The one thing I will always appreciate about man of steel is that it had and arguably still has the greatest superhero action sequences of all time, superman actually feels like a dude who can shift tectonic plates and stop asteroids
This is an insane take. The action is loud and heartless, so divorced from anything resembling superheroism. It’s honestly miserable to watch unless you don’t care at all about the toll the destruction takes
@@BluBoyscout the destruction is devastating but not any worse than the hulk casually smashing buildings in Avengers. scenes like the smallville fight or clark x zod showdown climax hit pretty well on a personal level imo.
For Clark and his character in man of steel, I would actually say he's the opposite of happy or collected. It seems like he's still very much grieving his father's death, which could be seen in the fact he doesn't allow much of the general public to know his presence. And also Clark in of man of steel is very much an outsider. We see that in his childhood days even up to the present. He doesn't really fit in anywhere. So I think his reaction to jor-el and knowing about krypton makes sense to be one of relief. To him this was just the sort of answer or puzzle piece he needed to making a little more sense out of his confusing world of identity and social problems.
i just love that superman inspires others. he leads from the front and he guards from the back. yes he’s perfectly perfect but he was raised here on a farm, and could have turned out any other way but we inspired him and so he defends us, and he gave us the chance to become Batman wonder woman, lantern or the flash.. if superheroes are in any way a modern religion, superman really does deserve a lot of respect for being a symbol of hope
I think the biggest problem is lack of clarity. Is Jonathan telling Clark to be selfish or selfless? Is the secret about protecting Clark or protecting the world from the resulting chaos? (“There’s more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us”)
This is where John Schneider's Jonathan Kent in Smallville reing supreme over every adaptation in my view. It's quite clear that he's a pragmatic farmer who realizes that for the best chance for Clark to use his powers for good, he must keep his abilities a secret from as many people as possible until he's mature enough to take on that responsibility. While Jonathan Kent ultimately agrees with Uncle Ben Parker that "with great power comes great responsibility", he also believes that even if they have great power, it doesn't mean they're inherently able to wield that power responsibly or well even if they have the right intentions. Essentially, he wants Clark to be able to have the freedom to grow up and become his own man before using his powers as a force for the ultimate good. Smallville as a tv show is the story of that journey. By the end of the 10 season run, he's a man in his mid-to-late 20s who has a very good grasp on who he is and what he stands for and has the maturity, empathy, and understanding to use his powers wisely.
It's not a lack of clarity, he just doesn't know... he's not the perfect dad with all the answers, he's a more "realistic" flawed man full of doubt and fears for his son... plus he also has to thread a VERY FINE needle so as to not steer Clark into a direction that could end up in disaster... plus there's a whole context to JK's religious background that makes things more complicated too. To me the "maybe" line just means "while you're a godly being, you are NOT God, it's not up to you to decide who lives and who dies"... or the typical "the fact that you can doesn't mean you should" phrase.
I recently rewatched Man of Steel and something clicked. Up until this point, I never understood why Jonathan would discourage Clark from acting heroically.. even if it meant losing his own life. Additionally, BvS always seemed so thematically jumbled and laden with politic. Batman vs Superman as a movie describes how both good and bad forces would react to Superman showing himself to the world and is precisely what Jonathan feared for Clark if that happened, ultimately culminating in the death of his son.
I don’t feel like Pa Kent was trying to teach Him to be selfish… I think he was more concerned about Clark’s safety and his own family’s safety more than anything else.. and Knew that it would be controversial for Humanity to know that Clark was an alien… so ultimately I don’t think he wanted Clark to make any irreversible decisions before he was sure he was ready… as far as telling people he was an alien
100% agree. In BvS, after Superman reveals himself to the world, you see the backlash from the world and how much it negatively affected Clark. Papa Kent knew that would happen, which is why he didn't want Clark's secret to leak out accidentally before Clark was ready, due to him being reckless while saving someone. In John's eyes, If Clark's secret gets out, he wanted it to be because Clark made the CONSCIOUS CHOSE to reveal himself.
@Malthizar 1) he never said it was an acceptable loss, don’t twist his words. 2) it was never about “himself and his family” is was solely to protect his 14 year old son. John literally died saving people from a tornado , he cared about his family’s safety more than his own life. He wanted Clark to be able to CHOOSE when he wants to reveal himself, rather than get caught using his powers recklessly & be forced to face the world’s wrath as an immature teenager. 3) he doesn’t care about “scrutiny” he cares about the entire world gunning after his only son before he’s old enough to handle it. The world’s reaction happened in BvS when Superman revealed himself to the world & people were in the streets protesting his existence while the media talked down on him & insulted him 24/7. John correctly predicted how the world would react.
@Malthizar 1) he doesn't say that lmfao listen to his entire speech instead of arguing over one word. 2) John never tells Clark to not help people, which is why the movie starts with Clark saving people & when Lois finds Clark, she talks to all the people he's miraculously saved throughout his life to figure out a way to find him. 3) I don't think you know what selfish means 😂
@Malthizar I don't think "Selfish" in a sense of be like Lex Luthor "Selfish" but in a self preservation way, the whole thing about Sups hiding in MoS is not because he is taught to only look out for himself, but because his presence is so massive the People around him would likely persecute him and his loved ones for his power and identity. Its kind of like rasing a gifted adopted immgrant child in an Ultra Conservative part of the US, the parents obviously don't want him to show his gifts not because they are abusive but the possibility the child might be in danger of being descriminated against. I don't think the way MoS does it works at times especially with JK they should have focused longer on why this version was trying to make Sups not be his usual character. tldr: JK and Superman's story here is about hiding from a public that may mischaracterise or worse condem his actions the way Lex Does in many adaptations.
@@revenantronin8377 read again. Exactly what I thought. That's how you write Superman when you don't know how. My comprehension was fine. Why did you even question it? Some insult? I'll go further. It didn't feel like a comic book in particular. If it was, it wasn't good. A questionable take for an origin. It didn't work in this instance anyway.
It's so weird to me when people say "It's been a x many years, why are you still heated about saying this movie/work has failed" when nobody bats an eye at people loving older works.
Probably because it’s not good or healthy to hold onto anger/negative emotions for years, especially not over a piece of media designed primarily to entertain? I say that as someone who loves older media. What is good will last, while what is bad will be forgotten.
I think it's a testament to the character of Superman, and what he means to people. He's an ideal, so when how he's portrayed flies in the face of our personal ideals and values, that feels personal. These sorts of discussions about Superman are often, at the core, philosophical discussions.
@@cassiedevereaux-smith3890 ironically enough, this is why Snyder’s interpretation of the character is the most impactful. Smallville nor Superman Returns have kept the character in public discussion quite like Snyder. The abstract nature of his interpretation has made the character a conversation piece, something which the character has failed to be in the last 2 decades. I’d argue that since Snyder, ppl are discussing the importance of the character more frequently than the are Batman. Which is awesome.
11:22 you missed the point of BvS entirely. He's not altruistic, he tried it and got nowhere, in the end he gives his own life to protect his highest value, his world- lois lane
Thank you! I'm watching this on January 1st after having just watched the "pitch meeting" for Man of Steel (which exposes the plot inconsistencies but never touches on anything deeper). You showing this film is about Choices as well as about the concept of being motivated to make yourself happy in such a way that others are made happy too is brilliant. I've sometimes struggled with the concept of motivation, because my self esteem was destroyed by my abusive father... resulting in my doing good because the heroes I discovered (starting with George Reeves' portrayal of Superman) were my external motivation in a world where my internal motivation was pretty weak (at least it appeared to be that way). Now that I've managed to reconstruct my self-esteem (through a lot of personal development / healing work), I see there always was internal motivation at work in my life. Call it a divine spark... or call it just an innate understanding of the difference between right and wrong... I'm happy with the concept that I'm doing what I do to be happy... and that what I am choosing to do is also to help others be happy. The two are not mutually exclusive... and I don't think they are mutually exclusive for Clark in Man of Steel either. I'll watch the film again now to better see what you've seen.... in particular the scene in which Clark goes to see the priest. That scene never really had much meaning for me... possibly because I had not had the personal breakthrough regarding my own self-esteem I had a bit more than a year ago. Thanks for all your work! Happy New Year!
I think the point of John is to make it so Superman becomes Superman not because of what others want, because of who he is. He has to do this because it’s what HE wants to do, not because it’s what others expect him to do.
In BvS he proceeds to briefly decide to stop being Superman telling Lois _"Superman was never real"_ after receiving backlash and scrutiny from the public. If that was the point of John's speech, then Clark completely fails at doing good because he wants to, instead of only if the public likes him enough.
@@allendrake6960 because BVS is about the moral failures of them both. Clark decides to let the public mold his path, and Bruce…I mean that one’s obvious. ZSJL is their redemption, their “second chance”
I think it really shows how much humanity can influence Clark cause he sticks to his humanity. In todays world, he is under the weight of EVERY person in the world. How can you NOT collapse from people scrutinizing you at every turn. He just wants to do the right thing and show people there is good in the world. Really hard to do especially if you still aren’t a veteran Superman
I think Johnathan is just being a scared father who wants the best for his son. He knows that one day Clark will stand up and change the world, but he knows that on that day he will have to face humanities scrutiny, and Johnathan as a father wants to protect him from the rest of humanity until the time that Clark is ready to face them on his own. That’s how I always understood it at least.
I think I prefer Tyler Hoechlin's Superman in Superman and Lois is a more well-rounded character and it is great to have the real Superman back the way he has and always will be a beacon of hope in trying times and a light in the dark to show us the path towards peace, justice and a better tomorrow
I’m sure I’d love Henry Cavills Supermans 20 times more if Zack had 2 seasons worth of material to expand his arc. It’s not really that fair to compare but I get it
Okay hello everyone, as a Superman fan for 60 years, my problem With Superman was : 1. Jor-el and Lara died in each others arm's Not having Jor-el being stabbed the death by Zod. 2. Jonathan Died of a heart attack, not in a Tornado. Makes me think, of Multiverse.
The best thing to come out of Man of Steel is how some people extrapolated the dissonance of the nature of Clarks upbringing into uncle Ben whispering his last words: "kill them all Peter".
*man of steel (2013) is flawed but still has enjoyable moments, the realistic take on Superman (despite being an alien lol) works for me even tho it could’ve been executed better, the serious tone for this superman works for me but my issues is that the development for Superman is somewhat lacking as is his relationship with Lois lane, yes we know they’re gonna end up together but the pacing needs work and it goes from action sequence to action sequence without any calming moments in between* *henry cavill deserves better, hopefully with his new sequel that’s coming, he has more creative control with the character and portrays him as the hopeful Boy Scout that we’re used to seeing* *EDIT: oof this DID NOT AGE WELL* #FireJamesGunn
@@friggyk the movie isn’t flawed. The film is exactly like it was meant to be. And this is proven by it still being in discussion almost a decade later. Now 2011 Green Lantern? That is a flawed movie.
