So, Man of Steel was an interesting movie. Impressions follow.
The product placement was really conspicuous. Just want to get that out there. I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing, as it uses the same techniques to make the audience aware of the Lexcorp logo as it does for Sears, IHOP, Uhaul, etc.
[spoiler]This was very much an action movie. I can tell that it draws heavy inspiration from the Fleischer animated shorts of the 1940s. In those, Superman was powerful but not omnipotent, and the emphasis was very much on the feats of strength he used to overcome the villain. This is okay, I think.
I don't want to spend too many words on how the facet of Superman Snyder chose to emphasize is not the one I consider most powerful, but I will mention it a bit. It's very significant that Clark personally saves more people out of costume than in it, but I'm not sure what that signifies. Granted, blowing up the world engine as Kal-El saves billions, but as a certain other Man of Steel said, one death is a tragedy while a million is a statistic.
Superman's humanity is present but it's not in focus; the iconic image is not Superman catching someone who's falling, but Superman tackling a bad guy who's about to blow someone up. Snyder evidently decided to make a movie about Superman-As-Protector rather than Superman-As-Savior. And that's a valid interpretation. It's hard to reconcile all the collateral damage - especially all the 9/11 imagery in Metropolis - with Superman-As-Savior, but Superman-As-Protector is necessarily more fallible and vulnerable, emotionally and physically.
Here, Superman-As-Protector has to choose between saving people who are in danger now and containing an escalating threat, and he doesn't hesitate to choose the latter. Zack Snyder was clearly aware of the choice there, and he made it boldly: while skyscrapers were falling, missiles were landing, cars were crashing, and people were panicking and dying in Metropolis, Superman was on the exact opposite side of the world, as far away as possible from the scary thing, breaking a machine on an uninhabited island.
I think a lot of people aren't going to like that interpretation of the character. How to reconcile the assertion that Superman inspires people, that Superman means hope, with the decision to make him save the world where nobody could see him do it? There are two answers: it could represent choosing real hope (that earth's atmosphere wouldn't be made toxic) over false hope (that a flying man in primary-colored space jammies will make everything better); or it might just mean that he wasn't really Superman yet.
He hides how much all that death hurt him until the very end. (Maybe the movie would have been been more emotionally resonant if we had seen Superman giving a shit about all the innocent bystanders who got crushed under rubble.) But that cry of anguish, once he had won - that is what connects Clark to the world. Previously, notwithstanding all his innate goodness and empathy, he'd been quite alienated from Earth - only when he had to kill the last Kryptonian did he choose to trust Earth, and reveal his true feelings. Only then does he take an active interest in being Earth's protector, immerse himself in its problems. Clark Kent can't stand by and watch people die, but it takes the strength of Superman to go out and look for them.
And then there's that climax. Some people don't like that Superman kills. Here's what I think. Superman chose to be Clark Kent, a person of earth. He doesn't want to kill anybody, and that's an ideal to strive toward. He stumbles, he falls, but, in time....[/spoiler]
There's an interesting parallel between [spoiler]General Zod and General Swanwick[/spoiler] but I'm not sure just how deep it runs. It's clearly related to the core theme of [spoiler]choosing Earth over Krypton[/spoiler], which is a necessary component of any substantial Superman origin, but far from the most interesting thing about the character. I expect that, like the last Nolan superhero, more interesting stories can be told now that the character is already established.
I think I have a negative (or at least ambivalent) take on it as well. I'm gonna resurrect the author so I can chew him out a bit.
[spoiler]Superman is a pretty multifaceted character and it's hard to pick just a few to center an entire movie around. This one chose to focus on the "Last Son of Krypton" element, the part where he chooses between the two worlds that he's important to.
But there's another element that I, personally, think is even more important, which was specifically not developed in this movie, and that's that Superman is inspiring. Certainly Henry Cavill flying around with a cape is majestic as all get out, and the "S" stands for "hope," but Superman didn't do a whole lot of inspiration in this movie. In fact, it goes so far as to have him save the world in a place where nobody can see him do it at the exact moment that the villains are sowing death and despair (importantly: echoing 9/11) at the point on earth he's farthest from.
Similarly, it had Jor-El telling his son that he'd be an inspiration to the human race, and failed to show him inspiring anybody. Not a single person followed Superman's example in this movie; nobody became a braver, kinder, or otherwise better person as a result of his actions. (The closest it came was those soldiers deciding he's not their enemy.)
This was a well-made movie, and those scenes are not a failed case of "show, don't tell." We were told that Superman means hope, and then shown exactly why Superman couldn't bring any hope on the day of his big debut. A script was written in which the task which was a job for Superman was the one that didn't involve anybody seeing him and knowing it was going to be all right. I said before that that's a bold decision - and I also think it was the wrong one.
If you're gonna spend fuckty-million dollars making a Superman movie for the modern age, I don't think it should specifically exclude Superman's most important quality!
Well, maybe I'm being unfair. This is an origin story: he's not really Superman yet until the end, when he goes to the Daily Planet to be ready for trouble wherever it happens. Maybe if they had pushed the "inspiration" angle too hard it would have turned into the sort of stultifying hagiography that Superman Returns sometimes was.[/spoiler]
Still a good movie, but the Superman fan in me notes that it may be sending the wrong message. The inevitability of a sequel may render this complaint moot.
As for Mark Waid's take: he's not wrong, but I get a strong feeling like [spoiler]being forced to kill Zod is going to be the reason why he will never kill again[/spoiler] in the future. Maybe that's what they were going for.
