I don’t know a thing
about Superman.
I know his origin
story, sure, but if you asked me about his particulars, and his defining
moments in the DC Comics canon, I’d turn into a stuttering mess. I can guess
what he stands for, but there’s still a lot I’m missing. A whole lot.
What I know about Superman comes from the myriad cartoons that have
aired. I think that my earliest exposure
to Superman came from a VHS I watched at my grandma’s house when I was a kid,
which happened to have a minutes-long slice of one of the really old Superman
cartoons (which apparently came from 1941.
Damn, that’s old.) And there’s
the other stuff that aired, up to and including Justice League Unlimited…if only because of that badass theme song. Even
beyond that, I have a newfound appreciation for Superman thanks to Injustice: Gods Among
Us.
My understanding of
Superman was that he was the hero of heroes.
His power was only a fraction of his character. He was
-- he is -- goodness and justice
incarnate. He’s a stand-up guy that
(unless pushed) will always do the right thing, regardless of the sacrifices he
has to make. He’s something worth
aspiring towards, even if mere mortals can never reach that plateau. He can come off as boring, but I would think
that those internal struggles and societal interactions make for dozens, if not
hundreds, of interesting stories. If
handled properly, Superman could dominate anything he appears in, infusing
stories with a spirit even mightier than the last son of Krypton. Also, this happened.
I don’t know a thing
about Superman. But then again, I don’t
need to. I have my own ideas of what he
stands for. I know the intent behind
both the characters and the writers. I
know that no matter how many people say “Batman’s the best!” I’ll gladly jump
into the Superman camp -- because I know that’s the hero who’s more likely to
capture my heart and mind.
And that just makes Man of Steel even more disappointing.
WARNING: You’d best prepare yourself for some
spoilers as big as Darkseid’s wading boots, so if you haven’t seen the movie --
and still intend to do so -- come back once you have. Otherwise, go spend some time in the Phantom
Zone. Or Bismarck, North Dakota.
You know me by now, I
hope. I’ve gone on and on about (if
you’ll let me use the catch-all term) “gritty stories.” I’ve made my stand on them, and defended
their polar opposite on more than one occasion.
And at one point, I -- however rashly -- pointed to the Dark Knight
Trilogy as one of the key sources and inspirations for this “Age of Grit” we’re
waist-deep in. It’s not fair to blame
Batman and those three movies, and it’s not fair to blame Christopher Nolan and
his crew either. I recognize that Nolan
and the rest (and the movies) have all made a lot of people happy. And by extension, I recognize that the movies
are really good…well, two out of three’s not that bad.
But you’ll forgive me,
I hope, for not being too excited when I heard that Nolan and others (David S.
Goyer, who apparently worked on Blade and
The Dark Knight Rises, along with 300/Watchmen/Sucker Punch mastermind
Zack Snyder) were attached to the movie…and with trailers pointing to Man of Steel being a darker, grimmer,
more serious take on Supes’ origin story.
I figured I’d just have to grin and bear it, but I was ready to welcome
their interpretation into my heart so long as the quality was up to par. Then again, considering the pedigree, the
hype, and the fact that they had control over THE most famous superhero around,
I assumed I’d be in good hands.
It didn’t pan out.
Am I…am I missing
something here? I mean, I thought Nolan
-- and Goyer, now that I know he exists -- put out incredible movies. I thought that their names meant
something. And even though Snyder’s had
some misfires -- Sucker Punch is the
most obvious example, I’d say -- I would have thought that he and the others
would be able to put out a satisfying product with the hopes of Warner Bros.,
DC Comics, and the very concept (and cultural significance) of Superman riding
on their shoulders. So why is it that,
as of this writing, the movie sits at 57% on the Tomatometer? Why is a thoughtful, serious take on the
character by virtue of their vision and design sitting a good twenty points
below a movie featuring explosive flame men and star-spangled cyber-armor?
Don’t answer that. That was rhetorical.
…
…Okay, go ahead and answer
it. I know I did.
Is the pressure
starting to get to these guys? Is the
workload too much? That’d be my guess,
at least; I don’t know the exact time frames for working on movies, but I don’t
think it’s any small coincidence that TDKR
and MoS came out within a year of
each other, and are both notably-flawed movies.