@@RewMec226 *green lantern is flawed but man of steel is better and STILL has flaws, I see what your trying to say, the “deeper meaning” and all that bs, sure it might’ve been ahead of it time but some elements were just poorly executed, tell me, what is Clark Kent’s motivation throughout the entire movie ? And can you name one scene where Lois and Clark get ACTUALLY development and buildup because yes we know tHat they’re going to end up together anyway but aside from that, the exposition/beginning is fine but THE MIDDLE PART is just “jumps right into the action piece” til the very end without any real development for the characters and that’s my issue with the film, not the killing zod part which is justified IMO but what I just said*
I can't believe you said he helps people in BvS despite hating it and showing that scene when he smiles a second ago delivering that girl lol I love your BvS and ZSJL videos as well. I can tell you didn't care much about this one just shared your thoughts on some parts of the movie but congrats on putting the video out I guess?
Yeah Sups was more conserned about the affect he has on people than really what he does which is probably what Op ment (I mean even in the comics he is kind of sacred about his affects on the people around him and gives himself a hard time)
That was such a good take about how Zack shed his more objectivist streak throughout the trilogy. I think it’s possible that the whole theme of community and altruism running through his Justice League represents a growth as a filmmaker and as a person. I’d like to think it does.
You can really tell that Zack Snyder wasn't kidding when he said that he didn't really understand Superman. Because yeah, Superman is a symbol and what not, but he isn't JUST that and he certainly isn't Jesus. The best thing about Superman is Clark Kent. The fact that this man with practically the power of a god is in fact PAINFULLY human. More human than most actual humans a lot of the time. The best thing about Superman is that he cares DEEPLY. About everything and everyone and never gets crushed under the weight of caring so much. He isn't meant to stand above humanity but to stand as a shining beacon OF humanity. Fingers crossed that James Gunn understands this better
First Snyder related video in this channel that I have to disagree with several of the points made… Particularly, I’d like to say I do find Clark relatable (on the first half most of all) and as many of the international Snyder fans have shared on Twitter, the immigrant angle to Clark here is really powerful to us… Things like “being here,just trying to do good”, hoping people will trust you; that hits home. Being a “Superman” might feel abstract here, but to us, Clark Kent feels very real. (And to some, Learning about your heritage and not going into a “metal breakdown” is very normal?… and let’s face it, had Snyder filmed Clark saying “I think I was sent here to conquer” would have tripled the L takes, hate and anger that this version of Clark already receives)
100% agree. I think his Batman v Superman video is the best BvS video on UA-cam, but he missed the mark with this video. I find Clark extremely relatable in this movie, as a man torn between two worlds. He especially got the John Kent Monologue wrong, making it about "objectivism" instead of it simply being a Father trying to keep his son safe by protecting his secret until he's old enough to decide whether he wants to reveal it to the world or not.
Sups here is really treated the most "Alien" from any live action adaptation TBH not in the him being an Alien part but more on him being an Outsider, in MoS the reason his parents want to shelter him and not do anything isn't because they want their son to be a Guy like Lex Luthor a man who only wants to be on top, but because they want to shelter him from the harm the world might cause to him and vise versa. Sups is so strong and powerful and most especially an outsider by his biological nature, IRL people are afraid of skilled Immigrant Workers, just imagine what they would think if one can Lift Mountains.
@@JayTee2000 I think Thematically it is JK in this movie isn't what he normally is, he is just a scared Dad but also he represents the idealistic thinking of Ayn Rand. (Or in otherwords he is ment to represent the holes on Objectivist theory, he means well but doesn't consider the dangers that ideology can bring hence why in the sequels the Objectivism thing was dropped, basically JK and Sup's relationship here represents Snyder's opinions about Objectivism.) He is ment to be wrong in certain aspects and naive.
I swear Superman Returns from 2006 is probably the only movie where you can justify saying Superman is boring. Because he does not do much of shit in that film. Other than save a plane and lift a rock.
People really listened to Jonathan tell Clark "lol maybe you should've let those kids die" and convinced themselves Snyder understands the character and mythos of Superman better than anyone
That wasn't about JK wanting to commit Child slaying, its JK saying that Sups nature makes him a potential target for descrimination based on his power not based on his actions which is likely what would happen if an Alien lands on Earth as a Child adopted by human parents. It also has a large potential affect on Clark himself as he could potentially turn on people. (Its still dark and uncharacteristic of the Kents we know but its not because he wa ts Clark to simply let people die for the LOLs, its a representation of a Parent's fear of the harm others may grant their child.)
@3:08 "Man of Steel avoids to make Clark relatable, and depicts him as an uncomplicated being through the eyes of everyone else." Hence why's he complicated. Clark's ideals are simple: people don't process simple people with complex characterization pretty positively, which generates more adversity because you either have to blend in or to get trash away. I don't get how you missed that point.
Both work... in fact, MOS is more of a Man vs. self story whereas BvS explores the man vs. world idea... they're kind of two sides of the same coins in a sense, which is why I enjoy those 2 movies so much.
@@jacowboy That's how I always viewed it. Man of Steel being a story about choice, with Clark having to accept his role as Earth's protector and Krypton's chance at redemption, even amidst the potential life struggles he could face by doing so. In Batman v Superman, those struggles took center stage as Superman's model is questioned by a number of people, leading him to doubt his overall sense of purpose in a world that ain't "simpler". By the time we got to ZSJL, Superman came to terms with both himself and with the complexities of the world he's protecting, resulting in a wiser, more confident superhero that is willing to die in the name of altruism. The Justice League became the living proof of his success. That's why it only makes sense for Henry Cavill's Superman to be this established, inspirational superhero in WBD's upcoming Superman film. He's earned that role.
*man of steel (2013) is flawed but still has enjoyable moments, the realistic take on Superman (despite being an alien lol) works for me even tho it could’ve been executed better, the serious tone for this superman works for me but my issues is that the development for Superman is somewhat lacking as is his relationship with Lois lane, yes we know they’re gonna end up together but the pacing needs work and it goes from action sequence to action sequence without any calming moments in between* *henry cavill deserves better, hopefully with his new sequel that’s coming, he has more creative control with the character and portrays him as the hopeful Boy Scout that we’re used to seeing*
I always liked the tone of Man of Steel, the Clark, the childhood part was one of my favorite parts of the film. When Henry became Superman, that's ironically is one of major parts that made the film drag.
Interesting… never thought of how Man of Steel has a lot of selfishness, then BvS breaks that selfishness down, and JL brings these broken characters together as a community
I came around to really liking Man of Steel as a coming of age/ alien invasion movie. I loved the last line of "Welcome to the P(p)lanet." Ugh, so good! Wish they got a Man of Steel 2 to move the character to more familiar and loved as we know him.
I know this is considered a hot take but Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent is easily the best part of Man of Steel. I know the Kents are meant to be the moral arbiters and all that but I like the idea that in this world Jonathan is just like a real father, he doesn't have all the answers and he doesn't push his son to become Superman. He instead pushes him to make his own choice, that still ends up being Superman.
@@TheShockVox not really when you consider JK's character in this movie, he's a more "realistic" take on a more conservative, religious american man who is being confronted by the existence of not only aliens, but a godly being to boot... you have to realize that in JK's mind, "God" is still the ruling factor in life, it is by god's will that things happen or not, so the line "maybe" is more a reflection of JK's beliefs and values and a warning to Clark that while he might be "godly", he's still not "God", it's not up to him to decide who lives and who dies (a theme that is further explored in BvS)... or well, that's my interpretation of it =P
Yeah no, that's not what Johnathan means and who he is to Clark nor why Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope Which is what these movies seriously lack...HARD
@@ninjanibba4259 whatever, you're just projecting your personal and subjective ideas and meanings onto something, instead of letting it be its own thing.... or to put it bluntly, you're just a fanboy who's angry because he didn't get what he wanted...
Yknow why people like me get so upset about how zack chose to kill Johnathan Kent? Because traditionally he dies of a heart attack something superman CANNOT stop from happening and it teaches him one of the most important I'd argue top 3 rules of being a successful hero...you CANT save everyone even when you're superman but superman saves people from natural disasters like tornados all the time he saved Lana from the middle of a tornado in smallville so its absolutely doable for him he could've saved them and moved so fast no one would've seen him anyway
superman in MoS don't have superspeed, he found out about it in justice league and the entire focus of BvS court scene is to show that superman doesn't have superspeed at the time.
At least he was back one more time for a sweet Cameo in Black Adam. ♥ (i wish we could have a conclusion for him in a MAN OF STEE 2) Do Superman legacy and all you want James Gunn! But let other director do MoS2 (call it man of tomorrow) i'd love it.
I personally find this movie "divisive". On the one hand, the action is top notch, Clark's character arc in the first half of the movie is actually engaging and both interesting and fun to watch, and imo Zod was the best part of the whole movie due to how motivated he was to restore his civilization, no matter the cost. That being said, Clark's characterization is not correct to me, cause while he is supposed to be an icon of hope and "goody two shoes", to say, he seems somewhat resented and aggressive here(like how he destroyed that redneck's truck, how he destroyed half of Metropolis and how he ended up killing Zod, though i'll let this one pass things considered), and talking about hope, Synder's attempt to turn him into Jesus was... questionable. And while i liked his characterization, it was kind of rushed, specially his relationship with Lois, and the way Jonathan Kent was portrayed was definately the worst part of the movie, the way he dies is just... bruh. That being said, i still like this movie and consider it the best movie of the DCEU(not really a high mark, but i guess it counts).
I honestly disagree with you on a few things like Clark’s characterization. The red neck was sexually harassing a waitress & he was being a jerk, also the fact that reason for his truck was smashed being more 1:1 with Action comics #1. Clark was more like his golden age era where he’s more, aggressive towards wrongdoers, I guess. With metropolis that’s more of zod than Clark, with the fact that Clark got beaten up by alien super soldiers mainly. Zod wasn’t gonna be really letting earth live anyway. I really don’t see how Snyder’s is really like Jesus, he’s not really the first person to do so, like Richard Donner’s, Silver Age era, Smallville, etc. with Jonathan’s death while it’s not like we’re used to, it did show him being the kind of person he is, and how he was willing to tell his son that it’s not worth losing his secret because him, and that he’s not ready to make the decision yet; I feel like any parent would do anything to protect their kid, either physically or socially. With Lois & Clark’s relationship is different and felt rushed to you, I honestly think that it’s fine since she’s the one that actually knows him being Superman at the start and has been by his side since they crossed paths, heck she was looking for him just for her story till she started to get that it’s more important to let him have a life of normalcy than her career. I honestly think that it’s a normal pace for the start of their relationship especially when others were more quick like Superman 78’ (though beautiful it’s still kinda, more short and not a big part of the series).
