guys for advise. They would be doing themselves a favor.
i like how Jonathan Kent is so afraid of what humanity will do to Clark, knowing that Clark's fucking invincible 🙄 i also like how Clark respects his dad so much he lets him die, then disrespects his wishes later to save some people who, you know, DIDN'T RAISE HIM
Dzumeister I don't understand what will humanity do to Clark? Hurt him? His father knows his invincible. Reject him his a fucking powerful being no one would have the balls to stand up in front of him and act like an asshole.
Clark is invincible in Body. Not mind. He was already a sensitive boy. He was already alone. Jonathan knew and was correct that he would be even more alone as a God among mortals. Who could Clark truly connect with? Who could he bond with? Who would understand him? Jonathan saw racism, bigotry, hatred all of his life. For little things that separate us simply by visible cues or vocal beliefs. Parents just want the world to accept their children. From the Geniuses, to the Beautiful, to the slow, and to the physically challenged. And no one ever on this planet had a more difficult job in that aspect than the father who was raising a child that could bench press their house if he got upset. And finally, while hard... the tornado would stop on its own. The Kryptonians would not have. That isn't even a choice.
I think the mesagge is that Superman should save and protect humanity no matter if they hate him at first, he should continue to do so untill they start trusting on him and he could became the beacon of hope he is destined to be So the realization should be that in the meanwhile he shouldnt hide and let people die waiting to the world to be ready, he had to make the world accept him through his actions
That was the message of both movies... And he did save many people before becoming superman. He had to wait because his relationship with humanity could be at risk with being exposed too young or too soon..plus the government poking around him too soon. In the 78 Reeve version he had to hide until the right time, and no one said a Damn thing criticizing that.
@@sugc3209 Pa Kent didn't say that...He said "maybe" which is the same as saying I don't know. He could save anyone in the 78 Reeve version either.. In his original origin he had to hide his powers and only help people When the time came when he was older..it's literally in his comic origin
At the end if the day the hallow feeling of hate for the man would still be there This same problem happened in incredibles But is dealt with in the not so perfect movie Hancock Where he went to jail until he was needed At the end of the day he should wait to be needed which is want pa Kent wanted in the first place but it's how he waits that matters the most not the roller coaster of emotions the movie took us all through Granted people still like this movie coz of that but my opinion is there should have chosen a different route to the man of hope's upbringing
On top of that, a lot of Man of Steel's issues, as well as it's strengths, could have been fleshed out and improved in a sequel. There was enough ground as to why a billionare industrialist would hate Superman, why a vigilante would create a plan to combat an alien before befriending such, why a Future team of metahumans would agree not to kill and why citizens have a right to have concerns regarding their safety regarding people like Superman giving him obstacles to solve with the best traits and motifs that define his character and personality. And yet, Snyder and WB just wasted these opportunities in favor of marketing overhaul and money over why people loved these characters in the first place.
I just don’t think he really understand these characters well, yeah he is a big fan of TDKR but this isn’t the Batman we usually know and love and even this Superman
Perry White: "Can you imagine how people would react if they knew someone like this existed?" To quote the movie Ted: "No matter how big a splash you make in this world, whether you're a Corey Feldman, Frankie Muniz, Justin Bieber or a talking teddy bear, eventually nobody gives a shit."
*Here’s my problem with this video* Your description of the film and the fact that Snyder put Superman in a dark and gritty world, as opposed to making Superman himself dark and gritty, is spot on. And you’re right, Clark was sort of a reluctant hero at first. He never hesitated to save people (aside from Jonathan) but you’re right in that, he doesn’t travel the world to find people to save. But here’s why that’s not a problem in my opinion. Clark was *not* Superman at that point! Yes Superman is an ideal. But he’s a character first and foremost. And Snyder treated him like a character. He will become a symbol of hope. He will become the hero that goes out of his way to help and save people. But in this film, in the beginning, he was just a man of steel. A man. One who is lost and confused. You must’ve missed the fact that he was *waiting* to reveal himself to the world. Jonathan always knew he would. He just wanted Clark and the world to be ready when it happened. Humans can barely accept each other, what makes you think they’d accept him?
Spot on analysis, hope this gets picked up. Had my own problems with the movie but these were not them, and part of me prefers this movie over Wonder Woman as well
As they said, the movie is named 'Man of steel', not Clark Kent. Clark kent becoming superman should be like in the first act, not before the last act.
Sada Yes, the movie is called Man of Steel. Clark Kent is *a* Man of Steel. Becoming Superman is something Snyder wanted to take his time with. Becoming the *true* Superman. Just like Luke becoming Jedi at the end of Return. Just because it took time doesn’t mean it’s wrong
I actually liked Man of Steel. It required a lot of balls for someone to try and shift the original tone and mythos of the greatest hero ever. And I'm coming to believe that it would be nonsensical if we got the same Superman, as we got in the 70s and 80s. I really like that the hero is more human, in the sense that he is not flawless, on the contrary he is filled with moral dilemmas, he does not know what to do and sometimes his decisions are wrong and considering that he is all powerful , they might be catastrophic. It adds to what you said in the beginning of the analysis, right and wrong are sometimes subjective. Even gods aren't perfect.
I like this shift too. The fact he is trying to be the ideal symbol of hope, but struggling with his own existence and who he is among humanity opens amazing doors for future stories. Superman has an amazing pantheon of stories for a god-scale "coming of age" to his powers, and could even have some great dark god storylines (as seen in the alternative universe Batman glimpses in BvS) in the future. I think this story is one that's going to get better as it goes on, and seeing this not so perfect Superman become the superhero we all knew before will be a great trip.
Hate Man of Steel. Him letting Pa Kent die was the most insane thing ever. 2 seconds was all he needed to do that but Zack Snyder felt that's too much. Whereas the 1978 version, Pa Kent died of a heart attack, which was beyond his control. Both versions, Pa Kent died, but MoS version, Clark was active in Jonathan Kent's death. His inaction killed Pa Kent.
Yeah except Superman is no god. In order for a character to be a god, he has to have no struggles and is a perfect being but Superman doesn't meet that criteria.
@@hermionesvillage Agreed. He's been written with flaws for decades, but since he was still pure and nice, edgy people found him unrelatable. People just can't be satisfied with a hero who's kind, intelligent, and powerful anymore. Every hero has to be a brooding orphan now.
"Zack Snyder made Superman relatable.This Superman is so relatable. It wasn't until I saw Man of Steel and Batman v Superman that I truly believed someone was going through the same struggles the common man goes through." I remember the last time I was framed for the destruction of a city. Difficult stuff. I often reminisce about my dad telling me to let everyone die before he sacrificed himself to save the family dog. And I also remember being invincible but letting my dad die cause he put his hand up and was like "naw son stay right there I'm 50 years old and my time is up this hurricane is how I wanna go."
I think the idea people had is that he's relatable in the sense that he "can't" save his father, or that he 'can't" avoid destroying something he loves, the reason it doesn't work is because he can. he's the man of Steel. Batman couldn't save his parents because he was a child, he couldn't stop the joker from killing Harvey Dent and turning him into 2 face because he's only human, and he can't defeat Bane in hand to hand combat because he's only human.
You should try watching Flashpoint Paradox and see what happens to their Clark there. or here ua-cam.com/video/aPouO4iQJ9c/v-deo.html And no. He's relatable because with all his power he still has doubts. He's relatable because he wanted to do something but the circumstances are complicated atm.
@@shadowninja958 I know that they made a What-if style of comic that combines Batman's origin tragedies with Superman's origins. I haven't read it, myself, but I would imagine that the infrastructure and preparation of Bruce Wayne with the latent potential of superman would make for the best of both worlds. You could have a PR angle that hasn't been tackled in comics in a convincing way yet.
The Kent's were done horribly wrong, Lois lane was too much of the focus point, and superman wasn't just a guy with superpowers. How did Lois lane a news reporter find superman out of the fbi, Csi, and etc?
They're not accurate to the comics, but ultimately I found them to be the most human and realistic characters in the movie. That's exactly how a real father would act. Comic Book Jonathan Kent would never exist in the real world.
No one else was looking for him. He was nothing more than those tales told of mysterious strangers who perform superhuman acts and then disappear without a trace. Government intelligence agencies don't chase after folk tales. Lois witnessed him first hand and sought him out. No one else knew he existed, except for those he saved, and no one would believe them.
It's pretty funny when an actor like Russell Crowe can give one of the most inspiring lines in a superhero movie, like ever. Crowe's monologue about Kal-El leading humanity to the light is so uplifting and filled with good vibes that it embodies the character like nothing we've seen so far from the DCEU.
christopher tracy Being serious isn't the equivalent to bring dark. What has Superman done in MoS done or said in MoS that constitutes him as a dark character? Saying Superman not being happy or positive in MoS also isn't accurate considering he was pretty much that after meeting Jor-El.
Superman in this movie is not dark, the world around him is dark... Therefore due to his upbringing he is grown cautious and in search of his purpose. He is not superman until the end of the movie when he is fighting that gravity machine in the indian ocean.
I have no problem with Superman being dark emo and self reflective, but he cant stay in that state ALL the fucking time. He needs to be balanced out with some levity. In private he can deal with his emotions and insecurities, but his public face should have been the all American smiling tv show host. Part of being superman isn't just saving lives, but it's to inspire joy, hope and optimism. Even if he's just putting on an act. Throw a fucking smile on your face.
eon001 The film lacks any juxtaposition to make any emotional impact. The movie is sad all of the time, so when something is actually being sad, it doesn't feel genuine or believable.
There were tons of moments where he showed a lighter side to him, small subtle moments. I actually don't like the characterization that Superman goes into the superhero business to inspire from the get go, that is hubris on his part if he is. He's just a guy who wants to do the right thing, and then later on he can see the impact he's made and somewhat try to live up to that standard but it's never an idea he goes into it with. Besides, he can't do that in this movie because that's not what the movie is doing with him.
Of course, the disillusioned in the comments will say things like "it's too gritty, it's too violent, it's too DARK!!" What they, and the folks who made this pretty little video misunderstand, is that the idea of HOPE doesn't mean perfect results with no consequences. In fact, it means the opposite: having faith in men during times of distress and disaster. The whole movie is based off of that theme, beginning with Jor-El's "leap of faith" that his child will prosper on Earth while sacrificing his life.
Why should they have faith in this Superman. He doesn't make that much of an effort to save people unless their right in front of him. For all the people of Earth know, Superman is the one who brought Zod and his soldiers here. When confronted with the choice of saving his dad or risk revealing his identity. What does Clark choose? To stay under that bridge and let his dad die. Even if his pa told him not to save him. You'd think the man who is meant to be the greatest hero ever would enact his heroism when his dad is about to be crushed to death. People find it hard to root for him because he seems like this distant confused man nearly all the time. Jor El had a bigger impact than Jonathan Kent which is a big no no. As it makes him seem more of an alien than he truly is. The beauty of Superman is that he's this seemingly all powerful being who chooses to help people and loves doing so. His humble upbringing is what guides his decision making. Snyder fails to capture this aspect in a Superman origin story movie. And as a result his character feels emotionless, even cowardly at times.
Great analysis, as usual. Love your work. This made me think: how would Man of Steel be different if Clark knew the consequences of "coming out" as a superhero, but did it anyway? What if the world view remained a dark one, fit for our age I suppose, but Clark decided to be a hero nonetheless, to save the day, to hope and have faith in humanity? I think this could have made the movie consistent with the theme of Superman as a beacon of hope while at the same time maintaining a more cynical world view.