It’s entirely possible that adding in Snyder to the mix made for some
added problems -- from
what I can tell, a LOT of problems -- and Nolan himself probably isn’t to
blame for everything (I believe he was the movie’s producer), but there have
been some issues here that do serious harm to the final product. Some of them are just gaps in logic, as you’d
expect. But even the most grievous
logical flaws in any work are forgivable if the rest of it manages to offer
something worthwhile. Tales of the Abyss is a prime example;
sure, it’s got some huge problems -- like an entire third act that didn’t need
to happen, and sure as hell SHOULDN’T have happened -- but overall it’s still a
strong, solid game because of all its other elements. As always, it’s all about the net worth. The good stuff will distract audiences from
the bad stuff, or at least make them more likely to forgive it.
In my eyes, that’s not
the case with MoS. The grittiness -- that sense of realism, that
harshness, that penchant for exploring darker roads with aplomb -- doesn’t work
here. In fact, it’s downright
detrimental; it’s a strange day indeed when The
Dark Knight manages to be a brighter story than a Superman movie. And for the Dark Knight Trilogy’s flaws
(which, mind you, are independent of
the grit), there’s more going on than just aesthetic and tonal choices. There’s something that its creators felt they
had to try and say under the pretense of Batman punching bad dudes in the face. The key difference is that those movies did
what they did naturally. They didn’t try
to be like something else, or try to appeal to someone else. That grit was genuine.
In contrast…well, I’m
hesitant to even use “grit” to describe MoS. It’s not a one-to-one comparison, for one
thing. For another, I think “cold” is a
better descriptor than “gritty”. Yes,
cold. Rather fitting for a movie
entitled Man of Steel. There’s an unmistakable coldness throughout
the entire movie; it starts at the sensory level, with colors -- from
Superman’s suit to the world itself -- washed-out and faded for whatever reason
(it looks cool, I guess?). I just
couldn’t shake this sense of detachment -- from the characters as well as the
movie itself -- that persisted almost nonstop from start to finish. There’s a certain, almost mechanical motion
to what’s on display in the movie; barring some oddly-sorted and inserted
flashbacks, there are only two modes in this movie. One: pontification. Two: bombast.
It’s a humorless tale -- which in spite of my tastes I’ll readily admit
isn’t a bad thing -- but there’s not much offered in return. For a movie to be colorless literally and
figuratively defies belief -- and yet, here we are.
A lot of complaints
that I’ve heard about the movie revolve around the fact that it’s “a joyless
tale.” And I can agree with that, to
some extent at least. Both Krypton and
Earth feel alien, not just because of aesthetic and tonal choices, but because
of the injection of lifelessness into the proceedings. They, and all the characters within, don’t
feel like worlds or people. They feel
more like ideas. Roles. A protagonist, an antagonist, a damsel in
distress, multiple do-no-wrong parental figures…the gang’s all here. Don’t get me wrong, though, there’s nothing
wrong with a character being tied to an idea, but said ideas shouldn’t consume
them as much as they do in MoS.
That freedom, life, and
spirit are missing from Superman -- and as a result, it’s missing from
virtually the entire movie. Because of
that, the pontificating ends up being
for naught. Because of that, the bombast
ends up becoming noise that borders on being painful. Because of that, what could have been a
dynamic reimagining of the character and mythos that transformed the cultural
zeitgeist ends up as one of the most problematic movies I’ve seen in
years. Not the worst, mind you (that
honor still goes to Percy Jackson and the
Olympians: the Lightning Thief, which I’m thankful I only saw on TV). But very, very, very problematic. And as is my standard, I’ll explain why…in as
many words as possible.
But before I get on
with the show, there’s one thing that I have to start off with. And I will.
And as always, I’ll take this step by step.
0) The best scene in the movie is when Superman first starts
flying. Hands down.
“You will believe a man
can fly.”
That’s an important
tagline, because it ties in with an important concept. My understanding of Superman -- and from what
I can gather from the words of others -- is that he’s supposed to be a symbol
of truth, justice, and the American way.
Among other things, obviously; hope, virtue, courage, dedication, all
those qualities and more. Superman is
supposed to be a good guy…BUT he’s not a flawless guy. He has his struggles. He has his fears. He has his issues. But he’s not controlled by them. He’s able to move past them, because he’s got
work to do. Ain’t nobody got time for
that.
