Archetypes Creating Archetypes

asadvsea

This post was originally written for comicommand.com-

https://comicommand.com/2016/04/24/archetypes-creating-archetypes/

Written By Cadeem Lalor

My last article examined how films can impact the comic book industry and since I have posted that article, I have also thought of how comics are impacted by other media. Aquaman is one of my favourite comic book characters and a great deal of his backstory is rooted in pre-existing mythological elements, such as Atlantis. The same goes for Wonder Woman, who is heavily rooted in Greek mythology. Additionally, Marvel and DC comics both have their own version of Hercules. Comic book creation as a whole is a cycle where pre-existing archetypes are often altered to create something that is either (arguably) new or a hybrid of other elements.

The character of Superman himself can be seen as a superhero archetype, with his morals and some of his powers being found in numerous superheroes that followed. Yet Superman also takes inspiration from previous works, begging the question of where homage and inspiration can really be traced.

In Man of Steel, Dr. Emil Hamilton warns Superman that he could possibly be carrying an alien pathogen, to which Superman responds that he has not infected anyone in his thirty-three years on Earth.  I am not a religious person by any means, and although I was raised Christian I no longer practice. Yet I couldn’t help but notice that was the same age Jesus dies.

The Superman/Jesus allegory is also clearly present in Clark’s backstory. A man sends his only son to Earth, who is then adopted by Mary (Martha) and Joseph (Jonathan Kent). Of course the names aren’t identical but the similarity is still undeniable. Superman Returns also slapped audiences across the face with Christ imagery when Superman falls to earth in the final act, with his arms spread wide. Returns also focuses on the importance of Superman’s return, with Superman referred to as a “savior” throughout the film. Dawn of Justice(spoilers) also depicts the Death of Superman, which will be followed by his resurrection. Death and revival are universal themes, but when combined with all the biblical similarities, the Jesus comparison is the most obvious one. Interestingly, the marketing for Man of Steel even includes a website where pastors can access more information on the similarities between Superman and Jesus, in order use the universal themes to teach their congregations. Author Stephen Skelton, also claims that a non-Christian friend told him that Superman Returns “…spoke more to me about Jesus than The Passion of the Christ.”

afdegrgb

Since the Jesus allegory is clear and also well documented I will move on to creative influences that are probably not as well known. Some may remember the film John Carter, or maybe not since it was a box-office flop (relative to its budget) and got average reviews at best. Its source material, The Barsoom Stories feature John Carter, a man who is transported to Mars. Once on Mars his strength and speed outstrip those of the native Martians due to Mar’s reduced gravity. Sound familiar?

Philip Wylie’s Gladiator (1930) is also viewed as another influence on the Superman mythos (Feeley 177), despite the creators of Superman never publicly acknowledging its influence (Feeley 179). Gladiator depicts the life of Hugo Danner, a man with Superhuman abilities acquired after his father injects his pregnant mother with a serum (Feeley 178). Danner’s abilities include superhuman strength and invulnerability and the book focuses on his desire to find his place in the world (Feeley 178). Aside from these general similarities, Danner also adopts a costume and a secret identity throughout his life and his moral compass also mirrors Superman’s (Feeley 178). If such a character were created now it would be difficult to ascribe the creation to a single, or even a few different characters. However, Gladiator’s publication a year before Superman’s, at a time when such stories were relatively uncommon does make it more likely that Superman’s creation was influenced by Wylie’s work.

An amazon review of Skelton’s book, The Gospel According to the Greatest Superhero in the World, is quick to criticize Skelton for making great leaps in his analysis: of seeing allegories and comparisons where there are none. As the reviewer says ” Superman is, and has always been, primarily a pop culture icon intended to entertain, not a symbolic figure meant to remind us of Christ.” This review goes on to argue that the nitpicking comes at the expense of some of the most obvious allegories. This “nitpicking” includes some details such as Superman being an only son sent to Earth.

asfefvefr

I can’t argue that every point Skelton, or any other author will make, was an intended reference by Superman’s creators. However, I think it is also important not to think that fictional characters are created in a vacuum. Our fictional creations are shaped by our desires and our circumstances. Jerry Siegel and Joel Shuster may have been Jewish, but it’s possible that omnipresent stories of Jesus could affect their writing. Especially since the authors cite the biblical stories of Moses and Samson as being inspirations. Terrible creations like Fifty Shades of Grey wouldn’t exist if the author didn’t write out her fantasies. Was she intending to entertain too? Of course, but the material she released for entertainment came from somewhere. The same logic applies to comic book characters such as Superman.

