New Superman Movie

[spydermann93]

Spoiler

What can I say? People really love those grim and gritty versions of heroes.

To me, it just does not work so well with DC's paragons.  The Batman movies, I could kind of see the general level o grittiness in the films due to Batman's character and the very attitude that Gotham is, but Man of Steel? No.

While I do appreciate them trying to delve into the character of Superman, many of the very same points about Clark's family's history was far too unbelievable (even more so that Superman's limits).  Sad fact is that this isn't the Superman of the comics; far from it.  Just like I do not see Batman as the Batman I know and love, I don't see this as Superman.  Rather, these characters are a universe of their own, so I try and open my mind and heart to them.

The whole Superman killing Zod and not saving his father bugs me just as much as Batman taking leave in between the Dark Knight and the Dark Knight rises.  Batman would never leave his role willingly, just as Superman wouldn't ever kill anybody, no matter how evil they seem to be (save for Doomsday, but that's a whole other story), let alone somebody die in something that he could have easily stopped.  I argue with myself that it was out of respect of his father's wishes, but Clark could have easily rescued the family dog himself rather than allowing his father to do so.

Overall, though, I thought it was a pretty good movie.  Not the best movie, but definitely not bad.

[BentonGrey]

Thanks Benton.  I figured you'd see some of the same problems I did.

However, I will say this:

Spoiler

Clark not saving his dad, I think, was essential to his persona.  He was so dead set on keeping his identity secret and being so unSuperman he'd even let his own father die to protect his identity.

So why were they so cavalier with the secret identity through the movie?

That's true, Shogunn, it just also happens to be stupid.

Spoiler

On my primary criticism, Superman as killer is tantamount to Batman pulling out a gun and just mowing people down.

[Shogunn2517]

He pretty much did that purposely throwing Two-Face off of a five story building... #damnyounolan

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

It sounds like they are trying to make Superman, the epitome of a Cape into more of a Cowl.

To explain TV Tropes categorizes superheroes into Capes and Cowls.  Capes are the paragons of the virtue, the shining examples who others look up to.  The Cowls, while not any less good, as the terror of the underworld, stalking evil and punishing wrongdoers.

Capes inspire the people.  Cowls terrorize criminals.  Capes do what is right.  Cowls do what they have to do.

Batman's a Cowl.  Grim and gritty works well for him.  Superman's a cape.  He should never be forced into those types of decisions because Capes always find another way.  Cowls can get forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, but Capes should always be able to find a third option.

[Shogunn2517]

See here's the thing that's bothering me the most about Nolan(or Goyer or whoever the eff is responsible for these movies) and their vision.  He's changing the essential being of what makes these characters who they are.  Spydermann touched on it for Batman.  His world, a world that creates a Batman is pitify, chaotic, evil and grim.  That's how he sees humanity.  He knows he can't fix the world just him by himself.  The world is what it is.  He can't quite.  He doesn't retire.  He can't be bargained with.  He can't be reasoned with.  He does not feel pity, remorse or fear...(sorry, wrong character).  But Batman would not stop.  He would if the world was perfect, but it ain't.

As far as Man of Steel goes, I actually wrote this on another site and thought it was pretty good and reason why Superman works and has worked and what the Man of Steel did wrong:

Spoiler

That's the dynamic of Superman.  Lois isn't the only one, but with her it makes the most sense.  Superman was originally written and still tells the story of literal divine being who can do the impossible.  Every issue, every episode, every story written is a what if of this super being living among the rest of humanity.  A suspension of disbelief is not only assumed but REQUIRED.  There' s no such thing as a "real world" Superman.  It's effin SUPERMAN.

The idea of a man having all of these extraordinary abilities, NO ONE would think that he WANTS to be ordinary.  Everyone assumes, if you're Superman, who can do all of these wonderful things, you're Superman 24/7.  It's like Lebron James all of sudden not wanting to get paid for being the best basketball player in the world but electing to play polo.  Why would you even waste your time doing anything else?  The idea of Clark being the real identity is a flip on the who "Godly" image.  God was never meant to be ordinary.  All God knows is to be extraordinary.  Clark is different.  Clark wants to be ordinary.  He grew up ordinary.  What's worse because of his desire to be ordinary and to deflect attention from his extraordinary self, he goes out his way to be even less than ordinary.  Not fighting back, being a pushover, slouching, falling over himself, being a dork, letting his dad die in front of his eyes.  That's who Clark is.

Again, with Lois, it's intensified.  She's infatuated with the extraordinary being.  So completely she blinds her self from noticing the less than ordinary.  People are looking at 70 years of the Lois/Superman/Clark dynamic and her not knowing and Man of Steel where she figures it out like a Tim Tebow passing game.  What they are missing is the idea that a super powered alien is on the earth.  The story when he was first found is "A Super Powered Alien is On The Earth", not a who he is.  If aliens were found on Earth tomorrow, no paper on the planet would be wondering "well what do they do on their spare time?  What's their favorite color? Who do they like in the NBA Finals?"  But more than that, after aliens have invaded the planet, and he can do all of these wonderful things day in day out, the story is on all of the stuff he can do.  On Superman, the story with Lois Lane is how extraordinary he is, not who he is.  On Clark, Lois doesn't even notice long enough to care that the extraordinary being is just wearing glasses.  I, again, vividly point to a scene in the Animated Series where Superman is off doing something extraordinary and Clark is noticeably missing and what is Lois' thoughts on Clark's whereabouts?  "He's probably out husking corn!"  That's what she knows about Clark.  That's what she sees from Clark.  He's so unSuperman why bother asking?  Especially when you've assumed Superman is always Superman.