That’s made abundantly
clear when Supes decides to “push his limits”, at the suggestion of
Jor-El. He gives it a shot, and after a
bit of stumbling -- and crashing into a mountain -- the big blue Boy Scout
manages to pull it off. It is, by far,
the most awe-inspiring scene in the entire movie. It is bursting with energy, meaning, and
impact for both the audience and the character; shackle after shackle end up
getting cast off as Supes realizes what he can do, and what he should do. It’s one of the first times that he ends up
smiling in the entire movie -- at that point, maybe a good hour in -- and one
of the most potent in the sense that you understand, without a word spoken, you
know this is a major turning point in the Man of Steel’s life. He’s happy.
You’re happy. And you can’t wait
to see what he does next.
If there were more
scenes like that in the movie, then maybe the Tomatometer would be a lot
higher. But there aren’t. Instead, we just get problem after problem
after problem. Some of them are tiny things, yes, but
combined with the larger stuff, they’re things that -- regardless of size --
pile up really damn fast. As a wise man once
said, “You may not have noticed it, but
your brain did.”
So let’s have a go,
then. Starting with…
1) Krypton is a pretty terrible place to live…and a dumb one, too.
I don’t know about you
guys, but if you ask me, Krypton is a pretty terrible place to live.
The Holographic Ghost
of Jor-El (yep) explains later in the movie to Clark that Krypton isn’t nearly
as hospitable as Earth. In fact, the
reason for Supes’ strength is because, since he grew up and developed on Earth,
the better environment allowed him to gain the superpowers we know and
love…although that doesn’t really explain the heat vision. Or the super/freezing breath (which to be
fair doesn’t appear in the movie, but that’s the least of the story’s
problems). In any case, the takeaway
from this is that Krypton is flat-out explained to be a world that’s inadequate
for life at best. Low-quality air,
higher gravity, fewer natural resources, and that unfortunate “everyone is born
into specific roles via genetic engineering” bit -- with all of that in mind, on top of the fact that Krypton’s a
pretty dingy looking place, I have a hard time believing anyone would want to
live there.
Let’s be real
here. There are some other logistical
problems with Krypton. For example, I
was under the impression that society has managed to come as far as it has
because of the advent of free time and the ability to explore the possibilities
they afford; that is, the moment we stopped devoting all our time to hunting,
gathering, and preparing food -- and the home by extension -- we became freer
to explore arts, sciences, languages, music, technology, religion, and
more. Organizing everyone into specific
jobs doesn’t exactly seem like the wisest idea…though I guess if it works, it
works. (That just brings up the issue of
not seeing enough of Krypton -- outside of a sudden and long burst of action --
to make any judgments about what kind of place it is, but let’s just pretend
that’s not a problem right now.)
That aside, I can’t
help but wonder what kind of government organization and the armada of
scientists working for them would gleefully ignore the fact that they’re
sucking their planet dry to the point where they’re facing a complete planetary
cataclysm. That seems like the kind of
thing you’d notice long before they’ve only got a short time before the big
boom. Come to think of it, how much time
did they have before the big boom? I
seem to recall Jor-El saying they’ve only got a few weeks left, but a few
screen cuts later his wife is getting vaporized by a column of flame. Did I miss something here?
I guess the bigger
problem is that overall, the government -- as it is wont to do in fiction -- is
woefully inadequate and outright obstructive.
Jor-El may have come in to their council room as little more than a
doomsayer -- quite literally, considering he didn’t bother bringing any proof,
like a hologram or a PowerPoint presentation -- but the council pretty much
acts like the man’s just harshin’ their buzz.
And shortly after General Zod’s coup is brought to an end (with
casualties lost amongst the council), they decide to subject him to something
called “somatic reconfiguration”, which I took to mean brainwashing him so he’d
be a good boy. And they freeze him in
something like ice and…banish him to the Phantom Zone? Off the planet? The planet that they know is about to
explode? Why? Why not just execute him? Why send him and his cohorts into space and off the planet that’s about to explode,
if not to show off some million dollar visuals?
Why not try to escape on your own?
Why not look into the planet-exploding issue for yourselves? Why not even try to escape, given that you
have access to spaceships? What is the
timeframe for all this?
I know all of that
sounds like nitpicking -- and on some level it is -- but these are issues that
shouldn’t be ignored. All the Krypton
stuff takes place within the first
fifteen minutes of the movie, if that, and we’re supposed to be given an
impression of what the movie’s got in stow for us. We’re supposed to have basis and background
for the events to come. Even if Superman
isn’t in the thick of what’s going on at the moment, we need to know why this
is going to be his movie by virtue of some intrinsic connective tissue. You can’t just have Jor-El jump onto a fucking dragon and fly through some
laser beams and assume that the audience will be satisfied. Explain something. Show something. Get us invested. Get us to marvel. Action scenes and dreary visuals aren’t going
to cut it. Not in a Superman movie. Not in any movie. If you can’t, then that’ll just make the
flaws all the more apparent.