Superman is a pop culture icon, and I did not write this piece to argue that he is a sign of the second coming or a rip-off. I only state the fact that previous works, ranging from the bible to early science fiction led to the creation of one of the most popular characters ever created.

To see and hear more from Cadeem, please check out Moviegrapevine.com and follow @CMoviegrapevine on twitter.

Works Cited

Feeley, George. “Review: When World-Views Collide: Philip Wylie in the Twenty-First Century.” Science Fiction Studies 32.1 (2005): 177-182. Print.

Batman v Superman Review

Like Star Wars: Episode VII, this was another review where I had to seriously collect my thoughts before putting words to paper. Initially, BvS was my most anticipated comic book film of 2016. The teaser was tense, dramatic and set the film up perfectly. Then the second trailer came, showing more of Luthor and revealing doomsday. I know many people argue that the doomsday reveal wasn’t a spoiler since we knew there would be another villain in the film, but that is no excuse to give away the villain early. There are some reveals that are best saved for the film itself. The doomsday CGI looked sketchy and had me wondering how good the final fight would be.

Then the third trailer came along, showing more of Batfleck, especially the warehouse fight scene. This film became highly anticipated again, below Suicide Squad but above Captain America: Civil War. I saw it one day after its release and the news of the poor reviews was prevalent by then, but since I liked Man of Steel and knew how poorly reviewed that film was I didn’t let the negative reviews bother me. Even the editor of Rotten Tomatoes, was baffled by the poor reviews Man of Steel received and pleaded that it was a good film.

 

With all that said, I simply want to say that I did not let negative reviews of this film affect my perception of it: Especially since a lot of criticism revealed around the film being “too dark”. I have explained why this is simply factually incorrect and is a product of people simply being too used to Marvel films.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRKy226tmCk

 

I explained my argument about darkness in depth in that video but I will go over it again here. 2008 saw The Dark Knight become a critical hit, with its dark and serious tone that contributed to many critics seeing it as the pinnacle of comic book filmmaking. Since then it seems like there has been a huge backlash against darkness in comic book films. With the exception of The Dark Knight Rises, most of the critically revered comic book films that followed were marvel studio properties. Marvel began to establish a dynasty; starting off small with Iron Man and cementing a solid reputation by the time The Avengers (2012) came out. Before I come across as a DC fanboy I want to say that I love both universes and the prospect of a shared universe in the Marvel films made me feel like a kid again.

 

However, as time has gone on I have also noticed a pervasive similarity among the Marvel films: A light tone, with plenty of humour. There is nothing wrong with a light tone or humour. Some Marvel films handled it well, with the best examples being the Captain America films and Guardians of the Galaxy. However, some handle it poorly, with the Thor films being the best example. Loki brings good humour to the stories but then we also get Kat Dennings’s and Natalie Portman’s contributions.
When a comedy writer was brought in to lighten the tone of Thor 3: Ragnarok, it became obvious that the insistence on humour could be a problem sometimes. Marvel studios president Kevin Fiege argued that they didn’t want the film differing too much in tone from the other marvel properties. Therein lies the problem. Ragnarok is a doomsday story; it should be darker than the other properties. The real reason it needs to stay light is so that it stays appealing to Marvel’s audience of kids and families.

 

In the comics, some character stories will have lighter issues than others. The same character may even fluctuate between darker and lighter stories. Good writers are able to handle these tonal shifts and make them feel natural. A great example was the Justice League animated series, which balanced different character personalities, villains and storylines in expert fashion. That is what Marvel studios should strive for as well, instead of trying to turn every character into a comedian who spouts one-liners every five minutes. If every Marvel or DC film had the same tone I think the properties would get stale.

 

Obviously Marvel has darker properties, like Daredevil and Jessica Jones. However, those are Netflix shows, which are cheaper than Hollywood films and target a more mature, niche audience. Marvel can take more risks with the tone since they don’t have to worry as much about scaring away families and kids. If Thor 3 gets rewrites for being too dark, there is no way Marvel would give us the same R-Rated version of The Punisher in a big screen adaptation. The Netflix shows do help to add variety to Marvel’s offerings but I wish we could see a darker property like Blade back on the big screen instead of having to either settle for a Netflix show, or a Disney-fied version of the character on the big screen.