It's the suspension of disbelief that is ESSENTIAL to a Superman story.  Not just a disbelief that aliens have been living among us or that they can do all of these extraordinary feats.  But also a disbelief that a pair of glasses can fool everyone.  We all know it's bullchips.  But so is a flying strong man.

Who are we kidding?

[Tomato]

Spoiler

-Amy Adams is and was a terrible, terrible choice for Lois Lane.  I'm sensing a trend for female leads in Nolan-related movies. *looks at Anne Hathaway*

Benton... No. Just... no. I will grant you a lot when it comes to hating on dark knight rises (it's by far my least favorite of the three) but Anne Hathaway did a damn good job with that role. The films interpretation of Catwoman as a thief and con-artist praying on the social elite is the closest to her origins as any adaptation has ever come (even closer then some comics *glares at Batman Year One*) and Hathaway's performance sold the character as something more complex then a walking sex-magnet with no other purpose then for single fan boys to get their rocks off. Her performance was just about the only thing that made the movie watchable for me on multiple viewings.

I'm sorry, but this is probably the only live action Catwoman for whom boobs took a back seat to development and strength, and for you of all people to be dismissing it offhand truly saddens me. I expected better.

[Shogunn2517]

Funny, Anne Hathaway made TDKR much more unwatchable for me...

Probably because she's a near dead ringer for my ex that went all Hank Aaron on my beating heart... 

[BWPS]

I wrote a review of Benton's review.

Spoiler

-Superman a killer, it's not like that violates the very core of the character or anything, but no, we have to show how hardcore he is!  To say I'm disgusted with Nolan and Snyder is a gross understatement.  I have a hard time putting into words how sad and angry this made me.
He did the right thing, he clearly wasn't happy about it but what's he going to do, let him laser those kids?

-What the heck was Clark doing before he discovered the spaceship?  Was he looking for it?  Great luck that he just HAPPENS to be in the bar with the Airforce guys talking about their secret discovery, isn't it?
He was saving people, they even showed him doing it a few times. They didn't show all the days in the bar where he didn't overhear that conversation.

-This was spectacle on a huge level, and it looked pretty fantastic.  The action was amazing and visually impressive...what we could see of it.  Hollywood: Shakey-cam has had its day.  There are other ways to shoot movies.  I'm really sick of seeing that SOMETHING is sprawled across the screen, but not being able to tell what the heck it is.  Also, there is NO FREAKING REASON to shake the camera when it is pointed at non-moving characters in a static conversation.
That's used to imply someone is watching the conversation, in this case Zod and his posse. That zoom cam thing was pretty new!

-We get very little idea of who Superman actually is or how he becomes a paragon of virtue.  If they had let Pa Kent spend a little less time on his paranoid rants about "don't let them find you!" and a bit more time on character and morality, we might have actually had a story arc here.
We know who Superman is, and people are sick of redoing origin stories.

-Zod was impressive, though he had a weird slur in his speech.  I would have liked to get more of who he was, instead of his little soliloquy at the end, it might have been nice to have some of that motivation early on to explain his zealotry and drive.
Some people talk different. Even Kryptonians.

-The dialog for this movie was apparently punched up by a 7th grader who was flunking creative writing.  My friends and I definitely cringed several times at how corny or ridiculous some of it was.
I thought it was hot.

-Amy Adams is and was a terrible, terrible choice for Lois Lane.  I'm sensing a trend for female leads in Nolan-related movies. *looks at Anne Hathaway*
I hate Amy Adams everywhere else and agree she was a bad choice, but I thought she did quite well. Streets ahead of Kate Bosworth, Adams was closer to TAS Lois in her brassiness and refusal to back down.


-On a related note, the Clark/Lois romance is as foundationless, inexplicable, and instant, if not more so, than the one my wife hated so much from Thor.  They didn't even TRY to build any kind of relationship between the two.  They just put them both in the frame and hoped people would forget about the story they were telling and just remember that they were Lois and Clark.
I fell in love with him in the first half hour and he didn't even save my life. The media illuminati conglomerate is pushing this idea that the world has gone to hell and will end any day (it's actually the best it's ever been and getting better) and will probably end soon so they can sell simple concepts a popular one of which is falling in love quickly without it being serious (which is probably a better message to send kids but I think it's just a marketing gimmick). It's easiest to see in recent pop music lyrics, compare any Savage Garden lyrics to any Kesha lyrics for example, and the same goes for most other pop songs of the respective eras.

-Folks are right, Crowe does a really nice job as Jor-el.  Too bad when he had complete control over the ship he didn't just crash it into the Moon or something.  A line of dialog explaining why he didn't/couldn't would have been nice.
Hey if it'd been your "ghost in the machine", this would've been a way shorter movie.

-Why does Hollywood hate secret identities?  Lois tracking Superman, okay.  Lois IMMEDIATELY figuring out his identity?  Come on.
I knew he was Superman as soon as I saw him. Even with the glasses.