I can understand your analysis of the Man of Steel, but this was one of my favorite DC films. I really liked how dark the plot was and Henry's depiction of Superman. Plus, as a Dragonball fan, this was the closest thing we will ever see in literal aliens using their powers to fight each other. Man, the fight scene with Superman and Zod's two soldiers are just epic on another level.
plus most people dont know that Superman had a 5 movie arc where along the way we'd finally see the Superman we know. the movie is called man of steel, emphasis on man. hes just a man trying to understand his place in the world. he clearly wants to help but doesnt know the bigger ramifications of him helping which was then shown in BvS.
@@dcdodo2323 But there's no reason it should take 5 movies for us to see him as we know him. In my opinion, this should have been treated as a "what if Superman was morally grey in a morally grey world" story instead of the core of an official universe.
Honestly, I also think the injustice comic also plagued this idea that a darker/gritty Superman = cool/better written character And the scene with Pa Kent was SUCH a bastardized ideal of who the Kent’s were/are.
Ok. It's January of 2020 at the time I'm writing this. I so badly wanted to see a detailed analogy on how MoS just neglects the very idea of Superman. I honestly never knew this video existed , but I'm happy I found it now. This channel , better than any other, explains why MoS just didn't work. Now I've been a Superman fan since my kindergarten days when my Mom introduced me to the character. I was and still am fascinated by the very ideals the character represents. Clark's morality , his value for human life and his strive for truth and justice is what made me fall in love with comics. Superman IS the quintessential superhero. The world's first. With that being said , I really abhore how Zack Snyder messed everything up in this movie. I've thought a lot about this "DCEU" trying to use my logic of what I know for reasoning. Now this movie came out in 2013 , when I was just in the 6th grade. As you would expect , I didn't thoroughly try to think about why this movie felt flat and as any kid would want , I just wanted to witness an action filled Superman movie and a kickass version of the character kinda like how he was in the JL animated series. Now, once I saw the movie (at that time) , I remember being blown away by the action scenes and how awesome Superman looked when he flew (I appreciated the flying thing cuz I had seen the old Superman movies and noticed the flying was a bit odd). But as a year or 2 passed , I began questioning this movie , asking myself "Is THIS the Superman I really know and love?" Then as 2016 came , I saw BvS and, me being a know nothing 15 year old kind of picked up on the fact that something is not right with this whole universe, let alone Superman. This video's analogy and mine are more or less the same. However , the only thing I want to add that I feel this video left out is my major issue is with the depiction of Clark's morality. Superman is a character with strong morals. It's the reason why he chooses to save people cuz it's the right thing to do. Not cuz he's drawn to situations to save people (like the video says). That being said , characters like Martha and Jonathan Kent , Lana Lang and Pete Ross are supposed to be his moral compass. Those are the people Clark grows up with and helps him learn the full extent and true beauty of humanity. But in MoS , Pete Ross is a guy who works at iHOP , and doesn't contribute anything to the story. Martha & Jonathan Kent don't instil good values in him and instead make Clark question them and Lana Lang is nowhere to be found. This kinda felt really odd to me. Sure Lana isn't there initially but she's supposed to show up somewhere down the line because she's one character that embodies a bit of childhood innocence in her friendship with Clark. Her involvement is at least 5% instrumental to the person Clark turns out to become. Also , in the modern sense , Superman should not just be an allegorical Christ, but he must be the embodiment what what society could and should be and not like how evil and corrupt it actually is. He's supposed to be an example of everything right with humanity and inspire them to be better and be good.
You're 100% right! When I saw the trailers I was hyped and expected the movie to be what Jor el said when Clark got his Suit. The "You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards" etc etc. After I left the theater something just didn't feel right. My main complaints was his dialogue & Pa kent Death. I wanted Clark to TALK more not just "you were sent here for a reason" type of dialogue & Pa Kent's death meant nothing to me. In BvS I was expecting Superman to speak to the citizens or something! Throughout that movie I kept thinking "SAY SOMETHING!!!" lol!!! Man of Steel is still my favorite only because of the visuals or moments like when he exists to ship and learns to fly, the music is so inspirational, the cast, the Suit is just ::Chefs kiss:: When he's walking and you see the cape in the wind.
The darkness could've worked if there was some contrast. Imagine for a minute if the other charecters and the world were the same, but Superman was idealistic and altruistic; everyone tells him he shouldn't out himself, but he disagrees and becomes a hero. Some people still hate him, sure, but he thinks that is much less important than saving lives. That would be a much better movie, but it would still have the darkness and grit.
This Superman was altruistic . And MOS wasn't a dark movie. A few people not liking him wasn't the full risk...His whole relationship with humanity and the Gov. would be compromised..Especially if he was outed be for become A what he was.
That movie shows how the world would react if an actual alien is present on the planet.. It was realistic and dark.. People hated it... No wonder MCU is the highest grossing
I feel like the MCU movies are favored by many many people because they want to ignore their own reality and see themselves as people who would not ever compromise their morals which for many is untrue.
If anything, this is a real showcase of Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy. Zack Snyder has been trying to make fountainhead for years, is a bonafide drinker of the coolaid in the righteousness of being selfish. And that's what the DC universe Superman embodies. This is even more apparent in BvS, where the man of steel is almost a sociopath in how he treats people, how he reacts to situations. Look at The Watchmen, and tell me you don't see parallels. Synder can't conceive of a being that powerful & simultaneously that altruistic.
George Daugherty bit of a defeatist/pessimist aren't you? How do you get out of bed in the morning? And here was me thinking I was a glass half empty type of guy lol
Teeth grinder 83, no I would consider myself an optimist. The world is better than it has ever been and will continue to do so. I just don't believe people are inherently good. We are taught to be good. We can also be taught to be bad and some are very much taught to be bad people. But NONE of us are inherently good like Superman disgustingly is in the comics. Just not how the world works. Don't see why you would think I'm a defeatist/pessimist. That's an absurd reach on your part.
says ppl who has never touched a comic book. reality ? yeah a alien fighting with a another alien and after that some guy cut his hand and put his blood on the dead alien then a cave troll from LOTR came out 😂 yeah so realistic . u guys are a joke
But that's the thing - Jonathan Kent IS Superman. He's Clark's father, and so his teachings are behind everything Clark is, and ultimately everything Superman is. So for him to tell Clark that he should put himself first, that he should let people die to save his own skin, that sets the tone for the entire rest of the movie.
Jonathan Starsmoure He says it in such a way that it shows he knows it's not a better option and also that he can't actually come up with one that's better than both of them.
@@tintzaw9915 It's a superhero film. Superheroes have banter while fighting all the time. Nothing wrong with that, they are after all caped crime fighters who wear tights. It's Superman for crying out loud. He's supposed to be wholesome.
@Akshay 786 He's a character with certain defined traits that makes him special. His big blue boy scout persona is as part of him as Batman and his coldness and skepticism towards others.
My favourite version of Superman is the TV-Show Smallville, which focuses exclusively on the time *before* he becomes the Man of Steel. By choosing the setting in Clark's youth, he is allowed to be a flawed, imperfect individual, with a noble core, who has many hard lessons to learn before he can take up the mantle of Superman. In fact, the show doesn't even use the name Superman at all (except maybe the last episode, I forget), and it becomes a mix of a Hero's Journey and a Coming of Age story. The problem with basically all other versions of Superman is that he is perfect or near-perfect, or they just gloss over the steep learning curve of his powers, focusing on a practically all-powerful, flawless man with just one contrived weakness (kryptonite) - and its both very hard to make such a story compelling, because any conflict can (or should) easily be resolved and because the character basically has no arc or chance to learn anything.
The last battle is not celebrated by the film cause literally in the sequel bvs we see that the battle of Metropolis caused more people to hate and fear Superman, just like pa Kent predicted
This is a great summation of Man of Steel's thematic problems. Not some idiotic nitpicking of details but something that attacks the core problems of the movie. Great job.
Being a shining example after going through finding yourself is a far better story than being born a boy scout and staying that way for no reason other than it serves the story. Man of Steel is a grounded movie and the best we've ever had on screen for the Son of Krypton.
dude, Man of Steel was awesome. The Reeve Superman was given to a society that was far less aware, in aggregate, of the complexities of mankind. Every point towards the reluctance of the hero, advised or recognized makes absolute sense, knowing the world as it is. The military would obviously be worried, as the strategic situation is now changed. Super weapons, and are there more of them? The tactical mindset requires that information. The general public would probably lose interest after a certain time, but still retain a background wariness. Given close proximity to someone who can rip you apart before you can blink, there's animal instincts that people have for good reason, even if you can't do anything about them. Definitely save the bunch of kids in a bus. The "maybe" is a testament to the magnitude of responsibility that Cal's father feels, given the child he inherited, and probably knowledge that his mentoring can only go so far, but giving his son that primer to think on his own and consider all options. It's deep shit, but mandatory to consider when so much destructive capability is on tap. And Metropolis was already ripped apart by the world engine, then Cal had to contend with a guy who had his abilities and stated his intent to reign over the people of Earth as all powerful, making them suffer; sounds like you should probably go all in when fighting that, being he was the only thing capable of stopping him.
This exactly why I prefer DC. Because they actually make you think about how these heroes and villains have repercussions in the real world. The film was a complete package and an epic journey from start to finish. I love the graphic novels used, the properly executed punchlines, and the background of the characters introduced. This movie did a great job showing the sheer power and destructive capabilities of Kryptonians under a yellow sun. Bro I am insanely in love with this cinematography and combat sequence. Notice how Faora didn't bash Clark's masculinity or invoke any "girl power" nonsense? And still, she came off as a powerful female character in the movie. That's good writing by Goyer, the Nolan brothers, and Zack Snyder. Also brilliant acting by Crowe, Shanon, and Cavil.
@Koka Priyatham Manohar except he didn’t say it. He said “maybe” that tells you that how difficult it is to parent some alien kid like Clark. And his father was right the humans wanted to arrest and tried to kill him. In fact his Foster parents did a great job raising him to be a good kid. Imagine he was a brat and the evil Superman like homelander??? Yeah
It seems like the people who dislike this movie don’t like the fact that he’s not a Boy Scout. Which is a fair opinion. But if you can get past the fact that they wanted to make a more serious and mature super man then you’ll definitely enjoy it
"It seems like the people who dislike this movie don't like the fact that Batman's a stay-at-home dad who doesn't fight crime. Which is a fair opinion. But if you can get past the fact they wanted to make a more serious and mature Batman than you'll definitely enjoy it." Do you see the issue?
It's irrelevant what opinion we had already about superman from comics or previous movies. Snyder could present a completely different superman and still we could like the movie. The problem is that this movie is not good. And the reason for that is that it is in a hurry from the beginning. Everything happens too quickly, without a reason to happen.
Hilariously, the Richard Donner films faced the exact problems. And they overcome them instead of giving into their basest temptations to make it gritty. No, seriously, look up what was going on in America at the time Donner's Superman: The Movie came out. America wasn't doing so hot then, either.
I have to agree with you wholeheartedly. Best Superman movie ever. While I like the video there are some shortcomings in Wisecrack's analysis. Remember, this was the first consciously post-Dr. Manhattan Superman movie.
This movie's climax aftermath is the equivalent of SpongeBob's episode in which he drives the hole city to fear, chaos and anarchy because of a butterfly they mistake for a savage monster, only for him to say to Patrick "We saved the city" while Bikini Bottom is on fire.
I thought the whole point of the movie was to look at what a being like superman would look like in our world today. I think It succeeds just becuase superman once represented hope does not mean he would be taken as such. I felt as if the whole point of the film was the wealth of hope in our world as we no longer believe in truely righteous heroes as we once did. The very thing you critic the film for I think is the philosophical point that superman cannot be a flawless hero since mankind and the world he lives in cannot agree on what perfection is...