 

Another example of the disneyfication is the character of Tony Stark in Civil War. At the very end of the trailer he calls Spider-Man “underoos” before Spider-Man swings into the mcu for the first time. I do not mean to nitpick or bash the movie for one line. The line is fine. What I want to say is, that line would seem very out of character for the version of Tony Stark we see in the Civil War comics. The comics version of Tony Stark (in these specific comics) is much more quiet and introspective. He does not spout a single one-liner throughout the story arc and might come across as “too dark” “brooding” etc. for people who get their idea of the character from Marvel’s films. That simply illustrates my point about the “Disneyfication” of characters and how audiences can get too used to seeing these versions of the characters and then compare all other adaptations to the same tone. Hence all the talk of MOS and Bvs being “too dark”. Marvel has had time to stamp itself onto the public consciousness, setting themselves up as the benchmark that all other comic book films will be compared to. Everything is relative, and if people are used to Marvel’s tone then obviously a film like Bvs will come across as too dark. That is why I did not pay attention to criticisms of the film being too dark and that is why I don’t personally agree. As soon as someone criticizes Bvs for its “dark” tone it makes it clear that they have very little knowledge of the characters and are simply brainwashed by Marvel’s films.

 

Review
The Good

 

Firstly, Batfleck was awesome. I was on the fence about his casting, but he killed the role as Bruce Wayne and Batman. The suit was the best we’ve seen on the big screen so far in terms of its aesthetics and functionality. The batman voice is created by a microphone in the cowl and is the best one we’ve heard yet.

 

This version of Bruce Wayne is an older Batman who routinely suffers from nightmares and is pessimistic about human nature and his significance in the fight against crime, which factors heavily into his conflict with Superman. The nightmare scene in the film may cause confusion for viewers who are not familiar with the character of Darkseid and the injustice comics. Although the references to these characters and storylines were a treat for me, I can see why they would be confusing for other viewers.

 

Jeremy Irons was great as Alfred, which was expected since he was the only casting decision I had no reservations about. I wish we could have seen more of his Alfred, but that is probably an indicator of his success with the role. This version of Alfred has a more hands-on role in Batman’s crusade but is also a figure that makes it clear he would rather see Wayne hang up the suit permanently.

 

Henry Cavill exceeds his performance in the first film (which was decent) with his portrayal of a Superman who is now the center of controversy and criticism from the public, the media and the government. More than ever, he questions his role in the world and his doubts have led some viewers to consider him “too moody” “too dark” etc. However, I think the character’s outlook fits the story and the events he goes through. However, I do hope that in the next installments, we start to see more of the optimism people typically associate with the character. Superman is not a lighter character than Batman because bad things never happen to him, he is lighter because of his attitude about human nature and the future.

 

Gal Gadot was a pleasant surprise as Wonder Woman and leaves me more excited for the solo film, although carrying a solo film is obviously a much bigger task. Aside from a line or two that seemed wooden, I thought Gadot had great screen presence and brought amazing strength and appeal to the character.

 

I have heard some people say that the set up for the Justice League could have used more than one film, and I can agree with that. All the news of cameos had me worried the film would be far too packed. Ultimately, the cameos were worked in well.

 

Minor Spoiler

 

The cameos are archived footage that Luthor has been collecting on metahumans. In total, the clips are less than five minutes but give us our first glimpse of some of the Justice League. I thought this was a great way to introduce the characters that took little screen time and also did not come across as too tacked on. There is some criticism that the cameos were too short, or seemed like the type of footage you would get on a dvd extra. Yet some of these same people also complain that the film tried to do too much. BvS simply can’t win sometimes.

 

The Bad

 

When Jesse Eisenberg was cast as Luthor, many hopeful fans said that he would surprise us with a great performance, just like Heath Ledger did as the joker. People forgot tat Ledger was an exception to the rule. Eisenberg proves that a questionable casting decision does not work out well. Batfleck impressed but it seems like we asked for too much with Eisenberg.