Snyder's Superman never was Jesus. The thing people don't understand is that Snyder and others with him wanted to show how the world would react to Superman if he was real. Those films never meant to say that Superman see himself as Jesus. That's why they showed that a big part of mankind kept seeing Superman as a messiah, and *that was something which Clark never wanted.* That's why he stopped smiling when when a crowd of people started treating him as a messiah. He was clearly confused. People critize those films one of which said in a scene that "Maybe he's not some sort of devil or Jesus character. Maybe he's just a guy trying to do the right thing."
@@legoben98productions I think the problem people have is it was a stupid way to show that, I mean for one thing Clark could've gone and gotten the dog without any powers that was just dumb but two usually Jon dies in a way Superman can't stop to show how Clark can't save everyone or do anything. As for Lois and Clark, they weren't together since they first crossed paths, he saves her then she hunts him down cause it's not like he wanted her to find him, and then because of all that she's involved with the Zod stuff and by the end they're just together
1978 Superman and Man of Steel are both perfect Superman movies. People just don’t understand, Man of steel was the beginning of his story arc, he was not the perfect hero people wanted him to be. He has to grow into it and people couldn’t wait
The point is that Clark has to CHOOSE to be Superman, he is the only one capable of being that, so he owes it to himself to figure out what that is, but ultimately it's HIS CHOICE, it has to be his decision to make his sacrifices more meaningful because he didn't owe it to anyone, but he CHOSE to do it, to be good, to be the symbol of hope, he CHOSE that responsibility (for better or worse). Take this into account when thinking about every decision he makes.
@Malthizar Jor El tells him what he COULD be not what he SHOULD be. In BvS he is reminded of the fact that being Superman is his choice when he asks his mother what he SHOULD do, she tells him (I'm paraphrasing rn) to be people's hero or not, it's always been up to him. If you aren't planning on rewatching the movies anytime soon, then you should look up clips on the scene where he first speaks to Jor El in the scout ship and the one where he asks Ma Kent for advice in BvS (the scene is the one at their farm at night, not the one over the phone). My bad on not giving the exact dialogue lol
@@JJahdiel so what to any of it? We all knew Superman decides to be Superman. From the very first comic To animated series. So the eff what Why are you or anyone else acting like that's revolutionary. Even in C.reeves he does it in the second one.
Exactly. Pa Kent wanted Clark to have a choice in who or what he wanted to be. Just like Jor El. If Clark is Superman because he feels like he HAS to save people. Or that he has a duty to save people because he's the only one with the specific capabilities for it. Then that's not a choice. And in a way that's no different then any other Kryptonians. Because remember Kryptonians also acted out of a sense of duty not choice because they were bred to have specific capabilities to do specific things. This movie to me is about Choices. It asks a very important question. Is it better to be a hero out of obligation or is it better to be a hero out of choice.
@@kingkiller5325 Yeah, you phrased it way better than I did, dude. It's about choice, not obligation - which ties into the whole conflict between him and Zod and the other Kryptonians. That way it informs us that even when he could be something else or do something else, he would still choose to be and do good (which I believe is very impactful).
Nah Superman is still a character a learning on the search while laying low. Though the brain keeps chiming in because it knows where it's going. The only time he is as you claim is in BvS that movie did him so dirty since he went from having completed the first step and found himself at the end of man of steel back to step zero except this time in the suit.
Jonathan Kent in MoS is how a parent (a good one anyway) should act. Would you want to see your child as a hero? Sure, yes. If that meant that they were put in harm’s way before you thought they were ready, would you still want that for them? I wouldn’t. Is it selfish that Jonathan cares more for his son’s life over the life of any other child? Yes. Is it wrong? Hell no.
Henry's/Snyder's Superman is the most relatable Superman (then comes Tyler's), especially to me. Tbh, I'm a very confused guy. I get confuse a lot or feel like I'm facing some sort of dilemmas when it comes to make choices. And that's exactly how Snyder's iteration of Superman was. Ma and Pa Kent raised Clark good. He actually was a good human (what Superman has always been supposed to be) and optimistic and knew what's right or wrong but the thing is, he was CONFUSED. He has been confused as these core characteristics of his (like his optimism and the decision of being Superman) were being tested throughout the story. That's why nowadays I find him very relatable and well-written.
The problem with Cavills Superman being "relatable" is that we know next to nothing about him as a character. What's his personality? What are his interests outside of reluctantly saving people? What qualifications does he have to become a journalist at the end?
Bro why did you compare the scene from smallville where Jonathan reveals Clark’s alien origins to him with the man of steel scene where Clark returns to his mother? There’s literally an identical scene in the movie to that from smallville. Clark even has the same reaction and Jonathan almost word for word says the same thing about choosing who he wants to be.
I'm honestly sick and tired of people calling Zack Snyder an objectivist. Just because Zack Snyder wants to adapt "the fountainhead" doesn't make him an objectivist. He has explicitly stated that he is a liberal and his politics become apparent when you watch his other movies. The point of "Man of Steel" is 'choice' as you mentioned in the video. Jor-El and Jonathan Kent represent two different ideologies. Jonathan tells Clark to conceal his identity as he is afraid the world would reject him and wants Clark to have as normal of a childhood as possible because he wants Clark to pursue his true purpose after he has the ability to deal with the consequences. In one scene, Jonathan tells Clark to decide the kind of man he wants to be as he will change the world. So, he isn't telling him to only look out for himself but to wait until he's older to make the decision. On the other hand, Jor-El thinks of his son as the savior of humanity and wants Clark to be an altruistic superhero. At the end of the movie, Clark has the choice to either side with humanity or side with Krypton and he sides with humanity. The main message of this movie isn't to be selfish or heroic but to choose to be whoever you want to be. Clark doesn't become a hero because of some obligation to humanity, he becomes a hero because that is who he chooses to be.
I only saw the movie after I watched the entirity of smallville and Superman and lois and to be honest, I really hated what they did to the character of Jonathan Kent and I didn't really remember seeing any Clark in superman, to me he was just saving people, because he felt like it and killing Zod at the end made me not like it even more, because in all the other adaptations I saw he was this symbol of hope and he always saw another way. Superman killing his first enemy is not the way. Sorry if I made any spelling/grammar errors, english is not my first language
Man of steel isn’t my favourite, but I don’t think it’s shit. I’d give it a 6/10, better than mid. It has some really great ideas, but I feel like it definitely tries to be too cool sometimes. And it mishandles some things with the character of superman himself. But the scene where superman is resisting being crushed by the kryptonian machine and the flying through it before the daily planet works are killed is really good. I wish that hope, triumph and human spirit found in that scene was dispersed better throughout the film
I don't get the confusion about Superman arc throughout the DCEU. To me it was pretty clear. Before Clark could become the symbol of Hope for Earth he had to: 1.) Figure himself out and where he came from (MOS) 2.) Gain the trust of the people of Earth and prove that he wasn't the threat they imagined (BvS: Ultimate Edition) 3.) Find his community (ZSJL) By the end of those three movies, Clark is in a much better place. He and Lois are engaged and expecting a baby, he has his peers in the Justice League, his mom's house is returned to her, the world is saved, and the people of Earth admire him. He has everything needed to become the symbol of hope he was meant to be. It's just that we as the audience know the struggles it took to get him there. Also I don't think Lois stopping her story has much to do with romance. It was more her understanding and respecting why Jonathan Kent sacrificed himself to keep Clark's secret. It had to be Clark CHOOSING to reveal himself and deciding how he wanted to do it, not being forced into it by circumstances or a third party. And yes, Zod did force his hand with the ultimatum, however, Clark could have easily just remained in hiding. He himself knew that giving himself up wouldn't change Zod's mind. "Zod can't be trusted". But he decided to reveal himself and surrender to spare Earth. All together, Man of Steel is a fantastic Superman movie in my view.
Zacks superman does not work to serve himself, that’s exactly why you think BVS contradicts the “selfishness” theme. Pa Kents reasoning with the maybe line is not selfish, him stopping clark from saving him is not selfish, none of clarks actions in the movie are selfish.
Ah, I always enjoy a new upload from implicit, and he thankfully hasn't made the Asian parent joke in a wh- "But also, like an Asian parent" Ah...well.
I loved the cinematography and Henry Cavill looks *EXACTLY* like Superman. Sure the were things I didn't like. I think it was decent, let's see what Gunn does 😬
There is a lot I like about M.O.S. The callous destruction of cities put me on edge and ready to leave. But with the neck snapping, I walked out angry and never watched any other dc universe films until Shazam. And I *do not* trust Snyder. I'm unlikely to watch anything else he is associated with. Great fight scene with the train tho.
I'd push back against the notion that Zod is any kind of collectivist; he says everything he does is for the greater good of his people, but a lot of fascists say that. You can see Zod's character in his actions: he wants to exterminate humans because they're inconvenient(surely a collectivist would want to coexist with them) and when his mission fails he acts destructively out of pure malevolence. On the other hand, Clark spends his time saving people even though it's inconvenient for him because he has to go into hiding to avoid exposing himself (because as his father said "people are afraid of what they don't understand")
Thank you, the use of collectivist to describe zod also bothered me, he's a clear analogue for fascism and is an open eugenicist. to your point If anything Clark is more of a collectivist because he literally proposes that zod makes an effort to coexist with humans instead of teraforming and eradicating humans. And then comparing Superman and Snyder's themes as randian and objectivist is illustrative of a superficial understanding of that ideology and a misunderstanding of what Snyder likes about rand/fountainhead Believing in choice is not randian, and neither is doing anything for yourself in a reasonable amount not inherently anyway, if Clark acted solely for his benefit then the argument would be sensible but he doesn't, explicitly he acts in the service of others. This would be as bad as saying that because you eat before you leave the house to go about your day and help others that you're an objectivist. An objectivist would hoard food to make sure they can always eat at the expense of everyone else because self preservation is above all else and a "rational virtue". If Superman was this way in MoS he would've just let zod do whatever and not fought to save earth risking his own life. Of course he did not. John Kent is scared for his son and is doing what he thinks is best in this very unique and potentially dangerous situation. He's not saying "maybe" the kids should've been left to die in the school bus scene in a serious sense, he's saying maybe in a way that highlights his unsureness. It's obvious he doesn't know what to do but he knows his son would be in danger if people found out before Clark was ready to handle it. The same reason he let himself be killed by the tornado. And while I think the scene is the low point of the movie for me, it's consistent with John's actions up to that point and is emotionally impactful-to Clark anyway, your own reaction may vary.