-Cavill looks the part as Superman.  Too bad he forgot part of his costume.
-A corollary, Supermen needs his freaking trunks!  He looks great on screen, but it just doesn't look right.  For that matter, I wish they hadn't felt the need to make all the colors so dark as well, but that's a minor quibble, I suppose.
The suit fit the movie, I liked it.

-Ohh, as many of y'all have noted, the scale of the destruction was really rather horrifying, especially when taken in the context of its complete lack of comment within the film.
Definitely agree here. It was like 50 9/11s. Hard to shrug off even though it looked cool.

-Ohh!  And Clark just letting his father die, it lost me there.  That was asinine.  It was incredibly stupid.  There was no pathos for me, because I was just horrified that, whatever his father would say, Clark would just sit there and watch him die.  Save his life, then deal with the consequences.
I was mad at the father. He was not a good character at all.

[Talavar]

Spoiler

-Amy Adams is and was a terrible, terrible choice for Lois Lane.  I'm sensing a trend for female leads in Nolan-related movies. *looks at Anne Hathaway*

Benton... No. Just... no. I will grant you a lot when it comes to hating on dark knight rises (it's by far my least favorite of the three) but Anne Hathaway did a damn good job with that role. The films interpretation of Catwoman as a thief and con-artist praying on the social elite is the closest to her origins as any adaptation has ever come (even closer then some comics *glares at Batman Year One*) and Hathaway's performance sold the character as something more complex then a walking sex-magnet with no other purpose then for single fan boys to get their rocks off. Her performance was just about the only thing that made the movie watchable for me on multiple viewings.

I'm sorry, but this is probably the only live action Catwoman for whom boobs took a back seat to development and strength, and for you of all people to be dismissing it offhand truly saddens me. I expected better.

Agreed Tomato - I think Anne Hathaway was probably the best part of the Dark Knight Rises, and that Amy Adams was great as Lois.  But they didn't dye her hair black, so I guess that ruins it...

Funny, Anne Hathaway made TDKR much more unwatchable for me...

Probably because she's a near dead ringer for my ex that went all Hank Aaron on my beating heart... 

Which is still no reason to criticize the actress or the performance.  "Looks like" =/= "is like."

[BentonGrey]

Agreed Tomato - I think Anne Hathaway was probably the best part of the Dark Knight Rises, and that Amy Adams was great as Lois.  But they didn't dye her hair black, so I guess that ruins it...

Nope, but her being Amy Adams rather did.

I like Amy Adams.  She's a delightful actress, and by all accounts rather a nice person, but as the ideal girl next store-type, she's really not right for the fierce, independent, and utterly fearless Lois Lane.  She did a fair job with what she had (horrible dialog didn't help matters), but she was jarring to me more often than not.  She just didn't fit.

'Mato, I think you're making some rather unflattering assumptions about my reasoning there, my friend.  She really didn't look the part, but I could have gotten past that if I had bought her performance.  To be fair, I think the largest problem with her Catwoman is the fact that the character made no freaking sense, but either way, the end result was nothing admirable or remarkable for me.

Shogunn, you've got some good points.  I'll respond to them in a bit.

Cowls can get forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, but Capes should always be able to find a third option.

Precisely, Cat, precisely.

I wrote a review of BWPS' review of my review.  Say that ten times fast!

I wrote a review of Benton's review.

Spoiler

-Superman a killer, it's not like that violates the very core of the character or anything, but no, we have to show how hardcore he is!  To say I'm disgusted with Nolan and Snyder is a gross understatement.  I have a hard time putting into words how sad and angry this made me.
He did the right thing, he clearly wasn't happy about it but what's he going to do, let him laser those kids?
That's precisely the point, BWPS.  It isn't a matter of the act not being justified in the film itself, it's a matter of Superman never being so limited that he couldn't find another way.  He NEVER kills, and he always finds another way, as Cat said.  That's absolutely integral to who he is, and the fact that he's more than a bruiser, he's the Man of Tomorrow!  Taking a life is absolutely anathema to who Superman is, at the utter core of the character.  He represents idealism and human potential.

-What the heck was Clark doing before he discovered the spaceship?  Was he looking for it?  Great luck that he just HAPPENS to be in the bar with the Airforce guys talking about their secret discovery, isn't it?
He was saving people, they even showed him doing it a few times. They didn't show all the days in the bar where he didn't overhear that conversation.
No, he was working in bars and on fishing boats, and he occasionally saved people.  Did anyone else not feel like he was wasting his freaking time?  The comics that have Clark traveling the world as a crusading reporter make a certain amount of sense.  This guy didn't feel like a nascent Superman.  As a matter of fact, it felt more like a young Aquaman.  By the way, did anyone else think of Aquaman during the oil rig rescue?   As for the convenience factor, that doesn't account for the fact that those guys just happened to stumble into that bar.  The entire plot of the movie was predicated on a ridiculous coincidence.

-This was spectacle on a huge level, and it looked pretty fantastic.  The action was amazing and visually impressive...what we could see of it.  Hollywood: Shakey-cam has had its day.  There are other ways to shoot movies.  I'm really sick of seeing that SOMETHING is sprawled across the screen, but not being able to tell what the heck it is.  Also, there is NO FREAKING REASON to shake the camera when it is pointed at non-moving characters in a static conversation.
That's used to imply someone is watching the conversation, in this case Zod and his posse. That zoom cam thing was pretty new!
I don't' think that follows at all.  I think that you're reaching there, quite a bit.  It was just hacky filmmaking.  There is no indication that Zod is monitoring Earth, though that would explain the plot hole of his asking for Lois  HOW THE HECK DID HE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT LOIS?