Christopher Lang That's what you expected, I on the other hand expected a renewed version of the character I know and love with a new and exiting story, as well as all the special effects that new movies have at their disposal, and I feel I was in the majority, unlike you.
Dangerz Own the fact that they live in fictional places doesn't mean they can't teach you a lesson about our reality. That's the freaking reason fictional stories exist
This critique is wrong from the get go because it assumes Superman should be an idealist from the the beginning. You're forgetting that this is his first time out as Superman. His father was right because that was the most realistic way to look at it. his father's fears were confirmed in BVS. This Superman was more worldly than any other we have seen. He chose to walk the earth as a man and saw all versions of man. You are forgetting that the central theme is choice. The objective of the film was to show us that the Superman that fights for truth and justice, didn't have to be a paragon of hope but rather he chose to be. The audience here was the issue they wanted the idealized version of the hero without taking into account what it took to get him to that mindset. Man of Steel is the deconstruction of that (the director himself said that). Contrary to popular belief they did not want to make Superman into another batman, his journey was different.
@@peterpaulngitngit1925 lol just no. I understand this movie perfectly and this video perfectly breaks down all the main line issues with it. Just stop with your nonsense as everyone knows how wrong you really are here!
Well if you really think about it, mainstream Superman is a passive character, whereas a proactive Superman is usually made out to be the bad guy (injustice Superman).
There's passive, reactive, and proactive. Proactive prevents crime (Injustice), passives will fight crime if crime comes to them (man of steel), and reactives will actively seek to stop crimes and help people (Superman).
@@neontales it's a guy that shoot laser from his eyes were the hell do you see the realism??? Realistic =/= quality. That's why the live action Disney movie sucks. Comic books are escapism
@@neontales realistic take where a alien punches another alien and in the next realistic movie a guy cut his hand and put the blood on the dead alien then a cave troll from LOTR camr out yeah so realistic .u guys are a joke. 😂
It’s not saying he shouldn’t become Superman. It’s giving Clark Kent the choice. Jon Kent wasn’t saying let those kids, he’s not sure because he’s scared for his son.
I don't want a Superman movie that tries to rationalize Clark letting his own family die, or throwing off-screen tantrums to get back at petty jerks, or causing property damage instead of saving his Mom.
NStarks007 Preach! So many of these video essays are just a bunch of straw man argument that wrongly assume what the movie is supposed to be about then criticize the movie for not living up to the assumption.
Yeah because Superman should totally let the kids on the bus fucking drown and lets half the fucking city get destroyed without thinking about the millions of people who die in the process. I mean why would people want a Superhero who actually cares about human life.. Fuck Nolan Batman shouldn't have tried save gothem from a Atomic Bomb in TDR. He should have said fuck it and let it blow up. Spider-man 2 should have ended with all those people on the Train dying a horrible death. Because Spidey didn't give shit. Yeah this movie dose try something different then Superman. But it fucking sucked. Do even understand the concept of a Hero.
the idea of MoS depicting clark's life at the beginning phase of becoming superman is excellent, shame that the execution of this idea turned out shit, it's got soooo much potential to become a masterpiece of a film that could change everything everyone knew about superman as an iconic character in general, yet they lost it all with all kinds of stupid scenarios, poor character arc and weird-ass pacing issues. MoS could have been a masterpiece like Nolan's batman begins leading to the dark knight. Such a shame indeed.
The problem I think is that while it’s fine to make a cynical Superman story (like Superman: Red Son, one of my favorites), Superman himself is never a cynical or reluctant character.
This movie is a masterpiece compared to the absolute trash we have in 2024. I personally liked this movie when it came out, but I have a whole new respect for it today.
Calimero Hœnir I was about to comment this exact thing! All-Might is probably the best superman-like character in recent memory, he's charming, optimistic and he even has the "should i reveal myself" dillema, but done way better.
Hell, just look at Captain America, and those silly public service announcements during PE class in Spiderman Homecoming. There are plenty of examples of this type of character done well. Just an earnest, proper, nice guy. All Might is a great example.
This is one of my favorite reviews and I wish I could like it ten times. Man of Steel is a film about how no one should want to be Superman and that we're all probably all better off that Clark Kent didn't land on our planet. Clark spends an hour ponderously angsting over whether he should reveal himself to the world thanks to addled nimrod Jonathan Kent basically laying a death geas on his son, compelling Clark to keep himself hidden at all costs. But then evil aliens show up and say that they'll kill everyone if Clark doesn't reveal himself, rendering that entire hour of navel-gazing kinda pointless since Clark just gets strongarmed into revealing himself anyway. Both this and BvS were really intent on bringing up big, dramatic, pathos-ridden questions and then wasting time mulling over them, only for these questions to be rendered moot by the narrative anyway. It's no wonder why they're fundamentally-unsatisfying stories.
The point of the movie is that humanity isnt ready for superman, and he knowz that. But he has to take a leap of faith anyway, and trust them to one day be ready.
I didn't see man of steel for many reason and this is one of them, but also I saw the trailer and I saw that they completely destroyed Superman. They changed his outfit, they made his suit look dark like Batman and also Superman is NOT A GOD. Superman is like the grandfather of hero's the original, You don't mess with Superman.
I dont understand some of these criticisms against MoS. How can a concept like Superman and Zod be anything BUT dark? Just because iterations of the characters have portrayed these stories as light-hearted in the past, the truth is in the real world, there would be nothing light about an alien that can lift buildings having to fight an evil cabal of similar aliens who can do the same
It’s because the original fanbase of Superman was stupid and retarded as fuck, they only wanted to see Superman because they want to see what they want to be or wish they could be. Now that Snyder made Superman an actually good character, dumb fucks like those criticizers, in denial, try to make up other reasons to hate the movie because deep down they know they are the problem
Why Clark didn't save Jonathan as Clark and not as Superman? I Mean, he could easily run to Jonathan, grab him and just fly away when the Tornado comes, nobody will see
And even if people could have seen him... I mean, it's your father. Considering they loved each other, it's a pretty crazy call. And it's not really addressed, not even by Martha.
i also thought that Jonathan's death was not that good but you said that Clark shoud have grab him and fly away but at that time he couldn't fly. Also, people would see him, telling more people about what clark can do
I wasn't a particular fan of Superman comics before watching the movie, I didn't have any "stakes" in it, or what was the right or wrong version. I thought the movie was really solid!
Philip Zeplin I think your comment exemplifies what I have said about the people who like this movie, your a fan of Zach Snyder or at least his vision, not necessarily a Superman or dc comics fan.
Ivan Aguilar I say the same thing... people who comment that MoS made them Superman fans just makes me say, "Then you're not really a Superman fan, because that is fundamentally not him."
simple. It's a differnt mythos. The problem with audiences members who rage about nostalgia is they harp on what movies are supposed to be instead of what they could be.
3:50 - That, right there, killed the franchise for me. That “what the actual FUCK?!” moment proved that no one involved with these properties actually _understands_ them.
Jonathan Starsmoure - That’s the problem, it shouldn’t be “maybe”. The responsibility of power is to aid the helpless. If nothing else, basic valuing of life should make it obvious.
Why shouldn't it be maybe? If you were a dad, would you let your son expose himself? ua-cam.com/video/aPouO4iQJ9c/v-deo.html If anything, this is the reason why the flashbacks in the first place. To emphasize how the people in his world acts. Isn't maybe what this kind of situation calls for? especially for a farmer to handle these circumstances, maybe should be the right word to describe Jonathan's and Martha's situation.
Jonathan Starsmoure - I’d like to think I would teach my children kindness, decency and concern for others. Be good first, then defend against the evildoers. Which is how Superman behaves in other continuities.
All this movie had to do was have Clark refuse to accept the jaded, cynical world around him as it is and have him instead lead by example to make it as it should be. In the Pa Kent death scene he should have told Lois that when he watched his father die because of his refusal to accept help due to fear, that he also realized in that same moment that living in fear was not the answer. He should have said, "As long as I have the power to make a difference, then I will use my power to make the world a better place. I will never stand idlely by out of fear again." But nope.
Sadly, not realistic. That would never happen. Snyder's focus was on realism. Snyder doesn't believe in people being that good and to be honest, neither do I.
you can call it realism but it's also pretty cynical of a view of humanity, that could work though given that superman is meant to be the example of the ideal person/hero and have him reject such a negative outlook and strive to get people to be better. perhaps not to classic superman levels but at least better then what was presented. Superman has nothing to fear from humanity in a realistic setting, so it doesn't make sense for him to hide and not use his powers to help people, hell he has a secret identity so he can live as a human when not being Superman.
Exactly. The wisecrack video speaks of Socrates's friend who said "a perfect upright man would be scourged, racked, and bound. He would have his eyes burned out and after suffering every evil he would be impaled." Well I would like to see the world try to destroy a man whose nickname is, "Man of Steel". One of the beauties of Superman is that his power gives him the ability to be incredibly bold in the face of impossible levels of evil.
In this jaded, selfish, cynical society, a Superman would hit it like an atomic bomb. In a world where Multi-Billionaires like Lex Luthor can use money and influence to ruin the lives of millions of people around the world. A Superman suddenly showing up would make a "fools hope" suddenly a possibility. A Superman can't be bought, bribed or bullied. A Superman can literally stop a war single handedly. He could turn back a hurricane with his breath. He could walk boldly before any King on Earth and tell them to their face, "No" and that leader couldn't really do a thing about it.
Humanity would fear him until he showed them his courage. They would hate him until he showed them his selflessness. Man of Steel and BvS should have been 2 movies that made you fall in love with Superman but failed to accomplish this one task. There have been too many examples of Superman done right for these repeated failure to have taken place. This movie should have essentially been the story of what happened in the early life of Clark Kent to make him decide to make the conscience choice to stand up before the world against an invasion and be forever known as the Superman.
deomartinez77 Umm. He doesn't say those words, but that's precisely what he does. Clark chose to use his a abilities to help others when he was still in grade school and his mother saved him, but he had to keep his abilities a secret to protect his family and friends as well as the town of Smallville. However, when protecting Smallville meant his father had to sacrifice himself, Clark refused to put himself in that position again. He refused to be in a position where he would need to keep his secret safe at the expense of someone else. So he left home and used his abilities to help people under multiple aliases, leaving before anyone could ask questions. It defined his entire life. When the world was in danger and Lois was imprisoned he risked everything by showing his face as Superman to save them. He never ever stopped using his abilities to help others, until he feared that doing so was causing more harm than good, but even then he had the courage to return.
deomartinez77 He doesn't say those words, but that's precisely what he does. Clark chose to use his a abilities to help others when he was still in grade school and his mother saved him, but he had to keep his abilities a secret to protect his family and friends as well as the town of Smallville. However, when protecting Smallville meant his father had to sacrifice himself, Clark refused to put himself in that position again. He refused to be in a position where he would need to keep his secret safe at the expense of someone else. So he left home and used his abilities to help people under multiple aliases, leaving before anyone could ask questions. It defined his entire life. He never stopped helping people, even if it meant he could never have a family or friends and, when the world was in danger, he ultimately chose to show his face to the world as Superman even with all he risked, to save it. This misinterpretation of Superman as a self-absorbed emo sociopath is wrong. He is every bit the selfless hero, who is willing to help whoever needs him, that he is in the comics.
The problem I have with Man of Steel was Johnathan Kent's death wasn't as meaningful as his death in Christopher Reeve's movie because he died from a heart attack and with all his powers he wasn't able to save him, rendering young Clarke helpless for the very first time.