 

The version of Luthor we see here is Lex Luthor’s son, which just begs the question of why we don’t get Lex instead. The character could have been interesting. The writing implied that he did not have a good relationship with his father but is still trying to fill his father’s shoes. The writing itself was actually pretty good, in terms of dialogue at least. The issue is Eisenberg’s acting. In terms of Luthor’s behaviour and mannerisms it seems like Snyder was aiming for a character like Jake Gyllenhaal’s in Nightcrawler.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18ZDiRsbEZA

 

Instead we get a hyperactive spaz who brings a level of campiness to the movie whenever he is on screen. Since Luthor has a decent chunk of screen time and sets up the third act conflict his presence greatly contributed to the 6.5/10.

 

Speaking of the third act, the trailers showed that Doomsday would be the villain for a final fight with The Trinity (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman). This fight was also one of the weaker parts of the film for me. It had great elements, such as Wonder Woman and her contribution. However, it also had spotty CGI. Doomsday does not look any better than the footage we saw from the trailer and the CGI detracts from the tension and enjoyment of the fight. The Batman warehouse fight (partly shown in the third trailer) was far more enjoyable and memorable in my opinion.

 

Overall, the film sets up the Justice League pretty well but I do not want to give it extra points just for that. A movie ultimately needs to stand on its own. Of course, a film can hint at events to come but there also needs to be a solid foundation that makes the film enjoyable as a solo piece. BvS is not amazing, but it is also not the cinematic abomination that many people label it as.

 

Spoilers

 

The Martha Scene

 

This scene has already spawned heated criticism and memes. I just want to add a quick note on why I actually liked it and that all the criticism seems to miss the point of the scene. Batman does not spare Superman’s life because “Your mom has the same name! Besties!” Although people like to rant about how movies spoon-feed them too much, this seems like a case where people need to be spoon-fed. The scene isn’t about Superman’s mom having the same name. It is about a terrifying god-like figure (in Batman’s eyes) being reduced to a man that wants to save his mom. The common desire to protect their families is what makes Batman spare Superman’s life. If you can’t understand that scene, then I think that is your problem and not the film’s.

 

 

Batman is Not Fat- and Neither is Ben Afleck

Maybe I am still just wasting breath writing this, but I need to vent.

 

Yesterday, Empire revealed its latest issue, with Batfleck gracing the cover. To myself, and many others, the picture looks amazing. However, I soon got sucked into the idiotic online comments concerning Ben Afleck’s weight. On Empire’s Instagram most of the comments (at the time) pictured laughing emoticons and statements like “RIP DC” or “Why’s Batman fat lol”.

 

Now, I generally hate to give idiots online too much attention. However, I cannot believe that all of these comments come from online trolls. Last year’s first picture of Batman was also subjected to the same criticism by tabloids, news outlets and supposed fans of the comics. The large bat logo and the short ears were seen as a stupid change, despite the fact that those were pulled straight from Frank Miller’s batman design. I understand that everyone isn’t a comic book fan, but I have a hard time understanding why people cannot use the Internet to look up information for themselves. Ever seen someone post a question online, in a comment section or on yahoo answers, that they could easily Google themselves?

 

Making a comic book film is always a tough balance of appealing to comic book fans and the general public, and sadly it seems that a comic book film must pay more attention to the general public. Not only for financial reasons, but also because the general public will be the most likely to go into a film with an inaccurate conception of a character, and then use online outlets to spread bad word of mouth. It is a fact that people tend to get attached to whatever comes first. For many people, their first live-action, Hollywood batman was Michael Keaton. Once they saw him on screen many said that no one would ever top him. For others, they saw Christian Bale first, then many said no one would ever top him. When the next adaption of Batman graces the screen there will be people saying no one will ever top Ben Afleck.

 

Until that time, we have the people attached to Bale and Christopher Nolan’s depiction of Batman. I loved Nolan’s work as well and I loved Bale as Batman (except for the bat voice), but I have the ability to judge other takes impartially, instead of letting bias overpower reason and objectivity. I wish I didn’t have to brag about that, but it seems like it is a dying art in this day and age.

 

The depiction of Batman’s personality and struggle in Nolan’s series was exceptional (more so in the first two), but Nolan’s series had some differences and weaknesses in comparison to this version.