-We get very little idea of who Superman actually is or how he becomes a paragon of virtue.  If they had let Pa Kent spend a little less time on his paranoid rants about "don't let them find you!" and a bit more time on character and morality, we might have actually had a story arc here.
We know who Superman is, and people are sick of redoing origin stories.
And yet they did precisely that, and failed to accomplish the full purpose of an origin.  The movie makes efforts to talk about Clark's morality, without really doing much to show us that he has a particularly strong or well-developed moral compass.  To be fair, we see him risking himself to save soldiers, but I wanted to see something of this in his origins.

-Zod was impressive, though he had a weird slur in his speech.  I would have liked to get more of who he was, instead of his little soliloquy at the end, it might have been nice to have some of that motivation early on to explain his zealotry and drive.
Some people talk different. Even Kryptonians.
True, but I found it slightly distracting, which was a shame, because, other than that, I really liked this Zod.

-The dialog for this movie was apparently punched up by a 7th grader who was flunking creative writing.  My friends and I definitely cringed several times at how corny or ridiculous some of it was.
I thought it was hot.
Well, there you go.

-Amy Adams is and was a terrible, terrible choice for Lois Lane.  I'm sensing a trend for female leads in Nolan-related movies. *looks at Anne Hathaway*
I hate Amy Adams everywhere else and agree she was a bad choice, but I thought she did quite well. Streets ahead of Kate Bosworth, Adams was closer to TAS Lois in her brassiness and refusal to back down.
Well, in comparison to Bosworth, I'll give you that.


-On a related note, the Clark/Lois romance is as foundationless, inexplicable, and instant, if not more so, than the one my wife hated so much from Thor.  They didn't even TRY to build any kind of relationship between the two.  They just put them both in the frame and hoped people would forget about the story they were telling and just remember that they were Lois and Clark.
I fell in love with him in the first half hour and he didn't even save my life. The media illuminati conglomerate is pushing this idea that the world has gone to hell and will end any day (it's actually the best it's ever been and getting better) and will probably end soon so they can sell simple concepts a popular one of which is falling in love quickly without it being serious (which is probably a better message to send kids but I think it's just a marketing gimmick). It's easiest to see in recent pop music lyrics, compare any Savage Garden lyrics to any Kesha lyrics for example, and the same goes for most other pop songs of the respective eras.
I'll take your word for the pop lyrics.  I'd rather drive railroad spikes into my ears....urg....ha, anyway, I can see her being infatuated with him as she traced the story of the nameless good Samaritan. (and if they were going to do that, they should have done a better job of it), but there's no particular reasons for Supes to feel anything for her.  There is just no real romantic arc for them.  They are simply automatically in love, because, hey, they're supposed to be, don't question it!

-Folks are right, Crowe does a really nice job as Jor-el.  Too bad when he had complete control over the ship he didn't just crash it into the Moon or something.  A line of dialog explaining why he didn't/couldn't would have been nice.
Hey if it'd been your "ghost in the machine", this would've been a way shorter movie.
I hate this excuse.  It is not a reason to pardon bad writing and plot holes.  If you fall back on this, the movie has failed in its job.

-Why does Hollywood hate secret identities?  Lois tracking Superman, okay.  Lois IMMEDIATELY figuring out his identity?  Come on.
I knew he was Superman as soon as I saw him. Even with the glasses.
Really?  Well, that makes everything okay, then.

-Cavill looks the part as Superman.  Too bad he forgot part of his costume.
-A corollary, Supermen needs his freaking trunks!  He looks great on screen, but it just doesn't look right.  For that matter, I wish they hadn't felt the need to make all the colors so dark as well, but that's a minor quibble, I suppose.
The suit fit the movie, I liked it.
He still didn't look quite right.

-Ohh, as many of y'all have noted, the scale of the destruction was really rather horrifying, especially when taken in the context of its complete lack of comment within the film.
Definitely agree here. It was like 50 9/11s. Hard to shrug off even though it looked cool.
Yeah, the gravity drive throwing people up into the air and the film all but showing hundreds dying horribly...not really very superheroic in tone, methinks.

-Ohh!  And Clark just letting his father die, it lost me there.  That was asinine.  It was incredibly stupid.  There was no pathos for me, because I was just horrified that, whatever his father would say, Clark would just sit there and watch him die.  Save his life, then deal with the consequences.
I was mad at the father. He was not a good character at all.
As someone on Major Spoilers said, they turned Pa Kent, the man of quiet and powerful character into a weak man ruled by fear.  When he told Clark that he should have let the bus full of children die, they lost me and my friends.  We all found that pretty reprehensible.

[Tomato]

Benton, I'm sorry, I understand that your dismissal is just you being dismissive of TDKR in general. But my problem is that fans dismiss Hathaway's Catwoman because she wasn't just a pair of walking boobs, and that is a very, VERY sore subject for me. She was just about as awesome as Black Widow in Avengers, and I find it annoying and downright sexist that people somehow prefer Pfeiffer's Catwoman (who existed as little more then fetish bait). As I said, I'm not a fan of TDKR, but I commend them for at least making their version of Catwoman kick arse rather than just show it off.