He did not.
It's Johnathan Kent who refused to be saved by his son, so it could protect him.
Tom Hoole you keep twisting it making it seem like Clark didn't want to save him when in fact he did. Especially in this same video he plays that scene where Clark said his dad believed the world wasn't ready for someone like him.
Tom Hoole In the original Superman movie Johnathan Kent's death was the driving force for Clarke seek out where he came from and about his powers and for self reflection, to be able to save people, after the death of his father and his guilt of not being able to save him. It's also the reason he broke the law's of nature by turning back time so he could save Loise Lane.
Tom Hoole well that's you. If I was in that same position and had all the strength that superman had and my dad was in danger like that I would want to save him just like Clark wanted to but if his wishes were for me not to save him I would respect that. His dad was in fact right that the world wasn't ready for him. The middle part of that he had to deal with the government turning him over to his people. Being afraid of him when in smallville while also getting attacked by the military even when he was helping and saving them.
Tom Hoole I just think the Original films Johnathan Kent's death had more of a impact on Clark's development because with all his powers him was still helpless to save his dad, showing even Superman has his limitations excluding Kriptonite.
Oh god! Superman's saving us again, RUN!
You leave that school bus of children alone Superman!!!
@@pittland44 I like RLM as well...
Lmao
He can save us and he did ? I want is head on a spike
That says it all doesn't it.
Zack had probably seen it as a challenge to make Superman dark and gritty but in the end he created a movie that people only liked for the cool fight scenes.
People liked the optimism in Snyder's Superman movies, too.
That comment just revealed the shallowness and short sighted nature of many fans. There’s much more to this movie then cool action scenes
@@jas9301 Short sighted lol, or maybe synder didnt understand the assignment. you guys would never let any blame fall his way of course lol
Super Man’s Original creators did dark and gritty best all Zack had to do was leaned in and he fumbled
@@zhengyingliwhat optimism?
"Imagine if Luke had spent over an hour contemplating the pros and cons of using the Force - you'd grow to hate the guy."
Ummm... You guys aren't going to like The Last Jedi.
Sean McCallum I wish I came across this comment sooner. Would've saved me from seeing a movie
Why is that bad? This guys from Wisecrack really need to grow up.
Why are you here?
Clark spent half the movie searching for who he really is...Not just how to use his powers
Sean McCallum Luke is no longer the main character in that movie: many years have passed and most of the major players in the classic trilogy have concluded their crucial arcs. Most of the roles they once inherited have been transferred to the newer generations. Rey now plays that role that Campbell has established in his works: her function as a protagonist (who is still fresh and excited with the prospect of making a journey of her own, which is a crucially important element which allows audiences to be relatable to her traits) and the audience's POV. I have no problem with Luke's drastic change (35 years is a very, VERY LONG time and people naturally change depending on circumstances at certain point in their lifespan), his perspective on the Force now feels cynical and worn out (much like our own in the real world) and here now serves as a supporting role, doing his best to (reluctantly) pass all his knowledge to her, as Obiwan has done the same to the young lad in A New Hope, similar to Anakin Skywalker as he initially held the role of a protagonist in the prequels and ended up taking another role in the subsequent trilogy, this time as a main villain though.
It's a good way to set up a solid main character, unlike Man of Steel's Superman, whose conflicted and contradicting personalities prevent audiences from trying to make a connection, emotionally and mentally, with him. I think the biggest problem with Zack Snyder's interpretation is that he sets all of these motions way too early in Superman's arc, deciding to make him unlikeable and unrelatable for some 'realistic' reasons. These negative traits, whilst compelling if done right, could have been introduced later in later stories, NOT IN THE FIRST MOVIE!
Overall, his arc has potential to strive for greatness but completely marred early on by the story's strange turns, the writer and director's lack of passion and/or understanding towards DC lore, obsession with fancy visuals and explosions as well as bizarre editing (these problems are further amplified in BvS); so poorly constructed that many audiences rightfully reject both him and Justice League at the end (at this case, thank WB for creating bad continuity, regardless of how bad the first two movies are).
I dont have a problem with how dark they were going with but how Superman never really seemed affected by the collateral damage and the destruction around him. They had no problems showing how realistic an alien invasion would look like and how many people would die, but you have no idea how it makes Superman feel. Its hard to root for a "hero" who jokes and makes out with a girl on top of the rubble, where hundreds have literally been flap jacked to death.
Superman: *Screams in terror and agony after having to kill Zod to save Earth and notably a family. Has to be consoled by Lois for a time.*
OrdinaryCitizen: But how does he feel?
@@joshpearson2928 And then that scene is followed up by that cringeworthy scene of Supes destroying the drone. Almost like he turns into a completely different character in that scene.
I think Man of Steel is an alright movie, but man, it wastes its good ideas.
Maybe hes not meant to be. That's the point? Raised by humans but still an alien. How do you or I or anyone know what an alien human should feel? Sure as hell not 100% human feelings. I loved this movie. It was done well and showcased what happens when a superhero faces off against a far superior supervillain. Everyone whines about the destruction and how superman should've just flown up with the bad guy and saved more lives etc etc. The villain kept it grounded because he knew supes weakness - humans. There's such subtlety and beauty in this movie that many people miss because they want Superman to be what they want him to be.
@@TheKunnche I have read so many bad reviews about thjs movie but it still is my most favourite DC movie ever
@@TheKunnche Agreed sir. The nuances in this movie is unparalleled
*Moral of the Story: Don't 180 a franchise unless you know 100% what you're doing.*
Don't give Mickey Mouse a handgun.
Don't give the Watchmen a pink, magic wand.
Don't give _My Little Pony_ a _Saw_ episode.
Don't give _Saw_ a _My Little Pony_ movie entry.
Neo Machine or at LEAST wait until the second or third movie to make these changes. First establish the character in and with all the qualities everyone knows them for and as and do it well
Yes. This. All other arguments stand down.
+WDKaze I think they already have.
Neo Machine That they did; look up the infamous "Cupcakes" fan video of Pinkie Pie disemboweling Rainbow Dash to the tune of Andrew WK's "Ready To Die".
Mlp had a saw episode that worked though..
The funny thing is they made the same "Righteous USA symbol confronting the modern corrupt world" theme with Captain America and did it way better.
The first Captain America doesn't even attempt to hide the fact that the character was created as USA propaganda during WWII and strictly portrays USA as the ultimate good guys.
Winter Solider has Cap witness how SHIELD, the entity he relates to the most as "the good guys" was corrupted from the inside for years and turned into Neo Nazis.
In Civil War the UN labels Cap as an international criminal and he pretty much turns against all goverments worldwide.
You would think both the first two films (or at least the second) would be, for different reasons, different extremes, pretty disliked and the third film a lot more so. Although the third film does show a conflict without taking a side.
@@suarezguy nobody gives a shit that the film doesn't take a side, team cap rules and you know it! (Facts!!!)
I liked Watchmen, but Zack Snyder has to stop making Watchmen.
Watchmen is still his best, most complete film. 300 was alright, and kicked a lot of ass when it came out. Sucker Puch is weightless and everything else since then is profoundly flawed. Maybe he had to prove himself with Watchmen, and just got too much freedom afterwards.
Watchmen was his best for sure, but OP's point is that not everything can or should be watchmen.
Gleidston Filipe
I think Anthony was also referring to the fact that many characters in Watchmen are references do DC characters but look at them in a rather cynical way.
With their backstories explained, those cynical outlooks make sense, but they do not fit the original characters.
And it's this cynicism that Snyder seems to have carried over into the DC movies, where it just doesn't belong, certainly not with Superman.
Rockyblack smith Totally, man. Snyner can do nihilism duper well, but he's proven to be the wrong guy to bring hope, and I dare say, healthy joy to the screen.
Deconstruction can't be the norm, but you know what? I'm kind of glad we've had these movies now, because I don't think we're getting murderous Superman and trigger happy Batman ever again in live action. If anything I'm sorry they weren't even darker and crazier. They were just 13yo edgy, not even close to deep.
What do you guys mean by nihilism in Watchman? It's dark but how is it nihilistic? The characters believe in something, in fact I think there's 3 different beliefs clashing against each other in that movie. Do you guys mean that it isn't idealistic? Or that it's atypical for a super hero movie? I can agree with that, but the word nihilism means not believing in anything, and I don't think that's the case for watchmen.
The Joker is nihilistic tho, Batman isn't...
Can an American symbol survive in a disillusioned America?
Didn't Captain America: The Winter Soldier tackle this?
what0080 yeah but cap did it Well
I would argue captain America pulled it off quite well as he’s a marvel fan favorite among many.
My thought exactly
@@JV-cz6fz yea he pulled it off, and they did it without sacrificing the the characters portrayal from the comic book. Man of Steel sacrifices superman from the comics in order to have a new superman..one that is horribly not super
@@xxMAGnaniMOxx This Superman is the purist to the comics and history ever in a movie...MOS is also a love letter to Superman's creators. Even involving Man of Tomorrow elements .
My biggest problem is when people use the “it makes him more human” defense, they don’t realize that in order for that be the case it has to payoff in end and it never did for this version of Superman, he’s still the same person at the beginning of the film as he is in the end he never becomes the hero they needed, like in Spider-Man 2 Peter was continuously beaten into the ground and making mistakes Because *he’s* *only* *human* and it felt so natural because in the end he came out on top, all the mistakes and suffering paid off
The problem to me is the movie doesn't juxtapose using his powers with not using his powers. It creates a false dichotomy between complete passivity and going full Superman. So many times he could stand up for himself without force or, at the very least, dialing back his force to human-level. But the script won't let him do that.
Superman does pull back his powers to human level in BvS. When Supes walks into the courthouse he gently opens the door and walks towards the criticisms of people who are quick to judge
@@toddgarver5397 sorry no, opening a door is not pulling a punch back to a hum level.
@@RobertWilkinsonJKekMaloy it is when you can rip the door off the hinges with two fingers
@@toddgarver5397 and ...?
Could you honestly see the difference?
After watching it tonight I realised the biggest flaw is the ridicolously confusing scene to scene editing. Superman doesn’t feel well established, the movie feels like it expects you to know the superman mythos while it still works like an origin story but then again not really. It’s just a really confusing movie, where character relationships aren’t well developed.
Yeah, I felt nothing when Superman meets that IHOP guy. The movie insisted this was important for some reason.
I saw a video saying how Snyder favors moments vs scenes. Mos has many moments where the watcher is supposed to think, "oh my god, it's superman, this is so monumental and pivotal", versus actually giving us character building scenes that make us care about the characters.
If this film confused you....stay away from Chris Nolan flicks. Im serious
Ross Coe yeah but the film is added with flashback without patterns when Clark saw something that’s related to that flashback, it really lacks the focus, that’s the problem
@@madtitan0825 as you said each flashback is related to something in the present. That's not lacking in focus that's coherent storytelling
I wish the entire movie was about Russell Crow on Krypton, that part was awesome!
Planetbustard
Krypton politics that end in civil war. Yes please.
I thought I was the only one to think exact those words! The best first 10 minutes in the history of bad movies!!
+Chimpalicious Jones III has it spot on.
Great thought Planetbustard.. and how about adding the computer generation of Brando from the donner era 1 and 2 fliks' unused footage as Kal's grandad, Jor-El l, jor-El's dad.. Awsome.. Dude, I think you're onto a major universe spin-off here
Planetbustard Well, you are going to have your wish, sort of. SyFy is developing a Krypton prequel series
He made a better Superman than Superman.