 

Firstly, Batman is usually depicted around 210 pounds in the comics. I realize that I posted it as 240 in my Instagram post yesterday. My mistake, one episode of DCAU’s Justice League had it listed as that but I figure it is better to go off of the wider canon of the comics. Bale was around 190 pounds throughout Nolan’s series so it looks like Afleck is actually the closest in size to a comic book version of Batman. Many comics depict Batman and Superman as being around the same size and it looks like Afleck is around the same size as Cavill in this role. Would you consider Henry Cavill fat? The costume and Afleck’s size look heavily inspired by the critically revered Arkham video games as well, which are in turn inspired by the comics. Then again, people are not looking at this objectively. They like Nolan and Bale, they want to see more of Nolan and Bale and they will hate anything else. Then there are also people who struggle to like both DC and Marvel films because they have been brainwashed to think they can only like on or the other. I’ll be doing a blog post on Saturday about that as well.

 

Some may think that Afleck’s size makes Batman too bulky, too slow, but let’s try to be objective again. Although Bale was smaller, he was stiff and slow in the suit. I understand the actor struggled with movement, but the character should not and perhaps some editing could have helped to make the fights more convincing. Afleck’s speed should not be a concern if we are mindlessly comparing everything to Nolan’s interpretation. There is a clip from the comic con trailer, at 2:40, where we see Batman gliding from one opponent to another as he delivers a beat down. From that clip, it looks like we have a faster, more agile Batman than the one we had in Nolan’s trilogy.

 

When the costume was revealed, and appeared to be similar to the Arkham games (a grey, flexible, Kevlar-like material), I was hoping that we would see a faster and more agile Batman. It looks like Snyder will deliver that. People may have a hard time believing someone as big as this Batman will also be quick and stealthy, but if we can suspend disbelief about an alien with heat vision maybe we can suspend disbelief about this too. Bruce Wayne has trained his body to peak condition for the pursuit of justice. He is not your typical gym meathead. He is muscular, powerful, agile, acrobatic and flexible.

 

We have two more months to see what Ben Afleck’s batman will offer, but I think the facts show that there is a good chance I’m right when I say that we will not have a fat batman.

The Never Ending Marvel V DC Debate

I never read comics much growing up. In fact, most of my comic book knowledge comes from online research of different characters, with some of my favourites being Batman and Spider-Man. I bought my first comic, Watchmen, just a few years ago and I have followed that one up with titles like House of M and Civil War.

My comic interests have always intersected DC and Marvel, and I am sure many other fans can say the same. Although competition is unavoidable since they are two different companies involved, I do not think that the same level of close-mindedness among fans existed prior to the comic book film renaissance we are now witnessing. Did older comic book readers only read Marvel comics, and refuse to read DC or give DC any balanced criticism? Or vice versa? Hopefully not. Either way I think online arguments, whether they are on IMDB, YouTube, Empire etc. make it clear that close-mindedness abounds when it comes to comic book film discussion.

Some disclaimers:
1) Yes I know many people see comment as the cesspool of the Internet, and may wonder why I bother paying them any attention. For me, I felt the need to write this post since I can no longer go to forums like IMDB and have reasoned arguments with posters. My YouTube videos are drowned out by videos where other people echo the same views that I detest. So the simple reason for me doing this post: I need to vent.
2) Close-mindedness is a pretty big part of the human condition, so of course it extends far beyond people’s discussions of comic books.
3) I am not a Marvel OR DC fan, I am a fan of both worlds.

There is no arguing that Marvel or Disney/Marvel has built a dynasty. It seems that slapping the Marvel logo across any property can guarantee profit and good reviews from critics and audiences alike. Not only has Marvel released more films, but the shared universe they have created is a dream come true for long time comic book fans and an exciting prospect for a newer audience who are increasingly drawn to the characters.

Aside from Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, DC has not had any critically revered films over the past ten years. Some have been panned for good reason imo, such as Green Lantern. Meanwhile. others were unfairly scathed. V for Vendetta (Vertigo) is technically a DC property, since DC purchased Vertigo comics. However, the average moviegoer probably does not know this. This brings up an important issue that I believe affects DC films far more than Marvel. Marvel’s status as the earlier franchise allows it to set a benchmark for fans who have a simple conception of certain characters. Marvel’s films generally have a reputation as more light-hearted, entertaining and fun, while DC’s are often seen as poor attempts to be “dark and gritty” or “copying Nolan”. In general I believe people have a tendency to become attached to what comes first. With the exception of The Dark Knight trilogy, most DC films were released after Iron Man.

Man of Steel, currently 58% on Rotten Tomatoes was critically divisive from what I have seen. Many people either loved it or hated it. I don’t have cited sources to examine all the reasons but the recent release of the Batman v Superman trailer has brought up more online criticism of Man of Steel. One of the biggest critiques from this past month and 2013, was that Man of Steel changed the character of Superman too much: Made him too brooding, too dark etc.