It's easy for me to see some elements of CHristian allegory in this movie, especially with the church scene. Every believer has the tension of being pressured by the call of two fathers, earthly and heavenly. Jor-El as Superman's heavenly father is his creator, and the one who instills him with purpose; but he is an elusive phantom, seen only in rare glimpses, who gives little in the way of explicit instruction, but pushes him toward the highest spiritual ideals. Jonathan Kent, as Superman's earthly father, doesn't have a clear vision of his son's purpose, but knows it will be huge; and he is concerned with the nuts and bolts of how power and choice work themselves out in oft-time messy ways in the real world. I don't see Pa Kent as selfish as some reviewers have; but is aware of the consequence of choice. He doesn't want his son to get chained down with the consequences of his choices before he has the wisdom to see and choose them willingly.
Quite a video but for the part about John telling Clark to protect himself, it was more than just himself but how his acts will affect those around him, and that Clark growing up will have to make a choice because his father will not always be there to make it for him, just as John made a choice in that moment where his son would have been exposed and rejected and hunted, would die to protect him and his family. And becoming Superman, Clark would help the world while bridging their world together, a share in culture and ideology. To show that Kryptonians can be helpful too, but with Zod that hope is dashed, and his arrival actually set Superman’s mindset for the next movie, is what he does really best for humanity, would they be better off without him? He basically led Zod to them, and humanity in MoS rejected him, but accepted his surrender to Humanity if it meant keeping them safe, and upon learning that he led Zod to Earth and that they plan to terraform Earth to Kryton, he changed and fought to not only save humanity but to correct his faults. For me, that is another iteration of what i enjoy about Superman, a man not all perfect acts to be better than before and helps others in-spite of their fears of him.
I think the reason the film is this way is because Superman is supposed to be this way. If you watch the ending of the Snyder Cut closely you see Batman atop The Dark Knight Returns' Batmobile. The Batman and Superman of that universe were far more savage and way less lenient on criminals and anyone who threatens earth.
i don't think zack is an objectivist/libertarian as much as he is presented to be. I think he read fountainhead(like most old people) when he was in school and found it initially appealing, but as he grew up he began to dislike it the point where he hates how much he liked/wants to like Ayn Rand. And the "want to like fountainhead" bleeds into his work.
You don’t live in a country with free healthcare. You live a country where half of what you work for and earned is taken from you and arbitrarily given away…. Love your videos
My first (and formative) experiences of Superman in visual media were Smallville and the DCAU, so when I heard that Henry Cavill was playing Clark Kent, I was thrilled. He looked perfect and he was so charismatic, I thought "finally we're going to get a movie that will prove to everyone that Superman isn't boring." But this movie was a prime example of why an actor can't save a film, and, as you pointed out, it really wasn't HIS movie. I was disappointed with the film on its release and just wrote it off as underwhelming. I revisited the movie later and thought it was fine. I'm never going to like it, and with James Gun at the helm of Man of Steel 2, I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole franchise. Cavill described the new direction as a "joyful Superman" which I'm happy to hear, but in the meantime, I'm glad I still have other versions of the character to enjoy.
Leo, can you make more video essays on Star Wars content from your perspective (i.e. the Prequels, The Clone Wars, Rebels, and some of the Disney Plus shows)?
@@ggggunit1000 okay prove it. I want you to explain in detail why I am wrong. Here's why I think I'm right: 1. Clark let his own dead die. 2. Clark's dad actually tries to tell Clark that he shouldn't help people without explaining why. 3. There is symbolism throughout the movie that Clark is Jesus. 4. The movie never gives a reason on why Clark wants to help people. 5. Superman brutally kills Zod at the end of the movie. 6.Henry Cavill's performance goes to waste because of the lack of screen time. 7. The best scene of the movie is when Clark screams after killing zod because he is showing pure human emotion and the rest of the movie lacks this.
3:05, Me coming into this after getting acquainted with Smallville's immature, naive but ever-evolving version of Clark, I'd expected him to not start off as virtuous (the two versions even vandalize trucks to spite their bullies), but Snyder's version having this oppressively dark and serious tone is why it isn't "relatable", especially as it transitions into becoming more like some mythical tale with epic imagery and philosophical musings on later installments. Just because something is made to look serious doesn't it has depth or nuance or doesn't use style as a placeholder for substance, spectacle over plot and characters. 6:40, With this version of Superman, it was clear by Batman V Superman that there was no intent to actually focus on Clark's virtue as much as the focus on his power or burdens, to make him flawed even if it defied logic to make him make certain choices, like not immediately skipping to telling Bruce about his adoptive mother because he didn't want to have to kill him or simply disarming the warlord in Africa with heat vision or super speed and not ram him through several walls (Snyder insists the man survived but never elaborates HOW Clark shielded him from that or why he doesn't show up later as if his presence in the public trial for Superman wouldn't hold any sway on public opinion), but then again that's the core issue, there is no logic besides the desire to make story this dark mythical tale with epic imagery and philosophical musings, so how can that ever be "relatable"?
Though I don’t agree with some of the points here, I do appreciate that this video wasn’t a “I hate Zack Snyder” type video I come across a lot. As someone that loves Man of Steel, I can respect your opinion with how professional your criticism is.
I dislike the film's basic premise. If I were to describe the film with a logline, I might call it "A remake of Superman 1 and 2 in the style of Batman Begins." The problem is that I didn't need an updated version of Dick Donner's Superman movies, nor do I like Batman Begins. We'd just suffered through ten seasons of a Superman origin story on the WB/CW, and we didn't need it again two years later. The film also repeats one of the main errors a superhero origin story can make: raising the stakes too high in the hero's first outing. Once Superman has saved the entire planet, where is there to go in the sequel? (See also the Green Lantern film, which was supposed to be the first chapter in the DCEU until it underperformed.) It took an entire sequel to clean up that mess, both literally and figuratively. As for the film's depiction of Jonathan Kent, I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand, isn't it more likely that baby Kal-El would end up in the hands of die-hard libertarians in today's post-Tea Party American heartland? On the other hand, Pa Kent might have felt a little more reasonable if David Goyer's screenplay had simply said, "I don't know," instead of saying, "Maybe."
Fountainhead, short version: Narcissistic Rapist blows up public housing he designed because somebody added balconies and POOR PEOPLE DON'T DESERVE BALCONIES!! And King Vidor took this blubbering mess and made a beautiful film out of it! Such is life.
9:04 NO. He didn't say that. Look at his body language. HE DOESN'T KNOW, He is just a human that loves and wants to protect his son and tbh, thats exactly what a real father would say. Even the Jonathan from smallville was like this, the difference is that man of steel had 2 hours to set it all, Smallville had like 96 episodes before, well.. we all remember what happened to Pa kent. Also, pretty sure BVS is not a contradiction its more like character development.
I think MoS is more of a critique of randian thinking. Jonathan tells Clark to be self-serving not because it's the definite correct path but wants Clark to have the choice for himself, not demanded by his abilities. If Jonathan truly thought self preservation was best he wouldn't have risked his life for a dog. The way I see Snyder's reverence for Rand is in the staunch individuality and self-motivation. He believes highly individual choice, but superheroes CHOOSE to use their gifts to not be rulers but helpers and saviors.
The one thing I will always appreciate about man of steel is that it had and arguably still has the greatest superhero action sequences of all time, superman actually feels like a dude who can shift tectonic plates and stop asteroids
And at the end of the day that's good enough for me on most levels. I have some issues with it but it doesn't break the movie overall.
Facts. Say what you will about Zack Snyder, but you gotta give the man credit for going full anime and pulling it off so spectacularly.
Black Adam is a solid contender when it comes to action.
This is an insane take. The action is loud and heartless, so divorced from anything resembling superheroism. It’s honestly miserable to watch unless you don’t care at all about the toll the destruction takes
@@BluBoyscout the destruction is devastating but not any worse than the hulk casually smashing buildings in Avengers. scenes like the smallville fight or clark x zod showdown climax hit pretty well on a personal level imo.
For Clark and his character in man of steel, I would actually say he's the opposite of happy or collected. It seems like he's still very much grieving his father's death, which could be seen in the fact he doesn't allow much of the general public to know his presence. And also Clark in of man of steel is very much an outsider. We see that in his childhood days even up to the present. He doesn't really fit in anywhere. So I think his reaction to jor-el and knowing about krypton makes sense to be one of relief. To him this was just the sort of answer or puzzle piece he needed to making a little more sense out of his confusing world of identity and social problems.
i just love that superman inspires others. he leads from the front and he guards from the back. yes he’s perfectly perfect but he was raised here on a farm, and could have turned out any other way but we inspired him and so he defends us, and he gave us the chance to become Batman wonder woman, lantern or the flash.. if superheroes are in any way a modern religion, superman really does deserve a lot of respect for being a symbol of hope
*Rubs hands together, grins* “Oh yeah, this is what we’ve been waiting for.”
You jewish?
@@fusiontoa18 i did not expect this but that was kinda funny
Still my favorite film analysis / essay youtuber. You’re amazing
I second this
Eh
@@fusiontoa18 don’t you dare besmirch implicitly pretentious
I think the biggest problem is lack of clarity. Is Jonathan telling Clark to be selfish or selfless? Is the secret about protecting Clark or protecting the world from the resulting chaos? (“There’s more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us”)
This is where John Schneider's Jonathan Kent in Smallville reing supreme over every adaptation in my view. It's quite clear that he's a pragmatic farmer who realizes that for the best chance for Clark to use his powers for good, he must keep his abilities a secret from as many people as possible until he's mature enough to take on that responsibility.
While Jonathan Kent ultimately agrees with Uncle Ben Parker that "with great power comes great responsibility", he also believes that even if they have great power, it doesn't mean they're inherently able to wield that power responsibly or well even if they have the right intentions.
Essentially, he wants Clark to be able to have the freedom to grow up and become his own man before using his powers as a force for the ultimate good. Smallville as a tv show is the story of that journey. By the end of the 10 season run, he's a man in his mid-to-late 20s who has a very good grasp on who he is and what he stands for and has the maturity, empathy, and understanding to use his powers wisely.
It's not a lack of clarity, he just doesn't know... he's not the perfect dad with all the answers, he's a more "realistic" flawed man full of doubt and fears for his son... plus he also has to thread a VERY FINE needle so as to not steer Clark into a direction that could end up in disaster... plus there's a whole context to JK's religious background that makes things more complicated too. To me the "maybe" line just means "while you're a godly being, you are NOT God, it's not up to you to decide who lives and who dies"... or the typical "the fact that you can doesn't mean you should" phrase.