Ya know, Richard Donner's SUPERMAN was made during a very cynical time too (the end of the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Pentagon Papers) and it went for the hopeful optimism that the Man of Steel represents. I think that movie did just fine...
Rudie Obias The world around Superman is pessimistic as all hell. Which makes Reeve's Superman charming because he brings a little light to that dark world.
Yes but the difference is? The tone of the film. The world setting. Reeve's world wasn't as cynical as compared to MoS and lets say DCEU. Also, Cavill's superman may have not been jolly, or hopeful, or optimistic, but he wasn't dour either. He was just stuck in a place where he couldn't move properly and was figuring out what to do.
and is whoafully unrealistic. It's an 80s movie that doesn't hold up. Yeah, I know it contains a character like superman in it so it's not real already. But Donner's superman feels like it's missing the skepticims of the world who do and don't trust superman.
Reeve's superman goes in to the cave of solitude for 2 minutes. they play a montage and he comes out as perfect superman. They crowds of citizens chear him on like generic non playable characters in a videogame because the script demands that they do.
Sure, Reeve's superman world is lala land. In a more realistic world, he'd struggle like cavil's superman.
WARNING: I'm a writer thus this comment is likely to be long and deep.
All it took was one line of dialogue from Superman: 'I'm here to fight for truth and justice in the American way.'
'You're going to end up fighting every elected official in this country,' Lois responded. That is the voice of the adult audience in 1978, as it would be the voice of most adults today, presented in order to say, 'Yes we know what you're thinking.'
It also came just before the sequence where Lois and Superman fly. 'You mean I could fly?' she asked cynically. 'This is utterly fantastic,' she said before turning back to walk into her apartment.
'Wait a minute,' cried Superman, 'where are you going?'
'Are you serious?'
'Sure.'
Next he overcomes her cynicism about the idea of flying and, since her cynicism over his line about 'truth and justice' was just before that, the implication is that he wins that argument too.
That is how they did it then, with clever writing and directing. Their understanding of how to manipulate the feelings and attitudes of most viewers, so they can fully engage in the story, was greater in 1978 Hollywood than it is today. Today it's barely even attempted and, when it is attempted, it's usually done badly. Exhibit one: Man Of Steel.
Now I get that some young people don't rate Richard Donner's Superman particularly (despite the fact that it is undeniably the most accurate portrayal of the character on film ever), but the younger you are the more socially conscious you are and, in this day and age, your wants are dictated by the trends of social media (I am so glad the Internet didn't exist when I was growing up, it allowed me to continue thinking independent of my culture).
For the record, fourth1000, films don't have to be realistic they have to be 'credible'. One does not go to the cinema to see realism, unless that's the angle the film is playing. A realistic superhero film would be The Dark Knight, however Bruce Wayne doesn't have any superpowers, so that is fitting. Superman does, so it's not fitting.
No-one's saying that you can't like Man Of Steel, people often have different tastes, but to slam such a groundbreaking film (a film without which there would conceivably be no superhero movies today), is a terrible disrespect to the legacy of Superman in my opinion. I realise people use Superman to argue how bad Man Of Steel is, but it is an appropriate comparison.
I understand your need to justify your own thinking, since it is different from so many others, by arguing against critics of the film you like, perhaps attracting those who would agree with you. I understand it, because everyone seems to do that, but I also think it's a stupid symptom of the Internet age. You don't have to justify your feelings to yourself, you're allowed to be different, and your self-esteem should not be attached to how many people agree with you. Just my humble opinion.
Now take that and add the war on drugs, Ronald Reagan, two Iraq wars, 9/11, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, the Snowden leaks and Obama's drone assassinations. If Americans are still optimistic after all that they must be pumping powerful drugs into your water supply.
I'm thankful for Superman and Lois because it restored Superman and made me actually like Superman again
Yeah but man of steel was still a great movie in my opinion
This is a hiliarious statement considering the fact that the producers of Superman and Lois said they took some inspiration from Man of Steel. The iron-knee...
@@lucasbottene4616mediocre movie at best
@@r.c.4201 That means...very little.
@@JohnDoe-qm8ns ok
"Hipster sad beard man" 😂😂 i think smallville, the tv show, is a better representation of superman
if only they had a budget of the flash tv show and actually had a good story
I think the Dean Cain version is a better version of superman. Not throwing shade. Terri Hatcher was a better Lois Lane as well.
@@KatieSteedArt1 Durance>>
Owww yea this person gets it💙❤️💛🧑🏻🏫🦸🏻🇺🇸👩🏼🦳🧑🏽🦳💥✨🚀✨🌏☄️👩🏼🍼🙎🏼♂️🪦🧎🏻♂️👵🏼🏃🏻🚞🏋🏻🤾🏻♂️💎🤷🏻💬🧑🏽🦳👽🛸🦸🏻 Smallvill
CW superman is better
I really think the problem is that
1) they found the wrong people to write the script.
2) our nerd culture has a unusual hatred against Superman and the only "creative" Superman they want is an evil Superman.
1) What do you mean by they found the wrong people to write the script?
2) How is Snyder's Superman evil?
I keep saying you guys are THOROUGH. You hit the nail right on the head. I wished producers and movie makers would come to people and channels like you guys for advise. They would be doing themselves a favor.
i like how Jonathan Kent is so afraid of what humanity will do to Clark, knowing that Clark's fucking invincible 🙄
i also like how Clark respects his dad so much he lets him die, then disrespects his wishes later to save some people who, you know, DIDN'T RAISE HIM
Dzumeister I don't understand what will humanity do to Clark? Hurt him? His father knows his invincible. Reject him his a fucking powerful being no one would have the balls to stand up in front of him and act like an asshole.
Clark is invincible in Body. Not mind.
He was already a sensitive boy. He was already alone. Jonathan knew and was correct that he would be even more alone as a God among mortals.
Who could Clark truly connect with? Who could he bond with? Who would understand him?
Jonathan saw racism, bigotry, hatred all of his life. For little things that separate us simply by visible cues or vocal beliefs. Parents just want the world to accept their children. From the Geniuses, to the Beautiful, to the slow, and to the physically challenged.
And no one ever on this planet had a more difficult job in that aspect than the father who was raising a child that could bench press their house if he got upset.
And finally, while hard... the tornado would stop on its own. The Kryptonians would not have. That isn't even a choice.
Hate that aspect of Jonathan Kent. He molded and put the fear of Man in Clark. Terrible.
ever heard of mental health?
This is what a person with no ability of critical thinking says.
I think the mesagge is that Superman should save and protect humanity no matter if they hate him at first, he should continue to do so untill they start trusting on him and he could became the beacon of hope he is destined to be So the realization should be that in the meanwhile he shouldnt hide and let people die waiting to the world to be ready, he had to make the world accept him through his actions
Well said. Superman is indeed the character who would save humanity even if humanity rejects him. Man of Steel portrays that pretty good.
@@matienazemy1382 his dad is the worst advice giver. , He literally says let them die to Clark
That was the message of both movies...
And he did save many people before becoming superman.
He had to wait because his relationship with humanity could be at risk with being exposed too young or too soon..plus the government poking around him too soon.
In the 78 Reeve version he had to hide until the right time, and no one said a Damn thing criticizing that.
@@sugc3209 Pa Kent didn't say that...He said "maybe" which is the same as saying I don't know.
He could save anyone in the 78 Reeve version either..
In his original origin he had to hide his powers and only help people When the time came when he was older..it's literally in his comic origin
At the end if the day the hallow feeling of hate for the man would still be there
This same problem happened in incredibles
But is dealt with in the not so perfect movie Hancock
Where he went to jail until he was needed
At the end of the day he should wait to be needed which is want pa Kent wanted in the first place but it's how he waits that matters the most not the roller coaster of emotions the movie took us all through
Granted people still like this movie coz of that but my opinion is there should have chosen a different route to the man of hope's upbringing
Smallville in my opinion did a waaaay better job at depicting Johnathan's death and the impact it had on Clark. That episode destroyed me.
Or Reeves first movie.
I don't even like Smallville and i agree. That scene was actually emotional.
Omg. I still remember the songs played in that entire episode
Well said.
Because in a series they have more time.
Yeah I found this film pretty flat, and I think Clarke Kent's "relationship" with Lois Lane was so forced and unnatural, like, no chemistry at all.
Emma Olsson Thorell I liked the movie but I agree Lois lane in that was pretty dull
On top of that, a lot of Man of Steel's issues, as well as it's strengths, could have been fleshed out and improved in a sequel. There was enough ground as to why a billionare industrialist would hate Superman, why a vigilante would create a plan to combat an alien before befriending such, why a Future team of metahumans would agree not to kill and why citizens have a right to have concerns regarding their safety regarding people like Superman giving him obstacles to solve with the best traits and motifs that define his character and personality. And yet, Snyder and WB just wasted these opportunities in favor of marketing overhaul and money over why people loved these characters in the first place.
THIS. So much this. A domino of bad storytelling and character development decisions.
Exactly. With a MoS 2 they could easely solve 90% of everything!
I blame Snyder. With him out look at how much better DC movies have gotten. Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam; BIG difference!
I just don’t think he really understand these characters well, yeah he is a big fan of TDKR but this isn’t the Batman we usually know and love and even this Superman
@@MrRodQ The Wonder Woman movie was Snyder's shared vision..and the DCEU didn't get it's 1st flop until WB ruined JL
Perry White: "Can you imagine how people would react if they knew someone like this existed?"
To quote the movie Ted: "No matter how big a splash you make in this world, whether you're a Corey Feldman, Frankie Muniz, Justin Bieber or a talking teddy bear, eventually nobody gives a shit."
Mitch Kettles Not if you're Batman
How does that make Perry wrong lmao
Damn. Before another one of y'all says the "am I the only one who liked it?" Take your fucking time to read the other 800 comments saying that.
The Chiefs
I like being a part of something bigger than myself.
Same mentality people join Isis mate.
+ The Chiefs Shut the fuck up clown
Captain Ramsey Clown? Don’t act all high and mighty
*Here’s my problem with this video*
Your description of the film and the fact that Snyder put Superman in a dark and gritty world, as opposed to making Superman himself dark and gritty, is spot on. And you’re right, Clark was sort of a reluctant hero at first. He never hesitated to save people (aside from Jonathan) but you’re right in that, he doesn’t travel the world to find people to save. But here’s why that’s not a problem in my opinion. Clark was *not* Superman at that point! Yes Superman is an ideal. But he’s a character first and foremost. And Snyder treated him like a character. He will become a symbol of hope. He will become the hero that goes out of his way to help and save people. But in this film, in the beginning, he was just a man of steel. A man. One who is lost and confused.
You must’ve missed the fact that he was *waiting* to reveal himself to the world. Jonathan always knew he would. He just wanted Clark and the world to be ready when it happened. Humans can barely accept each other, what makes you think they’d accept him?
Elmin Legend
You are 100% right
Spot on analysis, hope this gets picked up. Had my own problems with the movie but these were not them, and part of me prefers this movie over Wonder Woman as well
As they said, the movie is named 'Man of steel', not Clark Kent. Clark kent becoming superman should be like in the first act, not before the last act.
Sada
Yes, the movie is called Man of Steel. Clark Kent is *a* Man of Steel. Becoming Superman is something Snyder wanted to take his time with. Becoming the *true* Superman. Just like Luke becoming Jedi at the end of Return. Just because it took time doesn’t mean it’s wrong
Yeah he just had to kill hundreds of thousands, die, and be resurrected to become the TRUE Superman. What forward thinking character development.
The folks who edited the 2nd trailer know what Superman is truly about. It was the most inspiring 2/12 to 3 minutes I’ve ever spent on my phone!