Since Marvel studios don’t own the X-Men or Spiderman until earlier this year, Marvel’s stable of characters weren’t as iconic as DC’s. Obviously the characters are firmly entrenched now, but I don’t think Iron Man or Captain America were AS popular to the general audience in 2008, as Batman or Superman were. Marvel has done a great job with their characters and their stable also gave them an advantage.

They did not have to worry as much about a misinformed general audience thinking that they ruined the characters. This advantage is especially clear when it comes to Man of Steel. Contrary to popular belief, Man of Steel did not actually change the character of Superman that much. A lot of the things people hated or thought were rip-offs of Batman Begins e.g. the depiction of his dad and his dad’s death, Clark travelling across the world, were elements borrowed from newer comics. Birthright and the New 52 comics were the biggest influences. In terms of

SPOILER ALERT FOR MAN OF STEEL

…..Superman killing Zod, writer David Goyer also explained that. In the comics, Superman does not kill because it is an arbitrary decision by the writers. In the world of Man of Steel, he had no choice and was forced to kill the last member of his race. After doing that, he will never want to do it again and this can also set up Batman’s mistrust of him in Batman v Superman. Some people say Superman should have dragged Zod to the moon, but this Superman cannot breathe in space. Superman’s powers fluctuate writer to writer in the comics, and his ability to breathe in space is one of the ones that changes often. Others say Superman should have dragged Zod somewhere else in the city and keep fighting. Yet some of these people are the same ones that complain about the fighting causing too much damage in the city.

However, much of the general audience is not bothered to look up facts like this. You may think it is not their responsibility to. However, these same people have the time to write reviews or do video reviews of Man of Steel and spread bad word of mouth.

While Marvel can get a pass on terrible love stories (Thor), forgettable villains (Malekith from Thor, Ronan from GOTG), I believe that some fans tear DC properties apart either because they have decided they will only support Marvel, or because they have a narrow view of how the character should be portrayed. I have had conversations with people who disliked Man of Steel because, and I quote, “His brow was too furrowed” in some scenes. This person specifically referenced the scene where Superman flies for the first time: The same scene where Superman is smiling and laughing as he sails through the air. Basically this person thought Superman should never be allowed to look serious, he should be grinning from ear to ear the entire movie. This is just one example of the relentless nitpicking bestowed on Man of Steel.

Another example:

Two super powered beings fight in a city and the city gets trashed (like many comics and tv shows) = worst movie ever and worst depiction of Superman ever. Even though the same thing happened to some extent in Superman II, with Christopher Reeves. This also happened in The Avengers, but very few people say The Avengers were portrayed horribly.

Marvel’s humour has also won it many fans, even if that humour consists of Kat Dennings making terrible quips for two hours (Yeah I really don’t like the Thor movies that much, Loki’s a highlight). I remember when the Man of Steel trailers were released and everyone thought they were “too dark”. I do not believe they were. The trailers were dramatic, serious, but not dark. They had the same tone as the trailers for The Winter Soldier, Thor: The Dark World, and Avengers: Age of Ultron. However, Man of Steel was quick to be interpreted as an attempt to make Superman “dark and gritty”. It now seems that any DC trailer with a hint of seriousness will be interpreted as “joyless” or “too dark”.

As Marvel continues to strengthen its brand, we will have to see how DC progresses from this point onward. While I am excited at a shared DC universe, I do worry that they are rushing it. Aside from Batman and Superman, the next film features three other superheroes and some questionable casting: Gal Gadot looks horrible as Wonder Woman. My heart tells me yes, my brain tells me no. If the film is panned or met with polarizing reactions like Man of Steel was I hope it is not because people resort to the same tired arguments I have already discussed.

My Reaction to Man of Steel Criticisms

After seeing Man of Steel again during the holidays it confirmed my belief that the film is truly great and gets a lot more hate than it deserves. No film is perfect and I will address some weaknesses of the film in this post, but seeing Man of Steel on numerous “Worst of 2013” lists is downright cruel in my opinion. I wrote this blog post to counter some of the most common arguments being levied against Man of Steel and simply get some thoughts off my chest. Since I will be discussing criticisms of this film is some detail, there will be spoilers.