You’d think that trying
to characterize a doomed planet would be a pointless endeavor, but it
isn’t. Not for me. This is something that can and will feed into
problems with the rest of the movie. But
even with that said, it’s still bothersome in its own right. My thoughts when Krypton exploded and the
story started in earnest?
“This is gonna be a long movie.”
2) Zod’s plan makes no sense.
Let me get this out of
the way quickly: I don’t have anything against the acting in this movie. On the contrary; I don’t know much about
acting, but I know when I’m being entertained and impressed -- and the cast here
did a bang-up job with what they had. Top
honors go to Michael Shannon, who absolutely dominates as Zod. Subtlety
is not Zod’s forte; when he’s mad, he’s devouring the set. And it is glorious. I’d even go so far as to say that Zod is the
best character in the movie…but I’ll come back to that later.
Zod is an interesting
character, but unfortunately he makes some massive blunders…including one that
sends the entire story down a particularly dumb avenue within the first ten
minutes. Here’s the thrust of the movie:
see, on Krypton giving birth to children is handled entirely by biomechanical
means. With the use of a device called
the Codex -- a humanoid skull when first seen, but capable of being transformed
into handier MacGuffins -- the Kryptonians can use the data stored within to
produce children immediately locked into certain societal roles. (The only exception in centuries is Kal-El,
AKA Superman, which I suppose is part of what makes him “special”.) Zod decides to storm the capital and confront
the council for the sake of taking the Codex for himself; he wants Krypton to
be reborn unimpeded somewhere else, presumably under his watchful eye and noble
hand.
Now, here’s the problem
I have. If Zod wanted the Codex so
badly, why didn’t he just take it?
Apparently the Kryptonians keep it lying almost right out in the open
for anybody to just go and take it; in fact, that’s exactly what Jor-El does
when it hits the fan; he just dives into some pool of water and snags it right
out of a massive breeding chamber without fuss.
So why didn’t Zod? He sets a coup
into motion and starts blasting apart anyone who even thinks about offering up
resistance. Why doesn’t he go after the
Codex himself? Did he not know where it
was? Why wouldn’t he learn that beforehand,
given that it’s the one thing he needs
most in the universe? Couldn’t
someone of his caliber and prestige use some subterfuge to have one of his
cohorts learn the location of the Codex, and then have one of them steal it
away, and then Jor-El could steal it
back from him in the prologue? What if
Zod found out that there’s another Codex out there, which is entirely possible
given that it’d be stupid for there to be one baby-breeding plant across the
entirety of a whole planet? Why wouldn’t he go after one of those? Wouldn’t
that make more sense than randomly carpet-bombing the landscape and potentially
destroying the one thing he needs most in the universe?
Zod and his crew end up
getting locked away in the Phantom Zone, but -- as these things tend to go --
they manage to escape, and spend the next thirty years searching the cosmos for
the ejected Kal-El and the Codex stored alongside him. Fair enough.
But there’s a problem, and it ties in with point number one, as well as
the rest of the movie in general: all these little problems start piling up,
and piling up, and piling up, and before long what could have passed as an
obsessive nitpick ends up becoming a massive wall that separates the viewer
from the movie.
Keeping in mind what I
said about Krypton -- or rather, what Jor-El said about Krypton, and what we
know of Krypton -- think carefully about what I say next. The ultimate goal of Zod’s plan, well before
movie’s end, is that Zod wants to turn Earth into Krypton. He wants to change the weight, the
environment, and the atmosphere into an exact duplicate of Krypton. The human race is more or less doomed, to be
replaced by a new generation of Codex-manufactured Kryptonians.
Can you see the
problems here?
Earth is a better
planet than Krypton. That’s not opinion;
we know this because Jor-El told us, and visual data has told us. Zod has a chance to nestle in his new world
order on a planet that’ll turn formerly-average Kryptonians into out-and-out
supermen, AND do so on a world that’ll support a population far better than a
world that had its people resort to mining the core of their planet to
apocalyptic levels. Why would he whip
out his doomsday machine to turn a perfectly-normal planet into a wasteland? Did he just want to use the World Machine to
kill everyone in one fell swoop? That I
could buy, I suppose, but it seems like a Pyrrhic victory to kill everyone at
the expense of turning a potentially-perfect planet into something straight out
of Gears of War.