@@TheGeorgeD13 a million times this
I recently rewatched Man of Steel and something clicked. Up until this point, I never understood why Jonathan would discourage Clark from acting heroically.. even if it meant losing his own life. Additionally, BvS always seemed so thematically jumbled and laden with politic. Batman vs Superman as a movie describes how both good and bad forces would react to Superman showing himself to the world and is precisely what Jonathan feared for Clark if that happened, ultimately culminating in the death of his son.
@@jacowboy i concur
Finally, someone else who realizes Man of Steel is basically "What if Superman was in a Roland Emmerich film"
Who
@@fusiontoa18 think LOTS of disaster movies
@@paulgaston ah gotcha
MoS is what if Superman existed in the real world.
at least it's not Godzilla 1998
I don’t feel like Pa Kent was trying to teach Him to be selfish… I think he was more concerned about Clark’s safety and his own family’s safety more than anything else.. and Knew that it would be controversial for Humanity to know that Clark was an alien… so ultimately I don’t think he wanted Clark to make any irreversible decisions before he was sure he was ready… as far as telling people he was an alien
100% agree. In BvS, after Superman reveals himself to the world, you see the backlash from the world and how much it negatively affected Clark. Papa Kent knew that would happen, which is why he didn't want Clark's secret to leak out accidentally before Clark was ready, due to him being reckless while saving someone. In John's eyes, If Clark's secret gets out, he wanted it to be because Clark made the CONSCIOUS CHOSE to reveal himself.
@Malthizar 1) he never said it was an acceptable loss, don’t twist his words.
2) it was never about “himself and his family” is was solely to protect his 14 year old son. John literally died saving people from a tornado , he cared about his family’s safety more than his own life. He wanted Clark to be able to CHOOSE when he wants to reveal himself, rather than get caught using his powers recklessly & be forced to face the world’s wrath as an immature teenager.
3) he doesn’t care about “scrutiny” he cares about the entire world gunning after his only son before he’s old enough to handle it. The world’s reaction happened in BvS when Superman revealed himself to the world & people were in the streets protesting his existence while the media talked down on him & insulted him 24/7. John correctly predicted how the world would react.
@Malthizar 1) he doesn't say that lmfao listen to his entire speech instead of arguing over one word. 2) John never tells Clark to not help people, which is why the movie starts with Clark saving people & when Lois finds Clark, she talks to all the people he's miraculously saved throughout his life to figure out a way to find him. 3) I don't think you know what selfish means 😂
@Malthizar I don't think "Selfish" in a sense of be like Lex Luthor "Selfish" but in a self preservation way, the whole thing about Sups hiding in MoS is not because he is taught to only look out for himself, but because his presence is so massive the People around him would likely persecute him and his loved ones for his power and identity.
Its kind of like rasing a gifted adopted immgrant child in an Ultra Conservative part of the US, the parents obviously don't want him to show his gifts not because they are abusive but the possibility the child might be in danger of being descriminated against.
I don't think the way MoS does it works at times especially with JK they should have focused longer on why this version was trying to make Sups not be his usual character.
tldr: JK and Superman's story here is about hiding from a public that may mischaracterise or worse condem his actions the way Lex Does in many adaptations.
He just took it to a stupid extreme. Because the writing is bad. And the point it tries to make is unnecessary.
14:31 "I'm just trying to be diplomatic, alright. Leave me alone."
Best way I can summarize how I approach any topic lol
It FEELS like a comic book with the way the side characters take the role of main character with mini arcs that makes Superman's main arc fulfilling.
Ha. That's how you write a superman when you can't.
What's this superman's girlfriend Lois Lane
@@DSan-kl2yc read again... you lack comprehension.
@@revenantronin8377 read again. Exactly what I thought. That's how you write Superman when you don't know how.
My comprehension was fine. Why did you even question it? Some insult?
I'll go further. It didn't feel like a comic book in particular.
If it was, it wasn't good.
A questionable take for an origin.
It didn't work in this instance anyway.
@@DSan-kl2ycdamn bro went radio silent
It's so weird to me when people say "It's been a x many years, why are you still heated about saying this movie/work has failed" when nobody bats an eye at people loving older works.
Probably because it’s not good or healthy to hold onto anger/negative emotions for years, especially not over a piece of media designed primarily to entertain?
I say that as someone who loves older media. What is good will last, while what is bad will be forgotten.
@@SalamanderStar Also it’s not every day an older film is dragged on premises that are actually false. e.g. Superman Never Smiled.
I think it's a testament to the character of Superman, and what he means to people. He's an ideal, so when how he's portrayed flies in the face of our personal ideals and values, that feels personal. These sorts of discussions about Superman are often, at the core, philosophical discussions.
@@cassiedevereaux-smith3890 ironically enough, this is why Snyder’s interpretation of the character is the most impactful. Smallville nor Superman Returns have kept the character in public discussion quite like Snyder. The abstract nature of his interpretation has made the character a conversation piece, something which the character has failed to be in the last 2 decades. I’d argue that since Snyder, ppl are discussing the importance of the character more frequently than the are Batman. Which is awesome.
@@RewMec226 TLJ put star wars in the public discourse too. It still betrays the heart of the character.
11:22 you missed the point of BvS entirely. He's not altruistic, he tried it and got nowhere, in the end he gives his own life to protect his highest value, his world- lois lane
Never let an Ayn Rand fan try to write good guys.
The Amy Adams thirst be strong
I love how! Amy Adams was in both Smallville and in Man of steel
Thank you! I'm watching this on January 1st after having just watched the "pitch meeting" for Man of Steel (which exposes the plot inconsistencies but never touches on anything deeper). You showing this film is about Choices as well as about the concept of being motivated to make yourself happy in such a way that others are made happy too is brilliant. I've sometimes struggled with the concept of motivation, because my self esteem was destroyed by my abusive father... resulting in my doing good because the heroes I discovered (starting with George Reeves' portrayal of Superman) were my external motivation in a world where my internal motivation was pretty weak (at least it appeared to be that way). Now that I've managed to reconstruct my self-esteem (through a lot of personal development / healing work), I see there always was internal motivation at work in my life. Call it a divine spark... or call it just an innate understanding of the difference between right and wrong... I'm happy with the concept that I'm doing what I do to be happy... and that what I am choosing to do is also to help others be happy. The two are not mutually exclusive... and I don't think they are mutually exclusive for Clark in Man of Steel either. I'll watch the film again now to better see what you've seen.... in particular the scene in which Clark goes to see the priest. That scene never really had much meaning for me... possibly because I had not had the personal breakthrough regarding my own self-esteem I had a bit more than a year ago.
Thanks for all your work! Happy New Year!
how was the movie now?
Was it better?
Jonathan Kent being angry his son saved an entire schoolbus of children from drowning was where I checked out of this movie completely.
I think the point of John is to make it so Superman becomes Superman not because of what others want, because of who he is. He has to do this because it’s what HE wants to do, not because it’s what others expect him to do.
I don't know how people miss this answer when they are capable of asking the question that begets it.
In BvS he proceeds to briefly decide to stop being Superman telling Lois _"Superman was never real"_ after receiving backlash and scrutiny from the public. If that was the point of John's speech, then Clark completely fails at doing good because he wants to, instead of only if the public likes him enough.
@@allendrake6960 because BVS is about the moral failures of them both. Clark decides to let the public mold his path, and Bruce…I mean that one’s obvious. ZSJL is their redemption, their “second chance”
I think it really shows how much humanity can influence Clark cause he sticks to his humanity. In todays world, he is under the weight of EVERY person in the world. How can you NOT collapse from people scrutinizing you at every turn. He just wants to do the right thing and show people there is good in the world. Really hard to do especially if you still aren’t a veteran Superman
@@BeskarDevilon point ❤
"also like an asian parent" lmaoo i love this
I think Johnathan is just being a scared father who wants the best for his son. He knows that one day Clark will stand up and change the world, but he knows that on that day he will have to face humanities scrutiny, and Johnathan as a father wants to protect him from the rest of humanity until the time that Clark is ready to face them on his own.
That’s how I always understood it at least.
Beautifully said.
I think this is the movie that Walter white became Heisenberg
I think I prefer Tyler Hoechlin's Superman in Superman and Lois is a more well-rounded character and it is great to have the real Superman back the way he has and always will be a beacon of hope in trying times and a light in the dark to show us the path towards peace, justice and a better tomorrow
I’m sure I’d love Henry Cavills Supermans 20 times more if Zack had 2 seasons worth of material to expand his arc. It’s not really that fair to compare but I get it
@@notyouraveragebear9326 ok just watch the first episode it's already a huge difference in just how Superman is approached finally as Superman
@@mahiyatsafiyullah7103 Just by that Tyler is hoaky like Reeve.
@@Powerhaus88 hoaky by Reeves sorry I don't know what that means but I assume ok
Dude your grind is so badass!! Such high quality videos so often
Okay hello everyone, as a Superman fan for 60 years, my problem
With Superman was : 1. Jor-el and Lara died in each others arm's
Not having Jor-el being stabbed the death by Zod.
2. Jonathan Died of a heart attack, not in a Tornado.
Makes me think, of Multiverse.
The best thing to come out of Man of Steel is how some people extrapolated the dissonance of the nature of Clarks upbringing into uncle Ben whispering his last words: "kill them all Peter".
One of the most polarizing films for me and other people who criticize it or will defend it for life
I love listening to your thoughts. Excellent presentation.
PS: Man of Steel is my favorite Superman storyline.
Thank you for mentioning Superman: Birthright, such a good story and seemingly underrated and unmentioned. Top Marks
I was JUST thinking today about how I hoped someone would do a video exactly like this about Man of Steel
*man of steel (2013) is flawed but still has enjoyable moments, the realistic take on Superman (despite being an alien lol) works for me even tho it could’ve been executed better, the serious tone for this superman works for me but my issues is that the development for Superman is somewhat lacking as is his relationship with Lois lane, yes we know they’re gonna end up together but the pacing needs work and it goes from action sequence to action sequence without any calming moments in between*
*henry cavill deserves better, hopefully with his new sequel that’s coming, he has more creative control with the character and portrays him as the hopeful Boy Scout that we’re used to seeing*
*EDIT: oof this DID NOT AGE WELL* #FireJamesGunn
@@friggyk the movie isn’t flawed. The film is exactly like it was meant to be. And this is proven by it still being in discussion almost a decade later. Now 2011 Green Lantern? That is a flawed movie.