I actually liked Man of Steel. It required a lot of balls for someone to try and shift the original tone and mythos of the greatest hero ever. And I'm coming to believe that it would be nonsensical if we got the same Superman, as we got in the 70s and 80s. I really like that the hero is more human, in the sense that he is not flawless, on the contrary he is filled with moral dilemmas, he does not know what to do and sometimes his decisions are wrong and considering that he is all powerful , they might be catastrophic. It adds to what you said in the beginning of the analysis, right and wrong are sometimes subjective. Even gods aren't perfect.
I like this shift too. The fact he is trying to be the ideal symbol of hope, but struggling with his own existence and who he is among humanity opens amazing doors for future stories. Superman has an amazing pantheon of stories for a god-scale "coming of age" to his powers, and could even have some great dark god storylines (as seen in the alternative universe Batman glimpses in BvS) in the future. I think this story is one that's going to get better as it goes on, and seeing this not so perfect Superman become the superhero we all knew before will be a great trip.
It really doesn't take balls to make an optimistic character edgy. Any middle-schooler can do it.
Hate Man of Steel. Him letting Pa Kent die was the most insane thing ever. 2 seconds was all he needed to do that but Zack Snyder felt that's too much. Whereas the 1978 version, Pa Kent died of a heart attack, which was beyond his control. Both versions, Pa Kent died, but MoS version, Clark was active in Jonathan Kent's death. His inaction killed Pa Kent.
Yeah except Superman is no god. In order for a character to be a god, he has to have no struggles and is a perfect being but Superman doesn't meet that criteria.
@@hermionesvillage Agreed. He's been written with flaws for decades, but since he was still pure and nice, edgy people found him unrelatable. People just can't be satisfied with a hero who's kind, intelligent, and powerful anymore. Every hero has to be a brooding orphan now.
I really can't understand why some people can't just watch the video before commenting.
Nicolas Cage because they were flat out wrong in the first minute
BECAUSE THE DCEU IS FULL OF BLIND FANBOYS. thats why the dceu is failing
How could you possibly know what people did?
If you read some of the comments, you should probably figure that out. It's pretty obvious
+ Magalinnda Clavien Also Disney cheerleaders like yourself are a pain in the ass
*Man of Steel (Superman): What Went Wrong? - Wisecrack Edition*
The comments section.
"Zack Snyder made Superman relatable.This Superman is so relatable. It wasn't until I saw Man of Steel and Batman v Superman that I truly believed someone was going through the same struggles the common man goes through."
I remember the last time I was framed for the destruction of a city. Difficult stuff. I often reminisce about my dad telling me to let everyone die before he sacrificed himself to save the family dog. And I also remember being invincible but letting my dad die cause he put his hand up and was like "naw son stay right there I'm 50 years old and my time is up this hurricane is how I wanna go."
I think the idea people had is that he's relatable in the sense that he "can't" save his father, or that he 'can't" avoid destroying something he loves, the reason it doesn't work is because he can. he's the man of Steel.
Batman couldn't save his parents because he was a child, he couldn't stop the joker from killing Harvey Dent and turning him into 2 face because he's only human, and he can't defeat Bane in hand to hand combat because he's only human.
I feel sorry for society that DC has to infect so many minds, they're more delusional than the flat earth society.
You should try watching Flashpoint Paradox and see what happens to their Clark there.
or here
ua-cam.com/video/aPouO4iQJ9c/v-deo.html
And no. He's relatable because with all his power he still has doubts. He's relatable because he wanted to do something but the circumstances are complicated atm.
@@shadowninja958 I know that they made a What-if style of comic that combines Batman's origin tragedies with Superman's origins. I haven't read it, myself, but I would imagine that the infrastructure and preparation of Bruce Wayne with the latent potential of superman would make for the best of both worlds. You could have a PR angle that hasn't been tackled in comics in a convincing way yet.
"Imagine if luke spent an hour contemplating the pros and cons of using the force. You'd grow to hate the guy."
Jared calling The last jedi early damn
The Kent's were done horribly wrong, Lois lane was too much of the focus point, and superman wasn't just a guy with superpowers. How did Lois lane a news reporter find superman out of the fbi, Csi, and etc?
They're not accurate to the comics, but ultimately I found them to be the most human and realistic characters in the movie. That's exactly how a real father would act. Comic Book Jonathan Kent would never exist in the real world.
journalist...
No one else was looking for him. He was nothing more than those tales told of mysterious strangers who perform superhuman acts and then disappear without a trace. Government intelligence agencies don't chase after folk tales. Lois witnessed him first hand and sought him out. No one else knew he existed, except for those he saved, and no one would believe them.
Did he refer to Perry White as Perry Mason?
Yes...he definitely said the wrong name😁
Yes, he did.
It's a slip of the tongue. Happens.
I assume Garyx wrote that line for him.
It probably shouldn’t happen where you have editing...
I reject the concept that Superman only can be portrayed as an unidimensional Saturday morning cartoon.
I reject the idea that a paragon is an undimensional Saturday morning cartoon character.
LittleTurtle01 he is a hopeful character. He only gets dark when shit around him gets dark and serious
That is why MoS is the best.
It's pretty funny when an actor like Russell Crowe can give one of the most inspiring lines in a superhero movie, like ever.
Crowe's monologue about Kal-El leading humanity to the light is so uplifting and filled with good vibes that it embodies the character like nothing we've seen so far from the DCEU.
Batman is dark, he's even called "the dark knight." Superman is not dark, he is not batman. Batman even calls superman " the boy scout."
christopher tracy You're right, Superman's not dark, that's why he isn't dark in Man of Steel.
zhengyingli i thought he was very dark in man of steel. He didn't seem all positive and happy in man of steel to me.
christopher tracy Being serious isn't the equivalent to bring dark. What has Superman done in MoS done or said in MoS that constitutes him as a dark character? Saying Superman not being happy or positive in MoS also isn't accurate considering he was pretty much that after meeting Jor-El.
zhengyingli i disagree.
Superman in this movie is not dark, the world around him is dark... Therefore due to his upbringing he is grown cautious and in search of his purpose. He is not superman until the end of the movie when he is fighting that gravity machine in the indian ocean.
The best Superman movies are Superman vs The Elite and Death of Superman.
I have no problem with Superman being dark emo and self reflective, but he cant stay in that state ALL the fucking time. He needs to be balanced out with some levity. In private he can deal with his emotions and insecurities, but his public face should have been the all American smiling tv show host. Part of being superman isn't just saving lives, but it's to inspire joy, hope and optimism. Even if he's just putting on an act. Throw a fucking smile on your face.
eon001 The film lacks any juxtaposition to make any emotional impact. The movie is sad all of the time, so when something is actually being sad, it doesn't feel genuine or believable.
Want some levity go watch a comedy....
I guess he saved the planet at the end of the movie... but I could be wrong....
Very good point, there's no contrast between Supes and this cynical world. We've had enough cynicism - let's have some hope.
There were tons of moments where he showed a lighter side to him, small subtle moments. I actually don't like the characterization that Superman goes into the superhero business to inspire from the get go, that is hubris on his part if he is. He's just a guy who wants to do the right thing, and then later on he can see the impact he's made and somewhat try to live up to that standard but it's never an idea he goes into it with. Besides, he can't do that in this movie because that's not what the movie is doing with him.
Of course, the disillusioned in the comments will say things like "it's too gritty, it's too violent, it's too DARK!!" What they, and the folks who made this pretty little video misunderstand, is that the idea of HOPE doesn't mean perfect results with no consequences. In fact, it means the opposite: having faith in men during times of distress and disaster. The whole movie is based off of that theme, beginning with Jor-El's "leap of faith" that his child will prosper on Earth while sacrificing his life.
Why should they have faith in this Superman. He doesn't make that much of an effort to save people unless their right in front of him. For all the people of Earth know, Superman is the one who brought Zod and his soldiers here. When confronted with the choice of saving his dad or risk revealing his identity. What does Clark choose? To stay under that bridge and let his dad die. Even if his pa told him not to save him. You'd think the man who is meant to be the greatest hero ever would enact his heroism when his dad is about to be crushed to death. People find it hard to root for him because he seems like this distant confused man nearly all the time. Jor El had a bigger impact than Jonathan Kent which is a big no no. As it makes him seem more of an alien than he truly is. The beauty of Superman is that he's this seemingly all powerful being who chooses to help people and loves doing so. His humble upbringing is what guides his decision making. Snyder fails to capture this aspect in a Superman origin story movie. And as a result his character feels emotionless, even cowardly at times.
@Akshay 786 Too dark and gritty are valid criticisms that one can make. Being edgy isn't always better.
Great analysis, as usual. Love your work. This made me think: how would Man of Steel be different if Clark knew the consequences of "coming out" as a superhero, but did it anyway? What if the world view remained a dark one, fit for our age I suppose, but Clark decided to be a hero nonetheless, to save the day, to hope and have faith in humanity? I think this could have made the movie consistent with the theme of Superman as a beacon of hope while at the same time maintaining a more cynical world view.
Sahar Al-Nima But Superman did come out as a superhero in this movie.
This video is trash
Snyder´s vision is what destroyed DCEU, until now WW and Aquaman have to save it. Thank god WB kicked him out
Bảo Anh Vũ
I know! That’s why I can’t get all that excited about the ‘Snyder Cut’.
Stop being a hater . He leave cause his daughter died.There is Joss Whedon who destroyed DCEU and JL
Snyder gave us that WW and Aquaman
WB butchering 3 movies is what destroyed the DCEU
It's not (just) Snyder's fault that MoS and BvS are not really good.
David S. Goyer wrote the script for both movies so I think he's more responsible.
I can understand your analysis of the Man of Steel, but this was one of my favorite DC films. I really liked how dark the plot was and Henry's depiction of Superman. Plus, as a Dragonball fan, this was the closest thing we will ever see in literal aliens using their powers to fight each other. Man, the fight scene with Superman and Zod's two soldiers are just epic on another level.
plus most people dont know that Superman had a 5 movie arc where along the way we'd finally see the Superman we know. the movie is called man of steel, emphasis on man. hes just a man trying to understand his place in the world. he clearly wants to help but doesnt know the bigger ramifications of him helping which was then shown in BvS.
@@dcdodo2323 But there's no reason it should take 5 movies for us to see him as we know him. In my opinion, this should have been treated as a "what if Superman was morally grey in a morally grey world" story instead of the core of an official universe.
Honestly, I also think the injustice comic also plagued this idea that a darker/gritty Superman = cool/better written character
And the scene with Pa Kent was SUCH a bastardized ideal of who the Kent’s were/are.