[Shogunn2517]

Funny, Anne Hathaway made TDKR much more unwatchable for me...

Probably because she's a near dead ringer for my ex that went all Hank Aaron on my beating heart... 

Which is still no reason to criticize the actress or the performance.  "Looks like" =/= "is like."

Beside the fact that I didn't criticize her or her performance....

Are you really taking that comment THAT seriously?

[steamteck]

Spoiler

- Zod didn't actually bother me. Kal  obviously was devastated by what he hade to do. He felt he had to choose between the innocent family and Zod and he made the hard but right choice. Maybe veteran Superman could have figured something out but Superman for barely two day couldn't. This could even lead to his famous code vs killing. I feel a reverence for lif ris essential but I also feel he isn't forever tainted by his decision. It struck me more like Tony Stark having to face he couldn't always "cut the wire".



Amy Adams Lois is the first film Lois I actually understood why there was a connection between them and it seemed right. She actually figured him out and believed in him. With Margo Kidder we had a not especially hot co worker who wasn't even good at her job with obnoxious personality disorder. Kate Bosworth was just forgettable or like prettier Margo lite depending.

Adams Lois really worked for me and was also the first Lois pretty much ever my wife actually liked. She could never understand why Superman would be attracted to Lois at all before this.

I don't get the dialogue complaints.  maybe I'm dense but I don't even know what dialogue was the problem.

[steamteck]

Sorry Benton, We're usually the soul mates but I pretty much agree with BWPS here except I even liked Amy Adams ( see above).

I also see no reason a Superman  cannot exist  just fine in the environment mentioned. A relatively plausible SF world still has room for a Superman. Then again I always preferred a Superman like TAS who didn't have all the solutions.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Superman plausible?  Eh no.  There's no way that a character in any way similar to Superman and anywhere close to his league in power level could ever be considered plausable.  These super duper characters exist and are taken seriously solely because of the Rule of Cool and for no other reason.

[steamteck]

Superman plausible?  Eh no.  There's no way that a character in any way similar to Superman and anywhere close to his league in power level could ever be considered plausable.  These super duper characters exist and are taken seriously solely because of the Rule of Cool and for no other reason.

Maybe I didn't express myself correctly. I'm talking science fiction 101 make the rest of the world make sense following the fantastic elements you've established it will be far more believable. It the reason prefer  the Flash who moves around the speed of sound and has to eat tons but actually has the reflexes he would need to pull it off as opposed to the speed force which just hand waves everything away.

[oldmanwinters]

I gotta say, you folks are offering up some really great insights into the character and the movie.

I think catwhowalksbyhimself has forever given me some special new insights with these observations:

It sounds like they are trying to make Superman, the epitome of a Cape into more of a Cowl.

Capes inspire the people.  Cowls terrorize criminals.  Capes do what is right.  Cowls do what they have to do.

Batman's a Cowl.  Grim and gritty works well for him.  Superman's a cape.  He should never be forced into those types of decisions because Capes always find another way.  Cowls can get forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, but Capes should always be able to find a third option.

Superman is the best there is at finding that unexpected "third option."  Thanks for putting it so eloquently!

EDIT: I finally bought and read Kingdom Come for the first time last week.  In that story, Superman had reached the end of his wisdom and had to allow Captain Marvel to make the elusive "third choice."  The wisdom of Solomon, indeed!

[Talavar]

I gotta say, you folks are offering up some really great insights into the character and the movie.

I think catwhowalksbyhimself has forever given me some special new insights with these observations:

It sounds like they are trying to make Superman, the epitome of a Cape into more of a Cowl.

Capes inspire the people.  Cowls terrorize criminals.  Capes do what is right.  Cowls do what they have to do.

Batman's a Cowl.  Grim and gritty works well for him.  Superman's a cape.  He should never be forced into those types of decisions because Capes always find another way.  Cowls can get forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, but Capes should always be able to find a third option.

Superman is the best there is at finding that unexpected "third option."  Thanks for putting it so eloquently!

EDIT: I finally bought and read Kingdom Come for the first time last week.  In that story, Superman had reached the end of his wisdom and had to allow Captain Marvel to make the elusive "third choice."  The wisdom of Solomon, indeed!

And this is why the tropes as seen on TV Tropes are generally way too reductive.  Nothing about Superman in Man of Steel is "Cowl-ish," except the decision he is forced to make at the very end.  Does that mean the movie is trying to turn him into a Cowl?  No.  No, or they're terrible at it. 

Spoiler

All of Jor-el's speeches about inspiring humanity, the talk about hope, his winning over Lois, and the military who see him in action - nothing about any of that is Cowl-like.  But, he is put in a position to make a choice between killing Zod, or letting him incinerate innocents, and he made the right choice.

Zod, and evil Kryptonians, have always been problematic in this way - what do you do with such unrepentant, powerful enemies?  The Phantom Zone is the typical answer, which I find in no way better.  A Superman who will consign an enemy to an eternity of endless torment is not morally superior to one who will, in the utmost extremity, kill in the defence of others.  Both are moral compromises forced by necessity.