@@RewMec226 *green lantern is flawed but man of steel is better and STILL has flaws, I see what your trying to say, the “deeper meaning” and all that bs, sure it might’ve been ahead of it time but some elements were just poorly executed, tell me, what is Clark Kent’s motivation throughout the entire movie ? And can you name one scene where Lois and Clark get ACTUALLY development and buildup because yes we know tHat they’re going to end up together anyway but aside from that, the exposition/beginning is fine but THE MIDDLE PART is just “jumps right into the action piece” til the very end without any real development for the characters and that’s my issue with the film, not the killing zod part which is justified IMO but what I just said*
6:17 he was such a fantastic jonathan kent ;-;
Can this movie hold the camera still? JUST HOLD THE CAMERA STI-
I can't believe you said he helps people in BvS despite hating it and showing that scene when he smiles a second ago delivering that girl lol
I love your BvS and ZSJL videos as well. I can tell you didn't care much about this one just shared your thoughts on some parts of the movie but congrats on putting the video out I guess?
Yeah Sups was more conserned about the affect he has on people than really what he does which is probably what Op ment (I mean even in the comics he is kind of sacred about his affects on the people around him and gives himself a hard time)
That was such a good take about how Zack shed his more objectivist streak throughout the trilogy. I think it’s possible that the whole theme of community and altruism running through his Justice League represents a growth as a filmmaker and as a person. I’d like to think it does.
I adore your analysis videos, and your style. Keep doing what you're doing.
You can really tell that Zack Snyder wasn't kidding when he said that he didn't really understand Superman. Because yeah, Superman is a symbol and what not, but he isn't JUST that and he certainly isn't Jesus. The best thing about Superman is Clark Kent. The fact that this man with practically the power of a god is in fact PAINFULLY human. More human than most actual humans a lot of the time. The best thing about Superman is that he cares DEEPLY. About everything and everyone and never gets crushed under the weight of caring so much. He isn't meant to stand above humanity but to stand as a shining beacon OF humanity. Fingers crossed that James Gunn understands this better
Zack Snyder never portrayed Superman as standing above humanity.
First Snyder related video in this channel that I have to disagree with several of the points made…
Particularly, I’d like to say I do find Clark relatable (on the first half most of all) and as many of the international Snyder fans have shared on Twitter, the immigrant angle to Clark here is really powerful to us…
Things like “being here,just trying to do good”, hoping people will trust you; that hits home.
Being a “Superman” might feel abstract here, but to us, Clark Kent feels very real.
(And to some, Learning about your heritage and not going into a “metal breakdown” is very normal?… and let’s face it, had Snyder filmed Clark saying “I think I was sent here to conquer” would have tripled the L takes, hate and anger that this version of Clark already receives)
Yeah as someone who could be considered “not from here” or “different” I found superman very relatable and the way he was ostracized for who he is
100% agree. I think his Batman v Superman video is the best BvS video on UA-cam, but he missed the mark with this video. I find Clark extremely relatable in this movie, as a man torn between two worlds.
He especially got the John Kent Monologue wrong, making it about "objectivism" instead of it simply being a Father trying to keep his son safe by protecting his secret until he's old enough to decide whether he wants to reveal it to the world or not.
Sups here is really treated the most "Alien" from any live action adaptation TBH not in the him being an Alien part but more on him being an Outsider, in MoS the reason his parents want to shelter him and not do anything isn't because they want their son to be a Guy like Lex Luthor a man who only wants to be on top, but because they want to shelter him from the harm the world might cause to him and vise versa.
Sups is so strong and powerful and most especially an outsider by his biological nature, IRL people are afraid of skilled Immigrant Workers, just imagine what they would think if one can Lift Mountains.
@@JayTee2000 I think Thematically it is JK in this movie isn't what he normally is, he is just a scared Dad but also he represents the idealistic thinking of Ayn Rand. (Or in otherwords he is ment to represent the holes on Objectivist theory, he means well but doesn't consider the dangers that ideology can bring hence why in the sequels the Objectivism thing was dropped, basically JK and Sup's relationship here represents Snyder's opinions about Objectivism.)
He is ment to be wrong in certain aspects and naive.
I agree.
I swear Superman Returns from 2006 is probably the only movie where you can justify saying Superman is boring. Because he does not do much of shit in that film. Other than save a plane and lift a rock.
People really listened to Jonathan tell Clark "lol maybe you should've let those kids die" and convinced themselves Snyder understands the character and mythos of Superman better than anyone
That wasn't about JK wanting to commit Child slaying, its JK saying that Sups nature makes him a potential target for descrimination based on his power not based on his actions which is likely what would happen if an Alien lands on Earth as a Child adopted by human parents.
It also has a large potential affect on Clark himself as he could potentially turn on people. (Its still dark and uncharacteristic of the Kents we know but its not because he wa ts Clark to simply let people die for the LOLs, its a representation of a Parent's fear of the harm others may grant their child.)
I never realised how much man of steel was influenced by return of superman, to be the opposite of that hahaha
@3:08 "Man of Steel avoids to make Clark relatable, and depicts him as an uncomplicated being through the eyes of everyone else."
Hence why's he complicated. Clark's ideals are simple: people don't process simple people with complex characterization pretty positively, which generates more adversity because you either have to blend in or to get trash away. I don't get how you missed that point.
Rick and morty makes the objectivism argument in the dinosaur episode. Rick calls out the dinosaurs for being selfless to feel righteous.
I think your analysis of this Superman is interesting. Do you think Superman works best as a "Man vs. World" or "Man vs. Self " type of story?
Both work... in fact, MOS is more of a Man vs. self story whereas BvS explores the man vs. world idea... they're kind of two sides of the same coins in a sense, which is why I enjoy those 2 movies so much.
@@jacowboy That's how I always viewed it. Man of Steel being a story about choice, with Clark having to accept his role as Earth's protector and Krypton's chance at redemption, even amidst the potential life struggles he could face by doing so. In Batman v Superman, those struggles took center stage as Superman's model is questioned by a number of people, leading him to doubt his overall sense of purpose in a world that ain't "simpler". By the time we got to ZSJL, Superman came to terms with both himself and with the complexities of the world he's protecting, resulting in a wiser, more confident superhero that is willing to die in the name of altruism. The Justice League became the living proof of his success.
That's why it only makes sense for Henry Cavill's Superman to be this established, inspirational superhero in WBD's upcoming Superman film. He's earned that role.
*man of steel (2013) is flawed but still has enjoyable moments, the realistic take on Superman (despite being an alien lol) works for me even tho it could’ve been executed better, the serious tone for this superman works for me but my issues is that the development for Superman is somewhat lacking as is his relationship with Lois lane, yes we know they’re gonna end up together but the pacing needs work and it goes from action sequence to action sequence without any calming moments in between*
*henry cavill deserves better, hopefully with his new sequel that’s coming, he has more creative control with the character and portrays him as the hopeful Boy Scout that we’re used to seeing*
Man vs self works best
I always liked the tone of Man of Steel, the Clark, the childhood part was one of my favorite parts of the film. When Henry became Superman, that's ironically is one of major parts that made the film drag.
Interesting… never thought of how Man of Steel has a lot of selfishness, then BvS breaks that selfishness down, and JL brings these broken characters together as a community
I came around to really liking Man of Steel as a coming of age/ alien invasion movie. I loved the last line of "Welcome to the P(p)lanet." Ugh, so good! Wish they got a Man of Steel 2 to move the character to more familiar and loved as we know him.
I know this is considered a hot take but Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent is easily the best part of Man of Steel. I know the Kents are meant to be the moral arbiters and all that but I like the idea that in this world Jonathan is just like a real father, he doesn't have all the answers and he doesn't push his son to become Superman. He instead pushes him to make his own choice, that still ends up being Superman.
That maybe line is still wild. Plus his death was stupid.
@@TheShockVox not really when you consider JK's character in this movie, he's a more "realistic" take on a more conservative, religious american man who is being confronted by the existence of not only aliens, but a godly being to boot... you have to realize that in JK's mind, "God" is still the ruling factor in life, it is by god's will that things happen or not, so the line "maybe" is more a reflection of JK's beliefs and values and a warning to Clark that while he might be "godly", he's still not "God", it's not up to him to decide who lives and who dies (a theme that is further explored in BvS)... or well, that's my interpretation of it =P
Yeah no, that's not what Johnathan means and who he is to Clark nor why Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope
Which is what these movies seriously lack...HARD
@@ninjanibba4259 whatever, you're just projecting your personal and subjective ideas and meanings onto something, instead of letting it be its own thing.... or to put it bluntly, you're just a fanboy who's angry because he didn't get what he wanted...
But he doesn't though. He spends all his screen time trying to stop Clark making his own choices
you're absolutlely the first person to change my mind on Man of Steel. I still don't like it, but you've opened my eyes to its complexities!
How weak minded swayed so easily
@@fusiontoa18 but only the wisest of souls are willing to listen and change their perspective
Yknow why people like me get so upset about how zack chose to kill Johnathan Kent? Because traditionally he dies of a heart attack something superman CANNOT stop from happening and it teaches him one of the most important I'd argue top 3 rules of being a successful hero...you CANT save everyone even when you're superman but superman saves people from natural disasters like tornados all the time he saved Lana from the middle of a tornado in smallville so its absolutely doable for him he could've saved them and moved so fast no one would've seen him anyway
superman in MoS don't have superspeed, he found out about it in justice league and the entire focus of BvS court scene is to show that superman doesn't have superspeed at the time.
@XxX-ww you are joking right?
If anything I'm just really happy Henry Cavill is back as Superman
This didn't age well
nope
At least he was back one more time for a sweet Cameo in Black Adam. ♥ (i wish we could have a conclusion for him in a MAN OF STEE 2)
Do Superman legacy and all you want James Gunn!
But let other director do MoS2 (call it man of tomorrow) i'd love it.
Homie cannot stop saying "Clarks's" instead of "Clark's"
I personally find this movie "divisive". On the one hand, the action is top notch, Clark's character arc in the first half of the movie is actually engaging and both interesting and fun to watch, and imo Zod was the best part of the whole movie due to how motivated he was to restore his civilization, no matter the cost. That being said, Clark's characterization is not correct to me, cause while he is supposed to be an icon of hope and "goody two shoes", to say, he seems somewhat resented and aggressive here(like how he destroyed that redneck's truck, how he destroyed half of Metropolis and how he ended up killing Zod, though i'll let this one pass things considered), and talking about hope, Synder's attempt to turn him into Jesus was... questionable. And while i liked his characterization, it was kind of rushed, specially his relationship with Lois, and the way Jonathan Kent was portrayed was definately the worst part of the movie, the way he dies is just... bruh. That being said, i still like this movie and consider it the best movie of the DCEU(not really a high mark, but i guess it counts).