Ok. It's January of 2020 at the time I'm writing this. I so badly wanted to see a detailed analogy on how MoS just neglects the very idea of Superman. I honestly never knew this video existed , but I'm happy I found it now. This channel , better than any other, explains why MoS just didn't work. Now I've been a Superman fan since my kindergarten days when my Mom introduced me to the character. I was and still am fascinated by the very ideals the character represents. Clark's morality , his value for human life and his strive for truth and justice is what made me fall in love with comics. Superman IS the quintessential superhero. The world's first. With that being said , I really abhore how Zack Snyder messed everything up in this movie. I've thought a lot about this "DCEU" trying to use my logic of what I know for reasoning. Now this movie came out in 2013 , when I was just in the 6th grade. As you would expect , I didn't thoroughly try to think about why this movie felt flat and as any kid would want , I just wanted to witness an action filled Superman movie and a kickass version of the character kinda like how he was in the JL animated series. Now, once I saw the movie (at that time) , I remember being blown away by the action scenes and how awesome Superman looked when he flew (I appreciated the flying thing cuz I had seen the old Superman movies and noticed the flying was a bit odd). But as a year or 2 passed , I began questioning this movie , asking myself "Is THIS the Superman I really know and love?" Then as 2016 came , I saw BvS and, me being a know nothing 15 year old kind of picked up on the fact that something is not right with this whole universe, let alone Superman. This video's analogy and mine are more or less the same. However , the only thing I want to add that I feel this video left out is my major issue is with the depiction of Clark's morality. Superman is a character with strong morals. It's the reason why he chooses to save people cuz it's the right thing to do. Not cuz he's drawn to situations to save people (like the video says). That being said , characters like Martha and Jonathan Kent , Lana Lang and Pete Ross are supposed to be his moral compass. Those are the people Clark grows up with and helps him learn the full extent and true beauty of humanity. But in MoS , Pete Ross is a guy who works at iHOP , and doesn't contribute anything to the story. Martha & Jonathan Kent don't instil good values in him and instead make Clark question them and Lana Lang is nowhere to be found. This kinda felt really odd to me. Sure Lana isn't there initially but she's supposed to show up somewhere down the line because she's one character that embodies a bit of childhood innocence in her friendship with Clark. Her involvement is at least 5% instrumental to the person Clark turns out to become. Also , in the modern sense , Superman should not just be an allegorical Christ, but he must be the embodiment what what society could and should be and not like how evil and corrupt it actually is. He's supposed to be an example of everything right with humanity and inspire them to be better and be good.
You're 100% right! When I saw the trailers I was hyped and expected the movie to be what Jor el said when Clark got his Suit. The "You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards" etc etc. After I left the theater something just didn't feel right. My main complaints was his dialogue & Pa kent Death. I wanted Clark to TALK more not just "you were sent here for a reason" type of dialogue & Pa Kent's death meant nothing to me. In BvS I was expecting Superman to speak to the citizens or something! Throughout that movie I kept thinking "SAY SOMETHING!!!" lol!!!
Man of Steel is still my favorite only because of the visuals or moments like when he exists to ship and learns to fly, the music is so inspirational, the cast, the Suit is just ::Chefs kiss::
When he's walking and you see the cape in the wind.
The darkness could've worked if there was some contrast. Imagine for a minute if the other charecters and the world were the same, but Superman was idealistic and altruistic; everyone tells him he shouldn't out himself, but he disagrees and becomes a hero. Some people still hate him, sure, but he thinks that is much less important than saving lives. That would be a much better movie, but it would still have the darkness and grit.
Then he would be more of a douchebag
This Superman was altruistic . And MOS wasn't a dark movie.
A few people not liking him wasn't the full risk...His whole relationship with humanity and the Gov. would be compromised..Especially if he was outed be for become A what he was.
Nice idea,love d comments👍🏾
I loved the movie
The biggest issue with Man of Steel is that Superman is directly responsible for everything that happens. He turned on the scout ship.
Same with Superman 2 - Superman threw the nuclear missile into the phantom zone, accidentally freeing Zod and friends.
Ya..so...wtf does that even mean...series of actions caused a series of events...its called life
That movie shows how the world would react if an actual alien is present on the planet.. It was realistic and dark.. People hated it... No wonder MCU is the highest grossing
I feel like the MCU movies are favored by many many people because they want to ignore their own reality and see themselves as people who would not ever compromise their morals which for many is untrue.
@@sarag816 Yeah i think that's why its called escapism.
@@sarag816 You know that Captain America Winter Soldier tackled what Man of Steel failed at, but did it right.
@@sarag816 Wow.. Like actual comics?
It's a movie about a guy that shoot laser from his eyes... Were the hell do you see the realism
If anything, this is a real showcase of Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy. Zack Snyder has been trying to make fountainhead for years, is a bonafide drinker of the coolaid in the righteousness of being selfish. And that's what the DC universe Superman embodies. This is even more apparent in BvS, where the man of steel is almost a sociopath in how he treats people, how he reacts to situations. Look at The Watchmen, and tell me you don't see parallels. Synder can't conceive of a being that powerful & simultaneously that altruistic.
To be honest, neither can I. NOBODY with that much power can ever possibly be a good person or take good actions.
George Daugherty bit of a defeatist/pessimist aren't you? How do you get out of bed in the morning? And here was me thinking I was a glass half empty type of guy lol
Darkest Iron BvS he only saves Lois. He's selfish. All that power but he just doesn't give a fuck.
Teeth grinder 83, no I would consider myself an optimist. The world is better than it has ever been and will continue to do so. I just don't believe people are inherently good. We are taught to be good. We can also be taught to be bad and some are very much taught to be bad people. But NONE of us are inherently good like Superman disgustingly is in the comics. Just not how the world works.
Don't see why you would think I'm a defeatist/pessimist. That's an absurd reach on your part.
George Daugherty autistic level take
"Damit Clark"
Hydrogen One Man of Steel summarized.
the movie is ok
but the viewer's have a tendency of wanting to see what they dream about instead of seeing the dark truth of reality and accepting it
says ppl who has never touched a comic book. reality ? yeah a alien fighting with a another alien and after that some guy cut his hand and put his blood on the dead alien then a cave troll from LOTR came out 😂 yeah so realistic . u guys are a joke
@RD ARDY MoS was the most epic movie ever exist. You can keep crying abt your wimp hero who wear his underwear outside his pant
My biggest complaint was Jonathan Kent. That was weak sauce! I could live with everything else.
He was horrible wasn't he. Let people die? I think the point was he rejected his earth father's advice for his real father's.
But that's the thing - Jonathan Kent IS Superman. He's Clark's father, and so his teachings are behind everything Clark is, and ultimately everything Superman is. So for him to tell Clark that he should put himself first, that he should let people die to save his own skin, that sets the tone for the entire rest of the movie.
Xi Wang
What exactly in "Maybe" say "let people die". Even that is a hurdle for some people. Golly.
Jonathan Starsmoure He says it in such a way that it shows he knows it's not a better option and also that he can't actually come up with one that's better than both of them.
Right. Coz he's only human.
To be fair I don't think I'd go to a movie called "Hipster Sad Beard Man"
Half of Man of Steel is that.
What a reductionist view of the movie.
To be fair I don't think I'd go to a movie "During alien invasion where so-called superhero pause fighting to make fun and lame jokes"
@@tintzaw9915 It's a superhero film. Superheroes have banter while fighting all the time. Nothing wrong with that, they are after all caped crime fighters who wear tights. It's Superman for crying out loud. He's supposed to be wholesome.
@Akshay 786 He's a character with certain defined traits that makes him special. His big blue boy scout persona is as part of him as Batman and his coldness and skepticism towards others.
My favourite version of Superman is the TV-Show Smallville, which focuses exclusively on the time *before* he becomes the Man of Steel. By choosing the setting in Clark's youth, he is allowed to be a flawed, imperfect individual, with a noble core, who has many hard lessons to learn before he can take up the mantle of Superman. In fact, the show doesn't even use the name Superman at all (except maybe the last episode, I forget), and it becomes a mix of a Hero's Journey and a Coming of Age story.
The problem with basically all other versions of Superman is that he is perfect or near-perfect, or they just gloss over the steep learning curve of his powers, focusing on a practically all-powerful, flawless man with just one contrived weakness (kryptonite) - and its both very hard to make such a story compelling, because any conflict can (or should) easily be resolved and because the character basically has no arc or chance to learn anything.
Which is why Man of Steel is a breath of fresh air because it features a Superman saving the day without full control of his powers.
7:03 there's another point...
3) he had no moral obligation to become a hero and yet he becomes one... Out of choice
and with questionable morals.
as uncle Ben said "with great power comes no moral obligation"
@@xxMAGnaniMOxx Why questionable?
@@kapilsethia9284
He wanted to do so to live up to uncle bens words and not let another Peter Parker loser a uncle Ben
Unpopular opinion:
Man Of Steel was really really good, I loved it!
Nothing went wrong
@@theotherman1253Movie has aged like fine wine....can't believe we never got a sequel.
"Imagine if Luke had spend an hour contemplating the pros and cons of using the force"
You don't have to imagine it, it's in cinemas now ;)
The Sequels aren’t star wars
Well, that happened... And Disney is trying their best to forget about the sequels.
The last battle is not celebrated by the film cause literally in the sequel bvs we see that the battle of Metropolis caused more people to hate and fear Superman, just like pa Kent predicted
To get a strong DC universe, it seems that the most important step is to get Superman right.
This is a great summation of Man of Steel's thematic problems. Not some idiotic nitpicking of details but something that attacks the core problems of the movie. Great job.
Being a shining example after going through finding yourself is a far better story than being born a boy scout and staying that way for no reason other than it serves the story. Man of Steel is a grounded movie and the best we've ever had on screen for the Son of Krypton.
Man of steel is an amazing movie in everyway...
Nahhh it’s ok but not amazing
No.
🤮
dude, Man of Steel was awesome. The Reeve Superman was given to a society that was far less aware, in aggregate, of the complexities of mankind. Every point towards the reluctance of the hero, advised or recognized makes absolute sense, knowing the world as it is. The military would obviously be worried, as the strategic situation is now changed. Super weapons, and are there more of them? The tactical mindset requires that information. The general public would probably lose interest after a certain time, but still retain a background wariness. Given close proximity to someone who can rip you apart before you can blink, there's animal instincts that people have for good reason, even if you can't do anything about them. Definitely save the bunch of kids in a bus. The "maybe" is a testament to the magnitude of responsibility that Cal's father feels, given the child he inherited, and probably knowledge that his mentoring can only go so far, but giving his son that primer to think on his own and consider all options. It's deep shit, but mandatory to consider when so much destructive capability is on tap. And Metropolis was already ripped apart by the world engine, then Cal had to contend with a guy who had his abilities and stated his intent to reign over the people of Earth as all powerful, making them suffer; sounds like you should probably go all in when fighting that, being he was the only thing capable of stopping him.
This exactly why I prefer DC. Because they actually make you think about how these heroes and villains have repercussions in the real world. The film was a complete package and an epic journey from start to finish. I love the graphic novels used, the properly executed punchlines, and the background of the characters introduced. This movie did a great job showing the sheer power and destructive capabilities of Kryptonians under a yellow sun. Bro I am insanely in love with this cinematography and combat sequence. Notice how Faora didn't bash Clark's masculinity or invoke any "girl power" nonsense? And still, she came off as a powerful female character in the movie. That's good writing by Goyer, the Nolan brothers, and Zack Snyder. Also brilliant acting by Crowe, Shanon, and Cavil.
@Koka Priyatham Manohar except he didn’t say it. He said “maybe” that tells you that how difficult it is to parent some alien kid like Clark. And his father was right the humans wanted to arrest and tried to kill him. In fact his Foster parents did a great job raising him to be a good kid. Imagine he was a brat and the evil Superman like homelander??? Yeah
Every one of your points empathizes why I love this film.
empathizes?
@@batitony emphasized*
It seems like the people who dislike this movie don’t like the fact that he’s not a Boy Scout. Which is a fair opinion. But if you can get past the fact that they wanted to make a more serious and mature super man then you’ll definitely enjoy it
"It seems like the people who dislike this movie don't like the fact that Batman's a stay-at-home dad who doesn't fight crime. Which is a fair opinion. But if you can get past the fact they wanted to make a more serious and mature Batman than you'll definitely enjoy it." Do you see the issue?