[BentonGrey]

Ehh, let's see about the dialog:

Spoiler

What follows are, for the most part, paraphrases, but you should get the idea.
Zod's lady friend: 'You are weak because you have a code of morality, but we don't!  This gives us an evolutionary advantage'
-Except that, they totally do have a moral compass.  Their every action was dictated by the very real conviction that they were going to save their people.  Also, the quote was really out of no-where, since the Kryptonians don't really have a whole lot of basis to say that Supes has a moral code at this point.  All he's done is defend his world in more or less the same manner they would defend theirs.
Fighter Pilot: "I lost my wing-man!" (in the dumbest voice possible) 
-You aren't the only one bub, everyone just died horribly.  Pay attention.
Lois to officer: "Now, if we're done measuring NAUGHTY...", "I get writers block if I'm not wearing a flack-jacket," etc.
-Ohh, yes, Lois is very tough.  We get it.  It's a shame that Adams' delivery can't sell those lines, and its a shame that the former really feels out of place with the tone of the rest of the movie.  All of us sitting there cringed at that one, because it just felt off.
Perry White to staff: 'We're leaving!' (AFTER the Kryptonians have murdered thousands of people and flattened several square blocks.  NOW you're leaving?  It's a good thing you've got such a decisive leader or you might have been in danger of the HORRIBLE APOCALYPSE happening outside your door.)

There were lots more, though those bits stuck in our minds.

As for arguments about why the ending isn't a problem, I don't buy them.  It's weak and an utter violation of who he is.  I agree that Kryptonian villains or the like pose a problem, but I don't agree that the other option is tantamount to the same fate.  Also, that's the entire point of Superman, he finds a third option.  New Superman or not, he's better than that.  If not, there isn't much of a point.  In addition, the ridiculously overt parallels they were drawing between Superman and a certain center of my faith (look at the church scene) made the ending weird in whole other way.  I wonder what it says about our culture that:

Spoiler

the messiah figure resolves matters, not with his own sacrifice, but by killing his enemy.  I've been thinking about writing a paper on the move towards killing heroes in the last few years, but this one really takes it to new levels.  I'm not saying that it's necessarily a big deal, but I do wonder about the implications.

Ohh, and on the subject of Amy Adams as Lois, I will agree that the movies haven't given us great Lois...es...but that doesn't mean she's actually a good one either.  I compare her to the TAS Lois, who was pitch-perfect, and she just really falls short.  Her voice, her carriage, her dialog (not her fault, I know), in every way I wondered when the real Lois would show up and tell this intern to stop impersonating her.  She's closer to Jimmy Olsen than the tough-as-nails gal reporter we know and love.

[Shogunn2517]

I think this is the BEST way the movie is seen by folks like me.  Prepare to be entertained.

http://io9.com/the-most-important-scenes-from-man-of-steel-as-i-remem-516405346

[BentonGrey]

Ohh man!  That is amazingly hilarious and COMPLETELY accurate.  "MARTHA, GET ME MY BOWIE KNIFE. I HAVE TO VISIT SOME CHILDREN!"  That is going to keep me laughing for days and days.   

[spydermann93]

Spoiler

About the part where he killed Zod, couldn't he have just thrown him up into the air or fly up into the air while holding him?

[BentonGrey]

Yes, Spyder, he could have.  Thus, the "elusive" third option.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

And this is why the tropes as seen on TV Tropes are generally way too reductive.  Nothing about Superman in Man of Steel is "Cowl-ish," except the decision he is forced to make at the very end.  Does that mean the movie is trying to turn him into a Cowl?  No.  No, or they're terrible at it. 

Spoiler

All of Jor-el's speeches about inspiring humanity, the talk about hope, his winning over Lois, and the military who see him in action - nothing about any of that is Cowl-like.  But, he is put in a position to make a choice between killing Zod, or letting him incinerate innocents, and he made the right choice.

TvTropes didn't say he was a Cowl in this movie, I did.  I merely got the classification from TVTropes, because I happen to like the Cape vs Cowl way of looking at superheroes.  That doesn't mean that some aren't somewhere in the middle.

[Tomato]

http://screenrant.com/man-steel-ending-superman-kills-zod-death-discussion/

[oldmanwinters]

In addition, the ridiculously overt parallels they were drawing between Superman and a certain center of my faith (look at the church scene) made the ending weird in whole other way.  I wonder what it says about our culture that:

Spoiler

the messiah figure resolves matters, not with his own sacrifice, but by killing his enemy.  I've been thinking about writing a paper on the move towards killing heroes in the last few years, but this one really takes it to new levels.  I'm not saying that it's necessarily a big deal, but I do wonder about the implications.

Oh, man, I hate the obsession people have equating Superman with the Messiah.  I'm not saying there isn't a comparison there, but ever since the Singer movie, I just feel like all the publicity keeps hitting us in the face (faith?) with the religious symbolism that never really goes any deeper than a few overly dramatic lines of dialogue and the occasional crucifix pose.  Give me a break, DC Warner Brothers!