I honestly disagree with you on a few things like Clark’s characterization. The red neck was sexually harassing a waitress & he was being a jerk, also the fact that reason for his truck was smashed being more 1:1 with Action comics #1. Clark was more like his golden age era where he’s more, aggressive towards wrongdoers, I guess. With metropolis that’s more of zod than Clark, with the fact that Clark got beaten up by alien super soldiers mainly. Zod wasn’t gonna be really letting earth live anyway.
I really don’t see how Snyder’s is really like Jesus, he’s not really the first person to do so, like Richard Donner’s, Silver Age era, Smallville, etc.
with Jonathan’s death while it’s not like we’re used to, it did show him being the kind of person he is, and how he was willing to tell his son that it’s not worth losing his secret because him, and that he’s not ready to make the decision yet; I feel like any parent would do anything to protect their kid, either physically or socially.
With Lois & Clark’s relationship is different and felt rushed to you, I honestly think that it’s fine since she’s the one that actually knows him being Superman at the start and has been by his side since they crossed paths, heck she was looking for him just for her story till she started to get that it’s more important to let him have a life of normalcy than her career. I honestly think that it’s a normal pace for the start of their relationship especially when others were more quick like Superman 78’ (though beautiful it’s still kinda, more short and not a big part of the series).
Snyder's Superman never was Jesus. The thing people don't understand is that Snyder and others with him wanted to show how the world would react to Superman if he was real. Those films never meant to say that Superman see himself as Jesus.
That's why they showed that a big part of mankind kept seeing Superman as a messiah, and *that was something which Clark never wanted.* That's why he stopped smiling when when a crowd of people started treating him as a messiah. He was clearly confused.
People critize those films one of which said in a scene that "Maybe he's not some sort of devil or Jesus character. Maybe he's just a guy trying to do the right thing."
Metropolis was destroyed a part of it was due to the world engine
@@legoben98productions
I think the problem people have is it was a stupid way to show that, I mean for one thing Clark could've gone and gotten the dog without any powers that was just dumb but two usually Jon dies in a way Superman can't stop to show how Clark can't save everyone or do anything.
As for Lois and Clark, they weren't together since they first crossed paths, he saves her then she hunts him down cause it's not like he wanted her to find him, and then because of all that she's involved with the Zod stuff and by the end they're just together
Superman burning stephenwolfs horn off and beating him to a pulp as aggressively as possible in zsjl is also unsettling
1978 Superman and Man of Steel are both perfect Superman movies. People just don’t understand, Man of steel was the beginning of his story arc, he was not the perfect hero people wanted him to be. He has to grow into it and people couldn’t wait
"The key word in that phrase is 'owe it to yourself.'" That's a strange word with a lot of spaces throughout.
Great job man
The point is that Clark has to CHOOSE to be Superman, he is the only one capable of being that, so he owes it to himself to figure out what that is, but ultimately it's HIS CHOICE, it has to be his decision to make his sacrifices more meaningful because he didn't owe it to anyone, but he CHOSE to do it, to be good, to be the symbol of hope, he CHOSE that responsibility (for better or worse). Take this into account when thinking about every decision he makes.
@Malthizar Jor El tells him what he COULD be not what he SHOULD be.
In BvS he is reminded of the fact that being Superman is his choice when he asks his mother what he SHOULD do, she tells him (I'm paraphrasing rn) to be people's hero or not, it's always been up to him.
If you aren't planning on rewatching the movies anytime soon, then you should look up clips on the scene where he first speaks to Jor El in the scout ship and the one where he asks Ma Kent for advice in BvS (the scene is the one at their farm at night, not the one over the phone).
My bad on not giving the exact dialogue lol
@@JJahdiel so what to any of it?
We all knew Superman decides to be Superman.
From the very first comic
To animated series.
So the eff what
Why are you or anyone else acting like that's revolutionary.
Even in C.reeves he does it in the second one.
Exactly. Pa Kent wanted Clark to have a choice in who or what he wanted to be. Just like Jor El.
If Clark is Superman because he feels like he HAS to save people. Or that he has a duty to save people because he's the only one with the specific capabilities for it.
Then that's not a choice. And in a way that's no different then any other Kryptonians.
Because remember Kryptonians also acted out of a sense of duty not choice because they were bred to have specific capabilities to do specific things.
This movie to me is about Choices.
It asks a very important question.
Is it better to be a hero out of obligation or is it better to be a hero out of choice.
@@kingkiller5325 Yeah, you phrased it way better than I did, dude.
It's about choice, not obligation - which ties into the whole conflict between him and Zod and the other Kryptonians.
That way it informs us that even when he could be something else or do something else, he would still choose to be and do good (which I believe is very impactful).
Nah Superman is still a character a learning on the search while laying low. Though the brain keeps chiming in because it knows where it's going. The only time he is as you claim is in BvS that movie did him so dirty since he went from having completed the first step and found himself at the end of man of steel back to step zero except this time in the suit.
Jonathan Kent in MoS is how a parent (a good one anyway) should act. Would you want to see your child as a hero? Sure, yes. If that meant that they were put in harm’s way before you thought they were ready, would you still want that for them? I wouldn’t. Is it selfish that Jonathan cares more for his son’s life over the life of any other child? Yes. Is it wrong? Hell no.
It's telling that most of the people who criticize that scene aren't parents (or at least can't seem to see it from that perspective).
@@ginichilders9619 exactly.
Someone who gets it!👏🏾
Thank you !! Man of steel was perfect
Henry's/Snyder's Superman is the most relatable Superman (then comes Tyler's), especially to me. Tbh, I'm a very confused guy. I get confuse a lot or feel like I'm facing some sort of dilemmas when it comes to make choices. And that's exactly how Snyder's iteration of Superman was.
Ma and Pa Kent raised Clark good.
He actually was a good human (what Superman has always been supposed to be) and optimistic and knew what's right or wrong but the thing is, he was CONFUSED. He has been confused as these core characteristics of his (like his optimism and the decision of being Superman) were being tested throughout the story.
That's why nowadays I find him very relatable and well-written.
The problem with Cavills Superman being "relatable" is that we know next to nothing about him as a character. What's his personality? What are his interests outside of reluctantly saving people? What qualifications does he have to become a journalist at the end?
One of my favourite youtubers, but nothing will make me like this movie😂
Bro why did you compare the scene from smallville where Jonathan reveals Clark’s alien origins to him with the man of steel scene where Clark returns to his mother? There’s literally an identical scene in the movie to that from smallville. Clark even has the same reaction and Jonathan almost word for word says the same thing about choosing who he wants to be.
Long time viewer. One of the best. I’m a go watch your bvs video.
Choice and chance are very much not the same thing, Jor El
It’s beyond me how you maintain your upload schedule dude. Cudos fr
The Bryan Singer comment made me cackle. That is hilarious.
I'm honestly sick and tired of people calling Zack Snyder an objectivist. Just because Zack Snyder wants to adapt "the fountainhead" doesn't make him an objectivist. He has explicitly stated that he is a liberal and his politics become apparent when you watch his other movies. The point of "Man of Steel" is 'choice' as you mentioned in the video. Jor-El and Jonathan Kent represent two different ideologies. Jonathan tells Clark to conceal his identity as he is afraid the world would reject him and wants Clark to have as normal of a childhood as possible because he wants Clark to pursue his true purpose after he has the ability to deal with the consequences. In one scene, Jonathan tells Clark to decide the kind of man he wants to be as he will change the world. So, he isn't telling him to only look out for himself but to wait until he's older to make the decision. On the other hand, Jor-El thinks of his son as the savior of humanity and wants Clark to be an altruistic superhero. At the end of the movie, Clark has the choice to either side with humanity or side with Krypton and he sides with humanity. The main message of this movie isn't to be selfish or heroic but to choose to be whoever you want to be. Clark doesn't become a hero because of some obligation to humanity, he becomes a hero because that is who he chooses to be.
I do get it.
What we got is not what was expected.
Personally I like different variations of the character.
It gives a new perspective.
I only saw the movie after I watched the entirity of smallville and Superman and lois and to be honest, I really hated what they did to the character of Jonathan Kent and I didn't really remember seeing any Clark in superman, to me he was just saving people, because he felt like it and killing Zod at the end made me not like it even more, because in all the other adaptations I saw he was this symbol of hope and he always saw another way. Superman killing his first enemy is not the way. Sorry if I made any spelling/grammar errors, english is not my first language
Superman killed doomsday and Zod in the comics and he did it to save civilians
@@dikiiieykick1734 he had enough strenghth to snap zods neck but he couldn’t turn his head away from the civilians? Seems like bs to me
Man of steel isn’t my favourite, but I don’t think it’s shit. I’d give it a 6/10, better than mid. It has some really great ideas, but I feel like it definitely tries to be too cool sometimes. And it mishandles some things with the character of superman himself.
But the scene where superman is resisting being crushed by the kryptonian machine and the flying through it before the daily planet works are killed is really good.
I wish that hope, triumph and human spirit found in that scene was dispersed better throughout the film
Abstract Concept Man is my favorite superhero
I don't get the confusion about Superman arc throughout the DCEU. To me it was pretty clear. Before Clark could become the symbol of Hope for Earth he had to:
1.) Figure himself out and where he came from (MOS)
2.) Gain the trust of the people of Earth and prove that he wasn't the threat they imagined (BvS: Ultimate Edition)
3.) Find his community (ZSJL)
By the end of those three movies, Clark is in a much better place. He and Lois are engaged and expecting a baby, he has his peers in the Justice League, his mom's house is returned to her, the world is saved, and the people of Earth admire him. He has everything needed to become the symbol of hope he was meant to be. It's just that we as the audience know the struggles it took to get him there.
Also I don't think Lois stopping her story has much to do with romance. It was more her understanding and respecting why Jonathan Kent sacrificed himself to keep Clark's secret. It had to be Clark CHOOSING to reveal himself and deciding how he wanted to do it, not being forced into it by circumstances or a third party. And yes, Zod did force his hand with the ultimatum, however, Clark could have easily just remained in hiding. He himself knew that giving himself up wouldn't change Zod's mind. "Zod can't be trusted". But he decided to reveal himself and surrender to spare Earth.
All together, Man of Steel is a fantastic Superman movie in my view.
Superman in Superman returns looks like he’s 28 years old but he’s over 65 years old
Great video. Also X-men 2 is underrated, you should do a video on it if it interests you at all.
Zacks superman does not work to serve himself, that’s exactly why you think BVS contradicts the “selfishness” theme. Pa Kents reasoning with the maybe line is not selfish, him stopping clark from saving him is not selfish, none of clarks actions in the movie are selfish.