I also have to wonder
about the logistics of Zod’s plan. It’s
explained that Zod and his crew have been harvesting the long-abandoned ships
used for Kryptonian colonization…but that just opens up its own set of problems. The ship that landed on Earth (and alerted Da
Boom Crew to Kal-El’s presence…somehow)
is supposed to be about twenty thousand years old. And by that logic, the rest of the Kryptonian
ships they sent out are roughly the same age, considering that Jor-El explains
that Krypton abandoned colonization efforts centuries ago (because
reasons). Now, here’s my question: how
is Zod -- a Phantom Zone escapee, and survivor of a planetary cataclysm -- able
to put together the World Engine?
Centuries-old technology should not be in perfect working order, and I’m
DAMN sure they can’t just put together all the parts they need with the limited
resources on hand AND a handicap of working with technology that’s tens of
thousands of years old.
And remember,
Kryptonian society demands that its people are born immediately into specific,
non-negotiable roles -- so therefore, unless Zod had some historians or
scientists or engineers on hand, everything they built shouldn’t exist. Even if
they used holograms like The Holographic Ghost of Jor-El, they’re still working
with age-old technology, and finite resources from the outset. Phantom Zone escapees shouldn’t be capable of
interstellar travel for five minutes, let alone the thirty-three years that Zod
and Da Runnin’ Crew take. So how did
they make it to Earth? How did they make
it to Earth in the days -- if that -- of Superman somehow activating a downed
ship’s distress beacon? If we follow the
movie’s logic, it would be like me trying to build an SUV out of rocks I dug up
in the hopes of trying to go to Germany.
IT JUST. DOESN’T. HAPPEN.
But you know what? I get it.
I actually get it. I’m not
defending Zod’s plan, or any part of it, in the least -- I hope you understand
that much, if nothing else. All this
stupidity is actually in-character for the guy, logical contradictions
aside. Zod’s fatal flaw, and what makes
him the villain of the movie, is his rigidity.
He lucked out in the sense that he was born to be a warrior, he lived on
a world that -- outside of Jor-El -- had no problem with his way of life until
he went for a coup, and all he’s ever known is violence and tradition. Is it any wonder that he wanted to make a new
(or new-ish) Krypton? I mean, sure, you
could make the argument that he shouldn’t have any loyalty to the world that
tried to condemn him to eternal damnation, but I can buy him recreating the
only thing he’s ever known. Besides,
he’s the bad guy. Having a foolish and
destructive goal is understandable. Not
a requirement, and not always defensible, and it’d help if his plan was
actually…you know, smart…but
understandable.
With all that said, the
good guys have it worse. Much worse.
3) Jor-El’s plan is even worse.
Oh boy. This character.
As the father of
Superman, this character plays a role in shaping the Man of Steel -- both the
hero and the movie at large. Too much,
arguably. I’ll have to get into that
during another point, but for now let me start by saying this: they pretty much
club you in the head with the “Superman = Jesus” symbolism, to the point where
in one scene Supes’ head takes up half of the screen…and the other half is
taken up by a stained-glass window with Jesus on it. Subtle. So if Supes is Jesus, then that makes Jor-El
God…with all the negative connotations that result. Chief among them, the fact that his ideas and
plans are out-and-out absurd.
It’s pretty much a
given that Jor-El has to die for Supes to become “the man who has everything”,
and of course Superdaddy ends up biting it before the fifteen-minute mark. But he spends a good two thirds of the movie
still establishing his presence as The Holographic Ghost of Christmas Past --
which is, without question, a detriment to the movie, and Superman to a similar
extent. Again, that’s a topic for
another point, but the point is that Jor-El is dead, but not really dead. (In fact, one could argue that becoming a
hologram has made him effectively immortal, but that’s neither here nor
there.) So on top of having to die twice
-- neither of which really has a direct effect on Supes -- his first and actual
death is...odd, to say the least.
Well, let me rephrase
that. His death is fine -- he gets
killed by Zod in a heated punch-up -- but the hopes he left for a better future
don’t really line up with…well, anything sensible. This being an origin story, Supes has to get
shipped off to earth on his own as a baby.
That much is certain and understandable.