[Talavar]

Ehh, let's see about the dialog:

Spoiler

What follows are, for the most part, paraphrases, but you should get the idea.
Zod's lady friend: 'You are weak because you have a code of morality, but we don't!  This gives us an evolutionary advantage'
-Except that, they totally do have a moral compass.  Their every action was dictated by the very real conviction that they were going to save their people.  Also, the quote was really out of no-where, since the Kryptonians don't really have a whole lot of basis to say that Supes has a moral code at this point.  All he's done is defend his world in more or less the same manner they would defend theirs.
Fighter Pilot: "I lost my wing-man!" (in the dumbest voice possible) 
-You aren't the only one bub, everyone just died horribly.  Pay attention.
Lois to officer: "Now, if we're done measuring NAUGHTY...", "I get writers block if I'm not wearing a flack-jacket," etc.
-Ohh, yes, Lois is very tough.  We get it.  It's a shame that Adams' delivery can't sell those lines, and its a shame that the former really feels out of place with the tone of the rest of the movie.  All of us sitting there cringed at that one, because it just felt off.
Perry White to staff: 'We're leaving!' (AFTER the Kryptonians have murdered thousands of people and flattened several square blocks.  NOW you're leaving?  It's a good thing you've got such a decisive leader or you might have been in danger of the HORRIBLE APOCALYPSE happening outside your door.)

There were lots more, though those bits stuck in our minds.

As for arguments about why the ending isn't a problem, I don't buy them.  It's weak and an utter violation of who he is.  I agree that Kryptonian villains or the like pose a problem, but I don't agree that the other option is tantamount to the same fate.  Also, that's the entire point of Superman, he finds a third option.  New Superman or not, he's better than that.  If not, there isn't much of a point.  In addition, the ridiculously overt parallels they were drawing between Superman and a certain center of my faith (look at the church scene) made the ending weird in whole other way.  I wonder what it says about our culture that:

Spoiler

the messiah figure resolves matters, not with his own sacrifice, but by killing his enemy.  I've been thinking about writing a paper on the move towards killing heroes in the last few years, but this one really takes it to new levels.  I'm not saying that it's necessarily a big deal, but I do wonder about the implications.

The evil Kryptonians have a goal, not a moral compass.  They'd do anything to accomplish that goal, without hesitation or doubt.  Ethics don't enter into it.  Superman's moral compass can be inferred - he goes out of his way to protect soldiers during that fight, rather than just counter-attack the evil Kryptonians.

If by the "other option" you mean the Phantom Zone, I don't just think it amounts to the same as death, but is degrees worse than it.  It was a superficially non-violent out thought up during the height of the Comic Code years, with highly disturbing ramifications.

The "move towards killing heroes in the last few years," which I take to mean heroes who kill, started some time at the dawn of human mythology & literature.  I'm not saying all heroes should kill their enemies indiscriminately, but it's hardly a new trend.  The completely death-free years of the Comic Code are the real anomaly.

[BentonGrey]

Talavar, I think you've misunderstood me quite a bit.  I was talking about the transformation in the movies from the fairly comic-like heroes, in terms of their treatment of villains, (Spider-Man, Batman, etc) to films featuring characters that, while strictly no-kill in the comics, are willing to kill in the movies (Iron Man).  We're seeing what looks like a move in that direction.  Obviously characters like Captain America and Thor make this situation a bit hazy, as they are both warriors and have implicitly if not explicitly killed in the comics.  Also, I suppose Spider-Man kills Venom in the 3rd movie, so that further complicates my thesis.  Anyway, there has been a fairly definitive shift from the beginning of the superhero movie explosion to the current day in terms of attitudes towards lethal force.

Also, the Comics Code didn't usher in the no-killing all by itself.  As early as 1933 the pulp publishers were thinking about creating more morally superior characters.  Doc Savage specifically was imagined as a less lethal hero who would often find that "third option."  He did kill occasionally, but there were efforts being made to create heroes who really went to superhuman efforts to avoid taking lives.  The idea of a non-lethal hero is a very interesting one, and it is fairly specific, though as I illustrated, not limited to, superheroes.  It's a very American idea, and its popularity and acceptance has waxed and waned, but it is still part of the zeitgeist of our culture.  The fact that this conversation is being repeated throughout the country at the moment is testament to that.  After all, who more embodies the concept of the American superhero than Superman? 

The meaning you attach to the Phantom Zone is going a bit beyond the source material, isn't it?  It may be a somewhat terrible prison, but a prison it still is, and thus more humane than execution.  In addition to this we have the fact that the PZ reflects the original sentences levied upon Zod and Co. by the powers of Krypton, thus consigning them to the Phantom Zone is carrying out the impartial justice of a larger authority, which is another idea intrinsic to the superhero genre at large and Superman specifically.  He may capture Lex Luthor, but he leaves it to the courts to decide his fate.

'Mato, that article is fair...for those comparing this movie to the Donner films with rose colored glasses, but I think a lot of folks aren't terribly fond of the Donner films and still have problems with this movie.  Just because a terrible decision was made in one story or medium doesn't make it right for the rest.   Also, good for Mark Waid.  I like him even more now.

Winters: It's understandable, given the fact that Superman began as a messiah figure as imagined by a Jewish comic book team, but yeah, it seems a bit of an awkward fit the way Hollywood goes about it.  This is no The Day the Earth Stood Still, that's for sure.

[Tomato]

Ok, I haven't seen the movie yet so I've tried to avoid going into the discussions about MoS specifically... but since I've already been spoiled on it, I do want to discuss this specific point.

Spoiler

*deep intake of breath* Ok, so. While I personally do agree that a Superman who kills is wrong and I would echo the hate expressed by Benton and others if it happened again, I have no issue whatsoever with Superman killing Zod if what I understand about the scene itself is accurate. Heck, I came up with a practically identical scene with my own characters.