Ah, I always enjoy a new upload from implicit, and he thankfully hasn't made the Asian parent joke in a wh-
"But also, like an Asian parent"
Ah...well.
Superman should have a socal security number 😂😂
I loved the cinematography and Henry Cavill looks *EXACTLY* like Superman.
Sure the were things I didn't like.
I think it was decent, let's see what Gunn does 😬
There is a lot I like about M.O.S. The callous destruction of cities put me on edge and ready to leave. But with the neck snapping, I walked out angry and never watched any other dc universe films until Shazam.
And I *do not* trust Snyder. I'm unlikely to watch anything else he is associated with.
Great fight scene with the train tho.
I'd push back against the notion that Zod is any kind of collectivist; he says everything he does is for the greater good of his people, but a lot of fascists say that. You can see Zod's character in his actions: he wants to exterminate humans because they're inconvenient(surely a collectivist would want to coexist with them) and when his mission fails he acts destructively out of pure malevolence. On the other hand, Clark spends his time saving people even though it's inconvenient for him because he has to go into hiding to avoid exposing himself (because as his father said "people are afraid of what they don't understand")
Thank you, the use of collectivist to describe zod also bothered me, he's a clear analogue for fascism and is an open eugenicist. to your point If anything Clark is more of a collectivist because he literally proposes that zod makes an effort to coexist with humans instead of teraforming and eradicating humans.
And then comparing Superman and Snyder's themes as randian and objectivist is illustrative of a superficial understanding of that ideology and a misunderstanding of what Snyder likes about rand/fountainhead
Believing in choice is not randian, and neither is doing anything for yourself in a reasonable amount not inherently anyway, if Clark acted solely for his benefit then the argument would be sensible but he doesn't, explicitly he acts in the service of others. This would be as bad as saying that because you eat before you leave the house to go about your day and help others that you're an objectivist. An objectivist would hoard food to make sure they can always eat at the expense of everyone else because self preservation is above all else and a "rational virtue". If Superman was this way in MoS he would've just let zod do whatever and not fought to save earth risking his own life. Of course he did not.
John Kent is scared for his son and is doing what he thinks is best in this very unique and potentially dangerous situation. He's not saying "maybe" the kids should've been left to die in the school bus scene in a serious sense, he's saying maybe in a way that highlights his unsureness. It's obvious he doesn't know what to do but he knows his son would be in danger if people found out before Clark was ready to handle it. The same reason he let himself be killed by the tornado. And while I think the scene is the low point of the movie for me, it's consistent with John's actions up to that point and is emotionally impactful-to Clark anyway, your own reaction may vary.
This dude trying so hard not to admit he loves Zack and his trilogy 😂
Who doesn't?
@@Batman-kx6oy dccomicscirclejerk
It's easy for me to see some elements of CHristian allegory in this movie, especially with the church scene. Every believer has the tension of being pressured by the call of two fathers, earthly and heavenly. Jor-El as Superman's heavenly father is his creator, and the one who instills him with purpose; but he is an elusive phantom, seen only in rare glimpses, who gives little in the way of explicit instruction, but pushes him toward the highest spiritual ideals. Jonathan Kent, as Superman's earthly father, doesn't have a clear vision of his son's purpose, but knows it will be huge; and he is concerned with the nuts and bolts of how power and choice work themselves out in oft-time messy ways in the real world. I don't see Pa Kent as selfish as some reviewers have; but is aware of the consequence of choice. He doesn't want his son to get chained down with the consequences of his choices before he has the wisdom to see and choose them willingly.
Speaking of smallville I'd LOVE to see you do a series about smallville show was great....for its time lol
Quite a video but for the part about John telling Clark to protect himself, it was more than just himself but how his acts will affect those around him, and that Clark growing up will have to make a choice because his father will not always be there to make it for him, just as John made a choice in that moment where his son would have been exposed and rejected and hunted, would die to protect him and his family. And becoming Superman, Clark would help the world while bridging their world together, a share in culture and ideology. To show that Kryptonians can be helpful too, but with Zod that hope is dashed, and his arrival actually set Superman’s mindset for the next movie, is what he does really best for humanity, would they be better off without him? He basically led Zod to them, and humanity in MoS rejected him, but accepted his surrender to Humanity if it meant keeping them safe, and upon learning that he led Zod to Earth and that they plan to terraform Earth to Kryton, he changed and fought to not only save humanity but to correct his faults.
For me, that is another iteration of what i enjoy about Superman, a man not all perfect acts to be better than before and helps others in-spite of their fears of him.
I think the reason the film is this way is because Superman is supposed to be this way. If you watch the ending of the Snyder Cut closely you see Batman atop The Dark Knight Returns' Batmobile. The Batman and Superman of that universe were far more savage and way less lenient on criminals and anyone who threatens earth.
i don't think zack is an objectivist/libertarian as much as he is presented to be. I think he read fountainhead(like most old people) when he was in school and found it initially appealing, but as he grew up he began to dislike it the point where he hates how much he liked/wants to like Ayn Rand. And the "want to like fountainhead" bleeds into his work.
You don’t live in a country with free healthcare. You live a country where half of what you work for and earned is taken from you and arbitrarily given away…. Love your videos
My first (and formative) experiences of Superman in visual media were Smallville and the DCAU, so when I heard that Henry Cavill was playing Clark Kent, I was thrilled. He looked perfect and he was so charismatic, I thought "finally we're going to get a movie that will prove to everyone that Superman isn't boring." But this movie was a prime example of why an actor can't save a film, and, as you pointed out, it really wasn't HIS movie. I was disappointed with the film on its release and just wrote it off as underwhelming. I revisited the movie later and thought it was fine. I'm never going to like it, and with James Gun at the helm of Man of Steel 2, I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole franchise. Cavill described the new direction as a "joyful Superman" which I'm happy to hear, but in the meantime, I'm glad I still have other versions of the character to enjoy.
dude u are just lying to yourself
the movie was great and man of steel was joyful and bright
And james gunn is not helming the movie
@@felixgoobins Lol, are you a troll? You made no arguments and just refuted everything he said, even the James Gunn thing even though that is a fact
Leo, can you make more video essays on Star Wars content from your perspective (i.e. the Prequels, The Clone Wars, Rebels, and some of the Disney Plus shows)?
"why Garfield Asohka is the best star wars girl"
This is just anti-superman movie
Not even close.
@@ggggunit1000 okay prove it. I want you to explain in detail why I am wrong.
Here's why I think I'm right: 1. Clark let his own dead die.
2. Clark's dad actually tries to tell Clark that he shouldn't help people without explaining why.
3. There is symbolism throughout the movie that Clark is Jesus.
4. The movie never gives a reason on why Clark wants to help people.
5. Superman brutally kills Zod at the end of the movie.
6.Henry Cavill's performance goes to waste because of the lack of screen time.
7. The best scene of the movie is when Clark screams after killing zod because he is showing pure human emotion and the rest of the movie lacks this.
completely forgot about the square aspect ratio thing. god snyder is such a person of all time
Very cool video. Very neat. I liked it. Good work!
I really love Man Of Steel whenever I'm not watching it
This is the best video on Man of Steel even if i disagree
better late than never. great video bro.
3:05, Me coming into this after getting acquainted with Smallville's immature, naive but ever-evolving version of Clark, I'd expected him to not start off as virtuous (the two versions even vandalize trucks to spite their bullies), but Snyder's version having this oppressively dark and serious tone is why it isn't "relatable", especially as it transitions into becoming more like some mythical tale with epic imagery and philosophical musings on later installments. Just because something is made to look serious doesn't it has depth or nuance or doesn't use style as a placeholder for substance, spectacle over plot and characters.
6:40, With this version of Superman, it was clear by Batman V Superman that there was no intent to actually focus on Clark's virtue as much as the focus on his power or burdens, to make him flawed even if it defied logic to make him make certain choices, like not immediately skipping to telling Bruce about his adoptive mother because he didn't want to have to kill him or simply disarming the warlord in Africa with heat vision or super speed and not ram him through several walls (Snyder insists the man survived but never elaborates HOW Clark shielded him from that or why he doesn't show up later as if his presence in the public trial for Superman wouldn't hold any sway on public opinion), but then again that's the core issue, there is no logic besides the desire to make story this dark mythical tale with epic imagery and philosophical musings, so how can that ever be "relatable"?
Though I don’t agree with some of the points here, I do appreciate that this video wasn’t a “I hate Zack Snyder” type video I come across a lot. As someone that loves Man of Steel, I can respect your opinion with how professional your criticism is.
I dislike the film's basic premise. If I were to describe the film with a logline, I might call it "A remake of Superman 1 and 2 in the style of Batman Begins." The problem is that I didn't need an updated version of Dick Donner's Superman movies, nor do I like Batman Begins. We'd just suffered through ten seasons of a Superman origin story on the WB/CW, and we didn't need it again two years later.
The film also repeats one of the main errors a superhero origin story can make: raising the stakes too high in the hero's first outing. Once Superman has saved the entire planet, where is there to go in the sequel? (See also the Green Lantern film, which was supposed to be the first chapter in the DCEU until it underperformed.) It took an entire sequel to clean up that mess, both literally and figuratively.
As for the film's depiction of Jonathan Kent, I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand, isn't it more likely that baby Kal-El would end up in the hands of die-hard libertarians in today's post-Tea Party American heartland? On the other hand, Pa Kent might have felt a little more reasonable if David Goyer's screenplay had simply said, "I don't know," instead of saying, "Maybe."
Two words: Manov Steel
Fountainhead, short version: Narcissistic Rapist blows up public housing he designed because somebody added balconies and POOR PEOPLE DON'T DESERVE BALCONIES!! And King Vidor took this blubbering mess and made a beautiful film out of it! Such is life.
9:04 NO. He didn't say that. Look at his body language. HE DOESN'T KNOW, He is just a human that loves and wants to protect his son and tbh, thats exactly what a real father would say. Even the Jonathan from smallville was like this, the difference is that man of steel had 2 hours to set it all, Smallville had like 96 episodes before, well.. we all remember what happened to Pa kent.
Also, pretty sure BVS is not a contradiction its more like character development.
I think MoS is more of a critique of randian thinking. Jonathan tells Clark to be self-serving not because it's the definite correct path but wants Clark to have the choice for himself, not demanded by his abilities. If Jonathan truly thought self preservation was best he wouldn't have risked his life for a dog. The way I see Snyder's reverence for Rand is in the staunch individuality and self-motivation. He believes highly individual choice, but superheroes CHOOSE to use their gifts to not be rulers but helpers and saviors.