But in lieu of this movie, and in light of Jor-El knowing beforehand
that the planet’s going to go boom, he doesn’t try to save a single person that
isn’t his son. Sure, Kal-El may be their
new hope by way of being born naturally, but given what Jor-El knew and how
much time he had, couldn’t he have asked for a decent-sized ship? Enough to bring a few like-minded individuals
with him? Barring that, couldn’t he have
at least saved his wife? I could understand
if there was no time, but he DID have time; even if he didn’t know the planet
was going to explode in a week or two (which he should have known, considering
that sucking the planet dry isn’t something that just happens overnight), you
would think that he’d at least try to save the woman who held his son in her
body for a good nine months.
Come to think of it, how
did she hide her pregnancy from the public?
Did she just never go outside?
Did she just disappear from the world?
Did anybody raise a stink about the first -- and presumably
highly-illegal -- natural birth in centuries?
Tangent aside, why couldn’t Jor-El save his wife and his son, and keep
his child from becoming isolated on Earth?
The obvious answer is “because of the origin story,” I know, but the
fact that he didn’t even try just bothers me.
From a writing perspective, I just feel like it would have made more
sense for Jor-El to plan to save more
people, but then Zod busts in after hearing about Superbaby and kills everyone
-- Supermama included -- dashing Jor-El’s hopes of having his son watched over,
but still giving him a slight opening to escape. Wouldn’t that make him look like much less of
an asshole?
No, I guess not. See, the problem with giving Jor-El more time
in the limelight is that he gets more chances to prove that, no, he really
didn’t think his plan through.
Apparently, Jor-El’s ultimate goal was to have his son use the Codex he
left alongside him to introduce the Kryptonian race to the human race; that is,
he wanted the two races to begin coexisting.
Uh…hey, guy? That’s not a very
good idea. For starters, it’s a contradiction
to the current of thought throughout the movie.
I was under the impression that Superman was supposed to be a leader to
the human race. That much is self-evident, considering that
it’s pretty much Jor-El who helps
lend to that idea. Prior to his death,
he says that Krypton’s time is over, and in more ways than one. And in hologram form, he says that his son
can do true good for the people if he steps out of the shadows. So with that in mind, why would he not only
leave the Codex with his son, but also push his son to recreate a species whose
idiocy led to their extinction?
But that’s not the
worst of it. The implication is that
Superman is supposed to use the Codex to start recreating Kryptonians…so if
that’s the case, how does that make him -- Kal-El or Jor-El -- any different
from Zod, or the rest of the Kryptonian council? Is there an option to turn off predestination
with the Codex? Even if there was,
wasn’t natural birth the key to giving Kal-El the freedom to choose his own way
in life? Wasn’t that what made him
special? And now you want him to use the
Codex to do…what exactly? Create a
million new-age Kryptonian babies? Who’s
going to take care of them, and why? Who
would agree to let their planet get swarmed by aliens? And what’s the plan if -- IF -- they reach
adult ages? Let millions of supermen
start running around and mucking up life for the species that the planet
rightfully belongs to?
Also, I was under the
impression that the Earth’s resources are hardly adequate for the population we
have now. How is a sudden influx of
Kryptonians going to make the situation any better? All they’ll have would be superpowers, not
the scientific know-how OR the technology OR the resources to do anything
Jor-El aims for. Even beyond all that,
there’s still a fundamental flaw in Jor-El’s plan: if at any point Supes -- or
Clark Kent -- had said “What? No, fuck
off, that’s a stupid idea!” then Jor-El wouldn’t have been able to do a thing
about it…and that wouldn’t have changed a damn thing by movie’s end. Pro tip: when Smallville makes a better relationship than your multi-million
dollar movie, it’s time to pack up and go home.
It’s just a shame,
then, that the only character who ever genuinely calls Jor-El out for his
dumbass plan is Zod -- and he’s stripped of his credibility by way of being the
roaring baddie, even if he brings up some legitimate points. But alas, Jor-El is put in a brighter light
than even Superman, and effectively becomes God as a hologram. Wave of his hand? Boom, new suit for Clark (which I’m going to
assume was created on the spot, because being able to predict the exact height
and build of a son he never saw grow up is too silly for words). Wave of his hand? Boom, he can rejigger Zod’s ship and slam
down walls. Not waving his hand? No problem, he’s got clairvoyance! Everything is under control! That is, as long as you believe in
Jor-El. Also, if you’re on a ship…and
decided not to create a system to alert your only son and the hope of your
species about your existence and his duty until he was in his thirties, dooming
him to a crippling identity crisis.