Without belaboring it too much, at about the midpoint of the Influx series, Tomato is put in a situation where he has to decide whether to kill a villain, Sai, who has already slaughtered an entire city, before he can kill the remaining members of Influx. Beaten down and unable to think of any other option, Tomato kills his foe in a manner that is as gruesome and violent as I personally can come up with given the nature of his powers. It is intended to be an absolutely horrific scene, and when the deed is done, Tomato is so broken, so demoralized, and so conflicted about what he did that he sinks into an extreme case of depression.

But when he finally pulls himself out it, he's much stronger for it. He vows that he will NEVER kill again, and to find the "third option" in any situation. Because he understands firsthand that killing is NOT an acceptable option.

THAT is why I don't have an issue with this "controversy." Because given my understanding of how Superman reacts to Zod's death, this is not something he's going to start just casually doing to every villain he comes up against. If I understand the situation correctly, this is a Superman who will do everything, EVERYTHING, in his power to keep from having to kill ever again. If anything, I have greater hope for this franchise BECAUSE this is a Superman who has a very personal reason not to kill his enemies.

And I'm sorry, but that beats the hell out of grinning openly after breaking his foe's hand and then shoving him into a bottomless pit to die.

[Talavar]

Talavar, I think you've misunderstood me quite a bit.  I was talking about the transformation in the movies from the fairly comic-like heroes, in terms of their treatment of villains, (Spider-Man, Batman, etc) to films featuring characters that, while strictly no-kill in the comics, are willing to kill in the movies (Iron Man).  We're seeing what looks like a move in that direction.  Obviously characters like Captain America and Thor make this situation a bit hazy, as they are both warriors and have implicitly if not explicitly killed in the comics.  Also, I suppose Spider-Man kills Venom in the 3rd movie, so that further complicates my thesis.  Anyway, there has been a fairly definitive shift from the beginning of the superhero movie explosion to the current day in terms of attitudes towards lethal force.

Also, the Comics Code didn't usher in the no-killing all by itself.  As early as 1933 the pulp publishers were thinking about creating more morally superior characters.  Doc Savage specifically was imagined as a less lethal hero who would often find that "third option."  He did kill occasionally, but there were efforts being made to create heroes who really went to superhuman efforts to avoid taking lives.  The idea of a non-lethal hero is a very interesting one, and it is fairly specific, though as I illustrated, not limited to, superheroes.  It's a very American idea, and its popularity and acceptance has waxed and waned, but it is still part of the zeitgeist of our culture.  The fact that this conversation is being repeated throughout the country at the moment is testament to that.  After all, who more embodies the concept of the American superhero than Superman? 

The meaning you attach to the Phantom Zone is going a bit beyond the source material, isn't it?  It may be a somewhat terrible prison, but a prison it still is, and thus more humane than execution.  In addition to this we have the fact that the PZ reflects the original sentences levied upon Zod and Co. by the powers of Krypton, thus consigning them to the Phantom Zone is carrying out the impartial justice of a larger authority, which is another idea intrinsic to the superhero genre at large and Superman specifically.  He may capture Lex Luthor, but he leaves it to the courts to decide his fate.

'Mato, that article is fair...for those comparing this movie to the Donner films with rose colored glasses, but I think a lot of folks aren't terribly fond of the Donner films and still have problems with this movie.  Just because a terrible decision was made in one story or medium doesn't make it right for the rest.   Also, good for Mark Waid.  I like him even more now.

Winters: It's understandable, given the fact that Superman began as a messiah figure as imagined by a Jewish comic book team, but yeah, it seems a bit of an awkward fit the way Hollywood goes about it.  This is no The Day the Earth Stood Still, that's for sure.

I'm just going to put my whole response in spoilers, Benton - it's easier than just trying to get the actual spoilerific parts.

Spoiler

While some pulp and comics characters tried their best not to kill, it wasn't until the Code, and the media uproar that led up to the Code, that the strict no-kill ever for any reason heroes started to assume that mantra.  That said, I don't want a Superman who kills cavalierly.  Killing in the utmost extremity in the defence of others, I can accept that in Superman.  Zod at the end of Man of Steel has no driving force but killing as many people as possible, and how do you stop someone who can kill with a look?  He can't turn him over to the police, there's no prison that could hold him, no human method for them to negate his powers.  In this story, even the Phantom Zone isn't an option - they missed Zod with their one-shot portal.

Still, I don't think I'm reading that much into the Phantom Zone - a dimension without form where you can be trapped bodiless for eternity.  That sounds like cruel or unusual punishment to me.  While Zod & Co. were sentenced to the Phantom Zone by Krypton's authorities, it wasn't supposed to be forever.  In the Superman TAS version of this story, that was a major plot point - their versions of Zod & friend were crying out that their sentences had gone on much longer than intended (and even here, get pulled into a convenient black hole after being freed from the Zone a second time).  In Man of Steel, Superman doesn't have easy access to the Phantom Zone - once they're in it, it's for good.  Even if he did, however, is he going to check in every so often, see if endless torment has reformed them?  Parole them back out among the human population?  What should be the minimum sentence on numerous counts of murder and attempted genocide?  Lex Luthor, on the other hand, can be stripped of his plots, devices and henchmen, then be restrained and incarcerated in a prison that is answerable to charges of human rights violations.