Firstly, I feel that the performances in the film are great. After seeing “Immortals” I was worried about Henry Cavill’s casting but his performance was a pleasant surprise and I look forward to seeing him in more Superman films. As is the case with any superhero film everyone compares Cavill to the actors that came before him, and judge his performance only in relation to theirs e.g Christopher Reeves was better, this guy sucks. People seem to have an inability to like more than one actor when they play the same role. Reeves has been associated with superman for three decades at this point, it is unfair to say Cavill doesn’t embody Superman the same way simply because he is a newer actor in the role. For those who didn’t like Cavill’s performance on its own merit, fair enough, but I can not stand those who insult the performance simply because he is not Christopher Reeves.

Michael Shannon was a weak link in terms of his performance. I found his performance inconsistent, ranging from hammy to great from scene to scene. I will agree with anyone who says that.

I was on youtube looking up Man of Steel videos and came across a video where the uploader described all his gripes with the movie. I stopped watching after three minutes. I did not stop watching because I don’t like hearing opinions that differ from my own, but because the uploader sounded like a complete idiot imo with his criticisms. One of his biggest gripes were the fight scenes, partly because of how they were directed, e.g shaky cam. I can agree with that, although I didn’t notice or mind it that much. The uploader also hated the fight scenes as a whole, simply because of the collateral damage and the fact that Zod and Superman fought without getting damaged. When you have two super-powered beings fighting each other, both of whom are invulnerable to most physical injuries, the environment will get damaged when they fight. I am used to fights like the final one in MOS, due to reading comics and watching shows such as Justice League. The people complaining about the damage and the fact that the Zod and Superman fight each other without sustaining visible damage to themselves probably aren’t the big fans of the comics or characters they make themselves out to be.

This brings me to another criticism of Man of Steel which is factually incorrect. Many people complain that the movie has too much brooding, “is too emo” or takes too many cues from The Dark Knight and ruins the character of Superman in favour of copying Nolan’s “dark and gritty” formula. Many people have a misconception that Superman’s entire comic lore is sunshine and rainbows, no moments of sadness, grief or doubt. Moments that are detested by some, such as Superman’s dad not wanting him to reveal himself, Superman’s suit being Kryptonian armour, Superman’s dad dying, are all taken from the comics. In particular, Superman: Birthright (2003,2004) and the New 52 Superman comics were a major influence on Zack Snyder’s version of the character. However, Pa Kent’s death was handled better in the comics. As opposed to a hurricane, he simply died of a heart attack. I believed a heart attack would have made a more powerful death scene since it would demonstrate that despite all of Clark’s power, he can’t save everyone. The film wanted to focus on the theme of the world possibly being afraid of Superman, so the writers created a scenario where Pa Kent prevents Clark from saving him. I believe this death scene would have been more powerful if Pa Kent had gone back to the road to save another human, as opposed to a dog.

Of course, one of the most shocking moments in the film is Superman killing Zod. With this movie, many regarded the move as yet another cheap attempt to make Superman “dark and gritty”. When I originally saw the film I realized what a tough situation Clark was in. By this point his fight with Zod had levelled numerous buildings and Zod made it clear he had no intention of quitting. To add to that, Zod would have killed more innocent civilians if Clark didn’t act. Some people say that Clark should have simply taken Zod to the moon, but writer David Goyer has confirmed that this version of Superman can not breathe in space. Although some powers remain the same in different comic book story lines, other powers can differ from author to author. Superman’s ability to breathe in space is one of these, while some writers allow him to breathe in space many indicate that he can only hold his breath for a long time while in space and require him to wear a breathing mask for long durations in space. Taking Zod to the moon for a fight was not an option for this Superman.

Zod’s death also makes more sense when explained by David Goyer. In the comics, Superman doesn’t kill simply because it was an arbitrary decision by writers. The writers decided their boy scout hero should not kill, and tried to mould his personality to fit his actions. Goyer explains that killing Zod serves as a tangible reason why Superman will refuse to kill his enemies going forward. He has done it once, when he had no other choice, and will refuse to do it again.

I understand that Man of Steel is not perfect: there are some areas where the pacing could have been improved, Shannon’s performance could have been improved etc. However, I believe it is one of the best superhero films of 2013 and of all time. I know many will disagree and I have no problem with that, I simply ask that detractors try to take into account the factual arguments I have put forth when criticizing the film.