Also, why would you rejigger the Codex so that it’s inside Superman all
along? No, realy, why? What were you thinking on that one,
Jor-El? How is the Codex supposed to be
extracted or even used if the data is inside Clark’s body, and woven into
Clark’s body? Kryptonian technology is
designed to work on Kryptonian bodies, not superhuman bodies; try to take a
blood sample, and you’re just going to break your instruments -- and there’s no
way you could have prepared for that, right?
You know, as a ghost? Or did you
plan for this? But that’s impossible,
considering that --
You know what? Forget it.
This movie falls apart -- and fast -- if you think about it for even a
second. How is it that Iron Man 3 managed to be the smarter
movie in spite of being inherently dumber?
How is it that so much of Man of
Steel could be built on unexplained circumstances and gaps in logic the
size of Olympus Mons?
Don’t answer that. That was rhetorical.
…
…Okay, go ahead and
answer it. But I’m about to anyway.
This should have been a
simple movie, but it isn’t. Not in the
slightest. What should have been a movie
about Superman being a hero, learning how to be a hero, and having punch-ups
with baddies is in fact a movie about the sins of the past between two ghosts
(who are more or less advocating the same thing), a battle between eugenics and
natural evolution (that doesn’t really go anywhere), and the response of
humanity to emerging changes to their world (which is pretty much decided by
forces beyond their control in spite of the high hopes heaped on them). So basically, these thematic elements don’t
go anywhere. At all. They’re introduced and brushed upon, but in
terms of making a statement? Nothing,
really. Which is a shame; people really
need to learn a difference that there’s a difference between putting a topic
into a work and actually saying something
about it.
But that’s how this
movie works. That’s not how it had to
be, or how it should be, but that’s how it is.
But the takeaway from this post is this: virtually everything I’ve said
so far? Nitpicking. There’s no two ways about it; pretty much all
my complaints up to this point revolve around plot points that point out holes
in the movie’s framework. That means
that, if you’ve read this far, you’ve
just read roughly four thousand words’ worth of nitpicking. And that’s still not the worst part of this
movie.
Plot holes and gaps in
logic are inevitable in any story. That
much is obvious. But you can shrink or
fill plot holes with A) inherent simplicity, which this movie lacks; B) fully
exploring the ideas and mechanics set up throughout, and taking consistent
stances on them, which this movie fails to do; C) offering up something to
distract an audience from those plot holes, which this movie butchers
completely. This is supposed to be a
movie that makes us fall in love with Superman.
This is supposed to reintroduce the character to a new age. This is supposed to make us believe a man a
can fly. And it fails. Hard.
We are only three
points into this little breakdown. Three
points. And the worst is yet to come.
~I came on blogger just to see if you did a review on Superman! And this post says it all!! God, I was trying to explain to my cousin(who watched MoS three times in the theater....) WHY I disliked the movie!(now all I have to do is link him here, bless this post) I actually spaced out through most of the fighting scenes, which rarely ever happens when I go to the cinemas to watch a movie (should have just waited for the HBO version) I went with my parents and I think they felt disappointed as well(huge fans of Superman) and now that Ive read your post, wow THE FLAWS!!!! (lol the suit size) Im a huge fan of the Batman trilogy though (Joker yay! Okay maybe im just a fan of Joker)
ReplyDelete~River
Yeah, I hear that a LOT of people are getting defensive about this movie...for one reason or another. I guess people are just so eager for a new Superman movie, they'll take whatever they can get. Either that, or they seriously love the fight scenes. Can't say I'm one of them, but who am I to get in the way of someone's enjoyment of a good superhuman slug-fest?
ReplyDeleteI don't blame you for spacing out, though; I did the same long before the actual fighting even started. I expected more out of the movie; I was willing to wait for the wall-to-wall action (literally, in this case), but I didn't get anything for my time investment. And by the sound of things, a lot of people feel the same way.
It's just a shame that MoS came out the way it did. There's just so much wasted potential.
Yo. I had to watch Percy Jackson at the theater. You've got no right to complain. T-T
ReplyDeleteSo many problems and we haven't passed the fifteen minute mark. This movie must have been really freaking long. I remember Spoony commenting that he thought the film went on for four or five hours. It was that boring, apparently. That's a big failing right there.