TBH I think the most realistic example of what would happen if there were people with superpowers is Super Powereds by Drew Hayes
It's irrelevant what opinion we had already about superman from comics or previous movies. Snyder could present a completely different superman and still we could like the movie. The problem is that this movie is not good. And the reason for that is that it is in a hurry from the beginning. Everything happens too quickly, without a reason to happen.
i remember seeing this movie in theater i slept throughout the movie
Hilariously, the Richard Donner films faced the exact problems. And they overcome them instead of giving into their basest temptations to make it gritty. No, seriously, look up what was going on in America at the time Donner's Superman: The Movie came out. America wasn't doing so hot then, either.
Was America ever doing well?
Well, still my favorite superman and superman movie, just some personal preference.
Definitely, who wants to see again a godlike alien saving the day like a boyscout? i guess most ppl do.
I have to agree with you wholeheartedly. Best Superman movie ever. While I like the video there are some shortcomings in Wisecrack's analysis. Remember, this was the first consciously post-Dr. Manhattan Superman movie.
This movie's climax aftermath is the equivalent of SpongeBob's episode in which he drives the hole city to fear, chaos and anarchy because of a butterfly they mistake for a savage monster, only for him to say to Patrick "We saved the city" while Bikini Bottom is on fire.
I thought the whole point of the movie was to look at what a being like superman would look like in our world today. I think It succeeds just becuase superman once represented hope does not mean he would be taken as such. I felt as if the whole point of the film was the wealth of hope in our world as we no longer believe in truely righteous heroes as we once did. The very thing you critic the film for I think is the philosophical point that superman cannot be a flawless hero since mankind and the world he lives in cannot agree on what perfection is...
Christopher Lang Thank you
Christopher Lang That's what you expected, I on the other hand expected a renewed version of the character I know and love with a new and exiting story, as well as all the special effects that new movies have at their disposal, and I feel I was in the majority, unlike you.
Finally someome who gets it!
Yeah nobody wanted a reflection of our shitty reality.
Dangerz Own the fact that they live in fictional places doesn't mean they can't teach you a lesson about our reality. That's the freaking reason fictional stories exist
This critique is wrong from the get go because it assumes Superman should be an idealist from the the beginning. You're forgetting that this is his first time out as Superman. His father was right because that was the most realistic way to look at it. his father's fears were confirmed in BVS. This Superman was more worldly than any other we have seen. He chose to walk the earth as a man and saw all versions of man. You are forgetting that the central theme is choice. The objective of the film was to show us that the Superman that fights for truth and justice, didn't have to be a paragon of hope but rather he chose to be.
The audience here was the issue they wanted the idealized version of the hero without taking into account what it took to get him to that mindset. Man of Steel is the deconstruction of that (the director himself said that). Contrary to popular belief they did not want to make Superman into another batman, his journey was different.
telling your superhero son to let a bus full of kids die is not being a good dad
This video made me like man of steel even more
LOL than good job at FAILING to understand the point of the movie.
@@Gadget-Walkmen i think your the one failing to understand the movie
@@peterpaulngitngit1925 lol just no. I understand this movie perfectly and this video perfectly breaks down all the main line issues with it. Just stop with your nonsense as everyone knows how wrong you really are here!
"As a god-like super powered alien from another planet, you will give humans an ideal to strive towards". Thanks Jor-El.
Well if you really think about it, mainstream Superman is a passive character, whereas a proactive Superman is usually made out to be the bad guy (injustice Superman).
There's passive, reactive, and proactive. Proactive prevents crime (Injustice), passives will fight crime if crime comes to them (man of steel), and reactives will actively seek to stop crimes and help people (Superman).
Man of steel was perfect. I kinda liked a darker tone. It felt realistic at least
Finally, a person who understands the ideas of existentialism and archetypes explored in this film.
Nostalgia bias is a very bad thing ,people want Superman to be just like the old times ,MOS is a realistic take
@@neontales it's a guy that shoot laser from his eyes were the hell do you see the realism???
Realistic =/= quality.
That's why the live action Disney movie sucks.
Comic books are escapism
@@neontales realistic take where a alien punches another alien and in the next realistic movie a guy cut his hand and put the blood on the dead alien then a cave troll from LOTR camr out yeah so realistic .u guys are a joke. 😂
for a dumbass who doesnt know shit or never touched a comic book .u are okay
It’s not saying he shouldn’t become Superman. It’s giving Clark Kent the choice. Jon Kent wasn’t saying let those kids, he’s not sure because he’s scared for his son.
I don't want a Superman movie that tries to rationalize Clark letting his own family die, or throwing off-screen tantrums to get back at petty jerks, or causing property damage instead of saving his Mom.
The problem with this video is, you keep comparing this film to a preconceived notion of what you think Superman should be
NStarks007 Preach! So many of these video essays are just a bunch of straw man argument that wrongly assume what the movie is supposed to be about then criticize the movie for not living up to the assumption.
Yeah because Superman should totally let the kids on the bus fucking drown and lets half the fucking city get destroyed without thinking about the millions of people who die in the process. I mean why would people want a Superhero who actually cares about human life.. Fuck Nolan Batman shouldn't have tried save gothem from a Atomic Bomb in TDR. He should have said fuck it and let it blow up. Spider-man 2 should have ended with all those people on the Train dying a horrible death. Because Spidey didn't give shit. Yeah this movie dose try something different then Superman. But it fucking sucked. Do even understand the concept of a Hero.
@@Lone432345 The destruction was inevitable. It's such a moot point. Worse things would've happened if Zod got his way.
the idea of MoS depicting clark's life at the beginning phase of becoming superman is excellent, shame that the execution of this idea turned out shit, it's got soooo much potential to become a masterpiece of a film that could change everything everyone knew about superman as an iconic character in general, yet they lost it all with all kinds of stupid scenarios, poor character arc and weird-ass pacing issues. MoS could have been a masterpiece like Nolan's batman begins leading to the dark knight. Such a shame indeed.
The problem I think is that while it’s fine to make a cynical Superman story (like Superman: Red Son, one of my favorites), Superman himself is never a cynical or reluctant character.
This movie is a masterpiece compared to the absolute trash we have in 2024. I personally liked this movie when it came out, but I have a whole new respect for it today.
He should have been written like All Might
Calimero Hœnir I was about to comment this exact thing! All-Might is probably the best superman-like character in recent memory, he's charming, optimistic and he even has the "should i reveal myself" dillema, but done way better.
Hell, just look at Captain America, and those silly public service announcements during PE class in Spiderman Homecoming. There are plenty of examples of this type of character done well. Just an earnest, proper, nice guy. All Might is a great example.
yes.
The problem is that Zach Snyder is an objectivist, so he probably can't understand someone who is selfless
AlbinoTuxedo all might has a real weakness that he has to handle unlike Superman who doesn't deal deal with kryptonite that often
This is one of my favorite reviews and I wish I could like it ten times.
Man of Steel is a film about how no one should want to be Superman and that we're all probably all better off that Clark Kent didn't land on our planet.
Clark spends an hour ponderously angsting over whether he should reveal himself to the world thanks to addled nimrod Jonathan Kent basically laying a death geas on his son, compelling Clark to keep himself hidden at all costs. But then evil aliens show up and say that they'll kill everyone if Clark doesn't reveal himself, rendering that entire hour of navel-gazing kinda pointless since Clark just gets strongarmed into revealing himself anyway.
Both this and BvS were really intent on bringing up big, dramatic, pathos-ridden questions and then wasting time mulling over them, only for these questions to be rendered moot by the narrative anyway. It's no wonder why they're fundamentally-unsatisfying stories.
The point of the movie is that humanity isnt ready for superman, and he knowz that. But he has to take a leap of faith anyway, and trust them to one day be ready.
Exactly. This guy's interpretation is misguided.
I didn't see man of steel for many reason and this is one of them, but also I saw the trailer and I saw that they completely destroyed Superman. They changed his outfit, they made his suit look dark like Batman and also Superman is NOT A GOD. Superman is like the grandfather of hero's the original, You don't mess with Superman.
I just watched it again today and it’s fantastic. The story is brilliant I give it a 9 out of 10 score.
In all honesty, I also found it a great movie!
"Perry Mason"
WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME?!
Excellent analysis. Cuts through the fog.
Thankyou, this is so good ! DC needs to see this. I can finally love superman, again.
I dont understand some of these criticisms against MoS. How can a concept like Superman and Zod be anything BUT dark? Just because iterations of the characters have portrayed these stories as light-hearted in the past, the truth is in the real world, there would be nothing light about an alien that can lift buildings having to fight an evil cabal of similar aliens who can do the same
It’s because the original fanbase of Superman was stupid and retarded as fuck, they only wanted to see Superman because they want to see what they want to be or wish they could be.
Now that Snyder made Superman an actually good character, dumb fucks like those criticizers, in denial, try to make up other reasons to hate the movie because deep down they know they are the problem
Why Clark didn't save Jonathan as Clark and not as Superman?
I Mean, he could easily run to Jonathan, grab him and just fly away when the Tornado comes, nobody will see
Jean Shirazawa Clark couldn't fly.
And even if people could have seen him... I mean, it's your father. Considering they loved each other, it's a pretty crazy call. And it's not really addressed, not even by Martha.
Apparently nobody saw his father look him dead in the eye, put his hand up and shake his head.
@@carloseastman547 They did see that..but not sure what that means to the storytelling
i also thought that Jonathan's death was not that good but you said that Clark shoud have grab him and fly away but at that time he couldn't fly. Also, people would see him, telling more people about what clark can do
I wasn't a particular fan of Superman comics before watching the movie, I didn't have any "stakes" in it, or what was the right or wrong version. I thought the movie was really solid!
Philip Zeplin I think your comment exemplifies what I have said about the people who like this movie, your a fan of Zach Snyder or at least his vision, not necessarily a Superman or dc comics fan.
I thought the film was okay. Not amazing, not awful. Didn't really think about the philosophy of it.
Ivan Aguilar
I say the same thing... people who comment that MoS made them Superman fans just makes me say, "Then you're not really a Superman fan, because that is fundamentally not him."
Ivan Aguilar let it be
I want zack to keep making these films
+ Ivan Aguilar Your argument is extremely invalid
simple. It's a differnt mythos. The problem with audiences members who rage about nostalgia is they harp on what movies are supposed to be instead of what they could be.
Short answer: EVERYTHING.
Kor O'Connell okay bruh, nice criticism
Suicide Squad should've been grittier than this
LightningBS it was then the geniuses in Warner Bros. decided to change it because they saw dead pool doing well
wddr12 and BVS was dark.
3:50 - That, right there, killed the franchise for me. That “what the actual FUCK?!” moment proved that no one involved with these properties actually _understands_ them.
GamerFromJump Right? Jonathan Kent told his kid that it would have been better had the children had died. What the fuck!?
How in the world does the word "maybe" say "let them die"?
If that's hard to figure out, no wonder the movie isn't speaking to you.
Jonathan Starsmoure - That’s the problem, it shouldn’t be “maybe”. The responsibility of power is to aid the helpless. If nothing else, basic valuing of life should make it obvious.
Why shouldn't it be maybe? If you were a dad, would you let your son expose himself?
ua-cam.com/video/aPouO4iQJ9c/v-deo.html
If anything, this is the reason why the flashbacks in the first place. To emphasize how the people in his world acts.
Isn't maybe what this kind of situation calls for? especially for a farmer to handle these circumstances, maybe should be the right word to describe Jonathan's and Martha's situation.
Jonathan Starsmoure - I’d like to think I would teach my children kindness, decency and concern for others. Be good first, then defend against the evildoers. Which is how Superman behaves in other continuities.
Best job you've done yet. Take on Harry Potter, changes over the series, and changes in a central character Dumbledore with the actor change.