It’s not about the faithfulness or the legacy to the character. It’s about the story. It’s not like I’m the only one who loves this character. Superman ideals aren’t dated, neither are Batman’s, Flash’s or Daredevil’s.
Like I said, this isn’t about faithfulness. You can see all the flaws in this movies. You can see why the superman character snapped Zod’s neck. His parents Jonathan and Martha, didn’t want Clark saving those kids.
Clark Kent at 13: What was I supposed to do? Just let them die?
Jonathan Kent: Maybe; but there’s more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world… When the world finds out what you can do, it’s gonna change everything; our… our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human… everything. You saw how Pete’s mom reacted, right? She was scared.
Then you have Jor-El, telling Kal he was a symbol of hope. Hope isn’t killing. Then you hear people say that it’s, Superman’s first time being a superhero.
Jor-El: The people of Earth are different from us, it’s true, but ultimately I believe that is a good thing. They won’t necessarily make the same mistakes we did, but if you guide them, Kal, if you give them hope, that’s what this symbol means. The symbol of the House of El means hope. Embodied within that hope is the fundamental belief the potential of every person to be a force for good. That’s what you can bring them.
He has a kryptonian mind, but still his parents were horrible people.Then the tone of the movie is realistic but they’re still doing the no glasses. So, they’ll let you suspend the belief on that, but Superman not killing is where they say, fuck it.
I say Superman because he’s Superman. He’s missing the red trunks and bright tone, but it’s Superman.
Then you have Clark, treated like a chump by that trucker. When Clark is trying to defend her honor. Then instead of fighting back he does something petty. He wraps the truckers, big rig around a light pole. Again, Clark’s adopted parents are horrible.
Again this guy is suppose to be Superman’s. He’s a legacy. But again it’s not about being faithful. Let’s get back to it. Then you have Clark letting Jonathan die. Are you serous?! That made absolutely no sense. It was a plot device just to give Clark more “depth“. Which failed and made the story more convoluted.
Then we have Clark working as a rough neck. Then the oil rig burns and Clark saves them. Then Lois goes around hearing all stories of Kal saving people. Then, the Zod fight happens and he didn’t save anyone. No one at all. That’s conflicting moment I have with the character.
Then you have Superman, fighting two skilled Kryptonians in Smallville. Two of Zod’s strongest and most powerful. Then you hear comments like, “this is Superman’s first time being a hero, he messed up”. That doesn’t count as having experience?
He wasn’t just fighting Kryptonians, he was also being attacked by humans. I think Superman knew what he was doing against Zod.
That goes more into the neck snapping. Kal never once showed that he was murderous. He never showed that he could or would kill. This story was all over and it was just poor.
I love Superman stories, and Man of Steel was a bad story..not just about being faithful to the legacy of a character. It was just bad. The really sad thing is, I like Henry Cavail, he’s brilliant.
Something that really threw me was. Jor-El put his mind and body in the ship that brought Kal-El, but not Lar-Ra. Who ok’d that? Especially given that Kal, was the first natural born baby in Krypton, in hundreds of years. Why wouldn’t we see both parents? That shows even more that even Kal’s biological parents, are as horrible as his adoptive.
Jor-El: To see you standing there having grown into an adult… if only Lara could have witnessed this.
Captain America has the same moral standards as Superman. He was apart of the ARMY. He served his county, and used a gun even. But he was never as strong or powerful as Superman. He did still have the ideals of Superman, to save and help those who needed it.
When Steve gained his powers. He jumped to action to save a child in the “First Avengers” movie. Luckily that kid could swim. Before Steve took the super solider serum, he jumped on a grenade. To save other soldiers in his battalion. How is Superman less relevant, when Steve would do the same thing Kal would?
Then during the destruction of New York, in the first “Avengers” movie. The story concept was less believable than Man of Steel. With flying worm aliens ramping the city, and not destroying as much as the, Kryptonians in, Man of Steel.
During all of this Steve still tries to save as many people, and keep his team safe. Something this Man of Steel: Superman, never accomplished during the, Kryptonian invasion.
When Steve stopped S.H.I.E.L.D.’s helicarriers from killing every potential “hero“. He later surrendered himself to Bucky. Letting Bucky beat him mercifully. That’s what a hero does. They find a way to get the job done.
When one company says, “this character is too good, he’s unbelievable“. Then another character that’s an analog of his morals, can succeed. That’s selling your audience short.
Then the conversation Superman and Lois has about the S symbol on his chest. That says he represents, hope. So, essentially the crest that he wears is hope…snapping your enemies neck. THAT’S NOT HOPE. That’s fallacy
Written by FTO : NERD TALK