You didn't go on much with the "dark", "gritty", and "cold" points (other posts may have highlighted them), but I do agree that if a story has these elements, they must be genuine. So maybe my irrational hatred for Nolan and his films is unfounded. Maybe I just don't like his subgenre of "SERIOUS BUSINESS" at all. But what you described in this post made me realize my fears for 'Man of Steel' were dead on. And you're the guy who prefers more lighthearted and fun stories (in moderation.)
Man of Steel might just have a problem with balance. Its trying too hard to go on one direction, but ends up reaching the point that people are fatigued from the serious, "uber-realistic" tone. Then it starts coming off as a comedy. Only your laughing while holding a gun at your head.
I dunno. I can't really judge unless I see the film. Which I won't. I'd prefer rewatching my Blue-ray copy 'Sucker Punch'. It's... so bad it's fun. ...Don't face palm. >.<
Anyway, thinking too much into a summer flick that's supposed to be fun, but comes off as a complex tale of SERIOUS BUSINESS with plotholes up the ass is depressing. This ain't 'Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII', so don't use up all your strength nitpicking this piece.
"Yo. I had to watch Percy Jackson at the theater. You've got no right to complain."
ReplyDeleteAhh...ahhhh...ahahh-ahahhhahgh... *drops to knees*
My God...you actually...you saw it in theaters? Oh my Go...are you okay? Did you actually -- are you a ghost? I saw it on TV, and I barely survived. Barely. But to see it in theaters...you must have the constitution of a saint. Or some manner of archdemon, perhaps.
You know, I'm honestly trying NOT to just zero in on the whole "gritty McGrit Grit" complaint when it comes to the stories flying my way. It feels like that's becoming a major -- and unfair -- complaint of mine, and I'd prefer not to zero in on that whenever something gritty wafts past my nose. There's preference, and there's just being biased, after all.
So I'll probably blast something for being gritty within the next week.
Whatever the case,it's hard NOT to think about the particulars of a movie -- "fun" summer blockbuster or not -- when it takes itself so seriously. It's trying to engage with viewers on a higher level, so I feel like I have to engage right back. If it can offer up something meaningful due to (or because of) its seriousness and grit, then that's what I'd call a good story. If it can't, then it comes off as even worse than if it went 100% silly -- and it makes me even MORE likely to point out holes the movie didn't bother to fill.
So yeah, you've got the right idea when you say it's got a problem with balance. Thing is, I'm having a hard time thinking of what Man of Steel is TRYING to balance. I can only assume that (plot silliness aside) everything that happened in/went into this movie was purposeful. Everything. Which means that the scales were purposefully weighed down with SERIOUS BUSINESS, the style contributed to it, and the order of the scenes was intentional. It didn't work at all, but if nothing else, I've got to appreciate the effort.
I'll still torch the hell out of the end product, but the effort is nice.
You should make a post about that Percy Jackson movie. I would love to see you dissect what may be the worst movie in your opinion.
ReplyDeleteI never watched the Man of Steel and I never will. I have never been a movie person either whether it is going to the movies or watching movies in general, so I don't mind being spoiled. The most exposure I had with Superman was Smallville and even then I wasn't committed to it at all.
But it was fun reading your thoughts about this movie, though I am losing faith in people's ability to differentiate what is passable and what is utter garbage - not that I'm saying Man of Steel is garbage. What happened with Sonic '06 in the video game dimension may start to happen in the movie dimension with all the reviews I have been seeing.
Just a thought.
Hmmm. Maybe I'll do a post on the Percy Jackson movie. Two problems, though: first, it's been a while since I've seen the movie, and in order to go in detail about why it's just...just so terrible...I'd need to see it again. And there's the second problem: I'd have to see it again.
ReplyDeleteI don't think my heart (or my brain) can take it.
In any case, that "thought" you had? As much as I hate to admit it, that's a legitimate concern. I can accept differences in opinion -- as long as the opinions are justified, hopefully -- but part of being able to decide if the quality of a product is high or low depends on how defensible it is. People CAN defend Man of Steel, but blindly turning their back on any criticisms does the movie fewer favors than the people themselves. And if people aren't willing to take a close look at the quality of something...well...we're going to be seeing more Sonic '06 shenanigans pretty soon.
Raising standards is -- and always will be -- more important than just arguing about whether or not a movie is bad. If consumers let the par in "par for the course" sink lower and lower, then we're all going to be in trouble. That is, if we aren't already.
...Well, that's enough doom-saying for now. Let's end this comment on a positive note.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUcjGIc1ZsE